资源描述
本科生毕业设计
参考外文原文及翻译
学院：管理学院
专业：工商管理
Defining lean production: some conceptual and practical issues
Author(s): Jostein Pettersen
Company：Division of Quality Technology and Management and Helix VINN Excellence Centre, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
Citation: The TQM Journal,
Abstract:
Purpose–
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the definition of lean production and the methods and goals associated with the concept as well as how it differs from other popular management concepts.
Design/methodology/approach–
The paper is based on a review of the contemporary literature on lean production, both journal articles and books.
Findings–
It is shown in the paper that there is no consensus on a definition of lean production between the examined authors. The authors also seem to have different opinions on which characteristics should be associated with the concept. Overall it can be concluded that lean production is not clearly defined in the reviewed literature. This divergence can cause some confusion on a theoretical level, but is probably more problematic on a practical level when organizations aim to implement the concept. This paper argues that it is important for an organization to acknowledge the different variations, and to raise the awareness of the input in the implementation process. It is further argued that the organization should not accept any random variant of lean, but make active choices and adapt the concept to suit the organization's needs. Through this process of adaptation, the organization will be able to increase the odds of performing a predictable and successful implementation
Originality/value– This paper provides a critical perspective on the discourse surrounding lean production, and gives an input to the discussion of the implementation of management models.
Keywords:
Lean production; Total quality management
Article
Introduction
When initiating research concerning the concept of lean production (LP) one line of questions naturally comes to mind: “What is lean? How is lean defined? How does lean relate to other management concepts? What does lean have in common with other management concepts? What discriminates lean from other management concepts?”
Seeking answers to these questions, will lead to the realization that they are exceedingly hard to find. It seems logical that a management concept as popular as lean should have a clear and concise definition. Much disappointingly, the definition of lean production is highly elusive. Some authors have made attempts to define the concept (e.g. Lewis, 2000; Hines et al., 2004; Shah and Ward, 2007), while others have raised the question of whether the concept is clearly defined (see Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard‐Park, 2006; Engström et al., 1996; Lewis, 2000).
A justified question is whether the convergent validity of lean actually makes any difference – does it matter how we define lean? There are various opinions on the effects of this.
The absence of a clear definition has a number of consequences for practitioners seeking to implement lean as well as researchers trying to capture the essence of the concept. These issues have been addressed by a number of researchers. The lack of a definition will lead to communication difficulties (Dale and Plunkett, 1991 in Boaden, 1997). It will complicate education on the subject (Boaden, 1997). Researching the subject will be difficult (Godfrey et al., 1997; Parker, 2003) – although Boaden (1997) states that this is not essential. There will also be difficulties in defining overall goals of the concept (Andersson et al., 2006).
Parker (2003) states that the multitude of interpretations on what lean really is makes it harder to make claims towards the effects of lean, thus increasing the requirements that researchers specify exactly what they are researching. Karlsson and Åhlström (1996) point out that the lack of a precise definition also will lead to difficulties in determining whether changes made in an organization are consistent with LP or not, and consequently difficulties in evaluating the effectiveness of the concept itself.
Purpose of the article
The main purpose of this article is to give a presentation of what lean production is. This will be done through a review of contemporary literature on lean and summary of practices associated with lean as well as the stated purpose of the concept. Based on this, an evaluation of the construct validity of lean will be made.
The paper will conclude with a discussion of the practical implications of the construct validity of lean.
Research approach
Hackman and Wageman (1995) reviewed the TQM concept and raised the question of “whether there really is such a thing as TQM or whether it has become mainly a banner under which a potpourri of essentially unrelated organizational changes are undertaken”. This is a valid question for any construct similar to TQM, and the concept of lean production is no exception. Following the reasoning of Hackman and Wageman, this question calls for the evaluation of the concept's convergent and discriminant validity. Hackman and Wageman (1995) describe the two kinds of validity as follows:
Convergent validity reflects the degree to which [different] versions [of the concept] […] share a common set of assumptions and prescriptions. […]
Discriminant validity refers to the degree to which [the concept] can be reliably distinguished from other strategies for organizational improvement (Hackman and Wageman, 1995).
In other words, the discriminant validity tells us whether or not a concept carries any news value compared to other existing concepts, whereas the convergent validity, strictly speaking, tells us whether or not the concept itself really exists.
For this article, the two major citation databases ISI and Scopus have been searched for articles containing the terms “lean production” or “lean manufacturing” in the topic, abstract or keywords. The 20 most cited articles from each database were selected for further study.
Through reading these and other articles on the subject, the most influential books were identified. This list was verified through using the citation analysis software “publish or perish”.
The reviewed literature will be compared by listing the characteristics of lean presented by each author. The idea is that a method, tool or goal that is central to lean will be mentioned by every author on the topic. The purpose or goal of lean should logically be the same for all authors. Concurrence among the authors will signify a high convergent validity. If lean passes this convergent validity criterion, an evaluation of the discriminant validity can be made, based on a comparison with TQM. Hackman and Wageman (1995) concluded that TQM passed the tests of both convergent and discriminant validity, making it a good concept to compare against lean production.
Literature review
The two database searches produced a total of 37 articles (see Appendix), of which 12 of them contained presentations of techniques and/or overall goals associated with LP, thus contributing to a conceptual discussion.
The 12 articles that are deemed suitable for a further analysis are Krafcik (1988), Oliver et al. (1996), Sánchez and Pérez (2001), Lewis (2000), Mumford (1994), James‐Moore and Gibbons (1997), MacDuffie et al. (1996), Dankbaar (1997), White and Prybutok (2001), Hayes and Pisano (1994), Jagdev and Browne (1998) and Cusumano (1994).
A number of books turned up in the literature search. An investigation of the books' citation rankings led to a filtering process with 13 books remaining. These are Womack et al. (1990), Womack and Jones (2003), Bicheno (2004), Ohno (1988), Monden (1998), Liker (2004), Feld (2001), Dennis (2002), Schonberger (1982), Shingo (1984), Rother and Shook (1998), Jones and Womack (2002) and Smalley (2004).
The publications by the Lean Enterprise Institute (Rother and Shook, 1998; Jones and Womack, 2002; Smalley, 2004) are very specific on certain tools (mainly value stream mapping), and were not deemed suitable for a conceptual discussion about lean in general.
An overview of lean characteristics
Table I is a presentation of the most frequently mentioned characteristics of lean in the reviewed books. Characteristics that have been discussed by less than three authors have been excluded from the presentation. The characteristics in the table are sorted based on frequency of discussion in the reviewed literature.
Looking at the table reveals some interesting aspects about the ideas surrounding lean. The only two characteristics that all authors discuss are “setup time reduction” and “continuous improvement”, indicating that these are central to the concept. On the condition that pull production can be seen as a special case of just‐in‐time production, all authors lift this characteristic as well. Failure prevention (poka yoke) and production leveling (heijunka) also seem to be central characteristics of lean production.
Analysis Convergent validity of lean
The characteristics listed in Table I have some relation to one another, motivating an affinity analysis. One way of grouping these characteristics is presented in Table II.
Through grouping the characteristics a more homogeneous image of the lean characteristics arises. For all but three of the groups all authors have discussed at least one of the characteristics in the group. In the group labeled as human resource management none of the characteristics are discussed by authors Bicheno and Shingo. The authors Ohno and Schonberger have not discussed any of the characteristics in the group labeled as supply chain management. Furthermore, the bundled techniques have slightly lower figures. This indicates that the two groups human relations management and supply chain management are not definable characteristics of lean, contrary to the findings of Shah and Ward (2003). However, the scores are quite high, indicating that they are important (although not vital) parts of the lean concept.
Looking at the goals presented by the reviewed authors (Table I) raises some questions towards the convergent validity of lean. The general opinion that the purpose of lean is to reduce waste does not seem to hold, although some authors (Bicheno, 2004; Monden, 1998; Shingo, 1984) argue for this. As discussed above there are two main traditions of lean; “toolbox lean” and “lean thinking”. This is also evident in the differences of goals in the reviewed literature. Generally speaking, there are two different types of goals, internally focused (Liker, 2004; Feld, 2001; Ohno, 1988; Monden, 1998; Schonberger, 1982; Shingo, 1984) and externally focused (Womack et al., 1990; Womack and Jones, 2003; Bicheno, 2004; Dennis, 2002; Schonberger, 1982). One could argue that the differences in formulation of purpose are very small thus making it a minor issue. However, an internally focused cost reduction initiative will differ substantially from an externally focused initiative to improve customer satisfaction.
The division of lean production in the two parts discussed above has led to discussions of which one is more correct. A common statement is that “lean is more than a set of tools” (Bicheno, 2004), arguing for a more philosophical approach to lean. However, there is also another position that argues for a more practical and project based approach to lean and that “lean is a collection of waste reduction tools”. This kind of statement is hard to find explicitly in academic texts, but very common among certain practitioners.
Neither of the positions are more correct than the other, since lean exists at both levels, having both strategic and operational dimensions (Hines et al., 2004). In addition, lean can be seen as having both a philosophical as well as a practical orientation (Shah and Ward, 2007).
Through adapting and combining the four approaches to lean suggested by Hines et al. (2004) and Shah and Ward (2007) respectively, lean can be characterized in four different ways. The terms practical and philosophical are substituted by the terms performative and ostensive. The terms operational and strategic are substituted by the terms discrete and continuous.
In Table III four different approaches to lean production are presented. The term ostensive signifies a shift of focus from general philosophy towards issues that can only be defined by examples, whereas performative and practical focus on the things that are done. The term discrete signifies a focus on isolated events, such as individual improvement projects using the “lean toolbox” (see Bicheno, 2004; Nicholas and Soni, 2006), or the final state of “leanness” (see Krafcik, 1988). As a contrast, the term continuous signifies a process oriented perspective, focusing on the continuous efforts; the philosophy of “lean thinking” or “the Toyota way” (see Womack and Jones, 2003; Liker, 2004) or the process of “becoming lean” (see Liker, 1998; Karlsson andÅhlström, 1996).
Although the score is not perfect, lean seems to be a reasonably consistent concept comprising just in time practices, resource reduction, improvement strategies, defects control, standardization and scientific management techniques. However, it is hard to formulate a clear definition that captures all the elements of lean and integrates the various goals in the reviewed literature. In other words, lean can be said to (barely) pass the convergent validity test, although there is no clear agreement among the authors as to the overall purpose of the concept.
Discriminant validity of lean
So what is then the difference between TQM and lean production? In the following section Lean and TQM are compared based on the analysis made by Hackman and Wageman (1995). The discussion is done with three different aspects; basic assumptions, change principles and interventions:
1. Basic assumptions:
• Quality. In lean, quality does not receive the same amount of attention as in the TQM literature. The main focus in the lean literature is on just‐in‐time (JIT) production. JIT is assumed to decrease total cost, as well as highlight problems. This is done through reducing the resources in the system, so that buffers do not cover up the problems that arise. In the short‐term perspective, the reduction of resources implies a direct reduction of cost. In the long run, the reduction and subsequent elimination of buffers is assumed to highlight the problems that exist in production, thus being a vital source of continuous improvement (e.g. Shingo, 1984; Ohno, 1988; Krafcik, 1988). A common opinion is that the purpose of lean is waste elimination. The literature review does not show support for this being the very purpose, but waste elimination is definitely an important aspect of the concept. Some authors argue that waste is reduced in order to increase the value for the customer (e.g. Dennis,
展开阅读全文
浙ICP备2021020529号-1 | 浙B2-20240490 
