Criteria For A Lean Organisation: Development of A Lean Assessment Tool

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/264090262
Criteria for a lean organisation: Development of a lean assessment tool
Article in International Journal of Production Research · August 2014

DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2013.879614
CITATIONS READS
214 5,795
2 authors, including:
Karen Moustafa Leonard

University of Arkansas at Little Rock
60 PUBLICATIONS 800 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Lean Principles View project
Uncertainty avoidance View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Karen Moustafa Leonard on 04 September 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Production Research, 2014
Vol. 52, No. 15, 4587–4607, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.879614
Criteria for a lean organisation: development of a lean assessment tool

Fatma Pakdila* and Karen Moustafa Leonardb
a
Industrial Engineering, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey; bManagement, University of Arkansas Little Rock, Little Rock, AR, USA
(Received 12 November 2012; accepted 20 December 2013)
Lean principles have long been recognised as a competitive advantage. Although there are several measures for various
aspects of lean production in the literature, there is no comprehensive measure for overall lean implementation in
business firms. An appropriate measurement tool is needed to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the lean
implementation throughout the entire organisation. Based on lean research, a comprehensive tool called the leanness
assessment tool (LAT) is developed, using both quantitative (directly measurable and objective) and qualitative (percep-
tions of individuals) approaches to assess lean implementation. The LAT measures leanness using eight quantitative
performance dimensions: time effectiveness, quality, process, cost, human resources, delivery, customer and inventory.
The LAT also uses five qualitative performance dimensions: quality, process, customer, human resources and delivery,
with 51 evaluation items. The fuzzy method allows managers to identify improvement needs in lean implementation,
and the use of radar charts allows an immediate, comprehensive view of strong areas and those needing improvement.
Practical uses of the LAT are discussed in the conclusion, along with possible limitations.
Keywords: leanness; lean implementation; lean operations; lean manufacturing; performance measures; performance
analysis; quality management; Toyota production system
Introduction
Increased competition and customer expectations require organisations to gain powerful competitive advantages in the
globalised marketplace. Although a variety of tools and methods that can be used to increase competitive advantages,
lean production principles and methods have been shown to be one of the most effective (cf. Abdulmalek and Rajgopal
2007; Hino 2006; Li 2013; Liker 1998, 2004; Womack and Jones 1996; Womack, Jones, and Roos 1990) for manufac-
turing (cf. Deflorin and Scherrer-Rathje 2012; Ehret and Cooke 2010; Ferdousi and Ahmed 2010; Hunter, Bullard, and
Steele 2004) and service organisations (cf. Laureani, Antony, and Douglas 2010; Liker and Morgan 2006; Nicholas
2012). Womack, Jones, and Roos (2007, 11) stated:
Lean production is ‘lean’ because it uses less of everything compared with mass production-half the human effort in factory,
half the manufacturing space, half the investment tools, half the engineering hours to develop a new product in half time. Also,
it requires keeping far less than half the needed inventory on site, results in many fewer defects, and produces a greater and
ever growing variety of products.
Lean implementation comprises organisation-wide lean practices (Mann 2005; Wilson 2010). To be successful, lean
implementation for competitive advantage requires organisations to apply lean principles in all organisational functions,
including accounting, sales and marketing, and human resources.
There is an increasing interest in lean implementations (Saurin, Marodin, and Ribeiro 2011). The literature has many
empirical studies (cf. Doolen and Hacker 2005; Panizzolo 1998; Shah and Ward 2007) and review papers (cf. Behrouzi
and Wong 2011; Bhasin 2008, 2011) of lean assessment, but most do not concentrate on overall lean implementation
within a qualitative and quantitative perspective. We examine these issues in the light of the following question: in
assessing the success of lean implementation, which key dimensions are needed? To answer the question, the key
dimensions of lean implementation identified in the literature are determined, and a measurement instrument developed.
This paper first examines existing literature on lean concepts. Following this review, a lean assessment tool (LAT) is
developed to use both quantitative (i.e. directly measurable and objective results) and qualitative (i.e. using perceptions
of individuals) measures of lean implementation progress and/or success in the entire organisation, with fuzzy logic
*Corresponding author. Email: fpakdil@baskent.edu.tr
© 2014 Taylor & Francis

4588 F. Pakdil and K.M. Leonard
methodology. The use of a radar chart approach with the LAT analysis is also discussed, along with conclusions, practi-
cal application and limitations of the tool, and suggestions for future research.
Lean concept
Lean implementations have been analysed for more than four decades in both academic and practitioner journals (Hoss
and Schwengber ten Caten 2013). The word lean was introduced by Krafcik (1988) to describe Toyota’s production
system (TPS). Lean is an ongoing drive toward perfection, sometimes difficult to envision because it is a major para-
digm shift (Wilson 2010). ‘At the heart of lean is its philosophy, which is a long-term philosophy of growth by generat-
ing value for the customer, society, and the economy with the objectives of reducing costs, improving delivery times,
and improving quality through the total elimination of waste – muda’ (Wilson 2010, 59).
Lean production is the philosophy of eliminating waste (Heizer and Render 2004) or the creation of a lean and
balanced flow in a process (Stevenson 2007). The lean production concept identifies extremely efficient and effective
production systems that consume fewer resources, creating higher quality and lower cost as outcomes. Using both
practical and project-based perspectives, a key strategy is the elimination of waste (Pettersen 2009).
The TPS is the most successful production applications of the lean concept. TPS has been called ‘just-in-time (JIT)’,
and more recently, ‘lean production’ (Womack, Jones, and Roos 1990), the common term in the West. Although these
practices started in Japan, lean implementation is now the primary improvement methodology in the US manufacturing.
Management based on lean production principles enables firms to gain increasingly high levels of efficiency, com-
petitiveness at the lowest cost, with high levels of productivity, speed of delivery, minimum stock levels and optimum
quality (Cuatrecasas Arbós 2002). Eliminating waste lowers variable production costs associated with labour, materials
and energy, thus raising the unit profitability of products. Lean also attacks waste associated with the fixed costs of
facilities, equipment, capital and support such as management, engineering, and so on (Swink et al. 2011, 239).
Liker (2004) identified two pillars and 14 principles of TPS. The two pillars of TPS are continuous improvement
(kaizen) and respect for people. Under the two pillars are 14 principles, which have been categorised under the four
groups of (1) philosophy – long-term, (2) process – promote flow, (3) people and partners– respect and development
and (4) problem solving – continuous improvement. The details of 14 principles are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Liker’s (2004) fourteen principles.
Group Principal
Philosophy – Long term 1. Base your management decisions on a long-term philosophy,

even at the expense of short-term financial goals
Process – Promote flow: creating a pull production system that 2. Create a continuous process flow to bring problems to the
has continuous flow and balanced workload surface
3. Use pull systems to avoid overproduction
4. Level out the workload (heijunka)
5. Build a culture of stopping to fix problems, to get quality right
the first time
6. Standardized tasks are the foundation for continuous
improvement and employee empowerment
7. Use visual control so no problems are hidden
8. Use only reliable, thoroughly tested technology that serves your
people and processes
People – Respect and development 9. Growing leaders who thoroughly understand the work, living
the philosophy, and teaching it to others
10. Developing exceptional people and teams who follow your
company’s philosophy
11. Respecting your extended network of partners and suppliers by
challenging them and helping them improve
Problem solving – Continuous improvement: organise their 12. Go and see for yourself to thoroughly understand the situation
continuous improvement activities (genchi genbutsu)
13. Make decisions slowly by consensus, thoroughly considering
all options, implement decisions rapidly
14. Become a learning organization through relentless reflection
(hansei) and continuous improvement (kaizen)
International Journal of Production Research 4589
Leanness creates a tremendous sustainable competitive advantage (Womack, Jones, and Roos 1990) and lean
implementation is used as a tool to gain competitive advantage, but
… the lack of a clear understanding of lean performance and its measurement is a significant reason that lean practices have
failed. In other words, it is not possible to manage lean without measuring its performance. (Behrouzi and Wong 2011, 388)
Deming (1986) and Imai (1986) emphasised that the overall performance of the new or current applications and systems
must be measured and monitored continuously through various performance measures. With a broader continuous
improvement perspective, measuring performance is not a need just for lean organisations, but for any organisation.
Because ‘leanness is a process, a journey, not an end state’ (Liker 1998, 8) and ‘if you can’t measure it, you can’t man-
age it’ (Shaw and Costanzo 1970), assessment is essential to identify both the deficiencies and progress of lean concepts
within firms.
Some studies in the literature (cf. Bayou and De Korvin 2008; Goodson 2002; Singh, Garg, and Sharma 2010) focus
on measuring the leanness of management systems and emphasise the need for a unifying measure of the effects of
these practices. Bhasin (2008, 674) states that ‘companies need to understand how key performance measures can guide
and focus an organisation towards superior results in their chosen area’. Similarly, Saurin, Marodin, and Ribeiro (2011)
identified the importance of implementing lean assessment during the early stages of lean practices. With these ideas in
mind, an assessment tool is proposed in the following section.
Lean assessment tool

After conducting a comprehensive literature review to look into the relevant concepts in detail, a LAT was developed.
Searches used a variety of databases, such as EBSCO host, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Emerald, and Science Direct. They
also included published books and graduate theses published online. Keywords used in the search were ‘lean assess-
ment’, ‘lean evaluation’, ‘lean appraisal’, ‘lean performance’, ‘measuring lean performance’, ‘lean performance measure-
ment’ and ‘lean measurement’. The literature was analysed in detail, but there were limited studies on lean assessment:
30 articles, 2 graduate theses and 9 books. Interestingly, none of the books (cf. Dennis 2002; Wilson 2010; Womack
and Jones 1996) included a particular chapter or materials to enable quantitative assessment of managerial or organisa-
tional leanness. Only Mann’s (2005) book, titled Creating a Lean Culture, had an appendix on qualitative lean assess-
ment. In research for this paper, each relevant study was analysed in terms of lean assessment approaches. As an
outcome of the comprehensive literature review, a matrix diagram overview of the current lean assessment tools, meth-
ods and techniques available in the literature is presented in Table 2, demonstrating the dimensions used in each.
Existing lean assessment tools or methods in the literature have weaknesses and strengths. Devlin, Dong, and Brown
(1993) stated that there are no ‘best’ or ‘perfect’ studies or methods to measure quality performance. As a general
critique of the literature, each existing lean assessment method focuses on a different side of lean operations, not the
complete picture. While some of the tools or methods focus only on perceptions of the employees, using a qualitative
approach (Bhasin 2011; Connor 2001; Doolen and Hacker 2005; Feld 2000; Fullerton and Wempe 2009; Goodson
2002; James-Moore and Gibbons 1997; Panizzolo 1998; Shah and Ward 2007; Soriano-Meier and Forrester 2002), oth-
ers use various performance metrics, creating a quantitative assessment (cf. Bayou and De Korvin 2008; Behrouzi and
Wong 2011; Wan and Chen 2008). None of the existing studies utilise qualitative and quantitative approaches
simultaneously.
Using just one approach may create a bias. While quantitative assessment tends to result in an acceptable perfor-
mance level, qualitative assessment reflecting stakeholders’ perceptions or the context of the firm may create different
assessment perspectives. Therefore, the LAT was built using both quantitative and qualitative measures, to give an over-
all view of the organisation’s leanness efforts. The quantitative measures utilise a ratio-based approach, using fuzzy
logic, integrating eight main performance dimensions. In the light of Table 2, main dimensions and sub-performance
indicators for the LAT, derived from existing literature, are given in Table 3. The qualitative section integrates a percep-
tional approach with 51 qualitative items (Appendix A) with five performance dimensions, using the same fuzzy logic.
Quantitative assessment
The quantitative studies reviewed in the literature implemented various assessment models and measureable performance
dimensions to assess lean implementation, such as Behrouzi and Wong (2011), Camacho-Miñano, Moyano-Fuentes, and
Sacristán-Díaz (2013), Wan and Chen (2008), and Bayou and De Korvin (2008). Behrouzi and Wong (2011) employed
waste elimination as quality, cost and time, and analysed delivery performance in JIT systems, assessing leanness levels
Table 2. Quantitative and qualitative lean assessment studies.
4590
Quality
Cost
Time
JIT delivery
Inventory
Cellular manufacturing
Employee involvement
Set up time
Product value
Safety
Productivity
Market share
Capacity
Elimination of waste
Continuous
improvement
Pull system
Multifunctional teams
Decentralized
responsibilities
Integrated functions
Vertical information
systems
Visual management
Lean change strategy
and sustainability
Culture
Behrouzi and Wong (2011) X X X X

Shileds (2006) X
Maskell (2000) X
Fullerton and Wempe (2009) X X X X
Wan and Chen (2008) X X X
Allen, Robinson, and Stewart (2001) X X X X
Bayou and De Corvin (2008) X X X
Searcy (2009) X X X X X
Bhasin (2011) X X X X X X X
Karlsson and Åhlström (1996) X X X X X X X X X X X
Goodson (2002) X X X X X X X
Panizzolo (1998) X X X X X
Doolen and Hacker (2005) X X X X X X X X
Shah and Ward (2007) X X X X
F. Pakdil and K.M. Leonard
Shah and Ward (2003) X X X X X X X

James-Moore and Gibbons (1997) X
Taj (2005) X X X
Pettersen (2009) X X X X X X X X X X X
LAT X X X X X X X X X X X X X
(Continued)
LAT
(2007)
(2003)
(2005)
Taj (2005)
James-Moore
Bhasin (2011)
Shah an d Ward
Shah an d Ward
Petters en (2009)
Goodson (2002)
Panizzo lo (1998)
Singh et al. (2010)
Doolen and Hacker

and Gibbons (1997)
Table 2. (Continued )
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Supplier issues
X
Investment
priorities
X
X
Lean practices
X
X
Various waste
X
X
X
X
X
X
Customer issues
Environment,
X
X
X
cleanliness, and
order
X
X
X
X
X
Scheduling system
X
X
X
Movement of
materials
Condition and
X
X
X
X
X
X
maintenance of
equipment and tools
X
Management of
complexity and
variability
X
X
Product design
X
X
X
X
Wok force
management
X
Shop-floor
management
X
X
Flow
X X
X
Controlled
processes
X
Flexibility
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Processes
X
X
Standardization
X
Use of space
4591 International Journal of Production Research
Table 3. LAT’s quantitative performance indicators.
DIMENSIONS INDICATORS
T1 Average set-up time per unit
T2 Set up time/total production time
T3 Average lead time per unit
T4 Cycle time
Time Effectiveness
T5 Takt time
T6 Takt time/cycle time
T7 Total down time/total machine time
T8 Total time spent on unplanned or emergency repairs/total

maintenancetime
Q1 Defect rate
Q2 Total defectives $/total sales
Q3 Rework rate
Q4 Total reworks $/total sales
Q5 Scrap rate
Quality Q6 Total scraps $/total sales
Q7 Total scraps $/total products $
Q8 Failure rate at final inspection (First time through)
Q9 # of poka-yoke devices/total defectives, scraps, reworks
Q % of inspection carried out by autonomous defect control

LAT
10 (poka-yoke devices)
Q Total # of people dedicated primarily to quality

11 control/total employees
P1 Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE)
P2 Size of the adjustment and repair area/total area

Process
P3 Capacity utilization rate (idle capacity/total capacity)
P4 Space productivity
C1 Annual transportation costs/total sales
C2 Inventory costs/total sales
C3 Total warranty costs/total sales
C4 Total cost of poor quality/total costs
Cost C5 Total cost/total sales
C6 Average cost per unit
C7 Total prevention costs/total costs
C8 Total prevention costs/total sales
C9 Profit after interest and tax/total sales
(Continued) (Continued)
Table 3. (Continued )
DIMENSIONS INDICATORS
H1 Labor turnover rate
H2 Absenteeism rate
H3 Total # of managers/total employees
H4 Total # of suggestions/total employees
H5 Total # of implemented suggestions/total suggestions
Human Resources H6 Total # of employees working in teams/total employees
H7 Total # of job classifications/total employees
H8 The # of hierarchical levels
H9 Total indirect employees/total direct employees
H Total # of employees involved in lean practices/total

10 employees
H Total # of problem solving teams/total employees

11
H Sales per employee

12
D1 # of times that parts are transported/total sales
D2 Total transportation distance of materials/total sales
Delivery D3 Average total # of days from orders received to delivery
D4 Order processing time/total orders

LAT
D5 Total # of orders delivered late per year/total # of
deliveries per year
C1 Customer satisfaction index
C2 Market share (market share by product group)
Customer
C3 The customer complaint rate
C4 Customer retention rate
C5 Total number of products returned by the

customer/total sales
I1 Total # of suppliers/total # of items in inventory
I2 Stock turnover rate (Inventory turnover rate)
I3 Total inventory/total sales
I4 Raw material inventory/total inventory

Inventory
I5 Total work in progress/total sales
I6 Raw material and WIP inventory/current assets
I7 Finished goods inventory/total inventory
I8 Finished goods inventory/current assets

with ratios, instead of raw data, using fuzzy logic. Bayou and De Korvin (2008) considered lean as a matter of degree
and developed a fuzzy logic model to compare the manufacturing leanness level. They categorised organisations as
‘lean, leaner, and leanest’, employing JIT, kaizen, and quality control as lean dimensions. Similarly, Singh, Garg, and
Sharma (2010) developed a leanness measurement methodology on a fuzzy logic base. The key dimensions in their
study were supplier issues, investment priorities, lean practices, waste and customer issues. Although their study has a
quantitative base, it allows for subjectivity, since the current performance level for key indicators were ranked by
respondents. Wan and Chen (2008) proposed an integrated quantitative measure of overall leanness using time, cost and
product value. In their study, organisations weight performance indicators so that they align with the organisation’s
strategic focus and goals.
In another primarily quantitative study, Karlsson and Åhlström (1996) proposed a model that contains nine main
dimensions using lean production principles. The authors found that the dimensions determining lean system
performance should be related to specific indicators, including productivity, quality, lead time, and cost.
Searcy (2009) developed a lean performance score (LPS). Using an analytic hierarchy process weighted lean assess-
ment system, he indicated that various leanness metrics could be weighted on the basis of firm’s prioritisation prefer-
ences and objectives. His LPS model creates a single-composite measure that monitors the overall success of an
organisation’s lean efforts, with an assessment of quality, capacity, productivity, inventory and costs (Searcy 2009). In
an empirical study, Fullerton and Wempe (2009) examined how non-financial manufacturing performance measures
impact the lean manufacturing/financial performance relationship. They used profit as a financial performance dimension,
while employing set-up time, production quality, lot size, employee involvement and cellular manufacturing applications
as dimensions of lean manufacturing.
Even though each study has a unique assessment structure, there are weaknesses because particular performance
dimensions are employed for specific parts of the organisation, resulting in a limited perspective. While some important
performance indicators are taken into consideration in detail, none of the existing studies present a comprehensive model
including all primary aspects of lean operations. The LAT developed in this paper uses: (1) Time Effectiveness, (2) Quality,
(3) Process, (4) Cost, (5) Human Resources, (6) Delivery, (7) Customer and (8) Inventory, since each dimension is corre-
lated with a type of the seven forms of waste defined by authors such as Ohno (1988), Taj (2005), Karlsson and Åhlström
(1996), Liker (1998), and Womack and Jones (1996): excessive inventory, over production, motion, handling, and process-
ing, waiting time and correction of defects. Each performance dimension in LAT measures a unique part of lean
implementation. The match between the seven wastes and the performance dimensions in LAT is shown in Table 4.
As seen in Table 4, the dimension of time effectiveness, along with eight performance indicators employed in LAT,
is associated with waiting time. Time is a powerful variable that can be used to assess many organisational activities,
such as operations, strategic planning and transportation (Karlsson and Åhlström 1996). The correction of defects is cor-
related with the quality dimension of LAT, including defect, rework and scrap rates. Process in LAT is a performance
dimension that is related to waste through over processing. Even though the dimension of cost is not directly associated
with any specific type of waste in lean, cost is totally related to lean implementation. TPS is a production system whose
goal is cost reductions, and the primary means to reduce cost is the absolute elimination of waste (Ohno 1988). The
dimension of human resource with twelve performance indicators in LAT is linked with over motion or underutilised
people (Agus and Hajinoor 2012). The delivery dimension in LAT refers to over handling. This dimension, along with
five performance indicators, measures how effectively firms perform related processes to reduce over handling. The cus-
tomer dimension in LAT was not directly linked with any types of waste, but reflects the final performance of lean
assessment, considering that meeting customers’ needs and expectations is the main objective in lean (Shah and Ward
2003; Singh, Garg, and Sharma 2010). The inventory dimension in LAT is associated with excess inventory and over
production, since getting rid of excessive inventory and production is a vital aim in lean implementation (James-Moore
and Gibbons 1997).
Each dimension including detailed performance indicators is discussed in the following sections, along with the
manner in which they fit into the LAT. Table 3 also presents performance indicators used in each main dimension in
detail.
Time effectiveness
Time effectiveness is related to the whole organisation in different levels or segments. There are many different ways to
evaluate time-related variables or indicators in lean implementations. Previous studies utilising time effectiveness
indicators in very broad types of organisations are listed in Table 2.
Lead time is a key metric, considered to be the most descriptive measure of the health of a lean manufacturing unit.
Lead time is the amount of time that passes between the beginning and ending of a set of activities (Swink et al. 2011),
calculated using the sum of the processing and inventory times (McDonald, Van Aken, and Rentes 2002). Cumulative
lead time can be defined as the total elapsed time a company requires to fill a new order, from date of entry to delivery
to the customer site (Shileds 2006, 78). Having a short lead time not only improves quality responsiveness and cash
flow, but also increases the possibility of getting future customers. Cycle time is the amount of time required for a unit
to be processed at any given operation in the overall process (Swink et al. 2011). Therefore, a low cycle time indicates
a high probability that the system will be punctual in fulfilling the customer’s order (Li and Rong 2009).
Reducing set up times creates leaner production lines (Karlsson and Åhlström 1996; Womack, Jones, and Roos
1990), because there is less process downtime between product changeovers (Taggart 2009; Shingo 1981). According to
Shingo (1981), the waste caused by overproduction can be reduced in manufacturing primarily through set-up reduction
techniques, such as his Single-Minute-Exchange-of-Dies methodology.
‘To counter the effects of demand variability, lean production focuses on takt time’ (Shah and Ward 2007, 791). Takt
time is the ideal operating time allocated for each customer demand, the pace that matches customer requirements
(McDonald, Van Aken, and Rentes 2002), found by dividing the total available time into the number of batches (Yavuz
and Tufekci 2006). As defined by Monden (1998), while takt time refers to a planned standard operation time per
customer demand, cycle time may be longer or shorter than takt time because of unplanned delays or improvements.
Machine down time indicates machine effectiveness, typically reported in terms of overall equipment effectiveness
(OEE) (Taggart 2009). Any machine that stops a production line causes waste and delays in the throughout production
lines. However, this machine down time may occur in support functions as well, such as accounting, human resource
and marketing, and can include computer break downs and failures in Internet access. Also, the time spent on unplanned
or emergency repairs is related to machine effectiveness.
Considering the previous literature, the LAT includes (T1) average set up time per unit, (T2) the ratio of set up time
to total production time, (T3) average lead time per unit, (T4) cycle time, (T5) takt time, (T6) the ratio of takt time to
cycle time, (T7) the ratio of total down time to total machine time and (T8) the ratio of time spent on unplanned or
emergency repairs to total maintenance time as time-related performance indicators.
Quality
In any lean operation, quality specifications and standards should be met at the first time, without control activities, at
least in theory. However, eliminating quality control entirely is not possible because both chance and assignable causes
occur (Montgomery 2005). Previous studies utilising quality-related indicators are listed in Table 2. Quality can be
judged on defect, rework and scrap rates in the manufacturing industry. Defect rate is the ratio of the products or ser-
vices that do not meet at least one of the quality specifications to total output. Rework rates are the ratio of product or
service that needs additional effort to meet quality specifications to total output. Scrap rate is the ratio of the products or
services that do not meet quality specifications, even after rework, compared to total output (Kolarik 1995).
Failure rate at final inspection is another performance indicator in lean assessment efforts. Plants with lean
production policies manufacture a wide range of models, while maintaining high degrees of quality and productivity
Table 4. The associations between seven wastes and the dimensions of LAT.
LAT dimensions Seven wastes
Quantitative
Time effectiveness Waiting time
Quality Correction of defects
Process Over processing
Cost
Human resources Over motion
Delivery Over handling
Customer
Inventory Excess inventory and over production
Qualitative
Quality Correction of defects
Customer
Process Over processing
Human resources Over motion
Delivery Over handling
(Krafcik 1988). The ultimate quality is zero defects (Crosby 1979; Karlsson and Åhlström 1996), that is, preventing
defects or scraps instead of reworking them.
Numerous poka-yoke devices are implemented in the production and service delivery systems and are essential to
lean operations. High quality is ensured not only through control (reactive), but also by prevention (proactive). In lean,
instead of controlling the parts produced, the process is kept under control (Karlsson and Åhlström 1996).
Karlsson and Åhlström (1996) focused on the percentage of people dedicated to quality control activities. Instead of
maximising machine use, Toyota seeks to maximise the appropriate use of people (Dennis 2002), so that fewer
employees are needed for quality control.
From the examination of these previous studies, (Q1) defect rate, (Q2) the ratio of total defectives total sales, (Q3)
rework rate, (Q4) the ratio of total reworks to total sales, (Q5) scrap rate, (Q6) the ratio of total scraps to total sales,
(Q7) the ratio of total scraps to total products, (Q8) failure rate at final inspection, (Q9) the ratio of number of poka-
yoke devices to total defectives, scraps and reworks, (Q10) the percentage of inspection carried out by autonomous
defect control and (Q11) the ratio of number of people dedicated to quality control to total employees were used as
quality-related indicators in the LAT.
Process
Operational measures are clearly identified as key indicators in successful lean implementation (Shah and Ward 2007,
785). Lean production techniques have contributed to a spectacular improvement in efficiency, speed of response and
flexibility in production at many industrial enterprises, through process-based management and highly flexible
implementation of these processes (Cuatrecasas Arbós 2002). As shown in Table 2, process has been employed as a
unique performance dimension in lean assessment in previous studies.
One of the techniques used in lean process management is total productive maintenance (TPM), and the main
performance indicator is OEE, discussed previously. In addition, the best plants use space efficiently (Goodson 2002).
Therefore, the ratio of size of adjustment and repair area to total area should be a process-based performance indicator
in lean assessment.
Capacity utilisation is a crucial indicator in lean (Bhasin 2008; Searcy 2009), even in service industries (Zarbo
2011). According to Hines, Holweg, and Rich (2004, 1006), if ‘the focus within lean thinking is to create capacity by
removing waste’ then it can also be achieved with the application of improvements in OEE. Lean systems minimise
floor space to maximise production and profit per square foot (Kwak and Anbari 2006). Kokuryo (1996) stated that a
lean approach works well in industries where efficient use of space is a key consideration.
This literature review supports the use of (P1) OEE, (P2) the ratio of size of adjustment and repair area to total
area, (P3) capacity utilisation rate and (P4) space productivity as process-related performance indicators in the LAT.
Cost
Womack and Jones (1996) and Comm and Mathaisel (2000) suggested that the lean system provides organisations with
reduced costs, continuously improving quality and enhanced customer satisfaction. Deming (1986) developed the chain
reaction model to explain relationships among productivity, quality and cost. Therefore, cost reduction, which gives a
significant competitive advantage to the organisation, is a dimension in lean assessment. Previous studies employing a
cost indicator are listed in Table 2.
Deming (1986), Juran (1951, 1989), and Juran and Gryna (1988) advised organisations to systematically measure the
cost of good and poor quality to assess quality systems. Berry and Parasuraman (1992) found that most companies spend
10–30% of sales revenue on quality costs. Superville, Jones, and Boyd (2003) stated that corporations like Xerox, General
Electric and Motorola reduced their quality costs from 30 to 2% of sales, while improving the quality of their products.
Organisations may implement advanced and sophisticated production and quality control systems, but it is still possi-
ble to have customer complaints or returned product. Therefore, the ratio of annual total warranty costs to annual total
sales should be a component in lean assessment. Due to their importance in financial evaluations and audits, the ratio of
profit (after interest and tax) to annual total sales (Bhasin 2008), the inventory cost ratio (Behrouzi and Wong 2011), the
ratio of total cost to total sales and average cost per unit should be monitored in assessing lean implementation. The
ratio of total cost to total sales demonstrates how much of the total sales are dedicated to total costs. Average cost per
unit is an indication of the firm’s competitiveness; the lower the average cost per unit, the higher the competitive
advantage.
These studies demonstrate that cost-related performance indicators implemented in LAT are relevant to a thorough
analysis of lean. In LAT the indicators are: (C1) the ratio of annual transportation cost to total sales, (C2) the ratio of
inventory cost to total sales, (C3) the ratio of total warranty costs to total sales, (C4) the ratio of total cost of poor
quality to total costs, (C5) the ratio of total costs to total sales, (C6) average cost per unit, (C7) the ratio of total
prevention costs to total costs, (C8) the ratio of total prevention costs to total sales and (C9) the ratio of profit after
interest and tax to total sales.
Human resources
Research clearly shows that, without strategic human resource management, overall lean practices will not work (see for
example Agrawal and Graves 1999; Bamber and Dale 1999; Longoni et al. 2013; Rothstein 2004; Wood 2005; Yauch
and Steudel 2002). Lean operations can only be performed by trained human operators (Birdi et al. 2008). MacDuffie
(1995) believed that it was essential to consider lean production as a package, including human resources.
Good human resource practices improves knowledge capture, which can then be exploited for firm benefit as com-
petitive advantage (Appelbaum et al. 2000; Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford 1992, 1995; Pfeffer 1994; Way 2002). One
of the most comprehensive studies on the human factor in lean implementation is a multi-analysis which examined
research on 308 firms over 22 years (Birdi et al. 2008). They found that empowerment, training and teamwork directly
lead to performance pay benefits, while operational lean processes on their own did not. Strategic human resource man-
agement creates a competitive advantage for any firm because the knowledge of the firm resides within the employees
themselves and, therefore, are inimitable by another firm (Lado and Wilson 1994), a requirement for competitive advan-
tage in the Resource Based View of the firm (Barney 2001; Harvey and Denton 1999; Power and Waddell 2004; Wright
and McMahan 1992).
Empowerment and employee development are key to the high-performance work practices that are necessary for
lean implementation (Huselid 1995; Lawler 1986). Empowerment outcomes include more productive and more flexible
employees (Hackman and Oldham 1976); proactivity and self-initiating attitudes among individuals and teams (Frese
et al. 1996; Parker, Williams, and Turner 2006); reductions in control costs (Batt 2001; Parker and Wall 1998); and
development and use of knowledge and skills, mostly due to the trust building required in empowerment (Leach, Wall,
and Jackson 2003).
Teamwork is important in lean efforts, particularly because it provides knowledge sharing opportunities (Birdi et al.
2008). The existence of multifunctional teams is considered an indicator in the lean implementation efforts by many
researchers (Table 2). Cross-functional teams reduce supervision costs, allow interdependent tasks to be completed and
require knowledge sharing (cf. Allen and Hecht 2004; Leach et al. 2005; Orsburn and Moran 2000).
Given the research on human resources, LAT uses the following rates and ratios as indicators: (H1) labour turnover
rate, (H2) absenteeism rate, (H3) the ratio of total number of managers to total employees, (H4) the ratio of total num-
ber of suggestions to total employees, (H5) the ratio of total number of implemented suggestions to total suggestions,
(H6) the ratio of total number of employees working in teams to total employees, (H7) the ratio of total number of job
classifications to total employees, (H8) the number of hierarchical levels, (H9) the ratio of total indirect employees to
total direct employees, (H10) the ratio of total number of employees involved in lean practices to total employees,
(H11) the ratio of total number of problem solving teams to total employees and (H12) sales per employee.
Delivery
Delivery performance can be classified into two categories: internal and external activities. The first category deals with
internal delivery activities, such as transporting parts, raw materials and semi-finished materials, from one station to
another. Transportation of any parts or finished product in the organisation or among various organisations and factories
in different locations does not add any value (Karlsson and Åhlström 1996), but instead increases operation costs and
lead time. Behrouzi and Wong (2011) investigated the ratio of annual transportation costs to total annual sales, finding
that they were critical to a comprehensive examination of leanness in organisations.
Delivery reliability and delivery performance were found to be two of the most important performance indicators in
studies (see for example Behrouzi and Wong 2011; Bhasin 2008; Bond 1999; Dimancescu, Hines, and Rich 1997;
Doolen and Hacker 2005; Fullerton and Wempe 2009). In lean organisations, JIT philosophy is not applied only to
inventory-based operations, but also to customer delivery processes.
After examining these studies, (D1) the ratio of number of times that parts are transported to total sales, (D2) the
ratio of total transportation distance of materials to total sales, (D3) the average total number of days from orders
received to their delivery, (D4) the ratio of order processing time to total orders and (D5) the ratio of total number of
orders delivered late to total deliveries per year were considered essential to lean implementation and thus incorporated
into the LAT.
Customer
All actions and plans in organisations have a bottom-line objective: Higher customer satisfaction and loyalty (Singh,
Garg, and Sharma 2010). Naumann and Giel (1995) and Bhasin (2008) stated that customer complaint rate, customer
satisfaction and retention levels should be watched closely. In the competitive market place, customers’ expectations,
needs and demands shape the variety of products and services provided by organisations. According to Panizzolo
(1998), the challenge is how to integrate customers into the organisation. Doolen and Hacker (2005), Goodson (2002),
Panizzolo (1998), Shah and Ward (2007), Bhasin (2008) and Singh, Garg, and Sharma (2010) incorporated customer-
related items in their studies.
Market share is a powerful organisational metric in corporate performance, used as a performance indicator by Di-
mancescu, Hines, and Rich (1997) and Bhasin (2008). Management of returns is a critical supply chain management
process (Rogers et al. 2002). In the U.S., retail customer returns was estimated at six percent of revenue. Additionally,
cost associated with managing the returns was estimated at 4% of total logistics costs (Rogers et al. 2001).
In this study, both raw data and ratios were selected as part of the LAT. The performance indicators used as raw data
in LAT are (C1) customer satisfaction index and (C2) market share. The customer-focused ratios used in the LAT are
(C3) customer complaint rate, (C4) customer retention rate and (C5) the ratio of total number of products returned by
the customer to total sales.
Inventory
The largest source of waste is inventory (Karlsson and Åhlström 1996), as parts and finished products in warehouses do
not create value for either customers or the firm. Operating with smaller (or zero) inventory requires systems with mini-
mum machine down time and very well organised supply chain operations.
The fewer the number of suppliers, the better the organisational performance (Deming 1986). Dealing with fewer
suppliers lowers supply chain management costs. Inventory in a system can be reduced by either eliminating excess
capacity or lowering throughput time, but the latter is preferred, but it requires reliable suppliers and a process reducing
lead time (Shah and Ward 2007). Reducing lead time directly results in inventory reductions (Wilson 2010).
Swamidass (2007) used the ratio of total inventory to sales as the only performance indicator of lean assessment,
but an individual metric focusing on a specific performance aspect cannot represent the overall leanness level (Wan and
Chen 2008). Karlsson and Åhlström (1996) used JIT as a major measurement factor in their assessment of lean: each
process should be operated with the right part, in the right quantity, at exactly the right point time (Shingo 1981). Suc-
cessful inventory management requires assessing various performance indicators, such as stock turnover rate, work in
process and raw material ratios (Zipkin 2000).
In developing the LAT, (I1) the ratio of total number of suppliers to total numbers of items in the inventory is
included as an indicator. Other crucial indicators include: (I2) stock turnover rate, (I3) the total inventory to total sales,
(I4) the ratio of raw material inventory to total inventory, (I5) the ratio of total work in process to total sales, (I6) the
ratio of raw material and work in process inventory to current assets and (I7–I8) the ratio of finished goods inventory
to total inventory and to current assets.
Qualitative assessment
Although lean concepts have a strong quantitative component, a qualitative component is needed. Perceptions are impor-
tant data, which often cannot be incorporated using quantitative systems. According to Mann (2005), assessment of lean
implementation efforts should be conducted on the production floor by looking and asking. Many LATs reported in the
literature utilised qualitative methods as well as quantitative ones (Bhasin 2011; Connor 2001; Doolen and Hacker
2005; Feld 2000; Fullerton and Wempe 2009; Goodson 2002; James-Moore and Gibbons 1997; Panizzolo 1998; Shah
and Ward 2007; Soriano-Meier and Forrester 2002).
Doolen and Hacker (2005) assessed leanness level on the basis of average points given by the respondents, incorpo-
rating six areas into their study. In a very different format, Bhasin (2011) categorised 104 sub-indicators in 12 main
leanness components, rated by respondents on a five-point Likert scale. Using a survey format, James-Moore and
Gibbons (1997) tested key constructs such as flexibility, waste elimination, optimisation, process control and people
utilisation through close-ended questions ending with ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Panizzolo (1998) developed a qualitative model
including face-to-face structured interviews with high-level managers from 27 sample organisations and perceptional
questions were ranked on a five point-Likert scale. Shah and Ward (2007) conducted a survey among various
manufacturing firms incorporating three main indicators (suppliers, customers and internal processes).
Others used the qualitative lean enterprise self-assessment tool (LESAT) and lean processing programme to assess
company-wide lean implementation (Wan and Chen 2008). However, solely qualitative methods generally evolve with
the respondents’ perceptions and responses and contain subjectivity and bias, due to individual judgments (Wan and
Chen 2008).
The LAT developed here includes qualitative assessment along with qualitative indicators. Previous studies of vari-
ous tools, questions and approaches for qualitative assessment, discussed previously, suggest the use of five performance
dimensions, which are categorised as: quality, process, customer, human resources and delivery. The qualitative section
of LAT contains five performance dimensions measured by 51 items, as shown in Appendix A. Items are measured on
five-point Likert scales with end points of strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (5).
Applying the LAT

The LAT should be integrated into a comprehensive problem solving methodology. Problem solving processes entail a
variety of tasks, such as problem formulation, diagnosing the root causes and development of solutions (Mast 2011).
The flow chart in Figure 1 integrates LAT into solving problems associated with lean implementation.
Analysis using fuzzy methodology

Many organisations have attempted to implement lean manufacturing. However, most attempts do not give a true picture
because organisations decide implement parts of the system rather than the entire system. In addition, lean performance
is often not evaluated using a comprehensive measurement system or tool, possibly because managers believe that the
analysis will be too costly or too difficult.
Behrouzi and Wong (2011) developed a dynamic and innovative lean performance evaluation model using fuzzy meth-
odology. Their study proposes a simple and usable method. It also allows the investigator to determine performance indi-
cator preferences. Behrouzi and Wong’s (2011) approach creates a comprehensive analysis of the lean implementation
efforts of a single company. Multiple companies within a single industry or in different industries can then be compared,
because the underlying structure of the methodology is the same – with qualitative as well as quantitative measures.
Fuzzy sets were presented by Zadeh to define human knowledge in mathematical expressions (Aydin and Pakdil
2008). Fuzzy set theory accounts for the uncertainty inherited in natural language using particular words, such as most,
much, not many, very many, not very many, few, quite a few, large number, small number, frequently (Zadeh 1965).
Fuzzy models use fuzzy sets to represent non-statistical, uncertain and linguistic values (Behrouzi and Wong 2011).
Uncertainty in the model can be eliminated by using fuzzy numbers and crisp intervals can be provided for decision
Assess leanness level using LAT
Determine improvement needs and root

causes of the lower performance
Determine possible solutions and select

the best/most appropriate one
Implement the selected solution
Reassess the leanness level using the

LAT
Figure 1. Flow chart of applying LAT.

makers. Crisp intervals are called α-cut sets in fuzzy theory and they reflect optimal decisions. Fuzzy numbers are pre-
sented with their membership functions, which indicate the degrees of belonging (Aydin and Pakdil 2008). To formulate
a fuzzy-logic model, the basic definitions are given below.
Definition 1. A fuzzy set A ~ in a universe of discourse X is characterised by a membership function l ~ ðxÞ which
A
associates with each element x in X, a real number in the interval [0, 1]. The function value lA~ ðxÞ terms the grade of
membership of x in A~ (Zadeh 1965).
Definition 2. Let A ~ be a fuzzy set and l ~ ðxÞ be the membership function for x 2 A,
~ if l ~ ðxÞ is defined as given in
A A
Equation (1) (Aydin and Pakdil 2008). In this function, ‘a’ and ‘b’ represent the best and worst lean performance of
each indicator, respectively (Behrouzi and Wong 2011).
8
<1 if xi a
lA~ ðxÞ ¼ 0; if xi b (1)
: 1 ðxiaÞ ; if a\x \b
ðbaÞ i
After performance indicators are measured using LAT in an organisation, the fuzzy membership values are calculated
for each indicator. As a final step of the lean measurement, the final lean score is calculated as the mean of all
membership values taken into consideration in lean assessment (Behrouzi and Wong 2011).
To clearly demonstrate the lean measurement method for LAT, an example is given for eight dimensions in LAT
quantitative assessment. Measurement using fuzzy membership functions and LAT scores are performed successfully as
given in Table 5. As seen in the table, organisations may be able to calculate and measure as much as possible perfor-
mance indicator defined in LAT. In other words, even if they cannot measure all of the indicators proposed in LAT, they
can measure and calculate fuzzy membership functions and LAT score as they could do. According to this measurement
method, fuzzy membership functions are computed using Equation (1) and the organisation in example has 82.86 out of
100 leanness points at the final stage on the basis of Equation (2), where m is the number of dimensions, nj is the
number of performance indicators in each dimension j, j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m; lAðxÞ ~
ij
is the fuzzy membership value of the ith
performance indicator of the jth dimension, i ¼ 1; 2; . . .; nj ; j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; m.
Pm Pnj
j¼1 i¼1 lAðxÞ
~
ij
100
ni
(2)
m
Bayou and De Korvin (2008) stated that lean scores may be categorised as lean, leaner and leanest on the basis of
the scores generated by the fuzzy measurement method. Fuzzy membership functions are converged to 100 to present a
better lean performance, i.e., the closer to 100, the better the fuzzy membership value and the better the performance of
lean implementation for that dimension. As shown in the example, the organisation achieves the best performance on
quality, delivery and customer dimensions, since they generated a converged fuzzy membership value closer to 100, as
seen in Table 5. The results also indicate that time effectiveness and cost dimensions need to be improved to achieve
total lean implementation, since they generated a converged fuzzy membership value less than 50. Through the fuzzy-
based measurement method, organisations may assess their lean implementation efforts and diagnose their improvement
needs in lean implementation. The same fuzzy logic method applies in analysis of the qualitative data.
Analysis using radar charts

Using charts, figures and tables in lean implementation efforts provides rapid and visual information about the current
performance level for various indicators (Mann 2005). Radar charts have been frequently using for graphing multivariate
data in both academia and industry. By using radar charts, managers can more easily view their own leanness efforts
and companies can be compared using similar charts, even across industries. ‘The radar chart presentation is a more effi-
cient way to display a wide variety of data in a single picture’ (Saary 2008, 313). In the quantitative part, each of the
eight main performance dimensions in LAT is represented on a different radius of a radar plot. Each radius index starts
with zero (0) in the centre and ends with 100 points. The converged fuzzy membership values for each main dimension
are identified on the radius of the radar chart. The converged fuzzy membership values closest to the periphery represent
the best main performance dimension in LAT’s quantitative assessment, while the values closest to the centre correspond
to the dimensions of poor performance. An example of the use of a radar chart in LAT is shown in Figure 2. The same
procedure is performed for the qualitative data, which has been rated on a 5-point Likert scale.
Table 5. Empirical data and results.
LAT dimensions and performance indicators Results
Dimensions Performance indicators Actual performance level (xi) Point a Point b lA~ ðxÞ
Time effectiveness x1 (T1) 2 min. 0 min. 1.5 min. 0

x2 (T2) 15% 0 20% 0.75
x2 (T3) 5 days 0 day 6 days 0.16
x3 (T4) 48 min. 24 min. 480 min. 0.84
x5 (T5)
x6 (T6) 50% 0 80% 0.625
x7 (T7) 10% 0 5% 0
x8 (T8) 25% 0 20% 0
LAT score 33.92
Quality x1 (Q1) 8000 0 1,000,000 0.99
x (Q2) 3.1% 2% 100% 0.99
x3 (Q3) 20,000 0 1,000,000 0.98
x4 (Q4) 0.1063% 0 100% 0.99
x5 (Q5) 90% 91% 100% 1
x6 (Q6) 0.70% 0 100% 0.99
x7 (Q7) 1.12% 0.91% 100% 0.99
x8 (Q8) 5% 0 100% 0.95
x9 (Q9)
x10 (Q10)
x11 (Q11) 2.5% 0 100% 0.975
LAT score 98.31
Process x1 (P1) 70% 85% 0% 0.82
x2 (P2) 0 0 100 1
x3 (P3) 70% 100% 0% 0.70
x4 (P4) 90 90 0 1
LAT score 88.00
Cost x1 (C1)
x2 (C2) 28 0 100 0.72
x3 (C3) 1.5 1 100 0.99
x4 (C4) 12 10 100 0.97
x5 (C5) 79 0 100 0.21
x6 (C6)
x7 (C7) 6 0 100 0.94
x8 (C8) 5 0 100 0.95
x9 (C9) 8% 10% 0% 0.80
LAT score 79.71
Inventory x1 (I1) 0.14 0.11 1 0.96
x2 (I2) 6% 9% 0% 0.67
x3 (I3) 28 0 100 0.72
x4 (I4) 0.32 0.35 1 0.91
x5 (I5) 0.09 0.06 1 0.96
x6 (I6) 0.30 0.19 1 0.86
x7 (I7) 0.96 0.95 1 0.93
x8 (I8) 0.029 0.018 1 0.98
LAT score 87.37
Human Resources x1 (H1) 1% 1% 100% 1
x2 (H2) 1.7% 1.5% 100% 0.99
x3 (H3) 4.9% 5% 100% 1
x4 (H4) 5.94% 7% 0 0.85
x5 (H5) 0.76% 1% 0 0.76
x6 (H6) 67% 100% 0 0.67
x7 (H7)
x8 (H8) 6 6 20 1
x9 (H9)
x10 (H10) 64% 100% 0 0.64
x11 (H11) 23% 35% 0 0.65
x12 (H12) 32,497 37,379 0 0.87
(Continued)
Table 5. (Continued).
LAT dimensions and performance indicators Firm 1 results
Dimensions Performance indicators Actual performance level (xi) Point a Point b lA~ ðxÞ
LAT score 84.30

Delivery x1 (D1) 0.00004% 0 1% 0.99
x2 (D2)
x3 (D3) 25 20 100 0.94
x4 (D4) 5% 5% 100% 1
x5 (D5) 0 0 1 1
LAT score 98.25
Customer x1 (C1) 93% 100% 0 0.93
x2 (C2) 27% 35% 0 0.77
x3 (C3) 1.5% 0 100% 0.98
x4 (C4) 98% 100% 0 0.98
x5 (C5) 0.000046% 0.000031% 1 0.99
LAT score 93
Total LAT score 82.86
Time
effectiveness
100
Inventory 80 Quality
60
40
20
Customer 0 Process Series1
Delivery Cost
Human resources
Figure 2. A hypothetical example of radar chart in LAT.
Conclusion
Multiple assessment tools have been designed to measure different and often individual aspects of lean implementation.
While some existing studies measure leanness level through perceptual evaluations, other studies utilise a quantitative
assessment approach. Using only one qualitative or quantitative approach in lean assessment efforts may create a bias
both in practice and theory. While quantitative assessment leads the organisations to an acceptable leanness level, stake-
holders’ perceptions about leanness level may result in an opposite result. To decrease this possibility, organisations
should utilise both perceptional and measurement approaches simultaneously to assess their lean implementation efforts.
Therefore, the LAT employs an evaluation approach that includes both quantitative and qualitative bases, constructed on
fuzzy logic.
The LAT measures quantitative aspects of leanness through eight performance dimensions: time effectiveness,
quality, process, cost, human resources, delivery, customer and inventory along with detailed sub-performance indicators.
These performance dimensions are related to seven types of waste considered in lean production. In the qualitative
section, the LAT demonstrates a perceptional view within five performance dimensions: quality, process, customer,
human resources and delivery, using 51 items. As a calculation method, the fuzzy membership function highlights both
improvement successes and needs in lean implementation, and use of fuzzy logic and radar charts allows an immediate,
comprehensive view of the strong areas and those needing improvement. LAT allows organisations to use the fuzzy
membership function based on data that they choose to collect. It does not require organisations to collect data for all
performance indicators given in LAT.
The LAT has theoretical and practical implications for business organisations implementing lean principles. In
theoretical terms, the LAT can support the various theories that have been developed about the intertwining of the
various aspects of both goods and service operations and the rest of the firm (core vs. support functions). In practice,
the LAT can help organizations assess lean implementation in a systematic way and eventually develop stronger lean
systems. This creates a tremendous competitive advantage (Womack, Jones, and Roos 1990). In this sense, the LAT has
a potential for organisations aiming at high-performance level in lean implementation to assess and diagnose improve-
ment needs and successes in lean efforts.
Limitations of the LAT include the comprehensive nature of the tool. First, data collection process for each perfor-
mance indicator may seem to be a deterrent for organisations to use it. However, the fuzzy membership function in
LAT presents the data in a comprehensive manner that can be understood by management in its entirety. Therefore, this
perceived limitation has a capacity to create an important advantage for practitioners. As another limitation, fuzzy
membership function may be seen unfeasible and impractical for practitioners and another calculation algorithm may be
utilised within LAT. We believe, however, that presenting the data in this manner gives managers the benefit of the
holistic view of the organisation needed at the top level of the firm. Third, whether the organisation operates in a
manufacturing or services industry may make some differences in applying the LAT, considering that some performance
indicators include a manufacturing bias in LAT. Fourth, the organisations may prefer to give a weight to each perfor-
mance dimension or indicator. While some performance indicators may have a lower importance weight in particular
industries, the others might be more important in other industries. Fifth, the LAT may not cover all important
performance indicators and dimensions that have a potential to assess leanness level in business organisations, but we
believe it captures the most critical.
There is potential for the use of LAT above and beyond lean implementation into sustaining the process of lean
production and management in goods and services industries. Future research and development of the tool would be a
worthwhile use of time and effort, because lean efforts can lead to substantial gains in competitive advantage and
productivity. This area, while well researched, lacks comprehensive coverage of the entire lean implementation
processes. Our paper begins to fill this gap in the literature.
Funding
This study was supported by TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) 2219 Post-Doctoral Research
Program.
References
Abdulmalek, F. A., and J. Rajgopal. 2007. “Analyzing the Benefits of Lean Manufacturing and Value Stream Mapping via
Simulation: A Process Sector Case Study.” International Journal of Production Economics 107: 223–236.
Agrawal, A., and R. J. Graves. 1999. “A Distributed Systems Model for Estimation of Printed Circuit Board Fabrication Costs.”
Production Planning & Control 10 (7): 650–658.
Agus, A., and M. S. Hajinoor. 2012. “Lean Production Supply Chain Management as Driver towards Enhancing Product Quality and
Business Performance: Case Study of Manufacturing Companies in Malaysia.” International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management 29: 92–121.
Allen, N. J., and T. D. Hecht. 2004. “The ‘Romance of Teams’: Toward an Understanding of Its Psychological Underpinnings and
Implications.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 77: 439–461.
Allen, J., C. Robinson, and D. Stewart. 2001. Lean Manufacturing: A Plant Floor Guide. Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing
Engineers.
Appelbaum, E., T. Bailey, P. Berg, and A. L. Kalleberg. 2000. Manufacturing Advantage: Why High Performance Work Systems Pay
off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Aydin, O., and F. Pakdil. 2008. “Fuzzy SERVQUAL Analysis in Airline Services.” Organizacija 41 (3): 108–115.
Bamber, L., and B. G. Dale. 1999. “Lean Production: A Study of Application in a Traditional Manufacturing Environment.”
Production Planning and Control 11 (3): 291–298.
Barney, J. B. 2001. “Is the Resource-based “View” a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research? Yes.” Academy of
Management Review 26: 41–56.
Batt, R. 2001. “The Economics of Teams among Technicians.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 39: 1–24.
Bayou, M. E., and A. De Korvin. 2008. “Measuring the Leanness of Manufacturing Systems: A Case Study of Ford Motor Company
and General Motors.” Journal of Engineering Technology Management 25: 285–304.
Behrouzi, F., and K. Y. Wong. 2011. “Lean Performance Evaluation of Manufacturing Systems: A Dynamic and Innovative
Approach.” Procedia Computer Science 3: 388–395.
Berry, L. L., and A. Parasuraman. 1992. “Prescriptions for a Service Quality Revolution in America.” Organizational Dynamics 20
(4): 4–15.
Bhasin, S. 2008. “Lean and Performance Management.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 19: 670–684.
Bhasin, S. 2011. “Measuring the Leanness of an Organisation.” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 2 (1): 55–74.
Birdi, K., C. Clegg, M. Patterson, A. Robinson, C. B. Stride, T. D. Wall, and S. J. Wood. 2008. “The Impact of Human Resource
and Operational Management Practices on Company Productivity: A Longitudinal Study.” Personnel Psychology 61: 467–501.
Bond, T. 1999. “The Role of Performance Measurement in Continuous Improvement.” International Journal of Operations & Produc-
tion Management 19: 1318–1334.
Camacho-Miñano, M., J. Moyano-Fuentes, and M. Sacristán-Díaz. 2013. “What Can We Learn from the Evolution of Research on
Lean Management Assessment?” International Journal of Production Research 51 (4): 1098–1116.
Comm, C. L., and D. F. X. Mathaisel. 2000. “A Paradigm for Benchmarking Lean Initiatives for Quality Improvement.” Benchmark-
ing: An International Journal 7 (2): 118–128.
Connor, G. 2001. Lean Manufacturing for the Small Shop. Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
Crosby, P. B. 1979. Quality is Free: The Art of Quality Making Certain. New York: McGraw Hill.
Cuatrecasas Arbós, Lluı́s. 2002. “Design of a Rapid Response and High Efficiency Service by Lean Production Principles:
Methodology and Evaluation of Variability of Performance.” International Journal of Production Economics 80 (2): 169–183.
Deflorin, P., and M. Scherrer-Rathje. 2012. “Challenges in the Transformation to Lean Production from Different Manufacturing-pro-
cess Choices: A Path-dependent Perspective.” International Journal of Production Research 50 (14): 3956–3973.
Deming, W. E. 1986. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dennis, P. 2002. Lean Production Simplified. New York: Productivity Press.
Devlin, S. J., H. K. Dong, and M. Brown. 1993. “Selecting a Scale for Measuring Quality.” Marketing Research 5 (3): 12–17.
Dimancescu, D., P. Hines, and N. Rich. 1997. The Lean Enterprise. New York: Amazon.
Doolen, T. L., and M. E. Hacker. 2005. “A Review of Lean Assessment in Organizations: An Exploratory Study of Lean Practices
by Electronics Manufacturers.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 24 (1): 55–67.
Ehret, O., and P. Cooke. 2010. “Conceptualising Aerospace Outsourcing: Airbus UK and the Lean Supply Approach.” International
Journal of Technology Management 50 (3/4): 300–317.
Feld, W. M. 2000. Lean Manufacturing: Tools, Techniques, and How to Use Them. Alexandria, VA: St. Lucie Press.
Ferdousi, F., and A. Ahmed. 2010. “How Becoming Lean Can Improve Performance: A Study on Bangladeshi Garment Industry.”
Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management 3 (9): 36–42.
Frese, M., W. Kring, A. Soose, and J. Zempel. 1996. “Personal Initiative at Work: Differences between East and West Germany.”
Academy of Management Journal 39: 37–63.
Fullerton, R. R., and W. F. Wempe. 2009. “Lean Manufacturing, Non-financial Performance Measures, and Financial Performance.”
International Journal of Operations and Production Management 29 (3): 214–240.
Goodson, R. E. 2002. “Read a Plant Fast.” Harvard Business Review, May 3–11.
Hackman, J. R., and G. R. Oldham. 1976. “Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory.” Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance 16: 250–279.
Harvey, C., and J. Denton. 1999. “To Come of Age: The Antecedents of Organizational Learning.” Journal of Management Studies
36: 897–916.
Heizer, J., and B. Render. 2004. Principles of Operations Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Hines, P., M. Holweg, and N. Rich. 2004. “Learning to Evolve: A Review of Contemporary Lean Thinking.” International Journal
of Operations and Production Management 24: 994–1011.
Hino, S. 2006. Inside the Mind of Toyota. New York: Productivity Press.
Hoss, M., and C. Schwengber ten Caten. 2013. “Lean Schools of Thought.” International Journal of Production Research 51 (11):
3270–3282.
Hunter, S. L., S. Bullard, and P. H. Steele. 2004. “Lean Production in the Furniture Industry: The Double D Assembly Cell.” Forest
Products Journal 54 (4): 32–38.
Huselid, M. A. 1995. “The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial
Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 38: 635–672.
Imai, M. 1986. The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success. New York: McGraw-Hill.
James-Moore, S. M., and A. Gibbons. 1997. “Is Lean Manufacture Universally Relevant? An Investigative Methodology.”
International Journal of Operations and Production Management 17 (9): 899–911.
Juran, J. M. 1951. Quality Control Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Juran, J. M. 1989. Juran on Leadership for Quality. New York: Free Press.
Juran, J. M., and F. M. Gryna. 1988. Juran’s Quality Control Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Karlsson, C., and P. Åhlström. 1996. “Assessing Changes towards Lean Production.” International Journal of Operations and
Production Management 16 (2): 24–41.
Kokuryo, J. 1996. “From Closed Network to Open Network: Transformation of the Japanese Economy in the Information Age.”
JIPDEC Information Quarterly 105: 36–54.
Kolarik, W. J. 1995. Creating Quality. New York: McGraw- Hill.
Krafcik, J. F. 1988. “Triumph of the Lean Production System.” Sloan Management Review 30 (1): 41–52.
Kwak, Y. H., and F. T. Anbari. 2006. “Benefits, Obstacles, and Future of Six Sigma Approach.” Technovation 26: 708–715.
Lado, A. A., and M. C. Wilson. 1994. “Human Resource Systems and Sustained Competitive Advantage: a Competency-Based
Perspective.” Academy of Management Review 19: 699–727.
Laureani, A., J. Antony, and A. Douglas. 2010. “Lean Six Sigma in a Call Centre: A Case Study.” International Journal of
Productivity & Performance Management 59 (8): 757–768.
Lawler, E. E. 1986. High-Involvement Management: Participative Strategies for Improving Organizational Performance. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler III, E. E., S. A. Mohrman, and G. E. Ledford. 1992. Employee Involvement and TQM: Practice and Results in Fortune 1000
Companies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler III, E. E., S. A. Mohrman, and G. E. Ledford. 1995. Creating High Performance Organizations: Practices and Results of
Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management in Fortune 1000 Companies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leach, D. J., T. D. Wall, and P. R. Jackson. 2003. “The Effect of Empowerment on Job Knowledge: An Empirical Test Involving
Operators of Complex Technology.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 76: 27–52.
Leach, D. J., T. D. Wall, S. G. Rogelberg, and P. R. Jackson. 2005. “Team Autonomy, Performance, and Member Job Strain:
Uncovering the Teamwork KSA Link.” Applied Psychology: An International Review 54: 1–24.
Li, J. 2013. “Continuous Improvement at Toyota Manufacturing Plant: Applications of Production Systems Engineering Methods.”
International Journal of Production Research 51: 7235–7249.
Li, S. G., and Y. L. Rong. 2009. “The Reliable Design of One-piece Flow Production System Using Fuzzy Ant Colony
Optimization.” Computers & Operations Research 36 (5): 1656–1663.
Liker, J. K. 1998. “Introduction: Bringing Lean back to the USA.” In Becoming Lean: Inside Stories of U.S. Manufacturers, edited
by J. K. Liker, 3–40. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Liker, J. K. 2004. Toyota Way. New York: McGraw-Hill.
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.
Longoni, A., M. Pagell, D. Johnston, and A. Veltri. 2013. “When Does Lean Hurt? – An Exploration of Lean Practices and Worker
Health and Safety Outcomes.” International Journal of Production Research 51 (11): 3300–3320.
MacDuffie, J. P. 1995. “Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: Organizational Logic and Flexible Production
Systems in the World Auto Industry.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 48: 197–221.
Mann, D. 2005. Creating a Lean Culture. New York: Productivity Press.
Maskell, B. H. 2000. “Lean Accounting for Lean Manufacturers.” Manufacturing Engineering 125: 46–53.
Mast, D. J. 2011. “The Tactical Use of Constraints and Structure in Diagnostic Problem Solving.” Omega 39: 702–709.
McDonald, T., E. M. Van Aken, and A. F. Rentes. 2002. “Utilising Simulation to Enhance Value Stream Mapping: A Manufacturing
Case Application.” International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 5 (2): 213–232.
Monden, Y. 1998. Toyota Production System: An Integrated Approach to Just-in-Time. Norcross, GA: Engineering & Management
Press.
Montgomery, D. C. 2005. Statistical Quality Control. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Naumann, E., and K. Giel. 1995. Customer Satisfaction Measurement and Management. Boise, ID: Thomson Executive Press.
Nicholas, J. 2012. “An Integrated Lean-methods Approach to Hospital Facilities Redesign.” Hospital Topics 90: 47–55.
Ohno, T. 1988. Toyota Production System beyond Large-scale Production. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Orsburn, J. D., and L. Moran. 2000. The New Self-Directed Work Teams: Mastering the Challenge. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Panizzolo, R. 1998. “Applying the Lessons Learned from 27 Lean Manufacturers: The Relevance of Relationships Management.”
International Journal Production Economics 55: 223–240.
Parker, S. K., and T. D. Wall. 1998. Job and Work Design. London: Sage.
Parker, S. K., H. Williams, and N. Turner. 2006. “Modeling the Antecedents of Proactive Behavior at Work.” Journal of Applied
Psychology 91: 636–652.
Pettersen, J. 2009. “Defining Lean Production: Some Conceptual and Practical Issues.” The TQM Journal 21 (2): 127–142.
Pfeffer, J. 1994. Competitive Advantage through People. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Power, J., and D. Waddell. 2004. “The Link between Self-managed Work Teams and Learning Organizations using Performance
Indicators.” The Learning Organization 11: 244–259.
Rogers, D. S., D. M. Lambert, K. L. Croxton, and S. J. García-Dastugue. 2002. “The Returns Management Process.” The
International Journal of Logistics Management 13 (2): 1–18.
Rogers, D. S., R. S. Tibben-Lembke, K. Banasiak, K. Brokmann, and T. Johnson, 2001. “Reverse Logistics Challenges.” Proceedings
of the 2001 Council of Logistics Management Annual Conference, Oak Brook, IL. P.1.
Rothstein, J. S. 2004. “Creating Lean Industrial Relations: General Motors in Silao.” Mexico. Competition & Change 8 (3): 203–221.
Saary, M. J. 2008. “Radar Plots: A Useful Way for Presenting Multivariate Health Care Data.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 61
(4): 311–317.
Saurin, T. A., G. A. Marodin, and J. L. D. Ribeiro. 2011. “A Framework for Assessing the Use of Lean Production Practices in
Manufacturing Cells.” International Journal of Production Research 49: 3211–3230.
Searcy, D. 2009. “Developing a Lean Performance Score.” Strategic Finance 91 (3): 34–39.
Shah, R., and P. T. Ward. 2003. “Lean Manufacturing: Context, Practice Bundles, and Performance.” Journal of Operations
Shah, R., and P. T. Ward. 2007. “Defining and Developing Measures of Lean Production.” Journal of Operations Management 25:
785–805.
Shaw, M. E., and P. R. Costanzo. 1970. Theories of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shileds, H. 2006. “Attacking Lean Wastes.” Quality Progress 39 (8): 78–79.
Shingo, S. 1981. A Study of the Toyota Production System from an Industrial Engineering Viewpoint. Cambridge, MA: Productivity
Press.
Singh, B., S. K. Garg, and S. K. Sharma. 2010. “Development of Index for Measuring Leanness: Study of an Indian Auto
Component Industry.” Measuring Business Excellence 14: 46–53.
Soriano-Meier, H., and P. L. Forrester. 2002. “A Model for Evaluating the Degree of Leanness of Manufacturing Firms.” Integrated
Manufacturing Systems 13 (2): 104–109.
Stevenson, J. 2007. Operations Management. 9th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill-Irwin.
Superville, C. R., S. F. Jones, and J. L. Boyd. 2003. “Quality Costing: Modeling with Suggestions for Managers.” International
Journal of Management 20 (3): 346–350.
Swamidass, P. M. 2007. “The Effect of TPS on US Manufacturing during 1981–1998: Inventory Increased or Decreased as a
Function of Plant Performance.” International Journal of Production Research 45 (16): 3763–3778.
Swink, M., S. A. Melnyk, M. B. Cooper, and J. L. Hartley. 2011. Managing Operations across the Supply Chain. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Taggart, P. 2009. “The Effectiveness of Lean Manufacturing Audits in Driving İmprovements in Operational Performance.” Thesis
(MS), University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Taj, S. 2005. “Applying Lean Assessment Tools in Chinese Hi-tech Industries.” Management Decision 43: 628–643.
Wan, H. D., and F. F. Chen. 2008. “A Leanness Measure of Manufacturing Systems for Quantifying Impacts of Lean Initiatives.”
International Journal of Production Research 46 (23): 6567–6584.
Way, S. A. 2002. “High Performance Work Systems and Intermediate Indicators of Firm Performance within the US Small Business
Sector.” Journal of Management 28: 765–785.
Wilson, L. 2010. How to Implement Lean Manufacturing. New York: Mc-Graw Hill.
Womack, J., and D. Jones. 1996. Lean Thinking. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Womack, J. P., D. T. Jones, and D. Roos. 1990. The Machine that Changed the World. New York: Rawson Associates.
Womack, J. P., D. T. Jones, and D. Roos. 2007. The Machine That Changed the World. New York: Free Press.
Wood, S. J. 2005. “Organizational Performance and Manufacturing Practices.” In The Essentials for the New Workplace, edited by D.
Holman, D. T. D. Wall, C. W. Clegg, P. Sparrow, and A. Howard, 197–218. New York: Wiley.
Wright, P. M., and G. McMahan. 1992. “Theoretical Perspectives for Strategic Human Resource Management.” Journal of
Yauch, C. A., and H. J. Steudel. 2002. “Cellular Manufacturing for Small Business: Key Cultural Factors That Impact the
Conversation Process.” Journal of Operations Management 20: 593–617.
Yavuz, M., and S. Tufekci. 2006. “Dynamic Programming Solution to the Batching Problem in Just-in-time Flow-shops.” Computers
& Industrial Engineering 51: 416–432.
Zadeh, L. A. 1965. “Fuzzy Sets.” Information and Control 8: 338–353.
Zarbo, R. 2011. “Bringing Ford’s Ideas Alive at Henry Ford Health System Labs through PDCA Leadership.” In The Toyota Way to
Continuous Improvement, edited by J. K. Liker and J. K. Franz, 225–259. New York: Mc-Graw Hill.
Zipkin, P. H. 2000. Foundations of Inventory Management. New York: Irwin Professional Pub.
Appendix A. LAT’s qualitative items

Quality
(1) Employees identify defective parts and stop the line.
(2) Employees identify defective parts, but do not stop the line.
(3) Defective parts are sent back to the employees responsible for the defect to adjust it.
(4) Processes are controlled through measuring inside the process.
(5) Measuring is done after each process.
(6) Measuring is done only after product is complete.
(7) Process-focused management is employed in throughout the firm.

(8) Information continuously is displayed in dedicated spaces.
(9) Oral and written information are provided regularly.
(10) Written information is provided regularly.
(11) There is a total commitment to waste culture.
Customer
(12) Our customers are directly involved in current and future product offerings.
(13) We have frequent follow-up with our customers for quality/service feedback.
Process
(14) We use kanban, squares, or containers of signals for production control.
(15) Equipment is grouped to produce a continuous flow of products.
(16) We post equipment maintenance records on shop floor for active sharing with employees.
(17) We conduct product capability studies before product launch.
(18) We use SPC techniques to reduce process variance.
(19) TPM is applied throughout the firm.
(20) 5S is integrated into the management system.
(21) Value stream mapping is employed in throughout the firm.
(22) Root-cause problem solving is integrated into the management system.
(23) Our production system works on cellular manufacturing system.
(24) We implement experimental design or Taguchi methods into our continuous improvement studies.
(25) Standard operating procedures are developed, published and readily available in all areas.
(26) Non-manufacturing operations are standardized.
(27) Single Minute Exchange of Die programs are in use.
(28) Single piece flow programs or practices are in use.
Human resources
(29) Employees drive suggestion programs.
(30) Employees lead product/process improvement efforts.
(31) Employees undergo cross functional trainings.
(32) Team leadership rotates among team members.
(33) Continuous improvement and compensation link is evident.
(34) Operators and supervisors are cross functionally trained and flexible to rotate into different jobs.
(35) Team leaders spend their time either training employees, monitoring the process, or improving it.
(36) Leaders are responsible for how the value-added work gets done.
Delivery
(37) Production is pulled by the shipment of finished goods.
(38) Production at the stations is pulled by the current demand of the next station.
(39) We consider quality as our number one criterion in selecting suppliers.
(40) We strive to establish long-term relationship with our suppliers.
(41) We regularly solve problems jointly with our suppliers.
(42) We have helped our suppliers to improve their product quality.
(43) We have continuous improvement programs that include our key suppliers.
(44) We include our key suppliers in our planning and goal-setting activities.
(45) Suppliers are perceived as a partner of the firm.
(46) Suppliers are directly involved in the new product development process.
(47) We have a formal supplier certification program.
(48) Our key suppliers deliver to plant on JIT basis.
(49) We give our suppliers feedback on quality and delivery performance.
(50) We and our trading partners exchange information that helps establishment of business planning.
(51) We are first in the market in introducing new products.
Copyright of International Journal of Production Research is the property of Taylor & Francis
Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
View publication stats

Criteria For A Lean Organisation: Development of A Lean Assessment Tool

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criteria For A Lean Organisation: Development of A Lean Assessment Tool

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Criteria for a lean organisation: Development of a lean assessment tool

Article in International Journal of Production Research · August 2014

Karen Moustafa Leonard

Lean Principles View project

Uncertainty avoidance View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Criteria for a lean organisation: development of a lean assessment tool

*Corresponding author. Email: fpakdil@baskent.edu.tr

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Table 1. Liker’s (2004) fourteen principles.

Philosophy – Long term 1. Base your management decisions on a long-term philosophy,

Lean assessment tool

Behrouzi and Wong (2011) X X X X

Shah and Ward (2003) X X X X X X X

Doolen and Hacker

Table 3. LAT’s quantitative performance indicators.

T1 Average set-up time per unit

T2 Set up time/total production time

T3 Average lead time per unit

T6 Takt time/cycle time

T7 Total down time/total machine time

T8 Total time spent on unplanned or emergency repairs/total

Q2 Total defectives $/total sales

Q4 Total reworks $/total sales

Quality Q6 Total scraps $/total sales

Q7 Total scraps $/total products $

Q8 Failure rate at final inspection (First time through)

Q9 # of poka-yoke devices/total defectives, scraps, reworks

Q % of inspection carried out by autonomous defect control

Q Total # of people dedicated primarily to quality

P1 Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE)

P2 Size of the adjustment and repair area/total area

C1 Annual transportation costs/total sales

C2 Inventory costs/total sales

C3 Total warranty costs/total sales

C4 Total cost of poor quality/total costs

Cost C5 Total cost/total sales

C6 Average cost per unit

C7 Total prevention costs/total costs

C8 Total prevention costs/total sales

C9 Profit after interest and tax/total sales

H1 Labor turnover rate

H3 Total # of managers/total employees

H4 Total # of suggestions/total employees

H5 Total # of implemented suggestions/total suggestions

Human Resources H6 Total # of employees working in teams/total employees

H7 Total # of job classifications/total employees

H8 The # of hierarchical levels

H9 Total indirect employees/total direct employees

H Total # of employees involved in lean practices/total

H Total # of problem solving teams/total employees

H Sales per employee

D1 # of times that parts are transported/total sales

D2 Total transportation distance of materials/total sales

Delivery D3 Average total # of days from orders received to delivery

D4 Order processing time/total orders

C1 Customer satisfaction index

C2 Market share (market share by product group)

C4 Customer retention rate

C5 Total number of products returned by the

I1 Total # of suppliers/total # of items in inventory

I2 Stock turnover rate (Inventory turnover rate)