Production & Manufacturing Research

An Open Access Journal

ISSN: (Print) 2169-3277 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tpmr20

A framework for lean manufacturing

implementation

Sherif Mostafa, Jantanee Dumrak & Hassan Soltan

To cite this article: Sherif Mostafa, Jantanee Dumrak & Hassan Soltan (2013) A framework for
lean manufacturing implementation, Production & Manufacturing Research, 1:1, 44-64, DOI:
10.1080/21693277.2013.862159

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2013.862159

© 2013 The Author(s). Published by The

Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis

Published online: 11 Dec 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 19986

View related articles

Citing articles: 27 View citing articles

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tpmr20
Production & Manufacturing Research: An Open Access Journal, 2013
Vol. 1, 44–64, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2013.862159

A framework for lean manufacturing implementation

Sherif Mostafaa*, Jantanee Dumraka and Hassan Soltanb
a
School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Adelaide 5000,
Australia; bFaculty of Engineering, Production Engineering and Mechanical Design Department,
Mansoura University, Mansoura 35516, Egypt
(Received 25 June 2013; accepted 31 October 2013)

The lean implementation initiatives can be categorised as roadmap, conceptual/

implementation framework, descriptive and assessment checklist initiatives. A litera-
ture review on the lean initiatives has examined 28 initiatives. A set of rules is
proposed to evaluate these initiatives with respect to nine factors impacting lean
implementation. The evaluation has proved that the implementation frameworks have
highest association with lean factors. However, existing lean initiatives are not dem-
onstrated in a structured nature. The failure in managing lean implementation process
is often consolidated to poor mind-set and inadequate understanding of the lean
concept itself. In this paper, an attempt has been made to propose a framework to
overcome some of the limitations. The proposed framework is constructed as a
project-based framework with detailed four implementation phases. Appropriate
practices and decision tools are proposed and assigned to each phase. However, the
proposed framework is at conceptual stage. It requires further implementation to be
validated.
Keywords: lean manufacturing; lean implementation initiatives; success factors of
lean implementation; implementation framework; initiative evaluation rules

1. Introduction
Lean manufacturing is an integrated sociotechnical system, which comprises a package
of management practices that can be applied to eliminate the waste and reduce the vari-
ability of suppliers, customers and internal resources and processes (Anvari, Zulkifli,
Yusuff, Ismail, & Hojjati, 2011; Shah, Chandrasekaran, & Linderman, 2008). Lean
concept has been widely accepted in the service and manufacturing industries. Numer-
ous literatures have reviewed the lean benefits and applications. The term lean was first
coined by Krafcik (1988). Subsequently, Womack, Jones, and Roos (1991) used the
term lean production to describe the Toyota production system (TPS).
Womack and Jones (2003) stated that lean principles can be applied in any industry.
Different types of organisations have implemented lean manufacturing. Nevertheless,
Marvel and Standridge (2009) argued that few organisations attain significant improve-
ments by applying lean. As the improvements remain localised, those organisations are
unable to sustain the continuous improvements. Baker (2002) reported that the success
percentage of UK organisations on lean implementation is less than 10%. It is believed
that the main reason of unattainability of lean benefits is the incomplete understanding
of the lean concept and the purpose of the lean practices. Some companies misapply the

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2013 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/3.0/, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is prop-
erly cited. The moral rights of the named author(s) have been asserted.
 Production & Manufacturing Research: An Open Access Journal 45

lean practices. The main reasons of the misapplications are as: ‘use of wrong tool to
solve a problem’, ‘use of single tool to solve all of the problems’ and ‘use the same set
of tools on each problem’ (Pavnaskar, Gershenson, & Jambekar, 2003, p. 3077).
Incorrect application of lean concept leads to waste of the organisational resources and
reduction in employees’ confidence in practising lean (Marvel & Standridge, 2009). It is
suggested that scope and content of lean manufacturing should be holistically verified
prior to any lean implementation (Crute, Ward, Brown, & Graves, 2003).
Some managers and employees presumed that the factor behind Toyota success was
about the cultural roots, but not lean practices. Despite criticism raised by other organi-
sational management, Toyota as a successful leading organisation in lean application has
demonstrated high performance with its production system established in all multina-
tional manufacturing sites (Wafa & Yasin, 1998). Although lean benefits are extensively
recognised from Toyota’s success stories, the current roadmaps and frameworks look
incomprehensible from the view of practitioners. Complications of lean implementation
are believed to be driven by executive, cultural, managerial, implementation and techni-
cal barriers (Flinchbaugh, 1998). Therefore, the aim of this paper was to propose a com-
prehensive project-based implementation framework for lean transition in a practical
manner. The proposed framework was built as a project-based implementation approach
of detailed four phases. The paper anticipates enhancing the lean transformation process
through the implementation framework proposed. To achieve the aim of this paper, the
following four objectives were developed:

(1) To investigate lean implementation initiatives.

(2) To highlight the success factors for lean implementation.
(3) To evaluate different lean initiatives with respect to the success factors.
(4) To develop a framework for lean implementation containing the success factors.

The structure of this paper is organised into seven sections. After the introduction,
the second section summarises the research methodology. The third section reviews the
existing lean implementation initiatives. The fourth section attempts to quantify success
factors of lean implementation. The fifth section presents a set of rules to assess the lean
initiatives. The sixth section introduces a comprehensive structured framework for lean
implementation. The last section discusses implication of the framework proposed and
concludes the research objectives along with recommendations for further research.

2. Methodology
This paper aims to provide a more meaningful and effective path for lean transition
within an organisation. To achieve the aim of this paper, four objectives were developed
as illustrated in the previous section. Lean implementation initiatives were
cross-examined through reviewing the literature. The main success factors for lean imple-
mentation were highlighted. Reviewing all lean initiatives was not feasible, however as
far as possible the most widely published and relevant initiatives were reviewed in this
paper. According to Cooper (1988), it is suggested that the literature review can be elabo-
rated based on the purposive selection approach in which only related articles pivotal to
the research topic were chosen to be reviewed. It means that the selected literature review
specifically focused on the presentation of lean initiatives and process description.
Green, Johnson, and Adams (2006) stated that the most efficient way for searching
the literature is the electronic databases. There are many different databases available
46 S. Mostafa et al.

for searching. Therefore, it is important to search the appropriate databases that serve
the objectives and the topic of the paper. There are publications that conducted a litera-
ture review to propose a roadmap and conceptual framework for lean implementation
(Anand & Kodali, 2010; Anvari et al., 2011). In this research, the literature review and
selection of the appropriate sources on lean implementation initiatives were conducted
in two stages. The first stage aimed to search for relevant databases and select the
relevant publications. The inclusive databases were Emerald, Elsevier, Springer,
Science-direct, IOS Press, EBSCO Host Academic Search Premier, Inderscience, World
Scientific, Academic Journals, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management,
American Society for Engineering Management and book publications. The filtering
process of the selected databases utilised combinations of keywords to search for the
article titles. The key words used for the search included ‘lean manufacturing implemen-
tation’, ‘lean transformation’, ‘transition to lean’, ‘lean framework’, ‘lean roadmap’ or
‘applying lean’. Seventy publications which contained information relevant to lean
manufacturing implementation were obtained at this stage.
The second stage involved scrutinising the abstracts and keywords of the selected
articles. It revealed that lean implementation concepts varied in the scope of study. For
example, Smeds (1994) focused on managing change towards lean enterprise; Jina,
Bhattacharya, and Walton (1997) focused on applying lean principles; Crabill et al.
(2000) emphasised on transition-to-lean roadmap; Womack and Jones (2003) used time
frame for lean leap; Anand and Kodali (2010) developed a lean conceptual framework;
Anvari, Norzima, Rosnay, Hojjati, and Ismail (2010) suggested a lean roadmap; and
Powell, Alfnes, Strandhagen, and Dreyer (2013) introduced an ERP-based lean
implementation process. Some of the works came from various areas of knowledge and
disciplines such as simulation and training for lean implementation, impacts of lean
implementation on the competitive advantage, management accounting systems impacts
on lean implementations and lean principles in IT services. As a result, 28 articles with
different types of initiatives were eventually selected. The initiatives were found in the
forms of sequential description, diagrams and assessment checklist. An in-depth study
into each initiative was conducted to highlight the critical factors of lean implementa-
tion. Proposing a set of rules to evaluate the lean initiatives with respect to the main
success factors was included. The expected final outcome of the paper was to propose a
lean implementation framework in a project-based structure.

3. Review of lean implementation initiatives

There have been various lean implementation initiatives proposed in previous research
studies. The initiatives could be grouped into five categories: conceptual frameworks,
implementation frameworks, roadmaps, descriptive and assessment checklist. The classi-
fication of these categories results from the name and characteristics of each initiative
given in the literature. Some research studies may depict their implementation process
as descriptive style. For example, Jina et al. (1997) suggested a descriptive diagram in
applying lean principles to suit the high variety low volume situation. The diagram has
three interrelated components: product design geared to logistics and manufacture,
organising manufacturing along lean manufacturing principles and integrative supplier
relationships. Womack and Jones (2003) described a time framework for a lean leap. It
includes four phases: get start, create a new organisation, install business systems and
complete the transformation. Shah and Ward (2003) defined the success of lean
 Production & Manufacturing Research: An Open Access Journal 47

implementation as it depends on three organisational factors: plant age, plant size and
unionisation.
Other scholars have identified some guidelines for the implementation process.
Karlsson and Åhlström (1996) developed an operational model which can be used to
assess changes required to introduce lean manufacturing. Abdulmalek, Rajgopal, and
Needy (2006) provided a general set of guidelines about the applicability of some lean
practices in the process industry. Davies and Greenough (2010) developed a lean prac-
tice template. They claimed that it is comprehensive enough to represent possible lean
activities within a company and particularly in the maintenance function. Some studies
have used roadmaps for the lean transformation. Nightingale and Mize (2002) developed
a transition to lean roadmap to assist organisations in their efforts to transform into lean
enterprises. Feld (2001) proposed a streamlined roadmap for lean manufacturing through
four phases: lean assessment, current state gap, future state gap and implementation.
Marvel and Standridge (2009) enhanced Feld’s roadmap by suggesting five phase
roadmap including future state validation. Anvari et al. (2011) developed a dynamic
roadmap determining the tools needed to be implemented in a firm based on its current
state and type of industry.
In many scholarly works, the use of a diagrammed framework for representing the
implementation process has been made available. Smeds (1994) proposed a generic
framework for the management of changes towards lean enterprise. This framework
consists of five phases such as analysis and model of the present state, identification of
problems and opportunities, experimentation and selection of future state, implementing
the change and stabilising the new mode of operations. Monden (1998) introduced a
conceptual framework that describes how costs, quantity and humanity are improved by
TPS. Åhlström (1998) noted that lean manufacturing consists of eight principles: elimi-
nation of waste, zero defects, pull scheduling, multifunctional teams, delayering, team
leaders, vertical information systems and continuous improvement. He developed a
framework for sequencing the lean production principles in the implementation process.
Rivera and Frank Chen (2007) developed a logical and easy to understand framework
for lean implementation. They grouped, into four waves, the lean practices that have
more visible impact on the investment. Motwani (2003) developed a theoretical frame-
work based on business process change. Anand and Kodali (2010) established a concep-
tual framework to demonstrate 65 lean elements, the internal stakeholders and decision
levels. Mostafa (2011) constructed an implementation framework for lean manufacturing
in 15 stages. Two newly introduced frameworks came from Karim and Arif-Uz-Zaman
(2013) and Powell et al. (2013). Karim and Arif-Uz-Zaman (2013) developed a method-
ology for lean implementation based on the five lean principles. Powell et al. (2013)
combined the methodologies for lean manufacturing and Enterprise Resource Planning
(ERP) and proposed ERP-based lean implementation process. The study suggested that
ERP implementation could be considered as an enabler for the lean implementation in
an enterprise. Only one study by Sánchez and Pérez (2001) introduces lean production
assessment checklist in six groups providing 36 indicators to assess the manufacturing
changes according to the lean production principles.
The most successful lean initiatives are those which have been introduced as roadm-
aps and frameworks. Some of them represent conceptual guidelines for providing infor-
mation on the lean structure both in practices and principles. Others provide outlines for
the lean implementation process. However, low utilisation of lean initiatives and slow
success rate of lean transformation process have been reported (Anand & Kodali, 2010;
48 S. Mostafa et al.

Nordin, Deros, Wahab, & Rahman, 2012). It is assumed that such initiatives are not
considerably comprehensive to the practitioners (Mohanty, Yadav, & Jain, 2007). This
leads to a wrong mind-set on lean transformation. A successful initiative should com-
prise of, in its first stage, a tutorial segment such as lessons learned documentation and
review, and a personnel communication segment. The communication segment only
appears at end such as in Smeds (1994). Moreover, an expert team should be involved,
beside the internal team to ensure an effective plan of lean implementation (Womack &
Jones, 2003). In most organisations, the lean implementation team is new to the lean
concept. The internal team members must have a considerable time to fully understand
the concept.
To promote universality and familiarisation of the lean concept, simplified and
comprehensive implementation frameworks become necessary. The robustness is also
provided if a framework is built in a practical structured form. In other words, the lean
transformation process should be distributed as a complete project, where it is being
carefully planned, executed, monitored, controlled, evaluated and documented for
lessons learned.

4. Success factors for lean implementation

A lean concept is a set of principles to remove all forms of waste within an
organisation. Womack and Jones (2003) stated the five general principles of lean as:
defining the value from customer perspective, mapping the value stream process to
achieve the predefined value, creating the flow along the value chain, establishing pull
system and pursuing perfection. Lean manufacturing system is a set of tools/techniques
to identify and remove the waste (Anvari et al., 2010). Lean tools represent the lean
principles in an implementation form. The aim of each lean implementation initiative
provides guidelines or discusses the steps required for lean transition. Each initiative
consists of some elements/components that an organisation needs to follow to achieve
the lean transformation process (see Table 1). Some organisations face challenges to
apply lean using some of lean initiatives (Anvari et al., 2010). These challenges could
be related to the lean initiatives or an organisational practice of lean initiatives. Chal-
lenges of lean initiatives include category and elements of each initiative. Organisational
challenges include all obstacles in the path of the lean implementation process such as
executive, culture, management and technical issues (Taleghani, 2010). To successfully
overcome these challenges, some critical factors must be pertained to the
implementation process (Anvari et al., 2010).
To identifying the factors impacting lean implementation, this paper has conducted
three dimensions of identification. In this first dimension, the paper conducted an
in-depth study of 28 initiatives to highlight the critical components of lean implementa-
tion. The second dimension was to explore the previous studies emphasising some suc-
cess factors of lean implementation including the studies of Achanga, Shehab, Roy, and
Nelder (2006), Scherrer-Rathje, Boyle, and Deflorin (2009) and Anvari et al. (2010).
This paper aims to propose a framework for lean implementation as a project-based
implementation approach. Therefore, the last dimension is the integration of lean
success factors into a project-based framework. From reviewing the previous literature,
the current study identifies nine relevant factors to achieve lean transition. A brief
description of these factors is presented as follows.
Table 1. Literature review summary of lean implementation initiatives and factors used in this study.
Factors impacting lean manufacturing
implementation
No. of
Lean implementation initiative Category elements F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9
1 Plan for introducing the Toyota production system Implementation framework 15 * *
(Shingo, 1989)
2 The Generic Framework for the management of change Implementation framework 6 * * * * * *
towards lean enterprise (Smeds, 1994)
3 Conceptualisation of lean production (Karlsson & Roadmap 4 * *
Åhlström, 1996)
4 The components necessary for applying lean Descriptive 3 *
manufacturing principles (Jina et al., 1997)
5 How costs, quantity, quality, and humanity are improved Conceptual framework 10 *
by TPS (Monden, 1998)
6 Sequences in the Implementation of Lean Production Roadmap 8 * * *
(Åhlström, 1998)
7 Transition- To- Lean in production operations roadmap Roadmap 8 * * * * *
(Crabill et al., 2000)
8 Lean manufacturing road map (Feld, 2001) Roadmap 5 * * * * *
9 A lean production model (Sánchez & Pérez, 2001) Assessment checklist 5 * *
10 Enterprise level roadmap (Nightingale & Mize, 2002) Roadmap 7 * * * * *
11 Time frame for the lean leap (Womack & Jones, 2003) Descriptive 4 * *
12 Lean Implementation and contextual variables (Shah & Descriptive 3
Ward, 2003)
13 Theoretical framework for lean manufacturing Conceptual Framework 7 * * * * *
implementation (Motwani, 2003)
14 Lean transformation (Bicheno, 2004) Implementation framework 12 * * * * * * *
15 Disciplined approach to lean manufacturing (Hobbs, 2004) Disciplined approach * * *
(descriptive) 8
16 General guidelines for applying lean tools in the process Guidelines *
industry (Abdulmalek et al., 2006) (descriptive) 3
Production & Manufacturing Research: An Open Access Journal

17 Waves of lean implementation (Rivera & Frank Chen, 2007) Roadmap *

4
49

(Continued)
Table 1. (Continued).
Factors impacting lean manufacturing
implementation
No. of
Lean implementation initiative Category elements F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9
50

18 Simulation enhanced approach to lean manufacturing (Marvel Streamlined approach * *

& Standridge, 2009) (descriptive) 5
19 Lean implementation roadmap for a high/low volume high/ Roadmap * *
low repetitiveness (Wan & Chen, 2009) 8
20 Proposed framework for implementation of lean Conceptual * *
manufacturing system (Anand & Kodali, 2010) framework 9
21 A proposed dynamic model to leanness (Anvari et al., 2011) Roadmap * * * * *
5
S. Mostafa et al.

22 Lean implementation framework (Buus, 2011) Implementation * * * * * *

framework 17
23 Lean manufacturing implementation framework (Cheng Implementation * * *
Wong & Yew Wong, 2011) framework 12
24 Framework for lean manufacturing Implementation (Mostafa, Implementation * * * * * *
2011) framework 15
25 Stepwise implementation of lean production systems Implementation * * *
(Dombrowski, Mielke, & Schulze, 2012) framework 9
26 Organisational change framework in lean manufacturing Implementation * * * *
implementation (Nordin et al., 2012) framework 8
27 Framework for an ERP-based lean implementation process Implementation * * * * *
(Powell et al., 2013) framework 24
28 Proposed lean implementation methodology (Karim & Arif- Implementation * * * * *
Uz-Zaman, 2013) framework 17
Number of resources 9 12 8 15 17 16 1 12 4
 Production & Manufacturing Research: An Open Access Journal 51

(1) Expert team building (F1) – the use of experienced team to provide advice and
manage the implementation process. The lean expert team is a key node in the
process (Dombrowski, Mielke, & Engel, 2012). Teaming lean experts ensure
deep expertise. Hiring lean experts facilitates and promotes the change towards
lean. Furthermore, the expert team provides the required training and consul-
tancy to the practitioners. The recruitment of lean experts may be initiated either
from an internal cross-functional team or external consultant team (Bamber &
Dale, 2000; Womack & Jones, 2003).
(2) Situational analysis (F2) – an assessment of the current situations of an organi-
sation. Internal assessment scans all organisational attributes such as personnel,
facilities, location, products and services, in order to identify the organisation’s
strengths and weaknesses to apply lean. The external assessment scans the polit-
ical, economic, social, technological and competitive environment to identifying
opportunities and threats (Lozano & Vallés, 2007) to lean practices. The
situational analysis helps to define the gap between the expected outcomes and
the current situations.
(3) Lean communication planning (F3) – the communication management processes
with stakeholders at all levels. Puvanasvaran, Megat, Sai Hong, and Mohd
Razali (2009) stated that communication is an important aspect for a successful
lean implementation. Appropriate communication among the employees facili-
tates the lean implementation process. Miscommunication may lead to misunder-
standing and misapplication of lean concept and tools. Moreover, it generates an
ambiguity in employee’s roles and responsibilities (Worley & Doolen, 2006).
The study of Scherrer-Rathje et al. (2009) revealed that communicating the lean
pilot project success increased the support from the shop floor and managers to
expand the lean practice.
(4) Training process (F4) – training programmes for the employees and managers
on lean knowledge. The resistance to lean transformation among managers is
usually caused by the lack of skills and lean knowledge (Barker, 1998). Like-
wise, employees’ resistance to lean improvements is likely due to inadequate
training and commitment (Crute et al., 2003). To overcome these problems, the
organisations should emphasise effective lean-related education and training
programmes as well as establish training assessment to measure the training
impacts (Boyer, 1996; Pollitt, 2006).
(5) Lean tools (F5) – a handmaiden of the implementation process. These tools need
to be integrated into the practice in order to deliver a streamlined and high-qual-
ity process of transformation (Shah & Ward, 2003). It is suggested by Pavnaskar
et al. (2003) that insufficiency of understanding lean tools and their utilisation
results in misapplications and ineffectiveness. Moreover, the appropriate selec-
tion of lean tools contributes to better waste elimination decisions. It is reminded
that not all lean tools can solve the same problem, and not all problems can be
solved by a single tool.
(6) Value Stream Mapping (VSM) or Process Mapping (F6) – highlighting several
kinds of problems in the processes (Rother & Shook, 1999). Lean principles
require manufacturers to investigate their processes and identify the value-added
and non-value-added activities (wastes). Process mapping supports lean transfor-
mation by identifying opportunities for waste elimination (Cottyn, Landeghem,
52 S. Mostafa et al.

Stockman, & Derammelaere, 2011). VSM is employed to identify the areas that
need to be improved and to decide the wastes to be eliminated (Pavnaskar et al.,
2003).
(7) Lessons Learned Review (F7) – reviewing the past records of lean implementa-
tions. The review should be conducted prior to initiation of the standardised lean
practices. According to Feld (2001), capturing lessons learned from a previous
implementation stage is significant for a subsequent stage. Lessons can be
obtained from inside or outside an organisation. Lessons-learned documentation
keeps data, information and knowledge for future review.
(8) Lean Assessment (F8) – evaluating the lean practice in different areas to provide
a baseline for the organisation. It contains a set of metrics used for tracking the
level of lean implementation efforts. Doolen and Hacker (2005) suggested that
lean assessment should include tactical and strategic modules. According to Feld
(2001), lean assessment provides an overall index of lean performance score of
an organisation. Understanding the lean index can contribute to successful lean
implementation as it provides authentic results for lean performance and directs
decision-makers to corrective actions (Behrouzi & Wong, 2011). It is important
to perform an assessment by an experienced team. The lean implementation
team might have the necessary experience, but external consultant might be
required to provide an additional beneficial perspective in the planning stage.
(9) Lean Monitoring and Controlling or Lean Sustaining (F9) – tracking, reviewing
and regulating the lean implementation performance and progress. If lean imple-
mentation is treated as a project, lean monitoring and controlling should be
employed along the lean planning. It is to ensure that the implementation on
lean follows the plan. The process recommends preventive actions for any unan-
ticipated situations. Moreover, it allows any influencing factors in lean imple-
mentation to be identified (PMI, 2008). Monitoring and controlling include
measuring of the actual lean accomplishment and comparing with the lean trans-
formation plan. It can be learned from the study of Kumar and Phrommathed
(2006) that absence of monitoring and controlling on lean implementation
results in failures of the lean transformation. Establishing monitoring and con-
trolling mechanisms ensures the sustainability of lean performance over long
term. In some organisations, employees may attempt to return to their pre-lean
methods (Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009).

5. Evaluation methodology for lean initiatives

The literature review revealed that each lean initiative consists of built-in elements/
components. In addition, some critical success factors for lean implementation have
been identified. These factors were taken part in lean implementation steps of the 28
initiatives studied. Therefore, this paper hypothesised that the success of any lean initia-
tive is contributed by two components as shown in Figure 1. The first component is
related to the lean initiatives as it presents the association between the initiatives’
elements and success factors of lean implementation (xij). This first component also
includes the application time (ti) and application cost (ci) of the factors, number of lean
factors (n) and initiative category (mk). A second component is related to the organisa-
tional practicing of the lean initiatives. The component consists of the weight of factor
importance (wi), probability of factor success (pi), weight of understanding each factor
(ui) and sustaining (τi) the employment of each factor to an organisation.
 Production & Manufacturing Research: An Open Access Journal 53

Success of lean implementation initiative ( j )

Initiative elements Organisational practicing

xij ci ti n mk pi wi ui ti

ALj SPRj ALk

Figure 1. Success of lean implementation initiative ( j ).

Understanding each lean initiative is necessary for identifying any shortcomings in

lean implementation applied. Selection of an initiative should be based on an efficient
set of lean factors and effective evaluation rules. Here, a set of rules is proposed to
evaluate the lean initiatives and their categories as follows.
X
n
xij wi ui pi si
SPRj ¼ 8j (1)
i¼1
ti ci
X
n
xij
ALj ¼ 8j (2)
i¼1
n

Xmk Xn
xij
ALk ¼ 8k (3)
k¼1 i¼1
nmk

where
SPRj success priority rate of initiative j,
ALj association level of initiative j,
ALk association level of category k,
i success factor for lean implementation,
j lean implementation initiative,
k lean initiative category,
xij 1, if initiative j associates factor i; 0, otherwise,
wi weight for the importance of factor i to the organisation,
ui weight for understanding factor i,
ρi probability of success of factor i,
τi sustainability of factor i measured in time units,
ti application time of factor i,
ci application cost of factor i,
n number of lean factors,
mk number of initiatives in category k.

The computation of the proposed measure of success priority rate (SPRj) requires
real field applications. Therefore, in this paper, an evaluation analysis is carried out for
the 28 initiatives limited to the measure of association level (ALk) of five lean initiative
categories with respect to the proposed nine factors (as represented in Equation (4)).
54 S. Mostafa et al.

X5 X 9
xi
ALk ¼ 8k; j; k ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4; 5 and j ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . . 28 (4)
k¼1 i¼1
nm k

Table 2 represents comparisons between the presented lean initiatives according to

category, size (number of elements in an initiative) and association with respect to the
nine factors. It can be concluded after the examination that the initiative proposed by
Bicheno (2004) was the best initiative containing seven out of nine factors.
Table 3 presents comparison of the five categories of lean initiatives with respect to
the number of initiatives in each category (mk), association level of each category (ALk)
which calculated using Equation (4), and association of each category with the nine
factors. The implementation framework category can be seen as the best associated to
the nine lean factors.
Figure 2 below presents lean factors association with lean initiative categories and
with the 28 initiatives examined. The figure shows that although reported with the high-
est percentage among other factors, lean tools are moderately included (60.7%) in the
total initiatives presented. On the other hand, lessons-learned documentation and review
have almost been excluded from all initiatives studied. They are found available only in
the roadmaps. It is discovered that the implementation frameworks offer the highest per-
centage in the training process (32.1%), while none of the studied implementation
frameworks contains lessons-learned documentation and review. The highest percentage
among the factors reported for roadmaps is for lean tools (21.4%). Nevertheless, the
figure shows that low level of lessons-learned documentation and review has been
implemented (3.6%). Among the descriptive initiatives, expert team building is found
with more percentage than other factors under the same initiative category. It is pre-
sented that all of the descriptive initiatives studied completely lack lessons-learned docu-
mentation and review. A certain percentage of lean tools is found in the conceptual
frameworks (10.7%). However, the factors omitted from this category are situational
analysis, lessons-learned documentation and review, lean assessment, and lean monitor-
ing and controlling (sustaining). In the last category of lean initiatives, the assessment
checklist, the same percentage situational analysis and lean assessment can be seen
(3.6%). On the other hand, other factors are reported absent.

6. Proposed framework for lean implementation

The evaluation above revealed some shortcomings among the lean initiatives. Although
the implementation frameworks contained most of the lean factors, lessons-learned doc-
umentation and review were rarely included. Lean monitoring and controlling, and
expert team building seemed frequently absent from the frameworks. It was found that
some frameworks have suggested team building to be a part of lean transformation prac-
tice. This idea is in line with the idea of Womack and Jones (2003) that an expert team
should be introduced in the lean implementation plan. In most organisations, lean imple-
mentation team is new to the lean concept. The team members may take a considerable
time to fully understand the concept. Effectiveness of the implementation may need to
rely on additional help from lean experts. Little attention has been given to the
sequences of implementation of the initiatives elements. Åhlström (1998) attempted to
emphasise on the natural sequences of the manufacturing tools and techniques according
to it relationships and the availability of resources. Similarly, Bhasin and Burcher
(2006) pointed out the lack of adequate project sequencing as one of the main problems
in lean implementation.
 Production & Manufacturing Research: An Open Access Journal 55

Table 2. Individual comparison of lean initiatives.

Lean factors
Initiative Category Size F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 Sum
Shingo (1989) Implementation 15 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
framework
Smeds (1994) Implementation 6 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 6
framework
Bicheno (2004) Implementation 12 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 7
framework
Buus (2011) Implementation 17 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 6
framework
C. Y. Wong and Implementation 12 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3
Y. K. Wong (2011) framework
Mostafa (2011) Implementation 15 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 6
framework
Dombrowski et al. Implementation 9 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3
(2012) framework
Nordin et al. (2012) Implementation 8 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4
framework
Karim and Arif-Uz- Implementation 17 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 5
Zaman (2013) framework
Powell et al. (2013) Implementation 24 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 5
framework
Karlsson and Roadmap 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Åhlström (1996)
Åhlström (1998) Roadmap 8 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
Crabill et al. (2000) Roadmap 8 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 5
Feld (2001) Roadmap 5 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 5
Nightingale and Mize Roadmap 7 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 5
(2002)
Rivera and Frank Roadmap 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Chen (2007)
Wan and Chen (2009) Roadmap 8 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
Anvari et al. (2011) Roadmap 5 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 5
Jina et al. (1997) Descriptive 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Womack and Jones Descriptive 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
(2003)
Shah and Ward Descriptive 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(2003)
Hobbs (2004) Descriptive 8 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3
Abdulmalek et al. Descriptive 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
(2006)
Marvel and Descriptive 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Standridge (2009)
Monden (1998) Conceptual 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
framework
Motwani (2003) Conceptual 7 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 5
framework
Anand and Kodali Conceptual 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
(2010) framework
Sánchez and Pérez Assessment 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
(2001) checklist
9 12 8 15 17 16 1 12 4 94
Notes: 1: a factor is associated; 0: a factor is not associated; Size: number of elements in an initiative.
56 S. Mostafa et al.

Table 3. Categorical comparison of lean initiatives of Table 1.

Lean factors
Category mk ALk F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 Sum
Implementation framework 10 0.4 3 7 5 9 8 8 0 5 2 47
Roadmap 8 0.39 3 2 2 4 6 4 1 4 2 28
Descriptive 6 0.16 2 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 9
Conceptual framework 3 0.29 1 0 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 8
Assessment checklist 1 0.22 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
28 – 9 12 8 15 17 16 1 12 4 94

In this paper, construction of a new framework is recommended under the imple-

mentation initiatives category. This is to overcome some of the limitations of the exist-
ing frameworks under the implementation framework category. This paper proposes a
22-element implementation framework constructed within four phases as shown in
Figures 3 and 4. The phases include conceptual, implementation design, implementation
and evaluation, and complete lean transformation phase. Monitoring and controlling
process is integrated to all phases to ensure that the expected results towards lean
transformation are completely delivered. The proposed framework takes in consideration
a tutorial stage to guide the lean practitioners. Accordingly, the framework comes
structured, more apprehensible and comprehensive. The four phases are explained in the
following section.

6.1. Conceptualisation phase

This is the kick-off phase, which selects, widens scope and trains the personnel involved
in the lean implementation. The principal data, information, and knowledge of lean are
transferred to the team. Benefits of lean to the organisation should be also explored to
make each member aware of why the lean implementation project is important.
Therefore, enhancement of mind-set and understanding of lean concept can be expected.
Continuous and historical lessons learned on lean, and association of lean practices with
waste types must be highly focused.

6.2. Implementation design phase

This is the warming up phase, which designs the lean plan and prepares the lean team
to the practice. This phase identifies the organisational lean current state and
requirements through various analyses. The recommended tools for this phase mainly
emphasise on decision-making process to deliver successful lean implementation. The
analytic hierarchy process developed by Saaty (1980) can be used for measuring the
degree of association between the waste types and lean practices. Predesigned
questionnaire is developed for gauging the existing lean performance. Work sampling is
a statistical-based method which can be used for evaluating the physical work. It deter-
mines the relative amount of time spent on various tasks through site observation. To
validate the collected lean data, the findings of work sampling should be triangulated
with the questionnaire assessment results. A well-designed questionnaire is fundamen-
tally developed on iterative process and validity of the results. A cause and effect
diagram can be used to understand the main causes of each waste type. These causes
Production & Manufacturing Research: An Open Access Journal 57

Lean factors association with initiative categories.

Figure 2.
58 S. Mostafa et al.

Figure 3. The proposed framework for lean manufacturing implementation.

are generally grouped as manpower, machine, material, method and measurement. The
quality function deployment is another powerful tool for deeply demonstrating the
linkage between waste types and lean practices.

6.3. Implementation and evaluation phase

This is the execution phase, which delivers and evaluates the lean plan. The implemen-
tation process starts with most troubled subunit of the organisation (Womack & Jones,
2003). A lean pilot project is suggested to be carried out to create a prototype or a trial
implementation. The aim of the pilot project is to ensure that any expansion of lean
implementation is based on the accuracy, effectiveness and efficiency. An implementa-
tion evaluation is a process in reassessing the empirical implementation strategies. The
 Production & Manufacturing Research: An Open Access Journal 59

INPUT BOX TOOL BOX OUTPUT BOX

PHASE I: CONCEPTUALISATION
• Lean experts • Expert judgment • Lean expert team
• Lean agents • Lean knowledge • Review of the lessons
• Previous leanness index • Lean preliminary analysis learned
• Documented lessons • Pareto analysis • Waste type list
learned • Organizational lean
• Waste profile practices
• Customer requirements

PHASE II: IMPLEMENTATION DESIGN

• Organisational assets • AHP • Questionnaire of lean
• Questionnaire • VSM assessment
requirements • Gap analysis • Documented current state

Monitoring and Controlling

• Work activities details • SWOT analysis gap
• Cause and effect analysis • Waste main root causes
• QFD • Waste elimination tools
• Lean workshops training • Organisational lean
and learning expertise

PHASE III: IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION

• Lean implementation • Expert judgement • Lean pilot project
teams • Lean implementation • Lean lessons learned of the
• Lean implementation plan guidelines pilot project
• Selected unit for • Determined lean practices • Preliminary evaluation
implementation • Communication tools and report
skills

PHASE IV: COMPLETE LEAN TRANSFORMATION

• Change requirements • Expert judgement • Organisational lean lessons
• Change control learned documents
• Standardised lean practices
• Lean scope expanding
decision

Figure 4. Tooling the proposed framework.

evaluation can be done using the pre- and post-questionnaire assessment. The evaluation
is designed to be an iterative process to validate and standardise the implementation
results.

6.4. Complete lean transformation phase

This is the final phase documenting the new lessons learned and scope changes resulted
during execution, establishment of new lean standards and planning of continuous
improvement. To accomplish lean transformation, the organisation must ensure that all
necessary changes to the established requirements are implemented. This process aims
60 S. Mostafa et al.

to optimise the results of lean practice prior to the process of standardisation or future
utilisation of the practice. Expanding the scope of lean implementation is an indicator of
continuous improvement whereas stakeholder’s involvement at all levels must be
included. Moreover, the standardised lean practice must be ratified by the key
stakeholders.

6.5. Logic and features of the proposed framework

The notion of developing the lean implementation framework as a project-based imple-
mentation has been reflected from the work of Bhasin and Burcher (2006). The aim of
this paper is to achieve practicality of lean implementation for effective lean outputs or
outcomes of an organisation. It can be comprehended that the project process framework
can contribute to the accomplishment of the objective addressed. Project processes aim
at satisfactorily delivering outputs of a phase and passing them as inputs to the next
phase (PMI, 2013). The processes permit lean implementation to be established in
sequences from the conceptual phase to the phase of completion of lean transformation.
Organising lean implementation into appropriate sequences is supported by Åhlström
(1998). An additional benefit of sequencing using an integration of the monitoring and
controlling process is to ensure that the results of each element within the four phases
are delivered according to the organisational expectations. The ending of each phase
consists of a milestone which operates as a gate for go or no-go decision toward the
next phase. No-go decision reinforces the elements inside the phase to be repeated until
they are completed at a satisfactory level.
The proposed implementation framework aims to overcome the limitations of the
existing frameworks. The three highlighted features in the proposed framework are as
follows:

 Building the lean expert team to enhance success in lean implementation.

 Lessons-learned review and documentation of lean implementation for continuous
improvement.
 Lean implementation monitoring and controlling for sustaining lean outcomes.

7. Discussion and conclusions

Human element is an inherent integral component of the lean manufacturing system.
Poor mind-set and misunderstanding of lean concept strongly restricts the lean imple-
mentation process and reduces the expected benefits for the organisation. This notion
led to an investigation on 28 lean implementation initiatives. This study discovered five
categories of lean implementation initiatives. Efforts like roadmaps and frameworks
were found to have attempted to address the human factor. However, the most success-
ful initiatives were those introduced as implementation frameworks, as proved in this
paper. Generally, a robust lean initiative is that being well-structured, tooled and com-
prehensive enough to be apprehensive and understandable to the practitioners. In addi-
tion, it should focus on both human and technical factors in parallel manner all times.
That in turn enables getting lean benefits within short time and ensures continuous
improvement. It was evident that nine common success factors have been addressed
across the literature. However, none of the initiatives studied contains all of the nine
success factors. The lessons-learned review and documentation factor are highly
 Production & Manufacturing Research: An Open Access Journal 61

omitted. The expert team building, and lean monitoring and controlling factors are
rarely included.
This paper has presented two contributions. First contribution is an evaluation meth-
odology that is applied on the lean initiatives studied. Second contribution is a project-
based framework structured to fit lean implementation. A set of rules for evaluation has
been established to understand the association between the initiatives and their success
factors. Moreover, this study has established a conceptual association between the suc-
cess of lean initiative, initiative elements and organisational practice through the three
constructed formulae. To overcome the limitations of the existing frameworks, the paper
has proposed a lean implementation framework which covers all success factors found
in the previous studies. The proposed framework has integrated project-based processes
and been divided into four phases. The first phase mainly involves human factor while
the remaining three phases are mainly technical. As an updated base of lean data, infor-
mation and knowledge become an essential part of the process, it must be considered in
the first phase of the proposed framework. This phase energises the continuous learning
on lean, specifically for the implementation team and improves the process control.
Attained leanness level should be measured, as set at end of the third phase, to verify
the results before setting new standard, which ensure the continuous improvement.
The proposed work still evokes extension and field application. For future research,
the authors recommend a validation of the proposed framework and exploitation of all
possible tools guided in the tooling of the project processes. An advanced learning
method should be added to make the lean implementation serve the vision, mission,
objectives, goals and targets of the organisation.

References
Abdulmalek, F. A., Rajgopal, J., & Needy, K. L. (2006). A classification scheme for the process
industry to guide the implementation of lean. Engineering Management Journal, 18, 15–25.
Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R., & Nelder, G. (2006). Critical success factors for lean
implementation within SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17,
460–471. doi:10.1108/17410380610662889
Åhlström, P. (1998). Sequences in the implementation of lean production. European Management
Journal, 16, 327–334. doi:10.1016/s0263-2373(98)00009-7
Anand, G., & Kodali, R. (2010). Analysis of lean manufacturing frameworks. Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Systems, 9(1), 1–30.
Anvari, A., Norzima, Z., Rosnay, M., Hojjati, M., & Ismail, Y. (2010). A comparative study on
journey of lean manufacturing implementation. AIJSTPME, 3, 77–85.
Anvari, A., Zulkifli, N., Yusuff, R. M., Ismail, Y., & Hojjati, S. H. (2011). A proposed dynamic
model for a lean roadmap. African Journal of Business Management, 5, 6727–6737.
Baker, P. (2002). Why is lean so far off? Works Management, 55, 26–29.
Bamber, L., & Dale, B. G. (2000). Lean production: A study of application in a traditional
manufacturing environment. Production Planning & Control, 11, 291–298. doi:10.1080/
095372800232252
Barker, B. (1998). The identification of factors affecting change towards best practice in
manufacturing organisations. Management Decision, 36, 549–556.
Behrouzi, F., & Wong, K. Y. (2011). Lean performance evaluation of manufacturing systems: A
dynamic and innovative approach. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 388–395. doi:10.1016/
j.procs.2010.12.065
Bhasin, S., & Burcher, P. (2006). Lean viewed as a philosophy. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, 17, 56–72.
Bicheno, J. (2004). The new lean toolbox: Towards fast, flexible flow. Buckingham: PICSIE
Books.
62 S. Mostafa et al.

Boyer, K. K. (1996). An assessment of managerial commitment to lean production. International

Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16, 48–59.
Buus, P. M. (2011). A framework for lean implementation: Lessons from Grundfos manufacturing
Hungary (Master in International Technology Management). Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg
University.
Cheng Wong, Y., & Yew Wong, K. (2011). A lean manufacturing framework for the Malysian
electrical and electronics industry. International Proceedings of Economics Development &
Research, EBSCO HOST, 12.
Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews.
Knowledge in Society, 1, 104–126.
Cottyn, J., Van Landeghem, H., Stockman, K., & Derammelaere, S. (2011). A method to align a
manufacturing execution system with Lean objectives. International Journal of Production
Research, 49, 4397–4413. doi:10.1080/00207543.2010.548409
Crabill, J., Harmon, E., Meadows, D., Milauskas, R., Miller, C., Nightingale, D., … Torrani, B.
(2000). Production operations level transition-to-lean description manual. Cambridge, MA:
Lean Aerospace Initiative, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (p. 40).
Crute, V., Ward, Y., Brown, S., & Graves, A. (2003). Implementing Lean in aerospace – Chal-
lenging the assumptions and understanding the challenges. Technovation, 23, 917–928.
doi:10.1016/s0166-4972(03)00081-6
Davies, C., & Greenough, R. (2010). Measuring the effectiveness of lean thinking activities within
maintenance. Retrieved June 24, 2013, from http://www.plant-maintenance.com/articles/
Lean_Maintenance.pdf
Dombrowski, U., Mielke, T., & Engel, C. (2012). Knowledge management in lean production
systems. Procedia CIRP, 3, 436–441. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2012.07.075
Dombrowski, U., Mielke, T., & Schulze, S. (2012). Employee participation in the implementation
of lean production systems. In H. A. ElMaraghy (Ed.), Enabling manufacturing
competitiveness and economic sustainability (pp. 428–433). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Doolen, T. L., & Hacker, M. E. (2005). A review of lean assessment in organizations: An
exploratory study of lean practices by electronics manufacturers. Journal of Manufacturing
Systems, 24, 55–67. doi:10.1016/s0278-6125(05)80007-x
Feld, W. M. (2001). Lean manufacturing: tools, techniques, and how to use them. London: The St
Lucie Press.
Flinchbaugh, J. W. (1998). Implementing lean manufacturing through factory design (Master).
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for
peer-reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5, 101–117.
doi:10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6
Hobbs, D. P. (2004). Lean manufacturing implementation: A complete execution manual for any
size manufacturer. Boca Raton, FL: J Ross Publishing.
Jina, J., Bhattacharya, A. K., & Walton, A. D. (1997). Applying lean principles for high product
variety and low volumes: Some issues and propositions. Logistics Information Management,
10, 5–13.
Karim, A., & Arif-Uz-Zaman, K. (2013). A methodology for effective implementation of lean
strategies and its performance evaluation in manufacturing organizations. Business Process
Management Journal, 19, 169–196. doi:10.1108/14637151311294912
Karlsson, C., & Åhlström, P. (1996). Assessing changes towards lean production. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16, 24–41.
Krafcik, J. F. (1988). Triumph of the lean production system. Sloan Management Review, 30,
41–52.
Kumar, S., & Phrommathed, P. (2006). Improving a manufacturing process by mapping and
simulation of critical operations. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17,
104–132.
Lozano, M., & Vallés, J. (2007). An analysis of the implementation of an environmental manage-
ment system in a local public administration. Journal of Environmental Management, 82,
495–511.
Marvel, J. H., & Standridge, C. R. (2009). Simulation-enhanced lean design process. Journal of
Industrial Engineering and Management, 2, 90–113. doi:10.3926/jiem.2009
 Production & Manufacturing Research: An Open Access Journal 63

Mohanty, R., Yadav, O., & Jain, R. (2007). Implementation of lean manufacturing principles in
auto industry. Vilakshan–XIMB Journal of Management, 1, 1–32.
Monden, Y. (1998). Toyota production system: an integrated approach to just-in-time. Norcross,
GA: Engineering & Management Press.
Mostafa, S. (2011). A lean framework for maintenance decisions (Master of Industrial Engineer-
ing). Egypt: Mansoura University.
Motwani, J. (2003). A business process change framework for examining lean manufacturing: A
case study. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 103, 339–346.
Nightingale, D. J., & Mize, J. H. (2002). Development of a lean enterprise transformation maturity
model. Information, Knowledge, Systems Management, 3, 15–30.
Nordin, N., Deros, B. M., Wahab, D. A., & Rahman, M. N. A. (2012). A framework for organisa-
tional change management in lean manufacturing implementation. International Journal of
Services and Operations Management, 12, 101–117.
Pavnaskar, S. J., Gershenson, J. K., & Jambekar, A. B. (2003). Classification scheme for lean
manufacturing tools. International Journal of Production Research, 41, 3075–3090. doi:
10.1080/0020754021000049817
PMI. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (4th ed.).
Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
PMI. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) (5th ed.).
Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Pollitt, D. (2006). Culture change makes Crusader fit for the future: Training in lean
manufacturing helps to transform company. Human Resource Management International
Digest, 14, 11–14.
Powell, D., Alfnes, E., Strandhagen, J. O., & Dreyer, H. (2013). The concurrent application of
lean production and ERP: Towards an ERP-based lean implementation process. Computers in
Industry, 64, 324–335. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2012.12.002
Puvanasvaran, P., Megat, H., Sai Hong, T., & Mohd Razali, M. (2009). The roles of
communication process for an effective lean manufacturing implementation. Journal of
Industrial Engineering and Management, 2, 128–152.
Rivera, L., & Frank Chen, F. (2007). Measuring the impact of Lean tools on the cost–time invest-
ment of a product using cost–time profiles. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing,
23, 684–689. doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2007.02.013
Rother, M., & Shook, J. (1999). Learning to see: Value stream mapping to create value and
eliminate muda. Brookline, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource
allocation. London: McGraw-Hill International Book.
Sánchez, A. M., & Pérez, M. P. (2001). Lean indicators and manufacturing strategies.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21, 1433–1452.
Scherrer-Rathje, M., Boyle, T. A., & Deflorin, P. (2009). Lean, take two! Reflections from the
second attempt at lean implementation. Business Horizons, 52, 79–88. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.
2008.08.004
Shah, R., Chandrasekaran, A., & Linderman, K. (2008). In pursuit of implementation
patterns: The context of Lean and Six Sigma. International Journal of Production
Research, 46, 6679–6699. doi:10.1080/00207540802230504
Shah, R., & Ward, P. (2003). Lean manufacturing: Context, practice bundles, and performance.
Journal of Operations Management, 21, 129–149. doi:10.1016/s0272-6963(02)00108-0
Shingo, S. (1989). A study of toyota production system from industrial engineering viewpoint (A.
P. Dillon, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Productvity Press.
Smeds, R. (1994). Managing change towards lean enterprises. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, 14, 66–82.
Taleghani, M. (2010). Key factors for implementing the lean manufacturing system. Journal of
American Science, 6, 287–291.
Wafa, M. A., & Yasin, M. M. (1998). A conceptual framework for effective implementation of
JIT: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Operations & Production Manage-
ment, 18, 1111–1124.
Wan, H.-d., & Chen, F. F. (2009). Decision support for lean practitioners: A web-based adaptive
assessment approach. Computers in Industry, 60, 277–283. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2009.
01.001
64 S. Mostafa et al.

Womack, J., & Jones, D. (2003). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your
corporation. London: Free Press.
Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1991). The machine that changed the world: How
Japan’s secret weapon in the global auto wars will revolutionize western industry (1st ed.).
New York, NY: HarperPerennial.
Wong, C. Y., & Wong, Y. K. (2011). A lean manufacturing framework for the Malysian electrical
and electronics industry. Paper presented at the International Proceedings of Economics
Development & Research (IPEDR), Singapore.
Worley, J. M., & Doolen, T. L. (2006). The role of communication and management support in a
lean manufacturing implementation. Management Decision, 44, 228–245.