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

net/publication/308522321

STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW OF LEAN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES

AND THEIR IMPACT ON PROJECT SUCCESS

Conference Paper · October 2015

CITATIONS READS

4 782

2 authors, including:

Chinweike Eseonu
Oregon State University
31 PUBLICATIONS 182 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Community Driven Technology Development View project

Application of Resilient Systems Thinking to Sustain a Lean Organizational Culture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chinweike Eseonu on 17 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the 2015 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference
S. Cetinkaya and J. K. Ryan, eds.

Lean Focused State-of-the-Art Matrix Review of the Training

Literature
Joshua Hille
Chinweike Eseonu, Ph.D.
School of MIME
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR

Abstract
Effective and efficient training is a determinant of successful lean implementation. However, there is a lack of
consensus on the determinants of training effectiveness and efficiency. The literature contains several industry-
specific investigations of training implementation and evaluation models, success factors, and training technological
advancement. However, there remains a need for an overarching synthesis that reflects the more dynamic employee-
focused workplace. This paper presents an overview of the past 50 years of literature; specifically, it draws
conclusions from seven reviews by categorically delineating the research to recognize trends and identify key
research issues for further investigation. Additionally, the paper provides a state-of-the-art matrix analysis for the
period since the last review. The findings are useful for researchers and industry professionals employing training as
a lean implementation and sustainability method.

Keywords
Training, training evaluation, state-of-the-art, lean training

1. Introduction
Training research, in its modern form, effectively began in the 1940s with the U.S. government service, Training
Within Industry (TWI). The goal of the TWI program was to prepare the largely untrained labor force to support the
war efforts [1]. Although TWI efforts wavered after World War II, training research expanded, especially following
Kirkpatrick’s work in the late 1950s which developed a four-level approach to training evaluation [2]. A number of
researchers have utilized Kirkpatrick’s work as the basis for training evaluation programs that can be adapted for
application in a number of industries [3], [4]. Over the past 50 years, training has expanded to a wide range of
industries including service [5], government [6], engineering [7], and manufacturing [8]. Each of these industries
strives to achieve a similar set of goals that include: improved profitability and safety, increased employee
satisfaction, and adoption of nascent technologies, among others.

Training is conceptually synonymous with continuous improvement and lean as it focuses on “the detection and
correction of error” [9]. We define lean simply as the elimination of waste and therefore, training can be described
as the development of skills to aid in the recognition and elimination of waste. Training is utilized to develop social,
cultural and technical skills in organizations [10]. For instance, Toyota places an emphasis on training to develop the
skills of workers on problem solving, the Toyota Production System (TPS), safety, and recognition of problems
[11]. These skills are directly beneficial to the company, as employees are more aware of their environments and can
better recognize opportunities for improvement [11]. Although lean training is an integral part of developing a
workforce devoted to lean, a review of the lean training literature reveals it is relatively modern (2000s) and lacks
diversity.

The training literature has been reviewed seven times since Campbell’s early work in 1971 [12]; however, there
remains a need for an overarching synthesis of the entire training history in the context of lean process improvement.
We seek to synthesize the previous reviewers’ work and capture the works that have been completed since the last
review was published in 2009 [13]. This lean-focused review of the training literature is needed for a number of
reasons: 1) fewer than 25% of lean implementation attempts are successful [14], 2) lean failure often occurs due to
 Hille, Eseonu
culture and knowledge-related issues [15], [16], and 3) US organizations devote considerable funding to training
[17] with mixed results [18]. Our objective is to recognize the larger research trends to pinpoint the direction in
which lean training is headed, with the ultimate goal of identifying clear research themes that address training-
related root causes of lean implementation failure.

This review is useful for researchers and industry professionals. For researchers, it provides a thorough
understanding of previous literature and the extension of that literature to lean training techniques and associated
opportunities for growth. For industry professionals, it summarizes the key aspects of training and identifies the
common techniques used for training needs development, application, and evaluation. Furthermore, industry
professionals will benefit from the identified lean training parallels which will support the implementation of lean
practices. To realize these benefits, we aim to achieve the following in this paper.

 Summarize the state-of-practice and state-of-the-art in the areas of training needs development, application,
and evaluation
 Identify areas in the training literature which are in need of further research
 Outline opportunities for further research to sustain lean implementation through training

2. State-of-the-Art Methodology
We analyzed the seven reviews by Campbell in 1971 [12], Goldstein in 1980 [19], Wexley in 1984 [20], Latham in
1988 [21], Tannenbaum and Yukl in 1992 [22], Salas and Cannon-Bowers in 2001 [23], and Aguinis and Kraiger in
2009 [13] by identifying the primary topics discussed in the respective works. Additionally, we recorded the
referenced papers under each of the topics to pinpoint the popularity of a specific topic during a time period. Table 1
is an overview of the reviewed papers, including the approximate time periods covered, and number of citations.

Table 1: Overview of seven review papers

Author(s) Time Period No. of Citations
Campbell (1971) 1966-1970 213
Goldstein (1980) 1971-1979 255
Wexley (1984) 1980-1982 191
Latham (1988) 1983-1987 144
Tannenbaum and Yukl (1992) 1987-1991 234
Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001) 1992-2000 163
Aguinis and Kraiger (2009) 2000-2008 138
Total 1966-2008 1338

To modernize this review, we analyzed the literature between February 2009 and December 2014 to assess
continued relevance of the research topics recognized in the historical reviews. We also use this recent review to
develop opportunities for further research. Furthermore, we look specifically at lean training methodologies, to aid
in the expansion of research in this area. The literature review was conducted using Oregon State University
Libraries’ Academic Search Premier, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Search terms included training, training
effectiveness, training review, training evaluation, lean training, sustaining lean training, lean manufacturing
training and training success factors. We also utilized a citation map from the Aguinis and Kraiger review to
identify more recent literature. The identified literature was compiled in a state-of-the-art matrix, which is a
literature review methodology that utilizes categorical matrices to identify key research trends and holes from prior
research [24].

3. Results
3.1. Summary of Reviews
Over the past 50 years, training research has evolved from “nonempirical, nontheoretical, poorly written, and dull”
[12] articles, to studies that outline nascent theories and clearly identify relevant, practical tools and models [23].
Interestingly, many of the research topics have remained the same over this time period and, as such, offer a clear
view of where the industry has been and where opportunities for further work remain. To begin this work, we briefly
review the most commonly cited training topics captured in the seven reviews listed in Table 1 and identify the use
of these topics within the training literature. Table 2 is an overview of the training topics. Each topic is paired with
 Hille, Eseonu
the review papers in which the topic is discussed. The associated numbers represent the number of papers cited
within each review paper for a specific training topic.

Table 2: Training topics cited in review articles

Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001)

Tannenbaum & Yukl (1992)

Aguinis & Kraiger (2009)

Review Articles

Campbell (1971)

Goldstein (1980)

Wexley (1984)

Latham (1988)
Training Topics

Task analysis 1 5 11 8 10 6 -
Person analysis and individual
10 4 26 6 13 36 7
differences
Organizational analysis - 7 - 4 8 7 -
Computer-assisted instruction 6 4 6 - 13 10 5
Simulation 5 10 8 1 12 12 1
Cross-cultural training 6 - 2 10 6 - 5
Evaluation 5 26 13 11 26 9 18
Behavior role modeling - 8 16 10 12 3 2

Training in lean methodologies is a common need due to the extensive application of lean as seen by numerous
books and journal articles [25], [26], consultancy companies [27], and implementation in small and large companies
[25]. A Google AdWords search for the term lean training results in an average of 3,000 monthly searches from
January 2013 to December 2014. However, a review of the literature on lean training paints a slightly different
picture. The search produces many results, yet they are narrowly focused, frequently on in-person and online
simulation techniques. This supports the findings in Table 2, which reveals many training topics that have been
minimally studied in recent years.

In a 2007 article, Norcross suggested that lean training must involve some interactive learning, which is clearly
achieved through simulation techniques [28]. Furthermore, she argues that lean classroom training is often
ineffective. This argument against traditional classroom training has also been supported by Farr and Sullivan, who
argue that it is expensive, lacks context, and is intimidating to trainees [29]. We agree with these statements in
theory, yet argue that lean training methodologies have not been exhaustively studied. Without a thorough
understanding of the application of the various, commonly-practiced training techniques, we risk erroneously
accepting simulation as the ideal lean training tool. Following, we review the training topics listed in Table 2, both
in application to lean and to the broader training literature. The goal of this review is to identify opportunities for
improvements that bolster lean training techniques.

Task Analysis
Task analysis is the identification of “the nature of the tasks to be performed on the job and the knowledge, skills,
and abilities (KSAs) needed to perform these tasks” [22]. The goal of applying task analysis is to develop the
content of a training program to focus on job tasks [20]. In the first review, completed by Campbell [12], task
analysis is mentioned just once. Following this, Goldstein [19] pays more attention to task analysis by identifying its
usefulness, yet notes that there are few applications. Task analysis begins to be more prevalent in 1984 when
Wexley discusses a range of task analysis research that quantitatively defines tasks to support strong training
development [20]. As job requirements have continued to expand and change, the need for clearly identifying the
 Hille, Eseonu
tasks within those jobs has become more important [22]. Yet, the most recent review paper does not mention the
term task analysis and identifies there is little work focused on needs assessments for training [13].

The lean training literature on task analysis is seemingly nonexistent. We hypothesize that this is due to the
extensive literature focused on lean techniques and tools [11], [15], [25]. This literature essentially captures what
task analysis is meant to do; that is, defining the steps necessary to implement lean. However, we argue that each
training session devoted to lean methodologies should involve some type of task analysis. This will ensure that the
training is focused and has a limited scope. This approach would also clarify cause-effect relationships and help
trainees understand tangible strategies for waste elimination. Since the implementation of lean tools can be unclear
[15] due to the myriad of available options, training must be effectively focused on specific portions of lean through
the use of task analysis.

Person Analysis and Individual Differences

Person analysis identifies “who should be trained and what training is needed by an individual” [22]. Thus, the
analysis is beneficial for use when determining the level of training required by specific trainees. This allows a
company to maximize the effectiveness of training courses by tailoring the level of training to the knowledge of the
trainees [22]. A number of review authors also include a section referring to individual differences, which focuses
on broader characteristics of trainees including abilities, skills, motivation, attitudes, and expectations [22]. Much of
the work on individual differences and person analysis has been relatively consistent through time. The general
methodology has been to define trainee factors and then study how those factors may have impacted the
effectiveness of the training [12], [13], [19], [20], [22], [23]. Earlier research in the 1970s also tended to focus on
defining factors to describe individual differences [12], but through time the literature seems to have agreed on
certain defining characteristics like cognitive ability, self-efficacy, and goal orientation [23].

To the authors’ knowledge, no lean training articles have referred to person analysis or individual difference
characterization. Although lean training literature characterizes participants and often categorizes based on initial
knowledge of lean manufacturing [30], customization of training materials based on these limited metrics is absent.
We theorize that this lack of customization is due to the nature of modern lean training, which is usually designed
for large groups through simulation [10]. However, there are options available for computer-based instruction which
are completed individually [31]. We believe these types of instruction tools could benefit from the application of
person analysis to better align training material with trainees’ initial knowledge.

Organizational Analysis
The seminal work by McGehee and Thayer states that the purpose of organizational analysis is to determine where
and when training is needed based on an organization’s objectives, goals, and resource needs [32]. The early work
on organization analysis was minimal and focused on the failure of training programs due to organizational
constraints [20]. It wasn’t until 1988 when organizational analysis began to expand and focus on relating
organizational strategy and training techniques [21]. Additionally, organizational analysis further developed into
identifying system-wide descriptors that could determine expected behavior change from training [22]. Although
somewhat limited in breadth, organizational analysis has been shown to impact training results by predicting skill
transfer and post-training behavior [23]. As such, organizational analysis should be an area of focus for future
training research [23].

Organizational analysis within lean literature is a common practice, although it is not referred to by name. This
research is often captured in articles focused on the characteristics of lean programs. As has been shown many times,
the culture of an organization influences lean effectiveness [33]–[35]. Additionally, these articles identify other
characteristics including management support [35], customer focus [34], and employee incentives [34] as beneficial
to lean implementation. Though these articles are not applied directly to lean training, but lean in general, they offer
a firm foundation for determining characteristics that impact the effectiveness of lean. We suggest that an initial
study could focus on those characteristics already present in the literature and apply them to organizational analysis
for training.

Computer-Assisted Instruction
Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) has expanded in the past 50 years with the continued reduction in cost and
improved functionality of technology [22]. It has ballooned from having no recognizable body of knowledge [12] to
 Hille, Eseonu
being a major subset of the training literature [36]. Early work in computer-assisted instruction began in the late
1970s [20] with most of the research focused on military and flight training efforts [37]–[39]. The initial concerns
with CAI, largely excessive cost and development time [22], have dwindled as technology has become more
prevalent and accessible. Additionally, knowledge of computers has expanded so much that trainees have the
capability to select their training content to suit their needs [13].

Within lean, computer-assisted instruction is prevalent for teaching lean concepts in both academia and industry [10].
A Google search of lean computer training reveals numerous offerings for training through universities and private
companies. As such, the lean training literature on this subject is broad, yet is fairly recent, beginning to appear in
the literature in the early 2000s [10]. Computer-based training is especially beneficial for teaching lean concepts
because simulations can be easily implemented with little need for resources and do not require the constant
attendance of an instructor [31]. Although computer-assisted lean training is a beneficial technique [31], it has been
shown that computer training lacks a focus on soft skills, focuses too much on present-moment problem solving, and
lacks realism [10]. For lean training to achieve a sustainable impact on a company, effective communication [40]
and a continual focus on change and improvement [41] must be instilled in trainees. To move toward more effective
lean training, we suggest that computer-assisted training be developed further with more focus on the cultural
aspects of lean, as represented in soft skills and a continuous improvement mindset.

Simulation
Simulation has been in common practice since at least the late 1970s [19], yet its presence in research was not
prevalent until the late 1980s [22]. Its early usage was common for jobs where the risk of error had high
consequences [19]; this meant it was often used for armed services’ training [22]. In addition to the original focus on
military training, simulations are now common practice in business and education [23]. Problems with simulation
research have developed over the years from initially lacking consistency across the literature and not including any
measures of retention, to not understanding the basic principles of why simulations work well [23]. More recent
literature does show that simulations achieve training success, yet they are often applied with little consideration for
training design [23].

Simulation, along with computer-assisted instruction, is the most commonly applied training methodology for lean
techniques and theory. A literature review of lean training almost exclusively reveals lean simulation research.
These lean training simulations are typically applied only to the production line, with few capturing the entire value
stream [10]. Simulation is so commonly applied because it is an effective way to present the application of theory to
real-world behavior and show the disparity between them [30]. Although it is common in the literature, lean
simulation training maintains the same issue that is seen in the broader training simulation literature. That is, the
lack of understanding why the simulation actually works. It is encouraging that the literature shows lean simulation
training is effective [10], [30], but to move forward, an understanding of the basic principles of its effectiveness
should be known.

Cross-Cultural Training
Cross-cultural training has expanded from a concentration on military efforts in the 1960s [12] to multinational
corporations, beginning in the 1980s [20]. This shift was due to the globalization of industry, which required ever-
more culturally aware employees as they travelled around the world for business [20]. All too similar to previous
training topics discussed, cross-cultural training research lagged behind its application in industry. Up to the most
recent review, cross-cultural training has been limited, with only a few authors focusing on this subject [13]. The
articles that have addressed this topic studied the effect of cross-cultural training on international job performance.
Overall, this type of training has been shown to be effective [13].

Cross-cultural training in the U.S. is directly applicable to lean since the methods and tools were developed in Japan
[25]. As such, efforts have been made to determine the transferability of lean concepts to other cultures [42]. We
argue that the transferability of lean concepts, which are greatly impacted by country and company culture [42], is
not simply achieved as seen by the low success rate of lean implementation [14]. Thus, a need is recognized for
studies focused on how cross-cultural training can improve non-Japanese companies’ implementation of lean. We
expect this training would need to be focused on company culture and effective communication methods, as they are
important factors in sustaining lean efforts [40], [42], [43].
 Hille, Eseonu
Evaluation
Evaluation is defined as “the systematic collection of descriptive and judgmental information necessary to make
effective training decisions related to the selection, adoption, value, and modification of various instructional
activities” [19]. This is arguably the most prevalent training topic in the literature, with discussions by every
literature reviewer and consistent themes seen over 40 years. The primary evaluation methodology discussed is
Kirkpatrick’s four-level approach which was introduced in the late 1950s [2] and continues to be the most common
technique within the evaluation literature [13]. Although some arguments against its lack of diagnostic measures
have appeared, it is still the most complete evaluation technique, focusing on four evaluation levels including
reaction, learning, behavior, and results [2]. The development of descriptive and quantitative training criteria has
also been a primary area of focus over the past 40 years [12], [13], [19]–[23]. Although many criterion have been
theorized, evaluated, and proven, there still remains a need for definitive measures of return on investment [13],
which has been a source of concern for training researchers since the late 1970s [19].

Training evaluation remains a popular area of research, and the need to apply it to lean training is unquestionable.
The limited research present on lean training does use evaluation methods [30], but we were unable to find any
articles specifically focused on evaluation techniques applied to lean training. We expect that Kirkpatrick’s four-
levels would be pertinent to lean training due to its already-proven, wide applicability to many industries through
time [13], [44]. One concern is the evaluation of return on investment, which still remains an elusive form of
measurement without a standardized methodology [13]. Furthermore, benefits due to lean can already be difficult to
quantify [45], so developing a reliable return on investment metric remains a challenging proposition.

Behavior Role Modeling

Behavior role modeling involves “learning some points or principles, observing a model that utilizes the
principles…, rehearsing the procedures by role playing, and receiving social reinforcement from the training and
other members of the group” [19]. In essence, it is a more in-depth form of simulation training [23]. The literature is
almost exclusively positive about the impacts of behavior role modeling, with a few exceptions that argue that the
benefits may be exaggerated [22]. Nevertheless, behavior role modeling has shown to be beneficial in computer-
assisted instruction [21], teaching concrete behaviors [22], and developing assertiveness [23], while being robust to
trainer characteristics [20]. The most recent suggestions for future work within the review articles appeared in 1992,
with a call for more research to study the characteristics of the training that make it beneficial [22].

We see behavior role modeling as a useful tool for teaching lean concepts due to its hands-on approach,
supplemented with theory. In support of this, it has been argued that teaching lean is best accomplished through a
variety of techniques, with simulation being the most effective [31]. Unfortunately, we did not find any articles
directly studying the impacts of behavior role modeling on lean. From personal experience, we are aware of
university courses which apply similar approaches to lean instruction, where students are instructed in a classroom
to learn the overarching theory and then given the opportunity to apply the theory in a simulation.

3.2. Review of Recent Training Literature

We reviewed 72 articles published from April 2009 to December 2014 using the state-of-the-art matrix methodology
[24]. In the following section, we identify characteristics in the recent literature to provide an understanding of the
direction in which training research is moving. Additionally, we specifically review the lean training literature and
its presence in the training literature as a whole.

Figure 1 is a summary of the industries captured in the recent literature review. The most studied industry is
healthcare, followed by education, service and government. Healthcare studies were well distributed in terms of the
application of training, with computer-based [46, p. -], web-based [47], lecture [48], simulation [49], and classroom
[50] training being studied. Additionally, 67% of the articles were based on some type of data collection. These
statistics suggest that the healthcare literature is robust and is a point of focus for many researchers.

The studies within education, encompassing both K-12 [51] and higher education environments [30], parallel
healthcare, applying many types of training techniques. Computer, web-based, simulation, and classroom training
applications were studied. Furthermore, 100% of referenced articles included data collection, suggesting that
education teaching methods are a point of interest within the research community. This may be partially due to the
accessibility of data within education, but also due to the goal of developing high-level thinking in students [52].
 Hille, Eseonu

Manufacturing Aerospace
8% 3%

Service
13%

Finance and
Insurance Healthcare
3% 39%

Government
10%

Education Engineering
21% 3%

Figure 1: Training articles by industry (n = 72)

Figure 2 represents all articles over the time period studied, clustered into the categories defined in Table 3.
Interestingly, we found review papers to be the most prevalent within the literature. These papers tended to focus on
specific topics within training including evaluation [53], economic analysis [54], and needs assessment [55], yet a
few took a broader view [36], [56]. The relative presence of measurement articles is encouraging. This, along with
the minimal quantity of new theories, implies the maturity of the training literature. Researchers appear to be more
focused on supporting previously defined theories with data collection, than producing new theories. We consider
this as positive, yet would contend that, for the literature to continue to advance, a more concerted effort on theory is
needed. This is especially clear within the lean training literature, which will be further discussed later in this section.

A point of interest in Figure 2 is the sharp drop in publications from 2011 to 2012, along with the jump in 2010. We
theorize this may be related to the publication of the most recent review by Aguinis and Kraiger in 2009. As the
review suggested numerous opportunities for further work [13], we see an increase of publications in the following
year. As time moves further away from the publication date, the response to the calls for research appears to
diminish.

Table 3: Article category definitions

Article Category Definition
A primary theory article develops a seminal theory that is not an extension of another. It is
Primary theory
original work that suggests a concept that is entirely new to the field.
A secondary theory article builds off of a primary theory, but suggests new direction for
Secondary theory
research.
Model A model article develops a descriptive representation that can be used to characterize a system.
A measurement article collects data (either qualitative or quantitative) and draws conclusions
Measurement
directly from that data.
A review article draws conclusions from numerous sources to develop new conclusions and
Review
areas for further work.
 Hille, Eseonu

20
18
16
14 Review
No. of Aritcles

12
Measurement
10
8 Model
6 Secondary
4 Theory

2
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year

Figure 2: Publication counts for each article category between 2009 and 2014

The lean training literature is sparse in comparison to the broader training literature. Five out of the 72 articles we
reviewed from 2009-2014 directly reference lean training methods, with those five focused on simulation techniques
[10], [30], [31], [57], [58]. Many of these articles were descriptive. The authors of these articles did not collect data
on simulation effectiveness, but instead described suggested simulation techniques [31], [57]. This is illustrative of
the infancy of research on lean training literature. While simulation is the most frequently discussed lean training
method, there are many opportunities for improvement to capture the holistic perspective of lean [10]. In addition to
simulation studies, there are opportunities for research in other areas of lean training including person analysis,
organizational analysis, cross-cultural training, evaluation, and behavior role modeling.

4. Conclusion
The training literature is well-developed in many areas, but there still remains opportunity for further research.
Primarily, we conclude that lean training is an almost untapped area of research that could benefit from studies of
the applicability of general training methods to lean. This includes development of theories, case studies on the
benefits of the training topics introduced in Section 3.1, and further data collection to support lean training
effectiveness.

Many of the research areas identified in Table 2 have grown less common in recent literature, primarily task
analysis, organizational analysis, simulation, and behavior role modeling. This is concerning for the lean training
research field, as these topics are key research areas as we previously discussed in Section 3.1. The reduction in
research may be a sign of topic maturity, yet we would argue that is not the case, especially within lean training
which has seen very little direct application of traditional training research. Further research is particularly needed in
the areas of task analysis, organizational analysis, simulation, and behavior role modeling with specific application
to lean. To reduce the failure rate of lean implementation a culture shift towards continuous improvement is needed,
and training is one method to begin that movement [10].

Although the seven articles referenced in Section 2 include extensive reviews and analysis, the reviews should not
be considered comprehensive [22]. As such, we acknowledge that the present work may miss some topics
throughout history; however, the reviews are a broad overview of the historical literature and do thoroughly cover
the primary topics. Conclusions captured in Section 3.1 are based on the research areas that the review authors chose
to summarize. Additionally, the review of recent training literature is not comprehensive, and as such, likely omits
some portions of the literature.
 Hille, Eseonu

References
1. Robinson, A., and Schroeder, D., 1993, “Training, Continuous Improvement, and Human-Relations - the
United-States Twi Programs and the Japanese Management Style,” Calif. Manage. Rev., 35(2), 35–57.
2. Kirkpatrick, D., 1996, “Great Ideas Revisited,” Train. Dev., 50(1), 54.
3. Shnege, N., 2014, “Training Evaluation: Process, Benefits, and Issues,” IFE Psychol. Int. J., 22(1), 50–58.
4. Smidt, A., Balandin, S., Sigafoos, J., and Reed, V., 2009, “The Kirkpatrick Model: A Useful Tool For
Evaluating Training Outcomes,” J. Intellect. Dev. Disabil., 34(3), 266–274.
5. Sinclair, R., Smith, R., Colligan, M., Prince, M., Nguyen, T., and Stayner, L., 2003, “Evaluation of a Safety
Training Program in Three Food Service Companies,” J. Safety Res., 34(5), 547–558.
6. Gharli Ronizi, Z., Gharli Ronizi, N., and Bahmani, F., 2014, “Evaluation of Training Courses’ Efficiency in
Tehran Municipality Based on Kirkpatrick Model,” Manag. Sci. Lett., 4(6), 1219–1222.
7. Tippett, D., and LaHoud, P., 1999, “Managing Computer-aided Civil Engineering Design Services,” J.
Manag. Eng., 15(2), 63–71.
8. Wiseman, L., Eseonu, C., and Doolen, T., 2014, “Development of a Framework for Evaluating Continuous
Improvement Training Within the Context of Enterprise Transformation,” J. Enterp. Transform., 4(3), 251–
271.
9. Argyris, C., and Schon, D.,A., Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley, 1978.
10. Badurdeen, F., Marksberry, P., Hall, A., and Gregory, B., 2010, “Teaching Lean Manufacturing With
Simulations and Games: A Survey and Future Directions,” Simul. Gaming, 41(4), 465–786.
11. Imai, M., Gemba Kaizen: A Commonsense Approach to a Continuous Improvement Strategy, 2nd ed.
McGraw-Hill Professional, 2012.
12. Campbell, J., 1971, “Personnel Training and Development,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., 22(1), 565–602.
13. Aguinis, H., and Kraiger, K., 2009, “Benefits of Training and Development for Individuals and Teams,
Organizations, and Society,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., 60(1), 451–474.
14. Blanchard, D., “Census of U.S. Manufacturers -- Lean Green and Low Cost,” Industry Week, Sep-2007.
15. Mirdad, W., “A Conceptual and Strategy Map for Lean Process Transformation,” Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR, 2014.
16. Choothian, W., “A Study of the Application of Lean Practices to New Product Development Processes,”
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 2014.
17. ASTD Research, 2013 State of the Industry Report. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press, 2013.
18. Bunch, K., 2007, “Training Failure as a Consequence of Organizational Culture,” Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev.,
6(2), 142–163.
19. Goldstein, I., 1980, “Training in Work Organizations,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., 31, 229–272.
20. Wexley, K., 1984, “Personnel Training,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., 35(1), 519–551.
21. Latham, G., 1988, “Human Resource Training and Development,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., 39(1), 545–582.
22. Tannenbaum, S., and Yukl, G., 1992, “Training and Development in Work Organizations,” Annu. Rev.
Psychol., 43(1), 399–441.
23. Salas, E., and Cannon-Bowers, J., 2001, “The Science of Training: A Decade of Progress,” Annu. Rev.
Psychol., 52(1), 471–499.
24. Beruvides, M., and Omachonu, V., 2001, “A Systematic-Statistical Approach for Managing Research
Information: The State-of-the-Art-Matrix Analysis,” Ind. Eng. Res. Conf. Proc.
25. Womack, J., and Jones, D., Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation. New York:
Free Press, 2003.
26. Chakravorty, S.,S., 2010, “An Implementation Model for Lean Programmes,” Eur. J. Ind. Eng., 4(2), 228–
248.
27. Allen, J., and Thomerson, G., 2008, “Better Way in Vogue,” Ind. Eng. IE, 40(11), 45–50.
28. Norcross, L., 2007, “High Potential,” Eng. Manag., 17(1), 29–31.
29. Farr, J., and Sullivan Jr., J., 1996, “Rethinking Training in the 1990s,” J. Manag. Eng., 12(3), 29–33.
30. Elbadawi, I., McWilliams, D., and Tetteh, E., 2010, “Enhancing Lean Manufacturing Learning Experience
Through Hands-On Simulation,” Simul. Gaming, 41(4), 537–552.
31. Kuriger, G., Wan, H., Mirehei, M., Tamma, S., and Chen, F., 2010, “A Web-Based Lean Simulation Game for
Office Operations: Training the Other Side of a Lean Enterprise,” Simul. Gaming, 41(4), 487–510.
32. McGehee, W., and Thayer, P., Training in Business and Industry. Wiley, 1961.
33. Glover, W., Liu, W., Farris, J., and Van Aken, E., 2013, “Characteristics of Established Kaizen Event
Programs: An Empirical Study,” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., 33(9), 1166–1201.
 Hille, Eseonu
34. García, J., Rivera, D., and Iniesta, A., 2013, “Critical success factors for Kaizen implementation in
manufacturing industries in Mexico,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 68(1)–(4), 537–545.
35. Glover, W., Farris, J., Van Aken, E., and Doolen, T., 2011, “Critical Success Factors for the Sustainability of
Kaizen Event Human Resource Outcomes: An Empirical Study,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., 132(2), 197–213.
36. Gupta, S., Bostrom, R., and Huber, M., 2010, “End-user Training Methods: What We Know, Need to Know,”
Data Base Adv. Inf. Syst., 41(4), 9–39.
37. Caro, P., 1979, “The Relationship Between Flight Simulator Motion and Training Requirements,” Hum.
Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc., 21(4), 493–501.
38. Hall, E., and Freda, J., “A Comparison of Individualized and Conventional Instruction in Navy Technical
Training,” Naval Training Analysis and Evaluation Group, Orlando, FL, TAEG-TR-117, 1982.
39. Johnson, K., “An Evaluation of Individualized, Job-Specific Maintenance Training,” Navy Personnel
Research and Development Center, San Diego, CA, NPRDC-14-78-5, 1982.
40. Farris, J., Van Aken, E., Doolen, T., and Worley, J., 2008, “Learning From Less Successful Kaizen Events: A
Case Study,” Eng. Manag. J., 20(3), 10–20.
41. Bateman, N., 2005, “Sustainability: The Elusive Element of Process Improvement,” Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manag., 25(3)–(4), 261–276.
42. Recht, R., and Wilderom, C., 1998, “Kaizen and Culture: On the Transferability of Japanese Suggestion
Systems,” Int. Bus. Rev., 7(1), 7–22.
43. Upton, D., 1996, “Mechanisms for Building and Sustaining Operations Improvement,” Eur. Manag. J., 14(3),
215–228.
44. Kirkpatrick, J., and Kirkpatrick, W., “The Feds Lead the Way in Making Training Evaluations More
Effective,” TD Magazine, 66(9), 56–61, Sep-2012.
45. Jones, B., 2013, “Identifying Real Cost Saving in Lean Manufacturing,” Aviat. Technol. Grad. Stud. Publ.
46. O’Malley, G., Marseille, E., and Weaver, M., 2013, “Cost-effectiveness Analyses of Training: A Manager’s
Guide,” Hum. Resour. Health, 11(1), 1–9.
47. O’Malley, G., Perdue, T., and Petracca, F., 2013, “A framework for outcome-level evaluation of in-service
training of health care workers,” Hum. Resour. Health, 11(1), 1–12.
48. Salopek, J., “Tackling Business-Critical Issues Through Training,” TD Magazine, 68(10), 64–67, Oct-2014.
49. Joyce, A., 2013, “The Need to Devise a Better Means of Training,” BJU Int., 111(3), 369–369.
50. Traeger, L., Park, E., Sporn, N., Repper-DeLisi, J., Convery, M., Jacobo, M., and Pin, W., 2013,
“Development and Evaluation of Targeted Psychological Skills Training for Oncology Nurses in Managing
Stressful Patient and Family Encounters,” Oncol. Nurs. Forum, 40, E327–E336.
51. Seo, Y.,-J., and Woo, H., 2010, “The Identification, Implementation, and Evaluation of Critical User Interface
Design Features of Computer-assisted Instruction Programs in Mathematics for Students with Learning
Disabilities,” Comput. Educ., 55(1), 363–377.
52. Marley, K., 2014, “Eye on the Gemba: Using Student-Created Videos and the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy to
Teach Lean Management,” J. Educ. Bus., 89(6), 310–316.
53. Giangreco, A., Carugati, A., and Sebastiano, A., 2010, “Are We Doing the Right Thing?,” Pers. Rev., 39(2),
162–177.
54. Carliner, S., and Bakir, I., 2010, “Trends in spending on training: An analysis of the 1982 through 2008
Training Annual Industry Reports,” Perform. Improv. Q., 23(3), 77–105.
55. Zahid Iqbal, M., and Ahmad Khan, R., 2011, “The Growing Concept and Uses of Training Needs
Assessment,” J. Eur. Ind. Train., 35(5), 439–466.
56. Kraiger, K., and Cavanagh, T., “Training and Personal Development,” in The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of
the Psychology of Training, Development, and Performance Improvement, K. Kraiger, J. Passmore, N. R. dos
Santos, and S. Mallvezzi, Eds. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2014, 225–246.
57. Silva, I., Xambre, A., and Lopes, R., 2013, “A Simulation Game Framework for Teaching Lean Production,”
Int. J. Ind. Eng. Manag., 4(2), 81–86.
58. Kreimeier, D., Morlock, F., Prinz, C., Krückhans, B., Bakir, D.,C., and Meier, H., “Holistic Learning
Factories – A Concept to Train Lean Management, Resource Efficiency as Well as Management and
Organization Improvement Skills,” in Proceedings of the CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems, 2014,
17, 184–188.

View publication stats