Artigo: A roadmap for a leanness company to emerge as a true lean organization
A seguir está replicado o artigo acadêmico publicado por um dos autores do Blog, cujo título é: 'A roadmap for a leanness company to emerge as a true lean organization,' disponível para download no endereço permanente https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293X19888259.
Below is replicated the paper published by one of the authors' of this Blog entitled: 'A roadmap for a leanness company to emerge as a true lean organization' available in the permanent link https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293X19888259.
A roadmap for a leanness company to emerge as a true lean organization
Leandro Silvério, Luís Gonzaga Trabasso and Marcus Vinicius Pereira PessôaDepartment of Materials, Manufacturing and Automation, Aeronautics Institute of Technology, S. J. Campos/SP, BrazilE-mail: leandro.silverio.pereira@gmail.com, gonzaga@ita.br, mvpessoa@gmail.com
AbstractThe problem this work aims to solve is the improvement of the leanness level of a company jeopardized by the lack of lean engagement. The objectives of the research are to present a method based on a lean self-assessment approach, consisted of a qualitative self-assessment method based on lean elements that drives an index definition associated with a roadmap. The method consists in providing a roadmap for the assessed enterprise composed by the company’s lean index, recommendations and countermeasures deriving from Delphi and Kendall Coefficient of Concordance (W) application among lean experts, leading the assessed enterprise to achieve results in terms of lean engagement, autonomy, and decision support criteria for future resource allocation. The results demonstrated that method can highlight gaps where additional improvements and investments would be necessary in the assessed enterprise. Finally, the study concludes that the lean performance identification associated to a lean roadmap in a company can be a highly effective tool to improve lean adoption in a leanness organization.
Keywords: lean manufacturing, leanness company, lean product development process, lean wheel system, lean assessment tools, lean self-assessment, lean conceptual model, lean roadmap, Kendall Coefficient of Concordance (W), Delphi 1 IntroductionEver since lean manufacturing first appeared in the literature, authors have tried to describe it theoretically (Hines et al., 2006, 2004; Lewis, 2000; Possamai and Ceryno, 2008; Shah and Ward, 2007). However, their descriptions have been ambiguous and unclear (Boaden, 1997). Authors have declared at least 25 lean manufacturing tools. In common to all of them are waste elimination and the focus on available resource optimization, to which engineering techniques (Karam et al., 2018) and statistics fundamentals (Kiran, 2017) are applied. In the definition adopted by this study, lean practices are a set of methods, procedures, techniques, and tools aimed to continuously create customer value and reduce product lead time (Shah and Ward, 2007). According to Morgan and Liker, a lean company (LC) aims for lean practices along the whole lean development process (LDP), not only the manufacturing shop phases (Morgan and Liker, 2006; Pessôa and Seering, 2014). The non-engagement of lean aspects along the development phases is the definition of a leanness company (Bauch, 2004). In an ideal product development process (PDP), the process itself should work as a single-piece manufacturing flow. That way, it is possible to reduce errors in investigation loops interactions (Bonnal et al., 2006).A lean management research and deployment trajectory is a singular process in each organization (Lewis, 2000). Researchers have already demonstrated that implementing lean practices can help large manufacturing enterprises to increase their operational performance (Krafcik, 1988; Ōno, 1988; Womack et al., 1991). Other researchers have also addressed the lean roadmap issue by focusing on the core critical success factors for lean performance examination in the PDP (Aikhuele and Turan, 2018; Leite et al., 2016) and explored the roadmap, metrics and management for concurrent engineering (CE) in the product development environment (Prasad, 1997a, 1997d; Prasad et al., 1998). Therefore, the objective of this research is to combine the lean assessment to a roadmap, based on a lean index (LI) self-assessment method focused on identifying the main positive and negative factors for a leanness enterprise. The self-assessment method was selected for this study in order to insure the engagement in decision-making processes for the lean way, where some examples and case applications are available from recent literature (Dwarakanath and Wallace, 1995; Hauser et al., 2006; McNally and Schmidt, 2011). On the LDP, McCarthy et al. (2006) have identified three levels of decision-making: strategic, review, and in-stage. The in-stage is where agents deal with multiple decisions involving producing and processing a rich diversity of criteria that are the basis of PDP creative activities and ideas. This is the stage on which this study intends to focus.The first step when creating a great product is to understand what exactly makes a product great (Prasad, 1996b). In other words, the goal of PDP is to create such manufacturable physical product through a set of connected life-cycle processes (Prasad, 2016a). Also in PDP, decision-making grows out of a process over time (Christiaans and Almendra, 2010), and the engagement in decision-making process is closely related to on-going assessments and roadmaps. Specifically in LDP, the more extensive presence of top management support is critical for continued company-wide implementation of lean practices and decision-making. To develop a coherent management philosophy seems a daunting task, given the wide range of possibilities and practices that must be addressed (Prasad, 1997b). Thus, the concept of decision making focusing on the system level is adopted by this method and supports the engagement in decision-making processes, specifically in PDP.
2 BackgroundToday manufacturing sectors are much more fiercely competitive and global than before (Prasad, 2001a). Thus, to design and execute an enterprise transformation, it is crucial to have assessments that measure multiple performance dimensions during the process’s execution in order to understand its current state and chart out the transformation plan that will lead the company into a different future state (Kueng, 2000). Such assessments can help in identifying performance gaps, prioritize focus and play a role in helping to generate a future state vision for the enterprise. As the transformation plan is implemented, ongoing assessments can also offer feedbacks and measure progress. This feedbacks can be used to revise the transformation plan and patch over time.The management organizational capability for an enterprise operation (internal or external) is becoming very crucial for achieving not only time-to-market, but also improved productivity, and better efficiency (Prasad, 1996a). Various methods and tools for an enterprise’s operational performance are comprised under lean strategy’s umbrella (Bhasin, 2012). The earliest model found in the literature was presented by Karlsson and Åhlström (1996), who developed a model capable of determining the progress of a lean manufacturing firm in the effort to adopt lean fundamentals from the book “The Machine that Changed the World,” by Womack et al. (1991). According to Schalock et al. (2014) one of the major strengths of an evidence-based assessment instrument is that it is an organizational assessment tool that represents a new approach to organizational evaluation based on self-assessment.In recent years, product development (PD) has been an essential element of competitive engineering (Duhovnik et al., 2001). Since PD is a nonlinear (Kline, 1985; Nightingale, 2000) and dynamic system process (Huang and Gu, 2006), it is hard to determine what value is added—especially in LDP, where design changes constantly happen in the first phases of a PD. In the PDP context, this also involves design, production planning, and manufacturing (Amitrano et al., 2015), typically leading to lots of change and rework (Mihm et al., 2002), while seeking for a high leanness level and there are more opportunities for competitive advantages in PDP than in any other department or area of industrial companies (Mendes and de Toledo, 2015; Morgan, 2002; Toledo et al., 2008). A leanness level is defined by Vinodh and Chintha (2011) as a performance measure of lean operation. Comm and Mathaisel (2005) described leanness as a relative measure of whether a company is lean or not. The number of studies in the literature on leanness assessment is low compared to those on lean implementation areas (Narayanamurthy and Gurumurthy, 2016). This study’s contributions compared to previous and very recent papers are described in Table 1 in a chronological sequence. From the assessed studies, over 90 papers, articles, journals, and full thesis from the last 23 years were screened and refined in order to compose a systematic literature review.Although the first leanness research was published in 1996 by Karlsson and Åhlström (1996), the next leanness study appeared in the literature only 4 years later in 2000, and was by Detty and Yingling (2000). As per Table 1, there is a majority of proposed frameworks addressing a leanness indicator thought the usage of a qualitative/quantitative assessment. However, there is also a lack of a self-assessment method for the leanness level definition, associated with a roadmap to provide insights for the decision makers. This is one of the gaps this research aims to fit.
3 Methodology: a roadmap for a leanness company to emerge as a true lean organizationThe method presented by this study is divided into two topics: the LI equations and the lean roadmap definition. The LI is the rate responsible for indicating the current leanness level of the enterprise and based on its adequacy to the ranges established by the method, a specific set of recommendations are deployed according to the criteria detailed in the following subsections.
3.1 Lean IndexThe performance of an organization is largely governed by the system in which it is contained. Thus, a LI overall is an important rate for any company emerging as a lean organization (Prasad, 2001b). The lean elements considered in this study are the ones adopted by the lean wheel system (LWS) model. The LWS intends to be a pictorial model that shows the elements that support lean product development and their relationship as illustrated in Figure 1.In the LWS metaphor, the lean elements are rooted as the hub elements interfacing one with each other (Pessôa and Trabasso, 2017). The LWS elements considered in this method are defined in Table 2 and the “core lean elements” composed by: value, waste, and continuous improvement had their definitions criteria adopted from the literature.
Figure 1. Lean wheel system elements (Pessôa and Trabasso, 2017).
The LI has five possible progressive maturity levels in its composition. The levels range from least capable (Level 0) to a true lean organization (Level 5). Table 3 defines the meaning of each level. These levels are intended to depict a progression in the lean capability of the enterprise, relatively to the particular lean aspect being assessed.For the LI construction, each lean element defined in Table 2 receives a theoretical value rate 5 in a 0–5 scale in order to set the referential lean rate (LR). This referential value is called the theoretical true lean organization rate (TTLOR) and will be used as an input for the method deployment. The referential LR is considered to be a theoretical value because fulfilling all lean aspects is rather difficult, if not impossible. The referential LR is indicated in Table 4.The referential LR is defined in order to establish a baseline for the LI calculation based on the TTLOR. Equation (1) describes the TTLOR.
The TTLOR is a theoretical value that indicates a true lean organization company where all definition criteria aspects are in line with the PDP. Each lean element considered in Table 4 has its own (and real) element lean rate (ELR) when the assessment is performed for each lean aspect considered in Table 2, by the enterprise intended to emerge as a true lean organization. The ELR is defined in equation (2).
As mentioned before, the ELR is a realistic rate that comes directly from the self-assessment performed by the enterprise during the method’s deployment. As far as each lean element considered in Table 2 has a different definition criteria aspects amount, the relativeness between them are achieved through equation (2), which standardizes the “weights” considered for all the elements through a “5×” multiplication factor, and also by the TTLOR considered in the mathematics as shown in equation (2).Within the TTLOR and the ELR, it is possible to get the LI by calculating the average between the sum of all ELR and the total amount of lean elements considered by the method, as indicated in equation (3).
The LI is based on a comparison between the company’s current state and a future target condition that best describes a true lean organization company (theoretical value), emerging from a scenario where all lean elements are in line with the lean product development process. Based on the LI, the lean index level range (LILR) and the lean engagement level diagnosis (LELD) are established in order to deploy the full engagement diagnosis and associated lean roadmap for the assessed enterprise. For an LI where the result is close to the target condition, for example, the LILR value shall be up to 90% from the reference value in a 0–5 scale. However, an LI with values between 44% and 30% of the reference value on a 0–5 scale indicates poor lean engagement. An LI below 29% from the reference value on a 0–5 scale indicates that the assessed enterprise is unqualified for the evaluated lean element. The definitions and rate criteria for the LILR are presented in Table 5 and, the LELD, definitions and rate criteria are presented in Table 6.Engagement OK means the LILR is between excellent and very good. A company with such a high level is in line with the lean concept and techniques. The lean enterprise shall continue seeking continuous improvements and waste reduction by the application of Kaizen, PDCA (plan, do, control, and act), and SDCA (standardize, do, check, and act). A new evaluation shall be performed every 6 months in order to guarantee current LELD.Engagement to Improve means the LILR is between good and regular. A company at such an intermediate level is line to succeed with the lean concept and techniques but also has opportunities to overcome it. The lean company shall continue seeking continuous improvements and waste reduction according to the lean roadmap defined for each assessed element. A new evaluation shall be performed every 3 months in order to confirm the current LELD and to check for progress to the next level at the assessment reapplication.Engagement NOK means that the LILR is between poor and unqualified. A company with such a low level is in the beginning of the lean transformation patch. The enterprise shall continue seeking continuous improvements and waste reduction according to the lean roadmap defined for each assessed element. A new evaluation shall be performed on a monthly basis in order to be ready for the next assessment reapplication.Each lean element and related definition criteria has a selected amount of countermeasures (CMs) associated with it. The CMs composes the lean roadmap and are applicable only for those cases where the assessed enterprise is diagnosed within the LELD “Engagement to Improve” or “Engagement NOK.”For those cases, the proposed roadmap can lead the enterprise on acting on the identified weakest lean elements. Figure 2 illustrates an interaction cycle, where the more countermeasures are applied after each assessment cycle, the more a company can emergence as a true lean organization. The objective of the interaction cycles is to demonstrate the importance of continually seeking improvement and process optimization after the roadmap and associated lean initiatives take place.
Figure 2. Interaction cycle (constructed by authors).
3.2 Lean RoadmapA roadmap is a traffic-flow example that indicates several possible routes from a chosen starting point to a desired destination (Prasad, 2016b). The lean roadmap proposed by this study was established by the Delphi research methodology, that has been previously presented as a survey (Bandyopadhyay, 2005), a study (Keebler and Plank, 2009; Stevenson and Spring, 2007), a technique (Akkermans et al., 1999; Babbar et al., 2008; Lummus, 2007; Manuj et al., 2009), and a method (Hameri and Hintsa, 2009; Reyes and Giachetti, 2010). Initially, a group of 15 professionals was invited to make up the lean experts board. However, seven of them could not attend, resulting in a total of eight lean experts for the Delphi application. Interviews were launched in order to compose the roadmap for each lean element considered on this research (see Appendix 1). The Delphi application was performed by January 2018, and comprised two rounds, as per the following approach. In the first round, the respondents were asked to give their perceptions for each lean element regarding a roadmap to be followed by a leanness enterprise to emerge as a true lean organization. In the second round, panel members exchanged their assumptions in relation to those given by the group as a whole, and they came up with an average definition after the group’s reflection on the shared response group dynamics performed among the participants. The second round questionnaire (see Appendix 1) comprised same questions as the first round, plus the average answers gathered from first loop. Once more, it was launched among the lean experts, now considering the “group’s response” as per the first round conclusion. The results were considered to be the consensus of the lean specialists group regarding a lean roadmap for the elements considered by this study to be implemented in a leanness enterprise emerging as a true lean organization.To obtain a measure of consistency among the eight lean expert’s responses, Kendall Coefficient of Concordance (W) was also applied. Kendall Coefficient of Concordance (W) is a statistical test of agreement among two or more judges, or of the consistency of two or more sets of rankings in a contest (Israel, 2009). This coefficient varies between “0,” indicating no agreement between judges, and “+1,” indicating a complete agreement among the judges on the ranking of various attributes. In equation (4), Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) is demonstrated.
As a level of significance for equation (4), the proposed method adopted a 95% confidence interval, as indicated in equation (5).
According to equations (4) and (5) application, when Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) is from 0.571 to 1, it means that the lean experts selected for this study consolidation set an agreement or concordance trend for the lean element roadmap under evaluation. The same way, as far as Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) is below 0.571–0, then there is no overall agreement or concordance trend for the lean element roadmap under evaluation; as a result the identified ranges for the coefficient of concordance (W) were used for the roadmap definition. Appendix 1 presented the same roadmap action plan (AP)/CMs for all the lean elements considered by the method; and only the ones assigned within Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) attending the first criteria (from 0.571 to 1) were considered for each lean element roadmap definition. Table 7 presents the roadmap resulting from the Delphi and Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) application.
4- Results and AnalysisRecently, products like aircraft and helicopters are becoming more and more complex than before (Prasad, 2001c) and the manufacturing industry each time moves toward to products customization (CJ Anumba et al., 2000). The complexity and variety of new product introduction (NPI) have grown from a very “simple” to a “complex” scenario. At the same time, the time-to-market dimension has shrunk (Prasad, 1994a, 1997c). As part of this context, the case study for the method application is an aeronautical company responsible for supplying interiors and hydraulic components for the Brazilian aircraft manufacturing industry. It was founded on 4 July 1990 in Rio de Janeiro and had around 100 employees by the time method was deployed. The facility also contained manufacturing, laboratory, and engineering departments engaged in the development and production of its products.
4.1 ResultsThe method’s deployment results prior to the countermeasures application in the assessed enterprise are summarized in Table 8. In the same way, the method's deployment results after the countermeasures application in the assessed enterprise are summarized in Table 9.As far as the lean index for the case study enterprise scored 2.5 on a 0–5 scale prior to the countermeasures application, and the LILR was categorized as “Regular,” the LELD was classified as “Engagement to Improve” according to Table 6 criteria. The “Engagement to Improve” classification conducted the enterprise to apply the lean roadmap deployed by the method, taking countermeasures for the assessed lean elements classified as “Engagement to Improve” or “Engagement NOK” as per Table 6 criteria and definitions.Three months after the method’s application and the roadmap recommended by this study being applied, the case study enterprise was reassessed, and the results are summarized in Table 9.
4.2 AnalysisAs demonstrated by Table 9, after the roadmap’s application for the case study enterprise, there was a slight improvement in the overall LILR and several associated lean elements. The elements “sponsored” by leadership such as: culture, organizational structure, value, and continuous improvement had a bigger impact on the reassessment, demonstrating that lean initiatives are closely related to all enterprises’ levels of engagement to succeed on the transformation patch.
The LILR was upgraded from ``Regular'' to “Good” but the LELD was still classified as “Engagement to Improve.” That way, a roadmap was also deployed by the method after the reassessment, providing recommendations and countermeasures only for the lean elements with low ELR as per Table 5 and 6 criteria.
5- ConclusionThe proposed method can be used as guidance for the managers to introduce recommended changes on their lean implementation journey. The lean implementation patch is not a destination but a journey, and a high lean index value is not directly linked to the number of lean methods and tools adopted by the company, but it is closely related to a maturity level constructed on a daily basis and supported by the performance indicators. The manufacturing sustained growth and earnings are based on creating high value products in very dynamic global markets (Prasad, 1994b). That way, the comprehensive implementation of lean practices is necessary and, in order to be effective, all lean initiatives should be “sponsored” by leadership (Badri et al., 1995; Danese et al., 2017; García et al., 2013; Hu et al., 2015; Netland, 2016; Shah and Ward, 2007). Finally, since a lean organization is in new technological advances constant touch and frequently employs technologies to improve an existing product (Prasad, 1995), it cannot be sustained using conventional techniques alone. The application of complementary methodologies and methods such as the lean integrated and connected (LIC), knowledge capture and reuse (KCR), library of knowledge frameworks (Nada et al., 1998; Prasad, 2017), life-cycle measures and metrics for concurrent product and process design (Prasad, 2000) and a performance assessment based on reliability/decision-based integrated product development (DIPD) frameworks (Prasad, 1999, 2002) are also recommended.
Appendix 1: Interview protocol for Delphi application - first and second roundsFramework below is intended to support a research regarding the lean roadmap definition for a leanness enterprise to emerge as a true lean organization. To do this, it is important to get the lean experts’ data and perception related to the adequate lean roadmap to be implemented by a leanness company for the elements considered below. Please answer the questionnaire according to your perception in a two-round session. First session each lean expert will respond the questionnaire according to its own perception, without having access to the “group’s response.” Second-round session will consider the same questionnaire, this time taking in consideration the “group’s response” to be shared among the lean experts’ as per first round’s results.Engineering Department: ___________________________Years of experience in lean manufacturing: _____________Questionnaire protocol: For the following lean countermeasures please rank your perception about their importance related to “Culture,”“Knowledge Management,”“Organizational Structure,”“Process,”“Tools and Technology,”“Value,”“Waste” and “Continuous Improvement” in a leanness enterprise emerging as a true lean organization, by considering one (1) for the most important and ten (10) for the less important initiative.(A/J) Cultivate the company’s LT through a formal lean program and obtain leadership commitment to it. Implement an approval workflow considering engineers as stakeholders and encourage continuous improvement commitment in all employees’ levels.Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).(B/J) For unexpected business and market happenings, run VSMA and 5-Whys investigations. The usage of the seven steps waste reduction/elimination technique and the engineering participation in CoPs for lessons learned and discussions is also recommended.Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).(C/J) Analyze enterprise’s processes in order to deploy a VSMA for the most critical one. Run a daily wrap-up meeting including suppliers (if necessary) and perform a PDCA focusing on the information flow. Releasing an MPP integrating all development phases (PDR and CDR) is also recommended.Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).(D/J) Obeya creation is recommended, indicating the “was/is” scenario for each PDP emerged from lean tools. Provide a company’s core values and fundamentals through a simple and visual communication positioned in strategic places in the facility. Deploying a 5S technique and running a VSMA is also recommended.Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).(E/J) Select a chief engineer for the company and run a PDCA and KPI for the most critical process. Run an SBCE and synchronize organizational understanding: (1) details of how the work gets done; (2) each participant’s responsibilities; (3) key inputs, outputs, and interdependencies for each activity; and (4) sequences of activities. To release an MPP integrating all development phases (PDR and CDR), is also recommended.Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).(F/J) Optimize knowledge barriers by the mentoring process through an engineering apprenticeship environment creation, through which highly technical tacit skills are handed down from one generation to the next. Create a formal knowledge management portal and a dedicated room for engineering prototyping. Encourage leadership to participate in the engineering CoPs and to exercise the genchi genbutsu by the “go and see” approach. Reviewing VSMA and running a PDCA and KPI for the most critical process is also recommended.Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).(G/J) Implement the practice of a daily hansei and optimize an unsynchronized process by running a VSMA. Register the process flow and engineering checklist in the know-how database, sharing lessons learned in the engineering CoPs. To run a flow definition sub-matrix, VFD and deploy the SBCE process for the most critical process is also recommended.Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).(H/J) Deploy a pull event plan associated with a physical progress evidence chart available in the obeya. Make sure the “key integration events” set by the Chief Engineer in the MPP are engaged by all development teams.Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).(I/J) Use DFX and/or DTX as a guideline to identify the most profitable tool to be applied in each development phase, and run PDCA and KPI for the most critical process.Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).(J/J) For in-process inventory, in-product inventory, and in-company inventory, establish a monitoring/data collection indicator to be checked in a monthly basis. For physical defects, repairing/reworking, and scrapping, find out the defect RC by evaluating the VSMA. For information wrongly perceived as complete, make sure data provided are available in a timely manner and formally approved by the engineering teams before it gets submitted to next development process. The usage of the seven steps waste reduction/elimination technique and the 5-Whys investigation process is also recommended.Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ). Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
FundingThe author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDLeandro Silvério: orcid.org/0000-0002-0334-877XLuís Gonzaga Trabasso: orcid.org/0000-0003-3858-3670Marcus V. Pereira Pessôa: orcid.org/0000-0002-1096-8344
ReferencesAbreu, A, Calado, JMF (2017) A fuzzy logic model to evaluate the lean level of an organization. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications 8(5): 59–75.Aikhuele, D, Turan, F (2018) A conceptual model for the implementation of lean product development. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology 9(1): 1–9.Akkermans, H, Bogerd, P, Vos, B (1999) Virtuous and vicious cycles on the road towards international supply chain management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 19(5–6): 565–582.Al-Ashaab, A, Golob, M, Attia, UM, et al. (2013) The transformation of product development process into lean environment using set-based concurrent engineering: a case study from an aerospace industry. Concurrent Engineering 21(4): 268–285.Al-Najem, M, Dhakal, H, Labib, A, et al. (2013) Lean readiness level within Kuwaiti manufacturing industries. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 4(3): 280–320.Albzeirat, MK, Hussain, MI, Ahmad, R, et al. (2018) A novel mathematical logic for improvement using lean manufacturing practices. Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems 17(03): 391–413.Alemi, MA, Akram, R (2013) Measuring the leanness of manufacturing systems by using fuzzy TOPSIS: a case study of the “Parizan Sanat” company. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering 24(3): 166–174.Amin, MA, Karim, MA (2013) A time-based quantitative approach for selecting lean strategies for manufacturing organisations. International Journal of Production Research 51(4): 1146–1167.Amitrano, FG, Estorilio, CCA, Bessa, LDOF, et al. (2015) Six sigma application in small enterprise. Concurrent Engineering 24(1): 69–82.Anumba, C, Baldwin, A, Bouchlaghem, D, et al. (2000) Integrating concurrent engineering concepts in a steelwork construction project. Concurrent Engineering 8(3): 199–212.Anvari, A, Norzima, Z, Rosnay, M, et al. (2010) A comparative study on journey of lean manufacturing implementation. Asian International Journal of Science and Technology in Production and Manufacturing Engineering 3(2): 77–85.Anvari, A, Zulkifli, N, Yusuff, RM (2012) A dynamic modeling to measure lean performance within lean attributes. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 66(5–8): 663–677.Anvari, A, Zulkifli, N, Yusuff, R, et al. (2011) A proposed dynamic model for a lean roadmap. African Journal of Business Management 5(16): 6727–6737.Asadi, S, Panahi, H (2011) A model for evaluating the degree of leanness case study: buttermilk production line in Tehran Pegah Milk company. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 73(49): 987–988.Aurelio, D, Grilo, A, Cruz-Machado, V (2011) A framework for evaluating lean implementation appropriateness. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management, Singapore, 6–9 December, pp. 779–783. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Azevedo, SG, Govindan, K, Carvalho, H, et al. (2012) An integrated model to assess the leanness and agility of the automotive industry. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 66: 85–94.Babbar, S, Addae, H, Gosen, J, et al. (2008) Organizational factors affecting supply chains in developing countries. International Journal of Commerce and Management 18(3): 234–251.Badri, MA, Davis, D, Davis, D (1995) A study of measuring the critical factors of quality management. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 12(2): 36–53.Bandyopadhyay, JK (2005) A model framework for developing industry specific quality standards for effective quality assurance in global supply chains in the new millennium. International Journal of Management 22(2): 294–299.Barad, M, Dror, S (2008) Strategy maps as improvement paths of enterprises. International Journal of Production Research 46(23): 6627–6647.Bauch, C (2004) Lean product development: making waste transparent. Diploma thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Bayou, ME, de Korvin, A (2008) Measuring the leanness of manufacturing systems—A case study of Ford motor company and general motors. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 25(4): 287–304.Behrouzi, F, Wong, KY (2011) Lean performance evaluation of manufacturing systems: a dynamic and innovative approach. Procedia Computer Science 3: 388–395.Behrouzi, F, Wong, KY (2013) An integrated stochastic-fuzzy modeling approach for supply chain leanness evaluation. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 68(5–8): 1677–1696.Belhadi, A, Touriki, FE, El fezazi, S (2018) Development of a lean assessment tool for small and medium sized-enterprises. In: Viles, E, Ormazábal, M, Lleó, A (eds) Closing the Gap between Practice and Research in Industrial Engineering. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp.361–369.Bento, GDS, Tontini, G (2018) Developing an instrument to measure lean manufacturing maturity and its relationship with operational performance. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 29(9–10): 977–995.Bhasin, S (2008) Lean and performance measurement. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 19(5): 670–684.Bhasin, S (2011) Measuring the leanness of an organisation. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 2(1): 55–74.Bhasin, S (2012) Performance of lean in large organisations. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 31(3): 349–357.Boaden, RJ (1997) What is total quality management … and does it matter? Total Quality Management 8(4): 153–171.Bonavia, T, Marin, JA (2006) An empirical study of lean production in the ceramic tile industry in Spain. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 26(5): 505–531.Bonnal, P, De Jonghe, J, Ferguson, J (2006) A deliverable-oriented EVM system suited to a large-scale project. Project Management Journal 37(1): 67–80.Carvalhosa, M, Beatrice, S, Azevedo, S, et al. (2016) Proposal of a lean index development in organizational contexts. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2016, San Francisco, CA, 19–21 October, pp.19–21. San Francisco, CA: Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science.Chauhan, G, Singh, TP (2012) Measuring parameters of lean manufacturing realization. Measuring Business Excellence 16(3): 57–71.Christiaans, H, Almendra, RA (2010) Accessing decision-making in software design. Design Studies 31(6): 641–662.Comm, CL, Mathaisel, DFX (2005) A case study in applying lean sustainability concepts to universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 6(2): 134–146.Dal Pont, G, Furlan, A, Vinelli, A (2008) Interrelationships among lean bundles and their effects on operational performance. Operations Management Research 1(2): 150–158.Danese, P, Romano, P, Boscari, S (2017) The transfer process of lean practices in multi-plant companies. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 37(4): 468–488.Detty, RB, Yingling, JC (2000) Quantifying benefits of conversion to lean manufacturing with discrete event simulation: a case study. International Journal of Production Research 38(2): 429–445.Donovan, RM (2015) Lean manufacturing: performance evaluation audit. Available at: https://pt.scribd.com/document/44969101/Lean-Manufacturing-Checklist-PDF (accessed 10 April 2019).Doolen, TL, Hacker, ME (2005) A review of lean assessment in organizations: an exploratory study of lean practices by electronics manufacturers. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 24(1): 55–67.Duhovnik, J, Starbek, M, Dwivedi, S, et al. (2001) Development of new products in small companies. Concurrent Engineering 9(3): 191–210.Dwarakanath, S, Wallace, KM (1995) Decision-making in engineering design: observations from design experiments. Journal of Engineering Design 6(3): 191–206.Elnadi, M, Shehab, E (2014) A conceptual model for evaluating product-service systems leanness in UK manufacturing companies. Procedia CIRP 22: 281–286.Eroglu, C, Hofer, C (2011) Lean, leaner, too lean? The inventory-performance link revisited. Journal of Operations Management 29(4): 356–369.Galankashi, MR, Helmi, SA (2017) Assessment of lean manufacturing practices: an operational perspective. International Journal of Services and Operations Management 28(2): 163–184.García, JL, Rivera, DG, Iniesta, AA (2013) Critical success factors for Kaizen implementation in manufacturing industries in Mexico. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 68(1-4): 537–545.Gonçalves, M, Salonitis, K (2017) Lean assessment tool for workstation design of assembly lines. Procedia CIRP 60: 386–391.Goodson, ER (2002) Read a plant fast. Harvard Business Review 80(5): 105–113.Gupta, V, Acharya, P, Patwardhan, M (2013) A strategic and operational approach to assess the lean performance in radial tyre manufacturing in India. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 62(6): 634–651.Gurumurthy, A, Kodali, R (2009) Application of benchmarking for assessing the lean manufacturing implementation. Benchmarking 16(2): 274–308.Hameri, AP, Hintsa, J (2009) Assessing the drivers of change for cross-border supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 39(9): 741–761.Hauser, J, Tellis, GJ, Griffin, A (2006) Research on innovation: a review and agenda for marketing science. Marketing Science 25(6): 687–717.Hines, P, Francis, M, Found, P (2006) Towards lean product lifecycle management. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 17(7): 866–887.Hines, P, Holweg, M, Rich, N (2004) Learning to evolve. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 24(10): 994–1011.Hjalmarsson, V, Olsson, L (2017) Quantifying leanness combining value stream mapping with a data envelopment analysis based method—a case study at a Swedish logistics company. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management (IEEM), Singapore, 10–13 December 2017, pp. 740–744. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Hobbs, DP (2004) Lean Manufacturing Implementation: A Complete Execution Manual for Any Size Manufacturer. Boca Raton, FL: J. Ross Publishing.Hon, KKB (2003) Performance and Evaluation of Manufacturing Systems. Liverpool: Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool.Hosseini, MS, Ebrahimi, TA (2015) Group fuzzy ANP procedure development for leanness assessment in auto part manufacturing companies. Journal for Global Business Advancement 8(2): 157–175.Hu, Q, Mason, R, Williams, SJ, et al. (2015) Lean implementation within SMEs: a literature review. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 26(7): 980–1012.Huang, H-Z, Gu, Y-K (2006) Product development process modeling based on information feedback and requirement cooperation. Concurrent Engineering 14(2): 87–98.Israel, D (2009) Data Analysis in Business Research: A Step-by-Step Nonparametric Approach. New Delhi, India: SAGE.Jeyaraman, K, Teo, LK (2010) A conceptual framework for critical success factors of lean six sigma: implementation on the performance of electronic manufacturing service industry. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 1(3): 191–215.Karam, A-A, Liviu, M, Cristina, V, et al. (2018) The contribution of lean manufacturing tools to changeover time decrease in the pharmaceutical industry. A SMED project. Procedia Manufacturing 22: 886–892.Karim, A, Arif Uz-Zaman, K (2013) A methodology for effective implementation of lean strategies and its performance evaluation in manufacturing organizations. Business Process Management Journal 19(1): 169–196.Karlsson, C, Åhlström, P (1996) Assessing changes towards lean production. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 16(2): 24–41.Keebler, JS, Plank, RE (2009) Logistics performance measurement in the supply chain: a benchmark. Benchmarking 16(6): 785–798.Kiran, DR (2017) Kaizen and continuous improvement. In: Guerin, B (ed.) Total Quality Management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 313–332.Kline, SJ (1985) Innovation is not a linear process. Research Management 28(4): 36–45.Kojima, S, Kaplinsky, R (2004) The use of a lean production index in explaining the transition to global competitiveness: the auto components sector in South Africa. Technovation 24(3): 199–206.Krafcik, JF (1988) Triumph of the lean production system. MIT Sloan Management Review 30(1): 41–52.Kueng, P (2000) Process performance measurement system: a tool to support process-based organizations. Total Quality Management 11(1): 67–85.Kuhlang, P, Edtmayr, T, 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 4(1): 24–32.Kumar, A, Thomas, S (2002) A software tool for screening analysis of lean practices. Environmental Progress 21(3): O12–O16.Leite, M, Baptista, AJ, Ribeiro, AMR (2016) A road map for implementing lean and agile techniques in SMEs product development teams. International Journal of Product Development 21(1): 20–40.Lemieux, A-A, Pellerin, R, Lamouri, S (2013) A mixed performance and adoption alignment framework for guiding leanness and agility improvement initiatives in product development. Journal of Enterprise Transformation 3(3): 161–186.Leung, S, Lee, WB (2004) Strategic manufacturing capability pursuance: a conceptual framework. Benchmarking 11(2): 156–174.Lewis, MA (2000) Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 20(8): 959–978.Little, D, McKinna, A (2005) A lean manufacturing assessment tool for use in SMEs. In: Proceedings of the seventh SMESME international conference: stimulating manufacturing excellence in small & medium enterprises, Glasgow, 12–15 June. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde, Scottish School of Further Education.Lucato, WC, Calarge, FA, Junior, ML, et al. (2014) Performance evaluation of lean manufacturing implementation in Brazil. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 63(5): 529–549.Lummus, RR (2007) Getting ready for tomorrow’s supply chain. Supply Chain Management Review 11(6): 48–55.Maasouman, MA, Demirli, K (2016) Development of a lean maturity model for operational level planning. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 83(5-8): 1171–1188.McCarthy, IP, Tsinopoulos, C, Allen, P, et al. (2006) New product development as a complex adaptive system of decisions. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23(5): 437–456.McLeod, AA (2009) An assessment of small to medium size manufacturers practicing lean manufacturing in Indiana. Doctoral thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.McNally, RC, Schmidt, JB (2011) From the special issue editors: an introduction to the special issue on decision making in new product development and innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 28(5): 619–622.Mahfouz, A, Arisha, A (2015) An integrated lean assessment framework for tyre distribution industry. In: 2015 winter simulation conference (WSC), Huntington Beach, CA, 6–9 December, pp. 3196–3197. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Manuj, I, Mentzer, JT, Bowers, MR (2009) Improving the rigor of discrete-event simulation in logistics and supply chain research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 39(3): 172–201.Marvel, JH, Standridge, CR (2009) Simulation-enhanced lean design process. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 2(1): 90–113.Matsui, Y (2007) An empirical analysis of just-in-time production in Japanese manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production Economics 108(1–-2): 153–164.Mendes, GHDS, de Toledo, JC (2015) Organizational characteristics in concurrent engineering: evidence from Brazilian small and medium enterprises in the medical device industry. Concurrent Engineering 23(2): 135–144.Mihm, J, Loch, CH, Huchzermeuer, A (2002) Modeling the problem solving dynamics in complex engineering projects. INSEAD working paper, Fontainebleau.Morgan, J (2002) High performance product development: a systems approach to a lean product development process. Doctoral thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Morgan, J, Liker, J (2006) The Toyota Product Development System. New York: Productivity Press.Mostafa, S, Dumrak, J, Soltan, H (2013) A framework for lean manufacturing implementation. Production & Manufacturing Research 1(1): 44–64.Mostafa, S, Dumrak, J, Soltan, H (2015) Lean maintenance roadmap. Procedia Manufacturing 2: 434–444.Nada, M, Corby, O, Prasad, B (1998) A generic library of knowledge components to manage conflicts in CE tasks. Concurrent Engineering 6(4): 274–287.Narayanamurthy, G, Gurumurthy, A (2016) Leanness assessment: a literature review. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 36(10): 1115–1160.Nasab, HH, Bioki, TA, Zare, HK (2012) Finding a probabilistic approach to analyze lean manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production 29–30: 73–81.Nesensohn, C, Bryde, D, Ochieng, E, et al. (2014) Assessing lean construction maturity. In: 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC 2014): Understanding and Improving Project Based Production Desc (eds Kalsaas, B. T. et al.,), Oslo, Norway, 25–27 June 2014, p. 1517.Netland, TH (2016) Critical success factors for implementing lean production: the effect of contingencies. International Journal of Production Research 54(8): 2433–2448.Nightingale, D, Mize, JH (2002) Development of a lean enterprise transformation maturity model. Information-Knowledge-Systems Management 3: 15–30.Nightingale, P (2000) The product–process–organisation relationship in complex development projects. Research Policy 29(7-8): 913–930.Nordin, N, Deros, B, Wahab, DA (2010) A survey on lean manufacturing implementation in Malaysian automotive industry. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 1(4): 374–380.Omogbai, O, Salonitis, K (2016) A lean assessment tool based on systems dynamics. Procedia CIRP 50: 106–111.Ōno, T (1988) Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Pakdil, F, Leonard, KM (2014) Criteria for a lean organisation: development of a lean assessment tool. International Journal of Production Research 52(15): 4587–4607.Pakdil, F, Toktaş, P, Leonard, KM (2018) Validation of qualitative aspects of the lean assessment tool (LAT). Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 29(7): 1094–1114.Pessôa, MVP, Seering, W (2014) Trapped on the waste net: a method for identifying and prioritizing the causes of a corporations low product development performance. In: Proceedings of the 13th international design conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 19–22 May 2014.Pessôa, MVP, Trabasso, LG (2017) The Lean Product Design and Development Journey: A Practical View. Berlin: Springer.Possamai, O, Ceryno, PS (2008) Lean approach applied to product development. Product: Management & Development 6(2): 157–165.Prasad, B (1994a) Competitiveness analysis of early product introduction and technology insertion. In: Proceeding of the 1994 international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, Chicago, IL, 6–11 November.Prasad, B (1994b) Modern Manufacturing (Advanced manufacturing series). London: Springer.Prasad, B (1995) A structured approach to product and process optimization for manufacturing and service industries. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 12(9): 123–138.Prasad, B (1996a) System engineering. In: Prasad, B (ed.) Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals, vol. 1. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 277–318. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303785805_Volume_I_Chapter_6_SYSTEM_ENGINEERINGPrasad, B (1996b) Concurrent function deployment–an emerging alternative to QFD: conceptual framework. In: Third ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 26–28 August 1996. CRC Press.Prasad, B (1997a) Concurrent engineering as an integrator for managing product development/delivery process. International Journal of Materials and Product Technology 12(4–5–6): 279–287.Prasad, B (1997b) On management styles for a concurrent engineering organization. Concurrent Engineering 5(4): 296–299.Prasad, B (1997c) Re-engineering life-cycle management of products to achieve global success in the changing marketplace. Industrial Management & Data Systems 97(3): 90–98.Prasad, B (1997d) Towards life-cycle measures and metrics for concurrent product development. International Journal of Materials and Product Technology 12: 56288–56297.Prasad, B (1999) Model for optimizing performance based on reliability, life-cycle costs and other measurements. Production Planning & Control 10(3): 286–300.Prasad, B (2000) Survey of life-cycle measures and metrics for concurrent product and process design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 14(2): 163–176.Prasad, B (2001a) Total value management—a knowledge management concept for integrating TQM into concurrent product and process development. Knowledge and Process Management 8(2): 105–122.Prasad, B (2001b) Towards balancing multiple competitiveness measures for improving business performance in manufacturing. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management 3(6): 550–569.Prasad, B (2001c) What management style is considered best for a team-based organization and why? International Journal of Value-Based Management 14(1): 59–77.Prasad, B (2002) Building blocks for a decision based integrated product development and system realization process. Systems Engineering 5(2): 123–144.Prasad, B (2016a) Lean, integrated & connected framework for developing smart products. In: Batalla, JM, Mastorakis, G, Mavromoustakis, CX, et al. (eds) Beyond the Internet of Things: Everything Interconnected. Berlin: Heidelberg, pp. 1–25.Prasad, B (2016b) On mapping tasks during product development. Concurrent Engineering 24(2): 105–112.Prasad, B (2017) Lean, Integrated & Connected (LIC) framework for concurrent engineering. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20371.58406.Prasad, B, Wang, F, Deng, J (1998) A concurrent workflow management process for integrated product development. Journal of Engineering Design 9: 121–135.Puvanasvaran, A, Tay, C, Megat, M, et al. (2009) Leanness achievement through people development system in implementing lean process management. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2(1): 105–119.Rahman, S, Laosirihongthong, T, Sohal, AS (2010) Impact of lean strategy on operational performance: a study of Thai manufacturing companies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 21(7): 839–852.Rajpurohit, L, Rachnaverma, Singh, M (2017) Leanness assessment of manufacturing organizations using fuzzy TOPSIS: a case study. International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development 4: 656–660.Rakhmanhuda, I, Karningsih, P (2018) Development lean assessment indicator: a case study. MATEC Web of Conferences204: 03018.Ramirez, S, Lorena, D (2014) A lean logistics assessment tool for SMES in the manufacturing sector. Master’s thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Ray, CD, Zuo, X, Michael, JH, et al. (2006) The lean index: operational” lean” metrics for the wood products industry. Wood and Fiber Science 38(2): 238–255.Reyes, HG, Giachetti, R (2010) Using experts to develop a supply chain maturity model in Mexico. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 15(6): 415–424.Sánchez, AM, Pérez, MP (2001) Lean indicators and manufacturing strategies. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21(11): 1433–1452.Sangwa, NR, Sangwan, KS (2018) Development of an integrated performance measurement framework for lean organizations. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 29(1): 41–84.Sanati, F, Seyedhosseini, SM (2008) New Concept in Leanness Development and Assessment in Plant Life Cycle (PLC). International Journal of Industrial Engineering & Production Research 19(1): 57–65.Saurin, TA, Ferreira, CF (2008) Avaliação qualitativa da implantação de práticas da produção enxuta: estudo de caso em uma fábrica de máquinas agrícolas. Gestão & Produção 15(3): 449–462.Schalock, RL, Lee, T, Verdugo, M, et al. (2014) An evidence-based approach to organization evaluation and change in human service organizations evaluation and program planning. Evaluation and Program Planning 45: 110–118.Seyedhosseini, SM, Taleghani, AE, Bakhsha, A, et al. (2011) Extracting leanness criteria by employing the concept of balanced scorecard. Expert Systems With Applications 38(8): 10454–10461.Shah, R, Ward, PT (2003) Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance. Journal of Operations Management 21(2): 129–149.Shah, R, Ward, PT (2007) Defining and developing measures of lean production. Journal of Operations Management 25(4): 785–805.Singh, B, Garg, SK, Sharma, SK (2010) Development of index for measuring leanness: study of an Indian auto component industry. Measuring Business Excellence 14(2): 46–53.Soltan, H, Mostafa, S (2015) Lean and agile performance framework for manufacturing enterprises. Procedia Manufacturing 2: 476–484.Soriano-Meier, H, Forrester, PL (2002) A model for evaluating the degree of leanness of manufacturing firms. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 13(2): 104–109.Srinivasaraghavan, J, Allada, V (2006) Application of Mahalanobis distance as a lean assessment metric. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 29(11–12): 1159–1168.Stevenson, M, Spring, M (2007) Flexibility from a supply chain perspective: definition and review. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27(7): 685–713.Sun, C-C (2010) A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems With Applications 37(12): 7745–7754.Taj, S (2005) Applying lean assessment tools in Chinese hi-tech industries. Management Decision 43(4): 628–643.Toledo, JCD, Silva, SLD, Mendes, GHS, et al. (2008) Fatores críticos de sucesso no gerenciamento de projetos de desenvolvimento de produto em empresas de base tecnológica de pequeno e médio porte. Gestão & Produção 15(1): 117–134.Urban, W (2015) The lean management maturity self-assessment tool based on organizational culture diagnosis. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 213: 728–733.Vidyadhar, R, Kumar, RS, Vinodh, S, et al. (2016) Application of fuzzy logic for leanness assessment in SMEs: a case study. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 14(1): 78–103.Vinodh, S, Balaji, SR (2011) Fuzzy logic based leanness assessment and its decision support system. International Journal of Production Research 49(13): 4027–4041.Vinodh, S, Chintha, SK (2011) Leanness assessment using multi-grade fuzzy approach. International Journal of Production Research 49(2): 431–445.Vinodh, S, Vimal, KEK (2012) Thirty criteria based leanness assessment using fuzzy logic approach. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 60(9–12): 1185–1195.Wahab, ANA, Mukhtar, M, Sulaiman, R (2013) A conceptual model of lean manufacturing dimensions. Procedia Technology 11: 1292–1298.Wan, H-D (2006) Measuring leanness of manufacturing systems and identifying leanness target by considering agility. Doctoral thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.Wan, HD, Chen, F (2006) An application of slacks-based measure on quantifying leanness. In: Proceedings of IIE annual conference, Orlando, FL, 20–24 May. Orlando, FL: Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE).Wan, HD, Chen, F, Riviera, L (2007) Leanness score of value stream maps. In: Proceedings of the 2007 industrial engineering research conference, Nashville, TN, 19–23 May, p. 1515. Nashville: Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE).Womack, JP, Jones, DT, Roos, D (1991) The Machine that Changed the World. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.Wong, BK, Lai, VS (2011) A survey of the application of fuzzy set theory in production and operations management: 1998–2009. International Journal of Production Economics 129(1): 157–168.Wu, S, Wee, HM (2009) How lean supply chain effects product cost and quality—a case study of the ford motor company. In: 2009 6th international conference on service systems and service management, Xiamen, China, 8–10 June, pp. 236–241. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Zanjirchi, SM, Tooranloo, H, Nejad, LZ (2010) Measuring organizational leanness using fuzzy approach. In: Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on industrial engineering and operations management, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 9–10 January. Author biographies
A seguir está replicado o artigo acadêmico publicado por um dos autores do Blog, cujo título é: 'A roadmap for a leanness company to emerge as a true lean organization,' disponível para download no endereço permanente https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293X19888259.
Below is replicated the paper published by one of the authors' of this Blog entitled: 'A roadmap for a leanness company to emerge as a true lean organization' available in the permanent link https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293X19888259.
A roadmap for a leanness company to emerge as a true lean organization
Leandro Silvério, Luís Gonzaga Trabasso and Marcus Vinicius Pereira Pessôa
Department of Materials, Manufacturing and Automation, Aeronautics Institute of Technology, S. J. Campos/SP, Brazil
E-mail: leandro.silverio.pereira@gmail.com, gonzaga@ita.br, mvpessoa@gmail.com
Abstract
The problem this work aims to solve is the improvement of the leanness level of a company jeopardized by the lack of lean engagement. The objectives of the research are to present a method based on a lean self-assessment approach, consisted of a qualitative self-assessment method based on lean elements that drives an index definition associated with a roadmap. The method consists in providing a roadmap for the assessed enterprise composed by the company’s lean index, recommendations and countermeasures deriving from Delphi and Kendall Coefficient of Concordance (W) application among lean experts, leading the assessed enterprise to achieve results in terms of lean engagement, autonomy, and decision support criteria for future resource allocation. The results demonstrated that method can highlight gaps where additional improvements and investments would be necessary in the assessed enterprise. Finally, the study concludes that the lean performance identification associated to a lean roadmap in a company can be a highly effective tool to improve lean adoption in a leanness organization.
Keywords: lean manufacturing, leanness company, lean product development process, lean wheel system, lean assessment tools, lean self-assessment, lean conceptual model, lean roadmap, Kendall Coefficient of Concordance (W), Delphi
1 Introduction
Ever since lean manufacturing first appeared in the literature, authors have tried to describe it theoretically (Hines et al., 2006, 2004; Lewis, 2000; Possamai and Ceryno, 2008; Shah and Ward, 2007). However, their descriptions have been ambiguous and unclear (Boaden, 1997). Authors have declared at least 25 lean manufacturing tools. In common to all of them are waste elimination and the focus on available resource optimization, to which engineering techniques (Karam et al., 2018) and statistics fundamentals (Kiran, 2017) are applied. In the definition adopted by this study, lean practices are a set of methods, procedures, techniques, and tools aimed to continuously create customer value and reduce product lead time (Shah and Ward, 2007). According to Morgan and Liker, a lean company (LC) aims for lean practices along the whole lean development process (LDP), not only the manufacturing shop phases (Morgan and Liker, 2006; Pessôa and Seering, 2014). The non-engagement of lean aspects along the development phases is the definition of a leanness company (Bauch, 2004). In an ideal product development process (PDP), the process itself should work as a single-piece manufacturing flow. That way, it is possible to reduce errors in investigation loops interactions (Bonnal et al., 2006).
A lean management research and deployment trajectory is a singular process in each organization (Lewis, 2000). Researchers have already demonstrated that implementing lean practices can help large manufacturing enterprises to increase their operational performance (Krafcik, 1988; Ōno, 1988; Womack et al., 1991). Other researchers have also addressed the lean roadmap issue by focusing on the core critical success factors for lean performance examination in the PDP (Aikhuele and Turan, 2018; Leite et al., 2016) and explored the roadmap, metrics and management for concurrent engineering (CE) in the product development environment (Prasad, 1997a, 1997d; Prasad et al., 1998). Therefore, the objective of this research is to combine the lean assessment to a roadmap, based on a lean index (LI) self-assessment method focused on identifying the main positive and negative factors for a leanness enterprise. The self-assessment method was selected for this study in order to insure the engagement in decision-making processes for the lean way, where some examples and case applications are available from recent literature (Dwarakanath and Wallace, 1995; Hauser et al., 2006; McNally and Schmidt, 2011). On the LDP, McCarthy et al. (2006) have identified three levels of decision-making: strategic, review, and in-stage. The in-stage is where agents deal with multiple decisions involving producing and processing a rich diversity of criteria that are the basis of PDP creative activities and ideas. This is the stage on which this study intends to focus.
The first step when creating a great product is to understand what exactly makes a product great (Prasad, 1996b). In other words, the goal of PDP is to create such manufacturable physical product through a set of connected life-cycle processes (Prasad, 2016a). Also in PDP, decision-making grows out of a process over time (Christiaans and Almendra, 2010), and the engagement in decision-making process is closely related to on-going assessments and roadmaps. Specifically in LDP, the more extensive presence of top management support is critical for continued company-wide implementation of lean practices and decision-making. To develop a coherent management philosophy seems a daunting task, given the wide range of possibilities and practices that must be addressed (Prasad, 1997b). Thus, the concept of decision making focusing on the system level is adopted by this method and supports the engagement in decision-making processes, specifically in PDP.
2 Background
Today manufacturing sectors are much more fiercely competitive and global than before (Prasad, 2001a). Thus, to design and execute an enterprise transformation, it is crucial to have assessments that measure multiple performance dimensions during the process’s execution in order to understand its current state and chart out the transformation plan that will lead the company into a different future state (Kueng, 2000). Such assessments can help in identifying performance gaps, prioritize focus and play a role in helping to generate a future state vision for the enterprise. As the transformation plan is implemented, ongoing assessments can also offer feedbacks and measure progress. This feedbacks can be used to revise the transformation plan and patch over time.
The management organizational capability for an enterprise operation (internal or external) is becoming very crucial for achieving not only time-to-market, but also improved productivity, and better efficiency (Prasad, 1996a). Various methods and tools for an enterprise’s operational performance are comprised under lean strategy’s umbrella (Bhasin, 2012). The earliest model found in the literature was presented by Karlsson and Åhlström (1996), who developed a model capable of determining the progress of a lean manufacturing firm in the effort to adopt lean fundamentals from the book “The Machine that Changed the World,” by Womack et al. (1991). According to Schalock et al. (2014) one of the major strengths of an evidence-based assessment instrument is that it is an organizational assessment tool that represents a new approach to organizational evaluation based on self-assessment.
In recent years, product development (PD) has been an essential element of competitive engineering (Duhovnik et al., 2001). Since PD is a nonlinear (Kline, 1985; Nightingale, 2000) and dynamic system process (Huang and Gu, 2006), it is hard to determine what value is added—especially in LDP, where design changes constantly happen in the first phases of a PD. In the PDP context, this also involves design, production planning, and manufacturing (Amitrano et al., 2015), typically leading to lots of change and rework (Mihm et al., 2002), while seeking for a high leanness level and there are more opportunities for competitive advantages in PDP than in any other department or area of industrial companies (Mendes and de Toledo, 2015; Morgan, 2002; Toledo et al., 2008). A leanness level is defined by Vinodh and Chintha (2011) as a performance measure of lean operation. Comm and Mathaisel (2005) described leanness as a relative measure of whether a company is lean or not. The number of studies in the literature on leanness assessment is low compared to those on lean implementation areas (Narayanamurthy and Gurumurthy, 2016). This study’s contributions compared to previous and very recent papers are described in Table 1 in a chronological sequence. From the assessed studies, over 90 papers, articles, journals, and full thesis from the last 23 years were screened and refined in order to compose a systematic literature review.
Although the first leanness research was published in 1996 by Karlsson and Åhlström (1996), the next leanness study appeared in the literature only 4 years later in 2000, and was by Detty and Yingling (2000). As per Table 1, there is a majority of proposed frameworks addressing a leanness indicator thought the usage of a qualitative/quantitative assessment. However, there is also a lack of a self-assessment method for the leanness level definition, associated with a roadmap to provide insights for the decision makers. This is one of the gaps this research aims to fit.
3 Methodology: a roadmap for a leanness company to emerge as a true lean organization
The method presented by this study is divided into two topics: the LI equations and the lean roadmap definition. The LI is the rate responsible for indicating the current leanness level of the enterprise and based on its adequacy to the ranges established by the method, a specific set of recommendations are deployed according to the criteria detailed in the following subsections.
3.1 Lean Index
The performance of an organization is largely governed by the system in which it is contained. Thus, a LI overall is an important rate for any company emerging as a lean organization (Prasad, 2001b). The lean elements considered in this study are the ones adopted by the lean wheel system (LWS) model. The LWS intends to be a pictorial model that shows the elements that support lean product development and their relationship as illustrated in Figure 1.
In the LWS metaphor, the lean elements are rooted as the hub elements interfacing one with each other (Pessôa and Trabasso, 2017). The LWS elements considered in this method are defined in Table 2 and the “core lean elements” composed by: value, waste, and continuous improvement had their definitions criteria adopted from the literature.
Figure 1. Lean wheel system elements (Pessôa and Trabasso, 2017).
The LI has five possible progressive maturity levels in its composition. The levels range from least capable (Level 0) to a true lean organization (Level 5). Table 3 defines the meaning of each level. These levels are intended to depict a progression in the lean capability of the enterprise, relatively to the particular lean aspect being assessed.
For the LI construction, each lean element defined in Table 2 receives a theoretical value rate 5 in a 0–5 scale in order to set the referential lean rate (LR). This referential value is called the theoretical true lean organization rate (TTLOR) and will be used as an input for the method deployment. The referential LR is considered to be a theoretical value because fulfilling all lean aspects is rather difficult, if not impossible. The referential LR is indicated in Table 4.
The referential LR is defined in order to establish a baseline for the LI calculation based on the TTLOR. Equation (1) describes the TTLOR.
Within the TTLOR and the ELR, it is possible to get the LI by calculating the average between the sum of all ELR and the total amount of lean elements considered by the method, as indicated in equation (3).
The LI is based on a comparison between the company’s current state and a future target condition that best describes a true lean organization company (theoretical value), emerging from a scenario where all lean elements are in line with the lean product development process. Based on the LI, the lean index level range (LILR) and the lean engagement level diagnosis (LELD) are established in order to deploy the full engagement diagnosis and associated lean roadmap for the assessed enterprise. For an LI where the result is close to the target condition, for example, the LILR value shall be up to 90% from the reference value in a 0–5 scale. However, an LI with values between 44% and 30% of the reference value on a 0–5 scale indicates poor lean engagement. An LI below 29% from the reference value on a 0–5 scale indicates that the assessed enterprise is unqualified for the evaluated lean element. The definitions and rate criteria for the LILR are presented in Table 5 and, the LELD, definitions and rate criteria are presented in Table 6.
Engagement OK means the LILR is between excellent and very good. A company with such a high level is in line with the lean concept and techniques. The lean enterprise shall continue seeking continuous improvements and waste reduction by the application of Kaizen, PDCA (plan, do, control, and act), and SDCA (standardize, do, check, and act). A new evaluation shall be performed every 6 months in order to guarantee current LELD.
Engagement to Improve means the LILR is between good and regular. A company at such an intermediate level is line to succeed with the lean concept and techniques but also has opportunities to overcome it. The lean company shall continue seeking continuous improvements and waste reduction according to the lean roadmap defined for each assessed element. A new evaluation shall be performed every 3 months in order to confirm the current LELD and to check for progress to the next level at the assessment reapplication.
Engagement NOK means that the LILR is between poor and unqualified. A company with such a low level is in the beginning of the lean transformation patch. The enterprise shall continue seeking continuous improvements and waste reduction according to the lean roadmap defined for each assessed element. A new evaluation shall be performed on a monthly basis in order to be ready for the next assessment reapplication.
Each lean element and related definition criteria has a selected amount of countermeasures (CMs) associated with it. The CMs composes the lean roadmap and are applicable only for those cases where the assessed enterprise is diagnosed within the LELD “Engagement to Improve” or “Engagement NOK.”
For those cases, the proposed roadmap can lead the enterprise on acting on the identified weakest lean elements. Figure 2 illustrates an interaction cycle, where the more countermeasures are applied after each assessment cycle, the more a company can emergence as a true lean organization. The objective of the interaction cycles is to demonstrate the importance of continually seeking improvement and process optimization after the roadmap and associated lean initiatives take place.
Figure 2. Interaction cycle (constructed by authors).
3.2 Lean Roadmap
A roadmap is a traffic-flow example that indicates several possible routes from a chosen starting point to a desired destination (Prasad, 2016b). The lean roadmap proposed by this study was established by the Delphi research methodology, that has been previously presented as a survey (Bandyopadhyay, 2005), a study (Keebler and Plank, 2009; Stevenson and Spring, 2007), a technique (Akkermans et al., 1999; Babbar et al., 2008; Lummus, 2007; Manuj et al., 2009), and a method (Hameri and Hintsa, 2009; Reyes and Giachetti, 2010). Initially, a group of 15 professionals was invited to make up the lean experts board. However, seven of them could not attend, resulting in a total of eight lean experts for the Delphi application. Interviews were launched in order to compose the roadmap for each lean element considered on this research (see Appendix 1). The Delphi application was performed by January 2018, and comprised two rounds, as per the following approach. In the first round, the respondents were asked to give their perceptions for each lean element regarding a roadmap to be followed by a leanness enterprise to emerge as a true lean organization. In the second round, panel members exchanged their assumptions in relation to those given by the group as a whole, and they came up with an average definition after the group’s reflection on the shared response group dynamics performed among the participants. The second round questionnaire (see Appendix 1) comprised same questions as the first round, plus the average answers gathered from first loop. Once more, it was launched among the lean experts, now considering the “group’s response” as per the first round conclusion. The results were considered to be the consensus of the lean specialists group regarding a lean roadmap for the elements considered by this study to be implemented in a leanness enterprise emerging as a true lean organization.
To obtain a measure of consistency among the eight lean expert’s responses, Kendall Coefficient of Concordance (W) was also applied. Kendall Coefficient of Concordance (W) is a statistical test of agreement among two or more judges, or of the consistency of two or more sets of rankings in a contest (Israel, 2009). This coefficient varies between “0,” indicating no agreement between judges, and “+1,” indicating a complete agreement among the judges on the ranking of various attributes. In equation (4), Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) is demonstrated.
As a level of significance for equation (4), the proposed method adopted a 95% confidence interval, as indicated in equation (5).
According to equations (4) and (5) application, when Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) is from 0.571 to 1, it means that the lean experts selected for this study consolidation set an agreement or concordance trend for the lean element roadmap under evaluation. The same way, as far as Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) is below 0.571–0, then there is no overall agreement or concordance trend for the lean element roadmap under evaluation; as a result the identified ranges for the coefficient of concordance (W) were used for the roadmap definition. Appendix 1 presented the same roadmap action plan (AP)/CMs for all the lean elements considered by the method; and only the ones assigned within Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) attending the first criteria (from 0.571 to 1) were considered for each lean element roadmap definition. Table 7 presents the roadmap resulting from the Delphi and Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) application.
4- Results and Analysis
Recently, products like aircraft and helicopters are becoming more and more complex than before (Prasad, 2001c) and the manufacturing industry each time moves toward to products customization (CJ Anumba et al., 2000). The complexity and variety of new product introduction (NPI) have grown from a very “simple” to a “complex” scenario. At the same time, the time-to-market dimension has shrunk (Prasad, 1994a, 1997c). As part of this context, the case study for the method application is an aeronautical company responsible for supplying interiors and hydraulic components for the Brazilian aircraft manufacturing industry. It was founded on 4 July 1990 in Rio de Janeiro and had around 100 employees by the time method was deployed. The facility also contained manufacturing, laboratory, and engineering departments engaged in the development and production of its products.
4.1 Results
The method’s deployment results prior to the countermeasures application in the assessed enterprise are summarized in Table 8. In the same way, the method's deployment results after the countermeasures application in the assessed enterprise are summarized in Table 9.
As far as the lean index for the case study enterprise scored 2.5 on a 0–5 scale prior to the countermeasures application, and the LILR was categorized as “Regular,” the LELD was classified as “Engagement to Improve” according to Table 6 criteria. The “Engagement to Improve” classification conducted the enterprise to apply the lean roadmap deployed by the method, taking countermeasures for the assessed lean elements classified as “Engagement to Improve” or “Engagement NOK” as per Table 6 criteria and definitions.
Three months after the method’s application and the roadmap recommended by this study being applied, the case study enterprise was reassessed, and the results are summarized in Table 9.
4.2 Analysis
As demonstrated by Table 9, after the roadmap’s application for the case study enterprise, there was a slight improvement in the overall LILR and several associated lean elements. The elements “sponsored” by leadership such as: culture, organizational structure, value, and continuous improvement had a bigger impact on the reassessment, demonstrating that lean initiatives are closely related to all enterprises’ levels of engagement to succeed on the transformation patch.
The LILR was upgraded from ``Regular'' to “Good” but the LELD was still classified as “Engagement to Improve.” That way, a roadmap was also deployed by the method after the reassessment, providing recommendations and countermeasures only for the lean elements with low ELR as per Table 5 and 6 criteria.
5- Conclusion
The proposed method can be used as guidance for the managers to introduce recommended changes on their lean implementation journey. The lean implementation patch is not a destination but a journey, and a high lean index value is not directly linked to the number of lean methods and tools adopted by the company, but it is closely related to a maturity level constructed on a daily basis and supported by the performance indicators. The manufacturing sustained growth and earnings are based on creating high value products in very dynamic global markets (Prasad, 1994b). That way, the comprehensive implementation of lean practices is necessary and, in order to be effective, all lean initiatives should be “sponsored” by leadership (Badri et al., 1995; Danese et al., 2017; García et al., 2013; Hu et al., 2015; Netland, 2016; Shah and Ward, 2007). Finally, since a lean organization is in new technological advances constant touch and frequently employs technologies to improve an existing product (Prasad, 1995), it cannot be sustained using conventional techniques alone. The application of complementary methodologies and methods such as the lean integrated and connected (LIC), knowledge capture and reuse (KCR), library of knowledge frameworks (Nada et al., 1998; Prasad, 2017), life-cycle measures and metrics for concurrent product and process design (Prasad, 2000) and a performance assessment based on reliability/decision-based integrated product development (DIPD) frameworks (Prasad, 1999, 2002) are also recommended.
Appendix 1: Interview protocol for Delphi application - first and second rounds
Framework below is intended to support a research regarding the lean roadmap definition for a leanness enterprise to emerge as a true lean organization. To do this, it is important to get the lean experts’ data and perception related to the adequate lean roadmap to be implemented by a leanness company for the elements considered below. Please answer the questionnaire according to your perception in a two-round session. First session each lean expert will respond the questionnaire according to its own perception, without having access to the “group’s response.” Second-round session will consider the same questionnaire, this time taking in consideration the “group’s response” to be shared among the lean experts’ as per first round’s results.
Engineering Department: ___________________________
Years of experience in lean manufacturing: _____________
Questionnaire protocol: For the following lean countermeasures please rank your perception about their importance related to “Culture,”“Knowledge Management,”“Organizational Structure,”“Process,”“Tools and Technology,”“Value,”“Waste” and “Continuous Improvement” in a leanness enterprise emerging as a true lean organization, by considering one (1) for the most important and ten (10) for the less important initiative.
(A/J) Cultivate the company’s LT through a formal lean program and obtain leadership commitment to it. Implement an approval workflow considering engineers as stakeholders and encourage continuous improvement commitment in all employees’ levels.
Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).
(B/J) For unexpected business and market happenings, run VSMA and 5-Whys investigations. The usage of the seven steps waste reduction/elimination technique and the engineering participation in CoPs for lessons learned and discussions is also recommended.
Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).
(C/J) Analyze enterprise’s processes in order to deploy a VSMA for the most critical one. Run a daily wrap-up meeting including suppliers (if necessary) and perform a PDCA focusing on the information flow. Releasing an MPP integrating all development phases (PDR and CDR) is also recommended.
Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).
(D/J) Obeya creation is recommended, indicating the “was/is” scenario for each PDP emerged from lean tools. Provide a company’s core values and fundamentals through a simple and visual communication positioned in strategic places in the facility. Deploying a 5S technique and running a VSMA is also recommended.
Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).
(E/J) Select a chief engineer for the company and run a PDCA and KPI for the most critical process. Run an SBCE and synchronize organizational understanding: (1) details of how the work gets done; (2) each participant’s responsibilities; (3) key inputs, outputs, and interdependencies for each activity; and (4) sequences of activities. To release an MPP integrating all development phases (PDR and CDR), is also recommended.
Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).
(F/J) Optimize knowledge barriers by the mentoring process through an engineering apprenticeship environment creation, through which highly technical tacit skills are handed down from one generation to the next. Create a formal knowledge management portal and a dedicated room for engineering prototyping. Encourage leadership to participate in the engineering CoPs and to exercise the genchi genbutsu by the “go and see” approach. Reviewing VSMA and running a PDCA and KPI for the most critical process is also recommended.
Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).
(G/J) Implement the practice of a daily hansei and optimize an unsynchronized process by running a VSMA. Register the process flow and engineering checklist in the know-how database, sharing lessons learned in the engineering CoPs. To run a flow definition sub-matrix, VFD and deploy the SBCE process for the most critical process is also recommended.
Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).
(H/J) Deploy a pull event plan associated with a physical progress evidence chart available in the obeya. Make sure the “key integration events” set by the Chief Engineer in the MPP are engaged by all development teams.
Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).
(I/J) Use DFX and/or DTX as a guideline to identify the most profitable tool to be applied in each development phase, and run PDCA and KPI for the most critical process.
Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).
(J/J) For in-process inventory, in-product inventory, and in-company inventory, establish a monitoring/data collection indicator to be checked in a monthly basis. For physical defects, repairing/reworking, and scrapping, find out the defect RC by evaluating the VSMA. For information wrongly perceived as complete, make sure data provided are available in a timely manner and formally approved by the engineering teams before it gets submitted to next development process. The usage of the seven steps waste reduction/elimination technique and the 5-Whys investigation process is also recommended.
Culture: ( ); Knowledge Management: ( ); Organizational Structure: ( ); Process: ( ); Tools and Technology: ( ); Value: ( ); Waste: ( ); and Continuous Improvement ( ).
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Leandro Silvério: orcid.org/0000-0002-0334-877X
Luís Gonzaga Trabasso: orcid.org/0000-0003-3858-3670
Marcus V. Pereira Pessôa: orcid.org/0000-0002-1096-8344
References
Abreu, A, Calado, JMF (2017) A fuzzy logic model to evaluate the lean level of an organization. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications 8(5): 59–75.
Aikhuele, D, Turan, F (2018) A conceptual model for the implementation of lean product development. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology 9(1): 1–9.
Akkermans, H, Bogerd, P, Vos, B (1999) Virtuous and vicious cycles on the road towards international supply chain management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 19(5–6): 565–582.
Al-Ashaab, A, Golob, M, Attia, UM, et al. (2013) The transformation of product development process into lean environment using set-based concurrent engineering: a case study from an aerospace industry. Concurrent Engineering 21(4): 268–285.
Al-Najem, M, Dhakal, H, Labib, A, et al. (2013) Lean readiness level within Kuwaiti manufacturing industries. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 4(3): 280–320.
Albzeirat, MK, Hussain, MI, Ahmad, R, et al. (2018) A novel mathematical logic for improvement using lean manufacturing practices. Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems 17(03): 391–413.
Alemi, MA, Akram, R (2013) Measuring the leanness of manufacturing systems by using fuzzy TOPSIS: a case study of the “Parizan Sanat” company. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering 24(3): 166–174.
Amin, MA, Karim, MA (2013) A time-based quantitative approach for selecting lean strategies for manufacturing organisations. International Journal of Production Research 51(4): 1146–1167.
Amitrano, FG, Estorilio, CCA, Bessa, LDOF, et al. (2015) Six sigma application in small enterprise. Concurrent Engineering 24(1): 69–82.
Anumba, C, Baldwin, A, Bouchlaghem, D, et al. (2000) Integrating concurrent engineering concepts in a steelwork construction project. Concurrent Engineering 8(3): 199–212.
Anvari, A, Norzima, Z, Rosnay, M, et al. (2010) A comparative study on journey of lean manufacturing implementation. Asian International Journal of Science and Technology in Production and Manufacturing Engineering 3(2): 77–85.
Anvari, A, Zulkifli, N, Yusuff, RM (2012) A dynamic modeling to measure lean performance within lean attributes. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 66(5–8): 663–677.
Anvari, A, Zulkifli, N, Yusuff, R, et al. (2011) A proposed dynamic model for a lean roadmap. African Journal of Business Management 5(16): 6727–6737.
Asadi, S, Panahi, H (2011) A model for evaluating the degree of leanness case study: buttermilk production line in Tehran Pegah Milk company. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 73(49): 987–988.
Aurelio, D, Grilo, A, Cruz-Machado, V (2011) A framework for evaluating lean implementation appropriateness. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management, Singapore, 6–9 December, pp. 779–783. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Azevedo, SG, Govindan, K, Carvalho, H, et al. (2012) An integrated model to assess the leanness and agility of the automotive industry. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 66: 85–94.
Babbar, S, Addae, H, Gosen, J, et al. (2008) Organizational factors affecting supply chains in developing countries. International Journal of Commerce and Management 18(3): 234–251.
Badri, MA, Davis, D, Davis, D (1995) A study of measuring the critical factors of quality management. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 12(2): 36–53.
Bandyopadhyay, JK (2005) A model framework for developing industry specific quality standards for effective quality assurance in global supply chains in the new millennium. International Journal of Management 22(2): 294–299.
Barad, M, Dror, S (2008) Strategy maps as improvement paths of enterprises. International Journal of Production Research 46(23): 6627–6647.
Bauch, C (2004) Lean product development: making waste transparent. Diploma thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Bayou, ME, de Korvin, A (2008) Measuring the leanness of manufacturing systems—A case study of Ford motor company and general motors. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 25(4): 287–304.
Behrouzi, F, Wong, KY (2011) Lean performance evaluation of manufacturing systems: a dynamic and innovative approach. Procedia Computer Science 3: 388–395.
Behrouzi, F, Wong, KY (2013) An integrated stochastic-fuzzy modeling approach for supply chain leanness evaluation. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 68(5–8): 1677–1696.
Belhadi, A, Touriki, FE, El fezazi, S (2018) Development of a lean assessment tool for small and medium sized-enterprises. In: Viles, E, Ormazábal, M, Lleó, A (eds) Closing the Gap between Practice and Research in Industrial Engineering. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp.361–369.
Bento, GDS, Tontini, G (2018) Developing an instrument to measure lean manufacturing maturity and its relationship with operational performance. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 29(9–10): 977–995.
Bhasin, S (2008) Lean and performance measurement. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 19(5): 670–684.
Bhasin, S (2011) Measuring the leanness of an organisation. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 2(1): 55–74.
Bhasin, S (2012) Performance of lean in large organisations. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 31(3): 349–357.
Boaden, RJ (1997) What is total quality management … and does it matter? Total Quality Management 8(4): 153–171.
Bonavia, T, Marin, JA (2006) An empirical study of lean production in the ceramic tile industry in Spain. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 26(5): 505–531.
Bonnal, P, De Jonghe, J, Ferguson, J (2006) A deliverable-oriented EVM system suited to a large-scale project. Project Management Journal 37(1): 67–80.
Carvalhosa, M, Beatrice, S, Azevedo, S, et al. (2016) Proposal of a lean index development in organizational contexts. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2016, San Francisco, CA, 19–21 October, pp.19–21. San Francisco, CA: Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science.
Chauhan, G, Singh, TP (2012) Measuring parameters of lean manufacturing realization. Measuring Business Excellence 16(3): 57–71.
Christiaans, H, Almendra, RA (2010) Accessing decision-making in software design. Design Studies 31(6): 641–662.
Comm, CL, Mathaisel, DFX (2005) A case study in applying lean sustainability concepts to universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 6(2): 134–146.
Dal Pont, G, Furlan, A, Vinelli, A (2008) Interrelationships among lean bundles and their effects on operational performance. Operations Management Research 1(2): 150–158.
Danese, P, Romano, P, Boscari, S (2017) The transfer process of lean practices in multi-plant companies. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 37(4): 468–488.
Detty, RB, Yingling, JC (2000) Quantifying benefits of conversion to lean manufacturing with discrete event simulation: a case study. International Journal of Production Research 38(2): 429–445.
Donovan, RM (2015) Lean manufacturing: performance evaluation audit. Available at: https://pt.scribd.com/document/44969101/Lean-Manufacturing-Checklist-PDF (accessed 10 April 2019).
Doolen, TL, Hacker, ME (2005) A review of lean assessment in organizations: an exploratory study of lean practices by electronics manufacturers. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 24(1): 55–67.
Duhovnik, J, Starbek, M, Dwivedi, S, et al. (2001) Development of new products in small companies. Concurrent Engineering 9(3): 191–210.
Dwarakanath, S, Wallace, KM (1995) Decision-making in engineering design: observations from design experiments. Journal of Engineering Design 6(3): 191–206.
Elnadi, M, Shehab, E (2014) A conceptual model for evaluating product-service systems leanness in UK manufacturing companies. Procedia CIRP 22: 281–286.
Eroglu, C, Hofer, C (2011) Lean, leaner, too lean? The inventory-performance link revisited. Journal of Operations Management 29(4): 356–369.
Galankashi, MR, Helmi, SA (2017) Assessment of lean manufacturing practices: an operational perspective. International Journal of Services and Operations Management 28(2): 163–184.
García, JL, Rivera, DG, Iniesta, AA (2013) Critical success factors for Kaizen implementation in manufacturing industries in Mexico. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 68(1-4): 537–545.
Gonçalves, M, Salonitis, K (2017) Lean assessment tool for workstation design of assembly lines. Procedia CIRP 60: 386–391.
Goodson, ER (2002) Read a plant fast. Harvard Business Review 80(5): 105–113.
Gupta, V, Acharya, P, Patwardhan, M (2013) A strategic and operational approach to assess the lean performance in radial tyre manufacturing in India. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 62(6): 634–651.
Gurumurthy, A, Kodali, R (2009) Application of benchmarking for assessing the lean manufacturing implementation. Benchmarking 16(2): 274–308.
Hameri, AP, Hintsa, J (2009) Assessing the drivers of change for cross-border supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 39(9): 741–761.
Hauser, J, Tellis, GJ, Griffin, A (2006) Research on innovation: a review and agenda for marketing science. Marketing Science 25(6): 687–717.
Hines, P, Francis, M, Found, P (2006) Towards lean product lifecycle management. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 17(7): 866–887.
Hines, P, Holweg, M, Rich, N (2004) Learning to evolve. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 24(10): 994–1011.
Hjalmarsson, V, Olsson, L (2017) Quantifying leanness combining value stream mapping with a data envelopment analysis based method—a case study at a Swedish logistics company. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management (IEEM), Singapore, 10–13 December 2017, pp. 740–744. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Hobbs, DP (2004) Lean Manufacturing Implementation: A Complete Execution Manual for Any Size Manufacturer. Boca Raton, FL: J. Ross Publishing.
Hon, KKB (2003) Performance and Evaluation of Manufacturing Systems. Liverpool: Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool.
Hosseini, MS, Ebrahimi, TA (2015) Group fuzzy ANP procedure development for leanness assessment in auto part manufacturing companies. Journal for Global Business Advancement 8(2): 157–175.
Hu, Q, Mason, R, Williams, SJ, et al. (2015) Lean implementation within SMEs: a literature review. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 26(7): 980–1012.
Huang, H-Z, Gu, Y-K (2006) Product development process modeling based on information feedback and requirement cooperation. Concurrent Engineering 14(2): 87–98.
Israel, D (2009) Data Analysis in Business Research: A Step-by-Step Nonparametric Approach. New Delhi, India: SAGE.
Jeyaraman, K, Teo, LK (2010) A conceptual framework for critical success factors of lean six sigma: implementation on the performance of electronic manufacturing service industry. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 1(3): 191–215.
Karam, A-A, Liviu, M, Cristina, V, et al. (2018) The contribution of lean manufacturing tools to changeover time decrease in the pharmaceutical industry. A SMED project. Procedia Manufacturing 22: 886–892.
Karim, A, Arif Uz-Zaman, K (2013) A methodology for effective implementation of lean strategies and its performance evaluation in manufacturing organizations. Business Process Management Journal 19(1): 169–196.
Karlsson, C, Åhlström, P (1996) Assessing changes towards lean production. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 16(2): 24–41.
Keebler, JS, Plank, RE (2009) Logistics performance measurement in the supply chain: a benchmark. Benchmarking 16(6): 785–798.
Kiran, DR (2017) Kaizen and continuous improvement. In: Guerin, B (ed.) Total Quality Management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 313–332.
Kline, SJ (1985) Innovation is not a linear process. Research Management 28(4): 36–45.
Kojima, S, Kaplinsky, R (2004) The use of a lean production index in explaining the transition to global competitiveness: the auto components sector in South Africa. Technovation 24(3): 199–206.
Krafcik, JF (1988) Triumph of the lean production system. MIT Sloan Management Review 30(1): 41–52.
Kueng, P (2000) Process performance measurement system: a tool to support process-based organizations. Total Quality Management 11(1): 67–85.
Kuhlang, P, Edtmayr, T, 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 4(1): 24–32.
Kumar, A, Thomas, S (2002) A software tool for screening analysis of lean practices. Environmental Progress 21(3): O12–O16.
Leite, M, Baptista, AJ, Ribeiro, AMR (2016) A road map for implementing lean and agile techniques in SMEs product development teams. International Journal of Product Development 21(1): 20–40.
Lemieux, A-A, Pellerin, R, Lamouri, S (2013) A mixed performance and adoption alignment framework for guiding leanness and agility improvement initiatives in product development. Journal of Enterprise Transformation 3(3): 161–186.
Leung, S, Lee, WB (2004) Strategic manufacturing capability pursuance: a conceptual framework. Benchmarking 11(2): 156–174.
Lewis, MA (2000) Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 20(8): 959–978.
Little, D, McKinna, A (2005) A lean manufacturing assessment tool for use in SMEs. In: Proceedings of the seventh SMESME international conference: stimulating manufacturing excellence in small & medium enterprises, Glasgow, 12–15 June. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde, Scottish School of Further Education.
Lucato, WC, Calarge, FA, Junior, ML, et al. (2014) Performance evaluation of lean manufacturing implementation in Brazil. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 63(5): 529–549.
Lummus, RR (2007) Getting ready for tomorrow’s supply chain. Supply Chain Management Review 11(6): 48–55.
Maasouman, MA, Demirli, K (2016) Development of a lean maturity model for operational level planning. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 83(5-8): 1171–1188.
McCarthy, IP, Tsinopoulos, C, Allen, P, et al. (2006) New product development as a complex adaptive system of decisions. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23(5): 437–456.
McLeod, AA (2009) An assessment of small to medium size manufacturers practicing lean manufacturing in Indiana. Doctoral thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
McNally, RC, Schmidt, JB (2011) From the special issue editors: an introduction to the special issue on decision making in new product development and innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 28(5): 619–622.
Mahfouz, A, Arisha, A (2015) An integrated lean assessment framework for tyre distribution industry. In: 2015 winter simulation conference (WSC), Huntington Beach, CA, 6–9 December, pp. 3196–3197. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Manuj, I, Mentzer, JT, Bowers, MR (2009) Improving the rigor of discrete-event simulation in logistics and supply chain research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 39(3): 172–201.
Marvel, JH, Standridge, CR (2009) Simulation-enhanced lean design process. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 2(1): 90–113.
Matsui, Y (2007) An empirical analysis of just-in-time production in Japanese manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production Economics 108(1–-2): 153–164.
Mendes, GHDS, de Toledo, JC (2015) Organizational characteristics in concurrent engineering: evidence from Brazilian small and medium enterprises in the medical device industry. Concurrent Engineering 23(2): 135–144.
Mihm, J, Loch, CH, Huchzermeuer, A (2002) Modeling the problem solving dynamics in complex engineering projects. INSEAD working paper, Fontainebleau.
Morgan, J (2002) High performance product development: a systems approach to a lean product development process. Doctoral thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Morgan, J, Liker, J (2006) The Toyota Product Development System. New York: Productivity Press.
Mostafa, S, Dumrak, J, Soltan, H (2013) A framework for lean manufacturing implementation. Production & Manufacturing Research 1(1): 44–64.
Mostafa, S, Dumrak, J, Soltan, H (2015) Lean maintenance roadmap. Procedia Manufacturing 2: 434–444.
Nada, M, Corby, O, Prasad, B (1998) A generic library of knowledge components to manage conflicts in CE tasks. Concurrent Engineering 6(4): 274–287.
Narayanamurthy, G, Gurumurthy, A (2016) Leanness assessment: a literature review. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 36(10): 1115–1160.
Nasab, HH, Bioki, TA, Zare, HK (2012) Finding a probabilistic approach to analyze lean manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production 29–30: 73–81.
Nesensohn, C, Bryde, D, Ochieng, E, et al. (2014) Assessing lean construction maturity. In: 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC 2014): Understanding and Improving Project Based Production Desc (eds Kalsaas, B. T. et al.,), Oslo, Norway, 25–27 June 2014, p. 1517.
Netland, TH (2016) Critical success factors for implementing lean production: the effect of contingencies. International Journal of Production Research 54(8): 2433–2448.
Nightingale, D, Mize, JH (2002) Development of a lean enterprise transformation maturity model. Information-Knowledge-Systems Management 3: 15–30.
Nightingale, P (2000) The product–process–organisation relationship in complex development projects. Research Policy 29(7-8): 913–930.
Nordin, N, Deros, B, Wahab, DA (2010) A survey on lean manufacturing implementation in Malaysian automotive industry. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 1(4): 374–380.
Omogbai, O, Salonitis, K (2016) A lean assessment tool based on systems dynamics. Procedia CIRP 50: 106–111.
Ōno, T (1988) Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Pakdil, F, Leonard, KM (2014) Criteria for a lean organisation: development of a lean assessment tool. International Journal of Production Research 52(15): 4587–4607.
Pakdil, F, Toktaş, P, Leonard, KM (2018) Validation of qualitative aspects of the lean assessment tool (LAT). Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 29(7): 1094–1114.
Pessôa, MVP, Seering, W (2014) Trapped on the waste net: a method for identifying and prioritizing the causes of a corporations low product development performance. In: Proceedings of the 13th international design conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 19–22 May 2014.
Pessôa, MVP, Trabasso, LG (2017) The Lean Product Design and Development Journey: A Practical View. Berlin: Springer.
Possamai, O, Ceryno, PS (2008) Lean approach applied to product development. Product: Management & Development 6(2): 157–165.
Prasad, B (1994a) Competitiveness analysis of early product introduction and technology insertion. In: Proceeding of the 1994 international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, Chicago, IL, 6–11 November.
Prasad, B (1994b) Modern Manufacturing (Advanced manufacturing series). London: Springer.
Prasad, B (1995) A structured approach to product and process optimization for manufacturing and service industries. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 12(9): 123–138.
Prasad, B (1996a) System engineering. In: Prasad, B (ed.) Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals, vol. 1. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 277–318. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303785805_Volume_I_Chapter_6_SYSTEM_ENGINEERING
Prasad, B (1996b) Concurrent function deployment–an emerging alternative to QFD: conceptual framework. In: Third ISPE International Conference on Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 26–28 August 1996. CRC Press.
Prasad, B (1997a) Concurrent engineering as an integrator for managing product development/delivery process. International Journal of Materials and Product Technology 12(4–5–6): 279–287.
Prasad, B (1997b) On management styles for a concurrent engineering organization. Concurrent Engineering 5(4): 296–299.
Prasad, B (1997c) Re-engineering life-cycle management of products to achieve global success in the changing marketplace. Industrial Management & Data Systems 97(3): 90–98.
Prasad, B (1997d) Towards life-cycle measures and metrics for concurrent product development. International Journal of Materials and Product Technology 12: 56288–56297.
Prasad, B (1999) Model for optimizing performance based on reliability, life-cycle costs and other measurements. Production Planning & Control 10(3): 286–300.
Prasad, B (2000) Survey of life-cycle measures and metrics for concurrent product and process design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 14(2): 163–176.
Prasad, B (2001a) Total value management—a knowledge management concept for integrating TQM into concurrent product and process development. Knowledge and Process Management 8(2): 105–122.
Prasad, B (2001b) Towards balancing multiple competitiveness measures for improving business performance in manufacturing. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management 3(6): 550–569.
Prasad, B (2001c) What management style is considered best for a team-based organization and why? International Journal of Value-Based Management 14(1): 59–77.
Prasad, B (2002) Building blocks for a decision based integrated product development and system realization process. Systems Engineering 5(2): 123–144.
Prasad, B (2016a) Lean, integrated & connected framework for developing smart products. In: Batalla, JM, Mastorakis, G, Mavromoustakis, CX, et al. (eds) Beyond the Internet of Things: Everything Interconnected. Berlin: Heidelberg, pp. 1–25.
Prasad, B (2016b) On mapping tasks during product development. Concurrent Engineering 24(2): 105–112.
Prasad, B (2017) Lean, Integrated & Connected (LIC) framework for concurrent engineering. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20371.58406.
Prasad, B, Wang, F, Deng, J (1998) A concurrent workflow management process for integrated product development. Journal of Engineering Design 9: 121–135.
Puvanasvaran, A, Tay, C, Megat, M, et al. (2009) Leanness achievement through people development system in implementing lean process management. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2(1): 105–119.
Rahman, S, Laosirihongthong, T, Sohal, AS (2010) Impact of lean strategy on operational performance: a study of Thai manufacturing companies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 21(7): 839–852.
Rajpurohit, L, Rachnaverma, Singh, M (2017) Leanness assessment of manufacturing organizations using fuzzy TOPSIS: a case study. International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development 4: 656–660.
Rakhmanhuda, I, Karningsih, P (2018) Development lean assessment indicator: a case study. MATEC Web of Conferences204: 03018.
Ramirez, S, Lorena, D (2014) A lean logistics assessment tool for SMES in the manufacturing sector. Master’s thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Ray, CD, Zuo, X, Michael, JH, et al. (2006) The lean index: operational” lean” metrics for the wood products industry. Wood and Fiber Science 38(2): 238–255.
Reyes, HG, Giachetti, R (2010) Using experts to develop a supply chain maturity model in Mexico. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 15(6): 415–424.
Sánchez, AM, Pérez, MP (2001) Lean indicators and manufacturing strategies. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 21(11): 1433–1452.
Sangwa, NR, Sangwan, KS (2018) Development of an integrated performance measurement framework for lean organizations. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 29(1): 41–84.
Sanati, F, Seyedhosseini, SM (2008) New Concept in Leanness Development and Assessment in Plant Life Cycle (PLC). International Journal of Industrial Engineering & Production Research 19(1): 57–65.
Saurin, TA, Ferreira, CF (2008) Avaliação qualitativa da implantação de práticas da produção enxuta: estudo de caso em uma fábrica de máquinas agrícolas. Gestão & Produção 15(3): 449–462.
Schalock, RL, Lee, T, Verdugo, M, et al. (2014) An evidence-based approach to organization evaluation and change in human service organizations evaluation and program planning. Evaluation and Program Planning 45: 110–118.
Seyedhosseini, SM, Taleghani, AE, Bakhsha, A, et al. (2011) Extracting leanness criteria by employing the concept of balanced scorecard. Expert Systems With Applications 38(8): 10454–10461.
Shah, R, Ward, PT (2003) Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance. Journal of Operations Management 21(2): 129–149.
Shah, R, Ward, PT (2007) Defining and developing measures of lean production. Journal of Operations Management 25(4): 785–805.
Singh, B, Garg, SK, Sharma, SK (2010) Development of index for measuring leanness: study of an Indian auto component industry. Measuring Business Excellence 14(2): 46–53.
Soltan, H, Mostafa, S (2015) Lean and agile performance framework for manufacturing enterprises. Procedia Manufacturing 2: 476–484.
Soriano-Meier, H, Forrester, PL (2002) A model for evaluating the degree of leanness of manufacturing firms. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 13(2): 104–109.
Srinivasaraghavan, J, Allada, V (2006) Application of Mahalanobis distance as a lean assessment metric. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 29(11–12): 1159–1168.
Stevenson, M, Spring, M (2007) Flexibility from a supply chain perspective: definition and review. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27(7): 685–713.
Sun, C-C (2010) A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems With Applications 37(12): 7745–7754.
Taj, S (2005) Applying lean assessment tools in Chinese hi-tech industries. Management Decision 43(4): 628–643.
Toledo, JCD, Silva, SLD, Mendes, GHS, et al. (2008) Fatores críticos de sucesso no gerenciamento de projetos de desenvolvimento de produto em empresas de base tecnológica de pequeno e médio porte. Gestão & Produção 15(1): 117–134.
Urban, W (2015) The lean management maturity self-assessment tool based on organizational culture diagnosis. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 213: 728–733.
Vidyadhar, R, Kumar, RS, Vinodh, S, et al. (2016) Application of fuzzy logic for leanness assessment in SMEs: a case study. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 14(1): 78–103.
Vinodh, S, Balaji, SR (2011) Fuzzy logic based leanness assessment and its decision support system. International Journal of Production Research 49(13): 4027–4041.
Vinodh, S, Chintha, SK (2011) Leanness assessment using multi-grade fuzzy approach. International Journal of Production Research 49(2): 431–445.
Vinodh, S, Vimal, KEK (2012) Thirty criteria based leanness assessment using fuzzy logic approach. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 60(9–12): 1185–1195.
Wahab, ANA, Mukhtar, M, Sulaiman, R (2013) A conceptual model of lean manufacturing dimensions. Procedia Technology 11: 1292–1298.
Wan, H-D (2006) Measuring leanness of manufacturing systems and identifying leanness target by considering agility. Doctoral thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Wan, HD, Chen, F (2006) An application of slacks-based measure on quantifying leanness. In: Proceedings of IIE annual conference, Orlando, FL, 20–24 May. Orlando, FL: Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE).
Wan, HD, Chen, F, Riviera, L (2007) Leanness score of value stream maps. In: Proceedings of the 2007 industrial engineering research conference, Nashville, TN, 19–23 May, p. 1515. Nashville: Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE).
Womack, JP, Jones, DT, Roos, D (1991) The Machine that Changed the World. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Wong, BK, Lai, VS (2011) A survey of the application of fuzzy set theory in production and operations management: 1998–2009. International Journal of Production Economics 129(1): 157–168.
Wu, S, Wee, HM (2009) How lean supply chain effects product cost and quality—a case study of the ford motor company. In: 2009 6th international conference on service systems and service management, Xiamen, China, 8–10 June, pp. 236–241. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Zanjirchi, SM, Tooranloo, H, Nejad, LZ (2010) Measuring organizational leanness using fuzzy approach. In: Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on industrial engineering and operations management, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 9–10 January.
Author biographies
Nenhum comentário: