4 - Effective Implementation of Lean and Evaluation

Business Process Management Journal
A methodology for effective implementation of lean strategies and its performance

evaluation in manufacturing organizations
Azharul Karim Kazi Arif-Uz-Zaman
Article information:
To cite this document:
Azharul Karim Kazi Arif-Uz-Zaman, (2013),"A methodology for effective implementation of lean strategies
and its performance evaluation in manufacturing organizations", Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 19 Iss 1 pp. 169 - 196
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:43 03 September 2016 (PT)
Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637151311294912
Downloaded on: 03 September 2016, At: 21:43 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 71 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7846 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2006),"Lean viewed as a philosophy", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17 Iss 1 pp.
56-72 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410380610639506
(2014),"Exploring barriers in lean implementation", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp.
122-148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-12-2012-0014
(2012),"Measuring parameters of lean manufacturing realization", Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 16
Iss 3 pp. 57-71 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13683041211257411
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:216788 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm
Implementation
A methodology for effective of lean strategies
implementation of lean strategies
and its performance evaluation in
169
manufacturing organizations
Azharul Karim and Kazi Arif-Uz-Zaman
School of Engineering Systems, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop an effective methodology for implementing lean
manufacturing strategies and a leanness evaluation metric using continuous performance
measurement (CPM).
Design/methodology/approach – Based on five lean principles, a systematic lean implementation
methodology for manufacturing organizations has been proposed. A simplified leanness evaluation
metric consisting of both efficiency and effectiveness attributes of manufacturing performance has
been developed for continuous evaluation of lean implementation. A case study to validate the
proposed methodology has been conducted and proposed CPM metric has been used to assess the
manufacturing leanness.
Findings – Proposed methodology is able to systematically identify manufacturing wastes, select
appropriate lean tools, identify relevant performance indicators, achieve significant performance
improvement and establish lean culture in the organization. Continuous performance measurement
matrices in terms of efficiency and effectiveness are proved to be appropriate methods for continuous
evaluation of lean performance.
Research limitations/implications – Effectiveness of the method developed has been
demonstrated by applying it in a real life assembly process. However, more tests/applications will
be necessary to generalize the findings.
Practical implications – Results show that applying the methods developed, managers can
successfully identify and remove manufacturing wastes from their production processes. By
improving process efficiency, they can optimize their resource allocations. Manufacturers now have a
validated step by step methodology for successfully implementing lean strategies.
Originality/value – According to the authors’ best knowledge, this is the first known study that
proposed a systematic lean implementation methodology based on lean principles and continuous
improvement techniques. Evaluation of performance improvement by lean strategies is a critical issue.
This study develops a simplified leanness evaluation metric considering both efficiency and
effectiveness attributes and integrates it with the lean implementation methodology.
Keywords Leanness, Lean implementation methodology, Continuous performance measurement,
Lean strategies, Lean production, Performance management
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction Business Process Management

Intense global competition, rapid technological changes, advances in manufacturing Journal
Vol. 19 No. 1, 2013
and information technology and discerning customers are forcing manufacturers to pp. 169-196
optimize manufacturing process, operations, and all the possible nodes of supply q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-7154
chains that enable them to deliver high-quality products in a short period of time. DOI 10.1108/14637151311294912
BPMJ The pursuit of this optimization has intensified the demand for higher product
19,1 development speed, manufacturing flexibility, waste elimination, better process
control, efficient manpower utilization and global reach to gain competitive
advantages (Karim et al., 2008a; Moore and Gibbons, 1997; Allway and Corbett,
2002; Papadopoulou and Ozbayrak, 2005). However, as global markets evolve,
achieving this goal has become increasingly complex due to continuously changing
170 market dynamics, global competitive environments, resource constraints and capacity
variation into the production floors. Lean philosophy, which originates from the
Toyota production system (TPS), is one of the initiatives that many major businesses
around the world have been trying to adopt in order to streamline the production
process and achieve optimization in resources (Womack et al., 1991; Schonbergerm,
2007). It is designed to eliminate waste in every area extending from production to

customer relations, product design, supplier networks and factory management.
Its target is to incorporate less human effort, less inventory, less time to develop
products, and less space to become highly responsive to customer demand while
producing top quality products in the most efficient and economic manner possible.
It is regarded as a manufacturing philosophy that if adopted and carefully
implemented can undoubtedly form the roadmap to global manufacturing excellence
(Papadopoulou and Ozbayrak, 2005). The core thrust of lean manufacturing is to create
a streamlined high-quality system that produces finished products at the pace of
customer demand with little or no waste (Shah and Ward, 2003).
Achieving manufacturing leanness is a continuous process improvement technique
to generate optimum value from the process. Manufacturers can use different lean tools
and lean principles to reduce wastes and non-value added (NVA) activities. However,
not all lean implementations have produced such results (Browning and Heath, 2009).
Behrouzi and Wong (2011) stated that the lack of an effective implementation
methodology, a clear understanding of lean performance and its measurement are
significant reasons behind the failure of the lean practices. Existing methods of
selecting the appropriate lean strategy relies on the manufacturers’ common sense of
judgement rather than any sets of logical justification.
A performance measurement system plays an important role in managing a
business as it provides the information necessary for decision-making actions and
therefore it is essential to measure the right things at the right time in a supply chain.
But firms often fail to maximize the benefits of lean strategies because they often fail to
develop the performance measurement metrics needed to evaluate the improvement in
effectiveness and efficiency (Gunasekaran et al., 2004). Given the inherent complexity
of manufacturing process, a measurement method to deal with these complexities is
particularly critical. Moreover, Gunasekaran and Kobu (2007) stated that, conventional
measures had the drawbacks of tending to measure mainly financial metrics, and failed
to include intangible indicators.
Therefore, the research problem of this paper is to develop a systematic
methodology for lean implementation in manufacturing companies and a new leanness
evaluation metric to measure manufacturing efficiency and effectiveness. The
proposed methodology of implementing lean strategies and performance evaluation
matrices were validated by a case study.
A case study approach has been adopted in this research. It has been proposed in
the literature that case studies can be applied to the area of theory development as well
as problem solving (Eisenhardt, 1989). In general, case studies are often preferred when Implementation
researchers have little control over the event and when the focus is on a contemporary of lean strategies
phenomenon in some real-life context (Yin, 1994). The single case study documents, in
detail, the operations of a single plant. It is different from the familiar anecdotal
“success story” article, in that it provides a careful and detailed documentation of
practices to be used as the basis for research. This may be used in conjunction with
survey research, or some other type of comprehensive data gathering effort, to develop 171
explanations for some of the findings on a more comprehensive basis (Flynn et al.,
1995). Yin (1994) and Glaser and Strauss (1967) provide some useful guidelines for case
study research. For this research, a single in-depth case study was carried out in order
to validate the theoretical model proposed.
The organization of this paper is as follows. The Section 2 defines and explains the
basic concept of lean, lean principles, lean implementation methodologies, lean
assessment methods and current research gaps. Proposed lean implementation
methodology with different leanness measuring methods, continuous performance
measurement (CPM) technique has been discussed in the following section. The Section 4
describes the implementation of the proposed methodology by a case study to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the methodology. Finally the conclusions are presented
where limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are also presented.
2. Literature review
2.1 Lean process and principle
Lean approach was first pioneered by Toyota. However, the concept was first appeared
in a book named The Machine that Changed the World (Womack et al., 1991); which
mainly highlighted Japanese production methods as compared to traditional mass
production systems. The follow-on book, Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create
Wealth in Your Organization, was also a milestone contribution in the history of lean as
it summarizes the lean principles and coined the phrase “lean production”. The term
“lean” means a series of activities or solutions to minimize waste and NVA operations,
and improve the value added (VA) process. This VA and NVA concept was derived from
the Japanese style production, especially the TPS. Waste is defined as anything that
interferes with the smooth flow of production (MacDufile and Helper, 1997). Wastes
highlighted in TPS were overproduction, waiting, conveyance, over processing,
excess inventory, unnecessary movement, defects and unused employee creativity.
Brintrup et al. (2010) also pointed those stated wastes in terms of value drivers to
perform the improvement opportunities throughout the production and manufacturing
process. The term “lean process” in the literature has many definitions. Shah and Ward
(2007) defined lean process as “an integrated socio-technical system whose main
objective is to eliminate waste by concurrently reducing or minimizing supplier,
customer, and internal variability”. Hopp and Spearman (2004) defined lean as the
production of goods or services that minimizes buffering costs associated with excess
lead times, inventories, or capacity. According to other researchers (Rother and Shook,
1999; Abdulmaleka and Rajgopal, 2007) lean production means identification of all types
of waste in the value stream of supply chain and implementation of necessary tools to
eliminate them for minimizing lead time.
The lean philosophy seeks to reduce waste anywhere in the company, optimize core
resources and establish a corporate culture dedicated to identifying and continuously
BPMJ fostering customer satisfaction. This philosophy was based on lean principles.
19,1 The three core principles are identified as:
(1) identification of value;
(2) elimination of waste; and
(3) the generation of smooth flow (Womack et al., 1990).
172 These principles were further expanded by the same researchers into five principles
(Womack and Jones, 2003):
(1) Identifying customer defined value.
(2) Optimizing the value stream.
(3) Converting the value flow smoothly by controlling and eliminating wastes.
(4) Activating the demand pull by synchronizing customer demand and
information flow.
(5) Perfection of all products processes and services.
The customers create value for the organization based on needs, pricing, and timing for
products or services. So, this customer information and value transformation create the
value stream for the product demanded by customer. The VA steps for product creation
identify the product flow for production. Customers pull products from producers
through product order. The final principle integrates and perfects the system so the first
four principles can be effectively implemented. These principles guide the elimination of
waste and the simplification of all manufacturing and support processes.
2.2 Lean implementation method

Incorrect application of lean strategies results in inefficiencies of an organization’s
resources and reduced employee confidence in lean strategies (Marvel et al., 2009).
Therefore, applying the appropriate strategy at the appropriate time for the right
purposes is very important. The success of any particular management strategy
normally depends upon organizational characteristics, which implies that all
organizations should not or cannot implement a similar set of strategies in their
particular case (Shah and Ward, 2003).
Anvari et al. (2010) proposed 11 critical success factors (management and leadership,
organizational cultures, goals and objectives, problem solving, skills, continuous
improvement, financial capabilities, performance measure, change, education and plan)
for effective implementation of lean strategies. They proposed three implementation
stages (preparation, design and implementation) but failed to establish a systematic
methodology by which manufacturers could identify wastes; evaluate existing
performance; remove those wastes; recalculate the performance and use sustainable lean
tool for continuous improvements. Wu and Wee (2009) proposed case based four-step
(problem finding, idea finding, obstacle finding and solution finding) problem solving
approach to demonstrate how lean supply chain affects product costs and quality. They
used value stream mapping (VSM) as lean supply chain tool to reduce cost and lead time
and enhance quality through P-D-C-A improvement cycle. Parry and Mills (2010)
developed a methodology that followed four steps: market analysis, visible values
stream, customer values analysis and financial modelling.
Consideration of organizational contexts have been noticeably lacking in research on Implementation
implementation of lean strategies (Shah and Ward, 2003). Despite the great potential of lean of lean strategies
strategies in performance improvement, there have been many reports of failures due to the
confusion about what and how to adopt tools in a specific environment (Tiwari et al., 2007).
The implementation of inappropriate lean strategy for a given situation can sometimes
lead to an increase in waste, cost and production time of a manufacturer. Because of
inappropriate selection of lean strategies, changes may cause disruptions in the very 173
process it meant to improve. Therefore, it is crucial to have a systematic method to
implement appropriate lean strategies based on identifying wastes in manufacturing
processes. However, few attempts have been made to develop a structured methodology
of implementing the appropriate lean strategies. As manufacturers seeking the advice for
their investment in implementing new lean strategies may desire certain theoretical ground
to assure that their investment decisions are logically sound (Wacker, 1998), it is necessary
to develop a methodology to implement appropriate lean strategies along with proper
methodology to evaluate the continuous performance improvement.
2.3 Lean assessment methods

It is crucial to measure the performance for realizing the benefits of lean practices. Many
models and techniques had been developed by researchers to evaluate the performance
of lean. Most of the researchers measured manufacturing leanness by evaluating
productivity or operational efficiency (Kuhlang et al., 2011; Levinson and Rerick, 2002;
Fogarty, 1992; Leung and Lee, 2004; Marvel et al., 2009). Measuring leanness and the
selection of right measuring metrics with appropriate implementation method is very
crucial.
Some researchers (Wan et al., 2007; Wu and Wee, 2009; Kuhlang et al., 2011) measured
the lean performance through VSM in manufacturing organizations. Wan et al. (2007)
measured the overall leanness by VSM considering cost, time and output values but did
not consider the effectiveness of production compared to company objective. On the
other hand, Wu and Wee (2009) measured only overall equipment effectiveness and
failed to evaluate the efficiency as well as overall performance. Fullerton and Wempe
(2009) and Agus and Hajinoor (2012) used structural equation modelling (SEM) to
establish the relationship between different lean tools and lean production performance.
They conducted several surveys to validate the relationships. Wan and Chen (2008)
addressed VSM, lean assessment tools and lean metrics as the three pillars of leanness
measurement. Wan (2006) identified qualitative, quantitative and graphical methods as
the three methods to evaluate lean systems. Hon (2003) suggested four types of measures
covering all aspects of business organizations and the measures are: market valuation,
financial, non-financial and cost measures.
Various lean assessment surveys have also been conducted by lean practitioners
and researchers to assess the leanness (Fullerton and Wempe, 2009; Karlsson and
Ahlstrom, 1996; Soriano-Meier and Forrester, 2002). Most of their surveys had
provided different lean indicators and checklists to assess the change of existing
system to lean. Results of the surveys are often shown as scores presenting the
differences between the current state of the system and the ideal conditions predefined
in the surveys which provide an overview of the level of leanness.
In comparison of qualitative surveys, quantitative metrics and models provide
better leanness score. Researchers developed different methods and techniques to
BPMJ quantify leanness in their literature. Wan and Chen (2009) developed a web-based lean
19,1 implementation approach consisting of three implementation cycle called lean training,
VSM and lean assessment. Wan (2006) also proposed a leanness measurement
technique to identify the manufacturing leanness of a firm using data envelopment
analysis (DEA). Some researchers used fuzzy logic algorithm to measure the
manufacturing leanness since leanness can be measured considering quantitative as
174 well as qualitative indicators with this algorithm (Bayou and de Korvin, 2008; Behrouzi
and Wong, 2011; Sun, 2010; Wong and Lai, 2011). Kuhlang et al. (2011) measured
manufacturing productivity by applying VSM and method time measurement (MTM).
Measuring organisational profit using economic VA method had also been developed
by various researchers and analysed different performance indicators of
manufacturing system to determine the profit (Hofmann and Locker, 2009; Meade
and Kumar, 2010; Parry and Mills, 2010).
2.4 Current research gap

Manufacturing leanness is a continuous process improvement technique to generate
optimum value from the process. Manufacturers can use different lean tools and lean
principles to reduce wastes and NVA activities to increase the values. But implementing
lean philosophy in an effective manner is crucial because choosing appropriate lean tools
and leanness measurement metric is quite dependent on how the problem of the process
is identified. At present, a systematic methodology for implementing the lean strategies
is absent (Leung, 2002; Mejabi, 2003; Achanga et al., 2006; Moore, 2007). Existing
methods of selecting the appropriate lean strategy relies on the manufacturers’ common
sense of judgment rather than any sets of logical justification.
None of these methods reported in the literature are based on lean principles
(Womack and Jones, 2003) and therefore a feedback loop for continuous performance
improvement was not present. There are many lean tools available and same tools many
not fit to all organisations and manufacturing processes. Selection of lean tool greatly
depent on partucular manufacturing process of a particular organsation. Consideration
of organizational contexts has largely been ignored in research on implementation of
lean strategies. As a result, in many cases lean implementation resulted in increase
in waste, cost and production time of a manufacturer (Tiwari et al., 2007). Because of
inappropriate selection of lean strategies, changes may cause disruptions in the very
process it meant to improve. Most o the methods proposed were not supported by
practical implementation and therefore validation could not be guranteed. The current
gap demands development of an effective methodology of implementing lean strategies
taking lean principles and organisational context into consideration.
It has been demonstrated above that numerous methods and models have been
proposed to measure the effectiveness of lean implementation. These matrices and
models are mostly unrelated and cannot converge to a single and simple measure for
evaluation. Manufacturers are overwhelmed with the number and complexity of the
performance measurement methods. These studies also failed to integrate performance
measurement with the implementation methodology and therefore could not monitor
performance in the dynamic environments.
In this paper, authors had summarized all the essential components of lean
implementations into a single framework and developed a systematic lean
implementation methodology based on lean principles and taking organisation
context into consideration and integrating CPM into the methodology. A simplistic and Implementation
easily computable continuous lean evaluation method has been proposed. of lean strategies
3. Proposed methodology
Literature review presented in the previous section indicates that a proper lean
implementation methodology and assessment metric is still a vital necessity in current
manufacturing arena. In this research, authors have proposed a clear and systematic 175
lean implementation methodology based on lean principles and a leanness
measurement process and discussed about adaptive methods and continuous
improvement techniques. The proposed methodology is shown in Figure 1. Step by
step description of the model is provided in the following sections.
3.1 Production and process details

At the beginning, firms need to define their own systems considering production type,
order volume and demand quantity since these indicators are highly related to lean
implementation. Zarei and Fakhrzad (2011) suggested 11 different attributes for
establishing product profile. Some of the important attributes they pointed are product
types, market demand for the products, product quantity, variety and profit margin as
these characteristics of products and process are highly significant for manufacturers.
Therefore, firms need to assess their production processes in terms of production type,
volume, demand patterns and usability for primary verification to apply lean initiatives.
3.2 Lean team

Based on company policy, management commitment and future plan, lean culture can
be initiated by forming a lean team in the next phase. One of the first activities about
lean implementation cycles is lean training (Wan and Chen, 2009). The lean team needs
to arrange and conduct different trainings about lean techniques, lean philosophy,
implementation road map and necessary knowledge and skills about lean. This
training provides a clear knowledge about lean’s first principle which is about value
determination. The lean team is usually consisted of experts and management
personnel from different department and their main objective is to organize people and
resources to implement lean in production process.
3.3 Performance variables

The lean team further defines and evaluates the manufacturing performance variables
based on production and process details determined in step 1. Researchers have
suggested many such performance variables and measures. Fullerton and Wempe
(2008), using a structural equation model (SEM), established that both financial and
non-financial measures were important to evaluate lean performance.
Hon (2003) had investigated the literature from 1960 and demonstrated that the
performances were measured in terms of cost, productivity and quality. He measured
lean performance by calculating time, cost, quality, flexibility and productivity
simultaneously. Most of the previous models, methods and theories revealed that
performance indicators were measured in terms of cost, quality, lead time, processing
time, operations time and VA time (Shah and Ward, 2003; Kuhlang et al., 2011; Zarei
and Fakhrzad, 2011). Based on the literatures, authors found that time-related
measures were most significant for lean performance evaluation and measurements.
BPMJ
19,1 Lean Implementation Lean principle
Process Type
Order Volume
Define System
Demand
Life Cycle
176 Management
Commitment
Lean
Transformation Yes
Culture
Value
Plan
Existing? Proposition
Knowledge of No
Lean
Lean Training Lean Team
Time Performance Indicators

Cost
Quality
Flexibility
Process Map
Non-Value
Value
Added data Identify Wastes Stream
Time study
Value Stream mapping
Visual Control Existing System Performance
Yes Company
Objective
Knowledge Satisfies?
Management
No
Line Balancing
Concurrent Design New
Engineering
Method
TQM
TPM
Cellular Implement New
Manufacturing Method
SMED
Process Layout
Single Piece Flow
Flow
5S
Waste
No
Minimization
Accomplish?
Yes
Efficiency Proposed Performance
Effectiveness
Performance
Productivity
Overall Lean
Utilization
Assessment
VA/NVA Ratio
Throughput
Defect Rate
Value
NO Conformation
JIT
Satisfactory?
Process Integration
Cellular Pull
Manufacturing
Yes
Adaptive Method
Long term Method
Figure 1. Autonomation Perfection

5S
Proposed lean Error proofing
Kaizen
Lean System
implementation
methodology
3.4 Current process map Implementation
The next phase in the proposed methodology is to sketch the existing process status and of lean strategies
their interrelationships. Manufacturing processes are visualized and the value streams
of that process are identified using VSM, visual control and time study method.
Eventually this is the second principle of lean philosophy. This map represents all the
existing wastes, NVA activities in a process that transforms raw materials into a
finished good and includes flow of information and materials throughout the process. 177
Wu and Wee (2009) used VSM as a lean tool for measurable indices of cost and lead time
reduction through P-D-C-A cycle. In another research, Wan et al. (2007) measured the
leanness of VSM using cost, time, and output value through developing decision making
unit (DMU) in terms of both input and output values. Simulation modeling, which had
been used as an extended phase of VSM and process map to calculate time and
variability, was also developed to validate a future map of a process (Zarei and
Fakhrzad, 2011). Wan and Chen (2009) used VSM in their web-based lean assessment
models to identify possible areas of removing wastes and improvements. Karim et al.
(2010) proposed an on-time delivery (OTD) improvement model for manufacturing
organizations using event driven process chain (EPC) methodology. The proposed
methodology had identified VSM, time study and visual controls as the possible tools to
visualize current states of any process and identify wastes and NVA activities.
3.5 Performance measurement

A major part of the proposed methodology is to continuously assess performance
before and after lean implementation. In this process, the first step is to measure the
current state of the process in terms of productivity, efficiency, effectiveness, VA time
ratio and defect rate using different lean assessment metrics. CPM method has been
used in this research to assess the current state of performance. It is necessary to assess
the amount of waste in order to trace the results of improvement measures. After
implementing new improvement methods and tools and removing wastes, the
performance will also be evaluated by CPM. The details of the performance evaluation
procedures with CPM are discussed in Section 4.
3.6 Design new process: lean tools, techniques and continuous improvement
3.6.1 Selection of appropriate lean tools. Selecting and implementing new lean tools and
techniques is the next phase of the project. Waste minimization is the core objective in
this phase. Various lean strategies have been developed to reduce the non-value adding
activities and enhance leanness of manufacturing systems. However, the selection of
lean strategies should be in such a way that implementing lean strategies should not
increase other non-value adding activities in the manufacturing process. Therefore,
appropriate lean strategies must be selected to eliminate wastes or improve the
performance metrics in the manufacturing process. Moreover, it would be preferable to
select the lean strategies that have the most overall impact on the identified wastes or
performance metrics, according to manufacturer’s priority. As a result, applying the
appropriate tool/s at the right time within the budget for the right type of company is
very important. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a proper relationship between
the closely related lean strategies and manufacturing wastes. An overall concept of
how the facility should ideally operate is developed and expressed here which follows
the third principle of lean, i.e. flow of the production.
BPMJ Lean thinking starts with customer demands and finishes with delivering values to
19,1 customers removing possible wastes and NVA activities. For this reason, researchers
and lean practitioners use different lean tools for different production environments.
Lewis’ (2000) analysis confirmed that organizations do not all follow the same path or
employ the same tools in their efforts to develop a lean production system. White et al.
(1999) compared the implementations of lean production techniques at small and large
178 US manufacturers. Results of the study showed that large manufacturers were more
likely to implement these techniques than the small US manufacturers. Although some
of the techniques provided better results depending on the firm size; practices such as
setup time reduction, multifunction employees and Kanban system provide better
organizational performance regardless of firm size. In another research, Jina and
Bhattacharya (1997) pointed out that it is difficult to apply lean principles to the “high
product variety and low volumes” environments due to turbulences in schedule, product
mix, volume, and design. In adaptive assessment model, Wan and Chen (2009) identified
12 groups of lean tools (Autonomation, concurrent engineering, line balancing,
manufacturing cell, productivity, pull, quality, single minute exchange of die (SMED),
standard work, visual control, VSM, and worker flexibility) to implement in two type of
systems (quantitative and repetitiveness of product). Shah and Ward (2003) identified 22
lean practices and classified these practices into four main categories: just-in-time, total
productive maintenance, total quality management, and human resource management.
VSM technique developed by Rother and Shook (1999) becomes one of the most
commonly used lean tools. Current state and future state maps visually display the flow
of value streams together with time-based performance pressing a sense of urgency and
indicating improvement opportunities. Melton (2005) also suggested five key lean tools
especially for process industries namely, kanban, 5S, visual control, Poke Yoke and
SMEDs. Eswaramoorthi and Kathiresan (2011) pointed out 36 different lean tools for
machine tool industry. Pavnaskar et al. (2003) identified 101 lean manufacturing tools
and developed a seven-level classification scheme to categorize these tools. It can be seen
that many researchers had discussed and proposed some of the more commonly
implemented lean manufacturing tools (Shah and Ward, 2007; Karlsson and Ahlstrom,
1996; Detty and Yingling, 2000; Sánchez and Pérez, 2011; Motwani, 2003; Bhasin and
Burcher, 2006). The most commonly used lean tools which are especially applicable in
this step of designing new method are line balancing, concurrent engineering, cellular
manufacturing, process layout, 5S, SMED, TQM, TPM, and Autonomation. However,
selection and implementation these tools strongly depend on the product volume and
initial investment capability of the company. It is challenging to identify the right lean
tool based on the current production process of a company. The first author of this paper
has developed a comprehensive methodology to identify appropriate lean strategies to
reduce the most critical wastes from the manufacturing process (Al Amin and Karim,
2012). This method can be used to select right lean tools within manufacturer’s resource
constraint.
After selecting and implementing suitable lean tools, the performance and efficiency
of the proposed process will be further evaluated in the next phase. CPM method is
again applied here to compare the system efficiency based on lean implementation.
3.6.2 Continuous performance improvement techniques and tools. According to the
fourth principle of lean, production process should be arranged like a pull system
where the wastes are eliminated from the process and the flow of the product is smooth
and with minimum NVA activities. Various lean adaptive methods (just-in-time, Implementation
cellular manufacturing, and process integration) are applied in this phase to confirm of lean strategies
the value of the customer with minimum wastes in the process. For any change or
improvement in the process, manufacturer needs to confirm and adopt that approach
and for this reason, this adoptive method is the essential phase of lean implementation
project. The final phase is the establishment of long-term method. Anvari et al. (2010)
included continuous improvement techniques as a change agent in third stage (lean 179
implementation) of his three stage lean implementation road map. Hobbs (2004)
implemented Kaizen as a continuous improvement method in his methodological
model of lean manufacturing. Wan and Chen (2009) developed a web-based decision
tool using adaptive lean assessment approach where they used continuous
improvement stage (final stage) to assess manufacturing leanness. The culture for
continuous improvement techniques are developed and every personnel related to
process are willing to change their mind set as well as working attitude towards lean
system or continuous improvement philosophy.
The lean implementation methodology described above has developed a general
road map considering lean principle and lean tools together. The overall objective is to
implement lean tools in manufacturing process as well as to develop continuous
improvement techniques within organizations. The overall performance of the
manufacturing process is measured by considering both effectiveness and efficiency of
the production process.
However, there are some limitations of this proposed methodology. The method
suggests that at early stage of lean implementation, a lean team needs to be formed
with skilled personnel from different department of the company. The team members
should have sufficient expertise in lean strategies and implementation methodology.
Many companies may not have people with this expertise. A team member without
necessary knowledge and skills adversely affect the overall success of the project and
can measure unrealistic performance of production system. Identification of key
performance indicators is also crucial for leanness evaluation. Sometimes, it is not
possible to identify and measure all the measures of performance indicators in a
specific company. Finally, implementation of this method may be costly and time
consuming but new methods and techniques need to be applied within company’s
budget and resources.
4. Continuous performance measurement

In this section, a new leanness evaluation metric has been proposed to measure the
current state of the process in terms of productivity, efficiency, effectiveness, VA time
ratio and defect rate. Kuhlang et al. (2011) introduced methodical approach which
connected VSM and methods-time measurement (MTM) together and offered a new
approach to reduce lead time and to measure productivity based on lean principles and
standardised processes. He defined lean metrics as the continuous process that is
decisively responsible for raising productivity in the search for the identification and the
elimination of waste. Karim et al. (2008b) established time-based relationships between
manufacturing practices and performance variables conducting empirical studies on
manufacturing organizations. Wan and Chen (2008) developed leanness measuring
metric using DEA and compared the input/output variables for any process or product
of a set of DMUs to identify process efficiency. Hon (2003) calculated leanness efficiency
BPMJ by considering time, cost, quality, flexibility and productivity. Among the existing lean
metrics, manufacturing cycle efficiency (MCE), an index for cycle time reduction,
19,1 compares value-adding time with total cycle time to show the efficiency of a
manufacturing process (Fogarty, 1992). Dai and Lee (2009) further expressed it as the
ratio of the time in actual production and setup process over the total time in the
production area. Fogarty (1992) argued that MCE overestimates manufacturing
180 efficiency and proposed value added efficiency (VAE) index to address the weakness
and defined it as the ratio of total run time to the total manufacturing time. Leung and
Lee (2004) identified “operation leanness” and “new-value creativeness” as the
two-principal competencies of manufacturing firms. CPM method has been proposed in
this research to assess the current state of the process. CPM is continuous leanness
measurement process to measure production efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency

compares actual output value generated from a particular machine to total resource used
by same machine in a given period of time or simply compares output vs input value in
terms of time frequency. Here, the input parameters are, number of workers, total
working time and output parameters are total output, time of completion. In this study,
the following equations have been proposed for CPM method to measure efficiency:
output value
Efficiency ¼ 100%
input resource
ð1Þ
no of output *average pitch time
¼ *100%
no of workers*total allocated time
Effectiveness compares actual output to targeted output from a production line (Bayou
and de Korvin, 2008). Kuhlang et al. (2011) defined productivity as the expression of
quantitative productiveness of an economic activity. Productivity can be increased by
increasing the effectiveness. A consideration of different aspects of effectiveness can
provide a better understanding of productivity. Bayou and de Korvin (2008) expressed
effectiveness as the relationship between output and organization’s goals. Initially,
production target needs to be calculated by comparing total allocated production time in
a production line to actual production time to complete one unit of product. Here, number
of workers and their total allocated times are multiplied to measure total allocated
production times:
no of workers*total allocated time
Production target ¼ *100% ð2Þ
average pitch time
Actual output Actual number of output

Effectiveness ¼ *100% ¼ *100% ð3Þ
Target value Targeted output value
Here, average pitch time means time to complete one unit.
5. Implementation of the proposed method

In order to validate the method developed, the method was implemented in a real life
manufacturing environment. According to our research methodology, initial task is to
assess the company status including production type, order volume and demand
quantity. During this phase a lean implementation team is formed. The team further
defines and evaluates the manufacturing performance indicators based on production
quality, processing time and cost. The next phase in the program requires the Implementation
organization to sketch the existing process status and map using VSM, visual control of lean strategies
and time study method to identify existing process wastes. The next phase of the
project is to measure the current state of the process. CPM method described above has
been used in this research to assess the current state of the process. Selecting and
implementing new lean tools and methods is the next phase of the project. Different
lean tools are implemented considering existing production scopes and wastes into the 181
process. Again the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed process will be
evaluated in the next phase. CPM metric is applied here to compare the efficiency and
effectiveness before and after lean implementation. The culture for continuous
improvement techniques need to be developed within the process environment and all
the personnel related to process need to change their mind set as well as working
attitude towards lean system or continuous improvement philosophy.
5.1 Company background

The method proposed was implemented in EXCEL Limited[1], Australia. The
company specializes in the research and development, manufacture, marketing, sales
and service of low and medium voltage switchgear products. All of their products have
been extensively tested in both in-house laboratories as well as externally. Company
currently has four main manufacturing lines which are electrical control and
communication cubicle assembly line, OSM automatic circuit Recloser’s assembly line,
cable making line and Switchgear assembly line. This research mainly focused on
electrical control and communication cubicle assembly or RC-01 ES electrical control
module cubicle assembly. The RC control and communications cubicle is a
microprocessor-based controller that provides a directional over current, earth fault
and sensitive earth fault relay, auto reclosing relay, instantaneous metering, event log,
demand logger and remote terminal unit (RTU) for remote control in a single package.
5.2 Formation of lean team and determining performance variables

A project team was formed in this project comprising of different management and
production personnel. The team members included the engineering manager,
production manager, one mechanical engineer, one lean manufacturing expert, one
skilled operator and one Master’s student from Queensland University of Technology
(QUT). The hierarchical structure of the team is shown in Figure 2.
Operators of the production process had been trained about lean processes in this
phase. The new process and work responsibilities had been monitored and described
by the project team. Within a few days, the operators had shown significant
Figure 2.
Lean implementation
project team
BPMJ improvements on new assembly layout and process in terms of efficiency and
19,1 effectiveness. The lean team also formed a skilled operator team (consisted of operators
from different production departments) and set monthly meeting and discussions
among the operators. In that meeting, the operators discussed about new techniques to
be implemented in their production floor. The objective of forming that team was to set
a culture of discussion and continuous improvement among operators.
182 It is a practice that most of the companies report performance improvement to
justify the implementation of new tools and methods. However, there is no standard
way of reporting the performance improvement. Therefore, identification of right
performance variables is essential and crucial for lean implementation. Researchers
had identified many performance indicators but most widely used variables are time,
cost, quality and flexibility. In this project, time (processing times and lead times) had
been extensively used to evaluate efficiency and productivity for the assembly process
of cubicle modules.
5.3 Process map

Major steps in the production process are:
(1) receipt of raw material;
(2) assembly of the cubicles at different stages;
(3) testing;
(4) inspection; and
(5) packaging.
The lean team broke down the total assembly process into different sub-functions and
tasks to get better picture of the process. The existing process is shown in Figure 3.
The activities which did not add values to the final product were termed as NVA
activities and wastes. As shown in, first two stages of assembly process had NVA
activities namely unload container of raw materials, unpack box and separate them.
Before accessory assembly, there was also a significant amount of delay in that process.
Similarly, other unpacking tasks and paper works had been considered as NVA tasks.
Operators needed to travel a total of 251 meters in the production floor according to the
existing layout of the cubicle assembly process. The team further investigated the
assembly process with time study to evaluate the wastes in the existing system.
5.4 Identification of major wastes by time study

The main purpose of time study is to understand work process and explore
value-added-time against non-value-added-time from the process. This time study
method consisted of four steps:
(1) break down the process into single motion;
(2) record each motion time;
(3) identify possible wastes and NVA activities; and
(4) calculate the overall process time.
Here time study for an operator who worked in RC cubicle assembly process had been
conducted and shown in Figure 4.
Get cables
From
Cable
Room
Walking
Recycle Deliver Wait for Back and
and Cubicle Hanger Forth to
Walk to Get
80 m
Rubbish To Unit 1 1 day Walk to bench
Dexion Dexion Door
20 m 10 m 10 m 20 m 15 m 15 m 15 m 15
15 m
m 50 m
Dexion WIP Breather 10
Unload 2 weeks Unpack box m 1 day 0m Fit Doors Fit Fit Fit WA3
20 & Earth
Containe & separate & Hardware Housing Aux
Frame Supply
Deliver 15 m
Other parts
To Unit 1 Get rating Rating Cut Door
Plate Plate Rods
B = 150
Route Cables
Fit Modules Total Distance
15 m 15 m 5m 15 m Travelled/Walked
per Cubicle 251 m
Fit BAT Fit MPM Fit MPM Paper work
Unpack
WA01 Label & Door
modules
IF..all the parts are here

And in the right place
Value Added
Delay Storage
Operation
Non Value Added 10 m Travel

Operation
Implementation
of lean strategies
assembly process map

Existing RC cubicle
Figure 3.
183
19,1
184
BPMJ
Figure 4.
Time study sheet for RC
cubicle assembly process
TIME STUDY RESULTS
File: RATE 100

RECORDER X COMPANY EXCELL Limited
OPERATOR 1 ASSEMBLY Cubicle RC-01ES Assembly
DATE 25/11/2008 UNITS MADE 1
No: Stop Watch Element Description Time Non Value Added (NVA) Activities
3.walk to 5.Unpack&
2.walk to 4.get
get disassembl 6.inspection/
parts parts e
0 0:00:13 1. Adjust tools paperwork 7.handling 8.cleaning 9.rework
1 0:00:16 2 Walk to stock shelf to get cubicle 0:00:03 0:00:03 0:00:00
2 0:00:30 4 take cubicle to hanger 0:00:14 0:00:14 0:00:00
3 0:00:39 7 fit to hanger 0:00:09 0:00:09 0:00:00
4 0:00:41 2 walk to bench 0:00:02 0:00:02 0:00:00
5 0:00:48 4 get earth stickers 0:00:07 0:00:07 0:00:00
6 0:00:50 2 walk back to cubicle 0:00:02 0:00:02 0:00:00
7 0:00:56 10 apply earth stickers 0:00:06 0:00:06
8 0:01:02 2 walk to parts 0:00:06 0:00:06 0:00:00
9 0:01:10 4 get parts 0:00:08 0:00:08 0:00:00
11 0:01:32 10 fit glands to cubicle 0:00:20 0:00:20
12 0:01:34 2 walk back to parts bench 0:00:02 0:00:02 0:00:00
13 0:01:36 4 get radio tray 0:00:02 0:00:02 0:00:00
14 0:01:45 5 unpack radio tray 0:00:09 0:00:09 0:00:00
15 0:01:50 4 get wing nuts 0:00:05 0:00:05 0:00:00
17 0:02:21 10 fit radio tray to cubicle with wing nuts x4 0:00:29 0:00:29
18 0:02:22 2 walk to bench 0:00:01 0:00:01 0:00:00
19 0:02:29 3 get screws 0:00:07 0:00:07 0:00:00
20 0:02:35 3 walk to bench to get tools 0:00:06 0:00:06 0:00:00
22 0:02:41 2 walk to bench 0:00:03 0:00:03 0:00:00
23 0:03:02 4 get screws 0:00:21 0:00:21 0:00:00
25 0:03:15 10 fit door upper hinges to cubicle 0:00:10 0:00:10
26 0:03:39 7 put nuts on 0:00:24 0:00:24 0:00:00
27 0:03:45 10 fit door lower hinges to cubicle 0:00:06 0:00:06
28 0:04:08 7 put nuts on 0:00:23 0:00:23 0:00:00
29 0:04:28 7 tight nuts with spanner 0:00:20 0:00:20 0:00:00
Time to complete the entire assembly process had been recorded by time study Implementation
method. Total process had been broken down into 302 motions and the operator took of lean strategies
about 62 min to complete that job. The team also found that, the operator spent more
than half of the time (34.46 min) on non-value adding tasks and only 27.15 min on value
adding tasks. Nine types of NVA activities had been identified in that process
including adjusting parts, walk to hold parts, walk to get tools, get parts, unpack and
disassembly, inspection, handling parts and tools, cleaning, rework. 185
These NVA times were then further analyzed and found that majority of the wastes
(around 49 percent) came from walking, holding and handling the parts and tools.
Distance travelled by the operator (251 meters), shortage of appropriate tool and poor
quality of product were the three main reasons for those major wastes. Detail
breakdown of wastes is presented in Table I.
5.5 Performance measurement (before lean implementation)

As described above, CPM is continuous leanness measurement process to measure
production efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency compares actual output value
generated from a particular machine to total resource utilized by the same machine in a
given period of time or simply compares output vs input value in terms of time
frequency. Number of workers and allocated working time for each worker had been
used as input parameters whereas number of product manufactured and average pitch
time were the output parameters used in this research (equation (1)). Therefore, the
numerator of the equation (1) is total time required to manufacture the products, whereas
the denominator is the total time allocated to make those outputs. Effectiveness
compares actual number of output to targeted output from the assembly production line.
Initially, production target is determined and effectiveness for assembly cubicle line is
measured using equations (2) and (3).
Assembly processing times for two other operators were also recorded together
with the first operator described above and the average of three operator’s assembly
processing time was calculated. This average value had been termed here as average pitch
time to complete one process (Figure 5). Using equation (2), the assembly line production
target was set to 20 pieces but in actual situation, total 12 units of cubicle modules were
assembled by three operators and they worked 22.5 h to complete those units.
Cubicle assembly before lean implementation
Value added time (in minutes) 27.15

Non-value added time
Adjust 2.65 8%
Walk to parts 6.03 17%
Walk to get tools 2.45 7%
Get parts 5.80 17%
Unpack and disassembly 5.15 15%
Inspection/paper works 2.50 7%
Handling 7.46 22%
Cleaning 1.03 3% Table I.
Rework 1.39 4% Proportions of non-value
34.46 added tmes for existing
Total 61.61 100.0% assembly process
19,1
186
BPMJ
Figure 5.
CPM for existing
assembly process
Continuous Performance Measurement (CPM) Sheet (Before lean Implementation)
Hours Worked
Date: 05/11/2008 Time to complete 1 Unit in Mins Average Pitch Time (APT) in Mins Daily target @100 % Capacity Operators 1 2 3
1 st Operator 1 62
2 nd Operator 2 79 69 20 Yes Yes Yes
7.00-8.00
3 rd Operator 3 67
Yes Yes Yes
8.00-9.00
`
Time Units produced Yes Yes Yes
9.00-10.00
1 2 3 4 5
1 st Operator Red Time Time Lost Operator Reason Yes Yes Yes
10.00-11.00
7.00-9.30 2 nd Operator
1 30 mins 2 No Cable
3 rd Operator Yes Yes Yes
11.00-12.00
1 st Operator
2 72 mins 3 No holes for Maxico Radio
9.30-12.00 2 nd Operator 1 Rest Rest Rest
12.00-13.00
3 rd Operator
1 st Operator Yes Yes Yes
13.00-14.00
1.00-3.30 2 nd Operator 2
14.00-15.00
Total Units 12 Half Half Half

15.00-16.00
Total 7.5 7.5 7.5

Total Efficiency 61 % Total Effectiveness 60 %
Overall efficiency was thus 61 percent as calculated using equation (1). Moreover, using Implementation
equation (3), production effectiveness (60 percent) was calculated. These efficiency and of lean strategies
effectiveness had been taken as bench mark values by the lean team and based on those
values, they had implemented lean techniques and tools to increase the efficiency and
effectiveness as well as reduce the wastes from the system.
5.6 Proposed process layout 187

The lean team found that the existing process layout for RC cubicle assembly process
was responsible for major part of time wastes and therefore redesigned the layout.
Since several wastes and their areas had been identified earlier, the project team
proposed an improved layout in order to reduce these wastes. In the new layout, the
working stations, and the machines located in optimum distance for operators which
actually reduced walking distances among them. Handling problems were identified as
the second most crucial waste in the process. The work station had been separated
with specific task allocations for each operator which ultimately balanced the
workloads. Eventually the handling waste was minimized by the separation of the
tasks. In order to overcome the problem related to shortage of parts and tools in work
stations, different trolleys in each work station was allocated with necessary tools and
working parts. These changes had significantly reduced the walking distances as well
as time required for holding and handling tools and parts.
5.6.1 Proposed process map. As mentioned earlier, the lean project team separated
the assembly floor into three separate work stations to balance the assembly process.
Three operators then worked separately in those stations to complete a whole cubicle
assembly unit. In the first station, operator did the main frame assembly and fitted
breather, earth, doors and other housing frames to the main cubicle frame. The next
station was named as cable connection station as all the auxiliary cables and accessories
were connected to the main frame in this station. In the last station, which is termed as
“final assembly”, operator assembled all the modules, battery and other accessories to
complete the cubicle assembly process. All these processes are shown in Figure 6.
The new layout was designed with the aim of significant reductions in distance
travelled by operators and processing time. In the redesigned process, the travel
distance was 60 meters compared to original distance of 251 meters. The proposed
layout had reduced a significant amount of processing time from the process.
6. Evaluation of the new (lean) process

To evaluate the proposed assembly process, the processing time for all three sections
had been recorded again. The three operators named 1, 2 and 3 took 17.8, 18.09 and
15.60 min, respectively, to complete their tasks. The project team also recorded the
NVA time as 24.34 min in the redesigned assembly process compare to 34.46 min with
the original process. The major wastes related to walk and getting parts and tools were
recorded to be 23 percent of total wastes compared to 49 percent of total wastes before
lean implementation.
In the new assembly process, operators also needed less time to complete one
cubicle (51.49 min) (Table II) which was previously recorded as 61.61 min. One
important thing about NVA activities needs to mention here. Some of these activities
are essential for any process although they do not provide any value to the product.
In our project, nine wastes which were identified as NVA activities, could not be
19,1
188
BPMJ
Figure 6.
Proposed cubicle
assembly process map
Work Station 1 Work Station 2 Work Station 3
Main Cable Final

Frame Connection Assembly
Assembly
20 m 30 m 10 m
Unload Container Dexion 2 weeks Unpack Box & Seperate P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P10 P11 Paper Work
P1 Breather & Earth Value Added Process Storage

P2 Rating Plate
P3 Fit Doors & Hardware
P4 Fit Housing Frame
P5 Fit Auxiliary Supply Non Value Added Operation Travel Distance
P6 Fit WA3
P7 Unpack Modules
P8 Fit Modules
P9 Fit Battery
P10 Fit WA1
P11 MPM Label
Implementation
Cubicle assembly after lean implementation
of lean strategies
Value added time (in minutes) 27.15
Non-value added time
Adjust 2.65 11%
Walk to parts 1.93 8%
Walk to get tools 0.27 1% 189
Get parts 3.51 14%
Unpack and disassembly 5.15 21%
Inspection/paper works 2.50 10%
Handling 5.91 24%
Cleaning 1.03 4% Table II.
Rework 1.39 6% Proportions of non-value

24.34 added times for proposed
Total 51.49 100.0% assembly process
eliminated completely from the process. However, it needs to be minimized to get

maximum performance from the process.
6.1 Performance evaluation (after lean implementation)

The new assembly process introduced a different work process method with the help of
extra resources (e.g. trolleys). The distance travelled by the operators as well as
holding and handling times had been reduced significantly by the proposed method
and layout. Previously production times for 12 cubicle assembly modules were
recorded to be 69 min. After lean implementation, the output jumped to 19 pieces with
51 min of average production time (Figure 7). Although the team had used three
operators to complete one module, it took less time than previous assembly process.
Using equations (1)-(3); the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed process was
found 72 and 73 percent, respectively, compared to 61 and 62 percent, respectively, for
the existing process. Therefore, in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, the proposed
assembly process had shown notable improvements. Since the project had shown
tremendous improvements in efficiency, effectiveness and waste reductions from the
assembly process, the summary of overall lean assessments and achievements has
been discussed in the next section.
6.2 Overall lean assessment

The lean implementation team worked several months in EXCELL Limited. During
this period the project team had studied, analyzed and implemented lean tools and
techniques in cubicle assembly process as well as showed significant improvements.
Total distance travelled by operators in cubicle assembly process was reduced from
251 meters to only 60 meters which showed 191 meters reductions in the distance
travelled. The project team not only showed improvement in distance travelled by
operators but also in the ratio of total VA to NVA time. The ratio of those times was
improved by 42 percent.
Although the assembly process had been divided into three sub-processes and into
three separate work stations, the average production time or pitch time for a single
cubicle module had been reduced by 35 percent. Total effectiveness for the assembly
cubicle line was improved by 22 percent. Finally, the total efficiency for assembly
19,1
190
BPMJ
Figure 7.
CPM after lean
implementation
Continuous Performance Measurement (CPM) Sheet (After lean Implementation)
Hours Worked
Date: 02/02/2009 Time to complete 1 Sub- Unit in Mins Average Pitch Time (APT) in Mins Daily target @100 % Capacity Operators 1 2 3
1 st Operator 1 18
2 nd Operator 2 18 51 26 Yes Yes Yes
7.00-8.00
3 rd Operator 3 16
Yes Yes Yes

8.00-9.00
Time Units produced Yes Yes Yes

9.00-10.00
2 4 6 8
1 st Operator Red Time Time Lost Operator Reason Yes Yes Yes
10.00-11.00
7.00-9.30 2 nd Operator 1
1 10 mins 3 New Training on method
11.00-12.00
1 st Operator
2 30 mins 1 No holes for maxico radio
9.30-12.00 2 nd Operator 2 Rest Rest Rest
12.00-13.00
3 rd Operator
1 st Operator Yes Yes Yes

13.00-14.00
1.00-3.30 2 nd Operator

14.00-15.00
Total
otal Units 19 Half Half Half
15.00-16.00
Total 7.5 7.5 7.5

Total Efficiency 72 % Total Effectiveness 73 %
process had been increased significantly from 61 to 72 percent after implementing lean Implementation
tools and techniques (Table III). The lean team also formed a skilled operator team of lean strategies
(consisted of operators from different production departments) and set up monthly
meeting and discussions among the operators. In these meetings, they discussed about
new innovations or new techniques to be implemented in their production floor. The
overall achievement in reducing NVA time and average processing time and increment
in process efficiency and effectiveness were satisfactory and highly appreciable by 191
EXCELL Limited.
It can be summarized that the proposed lean implementation methodology and
process leanness metric can benefit researchers as well as manufacturers for various
reasons:
.
The proposed leanness measuring metric (CPM) and lean implementation
method are innovative new models.
.
Manufacturers can evaluate the process efficiency and effectiveness
continuously to identify and monitor firm performance.
.
The proposed lean implementation methodology can be applied in
manufacturing organizations (especially in assembly productions) to improve
operational performance.
7. Conclusions
Increasing global competitiveness worldwide has forced manufacturing organizations
to produce high-quality products at a faster rate and at a competitive cost. In order to
reach these goals, today’s manufacturing organizations are required to compete with
modern manufacturing paradigms such as lean manufacturing and continuous
improvement techniques. Despite the great potential of lean manufacturing strategies,
many studies reported about failures in achieving expected outcome from lean
implementation. Because of following inappropriate method in implementing lean
strategies, changes caused disruptions in the process instead of expected improvement.
Literature reported numerous methods and models to measure the effectiveness of lean
implementation. These matrices and models include qualitative, quantitative, survey
based and fuzzy logic-based matrices. Most of them have little practical application as
manufacturers are overwhelmed with the number and complexity of the performance
measurement methods.
In this paper, a structures methodology of implementing lean strategies had been
proposed and a new method of leanness evaluation metric (CPM) had been introduced.
Before lean After lean

Lean indicators implementation implementation Improvement
Total distance travelled per cubicle

(meter) 251 60 191
VA/NVA ratio 0.79 1.12 42%
Number of NVA motions 302 222 36% Table III.
Average pitch time (APT) 69 51 35% Overall lean assessment
Total effectiveness (%) 60 73 22 with significant areas of
Total efficiency (%) 61 72 18 improvements
BPMJ In the proposed method, different wastes are first identified by time study and process
19,1 mapping. Based on those wastes, an improved process map is developed in
manufacturing area and process efficiency and effectiveness are evaluated by using
CPM metric developed. The operators and other relevant personnel are trained up and
monitored to cope with the redesigned assembly process. A case study was presented
to demonstrate the application of the proposed approach. However, the methods
192 developed cannot be generalised based on successful implementation in a single
company and in a specific process. More implementations in diversified manufacturing
processes and further in depth analysis will be necessary to generalise the method
developed. Future research can also integrate supply chain with manufacturing to
evaluate the overall leanness of the entire value chain.
Note
1. For reasons of confidentiality, the name of the manufacturer cannot be disclosed. EXCEL
Limited is a pseudonym.
References
Abdulmaleka, F.A. and Rajgopal, J. (2007), “Analyzing the benefits of lean manufacturing and
value stream mapping via simulation: a process sector case study”, Int. J. Prod. Economics,
Vol. 107, pp. 223-36.
Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R. and Nelder, G. (2006), “Critical success factors for lean
implementation within SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 17, pp. 460-71.
Agus, A. and Hajinoor, M.S. (2012), “Lean production supply chain management as driver
towards enhancing product quality and business performance”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 92-121.
Allway, M. and Corbett, S. (2002), “Shifting to lean service: stealing a page from manufacturers’
playbooks”, Journal of Organizational Excellence, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 45-54.
Amin, A.A. and Karim, M.A. (2012), “A time based quantitative approach for selecting lean
strategies for manufacturing organizations”, International Journal of Production Research
(in press, accepted on 10 April) .
Anvari, A.R., Norzima, Z., Rosnay, M.Y., Hojjati, M.S.H. and Ismail, Y. (2010), “A comparative
study on journey of lean manufacturing implementation”, AIJSTPME, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 77-85.
Bayou, M.E. and de Korvin, A. (2008), “Measuring the leanness of manufacturing systems: a case
study of Ford Motor Company and General Motors”, Journal of Engineering & Technology
Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 287-304.
Behrouzi, F. and Wong, K.Y. (2011), “Lean performance evaluation of manufacturing systems:
a dynamic and innovative approach”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 3, pp. 388-95.
Bhasin, S. and Burcher, P. (2006), “Lean viewed as a philosophy”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 56-72.
Brintrup, A., Ranasinghe, D. and McFarlane, D. (2010), “RFID opportunity analysis for leaner
manufacturing”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 9, pp. 2745-64.
Browning, T.R. and Heath, R.D. (2009), “Reconceptualizing the effects of lean on production costs
with evidence from the F-22 program”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 23-44.
Dai, J.B. and Lee, N.K.S. (2009), “Performance analysis of flexible material handling systems for Implementation
the apparel industry”, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., Vol. 44, pp. 1219-29.
of lean strategies
Detty, R.B. and Yingling, J.C. (2000), “Quantifying benefits of conversion to lean manufacturing
with discrete event simulation: a case study”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 429-45.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14, pp. 532-50. 193
Eswaramoorthi, M. and Kathiresan, G.R. (2011), “A survey on lean practices in Indian machine
tool industries”, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., Vol. 52, pp. 1091-101.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1995), “The impact of quality management
practices on performance and competitive advantage”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 26,
pp. 659-91.
Fogarty, D.W. (1992), “Work in process: performance measures”, Int. J. Prod. Economics, Vol. 26,
pp. 169-72.
Fullerton, R.R. and Wempe, W.F. (2009), “Lean manufacturing, non-financial performance
measures, and financial performance”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research, Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Gunasekaran, A. and Kobu, B. (2007), “Performance measures and metrics in logistics and
supply chain management: a review of recent literature (1995-2004) for research and
applications”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 12, pp. 2819-40.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and McGayghey, R.E. (2004), “A framework for supply chain
performance measurement”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3,
pp. 333-47.
Hobbs, D.P. (2004), Lean Manufacturing Implementation: A Complete Execution Manual for Any
Size Manufacturer, J. Ross Pub, Boca Raton, FL.
Hofmann, E. and Locker, A. (2009), “Value-based performance measurement in supply chains:
a case study from the packaging industry”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 68-81.
Hon, K.K.B. (2003), Performance and Evaluation of Manufacturing Systems, Department of
Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool.
Hopp, W.J. and Spearman, M.L. (2004), “To pull or not to pull: what is the question?”,
Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 133-48.
Jina, J. and Bhattacharya, A.K. (1997), “Applying lean principles for high product variety and low
volumes: some issues and propositions”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 5-13.
Karim, M.A., Smith, A.J. and Halgamuge, S. (2008a), “A comparative study of manufacturing
practices and performance variables”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 112, pp. 841-59.
Karim, M.A., Smith, A.J. and Halgamuge, S. (2008b), “Empirical relationships between some
manufacturing practices and performance”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 46 No. 13, pp. 3583-613.
Karim, M.A., Samaranayake, P., Smith, A.J. and Halgamuge, S. (2010), “An on-time delivery
improvement model for manufacturing organisations”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 2373-94.
BPMJ Karlsson, C. and Ahlstrom, P. (1996), “Assessing changes towards lean production”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16, pp. 24-41.
19,1
Kuhlang, P., Edtmayr, T. and Sihn, W. (2011), “Methodical approach to increase productivity and
reduce lead time in assembly and production-logistic processes”, CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Technology, Vol. 4.
Leung, H. (2002), “A research in manufacturing strategy and competitiveness: models and
194 practices”, PhD thesis, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
Leung, S. and Lee, W.B. (2004), “Strategic manufacturing capability pursuance: a conceptual
framework”, Benchmarking: An Int. Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 156-74.
Levinson, W.A. and Rerick, R.A. (2002), Lean Enterprise: A Synergistic Approach to Minimizing
Waste, AsQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Lewis, M.A. (2000), “Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 959-78.
MacDufile, J.P. and Helper, S. (1997), “Creating lean suppliers: diffusing lean production through
the supply chain”, paper presented at International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP),
FY’97 IMVP working papers.
Marvel, J.H. and Standridge, C.R. (2009), “A simulation-enhanced lean design process”, Journal of
Industrial Engineering & Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 90-113.
Meade, D. and Kumar, S. (2010), “Analysing the impact of the implementation of lean
manufacturing strategies on profitability”, Journal of the Operational Research Society,
Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 858-71.
Mejabi, O.O. (2003), “Framework for a lean manufacturing planning system”, International
Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 563-78.
Melton, T. (2005), “The benefits of lean manufacturing: what lean thinking has to offer the
process industries”, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 662-73.
Moore, J. and Gibbons, S.M. (1997), “Is lean manufacturing universally relevant? An integrative
methodology”, International Journal of Operations & Product Management, Vol. 17 No. 9,
pp. 899-911.
Moore, R. (2007), Selecting the Right Manufacturing Improvement Tools, Saunders, M., Lewis, P.,
and Thornhill, A. (Eds), Elsevier Science & Technology Books, Maryland Heights, MO.
Motwani, J. (2003), “A business process change framework for examining lean manufacturing:
a case study”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 103 No. 5, pp. 339-46.
Papadopoulou, T.C. and Ozbayrak, M. (2005), “Leanness: experiences from the journey to date”,
Parry, G. and Mills, J. (2010), “Lean competence: integration of theories in operations
management practice”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 216-26.
Pavnaskar, S.J., Gershenson, J.K. and Jambekar, A.B. (2003), “Classification scheme for lean
manufacturing tools”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41 No. 13, p. 16.
Rother, M. and Shook, J. (1999), Learning to See – Value Stream Mapping to Create Value and
Eliminate Muda, Version 1.2, The Lean Enterprise Institute Brookline, Brookline, MA,
available at: www.lean.org
Sánchez, A.M. and Pérez, M.P. (2011), “Lean indicators and manufacturing strategies”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 11, pp. 1433-51.
Schonbergerm, R.J. (2007), “Japanese production management: an evolution with mixed success”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25, pp. 403-19.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2003), “Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and Implementation
performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, pp. 129-49.
of lean strategies
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007), “Defining and developing measures of lean production”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 785-805.
Soriano-Meier, H. and Forrester, P.L. (2002), “A model for evaluating the degree of leanness of
manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 13,
pp. 104-9. 195
Sun, C.-C. (2010), “A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS
methods”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 12, pp. 7745-54.
Tiwari, A., Turner, C. and Sackett, P. (2007), “A framework for implementing cost and quality
practices within manufacturing”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 18, pp. 731-60.

Wacker, J.G. (1998), “A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building
research methods in operations management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16,
pp. 361-85.
Wan, H.-D. (2006), “Measuring leanness of manufacturing systems and identifying leanness
target by considering agility”, Doctor of Philosophy, Industrial and Systems Engineering,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, pp. 1-186.
Wan, H.-D. and Chen, F.F. (2008), “A leanness measure of manufacturing systems for quantifying
impacts of lean initiatives”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 23,
pp. 6567-84.
Wan, H.-D. and Chen, F.F. (2009), “Decision support for lean practitioners: a web-based adaptive
assessment approach”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 60, pp. 277-83.
Wan, H.-D., Chen, F.F. and Rivera, L. (2007), “Leanness score of value stream maps”, Proceedings
of the 2007 Industrial Engineering Research Conference.
White, R.E., Pearson, J.N. and Wilson, J.R. (1999), “JIT manufacturing: a survey of implementations
in small and large US manufacturers”, Management Science, Vol. 45 No. 1, p. 15.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (2003), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your
Corporation, 2nd ed., Simon & Schuster, London, pp. 15-90.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Ross, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Macmillan,
New York, NY.
Wong, B.K. and Lai, V.S. (2011), “A survey of the application of fuzzy set theory in production
and operations management: 1998-2009”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 129 No. 1, pp. 157-68.
Wu, S. and Wee, H.M. (2009), “How lean supply chain effects product cost and quality – a case
study of the Ford Motor Company”, paper presented at IEEE Conference.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zarei, M. and Fakhrzad, M.B. (2011), “Food supply chain leanness using a developed QFD
model”, Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 102, pp. 25-33.
Further reading
Bhasin, S. (2008), “Lean and performance measurement”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Deif, A. (2010), “Computer simulation to manage lean manufacturing systems”, 2nd International
Conference on Computer Engineering and Technology, Vol. 6, pp. 677-81.
BPMJ Feld, W.M. (2001), Lean Manufacturing: Tools, Techniques, and How to Use Them, Lucie Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
19,1 Liker, J.K. (1998), “Introduction: bringing lean back to the USA”, in Liker, J.K. (Ed.), Becoming
Lean, Inside Storied of US Manufacturers, Productivity Press, Portland, OR, pp. 3-40.
Samson, D. and Terziovski, M. (1999), “The relationship between total quality management
practices and operational performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17,
196 pp. 393-409.
About the authors

Dr Azharul Karim is currently working as a Lecturer in the School of Engineering System,
Queensland University of Technology, Australia. He received his PhD degree from Melbourne
University in 2007. His innovative product development capability is well recognised. He has
developed/invented energy and water efficient ultrasonic washing machine (patent WO02089652)
and ultrasonic dishwasher (patent no. WO0229148). He has significant contribution in product
quality and manufacturing process improvement. Using a wide variety of research methods,
he investigated the challenging problems faced by the manufacturers and developed improvement
models to overcome them. He also has substantial industry experience in manufacturing process
improvement. During his research/teaching career, he successfully led different research and
product development projects involving $1.7 million grant. He has more than 60 peer reviewed
research papers in high impact international journals and conference proceedings with more than
160 citations. He has chaired many reputed conferences and is reviewer of many reputed journals.
His current research interests include solar thermal storage, low cost concentrating collector,
lean manufacturing and manufacturing data mining. Azharul Karim is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: azharul.karim@qut.edu.au
Kazi Arif-Uz-Zaman is a Postgraduate Research Student in the School of Engineering
Systems at QUT.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Martin Dörnhöfer, Falk Schröder, Willibald A. Günthner. 2016. Logistics performance measurement
system for the automotive industry. Logistics Research 9:1. . [CrossRef]
2. NawanirGusman Gusman Nawanir Gusman Nawanir is a PhD candidate in the School of Technology
Management and Logistics at the Universiti Utara Malaysia. His bachelor degree was in industrial
engineering department at the Andalas University. His master of science was completed in operations
management program (by full research) at the College of Business of Universiti Utara Malaysia. His main
research interests include Lean manufacturing, inventory management and performance measurement.
He has published his papers in several journals and conferences. LimKong Teong Kong Teong Lim Dr
Kong Teong Lim is an Associate Professor of Operations Management and former Head of Department
of Operations Management at Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM). He received his BSc in Applied
Statistics in 1991, MSc in Mathematics (Applied Statistics) in 1993 from Universiti Sains Malaysia and
PhD in Quality Management in 2003 from UUM. He has been at UUM since 1994. His primary
research and publication areas are quality improvement and management, production and operations
management, Lean operations, knowledge management, performance management and appraisal. His
teaching interests are in the areas of quality management, statistical process control and improvement,
production management and statistical data analysis. He is a member of the Editorial Board for the
Journal of Technology and Operations Management. In addition, he was also appointed as the external
course assessor for the course operations management, as well as the reviewer for academic papers
published in local and international journals and conference proceedings. OthmanSiti Norezam Siti
Norezam Othman Dr Siti Norezam Othman is an Associate Professor of Operations Management at
Universiti Utara Malaysia. She attained her Doctor of Engineering in Engineering Management from
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia in 2007. Her research interests cover topics in supplier-buyer relationships,
technology transfer, technology assessment and operations management. In relation to her research
interest, she has supervised PhDs and Master students. She is also the managing editor for Journal of
Technology and Operations Management as well as referee for journal and proceeding articles, and was
nominated as internal examiner for postgraduate thesis. She has authored a number of academic papers for
journals, international conferences and modules. To strengthen her research interest, she affiliates with
the International Association of Management of Technology. School of Technology Management and
Logistics, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia . 2016. Lean manufacturing practices in Indonesian
manufacturing firms. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 7:2, 149-170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Guilherme Luz Tortorella, Giuliano Almeida Marodin, Diego de Castro Fettermann, Flavio Sanson
Fogliatto. 2016. Relationships between lean product development enablers and problems. International
Journal of Production Research 54:10, 2837-2855. [CrossRef]
4. Osama Alaskari School of Science and Engineering, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK Mohammad
Munir Ahmad School of Science and Engineering, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK Ruben
Pinedo-Cuenca School of Science and Engineering, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK . 2016.
Development of a methodology to assist manufacturing SMEs in the selection of appropriate lean tools.
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 7:1, 62-84. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Roba Salem, Farayi Musharavati, Abdel Magid Hamouda, Khalifa N. Al-Khalifa. 2016. An empirical study
on lean awareness and potential for lean implementations in Qatar industries. The International Journal
of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 82:9-12, 1607-1625. [CrossRef]
6. Ala'a Abuhejleh, Mohammed Dulaimi, Samer Ellahham. 2016. Using Lean management to leverage
innovation in healthcare projects: case study of a public hospital in the UAE. BMJ Innovations 2:1, 22-32.
[CrossRef]
7. Rabiha Asnan, Norani Nordin, Siti Norezam Othman. 2015. Managing Change on Lean Implementation
in Service Sector. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 211, 313-319. [CrossRef]
8. Vikram Sharma Mechanical-Mechatronics Engineering Department, The LNM Institute of Information
Technology, Jaipur, India Amit Rai Dixit Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian School of
Mines, Dhanbad, India Mohammad Asim Qadri Mechanical Engineering Department, Galgotias College
of Engineering and Technology, Greater Noida, India . 2015. Impact of lean practices on performance
measures in context to Indian machine tool industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
26:8, 1218-1242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Waleed K. Mirdad, Chinweike I. Eseonu. 2015. A Conceptual Map of the Lean Nomenclature: Comparing
Expert Classification to the Lean Literature. Engineering Management Journal 27:4, 188-202. [CrossRef]
10. Zhixiang Chen Department of Management Science, School of Business, Sun Yat-Sen University,
Guangzhou, China . 2015. The relationships among JIT, TQM and production operations performance.
Business Process Management Journal 21:5, 1015-1039. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. TickFei Chay Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Mechanical Engineering Division,
Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Setapak, Kuala Lumpur AND Manufacturing and Materials
Department, School of Applied Sciences Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK YuChun Xu Manufacturing
and Materials Department, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK Ashutosh Tiwari Manufacturing and
Materials Department, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK FooSoon Chay Faculty of Applied Sciences
and Computing, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Johor, Malaysia . 2015. Towards lean
transformation: the analysis of lean implementation frameworks. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management 26:7, 1031-1052. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Guilherme Luz Tortorella, Giuliano Almeida Marodin, Flávio Sanson Fogliatto, Rogério Miorando. 2015.
Learning organisation and human resources management practices: an exploratory research in medium-
sized enterprises undergoing a lean implementation. International Journal of Production Research 53:13,
3989-4000. [CrossRef]
13. Guilherme Luz Tortorella, Giuliano Almeida Marodin, Rogério Miorando, André Seidel. 2015. The
impact of contextual variables on learning organization in firms that are implementing lean: a study in
Southern Brazil. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 78:9-12, 1879-1892.
[CrossRef]
14. Andrés Jiménez-Ramírez, Barbara Weber, Irene Barba, Carmelo Del Valle. 2015. Generating optimized
configurable business process models in scenarios subject to uncertainty. Information and Software
Technology 57, 571-594. [CrossRef]
15. Sherif Mostafa, Sang-Heon Lee, Jantanee Dumrak, Nicholas Chileshe, Hassan Soltan. 2015. Lean
thinking for a maintenance process. Production & Manufacturing Research 3:1, 236-272. [CrossRef]
16. Xinwei Zhu International School of Software, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China Jan Recker Information
System School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia Guobin Zhu International
School of Software, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China Flávia Maria Santoro Applied Informatics
Department, Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil . 2014. Exploring
location-dependency in process modeling. Business Process Management Journal 20:6, 794-815. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
17. Saja Albliwi Department of Design Manufacture and Engineering Management, University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, UK Jiju Antony Department of Business Management, School of Management and Languages,
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK Sarina Abdul Halim Lim Department of Design Manufacture
and Engineering Management, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK Ton van der Wiele Department
of Management of Technology and Innovation, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University,
Rotterdam, Netherlands . 2014. Critical failure factors of Lean Six Sigma: a systematic literature review.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 31:9, 1012-1030. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Ioannis Belekoukias, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, Vikas Kumar. 2014. The impact of lean methods and
tools on the operational performance of manufacturing organisations. International Journal of Production
Research 52:18, 5346-5366. [CrossRef]
19. Dr Thomas Kohlborn, Dr Oliver Mueller, Professor Jens Poeppelbuss and Dr Maximilian Roeglinger
Jan vom Brocke University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Principality of Liechtenstein Theresa Schmiedel
University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Principality of Liechtenstein Jan Recker Queensland University of

Technology, Brisbane, Australia Peter Trkman University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia Willem
Mertens Vlerick Business School and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Stijn Viaene Vlerick Business School
and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium . 2014. Ten principles of good business process management. Business
Process Management Journal 20:4, 530-548. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Sherif Mostafa, Jantanee Dumrak, Hassan Soltan. 2013. A framework for lean manufacturing
implementation. Production & Manufacturing Research 1:1, 44-64. [CrossRef]

4 - Effective Implementation of Lean and Evaluation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 - Effective Implementation of Lean and Evaluation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Process Management Journal

A methodology for effective implementation of lean strategies and its performance

Permanent link to this document:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

1. Introduction Business Process Management

2007). It is designed to eliminate waste in every area extending from production to

2.2 Lean implementation method

2.3 Lean assessment methods

2.4 Current research gap

3.1 Production and process details

3.2 Lean team

3.3 Performance variables

Time Performance Indicators

Long term Method

Figure 1. Autonomation Perfection

3.5 Performance measurement

4. Continuous performance measurement

measurement process to measure production efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency

Actual output Actual number of output

5. Implementation of the proposed method

5.1 Company background

5.2 Formation of lean team and determining performance variables

5.3 Process map

5.4 Identification of major wastes by time study

IF..all the parts are here

Non Value Added 10 m Travel

assembly process map

File: RATE 100

breakdown of wastes is presented in Table I.

5.5 Performance measurement (before lean implementation)

Cubicle assembly before lean implementation

Value added time (in minutes) 27.15

Total Units 12 Half Half Half

Total 7.5 7.5 7.5

5.6 Proposed process layout 187

6. Evaluation of the new (lean) process

Main Cable Final

P1 Breather & Earth Value Added Process Storage

Rework 1.39 6% Proportions of non-value

eliminated completely from the process. However, it needs to be minimized to get

6.1 Performance evaluation (after lean implementation)

6.2 Overall lean assessment

Yes Yes Yes

Time Units produced Yes Yes Yes

1 st Operator Yes Yes Yes

3 rd Operator Yes Yes Yes

Total 7.5 7.5 7.5

Before lean After lean

Total distance travelled per cubicle

Vol. 18, pp. 731-60.

About the authors

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Principality of Liechtenstein Jan Recker Queensland University of

You might also like