Production Planning & Control

The Management of Operations

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

Barriers to lean implementation in engineer-to-

order manufacturing with subsequent assembly
on-site: state of the art and future directions

Felix Schulze & Patrick Dallasega

To cite this article: Felix Schulze & Patrick Dallasega (2021): Barriers to lean implementation
in engineer-to-order manufacturing with subsequent assembly on-site: state of the art and future
directions, Production Planning & Control, DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2021.1888159

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1888159

Published online: 23 Feb 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 535

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppc20
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1888159

Barriers to lean implementation in engineer-to-order manufacturing with

subsequent assembly on-site: state of the art and future directions
Felix Schulze and Patrick Dallasega
Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Engineer-to-Order (ETO) companies with subsequent assembly on-site develop and manufacture highly Received 3 July 2020
customised goods that must be finally installed at the customer’s site under time and budget con- Accepted 6 February 2021
straints. Traditional losses are caused by external factors (e.g. frequent changes by the customer) as
KEYWORDS
well as within the supply chain (e.g. assembly errors on-site). Generally, Lean methods can be applied
Lean manufacturing;
to mitigate these losses, but considering the ETO industry, various implementation barriers exist. implementation; barriers;
Through a systematic literature review, we propose a framework that lists and categorises Lean imple- engineer-to-order (ETO);
mentation barriers in: organisation, management, knowledge, culture, finances, customer, and non- losses; framework
context specific ones. Further research should focus on validating the framework with empirical data
and investigating if and how new technologies could help overcome these barriers.

1. Introduction and motivation This industry type is characterised by a high degree of

The demand for customised products is rising leading to an
increased number of Engineer-to-Order (ETO) companies
(Strandhagen et al. 2018). The European Union (EU) is the
world’s largest producer and exporter of machinery with an
estimated one-third share of the world market (European
Commission 2020). Therefore, the ETO industry is one of the
main industries of the EU. ETO is a customer interaction strat-
egy where the specific order triggers the engineering, fabrica-
tion, and on-site installation of products (Dallasega and Rauch
2017). ETO is often characterised by low volumes and high
degrees of customisation even if not all components are spe-
cifically engineered (Kjersem, Lillebryg, and Kiekebos 2015).
Customers are usually perpetually involved in the design and
engineering of the project (Seth and Rastogi 2019) due to the
increased customisation degree of the products (Sriram,
Alfnes, and Arica 2013; Rauch, Unterhofer, and Dallasega,
Rauch, and Frosolini 2018). The customer involvement for clari-
fications, approvals, design processes, testing, and develop-
ment induces an increased complexity to manage the project
(Seth and Rastogi 2019; Strandhagen, Semini, and Alfnes
2019). Typically, the engineered products, such as machinery,
heavy equipment, as well as buildings (in the civil and con-
struction industry) must be assembled on-site under budget
and time constraints (Dallasega, Marengo, and Revolti 2021).
To provide short lead times and low costs, several processes,
such as engineering, procurement, and manufacturing are
managed simultaneously via a project-based approach. In this
paper, we use the term ‘ETO industry’ that comprises machin-
ery and plant manufacturing with subsequent assembly at the
customer’s site as well as construction suppliers with final
installation on-site.
customisation, complicated product structures, as well as sim-
ultaneous processes that lead to a significant amount of non-
value adding activities (Schulze and Dallasega 2020). This
includes the interaction and collaboration with stakeholders,
such as suppliers, subcontractors, and other trades as well as
the customer for the external supply chain. Moreover, losses
can also occur within the supply chain and specifically the
engineering, project management, procurement, fabrication,
and assembly on-site departments. The occurring losses were
identified by literature reviews and expert interviews and cate-
gorised into six main areas: (i) Losses caused by obstructions
with other trades such as if the work of the upstream trade has
not been performed according to specifications (Braglia,
Dallasega, and Marrazzini 2020; Schulze and Dallasega 2020).
(ii) Losses caused by the customer like frequent changes of
designs or specifications as well as delays due to missing
approvals (Braglia, Dallasega, and Marrazzini 2020; Schulze
and Dallasega 2020). (iii) Losses caused by the engineering
department like errors and discrepancies in design or technical
documentation, and delays in releasing drawings (Braglia,
Dallasega, and Marrazzini 2020; Schulze and Dallasega 2020).
(iv) Losses caused by the project management department, for
instance, poor overall coordination of the project, and not up-
to-date schedules (Braglia, Dallasega, and Marrazzini 2020;
Schulze and Dallasega 2020). (v) Losses caused by the fabrica-
tion department such as incomplete deliveries of material or
components to site, or manufacturing errors (Braglia et al.
2019; Schulze and Dallasega 2020; Braglia, Dallasega, and
Marrazzini 2020). (vi) Losses caused directly by the assembly on-
site such as lack of tools or materials on-site, searching for
equipment or supplies, or installation errors (Josephson and

CONTACT Patrick Dallasega patrick.dallasega@unibz.it Faculty of Science and Technology, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy
ß 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 F. SCHULZE AND P. DALLASEGA
Bjo€rkman 2013; Braglia et al. 2019; Schulze and Dallasega
2020; Braglia, Dallasega, and Marrazzini 2020).
By comparing the manufacturing with the construction
industry it becomes evident that construction produces a lot
of waste and has a low level of competitiveness (Aslam, Gao,
and Smith 2020). Of all activities, value-adding activities only
amount to 10%, whereas in manufacturing they account for
62% (Institute 2005; Aziz and Hafez 2013). The values are
similar in the ETO industry. For example, Seth, Seth, and
Dhariwal (2017) applied Value Stream Mapping (VSM) in an
ETO company and found that more than 50% of all activities
were non-value adding. Therefore, implementing strategies
in ETO and construction to reduce losses and non-value add-
ing activities as well as increasing competitiveness is crucial
(Bayhan, Demirkesen, and Jayamanne 2019).
One of the strategies and concepts to reduce these prod-
uctivity losses is the application of Lean methods (Singh and
Singh 2020; Tomasevic et al. 2020). Lean production evolved
first in the automotive industry with its very repetitive pro-
duction setting but progressively found its way into other
manufacturing environments. Most literature about Lean
implementation is focussed on product-centered, repetitive,
and Make-to-Stock production characterised by consistent
demand for high volumes of similar products (Gupta and Jain
2013; Marodin and Saurin 2014; Jadhav, Mantha, and Rane
2014; Salonitis and Tsinopoulos 2016; Sanders, Elangeswaran,
and Wulfsberg 2016; Zhang, Narkhede, and Chaple 2017;
Braglia et al. 2019; Braglia, Gabbrielli, and Marrazzini 2019;
Tomasevic et al. 2020). Empirical investigations regarding
Lean implementation in non-repetitive as well as the ETO
industry characterised by low volumes and customised prod-
ucts has been debated but is limited compared to repetitive
manufacturing (Birkie and Trucco 2016; Rossini et al. 2019).
Adopting and adapting Lean to such industries is very chal-
lenging (Matt and Rauch 2014).
Some of the Lean tools and principles are directly applic-
able to the ETO setting while others need to be adapted
(Portioli-Staudacher and Tantardini 2012; Powell et al. 2014;
Dallasega, Rauch, and Frosolini 2018; Braglia et al. 2019).
The majority of ETO firms face barriers in implementing
Lean to their industry setting (Zhang, Narkhede, and Chaple
2017) resulting in very few cases of successful Lean adop-
tions (Bhasin 2008; Yadav et al. 2010; Kumar and Kumar
2014; Amrani and Ducq 2020). These barriers can be linked
to the organisation (Gupta and Jain 2013; Marodin and
Saurin 2015; Lodgaard et al. 2016), management (Salonitis
and Tsinopoulos 2016; Lodgaard et al. 2016; Zhang,
Narkhede, and Chaple 2017), knowledge (Tezel, Koskela, and
Aziz 2018; Leu and Ashoka 2019; Abu et al. 2019;), culture
(Haque, Pawar, and Barson 2003; Erthal and Marques 2018;
Jamil et al. 2018), finances (Jadhav, Mantha, and Rane 2014;
Dora, Kumar, and Gellynck 2016; Stoettrup et al. 2019), the
customer (Hussain et al. 2019; Tezel et al. 2020) and non-
context specific related barriers (Birkie and Trucco 2016;
Chouiraf and Chafi 2018).
For instance, a lack of support from top management as
well as insufficient management time will unlikely result in a
successful Lean implementation. Another example is the lack
of training of the employees and poor understanding of Lean
concepts and practices delaying the advancement of the Lean
adoption process. Another example is the lack of financial
resources in many ETO firms which causes deficiencies in train-
ing of the workforce or impedes necessary investments needed
for the Lean transformation. Considering the engineering
department, losses are often caused by poor organisation,
complex and fragmented tasks as well as the lack of concur-
rent engineering of the different tasks (Haque, Pawar, and
Barson 2003; Dekkers, Chang, and Kreutzfeldt 2013; Famiyeh
et al. 2017). To identify and reduce these losses an ETO com-
pany could implement Value Stream Mapping (VSM) (Rauch,
Dallasega, and Matt 2015; Alfnes, Thomassen, and Gran 2016;
Chouiraf and Chafi 2018). This Lean tool is utilised to docu-
ment, analyse, and improve the flow of both material and
information required to produce a product. However, the
application to the ETO environment is hindered by various bar-
riers. These include the lack of Lean adaption of VSM to non-
repetitive settings due to the static behaviour of VSM (Lugert,
Batz, and Winkler 2018), missing quantitative measurement
indicators such as the lack of suitable economic measures for
value (Marodin and Saurin 2015; Mano, Gouvea da Costa, and
Pinheiro de Lima 2020), as well as that VSM is designed for
mass-production environments being not capable to map mul-
tiple value streams with different routings (Braglia, Carmignani,
and Zammori 2006; Stamm and Neitzert 2008; Matt and
Rauch 2014).
Tomasevic et al. (2020) found that practitioners and
researchers currently face a fragmented, unstructured, and
unstandardised existing body of research in the field of
implementing Lean in the ETO industry. This is often
focussed on very specific Lean tools, such as VSM or Kanban
(Seth, Seth, and Dhariwal 2017; Villar-Fidalgo, Espinosa
Escudero, and Domınguez Somonte 2019). Similarly, Aslam,
Gao, and Smith (2020) discovered that in the field of Lean
Construction, literature, explaining the failures of Lean, show-
ing strategies for implementing Lean at the micro-level, as
well as indicating measurement factors to evaluate the Lean
implementation process, is very limited.
Practitioners would profit from an integrated framework
able to guide the implementation of Lean methods to miti-
gate traditional losses by considering important implementa-
tion barriers. However, such a framework that could help
ETO companies to improve their performance is missing
(Amrani, Ducq, and Goetz 2016; Amrani and Ducq 2020).
The purpose of this paper is to address the following
research questions:
RQ1: What are the barriers to implement Lean methods in ETO
companies with subsequent assembly on-site, that were reported
in the scientific literature?
RQ2: Where should the future research be directed?
To accommodate the systemic nature of Lean and to pre-
vent a piecemeal approach in which only Lean practices are
adopted partially and unstandardised, it is crucial to be aware
of the barriers when adopting Lean in the organisation (Dora,
Kumar, and Gellynck 2016; Tezel et al. 2020). Moreover, the
introduction of Industry 4.0 technologies and concepts could

help to overcome some Lean implementation barriers
(Sanders, Elangeswaran, and Wulfsberg 2016; Buer,
Strandhagen, and Chan 2018) improving productivity and
reducing losses (Sanders, Elangeswaran, and Wulfsberg 2016).
The remainder of this article is organised as follows. The
research methodology is described in section two. Section
three explains the basic functioning of the researched Lean
methods to facilitate the understanding of the reader.
Moreover, section three reports about related works and
summarises the identified research gap. The results of the
systematic literature review are examined in section four.
Section five provides a discussion where the identified bar-
riers are structured in a novel framework. Moreover, the limi-
tations and implications for practitioners as well as
researchers are proposed.
2. Basic concepts and related works
The following text sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 briefly explain
the working principle of the researched methodologies in
the SLR. Section 2.4 describes some further Lean methods
and tools that are applied to ETO and construction proc-
esses. Section 2.5 discusses related studies of barriers to
Lean implementation. Different research suggests categoris-
ing Lean methods according to their application area, like
design and engineering, planning and control, manufactur-
ing, as well as construction or assembly processes on-site
(Aziz and Hafez 2013; Hame, Kowang, and Fei 2017; Babalola,
Ibem, and Ezema 2019). The loss categories mentioned in
the introduction appear within the ETO supply chain.
Therefore we searched for implementation barriers of Lean
methods that are frequently used to i) coordinate the supply
chain in terms of manufacturing with on-site installation, ii)
to improve processes within the supply chain like the engin-
eering, project management, and fabrication departments as
well as 3) to support specifically assembly processes on-site.
2.1. Lean methods for coordination of the supply chain
Regarding the ‘coordination of the supply chain’, the follow-
ing Lean tools were selected in our analysis. Integrated
Project Delivery (IPD) is an effective method to manage the
increasing complexity, dynamic, and fast project execution of
ETO and construction projects (Forero et al. 2015; Kim et al.
2016). Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) can be defined as a
relational contracting and partnering strategy that sets the
terms and provides the motivation for collaboration in a con-
struction project (Cheng and Johnson 2016). According to
the American Institute of Architects (2007), IPD is a method
of project delivery that is characterised by a contractual
arrangement that aligns business interests among the owner,
the constructor, and the design professional. IPD proved to
be an effective method to manage complex, dynamic, and
fast projects (Cho and Ballard 2011). More in detail, IPD can
be defined as a method that explicitly promotes shared risks
and rewards fostering an extensive collaboration between
project parties (Matthews and Howell 2005) and that
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 3
increases efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication,
and construction (American Institute of Architects 2007).
Visual Management (VM) is another well-mentioned Lean
principle in the literature that is critical to Lean success
(Erthal and Marques 2018; Babalola, Ibem, and Ezema 2019).
VM can be considered as one of the main Lean methods in
advanced manufacturing plants (Liker and Morgan 2006).
Usually, it is one of the Lean methods implemented first
because it is the base upon other improvement activities are
built (Galsworth 1997). VM includes visual signs, removal of
visual barriers, fool-proof devices, and programs for maintain-
ing a clean and orderly workplace (Galsworth 1997; Kattman
et al. 2012). VM is usually realised by using various devices
such as indicator lights, notice boards, cards, and visually dis-
play units (Ho 1993).
Pull scheduling and planning is at the core of Lean manu-
facturing, where materials are pulled along the entire value
chain to be available on time for manufacturing according to
schedule (Gupta and Jain 2013; Zhang, Narkhede, and
Chaple 2017; Babalola, Ibem, and Ezema 2019). Fukushima
(2000) defines Pull scheduling as “a concept of dynamic
scheduling which is rescheduled in a short planning cycle,
for example daily by backward allocation”. Others define Pull
scheduling as the coordination of materials in the entire
value chain to provide them on time for production accord-
ing to the project plan or schedule (Babalola, Ibem, and
Ezema 2019). Specifically, in the construction industry Pull
planning is used to coordinate trades and provide the
needed material JIT to the construction progress (Murguıa,
Brioso, and Pimentel 2016). According to Kalsaas, Skaar, and
Thorstensen (2016), Pull scheduling can be considered as an
important attribute of the Last Planner System (LPS) but in
LPS production control at the shop floor level is push-based
without any pull mechanism on the work plan level.
2.2. Lean methods within the supply chain
Just-in-Time (JIT), Poka-Yoke, as well as Prefabrication and
Modularisation are widespread Lean methods in coordinating
the ‘1st Tier supplier’ part of the supply chain. JIT is one of
the main pillars of Lean. It aims to eliminate all wastes that
are coming from a weak synchronisation of delivery with
demand. JIT is therefore essential in improving an organisa-
tion’s performance (Bortolotti, Danese, and Romano 2013;
Yang 2013). JIT enables the delivery of the right material or
information at the right time, in the right quantity and the
right sequence at the right point of usage thus reducing
stocks and consequently lead times (Godinho Filho, Ganga,
and Gunasekaran 2016; Babalola, Ibem, and Ezema 2019;
Pereira et al. 2019). JIT can be defined as a comprehensive
strategy that combines the fundamental elements of JIT-pro-
duction and JIT-purchasing, to eliminate waste and use effi-
ciently resources throughout the supply chain (Claycomb,
Dro€ge, and Germain 1999). JIT-production aims at reducing
excess inventories, material movements, production steps,
scrap losses as well as rejects and reworks (Brox and Fader
2002; Arend and Wisner 2005). JIT-purchasing focuses on
eliminating waste and inefficiency in the purchasing process
4 F. SCHULZE AND P. DALLASEGA
by using techniques like daily delivery of small lot sizes from
nearby vendors, shared information, supplier education, and
early supplier involvement in design (Freeland 1991).
Babalola, Ibem, and Ezema (2019) define JIT as a system that
enables prompt delivery of materials, information, and draw-
ings required for a project to the point of usage. Considering
the ETO industry, theoretically, there is a high potential to
introduce JIT because every process is triggered by a specific
customer order (Birkie and Trucco 2016).
Prefabrication and Modularisation are common manufactur-
ing methods where various components of a product or a
building are produced or assembled at a facility before being
joined at the final installation on-site (Stoettrup et al. 2019;
Luo et al. 2020). These methods enable customised design at a
cost close to mass production as well as shorter lead times
and increased productivity (Jamil et al. 2018; Stoettrup et al.
2019; Luo et al. 2020). Prefabrication is a method used to pre-
pare parts in an offsite factory that are moved to the site for
installation (Babalola, Ibem, and Ezema 2019). As such, the pro-
duction process can be performed in a controlled environment
(in the fabrication hall) avoiding external disturbances, like bad
weather conditions, reaching higher levels of efficiency and
safety. The final assembly of components takes place on-site
(Hermes 2015). Hermes (2015) describes Modularisation in the
construction area as a systematic partition of an individual,
complex building plan into as many equal areas as possible.
Similarly, Babalola, Ibem, and Ezema (2019) define
Modularisation as an approach that divides spaces into equal
repeated sections (so-called modules) of similar size to foster
the process of mass Prefabrication of components.
Poka-Yoke or error-proofing is a Lean method applied for
checking the process ahead for errors, to eliminate defects in
a product or errors in a process as early as possible. It is
commonly applied in manufacturing as well as construction
processes (Babalola, Ibem, and Ezema 2019; Salonitis and
Tsinopoulos 2016).
2.3. Lean methods on-site
Concerning the ‘construction or assembly on-site’, Last Planner
System (LPS), Location-Based Management System (LBMS), and
Kaizen were selected because they were often mentioned as
important Lean methods to support the ‘construction and
assembly on-site processes’ (Babalola, Ibem, and Ezema 2019;
Ratajczak, Riedl, and Matt 2019; Li, Fang, and Wu 2020). LPS is
one of the most useful planning systems to attain a reliable
execution according to schedule (Dominici and Palumbo 2013;
Wesz, Formoso, and Tzortzopoulos 2018). The LPS had been
first published by Glenn Ballard in his dissertation in the year
2000 (Ballard 2000) to improve performance in construction
process execution by supporting it with reliable mechanisms
for scheduling. Therefore, the method uses several scheduling
phases that are defined in collaboration among the project
participants. (i) The master schedule defines the main project
phases and milestones and as such it states what should be
done. (ii) The phase schedule details the master schedule with
the main objective of defining the hand-offs between the
trades involved in a phase. (iii) The lookahead plan schedules
the activities to be performed in the mid-term future (usually
between 4 and 6 weeks) aiming at removing constraints of
tasks scheduled. (iv) The weekly work plan is defined starting
from the lookahead plan where the foremen define a feasible
plan and commit to its execution. The LPS also foresees a
monitoring phase to identify planning failures and trigger a
continuous improvement process (Mossman 2018).
LBMS is a location-based management system that applies
Lean construction principles to concentrate on production
control (Ratajczak, Riedl, and Matt 2019). It increases product-
ivity, prevents production problems, and avoids disruptions
between different trades, which all are important qualities
needed for the assembly on-site (Wesz, Formoso, and
Tzortzopoulos 2018; Ratajczak, Riedl, and Matt 2019). The
Location-based Management System (LBMS) was introduced by
Kenley and Sepp€anen (2006) as the latest generation in loca-
tion-based planning techniques. The LBMS uses a flexible loca-
tion breakdown structure that is used in planning, scheduling,
and monitoring construction projects. The Lean method tracks
installed quantities per location and forecasts future problems
based on real rather than planned progress (Kenley and
Sepp€anen 2006). It uses the so-called Location-Breakdown
Structure (LBS) for representing locations as a hierarchy and it
introduces Location-Based Quantities that specify the quanti-
ties for each activity by location. The main objective of the
Lean method is avoiding interruptions between trades on-site
ensuring at the same time a constant workflow (Shanker and
Varghese 2013; Ratajczak et al. 2017). Moreover, the method
aims at obtaining an efficient production rate (Behnam,
Ayough, and Mirghaderi 2018) and avoiding the overlapping
of work in the same location (Shanker and Varghese 2013).
Kaizen is a cornerstone of Lean and promotes continuous
improvement of all processes on the assembly on-site
(Rossini et al. 2019). It involves the employees and is crucial
in reaching the ideal benefits of Lean implementation (Yusup,
Mahmood, and Salleh 2015; Babalola, Ibem, and Ezema 2019).
Kaizen focuses on waste reduction and seeks to incremen-
tally increase performance, and therefore can be considered
as the keystone of Lean management (Liker 2004; Jin and
Doolen 2014; Mittal, Sindhwani, and Kapur 2016). Kaizen is a
Japanese word that means the process of continuous
improvement in the standard way of working (Rossini et al.
2019). Kaizen consists of three main characteristics (Berger
1997): (i) it is process-oriented; (ii) it consists of small step
improvements and (iii) it is people-oriented. Kaizen is also
one of the principal methods in Lean Construction to
encourage continuous improvement from design to con-
struction (Omotayo, Kulatunga, and Bjeirmi 2018; Babalola,
Ibem, and Ezema 2019). Kaizen plays an important role in
managing cost, time, and quality in construction projects
(Junker 2010; Kaur and Kaur 2013).
2.4. Other Lean methods applied in this context
Some further Lean methods and tools are applied to
ETO and construction processes (Matt and Rauch 2014;
Kjersem, Lillebryg, and Kiekebos 2015; Tomasevic, Slovic,
and Stojanovic 2016; Babalola, Ibem, and Ezema 2019;

Tomasevic et al. 2020). These include TQM, Concurrent
Engineering (CE), Virtual Design Construction (VDC), Daily hud-
dle meetings, 5S, TPM, and Standardisation. We did not search
for implementation barriers for these Lean tools because of
the following reasons: (i) their low frequency of implementa-
tion and (ii) their main application in other areas like quality
management or human resource management.
2.5. Related works
Table 1 summarises related studies of barriers to Lean imple-
mentation. Related works were investigated by summarising
the main findings.
2.5.1. Barriers of lean implementation in the literature
Various authors (Gupta and Jain 2013; Marodin and Saurin
2015; Jadhav, Mantha, and Rane 2014; Marodin and Saurin
2015; Cano et al. 2015; Dora, Kumar, and Gellynck 2016;
Lodgaard et al. 2016; Salonitis and Tsinopoulos 2016;
Sanders, Elangeswaran, and Wulfsberg 2016; Zhang,
Narkhede, and Chaple 2017; Jamil et al. 2018; Brady et al.
2018; Abu et al. 2019; Basu and Dan 2020; Tezel et al. 2020)
have described barriers to Lean implementation in different
industries, types of production and countries. The barriers of
Lean are analysed in general manufacturing, in the food
processing industry (Dora, Kumar, and Gellynck 2016), in the
furniture industry (Abu et al. 2019), as well as in construction
(Cano et al. 2015; Jamil et al. 2018; Brady et al. 2018; Tezel
et al. 2020). Typical production types analysed are serial pro-
duction, as well as MTO and construction. Several identified
works cover Lean construction and can be counted as part
of ETO.
The drivers and barriers of implementing Lean in the gen-
eral manufacturing industry are described in the works of
several scholars (Gupta and Jain 2013; Jadhav, Mantha, and
Rane 2014; Salonitis and Tsinopoulos 2016; Zhang, Narkhede,
and Chaple 2017; Bayhan, Demirkesen, and Jayamanne 2019;
Basu and Dan 2020), but ETO companies are not considered
specifically. Most of the literature discusses barriers of Lean
for repetitive manufacturing which does not allow for
Table 1. Overview of related works.
Authors Industry type
Gupta and Jain (2013); Jadhav, Mantha, and Rane Manufacturing
(2014); Marodin and Saurin (2014); Salonitis and
Tsinopoulos (2016); Sanders, Elangeswaran, and
Wulfsberg (2016); Dora, Kumar, and Gellynck (2016);
Zhang, Narkhede, and Chaple (2017); Abu et al.
(2019); Basu and Dan (2020)
Cano et al. (2015); Construction
Lodgaard et al. (2016);
Tezel, Koskela, and Aziz (2018);
Brady et al. (2018);
Jamil et al. (2018);
Tezel et al. (2020)
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 5
conclusions to be drawn for non-repetitive environments
like ETO.
A review by Bhasin (2012) correlated the size of an organ-
isation with identified Lean barriers in 68 manufacturers from
the UK. He observed that cost is the main barrier for small-
sized enterprises and a lack of insufficient supervisory skills
for medium and large companies. Further, culture poses a
crucial factor in large companies regarding Lean implementa-
tion. In all, the majority of authors commonly argue that the
organisational culture is the single most important factor
observed for success and failure of implementing Lean. In
line with this, Zhang, Narkhede, and Chaple (2017) have
identified 44 total barriers in Lean manufacturing. Due to a
very low rate of successful Lean implementations, they con-
clude that each company should customise the Lean
approach to their specific manufacturing environment
and needs.
Marodin and Saurin (2015) have categorised barriers
according to the hierarchy of a company: Top and middle
management support, shop floor involvement as well as pro-
cess management. Besides, it was also observed by Lodgaard
et al. (2016) that in organisations different hierarchical levels
experience varying types of Lean barriers. Top management
emphasise Lean tools implementation but lack an under-
standing of team focus. Middle management prioritises roles
and responsibilities but requires more competences and
skills. Workers complain more about a lack of time for
involvement and discussions as well as a disregard for their
suggestions from the management. Accordingly, the intro-
duction of Lean to the corresponding hierarchical levels
must be taken into account. Other works have examined
common barriers to implement Lean construction. A study
performed on the adoption of Lean thinking in highway con-
struction by Tezel, Koskela, and Aziz (2018) found that exter-
nal factors, like customer pressure and the prospect of
securing more contracts, are a strong motivator for compa-
nies to adopt Lean. They concluded that lack of standardisa-
tion, lack of know-how, and a limited view of Lean tools
were the main Lean adoption barriers. From the 110 identi-
fied barriers in the Colombian construction industry, Cano
et al. (2015) conclude that the overall development level of
Lean construction within the company, as well as the local
Findings
These works have studied Lean implementation barriers in the general
manufacturing sector. Some authors have based their findings on case
studies with various manufacturers in various countries and industries.
Other works were based on systematic literature reviews.
The identified barriers were grouped according to their influence on the
context.
The main Lean implementation barriers mentioned were linked to
management, organisation, company’s culture, workforce, resources,
knowledge, technology, and customer.
These works have analysed Lean implementation barriers in the construction
sector. The results are based on case studies. The lean adoption rate is
relatively low.
Top Lean barriers identified are Lack of standardisation, insufficient benefit
measuring, lack of know-how and skills, limited knowledge of the Lean
techniques, lack of finances, lack of collaboration, lack of leadership, lack
of client and supplier involvement.
6 F. SCHULZE AND P. DALLASEGA
construction conditions, decide if the barriers can be man-
aged. An assessment of the barriers in implementing Lean
construction in the Saudi-Arabian construction industry was
carried out by Jamil et al. (2018). They established that the
influence of traditional practices, adverse organisational cul-
ture, as well as lack of skills and understanding are the main
barriers to implement Lean construction.
Basu and Dan (2020) concluded in their research on Lean
manufacturing that most review papers focussed on the con-
cept of Lean and its development but a comprehensive list
of all the input, such as tools, techniques, or methods, and
output, such as benefits or metrics, parameters to guide
practitioners in Lean implementation is still missing.
Therefore, they created a framework for Lean implementa-
tion and classified the Lean barriers in various function-
related categories of a company, such as customer and
supplier management, human resources and management
role, product design and development, as well as quality,
strategic, and technology control.
The results from the literature review show that there are
several categories of Lean implementation barriers. Common
classification of the barriers to Lean implementation in man-
ufacturing is related to the company’s main areas such as
workforce, organisation, finances, knowledge, company cul-
ture, and management (Gupta and Jain 2013; Salonitis and
Tsinopoulos 2016; Dora, Kumar and Gellynck 2016; Zhang,
Narkhede, and Chaple 2017; Dora, Abu et al. 2019). Belkadi,
Cherti, and Bahaj (2019) have divided the Lean implementa-
tion barriers into internal and external barriers. External fac-
tors include government regulations or consumer needs,
while internal factors correspond to resources such as com-
pany culture or management time and attitude. In another
study, Cherrafi et al. (2017) classified the barriers of imple-
menting green Lean linkage (barriers with strong driver
power and strong dependence such as ‘fear of failure’ or
‘lack of Kaizen culture’) and autonomous (barriers with weak
driving and dependence) as well as dependent (barriers with
weak driver power but strong dependence) and independent
barriers (barriers with strong driving power but weak
dependence such as ‘lack of government support’) through a
MICMAC analysis.
Therefore, it can be inferred from the above publications
that the barriers to Lean implementation can be classified
according to different criteria depending on the
research focus.
Many researchers have clustered the barriers for Lean
implementation regarding different factors, situations, envi-
ronments, and industries. Considering the ETO industry, a
framework with the barriers to Lean implementation is still
missing. This work is an attempt to bridge this gap by sum-
marising in clusters, the identified Lean barriers of ETO com-
panies with subsequent assembly on-site to mitigate
traditional loss categories.
3. Research methodology
Based on the scientific works of Boland, Cherry, and Dickson
(2017) and Booth, Sutton, and Papaioannou (2016), we used
a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) to identify in the litera-
ture reported barriers to implement Lean methods in ETO
companies with subsequent assembly on-site. SLR is a com-
prehensive and reproducible method for identifying, evaluat-
ing, and combining the present body of recorded knowledge
generated by researchers, scholars, and practitioners
(Petticrew and Roberts 2008; Okoli and Schabram 2010).
Following Denyer and Tranfield (2009), Booth, Sutton, and
Papaioannou (2016), as well as Boland, Cherry, and Dickson
(2017), a three-step approach was employed: (1) ‘Planning
the review’; (2) ‘Conducting the review’; and (3)
‘Documenting the review’.
3.1. Planning the review
The first step consists of two main activities:
i. Define the research question and
ii. Establish a protocol for reviewing the research
Initially, we defined two research questions RQ1 and RQ2
based on the identified research gap. We used SCOPUS, as
one of the main databases for scientific works. Secondly, we
have created a protocol for validating our research. The lit-
erature review is performed via keyword searches in the
SCOPUS database. Conceptual boundaries of the research
were set to the subject areas ‘engineering’, ‘business’, and
‘decision sciences’. The research results were restricted to the
‘English’ language and the time limit was restricted from
2010 to 2020 to examine more recent works. Further, we
only considered journal and conference articles to capture
validated knowledge and new findings. Table 2 details the
subject area and restrictions in our database search.
3.2. Conducting the review
The second stage consists of five activities:
i. Analyse the appropriate research
ii. Chose the principal studies
iii. Evaluate the quality of the studies
iv. Select the essential information
v. Establish the data for the review
For each Lean methodology, we defined several syno-
nyms. For instance, for VM, we considered the following syn-
onyms: ‘Visual Management’ or ‘VM’ or ‘Visualisation tools’ or
‘Visualisation’. Table 3 reports the search string that we
applied for each methodology, composed of the synonyms
and restrictions on the subject areas and years. To obtain
only the results concerning the ETO industry, we included
the keywords: (‘ETO’) OR (‘Engineer-to-Order’). The same
approach was applied to focus the research results on the
implementation barriers, for which we included the following
keywords: (‘barrier’) OR (‘constraints’) OR (‘challenges’) OR
(‘hindrances’) OR (‘failure factors’). The initial research was
limited to the article title, abstract, and keywords. This
returned too few results and therefore we expanded our
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 7

Table 2. Subject areas and restrictions in Scopus search.

Restriction Restricting Condition Scopus String
Subject Areas Engineering, Subject_Areas ¼
Business Management and Accounting, Decision Sciences Limit-To(SubjArea,’ENGI’) Or
Limit-To(SubjArea,’BUSI’) Or
Limit-To(SubjArea, ‘DECI’)
Year From 2010 to 2020 Years ¼
Limit-To(PubYear , 2020) Or
Limit-To(PubYear, 2019) Or
Limit-To(PubYear, 2018) Or
Limit-To(PubYear, 2017) Or
Limit-To(PubYear, 2016) Or
Limit-To(PubYear, 2015) Or
Limit-To(PubYear, 2014) Or
Limit-To(PubYear, 2013) Or
Limit-To(PubYear, 2012) Or
Limit-To(PubYear, 2011) Or
Limit-To(PubYear, 2010) Or

research in SCOPUS to include the keyword search to ‘ALL’
parts of the investigated works.
In order to ensure clarity and transparency while conduct-
ing an SLR, we have applied the reporting guideline
approach “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis” (PRISMA) by Liberati et al. (2009). PRISMA
suggests in an SLR to use four explicit and reprodu-
cible steps:
i. Identifying all likely relevant documents
ii. Screening records of duplicates and exclusion criteria
iii. Assessing articles for eligibility
iv. Synthesising qualitatively the included studies (see
Figure 1).
The identification phase led to a total of 362 articles pub-
lished from 2010 until March 2020 via the database search.
Of these, 59 articles appeared multiple times and were con-
sidered only once. Therefore 155 articles were deduced from
the initial 362 articles, leaving 247 articles to be analysed
according to title and abstract fitness. For the identified rele-
vant works to be included in the content analysis we defined
specific inclusion criteria as suggested by Tranfield, Denyer,
and Smart (2003) and Denyer and Tranfield (2009). The fol-
lowing criteria for the identification and selection of papers
were defined:
i. Papers referred to the ETO industry
ii. Papers reporting on the implementation of the chosen
Lean tools and methods
iii. Papers reporting on the barriers of implementing these
Lean methods
iv. Papers published in scientific journals and conference
proceedings
v. Papers published within the time range between 2010
to 2020
To select the relevant works, a two-step approach was
applied. First, a reading of the abstract, if the article met the
selected criteria, and second, a detailed reading of the com-
plete article. As a result of the first screening process, 79
documents were excluded from the 247 articles. For the final
selection of the relevant articles to be further analysed, both
authors compared their independently chosen selection
of articles. The overlap of both authors was the basis for
the in-depth analysis. The following inclusion criteria
were applied:
i. Implementation barriers are listed, described, and sup-
ported by data
ii. Barriers refer to the ETO industry
Based on these criteria, further 113 articles were excluded,
leaving 55 articles eligible for the content analysis. A back-
ward and forward search – snowballing - was implemented,
by also checking the reference lists of the articles for more
relevant publications. Additionally, 19 articles were included
in the literature, resulting in a final set of 74 papers to be
included in the content analysis. The research was performed
on the 15th of March 2020. Special attention was given to
identify implementation barriers of Lean methods that miti-
gate traditional losses in ETO companies with subsequent
assembly on-site.
The content of the selected articles was structured into
clusters. 77 percent of the articles examined are journal
papers and 23 percent of the analysed works are confer-
ence papers.
Since 59 papers appeared multiple times in the different
search results (Table 3), we believe that our search strings
are inclusive. Figure 1 shows the detailed steps that were
undertaken to select the scientific works included in the con-
tent analysis.
3.3. Documenting the review
The third stage consists of two steps:
i. Compiling the review report
ii. Validating the report
The review protocol was used for the quantitative and
content selection of the analysed articles. The personal
8 F. SCHULZE AND P. DALLASEGA

choices and motivations for the chosen articles were

( ALL ( kaizen ) OR ALL ( cip ) AND ALL ( "Engineer-to-Order" ) OR ALL ( eto ) AND ALL ( barriers ) OR ALL ( constraints ) OR ALL ( challenges ) OR ALL ( hindrances )

( ALL ( "Integrated Project Delivery" ) OR ALL ( ipd ) AND ALL ( "Engineer-to-Order" ) OR ALL ( eto ) AND ALL ( barriers ) OR ALL ( constraints ) OR ALL ( challenges )
( ALL ( "Location-based management system" ) OR ALL ( lbms ) AND ALL ( "Engineer-to-Order" ) OR ALL ( eto ) AND ALL ( barriers ) OR ALL ( constraints ) OR ALL (

( ALL ( "Pull scheduling" ) OR ALL ( pull ) AND ALL ( "Engineer-to-Order" ) OR ALL ( eto ) AND ALL ( barriers ) OR ALL ( constraints ) OR ALL ( challenges ) OR ALL (
( ALL ( prefabrication ) OR ALL ( modularisation ) AND ALL ( "Engineer-to-Order" ) OR ALL ( eto ) AND ALL ( barriers ) OR ALL ( constraints ) OR ALL ( challenges )
( ALL ( "Last Planner System" ) OR ALL ( lps ) AND ALL ( "Engineer-to-Order" ) OR ALL ( eto ) AND ALL ( barriers ) OR ALL ( constraints ) OR ALL ( challenges ) OR
described and shared between the two authors. This helped

( ALL ( visualisation ) OR ALL ( visual management ) OR ALL ( vm ) AND ALL ( "Engineer-to-Order" ) OR ALL ( eto ) AND ALL ( barriers ) OR ALL ( constraints ) OR
( ALL ( "Poka-Yoke" ) OR ALL ( "Poka Yoke" ) AND ALL ( "Engineer-to-Order" ) OR ALL ( eto ) AND ALL ( barriers ) OR ALL ( constraints ) OR ALL ( challenges ) OR
( ALL ( "Just-In-Time" ) OR ALL ( jit ) AND ALL ( "Engineer-to-Order" ) OR ALL ( eto ) AND ALL ( barriers ) OR ALL ( constraints ) OR ALL ( challenges ) OR ALL (
to accelerate double-checking needed for the ultimate
approval and selection of the works and the clustering of
the implementation barriers. Not agreed upon articles
between the two authors were excluded.

3.4. Descriptive sample overview

In the fourth step, a bibliometric analysis of the articles from
the study selection was applied. This to analyse and assess
statistically the input data (McBurney and Novak 2002).
Figure 2 presents the document distribution by year of
publication. The figure shows a steady increase in the total
Table 3. Scopus search string for each methodology, consisting of synonyms and the restriction on the subject area (Subject_Areas) and years as defined in Table 2.

number of publications, with a significant dip in 2017, but

also a peak in 2019.
Table 4 shows that most of the relevant publications were
ALL ( challenges ) OR ALL ( hindrances ) OR ALL ( "failure factors" ) ) AND Subject_Areas AND Years

issued by Italian researchers (17). Further, the United

Synonyms and Search strings

challenges ) OR ALL ( hindrances ) OR ALL ( "failure factors" ) ) AND Subject_Areas AND Years

Kingdom (12), Norway (7), Brazil (5), and India (5) seem to be
very vigorous in the field of barriers to Lean implementation.
Table 5 shows the document distribution by industry type.
Manufacturing was divided into general manufacturing, ETO
OR ALL ( hindrances ) OR ALL ( "failure factors" ) ) AND Subject_Areas AND Years

OR ALL ( hindrances ) OR ALL ( "failure factors" ) ) AND Subject_Areas AND Years

type manufacturing and MTO type manufacturing. Whenever

ALL ( hindrances ) OR ALL ( "failure factors" ) ) AND Subject_Areas AND Years

ALL ( hindrances ) OR ALL ( "failure factors" ) ) AND Subject_Areas AND Years

a study considered a specific industry type, we included it in

hindrances ) OR ALL ( "failure factors" ) ) AND Subject_Areas AND Years

hindrances ) OR ALL ( "failure factors" ) ) AND Subject_Areas AND Years

the table by specifically mentioning aerospace, furniture,

food, logistics, electronics, and shipbuilding. Most of the
publications focus on construction while manufacturing in
OR ALL ( "failure factors" ) ) AND Subject_Areas AND Years

the ETO sector comes second.

Table 6 shows that most of the identified articles are lit-
erature reviews and surveys. Only 21 (28%) articles are using
case studies to validate their findings in practice.
Table 7 lists the journals and conferences of the analysed
articles. As anticipated before, 23% of the analysed works
come from conferences and 77% from scientific journals.
Approximately 32% of the selected works were published in
journals that have an impact factor between the range of 0
and 1.5, 28% between 1.5 and 3, and 42% greater than 3.
The impact factor was retrieved from Incites Journal Citation
Reports (Analytics 2020). Considering conference papers, 43%
were presented at conferences with an A rating, 20% with a
B rating, as well as 43% with a C rating according to ERA
Ranking (Excellence in Research for Australia 2018).

4. Results
This section summarises the identified barriers of Lean imple-
mentation according to the SLR. Generally, the literature
reviewed shows that beyond the manufacturing, ETO has
received less attention in the research of Lean. Evidence in
Prefabrication & Modularisation

Pull Scheduling / Pull Planning

the literature suggests there are several categorizations of

Lean barriers. We categorised the identified studies accord-
ing to a grounded theory approach (Bo €hm 2004; Breuer and
Steinhoff 2010). Specifically, the definition of the clusters has
been done by importing qualitative data, creating prelimin-
Methodology

Kaizen / CIP

Poka-Yoke

ary categories, reviewing their convergent or divergent rela-

tionships, and redefining the final clusters within a circular
LMBS
LPS

IPD
VM
JIT

approach (Equit and Hohage 2016).


Figure 1. Detailed process to select papers for the content analysis (based on PRISMA by Liberati et al. (2009)).
Figure 2. Publications per year.
Based on current literature, existing clusters in manufacturing
(Salonitis and Tsinopoulos 2016; Dora, Kumar, and Gellynck
2016; Zhang, Narkhede, and Chaple 2017; Basu and Dan 2020)
and construction (Cano et al. 2015; Jamil et al. 2018) were used
to create preliminary categories. Further categories were derived
therefrom. Both authors separately rated and analysed the lit-
erature so that a cluster was only defined when there was a con-
sensus of both authors. The main clusters were defined based
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 9
on the main barrier groups. Several sub-groups were defined to
identify why Lean methods are not sufficient to overcome trad-
itional loss categories. To demonstrate that the clustering was
derived from the literature, we used stated facts as direct cita-
tions from the investigated research. As a result, the content
analysis was structured in seven clusters related to organisation,
management, knowledge, cultural, financial, customer, and non-
context specific related Lean implementation barriers.
10 F. SCHULZE AND P. DALLASEGA

Table 4. Articles by country. in practice (Gupta and Jain 2013; Jadhav, Mantha, and Rane
Country N of publications 2014; Lodgaard et al. 2016; Salonitis and Tsinopoulos 2016;
Italy 17 Abu et al. 2019; Bayhan, Demirkesen, and Jayamanne 2019;
The UK 12 Belkadi, Cherti, and Bahaj 2019). In particular, Dora, Kumar,
Norway 7
Brazil 5 and Gellynck (2016) mention that employee’s scepticism
India 5 about the management commitment to implement Lean
China 3
France 3
methods can be considered as a barrier. In this direction,
Germany 3 Marodin and Saurin (2014) report on the missing support by
Colombia 2 middle management in following up deadlines and results of
Malaysia 2
Morocco 2
Lean implementation processes. They argue that middle
Turkey 2 management is often not using proper root-cause analyses
USA 2 to solve problems, as well as activities, are frequently not
Australia 1
Denmark 1 standardised. On the other hand, at the operational level
Hong Kong 1 employees often feel not responsible for a successful imple-
Japan 1 mentation of Lean methods which constitutes another bar-
Nigeria 1
Portugal 1 rier (Almeida Marodin and Saurin 2015). Besides, Jamil et al.
Qatar 1 (2018), Mano, Gouvea da Costa, and Pinheiro de Lima (2020)
Sweden 1 as well as Tezel et al. (2015) report on the adherence of trad-
Taiwan 1
itional working habits of employees that can be interpreted
as hindrances to adopting Lean practices. Several fears, such
Table 5. Publications by industry type. as the fear of the unknown, fear of failure and complacency
Industry type N of publications as well as fear of losing one’s job due to the Lean rationalisa-
Construction 33 tions contribute to employee resistance (Salonitis and
Manufacturing, ETO 19
Manufacturing, general 14 Tsinopoulos 2016; Cherrafi et al. 2017; Abu et al. 2019). Fear
Manufacturing, MTO 2 of change was also observed by Forero et al. (2015) as a hin-
Aerospace 1 drance in implementing IPD in Colombia.
Electronics 1
Furniture 1
Logistics 1
Shipbuilding 1 4.1.2. Insufficient organisational structure
Food 1 Another key factor cited in the literature for successful Lean
implementation was the removal of organisational barriers
Table 6. Predominant research methodology. (Haque, Pawar, and Barson 2003). A lack of effort in building
Research methodology N of publications a supportive organisational culture is crucial (Lodgaard et al.
Literature review 26 (35%) 2016; Abu et al. 2019). To attain the necessary organisational
Survey 17 (23%) culture, companies need to address the fear of failure and
Single case study 15 (20% change, as well as the effects of economisation and
Multiple case study 6 (8%)
Conceptual / theoretical 5 (7%) increased responsibilities amongst employees that accom-
Empirical studies 4 (5%) pany the Lean implementation process (Abu et al. 2019).
Simulation 1 (1%)
Lodgaard et al. (2016) found in their research that nine of
the top ten barriers to change are people-related. Therefore,
4.1. Organisational related barriers they stress the importance of the management to invest
enough time to communicate, discuss, and listen to employ-
Remarkably, a lot of companies fail to build a suitable organisa- ees to generate engagement and overcome resistance to the
tional culture for Lean implementations to succeed. The litera- Lean implementation process. Removing organisational bar-
ture suggests going beyond the technicalities of Lean tools and riers, such as functional thinking and sequential processes, is
to change the organisation structurally in a way that favours the crucial for successfully implementing Lean tools and meth-
acceptance and change that comes with Lean in all parts of the ods, such as Concurrent Engineering (CE) and Integrated
company. Typical organisational barriers include a lack of quali- Project Delivery (IPD) (Haque, Pawar, and Barson 2003).
fied employees as well as not adapting Lean methods to a com-
pany’s specific needs and situation. Often firms ignore the
systematic approach of Lean by just focussing on certain parts 4.1.3. Fragmented implementation
of it which hinders a successful implementation. Other organisa- To successfully implement Lean, each company must recog-
tional barriers include deficient information management as nise their particular production environment in which it
operates and adapts the necessary Lean methods to the
well as employee’s resistance to change.
company’s specific needs and requirements (Zhang,
Narkhede, and Chaple 2017). However, ignoring the systemic
4.1.1. Employee’s resistance to change nature of Lean and just focussing on implementing certain
Employee’s unwillingness to engage in Lean processes is one aspects of it is another implementation barrier which is com-
of the most mentioned barriers to implement Lean methods monly known as the ‘piecemeal approach’ (Marodin and
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 11

Table 7. Number of publications for each journal.

Journal N of publications
Production Planning and Control 8
International Journal of Production Research 5
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 5
Engineering Construction and Architectural Management 4
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 3
Building and Environment 2
Buildings 2
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 2
Journal of Cleaner Production 2
Journal of Management in Engineering 2
Beyond World-Class Productivity: Industrial Engineering Practice and Theory 1
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 1
Computers in Industry 1
Construction Innovation 1
FME Transactions 1
Frontiers in Built Environment 1
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 1
International Journal of Advanced Operations Management 1
International Journal of Construction Management 1
International Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology 1
International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management 1
International Journal of Project Management 1
International Journal of Services and Operations Management 1
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 1
Journal of System and Management Sciences 1
Manufacturing Letters 1
Systemic Practice and Action Research 1
Technovation 1

Saurin 2015; Dora, Kumar, and Gellynck 2016; Schimanski
et al. 2020; Tezel et al. 2020). In the same manner, an over-
emphasis on tools instead of the core principles and require-
ments of Lean in the implementation phase will unlikely
have the desired results on the course of business (Lodgaard
et al. 2016). Additionally, Strandhagen et al. (2018) mention a
lack of focus on the non-physical tasks of ETO manufacturing
such as sales, engineering, and project management as part
of the ‘piecemeal approach’ which hinders its appropriate
implementation. Seth, Seth, and Dhariwal (2017) and Lugert,
Batz, and Winkler (2018) mention the lack of clarity, adapt-
ability, and proper economic measures of the VSM applica-
tion as an implementation barrier. Another operational
challenge is the danger of falling back to the old ways of
doing business, called ‘backsliding’, instead of sustaining the
improvements achieved in the medium and long run
(Marodin and Saurin 2015; Zhang, Narkhede, and Chaple
2017; Tezel, Koskela, and Aziz 2018).
Also problematic is a lack of standards in carrying out
tasks which allow the workforce to build their approach to
performing their work. But when they leave the organisation,
they often carry this knowledge with them (Mano, Gouvea
da Costa, and Pinheiro de Lima 2020).
Tezel, Koskela, and Aziz (2018) found in their research of
the highway sector that pressure from clients in the adoption
of Lean leads to unstandardised and partial Lean implementa-
tions with some steps or techniques being fully neglected.
Lean often is adapted to the local premises of a project in
construction or in the ETO sector which in itself produces
another barrier. The project habitually develops highly spe-
cific characteristics which again makes it nearly impossible to
carry out benchmarks with other projects or companies in
the industry sector (Mano, Gouvea da Costa, and Pinheiro de
Lima 2020).
4.1.4. Insufficient information management
Marodin and Saurin (2014) as well as Bayhan, Demirkesen, and
Jayamanne (2019) found out that a lack of communication
throughout the company, in the form of not informing
employees about the improvement results, next steps being
taken or further objectives is another hindering factor in the
Lean implementation process. They further added that not
keeping up with the improvements made, such as checking of
audits or standardising the implemented improvement actions
and Lean tools led to returning to the original state after a few
months. In this regard, Lodgaard et al. (2016) found that the
involvement of employees is a crucial step to achieve continu-
ous improvement in the production area as well as to ensure
that the Lean implementing process also reaches daily work
practices. Bayhan, Demirkesen, and Jayamanne (2019) found
that in construction often the workers are not proficient in the
native language since they are often from other countries and
therefore literally do not understand the communicated Lean
implementation measures and information.
4.2. Management related barriers
Management related barriers encompass a lack of commitment
from top management, lack of long-term planning, insufficient
management time as well as not making Lean a daily focus.
Other factors include the lack of appropriate KPIs and mile-
stones as well as a clear strategy and direction of the company.
4.2.1. Limited management commitment
Lack of commitment and support from top management is
another mentioned barrier of Lean implementation (Gupta
and Jain 2013; Jadhav, Mantha, and Rane 2014; Lodgaard
et al. 2016; Zhang, Narkhede, and Chaple 2017; Cherrafi et al.
12 F. SCHULZE AND P. DALLASEGA
2017; Demirkesen and Bayhan 2019; Bayhan, Demirkesen,
and Jayamanne 2019; Belkadi, Cherti, and Bahaj 2019).
Leadership must be executed by all management levels, not
only by senior management (Gupta and Jain 2013; Lodgaard
et al. 2016). Other factors mentioned are a lack of long-term
planning or vision (Dora, Kumar, and Gellynck 2016; Salonitis
and Tsinopoulos 2016), insufficient senior management skills,
as well as that management, doesn’t spend enough time on
Lean implementation (Zhang, Narkhede, and Chaple 2017).
Marodin and Saurin (2014) mention that middle manage-
ment is often not respecting suggestions for improvement
proposed from the operator level, which tends to demotivate
the workforce after a few years. Considering the LPS method,
Dallasega, Marengo, and Revolti (2021) report the lack of
commitment to use it for collaboration.
4.2.2. Short-term focus
Tezel, Koskela, and Aziz (2018) point out companies’ short-
term approach to Lean implementation as a tactic to
‘impress the client’ as another hindering factor which is sup-
ported by the observations of Bayhan, Demirkesen, and
Jayamanne (2019). Also, Salonitis and Tsinopoulos (2016)
noticed that an increased focus on everyday issues instead
of on the implementation progress will digress a firm’s effort
of Lean implementation and prevent its progress to affect
work practices positively (Lodgaard et al. 2016).
4.2.3. Hierarchical differences
Lodgaard et al. (2016) identified that different hierarchical
levels in an organisation have contrasting views on Lean bar-
riers. Workers often view Lean implementation as a manager-
ial responsibility and shirk away from adopting a change of
role or being an active force in Lean in their daily work. Top
management often misses this aspect and needs to invest
more time for training, understanding, and commitment to
engage workforce and management alike (Salonitis and
Tsinopoulos 2016; Tezel and Aziz 2017).
4.3. Knowledge related barriers
Knowledge related barriers consist of a poor understanding
of Lean concepts, a lack of know-how sharing, insufficient
training, as well as unclear roles, and responsibilities
amongst employees. Other factors include missing quantita-
tive measurement indicators.
4.3.1. Insufficient know-how
Insufficient knowledge of Lean is another notable cited bar-
rier for its implementation (Salonitis and Tsinopoulos 2016;
Tezel, Koskela, and Aziz 2018). Incomplete understanding of
Lean concepts and tools (Gupta and Jain 2013; Godinho
Filho, Ganga, and Gunasekaran 2016; Salonitis and
Tsinopoulos 2016; Babalola, Ibem, and Ezema 2019; Belkadi,
Cherti, and Bahaj 2019), lack of implementation expertise
and practices (Salonitis and Tsinopoulos 2016; Abu et al.
2019; Leu and Ashoka 2019; Demirkesen and Bayhan 2019;
Bayhan, Demirkesen, and Jayamanne 2019) as well as ignor-
ance of barriers in the adoption of Lean (Zhang, Narkhede,
and Chaple 2017) all fall under this category. Mano, Gouvea
da Costa, and Pinheiro de Lima (2020) observed in their
study on barriers to Lean Construction that many firms
falsely assume they have implemented Lean when solely
employing a tool or single method without a broader know-
ledge of Lean as a whole concept. Further, they found that
errors regarding the Lean implementation process are usually
made on all levels of the company when Lean is not com-
pletely understood. Besides the lack of knowledge, Forero
et al. (2015) also mention a lack of understanding of the
potential benefits of implementing certain Lean methods,
such as IPD. Babalola, Ibem, and Ezema (2019) have estab-
lished in their literature review a lack of systematic identifica-
tion and classification of the different Lean Construction
practices, as well as their benefits, which embodies a key
barrier in the effective Lean implementation. In their study
on exploring factors for implementing Lean Construction,
Aslam, Gao, and Smith (2020) observed that the strategies to
select Lean tools and methods for the construction sector
are rarely explained in the literature. This leads to companies
unable to select the right Lean tools and techniques as well
as unable to implement them properly particularly at the
beginning of their Lean course. Seth, Seth, and Dhariwal
(2017) found that practitioners face complications in imple-
menting VSM due to the lack of clarity regarding the five
core principles of Lean (identification of value, value stream,
flow, pull, and perfection). Further, Lugert, Batz, and Winkler
(2018) reported that the static behaviour of VSM is a hinder-
ing factor regarding the trends in the manufacturing envir-
onment, such as high variety and low volume, digitisation of
production, as well as customisation of products. Regarding
Prefabrication, Leu and Ashoka (2019) as well as Wuni and
Shen (2020) point out that a lack of understanding and com-
plicated implementation processes are major factors
obstructing the advancement of prefabricated construction.
4.3.2. Insufficient training
Although a skilled workforce and in-house know-how are
important for successful Lean implementation (Dora, Kumar,
and Gellynck 2016; Abu et al. 2019), companies often neglect
to train employees appropriately (Panizzolo et al. 2012; Dora,
Kumar, and Gellynck 2016; Lodgaard et al. 2016; Cherrafi
et al. 2017; Zhang, Narkhede, and Chaple 2017; Abu et al.
2019) and underestimate the time needed for doing it (Tezel
and Aziz 2015). Especially complex Visual Management (VM)
practices are reliant on adequate operator training (Brady
et al. 2018). Companies should consider that the training
procedures take time and that employees are often resistant
to change and fearful of making mistakes when using VM
tools (Tezel and Aziz 2015). Companies tend to overlook con-
sultancies in their endeavour to implement Lean (Salonitis
and Tsinopoulos 2016; Dora, Kumar, and Gellynck 2016) in
fear of being dependent on one or a few external Lean
experts. Salonitis and Tsinopoulos (2016) point out that
solely relying on external experts can be as inhibiting as hav-
ing no help from outside. They stress the need for a crucial

mass of knowledge in the company to successfully imple-
ment and sustain Lean methods. This ensures that the Lean
approach is tailored to the culture and procedures of the
company and not just a copy of the implementation plan
that may have been worked out for another company. A lack
of knowledge is also often evident at the beginning of the
implementation process when companies do not clearly
define roles and responsibilities as well as fail to choose the
best practices and tools (Lodgaard et al. 2016; Demirkesen
and Bayhan 2019). In the same manner, firms also often neg-
lect to train the supporting areas in Lean, such as engineer-
ing, information technology, logistics, human resources,
purchasing, and maintenance (Marodin and Saurin 2015).
4.3.3. Missing quantitative measurement indicators
Quantitative measurement indicators or specific performance
metrics (Marodin and Saurin 2015; Erthal and Marques 2018;
Tezel, Koskela, and Aziz 2018; Tezel et al. 2020; Mano,
Gouvea da Costa, and Pinheiro de Lima 2020) needed to
measure the financial profits of Lean benefits (Abu et al.
2019) are often missing in Lean implementation processes.
Tezel and Aziz (2017) observed that often managers were
not able to quantify the gains of VM due to a lack of clarity.
Similarly, Singh and Singh (2020) note that often manufac-
turers do not understand enough the benefits of Lean meth-
ods. Mano and Lima (2020) point out that the Lean concept
cannot spread in the construction industry if companies do
not know what to expect from it as well as not knowing
how to measure its effects and benefits. Matt and Rauch
(2014) emphasise that the traditional VSM method in an ETO
environment is missing appropriate economic measures for
value or other typical production performance parameters.
Similarly, Marodin and Saurin (2014) stress that methods for
directing Lean production implementation, such as VSM do
not include instruments to manage Lean barriers. In their
analysis of implementing Standardisation, Modularisation and
Platform approaches in ETO businesses, Gepp, Foehr, and
Vollmar (2016) mention the lack of specific KPIs as one of
the main hurdles.
4.4. Cultural related barriers
Lean awareness and understanding were reported as significant
cultural related implementation barriers for companies.
Country-related cultural differences, as well as different working
cultures of companies, were mentioned under this category.
4.4.1. Lack of ‘lean culture’
Just focussing on the technicalities of Lean management and
not adapting one’s company organisation to a Lean culture
is another mentioned barrier in the literature (Haque, Pawar,
and Barson 2003; Lodgaard et al. 2016; Amrani, Ducq, and
Goetz 2016; Cherrafi et al. 2017; Jamil et al. 2018; Erthal and
Marques 2018; Abu et al. 2019; Demirkesen and Bayhan
2019; Aslam, Gao, and Smith 2020). The implementation pro-
cess will ultimately change the working culture, which may
leave the workers overwhelmed with their new roles and
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 13
tasks in the Lean organisation (Gupta and Jain 2013). Jamil
et al. (2018) emphasise that companies must remove the
obstacle of averseness towards implementing Lean. Not
involving employees at all or only minimally during that pro-
cess (Abu et al. 2019) is another mistake of companies that
is mentioned in the literature. Similarly, Aslam, Gao, and
Smith (2020) argue that employees should be empowered
and given opportunities within the Lean organisation to
thrive and find solutions to living Lean. Proper training and
communication can overcome this barrier by raising the level
of understanding and motivation (Gupta and Jain 2013) for
the Lean culture. In that sense, it is important to develop
and select the right people for the relevant Lean applications
(Cano et al. 2015; Demirkesen and Bayhan 2019).
Erthal and Marques (2018) found that certain organisa-
tional cultural traits favour the implementation of Lean. For
one, strict control, where monitoring and measuring the
practices is appreciated by both management and workforce.
Secondly, employee-orientation, which includes workforce
commitment and participation as well as improving work-
life-balance and work environment. Lastly, an open-system
approach, which emphasises company vision, corporate
goals, intensive training, and transparency as well as integra-
tion within and outside the organisation.
4.4.2. Country related cultural differences
Dominici and Palumbo (2013) describe how the Japanese’s
culture of cooperation and teamwork favours the Lean sys-
tem, while the internal competition and corporate hierarchy
of Western firms are a hindering factor in the adoption of
Lean. Erthal and Marques (2018) argue that different world
regions face different barriers in implementing and sustain-
ing Lean. The cultures in North and Northeast Europe as well
Anglo countries are characterised by high individualism,
where personal goals and needs are prioritised, as well as by
low uncertainty avoidance, where people are comfortable
with ambiguous situations and less focussed on controlling
the future. These characterisations indicate that organisations
are less flexible to adapt to change and therefore present
higher barriers in implementing and sustaining Lean (Erthal
and Marques 2018). On the other hand, Latin American,
African, and Arabic-speaking countries are impeded in their
Lean adoption process by a culture of short-term orientation,
low uncertainty avoidance, and large power distance, where
hierarchy and unequal distribution of power between people
are accepted (Erthal and Marques 2018). The implementation
of Lean is supported in organisations in South and Central
Europe, the former Soviet Union countries, and parts of Asia.
These regions are characterised by a culture of high uncer-
tainty avoidance, in which planning and standardisation
efforts can help to minimise ambiguous situations. Further,
relatively low masculinity, where men’s and women’s values
and roles are similar, and thus cooperation and consensus is
fostered, as well as low individualism (Erthal and Marques
2018). Cagliano et al. (2011) and Erthal and Marques (2018)
have also established negative effects of masculinity on Lean
practices. Masculinity’s aggressive and confrontational behav-
iour curbs employee’s cooperation in problem detection and
14 F. SCHULZE AND P. DALLASEGA
solving. Feminine cultures tend to be better at handling
autonomy and job rotation, both crucial to Lean success
(Erthal and Marques 2018).
4.5. Financial barriers
This cluster addresses the lack of financial resources, which
include training costs, costs for external consultants, or any
other related investments needed for Lean adoption.
4.5.1. Lack of financial resources
Another often mentioned barrier in Lean adoption is the lack
of financial resources (Gupta and Jain 2013; Jadhav, Mantha,
and Rane 2014; Dora, Kumar, and Gellynck 2016; Cherrafi
et al. 2017; Zhang, Narkhede, and Chaple 2017; Bayhan,
Demirkesen, and Jayamanne 2019; Tezel et al. 2020) which
mostly concerns SMEs (Zhang, Narkhede, and Chaple 2017;
Tezel et al. 2020;). Training costs, external consultants, acquir-
ing related technologies, and investments in innovations fall
under financial resources and are generally less affordable
for SMEs than larger enterprises (Dora, Kumar, and Gellynck
2016). Increased costs, especially for the additional off-site
construction (Stoettrup et al. 2019), are the core barrier in
implementing Modularisation and Prefabrication as two
important Lean methods in construction. Similarly, Leu and
Ashoka (2019) highlight that cost is the main barrier in the
adoption of Prefabricated Construction.
4.5.2. No direct financial advantage
Not all Lean methods produce quantifiable gains but rather
intangible benefits, such as improved safety and employee
satisfaction. Therefore, many companies do not focus
enough on the Lean implementation process, which often
leads to failed implementation projects (Zhang, Narkhede,
and Chaple 2017). Considering SMEs, Dora, Kumar, and
Gellynck (2016) report on the fact that Lean implementations
in SMEs have usually a higher relative impact on budgets
compared to larger companies, which could hinder the will-
ingness to invest in such practices. Kim et al. (2016) found
that companies are often not willing to share profits and
costs which is a barrier to the implementation of IPD in pub-
lic projects.
4.6. Non-context specific related barriers
This section categorises barriers related to a lack of Lean
implementation, standardisation, poor adaptability of Lean
methods from repetitive to non-repetitive environments,
insufficient time or administration effort regarding the imple-
mentation process, as well as unstable processes, which are
hindering the Lean implementation process.
4.6.1. Lack of lean adaption
The most voiced barrier for companies in the ETO industry is
the lack of Lean adaptation from other environments like
mass production (Tezel, Koskela, and Aziz 2018; Amrani and
Ducq 2020). Generally, the inflexibility to tailor the Lean
approach from the repetitive production setting to the ETO
industry and the company’s specific conditions and culture
(Salonitis and Tsinopoulos 2016; Chouiraf and Chafi 2018) are
the main hurdles for the successful adoption of Lean to ETO.
Gupta and Jain (2013) mention that a large product variety
as well as missing long-term production schedules cause dif-
ficulty for the organisation to sustain Lean implementation
processes. For example, JIT needs very accurate demand
forecasts and flexible processes, especially quick set-up times
(Bortolotti, Danese, and Romano 2013), in order to be imple-
mented successfully. Another example is the Lean tool VSM
which is also difficult to directly apply from a repetitive to a
non-repetitive manufacturing environment (Chouiraf and
Chafi 2018). It lacks suitable economic measures (Matt and
Rauch 2014), it fails to map multiple products with different
routings (Chouiraf and Chafi 2018) and it doesn’t allow for
effective management of the value stream at the operational
level which is crucial for successfully implementing Lean in
complex systems (Tezel, Koskela, and Aziz 2018). Marodin
and Saurin (2014) report the fact that VSM is often used to
initiate the Lean implementation process, focussing on the
technical aspects of the value stream while neglecting the
identification of potential Lean implementation barriers. Seth,
Seth, and Dhariwal (2017) concluded in their research that
VSM applications in complex environments cannot be imple-
mented. Brady et al. (2018) and Tezel and Aziz (2017) point
out that Visual Management (VM) in construction often lacks
a systematic approach and is applied in isolation to only a
few construction processes. Further, due to client pressure,
some companies implement certain Lean methods, such as
VM and LPS often in a partial and not standardised way
(Tezel, Koskela, and Aziz 2018; Dallasega, Marengo, and
Revolti 2021). Rossini et al. (2019) came to similar conclusions
regarding the lack of standardisation presenting a crucial
barrier for Kaizen and continuous improvement process (CIP)
implementations. A structured guide to CIP that fits well
with a company’s system is missing. Generally, Dallasega
et al. (2019) state that Kanban-type supermarket pull systems
are not easy to implement due to long takt times, unstable
production processes and low availability of machines in the
ETO industry.
4.6.2. Lack of process reliability
The ETO industry is characterised by high environmental
uncertainty, such as high levels of unpredictability and
instability regarding customer and demand fluctuations, sup-
plier and sub-contractor performance, rate of innovation, or
changes in regulatory requirements (Birkie and Trucco 2016).
These factors pose another difficulty in implementing Lean
tools, especially for synchronising production processes and
reducing inventory levels (Alfnes, Thomassen, and Gran 2016;
Birkie and Trucco 2016). Wesz, Formoso, and Tzortzopoulos
(2018) point out that uncertainties in the ETO production pro-
cess pose a barrier to implementing Prefabrication and
Modularisation for ETO manufacturers. These include deci-
sions regarding capacity, lead time, and price, as well as diffi-
culties regarding the demand forecasts and estimation of

Table 8. Framework of barriers to Lean implementation in Engineer-to-Order manufacturing with subsequent Assembly On-Site.
Loss category in
# ETO firms Lean Method
1 Losses caused by LBMS
obstructions with LPS
Other Trades
Pull scheduling
2 Losses caused by
the customer
3 Losses caused by the
Engineering
department
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 15
Barrier group Barrier subgroup Stated facts from literature
– – No explicit statement found
Non-context specific Lack of standardisation “LPS shortcomings: - Look ahead planning, continuous
related barriers in the implementation improvement and cause analysis are difficult to
implement; [ … ] (Dallasega, Marengo, and Revolti 2021)
No explicit statement found
IPD Organisational Insufficient “[ … ] Dougherty (1992) illustrated, via a case study, the
related barrier organisational structure negative effects of the two main barriers to CE or IPD
i.e. functional thinking, which she describes as
‘departmental thought worlds’, and sequential
processes, which she describes as ‘organisational
product routines’. “
“Removing Organizational barriers have long been cited
in the literature as the key to successful CE or IPD”
(Haque, Pawar, and Barson 2003)
Knowledge Insufficient Know-How “Obstacles of IPD: [ … ] (5) Lack of awareness or benefits “
related barriers (Kim et al. 2016);
“The main barriers defined and established with this
study are the lack of knowledge and information about
[IPD]” (Forero et al. 2015)
Organisational Employee resistance “Fear to change was considered one of the main barriers
related barrier to change for IPD implementation in Colombia.” (Forero et al.
2015)
“[ … ] perceived obstacles of IPD in public project: [ … ],
(2) internal resistance [ … ].” (Kim et al. 2016)
Financial related barrier No direct “[ … ] perceived obstacles of IPD in public project: [ … ]
financial benefit and (3) sharing profits and overruns as the impediments
to the implementation of IPD in public projects.” (Kim
et al. 2016)
VSM Organisational barriers Piecemeal approach to “[ … ] most cases of applying VSM in the ETO environment
Lean [ignoring the focuses mainly on the physical processes, not covering
systemic nature] the important non-physical processes found in ETO
manufacturing, such as sales, engineering, and project
management.” (Strandhagen et al. 2018)
Non-context specific Lack of Lean adaptation “Almost all the researchers who have contributed VSM
related barriers applications in complex environments conclude that the
micro-concepts: takt time, supermarket to facilitate pull,
continuous flow, and releasing as per pacemaker simply
do not work.” (Seth, Seth, and Dhariwal 2017)
Knowledge- Insufficient know-how “Researchers acknowledge the strengths of VSM and
related barriers attempt lean using it, but face a lot of difficulties due
to lack of clarity about five principles linking lean and
VSM (identification of value, value stream, flow, pull and
perfection).”
(Seth, Seth, and Dhariwal 2017)
Knowledge- Insufficient know-how “[ … ] almost every second user regards the static
related barriers behaviour of VSM as the method’s greatest weakness.
This is particularly relevant against the background of
the trends in the production environment [ … ].”
(Lugert, Batz, and Winkler 2018)
Non-context specific Lack of Lean adaptation “Another shortcoming of applying the traditional VSM
related barriers approach in an ETO environment is that it fails to map
multiple products with different routings and that it
lacks suitable economic measures for value or other
typical manufacturing performance parameters [5].”
“(Braglia, Carmignani, and Zammori 2006) mentioned
that VSM cannot be used directly for manufacturing
processes with merging flows.” (Chouiraf and
Chafi 2018)
Knowledge Missing quantitative “As another drawback, well-known methods for guiding
related barriers measurement indicators Lean Production Implementation (LPI), such as value
stream mapping (VSM), do not include mechanisms for
managing the barriers, as they usually emphasise the
technical aspects related to lean practices (Marodin and
Saurin 2014).”
Knowledge Missing quantitative “A shortcoming of applying for example the traditional
related barriers measurement indicators VSM approach in an ETO environment is that it fails to
map multiple products with different routings and that
it lacks suitable economic measures for value or other
typical manufacturing performance parameters (Stamm
and Neitzert 2008; Braglia, Carmignani, and Zammori
2006; Matt and Rauch 2014).”
(continued)
16 F. SCHULZE AND P. DALLASEGA

Table 8. Continued.
Loss category in
# ETO firms Lean Method Barrier group
4 Losses caused by the Prefabrication and Non-context specific
Project Modulari-zation related barriers
Management
department
LPS
5 Losses caused by the JIT Non-context specific
Fabrication related barriers
department
Non-context specific
related barriers
Kaizen/CIP Non-context specific Lack of standardisation
related barriers in the implementation
6 Losses caused directly Kaizen/CIP Non-context specific Lack of Lean adaptation
by the Assembly related barriers
On-Site
Kanban Non-context specific Lack of Lean adaptation
related barriers
Non-context specific
related barriers
Knowledge
related barriers
Non-context specific
related barriers
Prefabrication & Financial related barriers
Modularisation
Knowledge Insufficient Know-How
related barriers
Non-context specific
related barriers
Financial related barriers
Barrier subgroup Stated facts from literature
Lack of process “In ETO production systems, as products are custom-made
reliability and one-of-a-kind, there are three main types of
uncertainties: as the product needs to be engineered at
the start of a project, some decisions, such as capacity,
lead-time, and price needs to be taken under
uncertainty; it is difficult to make a detailed demand
forecast in terms of mix and volume; and it is also
difficult to make an estimation of the type and amount
of resources required.” (Wesz, Formoso, and
Tzortzopoulos 2018)
No explicit statement found
Lack of process “But in present logistics systems, this timely delivery is not
reliability always possible due to reasons such as incomplete
status of goods being shipped, mismatch between the
required and transported goods and unexpected time
delays during transfer of goods [ … ]” (Sanders,
Elangeswaran, and Wulfsberg 2016)
Lack of process “[ … ] product customisation and demand uncertainty are
reliability obstacles that limit the implementation of Lean and JIT
to a small percentage of production processes, whereas
for other processes JIT tools are not applicable [ … ]”
(Bortolotti, Danese, and Romano 2013)
“[ … ], this lack of a unique codified framework that guides
the kaizen implementation represents a criticality in the
success of the kaizen and the debate on which is the
best framework is still in progress [9].”
(Rossini et al. 2019)
“The implementation of kaizen is not still standardised
[ … ] companies lack on having a structured guide for
their continuous improvement journey and strive on
looking for a kaizen framework that fits well with their
systems.”
(Rossini et al. 2019)
“However, this type of pull system [supermarket pull
systems] is difficult to be implemented in the case of
long takt time, unstable production processes and small
availability of machines, which are common situations in
construction industry [ … ]” (Dallasega et al. 2019)
Lack of Process “For example pacing production at the takt time is much
reliability more difficult to achieve, and Kanban is of little use
when pieces are designed to customer requirements.”
(Matt and Rauch 2014)
Insufficient training / Without sufficient operator training, logistic preparations
Lack of training and site arrangements, those more complex VM
practices tend to have no or negative effects in the
production system.” (Tezel, Koskela, and Aziz 2018)
Lack of process “[ … ] implementing pull production control through
reliability kanban, levelling by using heijunka boards, the 5S
programs, the in-station quality, and the andon systems
required extensive planning, a certain level of readiness,
and stability within the production system.” (Tezel,
Koskela, and Aziz 2018)
Lack of “[ … ] cost is the main obstacle to the adoption of PC
financial resources [Prefabricated construction] [ … ] including the cost
increase caused by the long decision-making time of
the supply chain.” (Leu and Ashoka 2019)
“[ … ] lack of understanding of PCSCM [prefabricated
construction supply chain management] and
complicated implementation process are also important
factors hindering the advancement of PC [Prefabricated
Construction].”
(Leu and Ashoka 2019)
Lack of process “ [ … ] found that the three largest barriers for using
reliability modular construction in urban environments are on-site
access and storage, transportation, and logistics, and the
distance between factory and site.” (Stoettrup
et al. 2019)
Lack of “However, the additional cost of off-site construction is the
financial resources main barrier among suppliers, manufacturers,
contractors, designers, and clients in the UK
construction industry [ … ]” (Stoettrup et al. 2019)
(continued)

Table 8. Continued.
Loss category in
# ETO firms Lean Method Barrier group
Visualisation/Visual Knowledge
Manage-ment related barriers
Organisational
related barriers
Knowledge
related barriers
Organisational
related barriers
VSM Knowledge
related barriers
type and amount of resource requirements. Especially, on-site
access, storage, transportation, and the distance between the
factory and site are mentioned by Stoettrup et al. (2019) as
the main barriers for implementing Modularisation in con-
struction. Specifically, in the ETO environment, companies
have difficulties achieving a levelled production or use
Kanban efficiently, when products are highly customised
(Matt and Rauch 2014). Lack of time (Gupta and Jain 2013) or
the amount of time it takes to train the workforce (Tezel
et al. 2015), as well as inadequate administration time (Singh
and Singh 2020), are further hurdles in the Lean implementa-
tion processes in ETO environments. Sanders, Elangeswaran,
and Wulfsberg (2016) found in their research that JIT is not
always possible in current logistics systems due to a lack of
process stability such as deficiencies of the status of goods
being shipped, a discrepancy between required and actual
transported goods, and unexpected time delays during ship-
ment. Stability in the production system and a particular level
of readiness is required to implement Pull Production via
Kanban (Tezel, Koskela, and Aziz 2018) in ETO type settings.
4.7. Customer related barriers
Lack of customer support or involvement is another barrier for
Lean implementation (Hussain et al. 2019). Especially, SMEs suf-
fer from the lack of client support as well as from inadequate
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 17
Barrier subgroup Stated facts from literature
Missing quantitative “There is a lack of clarity among the process improvement
measurement indicators managers as to how to quantify the benefits of VM”
“No systematic approach that develops/investigates new
VM solutions for the operational on-site staff in the
studied construction sites was identified.”
“[ … ] is the lack of clarity in quantifying the benefits of
VM.”
(Tezel and Aziz 2017)
Fragmented “most current VM applications in construction are largely
Implementation unsystematic in nature and tend to focus on the
application of individual tools borrowed from
manufacturing and applied in isolation to discrete parts
of the construction process [ … ] “ (Brady et al. 2018)
Insufficient training / “The implementation barriers pointed out in the interviews
were, in essence, relatively simple to address. The most
frequently cited barrier was that training the workforce
could take time. Worker resistance to change, high
workforce turnover, workers’ being afraid of making
mistakes when using VM tools, and not properly
defining the responsibilities in implementation were
other issues pointed out by the interviewees.” (Tezel
et al. 2015)
Fragmented “Recent investigations of the Last Planner System and
Implementation Visual Management (Tezel and Aziz 2017) in the
highways sector revealed the effect of client pressure in
their adoption by companies and that their
implementations were commonly unstandardised and
partial across companies, with some steps or
opportunities in those techniques being completely
omitted or ignored.” (Tezel, Koskela, and Aziz 2018)
Missing quantitative “[ … ] is the lack of clarity in quantifying the benefits of
measurement indicators VM. The managers repeatedly stated that they had
“sensed” the benefits of VM but struggled to put those
benefits into numerical figures.”
“There is a lack of clarity among the process
improvement managers as to how to quantify the
benefits of VM” (Tezel and Aziz 2017)
inclusion in developing Lean capabilities through the customer
(Tezel et al. 2020). Another barrier consists of specific require-
ments of highly customised and individualised products by the
customers (Zhang, Narkhede, and Chaple 2017), which are diffi-
cult to fulfil effectively by the manufacturers. The product cus-
tomisation and demand uncertainty are especially impairing the
implementation of JIT and Lean in manufacturers (Bortolotti,
Danese, and Romano 2013). Further, some manufacturers only
implement Lean methods and tools because they are pushed
by the clients (Brady et al. 2018). This forced approach often
leads to failed implementations since the companies’ manage-
ment lacks motivation, support, and effort (Zhang, Narkhede,
and Chaple 2017). Jadhav, Mantha, and Rane (2014) report that
inconsistent and imprecise communication between customer
and manufacturer as well as weak dialogue with stakeholders
often hinders Lean change as well. Another issue to consider is
that most companies in the construction industry feel little pres-
sure to implement Lean since they operate locally and rarely
face global competition such as the automotive industry with its
global operations (Mano, Gouvea da Costa, and Pinheiro de
Lima 2020).
5. Discussion
This section discusses the barriers identified through the lit-
erature review and examines the limitations of our study.
18 F. SCHULZE AND P. DALLASEGA
Furthermore, the implications for research and practitioners
are outlined.
In Table 8 we combine the common loss categories in the
ETO sector with the Lean implementation barriers described
in section 4. Thus, we propose a framework ‘of barriers to
Lean implementation in Engineer-to-Order manufacturing
with subsequent Assembly On-Site’. To underpin the barrier
categorisation and their fitness to the Lean methods we
used stated facts from the literature.
Practitioners can use the framework as a tool that guides
them in the implementation of Lean methods to reduce the
traditional losses in companies with an ETO fulfilment strat-
egy while considering important Lean implementation bar-
riers. Scholars have suggested several barriers to implement
Lean in the general manufacturing environment. However,
comprehensive studies on barriers to Lean implementation
for non-repetitive environments, like ETO, could not be
found in our research. The literature indicates that barriers to
Lean implementation in ETO are not studied entirely
(Tomasevic, Slovic, and Stojanovic 2016; Danese, Manfe, and
Romano 2018; Singh and Singh 2020).
A high degree of customisation, complex product struc-
tures, and the overlapping of manufacturing and engineering
activities can be considered important characteristics of the
ETO industry (Strandhagen, Semini, and Alfnes 2019). ETO
firms attempt to adopt Lean strategies and methods to min-
imise or reverse the resulting productivity losses and wastes
and improve the degree of industrialisation in their organisa-
tion (Matt and Rauch 2014). As indicated in this article,
obstacles in implementing Lean have various roots, linked to
organisation, management, knowledge, culture, finances, as
well as non-context related causes. The framework consists
of three major sections. First, the categorisation of traditional
losses in ETO environments. Second, the corresponding Lean
methods that can lessen these losses. And third, the poten-
tial implementation barriers clustered in barrier groups and
barrier subgroups. The barrier subgroups were developed to
better distinguish and understand the limits of Lean meth-
ods in mitigating traditional losses.
Regarding the losses caused by obstructions with other
trades, a lack of standardisation in the implementation pro-
cess for LPS has been cited most in the analysed works.
Dallasega, Marengo, and Revolti (2021) remark that LPS often
is difficult to implement in construction companies due to a
lack of training and commitment. Considering the Lean
methods Pull scheduling as well as LBMS no evidence in the
literature was found that suggests explicit barriers in their
implementation in companies with an ETO manufactur-
ing strategy.
IPD, as one of the main Lean methods used to lessen
problems caused by the customer, faces several implementa-
tion barriers. A lack of proper organisational structures
(Haque, Pawar, and Barson 2003), employees’ resistance to
change (Kim et al. 2016), as well as lack of knowledge
(Forero et al. 2015) were mentioned. The fear to change in
the workforce is rooted in the fear of the unknown and fear
of failure and generally is a reoccurring barrier to various
Lean methods in ETO firms.
Losses caused by the Engineering department can be
mitigated by applying VSM. Several authors (Matt and Rauch
2014; Chouiraf and Chafi 2018; Buer, Strandhagen, and Chan
2018) that studied Lean applications in the ETO environment
found that tools and methods that work in repetitive settings
do not work in the non-repetitive environment or face sig-
nificant challenges when implemented there. This applies to
the VSM method which is limited by its static behaviour
(Lugert, Batz, and Winkler 2018), lack of viable economic
measures (Chouiraf and Chafi 2018), and lack of procedures
for managing barriers (Marodin and Saurin 2015). The identi-
fied obstacles fall into the knowledge and non-context spe-
cific related barriers, which describe the lack of adaption of
VSM to the ETO settings.
Concerning losses caused by the Project Management
department, LPS, as well as Prefabrication and
Modularisation, are two known Lean tools. The literature
revealed a lack of process reliability as the main implementa-
tion barrier for Prefabrication and Modularisation. As pointed
out by Wesz, Formoso, and Tzortzopoulos (2018), this is due
to the circumstance that often decisions regarding engineer-
ing capacity, price, and lead-time, as well as demand forecast
are made under uncertainties in the ETO sector. Other identi-
fied barriers in the adoption of Prefabrication and
Modularisation are high costs, lack of knowledge, as well as
supply chain specific challenges, such as missing storage
areas, high transportation, and logistics efforts (Leu and
Ashoka 2019; Stoettrup et al. 2019).
The Lean methods JIT, as well as Kaizen that are often
used to mitigate losses in fabrication, are hindered by a lack
of process reliability as well as lack of standardisation of the
implementation process. JIT as well as Kanban are difficult to
implement in ETO and construction environments (Sanders,
Elangeswaran, and Wulfsberg 2016; Dallasega et al. 2019)
due to supply chain reasons such as incomplete status of
shipped goods or unexpected delays, as well as due to com-
plex and non-repetitive production characteristics of ETO.
Rossini et al. (2019) point out that a systemised framework
for implementing Kaizen is missing. Similarly, Amrani, Ducq,
and Goetz (2016) highlight in their research that there is no
clear, standardised, simple framework for manufacturers to
implement Lean also considering sector-specific barriers. This
is a key issue that was repeatedly found in different works
(Marodin and Saurin 2015; Tezel, Koskela, and Aziz 2018;
Jamil et al. 2018; Rossini et al. 2019; Dallasega, Marengo, and
Revolti 2021) which makes it difficult for ETO firms to imple-
ment Lean as a system adapted to their specific ETO relevant
characteristics.
Losses caused directly by the Assembly On-Site can be
mitigated by Kaizen, Kanban, Prefabrication and
Modularisation, VM, and VSM. Each of these methods faces
various implementation barriers. These include the lack of
process reliability, lack of Lean adaption, lack of training, and
know-how, as well as lack of financial resources and quanti-
tative measurement indicators. Our SLR reveals that the
majority of studies are focussed on Lean manufacturing,
Lean construction, and Lean in mass manufacturing or
repetitive environments. Therefore, the barrier ‘lack of Lean

adaption’ is due to the limited or rather non-existent studies
describing how Lean methods can be adapted from repeti-
tive to the non-repetitive environment.
The barriers of ‘fragmented implementation’ as well as ‘lack
of standardisation’ are reported by Amaro, Alves, and Sousa
(2019) who show that SMEs face various difficulties in imple-
menting Lean in their organisation. The main finding is that
standard processes or frameworks for Lean implementation
are missing. Similarly, Babalola, Ibem, and Ezema (2019) who
systematically analysed how a lack of systemisation and cat-
egorisation influence Lean practices in construction, con-
cluded that a lack of understanding regarding Lean tools due
to missing classification and frameworks for Lean construction
implementations are the key barriers in numerous countries.
Correspondingly, Aslam, Gao, and Smith (2020) come to a
similar conclusion, that full standardisation in the construction
industry may not be feasible but emphasise that a basic
standardisation and adjustment of basic Lean methods and
tools is possible. ETO firms have difficulties in adopting Lean
methods and tools due to missing standards and guidelines
and are therefore behind compared to the general manufac-
turing sector. The obstacle ‘lack of know-how’ is confirmed by
Tezel, Koskela, and Aziz (2018) who found that because of a
lack of know-how, Lean tools such as LPS and VM are only
partially implemented and therefore companies cannot reap
full benefits of them. Bhasin (2012) found that cost is the big-
gest hindrance for smaller companies, and insufficiently skilled
workforces are major barriers for medium and large-sized
organisations. This shows that implementation barriers
depend on various factors, such as company size, and industry
type.
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are very com-
mon in the ETO sector (Little et al. 2000). They have the
advantages of the involvement of top management in day-
to-day events, a more informal structure and organisational
culture which fosters interdisciplinary exchange, and smaller
teams that benefit efficient decision-making. But ETO compa-
nies need to carefully consider their most common disadvan-
tages when trying to implement Lean into their organisation.
These are a lack of resources, lack of training, shortage of
staff, as well as lack of resources for external support (Dora,
Kumar, and Gellynck 2016).
Summing up, the review found that despite the ongoing
and comprehensive research on Lean manufacturing, there is
a lack of research addressing the particularities and chal-
lenges of implementing Lean to the ETO environment. As
described before, Lean tools need to be adapted to the spe-
cific needs of ETO companies. To the best of our knowledge,
a framework that lists Lean implementation barriers with trad-
itional losses of ETO companies with subsequent assembly
on-site is missing. This work is an attempt to bridge this gap.
5.1. Limitations of the review
One of the limitations of our research is that we considered
only Scopus as our scientific reference database. We decided to
use Scopus as our main database because it covers a consider-
ably larger number of published articles than its counterparts
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 19
(Guz and Rushchitsky 2009; Chadegani et al. 2013; Aghimien
et al. 2019). Using one accessible database helped us also to
reduce the problem of duplication of extracted articles.
Another limitation is that our work includes only scientific
publications in the form of journal and conference papers,
while books, reports, manuscripts, and trade journals were
excluded. Moreover, practical works published in online mag-
azines, newspapers, and reports were also not considered.
Journal papers were considered because of their usually
peer-reviewed content and conference papers because of
potential new findings.
To obtain confirmation of practice regarding the results
from the SLR further empirical investigations should be per-
formed. Lean implementation barriers may vary from country
to country, the work culture of the organisation, and geo-
graphic location within the country.
More in detail, if we did not find a publication citing a
barrier for a particular methodology, then it does not mean
that this methodology does not have such an implementa-
tion barrier.
In conclusion, in our research, we focussed just on Lean
methods. New technologies from Industry 4.0 like Mixed
Reality, which could have high potential to mitigate loss cat-
egories and overcome traditional Lean implementation bar-
riers were not considered in our research.
5.2. Implications for practitioners and further research
The framework displayed in Table 8 can be used as a starting
point for practitioners aiming to investigate how to lessen
the traditional losses in ETO organisations by choosing the
appropriate Lean methods and considering at the same time
important implementation barriers.
In contrast to previous studies on Lean barriers in manu-
facturing, the barriers were linked to the traditional losses
occurring in the ETO industry.
Since the barriers are organised in groups and sub-
groups, ETO firms are also able to identify the main obstacles
for implementing Lean into their organisation. For example,
Knowledge related barriers are sub-grouped into missing
know-how and training, as well as missing quantitative meas-
urement indicators. Therefore, the framework can be applied
as an assessment tool for companies wishing to imple-
ment Lean.
ETO companies that wish to pursue a step by step imple-
mentation process, which gradually introduces these Lean
methods over time, are searching in vain for such a frame-
work. Implementing Lean from repetitive environments to
the low repetition frequency of customised products with
high variance is very challenging and was often limited to
only simple processes (Matt and Rauch 2014). In order to be
effective in non-repetitive environments, Lean tools and
practices must be adapted, but this proves to be very chal-
lenging since various barriers have been described in section
4. Practitioners and managers can apply the results from our
research in their organisation, for example, to reduce losses
caused directly by the Assembly On-Site. Here, a company
could implement VM to address typical losses like a lack of
20 F. SCHULZE AND P. DALLASEGA
tools on-site, searching of materials or tools, failure of mater-
ial handling systems, or installation errors. However, the suc-
cessful implementation of VM is often impeded due to
various barriers such as insufficient training of the workforce,
unstandardised and fragmented implementation, as well as a
lack of clarity in quantifying the benefits of VM.
Considering future research directions, the following
points are suggested:
i. It is paramount to validate the in this study analysed
barriers to Lean adoption through empirical validation
such as questionnaire surveys, expert interviews, focus
groups, as well as case studies. Eventually, other (poten-
tial) barriers may be identified that were not studied in
the literature so far but could pose challenges to
ETO companies.
ii. Further research on these Lean barriers for ETO may
lead to a roadmap for successful adaption/adoption for
both Lean practitioners and researchers. Instead of
focussing solely on tools, a roadmap could explore best
practices, strategies, and tactics for firms in the ETO
industry to support the adaption of Lean methods in
specific scenarios.
iii. In addition, further implementation strategies to miti-
gate the identified barriers of the described Lean meth-
ods can be developed to implement them in the ETO
context successfully and sustainably. One possible way
of implementing Lean is through integration with other
approaches to overcome barriers (Hines, Holweg, and
Rich 2004; Bhamu and Sangwan 2014). These could
include Agile as well as Project Management methodol-
ogies (Tomasevic et al. 2020). Further, the interrelation-
ship of Lean implementation barriers could be explored.
Lean implementation barriers in one area could affect
the barriers in another area. For example, insufficient
training, as well as a lack of top management commit-
ment, can lead to higher resistance of workers in adopt-
ing Lean methods (see Table 8).
iv. Additionally, new tools could be developed, or existing
ones could be adapted to overcome the barriers to
Lean implementation in ETO companies. Considering
the adaption strategy, for example standardisation as a
basic Lean method could be implemented in the ETO
environment, even if it is challenging as mentioned in
the literature (Birkie and Trucco 2016).
v. New technologies from Industry 4.0 may have the
potential to mitigate losses in ETO firms with assembly
on-site by overcoming the identified Lean implementa-
tion barriers. Some authors (Sanders, Elangeswaran, and
Wulfsberg 2016; Strandhagen et al. 2018) have already
started to link Lean and Industry 4.0, intending to iden-
tify if Lean supports the implementation of Industry 4.0
or vice versa while considering influencing factors, bar-
riers, and challenges. For example, barriers in the JIT
implementation like a lack of process reliability could be
mitigated by the use of continuous product tracking
systems using radio-frequency identification devices
(RFID). Also, Industry 4.0 tools such as the Internet of
Things (IoT), Building Information Modelling (BIM) as
well as Augmented and Mixed Reality (AR/MR) could
help to overcome insufficient information management
between suppliers, manufacturers, and customers due
to easier and faster communication of up-to-date infor-
mation (Sanders, Elangeswaran, and Wulfsberg 2016).
Pereira et al. (2019) found in their research how
Industry 4.0 can enhance Lean practices by using Cyber-
Physical Systems (CPS) and Internet of Things (IoT).
These technologies could potentially expand Lean by
enabling access to real-time operational data that could
be used to properly track materials in the supply chain
and inventory, supporting pull scheduling, continuous
flow of production, and decentralised decision making
(Sanders, Elangeswaran, and Wulfsberg 2016). The
hypothesis that Industry 4.0 technologies could reduce
Lean implementation barriers should be empiric-
ally validated.
vi. If the hypothesis in (v) is confirmed, then research
should answer how Industry 4.0 technologies could
mitigate barriers to Lean implementation.
6. Conclusion and outlook
ETO manufacturing with subsequent assembly on-site is
characterised by complicated product variants, multi-level
activities, as well as customer involvement in design and
engineering (Seth and Rastogi 2019). The resulting complex-
ity is often met by firms with the introduction of Lean meth-
ods aiming to reduce the occurring inefficiencies and
productivity losses.
There is comprehensive literature available on Lean manu-
facturing and its specific implementation barriers and chal-
lenges, but existing research lacks attention to the ETO
environment. Many scholars have analysed the obstacles to
adopting Lean in the repetitive manufacturing environment,
in different industry settings and countries. However, our
findings show that no one, in particular, has explored specif-
ically implementation barriers for ETO firms. Therefore, in the
literature discussed obstacles of Lean adoption for repetitive
manufacturing only allow for partial conclusions to be drawn
for the non-repetitive environments. Consequently, our
research focussed on the specific barriers to Lean implemen-
tation in the ETO sector.
A systematic literature review was conducted to identify
the barriers to Lean implementation in ETO companies with
subsequent assembly on-site. These barriers are clustered
and linked to traditional losses in ETO companies as well as
Lean methods that can be applied to mitigate these losses.
Seven major clusters resulted from our review related to
organisation, management, knowledge, culture, finance, cus-
tomer, and non-context specific related Lean implementa-
tion barriers.
Organisational related barriers deal mainly with the lack
of a supportive organisational culture for Lean while man-
agement related obstacles encompass limited management
commitment. Insufficient know-how and training of Lean
methods are at the core of knowledge related

implementation barriers. Cultural related barriers include
employee involvement and culture change in the organisa-
tion. A lack of sufficient resources as well as not seeing a dir-
ect financial advantage of the implemented Lean methods
are the main issues regarding financial related barriers. Non-
context-specific barriers involve a lack of Lean implementa-
tion standardisation as well as the poor adaptability of Lean
methods from repetitive to non-repetitive environments.
In their endeavour to improve performances, practitioners
would benefit from a framework when implementing practi-
ces and methods from Lean that considers the specific
implementation barriers in the ETO setting. However, such a
distinct, standardised, simple framework for producers to
implement Lean which also considers sector distinct barriers,
is still missing (Amrani, Ducq, and Goetz 2016).
Therefore, we propose a framework that maps the identi-
fied implementation barriers to the corresponding Lean
methods and traditional loss categories of ETO companies
that deliver and install products to the customer’s site. The
framework may serve as a starting point for the development
of practical guidelines for adopting Lean to the ETO environ-
ment. The results of this article can support ETO companies
to assess the implementation of certain Lean methods in
their organisation.
Further research should validate the proposed framework.
First, by empirical investigations, the proposed Lean imple-
mentation barriers should be validated where potentially
others not studied so far in the literature could emerge.
Second, a roadmap for successful Lean implementation for
companies in the ETO industry should be developed. Third,
advanced adaption strategies and practices which assist in
reducing the existing Lean implementation barriers should
be developed and validated in the ETO context. Fourth, the
development of new tools and methods to overcome Lean
implementation barriers in ETO firms could be explored.
Fifth, it should be investigated if and how new technologies
and concepts from Industry 4.0 could support to overcome
the identified Lean implementation barriers in ETO manufac-
turing with subsequent assembly on-site.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Felix Schulze Is a PhD candidate in the PhD program
‘Advanced Systems Engineering’ at the Faculty of
Science and Technology of the Free University of
Bolzano (Italy). He received his Master of Engineering
degree at the Beuth University of Applied Sciences
in Berlin (Germany). For ten years he worked as a
professional in the automotive, construction and
Engineer-to-Order industries in various countries and
positions. His research activities mainly concern the
application of Industry 4.0 technologies to Engineer-to-Order and con-
struction environments.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 21
Patrick Dallasega is an Assistant Professor of Factory
Planning and Project Management at the Faculty of
Science and Technology of the Free University of
Bolzano (Italy). He studied at the Free University of
Bolzano (Italy), at the Polytechnic University of Turin
(Italy) and got his PhD at the University of Stuttgart
(Germany). He was Visiting Scholar at the Excellence
Centre in Logistics and Supply Chain Management
Chiang Mai University (Thailand) and at the
Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts (USA). His main
research interests are in, supply chain management, Industry 4.0, lean
construction, lean manufacturing and production planning and control
in MTO and ETO enterprises.
References
Abu, F., H. Gholami, M. Z. Mat Saman, N. Zakuan, and D. Streimikiene.
2019. “The Implementation of Lean Manufacturing in the Furniture
Industry: A Review and Analysis on the Motives, Barriers, Challenges,
and the Applications.” Journal of Cleaner Production 234: 660–680.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.279.
Aghimien, D., A. Oke, C. Aigbavboa, and C. Musenga. 2019. “Drivers of
Sustainable Construction Practices in the Zambian Construction
Industry.” Energy Procedia 158 (1): 3246–3252. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.
2019.01.995.
Alfnes, E., M. K. Thomassen, and E. Gran. 2016. “A Framework for Lean
Flow in Turbulent High-Variety Low-Volume Manufacturing
Environments.” IFIP Advances in Information and Communication
Technology 488: 935–942. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-51133-7_110.
Amaro, P., A. C. Alves, and R. M. Sousa. 2019. “Lean Thinking: A
Transversal and Global Management Philosophy to Achieve
Sustainability Benefit.” Lean Engineering for Global Development
Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-13515-7.
American Institute of Architects. 2007. “Integrated Project Delivery: A
Guide”. http://www.aia.org/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiab083423.pdf.
Amrani, A., Y. Ducq, and C. Goetz. 2016. “Analyzing the Lean
Manufacturing Challenges to Sustain Flexible Aeronautic Industry.” In
ILS 2016 – 6th International Conference on Information Systems,
Logistics and Supply Chain, 1: 1–8. Bordeaux, France.
Amrani, A., and Y. Ducq. 2020. “Lean Practices Implementation in
Aerospace Based on Sector Characteristics: Methodology and Case
Study.” Production Planning and Control 31 (16): 1313–1335. doi:10.
1080/09537287.2019.1706197.
Clarivate Analytics. 2020. “Journal Citation Reports”. Clarivate Analytics.
https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/journal-citation-
reports/
Arend, R. J., and J. D. Wisner. 2005. “Small Business and Supply Chain
Management: Is There a Fit?” Journal of Business Venturing 20 (3):
403–436. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.11.003.
Aslam, M., Z. Gao, and G. Smith. 2020. “Exploring Factors for
Implementing Lean Construction for Rapid Initial Successes in
Construction.” Journal of Cleaner Production 277: 123295. doi:10.1016/
j.jclepro.2020.123295.
Aziz, R. F., and S. M. Hafez. 2013. “Applying Lean Thinking in
Construction and Performance Improvement.” Alexandria Engineering
Journal 52 (4): 679–695. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2013.04.008.
Babalola, O., E. O. Ibem, and I. C. Ezema. 2019. “Implementation of Lean
Practices in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Review.” Building
and Environment 148: 34–43. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.10.051.
Ballard, H. G. 2000. “The Last Planner System of Production Control”.
Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Birmingham.
Basu, P., and P. K. Dan. 2020. “A Comprehensive Study of Manifests in
Lean Manufacturing Implementation and Framing an Administering
Model.” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 11 (4): 797–820. doi:
10.1108/IJLSS-11-2017-0131.
Bayhan, H. G., S. Demirkesen, and E. Jayamanne. 2019. “Enablers and
Barriers of Lean Implementation in Construction Projects.” IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 471 (2): 022002.
doi:10.1088/1757-899X/471/2/022002.
22 F. SCHULZE AND P. DALLASEGA
Behnam, D., A. Ayough, and S. H. Mirghaderi. 2018. “Value Stream
Mapping Approach and Analytical Network Process to Identify and
Prioritize Production System’s Mudas (Case Study: Natural Fibre
Clothing Manufacturing Company).” The Journal of the Textile Institute
109 (1): 64–72. doi:10.1080/00405000.2017.1322737.
Belkadi, S., I. Cherti, and M. Bahaj. 2019. “The Barriers to Lean
Implementation in This New Industrial Context.” Advances in
Intelligent Systems and Computing 913 (January): 214–221. doi:10.
1007/978-3-030-11881-5_18.
Berger, A. 1997. “Continuous Improvement and Kaizen: Standardization
and Organizational Designs.” Integrated Manufacturing Systems 8 (2):
110–117. doi:10.1108/09576069710165792.
Bhamu, J., and K. S. Sangwan. 2014. “Lean Manufacturing: Literature
Review and Research Issues.” International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 34 (7): 876–940. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-08-2012-
0315.
Bhasin, S. 2008. “Lean and Performance Measurement.” Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management 19 (5): 670–684. doi:10.1108/
17410380810877311.
Bhasin, S. 2012. “Prominent Obstacles to Lean.” International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 61 (4): 403–425. doi:10.
1108/17410401211212661.
Birkie, S. E., and P. Trucco. 2016. “Understanding Dynamism and
Complexity Factors in Engineer-to-Order and Their Influence on Lean
Implementation Strategy.” Production Planning & Control 27 (5):
345–359. doi:10.1080/09537287.2015.1127446.
€hm, A. 2004. “Theoretical Coding: Text Analysis in Grounded Theory.”
Bo
In A Companion to Qualitative Research (vol. 1), 270–275.
Boland, A., G. Cherry, and R. Dickson. 2017. Doing a Systematic Review: A
Student’s Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Booth, A., A. Sutton, and D. Papaioannou. 2016. Systematic Approaches to
a Successful Literature Review. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bortolotti, T., P. Danese, and P. Romano. 2013. “Assessing the Impact of
Just-in-Time on Operational Performance at Varying Degrees of
Repetitiveness.” International Journal of Production Research 51 (4):
1117–1130. doi:10.1080/00207543.2012.678403.
Brady, D. A., P. Tzortzopoulos, J. Rooke, C. T. Formoso, and A. Tezel.
2018. “Improving Transparency in Construction Management: A Visual
Planning and Control Model.” Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management 25 (10): 1277–1297. doi:10.1108/ECAM-07-
2017-0122.
Braglia, M., G. Carmignani, and F. Zammori. 2006. “A New Value Stream
Mapping Approach for Complex Production Systems.” International
Journal of Production Research 44 (18–19): 3929–3952. doi:10.1080/
00207540600690545.
Braglia, M., M. Frosolini, M. Gallo, and L. Marrazzini. 2019. “Lean
Manufacturing Tool in Engineer-to-Order Environment: Project Cost
Deployment.” International Journal of Production Research 57 (6):
1825–1839. doi:10.1080/00207543.2018.1508905.
Braglia, M., P. Dallasega, and L. Marrazzini. 2020. “Overall Construction
Productivity: A New Lean Metric to Identify Construction Losses and
Analyse Their Causes in Engineer-to-Order Construction Supply
Chains.” Production Planning and Control 0 (0): 1–18. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2020.1837931.
Braglia, M., R. Gabbrielli, and L. Marrazzini. 2019. “Overall Task
Effectiveness: A New Lean Performance Indicator in Engineer-to-Order
Environment.” International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management 68 (2): 407–422. doi:10.1108/IJPPM-05-2018-0192.
Breuer, H., and F. Steinhoff. 2010. “Grounded Innovation–A Research
Approach for the Fuzzy Front End of Innovation Management.”
In Proceedings of BAI International Conference on Business and
Innovation, Kitakyushu, Japan (vol. 7). ISSN 1729-9322.
Brox, J. A., and C. Fader. 2002. “The Set of Just-in-Time Management
Strategies: An Assessment of Their Impact on Plant-Level Productivity
and Input-Factor Substitutability Using Variable Cost Function
Estimates.” International Journal of Production Research 40 (12):
2705–2720. doi:10.1080/00207540210137657.
Buer, S. V., J. O. Strandhagen, and F. T. S. Chan. 2018. “The Link between
Industry 4.0 and Lean Manufacturing: Mapping Current Research and
Establishing a Research Agenda.” International Journal of Production
Research 56 (8): 2924–2940. doi:10.1080/00207543.2018.1442945.
Cagliano, R., F. Caniato, R. Golini, A. Longoni, and E. Micelotta. 2011.
“The Impact of Country Culture on the Adoption of New Forms of
Work Organization.” International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 31 (3): 297–323. doi:10.1108/01443571111111937.
Cano, S., J. Delgado, L. Botero, and O. Rubiano. 2015. “Barriers and
Success Factors in Lean Construction’s Implementation – Survey in
Pilot Context.” In Proc. 23rd Ann. Conf. of the Int’l. Group for Lean
Construction. Perth, Australia, July 29–31, pp. 631–641. Available at
www.iglc.net
Chadegani, A., H. Salehi, M. Yunus, H. Farhadi, M. Fooladi, M. Farhadi,
and N. Ale Ebrahim. 2013. “A Comparison between Two Main
Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus
Databases.” Asian Social Science 9 (5): 18–26. https://ssrn.com/
abstract=2257540.
Cheng, R., and A. Johnson. 2016. “Motivation and Means: How and Why
IPD and Lean Lead to Success.” conservancy.umn.edu.
Cherrafi, A., S. Elfezazi, J. A. Garza-Reyes, K. Benhida, and A. Mokhlis.
2017. “Barriers in Green Lean Implementation: A Combined
Systematic Literature Review and Interpretive Structural Modelling
Approach.” Production Planning & Control 28 (10): 829–842. doi:10.
1080/09537287.2017.1324184.
Cho, S., and G. Ballard. 2011. “Last Planner and Integrated Project
Delivery.” Lean Construction Journal 1: 67–78.
Chouiraf, F., and A. Chafi. 2018. “Adaptation of the Value Stream
Mapping (VSM) for the Moroccan Artisanal Enterprise.” In Colloquium
in Information Science and Technology, 124–129, CIST 2018-Oct. New
York, USA: IEEE. doi:10.1109/CIST.2018.8596624.
Claycomb, C., C. Dro €ge, and R. Germain. 1999. “The Effect of Just-in-Time
with Customers on Organizational Design and Performance.” The
International Journal of Logistics Management 10 (1): 37–58. doi:10.
1108/09574099910805923.
Dallasega, P., and E. Rauch. 2017. “Sustainable Construction Supply
Chains through Synchronized Production Planning and Control in
Engineer-to-Order Enterprises.” Sustainability 9 (10): 1888. doi:10.3390/
su9101888.
Dallasega, P., E. Marengo, and A. Revolti. 2021. “Strengths and
Shortcomings of Methodologies for Production Planning and Control
of Construction Projects: A Systematic Literature Review and Future
Perspectives.” Production Planning and Control 32 (4): 1–26. doi:10.
1080/09537287.2020.1725170.
Dallasega, P., E. Rauch, and M. Frosolini. 2018. “A Lean Approach for
Real-Time Planning and Monitoring in Engineer-to-Order Construction
Projects.” Buildings 8 (3): 38. doi:10.3390/buildings8030038.
Dallasega, P., R. A. Rojas, G. Bruno, and E. Rauch. 2019. “An Agile
Scheduling and Control Approach in ETO Construction Supply
Chains.” Computers in Industry 112: 103122. doi:10.1016/j.compind.
2019.08.003.
Danese, P., V. Manf e, and P. Romano. 2018. “A Systematic Literature
Review on Recent Lean Research: State-of-the-Art and Future
Directions.” International Journal of Management Reviews 20 (2):
579–605. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12156.
Dekkers, R., C. M. Chang, and J. Kreutzfeldt. 2013. “The Interface between
Product Design and Engineering and Manufacturing: A Review of the
Literature and Empirical Evidence.” International Journal of Production
Economics 144 (1): 316–333. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.02.020.
Demirkesen, S., and H. G. Bayhan. 2019. “Critical Success Factors of Lean
Implementation in the Construction Industry.” IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management 1: 1–17. doi:10.1109/TEM.2019.2945018.
Denyer, D., and D. Tranfield. 2009. “Producing a Systematic Review.” In
The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, edited by
D. A. Buchanan and A. Bryman, 671–689. London, UK: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Dominici, G., and F. Palumbo. 2013. “Decoding the Japanese Lean
Production System according to a Viable Systems Perspective.”
Systemic Practice and Action Research 26 (2): 153–171. doi:10.1007/
s11213-012-9242-z.
Dora, M., M. Kumar, and X. Gellynck. 2016. “Determinants and Barriers to
Lean Implementation in Food-Processing SMEs – a Multiple Case

Analysis.” Production Planning & Control 27 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2015.1050477.
Equit, C., and C. Hohage. 2016. “Ausgew€ahlte Entwicklungen Und
Konfliktlinien Der Grounded-Theory-Methodologie.” In Handbuch
Grounded Theory. Von Der Methodologie Zur Forschungspraxis,
9–46. Weinheim Basel, Schweiz: Beltz Verlag.
Erthal, A., and L. Marques. 2018. “National Culture and Organisational
Culture in Lean Organisations: A Systematic Review.” Production
Planning & Control 29 (8): 668–687. doi:10.1080/09537287.2018.
1455233.
European Commission. 2020. “Internet Market, Industry,
Entrepreneurship and SMEs.” https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/
mechanical-engineering_en.
Excellence in Research for Australia. 2018. “ERA Conference Rating.”
https://www.arc.gov.au/excellence-research-australia.
Famiyeh, S., C. T. Amoatey, E. Adaku, and C. S. Agbenohevi. 2017. “Major
Causes of Construction Time and Cost Overruns: A Case of Selected
Educational Sector Projects in Ghana.” Journal of Engineering, Design
and Technology 15 (2): 181–198. doi:10.1108/JEDT-11-2015-0075.
Forero, S., S. Cardenas, H. Vargas, and C. Garcia. 2015. “A Deeper Look
into the Perception and Disposition to Integrated Project Delivery
(IPD) in Colombia.” In Proceedings of IGLC 23–23rd Annual Conference
of the International Group for Lean Construction: Global Knowledge-
Global Solutions, 297–306. Perth, Australia: IGLC.
Freeland, J. R. 1991. “A Survey of Just-in-Time Purchasing Practices in
the United States.” Production and Inventory Management Journal 32
(2): 43.
Fukushima, K. 2000. “Defining ‘Pull Scheduling.’” In Bulletin of the
Department of Economics (vol. 1), pp. 35–36.
Galsworth, G. D. 1997. Visual Systems: Harnessing the Power of the Visual
Workplace, 320. New York: American Management Association.
Gepp, M., M. Foehr, and J. Vollmar. 2016. “Standardization,
Modularization and Platform Approaches in the Engineer-to-Order
Business – Review and Outlook.” In 2016 Annual IEEE Systems
Conference (SysCon), 287–301. Orlando, USA: IEEE. doi:10.1109/
SYSCON.2016.7490549.
Godinho Filho, M., G. M. D. Ganga, and A. Gunasekaran. 2016. “Lean
Manufacturing in Brazilian Small and Medium Enterprises:
Implementation and Effect on Performance.” International Journal of
Production Research 54 (24): 7523–7545. doi:10.1080/00207543.2016.
1201606.
Gupta, S., and S. K. Jain. 2013. “A Literature Review of Lean
Manufacturing.” International Journal of Management Science and
Engineering Management 8 (4): 241–249. doi:10.1080/17509653.2013.
825074.
Guz, A. N., and J. J. Rushchitsky. 2009. “On the Problem of Evaluation of
Scientific Publications.” International Applied Mechanics 45 (3):
233–244. doi:1063-7095/09/4503-0233.
Hame, N. B. M., T. O. Kowang, and G. C. Fei. 2017. “Categorization of
Lean Research and Development Tools and Techniques: A Process-
Based Approach.” Indian Journal of Science and Technology 10 (3),
1–7. doi:10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i3/110643.
Haque, B., K. S. Pawar, and R. J. Barson. 2003. “The Application of
Business Process Modelling to Organisational Analysis of Concurrent
Engineering Environments.” Technovation 23 (2): 147–162. doi:10.
1016/S0166-4972(01)00103-1.
Hermes, M. 2015. “Prefabrication & Modularization as a Part of Lean
Construction -Status Quo in Germany.” In Proceedings of IGLC 23 –
23rd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction: Global Knowledge – Global Solutions, 2015-Janua,
235–245. Perth, Australia: IGLC.
Hines, P., M. Holweg, and N. Rich. 2004. “Learning to Evolve: A Review of
Contemporary Lean Thinking.” International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 24 (10): 994–1011. doi:10.1108/
01443570410558049.
Ho, S. 1993. “Transplanting Japanese Management Techniques.” Long
Range Planning 26 (4): 81–89. doi:10.1016/0024-6301(93)90061-J.
Hussain, K., Z. He, N. Ahmad, M. Iqbal, and T. S. M. Mumtaz. 2019.
“Green, Lean, Six Sigma Barriers at a Glance: A Case from the
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 23
Construction Sector of Pakistan.” Building and Environment 161:
106225. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106225.
Institute, Construction Industry. 2005. “Lean Principles in Construction.”
Research Summary. https://www.construction-institute.org/resources/
knowledgebase/knowledge-areas/general-cii-information/topics/rt-191.
Jadhav, J., S. Mantha, and S. Rane. 2014. “Exploring Barriers in Lean
Implementation.” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 5 (2):
122–148. doi:10.1108/IJLSS-12-2012-0014.
Jamil, S., B. Xia, S. Fawzia, A. Karim, and A. Olanipekun. 2018. “Barriers to
Implementing Lean Construction Practices in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabian (KSA) Construction Industry.” World Development 1 (1): 1–15.
doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.012.
Jin, H. W., and T. L. Doolen. 2014. “A Comparison of Korean and US
Continuous Improvement Projects.” International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 63 (4): 384–405. doi:10.
1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0012.
Josephson, P. E., and L. Björkman. 2013. “Why Do Work Sampling
Studies in Construction? The Case of Plumbing Work in Scandinavia.”
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 20 (6):
589–603. doi:10.1108/ECAM-12-2011-0108.
Junker, B. 2010. “Kaizen for Improvement of Rapid Protein Production
for Early Reagent Protein Quantities.” Biochemical Engineering Journal
49 (3): 435–444. doi:10.1016/j.bej.2010.02.007.
Kalsaas, B. T., J. Skaar, and R. T. Thorstensen. 2016. “Pull vs. Push in
Construction Work Informed by Last Planner.” In 23rd Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,
103–112. Perth, Australia: IGLC.
Kattman, B., T. P. Corbin, L. E. Moore, and L. Walsh. 2012. “Visual
Workplace Practices Positively Impact Business Processes.”
Benchmarking: An International Journal 19 (3): 412–430. doi:10.1108/
14635771211243021.
Kaur, M., and R. Kaur. 2013. “Kaizen Costing Technique – a Literature
Review.” International Journal of Research in Commerce and
Management 4: 84–87.
Kenley, R., and O. Sepp€anen. 2006. Location-Based Management for
Construction: Planning, Scheduling and Control. Oxfordshire, England,
UK: Routledge.
Kim, Y. W., K. Rezqallah, H. W. Lee, and J. Angeley. 2016. “Integrated
Project Delivery in Public Projects: Limitations and Opportunity.” In
IGLC 2016 – 24th Annual Conference of the International Group for
Lean Construction, 93–102. Boston, USA: IGLC.
Kjersem, K.,. L. Lillebryg, and P. Kiekebos. 2015. “Implementing Lean in
Engineer-to-Order Industry: A Case Study.” IFIP 1: 248–255. doi:10.
1007/978-3-319-22759-7.
Kumar, R., and V. Kumar. 2014. “Barriers in Implementation of Lean
Manufacturing System in Indian Industry: A Survey.” International
Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology 4 (2): 243–251.
Leu, X., and K. Ashoka. 2019. “Supply Chain Management in
Prefabricated Construction: An Overview of a Developed Conceptual
Framework.” Journal of System and Management Sciences 9 (2): 43–79.
Li, S., Y. Fang, and X. Wu. 2020. “A Systematic Review of Lean
Construction in Mainland China.” Journal of Cleaner Production 257:
120581. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.
Liberati, A., D. G. Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, P. C. Gøtzsche, J. P. A.
Ioannidis, M. Clarke, P. J. Devereaux, J. Kleijnen, and D. Moher. 2009.
“The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-
Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions:
Explanation and Elaboration.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62 (10):
e1–e34. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006.
Liker, J. K., and J. M. Morgan. 2006. “The Toyota Way in Services: The
Case of Lean Product Development.” Academy of Management
Perspectives 20 (2): 5–20. doi:10.5465/amp.2006.20591002.
Liker, J. K. 2004. “The 14 Principles of the Toyota Way: An Executive
Summary of the Culture Behind TPS.” In The Toyota Way: 14
Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer, 35–41.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Little, D., R. Rollins, M. Peck, and J. K. Porter. 2000. “Integrated Planning
and Scheduling in the Engineer-to-Order Sector.” International Journal
of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 13 (6): 545–554. doi:10.1080/
09511920050195977.
24 F. SCHULZE AND P. DALLASEGA
Lodgaard, E., I. Gamme, S. Aschehoug, and J. A. Ingvaldsen. 2016.
“Barriers to Lean Implementation: Perceptions of Top Managers,
Middle Managers and Workers.” Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management 57 (2): 159–167. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.
11.033.
Lugert, A., A. Batz, and H. Winkler. 2018. “Empirical Assessment of the
Future Adequacy of Value Stream Mapping in Manufacturing
Industries.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 29 (5):
886–906. doi:10.1108/JMTM-11-2017-0236.
Luo, L.,. X. Jin, G. Q. Shen, Y. Wang, X. Liang, X. Li, and C. Z. Li. 2020.
“Supply Chain Management for Prefabricated Building Projects in
Hong Kong.” Journal of Management in Engineering 36 (2): 05020001.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000739.
Mano, A. P., S. E. Gouvea da Costa, and E. Pinheiro de Lima. 2020.
“Criticality Assessment of the Barriers to Lean Construction.”
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 70
(1): 65–86. doi:10.1108/IJPPM-11-2018-0413.
Marodin, G. A., and T. A. Saurin. 2014. “Managing Barriers to Lean
Production Implementation: Context Matters.” International Journal of
Production Research 53 (13): 3947–3962. doi:10.1080/00207543.2014.
980454.
Marodin, G. A., and T. A. Saurin. 2015. “Classification and Relationships
between Risks That Affect Lean Production Implementation: A Study
in Southern Brazil.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
26 (1): 57–79. doi:10.1108/JMTM-12-2012-0113.
Matt, D. T., and E. Rauch. 2014. “Implementing Lean in Engineerto-Order
Manufacturing: Experiences from a ETO Manufacturer.” Handbook of
Research on Design and Management of Lean Production Systems 1:
148–172. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5039-8.ch008.
Matthews, O., and G. A. Howell. 2005. “Integrated Project Delivery an
Example of Relational Contracting.” Lean Construction Journal 2 (1):
46–61.
McBurney, M. K., and P. L. Novak. 2002. ‘What Is Bibliometrics and Why
Should You Care?’ In IEEE International Professional Communication
Conference, 108–114. New York, USA: IEEE.
Mittal, V. K., R. Sindhwani, and P. K. Kapur. 2016. “Two-Way Assessment
of Barriers to Lean–Green Manufacturing System: Insights from India.”
International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and
Management 7 (4): 400–407. doi:10.1007/s13198-016-0461-z.
Mossman, A. 2018. “What Is Lean Construction: Another Look.” In 26th
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,
1240–1250. New York, USA: IGLC.
Murguıa, D., X. Brioso, and A. Pimentel. 2016. “Applying Lean Techniques
to Improve Performance in the Finishing Phase of a Residential
Building.” In IGLC 2016 – 24th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction, 43–52. New York, USA: IGLC
Okoli, C., and K. Schabram. 2010. A Guide to Conducting a Systematic
Literature Review of Information Systems Research. Sprouts: Working
Papers on Information Systems.
Omotayo, T. S., U. Kulatunga, and B. Bjeirmi. 2018. “Critical Success
Factors for Kaizen Implementation in the Nigerian Construction
Industry.” International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management 67 (9): 1816–1836. doi:10.1108/IJPPM-11-2017-0296.
Panizzolo, R., P. Garengo, M. K. Sharma, and A. Gore. 2012. “Lean
Manufacturing in Developing Countries: Evidence from Indian SMEs.”
Production Planning & Control 23 (10–11): 769–788. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2011.642155.
Pereira, A. C., J. Dinis-Carvalho, A. C. Alves, and P. Arezes. 2019. “How
Industry 4.0 Can Enhance Lean Practices.” FME Transactions 47 (4):
810–822. doi:10.5937/fmet1904810P.
Petticrew, M., and H. Roberts. 2008. Systematic Reviews in the Social
Sciences: A Practical Guide. New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Portioli-Staudacher, A., and M. Tantardini. 2012. “Lean Implementation in
Non-Repetitive Companies: A Survey and Analysis.” International
Journal of Services and Operations Management 11 (4): 385–406. doi:
10.1504/IJSOM.2012.046076.
Powell, D., J. O. Strandhagen, I. Tommelein, G. Ballard, and M. Rossi.
2014. “A New Set of Principles for Pursuing the Lean Ideal in
Engineer-to-Order Manufacturers.” Procedia CIRP 17: 571–576. doi:10.
1016/j.procir.2014.01.137.
Ratajczak, J., C. P. Schimanski, C. Marcher, M. Riedl, and D. T. Matt. 2017.
“Mobile Application for Collaborative Scheduling and Monitoring of
Construction Works According to Lean Construction Methods.” In
International Conference on Cooperative Design. Cham: Springer.
Ratajczak, J., M. Riedl, and D. T. Matt. 2019. “BIM-Based and AR
Application Combined with Location-Based Management System for
the Improvement of the Construction Performance.” Buildings 9 (5):
118. doi:10.3390/buildings9050118.
Rauch, E., M. Unterhofer, and P. Dallasega. 2018. “Industry Sector
Analysis for the Application of Additive Manufacturing in Smart and
Distributed Manufacturing Systems.” Manufacturing Letters 15:
126–131. doi:10.1016/j.mfglet.2017.12.011.
Rauch, E., P. Dallasega, and D. T. Matt. 2015. “Synchronization of
Engineering, Manufacturing and on-Site Installation in Lean ETO-
Enterprises’.” Procedia CIRP 37: 128–133. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2015.08.
047.
Rossini, M., F. Audino, F. Costa, F. D. Cifone, K. Kundu, and A. Portioli-
Staudacher. 2019. “Extending Lean Frontiers: A Kaizen Case Study in
an Italian MTO Manufacturing Company.” The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 104 (5–8): 1869–1888. doi:10.
1007/s00170-019-03990-x.
Salonitis, K., and C. Tsinopoulos. 2016. “Drivers and Barriers of Lean
Implementation in the Greek Manufacturing Sector.” Procedia CIRP 57:
189–194. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.033.
Sanders, A., C. Elangeswaran, and J. Wulfsberg. 2016. “Industry 4.0
Implies Lean Manufacturing: Research Activities in Industry 4.0
Function as Enablers for Lean Manufacturing.” Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management 9 (3): 811–833. doi:10.3926/jiem.1940.
Schimanski, C. P., G. P. Monizza, C. Marcher, and D. T. Matt. 2020.
“Conceptual Foundations for a New Lean BIM-Based Production
System in Construction.” In 27th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction, IGLC 2019, 877–888. doi:10.
24928/2019/0106.
Schulze, F., and P. Dallasega. 2020. “Industry 4.0 Concepts and Lean
Methods Mitigating Traditional Losses in Engineer-to-Order
Manufacturing with Subsequent Assembly on-Site: A Framework.”
Procedia Manufacturing 51: 1363–1370. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2020.10.
190.
Seth, D., and S. Rastogi. 2019. “Application of Vendor Rationalization
Strategy for Manufacturing Cycle Time Reduction in Engineer to
Order (ETO) Environment: A Case Study.” IFIP Advances in Information
and Communication Technology 18 (1): 1: 48–172. doi:10.1007/978-3-
030-30000-5_71.
Seth, D., N. Seth, and P. Dhariwal. 2017. “Application of Value Stream
Mapping (VSM) for Lean and Cycle Time Reduction in Complex
Production Environments: A Case Study.” Production Planning &
Control 28 (5): 398–419. doi:10.1080/09537287.2017.1300352.
Shanker, A., and K. Varghese. 2013. “Evaluation of Location Based
Management System in the Construction of Power Transmission and
Distribution Projects.” In ISARC. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction. Vol. 30. IAARC
Publications.
Singh, J., and H. Singh. 2020. “Application of Lean Manufacturing in
Automotive Manufacturing Unit.” International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma 11 (1): 171–210. doi:10.1108/IJLSS-06-2018-0060.
Sriram, P. K., E. Alfnes, and E. Arica. 2013. “A Concept for Project
Manufacturing Planning and Control for Engineer-to-Order
Companies.” IFIP Advances in Information and Communication
Technology 398 (PART 2): 699–706. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40361-3_89.
Stamm, M., and T. Neitzert. 2008. “Value Stream Mapping (VSM) in a
Manufacture-to-Order Small and Medium Enterprise.” In 3rd World
Conference on Production and Operations Management, Tokyo, Japan,
1–15. Tokyo, Japan: JOMSA.
Stoettrup, M., S. Larsen, S. M. Lindhard, and T. D. Brunoe. 2019. “Mass
Customization in the House Building Industry: Literature Review and
Research Directions.” Frontiers in Built Environment 5 (October): 1–12.
doi:10.3389/fbuil.2019.00115.
Strandhagen, J. W., L. R. Vallandingham, E. Alfnes, and J. O. Strandhagen.
2018. “Operationalizing Lean Principles for Lead Time Reduction in

Engineer-to-Order (ETO) Operations: A Case Study.” IFAC-PapersOnLine
51 (11): 128–133. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.246.
Strandhagen, S. V Buer, M. Semini, and E. Alfnes. 2019. “Digitalized
Manufacturing Logistics in Engineer-to-Order Operations.” In IFIP
Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 566:
579–587. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30000-5_71.
Tezel, A., and Z. Aziz. 2015. “Visual Controls at the Workface of Road
Construction and Maintenance: Preliminary Report.” http://eprints.hud.
ac.uk/id/eprint/29093/.
Tezel, A., and Z. Aziz. 2017. “Visual Management in Highways
Construction and Maintenance in England.” Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management 24 (3): 486–513. doi:10.1108/ECAM-02-
2016-0052.
Tezel, A., L. Koskela, and Z. Aziz. 2018. “Lean Thinking in the Highways
Construction Sector: Motivation, Implementation and Barriers.”
Production Planning & Control 29 (3): 247–269. doi:10.1080/09537287.
2017.1412522.
Tezel, A., L. Koskela, P. Tzortzopoulos, C. Torres, and T. Alves. 2015.
“Visual Management in Brazilian Construction Companies: Taxonomy
and Guidelines for Implementation.” Journal of Management in
Engineering 31: 1–18.
Tezel, A., M. Taggart, L. Koskela, P. Tzortzopoulos, J. Hanahoe, and M.
Kelly. 2020. “Lean Construction and BIM in Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises (SMEs) in Construction: A Systematic Literature Review.”
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 47 (2): 186–201. doi:10.1139/
cjce-2018-0408.
Tomasevic, I., D. Slovic, and D. Stojanovic. 2016. “Improving Efficiency of
Engineer-to-Order Operations through Lean Implementation:
Empirical Research.” In Symorg 2016 (vol. 1), 1036–1044. New York,
USA: IEEE. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5039-8.ch008.
Tomasevic, I., D. Stojanovic, D. Slovic, B. Simeunovic, and I. Jovanovic.
2020. “Lean in High-Mix/Low-Volume Industry: A Systematic Literature
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 25
Review.” Production Planning and Control 0 (0): 1–16. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2020.1782094.
Tranfield, D., D. Denyer, and P. Smart. 2003. “Towards a Methodology for
developing evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of
Systematic Review.” British Journal of Management 14 (3): 207–222.
doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Villar-Fidalgo, L., M. D. Espinosa Escudero, and M. Domınguez Somonte.
2019. “Applying Kaizen to the Schedule in a Concurrent
Environment.” Production Planning & Control 30 (8): 624–638. doi:10.
1080/09537287.2019.1566281.
Wesz, J. G. B., C. T. Formoso, and P. Tzortzopoulos. 2018. “Planning and
Controlling Design in Engineered-to-Order Prefabricated Building
Systems.” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 25
(2): 134–152. doi:10.1108/ECAM-02-2016-0045.
Wuni, I. Y., and G. Q. Shen. 2020. “Fuzzy Modelling of the Critical Failure
Factors for Modular Integrated Construction Projects.” Journal of
Cleaner Production 264: 121595. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121595.
Yadav, O. P., B. Nepal, P. S. Goel, R. Jain, and R. P. Mohanty. 2010.
“Insights and Learnings from Lean Manufacturing Implementation
Practices.” International Journal of Services and Operations
Management 6 (4): 398–422. doi:10.1504/IJSOM.2010.032916.
Yang, L. R. 2013. “Key Practices, Manufacturing Capability and
Attainment of Manufacturing Goals: The Perspective of Project/
Engineer-to-Order Manufacturing.” International Journal of Project
Management 31 (1): 109–125. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.03.005.
Yusup, M. Z., W. H. W. Mahmood, and M. R. Salleh. 2015. “Basic
Formation in Streamlining Lean Practices in Manufacturing Operations
– a Review.” International Journal of Advanced Operations
Management 7 (4): 255–273. doi:10.1504/IJAOM.2015.075024.
Zhang, L., B. E. Narkhede, and A. P. Chaple. 2017. “Evaluating Lean
Manufacturing Barriers: An Interpretive Process.” Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management 28 (8): 1086–1114. doi:10.
1108/JMTM-04-2017-0071.