Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

ISSN: 1478-3363 (Print) 1478-3371 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

Using simulation to teach lean methodologies and

the benefits for Millennials

Reuben F. Burch V & Brian Smith

To cite this article: Reuben F. Burch V & Brian Smith (2017): Using simulation to teach lean
methodologies and the benefits for Millennials, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2017.1303330

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1303330

Published online: 21 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctqm20

Download by: [Hacettepe University] Date: 22 March 2017, At: 03:28

Total Quality Management, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1303330

Using simulation to teach lean methodologies and the benefits for

Millennials
∗
Reuben F. Burch V and Brian Smith

Industrial and Systems Engineering, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, USA

Lean manufacturing is no longer just a practice for industrial manufacturing. In an

effort to generate more revenue with less resources, companies of all product and
service types are turning to Lean methodologies. In its simplest form, Lean is
described as identifying value-added tasks versus the non-value-added tasks through
the eyes of the end customer. Teaching the newest workforce has changed given the
visual learning preferences of the youngest demographic in the workplace – the
digital natives who grew up immersed in technology. In an effort to teach Lean to
all employees, in particular the youngest cohort, training has taken on forms that
mimic the modern technology of today’s commercially popular pastimes: video
games. Video games are essentially simulations of one or more real-life components
applied via an interactive, responsive environment. Using simulations to teach Lean
methodologies allows for instant feedback on components that are applicable to
specific companies. Simulation-based training has been researched and attempted in
the past. This study will focus on those efforts and their successes and will
interpolate how the benefits of simulation training for Lean differs from all
employees in the workplace versus employees born between 1979 and 2000.
Keywords: lean manufacturing; teaching; video games; Millennials; simulation
learning

Introduction
Why use lean methodologies in industry?
Lean manufacturing evolved out of a Japanese culture that placed a high commitment on
practising quality throughout the entire organisation. The management philosophy of Lean
originated from the Toyota Production System (TPS) (Gao & Low, 2014) and can be
described as a ‘system for the total elimination of waste from an operation and process’
(Badurdeen, Marksberry, Hall, & Gregory, 2010). Seven areas where waste is known to
occur were identified in the late 1950s when Lean concepts were developed. The seven
areas were identified as overproduction, waiting, transport, overprocessing, inventory,
motion, and defects (Abdullah, 2004; Elbadawi, McWilliams, & Tetteh, 2010; Shingo
& Dillon, 2003; Womack & Jones, 1996). Eliminating waste from these seven areas is
known to have a direct, positive effect on both throughput and cost (Morien, 2005). An
eighth waste, underutilisation, was later identified and applied to Lean concepts (Elbadawi
et al., 2010; Womack & Jones, 1996).
As Tetteh and McWilliams (2010) state, the goals of Lean manufacturing are ‘zero
lead time, zero inventories, and zero defects resulting in higher customer satisfaction’.
Moving to a Lean culture requires a drastic change in the mindsets of employees and so
successfully training Lean to the organisation is an essential component to implementation

∗
Email: [email protected]

# 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 R. F. Burch V and B. Smith

success (Kuriger, Wan, Mirehei, Tamma, & Chen, 2010). Gurumurthy and Kodali (2011)
emphasise that the largest stumbling blocks and failures in implementing Lean include
‘the lack of understanding by managers of the organizations’ when applied to the follow-
ing three concepts:

(1) How should Lean manufacturing be implemented?

(2) What transformations will an organization experience as Lean manufacturing is
implemented?
(3) How exactly will Lean manufacturing affect an organization’s performance
measures? (Gurumurthy & Kodali, 2011)

Adding to the need for proper Lean training is the corporate realisation that has
occurred in the last couple of decades: the realisation that Lean is no longer a manufactur-
ing-specific toolkit (Langstrand & Drotz, 2016) or intended just for larger corporations
(Werner, Ahaus, van Solinger, Kumar, & Antony, 2016). George (2003) states in his
Lean Six Sigma for Service book that ‘Approximately 30% to 50% of the cost in a
service organization is caused by costs related to slow speed or performing rework . . . ’
Service-based industries are full of waste and below are three reasons as to what Lean
methodologies should be applied to these companies:

. Service processes are usually slow and slow processes are prone to poor quality
driving up the cost while reducing customer satisfaction (more than half the cost
in service-type processes and their applications are ‘non-value-added waste’).
. Service processes are slow because of the high amount of WIP (or work-in-process);
too much WIP is often a result of unnecessary complexity in the final service and/or
product (with too much WIP, work can spend upwards of 90% of its life cycle time
in waiting).
. For slow service-type processes, 80% of the process delay is caused by less than 20%
of the activities that comprise slow processes (identify and improve the 20% in order
to increase on-time delivery of products and services by 99%) (George, 2003).

George (2003) summarises the main concept behind Lean in such a way that all com-
panies of all types can appreciate the value of applying Lean tools: Lean is simply an
understanding of value-added tasks and non-value-added tasks in the eyes of the end cus-
tomer. Training employees on how to identify the type of task, value versus non-value,
becomes crucial in creating the cultural shift to quality in an organisation.

Demographic shift and learning styles

A significant shift in the demographics of the global workplace is currently in process
(Carstens & Beck, 2005). Older members of the workplace will be eligible for retirement
from their jobs at a rate of 10,000 per day, every day for the next 20 years (DePass, 2012).
These retirees are often being replaced by someone born between 1979 and 2000 (Burch V
& Strawderman, 2014). Another concern regarding this demographic shift is that the wave
of new employees from this younger cohort think, learn, believe, respond, and work far
differently than the retirees ever did. This younger demographic was raised on technology.
In fact, they have never known a time when there was not technology; this distinction
labels them ‘digital natives’, making knowledge transfer from retirees to their much
younger replacements one of the biggest obstacles facing organisations today (Kapp,
 Total Quality Management 3

2007). For this reason, it becomes critical that large organisations create an environment
that accommodates their incoming workforce. Accommodation means understanding the
differences between younger and older employees and what those differences might mean
for the tools provided by the organisation for all employees to perform their jobs. Tools
can come in many forms: communication, scheduling, informal learning, and so on. For
the purposes of this study, the tool with the greatest impact to the adoption of Lean meth-
odologies is training.
So how exactly are cohorts of the youngest generation in the workforce different from
the preceding generations when it comes to learning and what does this mean for training?
As far back as 1984, UCLA Professor Greenfield established that, as a result of video game
play, members of the Millennials would eventually show improved cognitive skills in such
areas as visualisation and mental maps (Greenfield, 1984). More recent research further
establishes that the brain’s neural circuitry has evolved differently in the younger gener-
ation due to extreme technology immersion (Small & Vorgan, 2008, pp. 40, 123) strength-
ening new neural pathways – such as the temporal lobe (Blakemore & Choudhury, 2006;
den Ouden, Frith, Frith, & Blakemore, 2005) that manages vision and movement (Kawa-
shima, 2005) – and weakening others, such as fundamental social skills in reading facial
expressions, gestures, and contexts. (McGivern, Andersen, Byrd, Mutter, & Reilly, 2002;
Small & Vorgan, 2008, pp. 1 – 2, 30).
Another UCLA finding from neuroscientist Gary Small confirmed Greenfield’s con-
clusions stating that Millennial cohorts are more effective in some areas such as respond-
ing to visual stimulation, multitasking, and filtering information. As previously identified,
these younger employees are less adept to face-to-face interaction and deciphering non-
verbal cues (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). Research conducted as distant as 20 years
ago found that video games improved visual memory in children as young as four
(Oyen & Bebko, 1996).
Computer applications, most specifically games, the Internet, and mobile software are
designed such that the balance of required information processing is shifted from verbal to
visual. This new skillset specifically enhances the cognitive abilities dealing with visual
intelligence such as spatial representation, iconic recognition, and visual attention.
These are the same skills required to successfully navigate video games and many other
computer applications (Subrahmanyam, Greenfield, Kraut, & Gross, 2001). Johnson
(2005) notes that these skills, learnt in a virtual world, do in fact directly translate into
the real world. Based on these findings, one can derive that using video game-like technol-
ogy during the training of a culture-shifting methodology like Lean will benefit a gener-
ation of visually based learners.

Teaching, games, and simulations

Badurdeen et al. (2010) define the concept of problem-based learning (PBL) as a teaching
method that ‘focuses on using authentic problems to help participants obtain knowledge
and problem-solving skills.’ PBL is considered to be more involved and enjoyable than
other more traditional forms of learning, and research has shown that PBL stimulates a
greater level of knowledge transfer and long-term retention of information and skills.
PBL focuses on providing an experience that gives the perception of engaging in a real
problem which then promotes learning as a natural by-product of the motivation to
solve problems. Badurdeen et al. (2010) go on to state that PBL can be used as a key
tool for introducing the practice of Lean methodologies due to Lean’s emphasis on this
culture of problem-solving learning in human development.
4 R. F. Burch V and B. Smith

Kapp (2007) accentuated the concept of PBL when he wrote that ‘innovation trumps
education’. He argued that always teaching people in the traditional sense does not make
sense. The power of automation eliminates the need for traditional training or, in this case,
replaces traditional training. More recently, organisations involved with teaching Lean
have turned to simulations and games as a means to create an optimal learning environ-
ment through PBL where experimental learning can occur in a realistic representation
of a corporate environment. The terms simulation and game are often used interchange-
ably, but have two distinct meanings. Simulations are models created out of complex
systems for study. Games typically allude to activities where computer technology is
used to represent components of a real-world situation. Learning is often not the
primary objective for the player of the game (Badurdeen et al., 2010). Just as with
PBL, the teaching of Lean methodologies is more beneficial when the goal of a simulation
or game is not the learning process itself, but more about the enticement of the problem-
solving effort that results from the experience. Further tying this back to the youngest
cohort in the workplace, Millennials are more successful in PBL environments than any
previous generation due to their high levels of self-actualisation and their need to feel
important in the work that they perform (Espinoza, Ukleja, & Rusch, 2010).

Using simulations to teach lean methodologies

Traditional classroom teaching methods do not provide the sufficient argument needed to
convince employees that they should believe in the Lean concepts and practices that their
corporations and management are expecting of them. Simulations and games have proven
to be some of the most effective tools for teaching Lean methodologies and quality expec-
tations (Kuriger et al., 2010).
Presently, the majority of Lean methodology training programmes are provided
through universities, consulting firms, and professional societies. These institutions
have realised the effectiveness of computer-based games and simulations when used in
training Lean (Badurdeen et al., 2010). Table 1 provides a history of simulations and
games that were used to teach varying components of Lean manufacturing.
Despite the long list of tools and their successfulness, there are some known limitations
in the skills that these simulations and games teach. Of all of the tools listed in Table 1,
approximately 75% only focused on production lines (i.e. material flow from fabrication
to assembly in the product creation life cycle). There are very few simulations that focus
on enterprise-wide operations, supply chain concepts (Badurdeen et al., 2010), or even
extended concepts like those presented by service-based industrialised organisations.
Several of the simulations involved paper and ‘available materials’ fabrication-like oper-
ations. Other simulations were much more complex and incorporated fabrication of com-
ponents or emphasised large volume discrete product manufacturing like those needed in
the shipbuilding industry (Badurdeen et al., 2010).
The Lean tools most commonly demonstrated in the list presented in Table 1 are ‘cell
design and layout, line balancing, pull production and one-piece flow to takt time, kanban,
quality-at-source, standardised work, value stream mapping, cross-training, setup
reduction, 5S, and visual control’ (Badurdeen et al., 2010). Many of these tools were
developed solely for academic institutions but some were built for or offered to industry
partners. Institutions that offered Lean manufacturing training via simulation and games
saw a distinct advantage as lessons learnt from industry could be directly applied to the
degree programmes offered to future employees. Table 2 provides a detailed look at the
application of each tool identified in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of lean manufacturing simulation and games (Badurdeen et al., 2010).
Year
No. Developers developed Name of simulation/game Focus Product
1 University of Kentucky (Hall, 1994) 1994 UK Paper Clip Simulation Manufacturing Paper folders
2 University of Kentucky (1994) 1994 UK Circuit Board Simulation Manufacturing Circuit boards
3 Bicheno (1995) 1995 Buckingham Lean Game Supply chain NA
4 NIST-MEP (1998) 1998 Circuit Board Simulation Manufacturing Circuit boards
5 University of Kentucky (Badurdeen et al., 2008; Price, 2003 Cylinder Factory Simulation Manufacturing Pneumatic
2008) cylinders
6 MEP (Verma, 2003) 2003 Timewise Simulation Manufacturing Clocks
7 University of Dayton (Verma, 2003) 2003 Pipe Factory Simulation Manufacturing Pipe products
8 Donnelly Corporation (Verma, 2003) 2003 Lean Sim Machine Manufacturing Metal linkages
9 Lean Aerospace Initiative (McManus, Rebentisch, Stanke, 2003 Lean Enterprise Value Enterprise Lego aircraft
& Murman, 2007) Simulation
10 WCM Associates (Verma, 2003) 2003 Box Game Simulation Manufacturing Box
11 Not known (Verma, 2003) 2003 Dice/Parade Game Manufacturing NA
12 University of Tennessee (Verma, 2003) 2003 Lean Product Development Product development K’nex product
Simulation
13 Visionary Products Inc. (Verma, 2003) 2003 Cellular Manufacturing Manufacturing Lego aircraft
Simulation
14 Lockwood Greene (Verma, 2003) 2003 Widget Factory Simulation Manufacturing Widgets

Total Quality Management

15 Gary Randall (Verma, 2003) 2003 Ball Bearing Factory Manufacturing Ball bearings (golf
balls)
16 Illinois Manufacturing Extension Center (Stier, 2003) 2003 NIST Buzz Electronics Manufacturing Circuit boards
Simulation
17 NIST-MEP (Verma, 2003) 2003 5S Simulation Manufacturing NA
18 NIST-MEP (Verma, 2003) 2003 Setup Reduction Simulation Manufacturing Sheet metal
19 Northrop Grumman (Verma, 2003) 2003 Paper Airplane Game Manufacturing Paper airplane
20 University of Kentucky (2004a) 2004 5S Mini-factory Simulation Manufacturing Tabletop mini
factories
21 Blust and Bates (2004) 2004 Wagons-R-Us Simulation Manufacturing K’Nex wagons
22 Billington (2004) 2004 Paper Airplane Exercise Manufacturing Paper airplane

(Continued)

5
 6
R. F. Burch V and B. Smith
Table 1. Continued.
Year
No. Developers developed Name of simulation/game Focus Product
23 University of Kentucky (2004a) and Badurdeen et al. 2004 Furniture Factory Simulation Manufacturing Wooden furniture
(2008)
24 University of Kentucky (2004b) 2004 Veebot Simulation Manufacturing Lego cars
25 Old Dominion University (Verma, 2007; Verma, 2005 Ship Repair Design Process Design process Container ship
Hirkannawar, & Devulapalli, 2005) Simulation
26 Old Dominion University (Verma, 2007; Verma et al., 2005 Ship Repair Supply Chain Supply chain Submarine
2005) Simulation
27 Old Dominion University (Verma, 2007; Verma et al., 2005 Ship Repair Value Stream Boat assembly Boat
2005) Mapping
28 Old Dominion University (Verma, 2007; Verma et al., 2005 Ship Repair Simulation Ship repair process Ship (wood and
2005) acrylic)
29 Old Dominion University (Verma, 2007; Verma et al., 2005 Ship Repair Scheduling Scheduling Ships
2005) Simulation
30 Verma and Devulapalli (2006), Verma (2007) 2005 Value Stream Mapping Board Manufacturing Board game
Game
31 Verma (2007) 2005 Block Tower Manufacturing Legos
32 Winarchick and Carlisle (2006) 2006 Wagons-R-Us Simulation Manufacturing K’Nex wagons
33 Lean Aerospace Initiative (McManus & Rebentisch, 2006 Lean Enterprise Product Product development NA
2006a, 2006b) Development
34 Fang, Cook, and Hauser (2007) 2006 Lean Lego Simulation Manufacturing Lego cars
35 Ncube (2007) 2007 Lean Lemonade Tycoon Manufacturing Lemonade
36 Ozelkan and Galambosi (2007, 2008) 2007 Lampshade Game Manufacturing Lamp-shades
37 University of Kentucky (Maginnis, 2008) 2007 Enterprise Simulation Enterprise Card simulation
38 MacMillian (2007) 2007 Nima’s Board Game Manufacturing NA
39 McManus et al. (2007) 2007 Engineering Design Class PDCA and DMAIC NA
process
 Total Quality Management 7

Despite the abundance of Lean simulations and games, there are recognised techno-
logical gaps in their designs such as:

. ‘Facilitating change requires learning soft skills’ – Badurdeen et al. (2010) estimate
that 70% of organisational transformations to Lean suffer due to the lack of under-
standing of the role that human interaction plays into the dealings of change. Repre-
senting these soft skills with technology is a challenge. When put in context with the
youngest generational cohort in the workplace, soft skills are an even greater chal-
lenge because Millennials often lack the basic soft skills required in a work environ-
ment due to their reliance on technology to communicate (Eisner, 2005).
. ‘Lean simulations teach “linear Lean”’ – Lean simulations are often one-pass,
meaning that charts and graphs are generated with apparent (yet unrealistic) ease
(Badurdeen et al., 2010). This significantly boosts the learner’s confidence that
applying Lean can be simple yet, in real settings, problems are often more compli-
cated and contain more variables than the simulation can demonstrate.
. ‘Lean simulations need a trainer facilitator, not a teacher’ – The traditional edu-
cational structure and the new Lean simulation/game structure are no longer one
and the same. Facilitators are needed to guide participants through the simulation
in order to achieve the PBL outcomes. This is a much more complicated role than
simply trying to teach the preferred Lean method. Also, team and interpersonal
dynamics require a team lead role, not a teacher (Badurdeen et al., 2010). Figure
1 highlights this gap.
. ‘Lean simulations need more realism’ – Badurdeen et al. (2010) estimate that only
5% of simulations present realistic environments and even less present opportunities
for learners to see what physically/tangibly happens to the product given the Lean
approach that was taken. Most simulations listed in Table 1 are for awareness-
level training and lack real-world complexity and sophistication.

Despite the shortcomings of simulations and games in Lean training, hands-on simu-
lation exercises increased the average understanding of Lean by approximately 80%. Stu-
dents stated that ‘they had a greater understanding of team dynamics and they became
more motivated to learn concepts and more confident about using the various [Lean]

Figure 1. Comparison of role change: traditional education versus Lean simulations (Badurdeen
et al., 2010).
8 R. F. Burch V and B. Smith

Table 2. Coverage of lean tools in existing simulations and games (Badurdeen et al., 2010).
Table Name of Emphasis Specific Soft Application Academic
1 No. simulation/game Lean tool system skills industry
1 UK Paper Clip X Moderate X X
Simulation
2 UK Circuit Board X X X
Simulation
3 Buckingham Lean X X X
Game
4 Circuit Board X High X X
Simulation
5 Cylinder Factory X High X
Simulation
6 Timewise X Moderate X X
Simulation
7 Pipe Factory X Little X X
Simulation
8 Lean Sim Machine X X
9 Lean Enterprise X X
Value
Simulation
10 Box Game X Moderate X
Simulation
11 Dice/Parade Game X X
12 Lean Product X
Development
Simulation
13 Cellular X X X
Manufacturing
Simulation
14 Widget Factory X X
Simulation
15 Ball Bearing X X
Factory
16 NIST Buzz X X
Electronics
Simulation
17 5S Simulation X Moderate X
18 Setup Reduction X X X
Simulation
19 Paper Airplane X X X
Game
20 5S Mini-factory X X
Simulation
21 Wagons-R-Us X X
Simulation
22 Paper Airplane X X
Exercise
23 Furniture Factory X High X
Simulation
24 Veebot Simulation X High X X
25 Ship Repair Design X X X
Process
Simulation

(Continued)
 Total Quality Management 9

Table 2. Continued.
Table Name of Emphasis Specific Soft Application Academic
1 No. simulation/game Lean tool system skills industry
26 Ship Repair Supply X X X
Chain
Simulation
27 Ship Repair Value X X X
Stream Mapping
28 Ship Repair X X X
Simulation
29 Ship Repair X X X
Scheduling
Simulation
30 Value Stream X X X
Mapping Board
Game
31 Block Tower X X
32 Wagons-R-Us X X
Simulation
33 Lean Enterprise X X
Product
Development
34 Lean Lego X Moderate X
Simulation
35 Lean Lemonade X X
Tycoon
36 Lampshade Game X X
37 Enterprise X Moderate X X
Simulation
38 Nima’s Board X NA NA
Game
39 Engineering X NA NA
Design Class

tools’ (Elbadawi et al., 2010) during debriefing and reflection sessions that occurred after a
simulated Lean learning experience. Students commonly admitted that, prior to the simu-
lation, they only ‘theoretically’ knew about Lean tools and principles. However, after
going through the simulation, they expressed significant confidence in their ability to
understand and apply Lean methodologies (Elbadawi et al., 2010). Without going into
detail, the four Lean production methodologies that Elbadawi et al. (2010) and their simu-
lations were able to impress upon the students included: craft, push, pull, and Kanban pro-
duction types.
Kuriger et al. (2010) confirm the research from Elbadawi et al. (2010) in explaining
that, of all the methods that can be utilised to train people on Lean (i.e. lectures, demon-
strations, hands-on activities, video clips, case studies, and lean simulations and games),
simulations and games are the most effective. They have the ability to immediately
demonstrate the benefits of the many Lean tools and concepts. Kuriger et al. (2010) go
on to explain that using Web-based tools to train users on Lean is a ‘natural extension
of making simulation games more powerful and access more convenient’. These games
can take on many different forms including, but not limited to, Web-enabled, Web-
aided, and Web-based Lean simulation. WeBLOG stands for ‘Web-based Lean Office
Game’ and was designed around the concept of making Lean training more PBL-friendly
10 R. F. Burch V and B. Smith

and user-accessible. The purpose of WeBLOG is to ‘demonstrate the effect of implement-

ing Lean concepts in the office environment and on office processes’. This includes
making a game that is self-explanatory, educational and realistic, yet easy to play, intui-
tive, and inspirational (Kuriger et al., 2010).

Millennials and simulated learning of lean

While Lean simulations have made significant progress and have supporting research that
they are the preferred method in training Lean concepts and tools, these simulations and
games still have some improvements that need to be made in order to fully realise their
potential. For example, current Lean simulations emphasise the move from cognitive
skills to psychomotor skills through: the introduction of Lean concepts, demonstration
of their skill, and drill and practice exercises that emphasise the tools. In order to be
more effective, however, Badurdeen et al. (2010) believe that simulations should
change the order of their focus and put greater emphasis on the doing, not the learning.
The trial-and-error approach has been identified as a preference of the younger generation
over the traditional teaching paradigm, given their desire for instant feedback (Burch V &
Strawderman, 2014). Their preferred method includes beginning with psychomotor skills
and shifting to cognitive skills. The simulation would begin with the introduction of the
subject of Lean, continue with a demonstration of the skills, and then spend the majority
of the training cycle in drilling and practising those Lean skills (Badurdeen et al., 2010).
This PBL method falls much more in line with the self-actualised Millennial employee
who is motived by problem-solving and learns best when given the opportunity to be crea-
tive (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). Figure 2 provides a visual of these preferred concepts.
As is the case with any educationally based game, it is imperative that Lean simu-
lations and games be fun, realistic, and intuitive in order for them to be effective
(Kuriger et al., 2010). While these concepts apply to all employees, they especially
apply to the youngest employees in an organisation, given that they are drawn to visual
and kinaesthetic styles of learning (Cairncross & Buultjens, 2009). Kuriger et al. (2010)

Figure 2. Time allocation in psychomotor skill development in Lean simulations (Badurdeen et al.,
2010).
 Total Quality Management 11

Table 3. Preferred lean training game characteristics (Kuriger et al., 2010).

Characteristic Description
Educational Teach the lean concepts and tools
Fun Make it enjoyable for the participants to play
Realistic Make the tasks and situations as realistic as possible so that the participants can
related to the game
Easy to play The instructions of the game should be easily understood so as to keep the attention
of the participants and let them appreciate the improvements obtained through the
introduction of new lean tools
Intuitive Show that the lean tools are easy to implement. Also, the changes that are made
should seem natural to the participants based on the problems that are observed
from the current phase
Inspirational The game should generate excitement and inspire participants to think about how
they can use lean tools in their own jobs

have identified key game characteristics that should be integrated into Lean simulation/
game design in order to maximise the end result of the learning and training experience.
Table 3 provides these characteristics in detail.
Another key component of Lean learning that can benefit from Millennials’ visual
learning style (Subrahmanyam et al., 2001) is the implementation of a waste reduction
process through inspections. While inspections themselves are considered waste and are
often the target of elimination, sometimes they are a ‘necessary evil’ given that human
attention to detail is often difficult to replace for all situations in computer systems. Inspec-
tions can be performed either by humans or by automated inspection systems; however,
given the high costs of such automated robot systems, people are typically used in the
inspection process (Tetteh & McWilliams, 2010).
Human inspectors are trained to visually identify the condition of the following organ-
isational components: equipment, tools, products, and processes. One of the biggest nega-
tives to using human inspectors is that visual inspection is subject to human error due to the
emphasis placed on visual searching capabilities. Tetteh and McWilliams (2010) explain
that visual search is influenced by ‘situational awareness, discrimination, memory, and
attention’. Human coverage during a visual search tends to be incomplete, but the
decision-making ability by human inspectors is something that cannot be easily duplicated
in the automated systems. For this reason, humans have a capability to be more effective
than robots. Training the visual inspectors is a difficult task, however, given the expec-
tations that they must focus on both speed and accuracy (Tetteh & McWilliams, 2010).
Despite the concerns, this study has provided more than adequate solutions. This study
has shown that solving this problem is one that can be accomplished through the type
of training (i.e. computer-based games and simulations that provide a detailed visual com-
ponent) and the type of employee (i.e. younger employees who have spent tens of thou-
sands of hours playing video games and interacting with visually based technical devices).

Closing the gap between simulations and Gemba walks

As identified previously in this study, teaching someone Lean methodologies based solely
on virtual environments and simulated scenarios carries risk such as being linear, lacking
realism, and omitting the hands-on experience component of learning. In order to mitigate
these risks, incorporating another form of accepted experiential learning may be a way to
close the gap between learning on a screen versus learning in a real-world environment.
12 R. F. Burch V and B. Smith

Gemba is a Japanese term meaning ‘the real place’ and in Lean management within indus-
try, a Gemba walk is the process of going into the ‘real place’ where the actual work is
performed (Gesinger, 2016). Seeing the problems in real time improves students’ ability
to solve problems and assist employees (Liker & Meier, 2006). The concept of developing
important higher order thinking skills via an educational framework of this type was first
identified in Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956), a
book that was written to ‘create banks of interns’ at various universities based upon the
same educational objective (Krathwohl, 2002). A revised taxonomy went further to
define the learning categories as: ‘Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate,
and Create’ (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Krathwohl, 2002). Students are introduced
to these topics in order, allowing them to explain and apply their newly crafted knowledge
and apply it to other contexts (Marley, 2014). Gemba has an important role in all of these
learning categories which is why using simulation alone to teach a methodology like Lean
may not be as effective as intermixing real-world environments with simulated ones.
According to Marley (2014), teaching a course that includes hands-on learning goes
beyond what could be achieved through games and simulation. In her study, Marley
(2014) also used Lean management to perform a learning assessment that used the cat-
egories of Bloom’s Taxonomy and included the Gemba concept. Her students were
instructed to create and revise Lean videos demonstrating lean methodologies as well as
to participate in games and simulations demonstrating Lean terms. Her finding showed
that, while many of the exercises improved the students’ understanding of Lean, the
one that most significantly improved their understanding was in the revision of the
Lean videos where they had to put instruction to practice (Marley, 2014).
The intent of this section is not to discount the importance that simulation and games
have on the training of Lean methodologies to Millennials. There may not always be a con-
venient way to introduce groups of students to a real-world environment and to take them
on a Gemba walk. Simulated training has proven to be effective as is evidenced by the
research presented in this literature review and absence of hands-on experience in an
industrial environment; it appears to be one of the best learning methods that can be incor-
porated into teaching curriculum. However, in order to close the gap between the virtual
environments of the classroom and the real world, Gemba walks appear to provide an
important perspective that cannot be obtained any other way. Therefore, when possible
and if available, taking students to the place where the work is actually performed is a
crucial element in connecting the simulation training to what is physically happening.

Conclusion
Lean manufacturing is applicable to all industries regardless of their final product, but
teaching Lean to a culture that has never had to be quality-focused can prove quite chal-
lenging. Simulation and game-based Lean tools have been developed under the same
visual guise as computer games and, with those new tools, training employees on Lean
methodologies has proven to be more effective despite some documented drawbacks.
This visual learning style proves to have even more impact when training the youngest
generation of employees in the work force today. Millennials learn visually and kinaesthe-
tically more so than any previous generation and will be more receptive to visual, hands-on
PBL experiences, given their affinity towards self-actualisation in the work place. But the
gap between a simulated environment and the real world must also be recognised and miti-
gated by some form of Gemba walk or hands-on opportunity that connects the classroom
to reality. The purpose of this study is to highlight the success of game and simulation-
 Total Quality Management 13

based training of Lean tools over the standard training methods and to explain how these
new tools will only gain a greater impact as the younger generation moves into positions
where Lean and quality are keys to success.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Reuben F. Burch V http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2944-1945

References
Abdullah, F. (2004). Lean manufacturing tools and techniques in the process industry with a focus on
steel. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65B(01), 383–627.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of bloom’s taxonomy. New York, NY: Longman.
Badurdeen, F., Hall, A., Holloway, L., Marksberry, P., Maginnis, A., & Cooper, B. (2008). Lean
manufacturing boot camps at the University of Kentucky. In J. Fowler & S. Mason (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 2008 industrial engineering research conference (pp. 212–216).
Atlanta, GA: Institute of Industrial Engineers.
Badurdeen, F., Marksberry, P., Hall, A., & Gregory, B. (2010). Teaching lean manufacturing with
simulations and games: A survey and future directions. Simulation & Gaming, 41(4), 465–
486. doi:10.1177/1046878109334331
Bicheno, J. (1995). The Buckingham lean game (manual). Buckinghamshire: PICSIE Associates.
Billington, P. J. (2004). A classroom exercise to illustrate lean manufacturing pull concepts.
Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2, 71– 76. doi:10.1111/j.0011-7315.
2004.00021.x
Blakemore, S. J., & Choudhury, S. (2006). Development of the adolescent brain: Implications for
executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47,
296 –312. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01611.x
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of
educational objectives: The classification of education goals. Handbook 1: cognitive domain.
New York, NY: David McKay.
Blust, R. P., & Bates, J. B. (2004, June). Activity based learning: WAGONS R US – a lean manu-
facturing simulation. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education
(ASEE) annual conference and exposition: Engineering education reaches new heights.
ASEE, Salt Lake City, UT.
Burch V, R. F., & Strawderman, L. (2014). Leveraging generational differences to reduce knowledge
transfer and retention issues in public administration. Public Administration Research, 3(2),
61 –75. doi:10.5539/par.v3n2p61
Cairncross, G., & Buultjens, J. (2009). Generation Y and work in the tourism and hospitality indus-
try: Problem? What problem? Tourism and Generation Y, 143–154. doi:10.1079/
9781845936013.0143
Carstens, A., & Beck, J. (2005, May/June). Get ready for the gamer generations. TechTrends:
Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 49(3), 22– 25.
den Ouden, H., Frith, U., Frith, C., & Blakemore, S. J. (2005). Thinking about intentions.
Neuroimage, 28(4), 787 –796. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.05.001
DePass, D. (2012, April). Retiring boomers complicate skills gap. Minneapolis, MN: Star Tribune.
Eisner, S. P. (2005 Autumn). Managing generation Y. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 70(4),
4 –15.
Elbadawi, I., McWilliams, D. L., & Tetteh, E. G. (2010). Enhancing lean manufacturing learning
experience through hands-on simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 41(4), 537–552. doi:10.
1177/1046878109334333
14 R. F. Burch V and B. Smith

Espinoza, C., Ukleja, M., & Rusch, C. (2010). Managing the Millennials: Discover the core compe-
tencies for managing today’s workforce. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Fang, N., Cook, R., & Hauser, K. (2007 June). Integrating lean systems education into manufactur-
ing course curriculum via interdisciplinary collaboration. Paper presented at the 2007
American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) annual conference and exposition:
Riding the Wave to Excellence in Engineering Education, ASEE, Honolulu, HI.
Gao, S., & Low, S. (2014). The Toyota way model: An alternative framework for lean construction.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(5/6), 664–682.
George, M. L. (2003). Lean six sigma for service: How to use lean speed and six sigma quality to
improve services and transactions. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gesinger, S. (2016, February). Experiential learning: Using Gemba walks to connect with employ-
ees. Professional Safety, 61(2), 33–36.
Greenfield, P. M. (1984). Mind and media: The effects of television, video games, and computers.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gurumurthy, A., & Kodali, R. (2011). Design of lean manufacturing systems using value stream
mapping with simulation. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 22(4), 444–
473. doi:10.1108/17410381111126409
Hall, A. (1994). Lean manufacturing certification course material (University of Kentucky, Ed.).
Lexington, KY: Center for Manufacturing.
Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010, June). Millennials and the world of work: An organization and
management perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 211–223. doi:10.1007/
s10869-010-9160-y
Johnson, S. (2005, July). Your brain on video games. Discover, 26(7), 38 –43.
Kapp, K. M. (2007). Gadgets, games, and gizmos for learning: Tools and techniques for transferring
know-How from boomers to gamers. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Kawashima, R. (2005). Train your brain: 60 days to a better brain. Teaneck, NJ: Kumon Publishing.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41,
212 –218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kuriger, G. W., Wan, H., Mirehei, S. M., Tamma, S., & Chen, F. F. (2010). A web-based lean simu-
lation game for office operations: Training the other side of a lean enterprise. Simulation &
Gaming, 41(4), 487 –510. doi:10.1177/1046878109334945
Langstrand, J., & Drotz, E. (2016, March/April). The rhetoric and reality of lean: A multiple case
study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 27(3/4), 398– 412. doi:10.1080/
14783363.2015.1004307
Liker, J. K., & Meier, D. (2006). The Toyota way Fieldbook. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
MacMillian, A. (2007). She’s got game. Leaders for manufacturing on-line news. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Maginnis, A. (2008, May). Lean manufacturing boot camps at the University of Kentucky. Paper pre-
sented at the 2008 industrial engineering research conference. IIE, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Marley, K. A. (2014). Eye on the Gemba: Using student-created videos and the revised bloom’s tax-
onomy to teach lean management. Journal of Education for Business, 89(6), 310–316. doi:10.
1080/08832323.2014.903888
McGivern, R. F., Andersen, J., Byrd, D., Mutter, K. L., & Reilly, J. (2002). Cognitive efficiency on a
match to sample task decreases at the onset of puberty in children. Brain and Cognition, 50,
73 –89. doi:10.1016/S0278-2626(02)00012-X
McManus, H. L., & Rebentisch, E. (2006a). Lean enterprise product development simulation and
short course. Lean aerospace initiative. Cambridge: MIT.
McManus, H. L., Rebentisch, E., Stanke, A., & Murman, E. (2007, June). Teaching lean thinking
principles through hands-on simulations. Paper presented at the 3rd international CDIO con-
ference. MIT, Cambridge.
McManus, H. L., & Rebentish, E. S. (2006b). Lean enterprise value simulation: The game. Lean
aerospace initiative. Cambridge: MIT.
Morien, R. (2005, August). Agile management and the Toyota way for software project management.
Paper presented at the 3rd Annual meeting of the IEEE on Industrial Informatics. Perth,
Australia.
National Institute of Standards & Technology, & Manufacturing Extension Partnership. (1998).
Principles of lean manufacturing with live simulation. Gaitherburg, MD: Author.
 Total Quality Management 15

Ncube, L. B. (2007, October). Exploring the application of experiential learning in developing tech-
nology and engineering concepts: The lean lemonade Tycoon. Paper presented at the 37th
American society for engineering education/institute of electrical and electronics engineers
(ASEE/IEEE) Frontiers in education conference. Milwaukee, MI: ASEE/IEEE.
Oyen, A., & Bebko, J. M. (1996). The effects of computer games and lesson contects on children’s
mnemonic strategies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62(2), 173– 189. doi:10.
1006/jecp.1996.0027
Ozelkan, E. C., & Galambosi, A. (2007, June). Lampshade game for teaching lean manufacturing.
Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) annual confer-
ence and exposition. ASEE, Honolulu, HI.
Ozelkan, E. C., & Galambosi, A. (2008, May). Lampshade game for teaching lean manufacturing.
Paper presented at the 2008 industrial engineering research conference. IIE, Vancouver, BC,
Canada.
Price, J. (2008, May). Lean manufacturing boot camps at the University of Kentucky. Paper pre-
sented at the 2008 Industrial Engineering Research Conference. Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Shingo, S., & Dillon, P. (2003). Zero quality control: Source inspection and the Poke Yoke System
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Productivity Press.
Small, G., & Vorgan, G. (2008). Ibrain: Surviving the technological alteration of the modern mind.
New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Stier, K. W. (2003). Teaching lean manufacturing concepts through project-based learning and simu-
lation. Journal of Industrial Technology, 19, 1– 6.
Subrahmanyam, K., Greenfield, P., Kraut, R., & Gross, E. (2001). The impact of computer use on
children’s and adolescents’ development. Journal of Applied Development Psychology,
22(1), 7 –30. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(00)00063-0
Tetteh, E., & McWilliams, D. (2010). Simulation design for off-line training of practical lean man-
ufacturing concepts for visual inspection. Simulation & Gaming, 41(4), 553– 567. doi:10.
1177/1046878109334334
University of Kentucky. (1994). Lean training (University of Kentucky, Ed.). Lexington, KY: Center
for Manufacturing.
University of Kentucky. (2004a). Lean manufacturing boot camp II (University of Kentucky, Ed.).
Lexington, KY: Center for Manufacturing.
University of Kentucky. (2004b). Lean manufacturing certification program (University of
Kentucky Ed.). Lexington, KY: Center for Manufacturing.
Verma, A. K. (2003, October). Simulation tools and training programs in lean manufacturing:
Current status. Report submitted to the National Shipbuilding Research. Advanced
Shipbuilding Enterprise Program.
Verma, A. K. (2007, June). Enhancing student learning in engineering technology programs—A
case for physical simulations. Paper presented at the 2007 American Society for
Engineering Education (ASEE). ASEE, Honolulu, HI.
Verma, A. K., & Devulapalli, J. (2006, October). Development of a board game simulation activity
for value stream mapping and analysis training. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Lean Aerospace Initiative Ed Net. Worcester, MA.
Verma, A. K., Hirkannawar, H., & Devulapalli, J. (2005, November). Design of simulation tools for
training programs in lean manufacturing. Paper presented at the 2005 ASME international
mechanical engineering congress and exposition. ASME, Orlando, FL.
Werner, T., Ahaus, K., van Solinger, R., Kumar, M., & Antony, J. (2016, March/April).
Implementation of continuous improvement based on lean six sigma in small- and
medium-sized enterprises. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 27(3/4),
309 –324.
Winarchick, C., & Carlisle, T. (2006, June). Use of physical simulation and a common product
through a series of courses to illustrate industrial and manufacturing engineering principles.
Paper presented at the 2006 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)
Conference. ASEE, Chicago, IL.
Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.