ELEC2017 3.2 w. knol - learning lean in manufacturing sm es

Implementing lean practices in manufacturing SMEs : are improvement routines really required?

Study by W.H. Knol

Radboud University Nijmegen

20 June 2017

Are improvement routines really required? - W.H. Knol 220 June 2017

Index

• Context

• Knowledge Gap

• Research Aim

• Method of Data Gathering

• Method of Data Analysis

• Results

• Discussion

• Conclusion


Context (1/2)

• Continuous improvement is of increasing interest to practitioners andscientists because it has a positive link with lean practices and operationalperformance;

• We see continuous improvement as “a particular bundle of routines which can help an organization improve what it currently does” (Bessant, Caffyn, and Gallagher

2001, 68);• SME intrinsic characteristics and features (like owner-manager imposition

and a low propensity to delegate and consult) (Gelinas and Bigras, 2004) combinedwith an inherent lack of resources (time, money, expertise) make it difficult to develop improvement routines:

• More insight in the importance of improvement routines and their relationship with lean practices helps SMEs to increase their operational performance.


Context (2/2)

• Womack and Jones (2003) listed five widely acknowledged lean principles; (1) value, (2) the value stream, (3) flow, (4) pull and (5) perfection.

• This order gives the impression that it is important to first organize a structure of process oriented practices (3. flow and 4. pull) before developing a culture of people oriented practices (5. perfection).

• “…there is a critical transition as you move your organization through the lean transformation, a point when managers must become coaches rather than tyrants and employees become proactive. This transition is the key to a self-sustaining organization.” (Womack and Jones, 2003, p. 269).

• This transition thus implies a shift from management directive improvements towards more employee-driven continuous improvement.


Knowledge Gap

• Different routines might be important at various degrees of improvement (Bessant et al. , 2001);

• ‘Focusing improvement’ was considered the most important routine to start improving operational performance (De Jager et al., 2004);

• ‘Strategically manage the development of improvement’ had the strongest correlation with operational performance (Dabhilkar and Bengtsson, 2004, Jørgensen et al., 2006, Boer and Laugen, 2006);

• It is unclear which individual improvement routines are required to implement various degrees of lean practices and increase operational performance in manufacturing SMEs.


Research Aim

• To contribute to the development of theory regarding continuous improvement…

• …by exploring which individual improvement routines are required toimplement various degrees of lean practices and increase operationalperformance in manufacturing SMEs.

• This knowledge will help manufacturing SME managers to focus their improvement activities and increase operational performance;

• In general, this knowledge will question the deferred and static importance of different improvement routines and it will indicate the need for a more dynamic model of lean implementation.


Method of Data Gathering

• Domain: Dutch manufacturing SMEs, 36 cases;

• Questionnaires on:• Improvement routines (Bessant, 2001);

• Lean practices (Shah and Ward, 2007);

• Operational performance (Vickery, Droge, and Markland 1993; Sakakibara et al. 1997; McKone, Schroeder, and Cua 2001; etc.);

• Data gathering: cross-functional/cross-level self-assessments;

• Respondents: 2-13 per case, 6 on average.

15 June 2017 Are improvement routines really required? - W.H. Knol 8

Method of Data Analysis

• Necessary Condition Analysis (Dul, 2016);

• Regression analysis of the upper-left observations of an x-y plot indicates ceiling line: minimum extent of each improvement routine’s presence for every stage of implementation of lean practices;

• Comparing every ceiling line indicates the mutual necessity of improvement routines for the implementation of lean practices.


Necessary Condition Analysis

• A Necessary Condition Analysis example:

• Different levels of necessity for various degrees of an outcome:


Results (1/2)

• The Necessary Condition Analysis showed that:

• Individual improvement routines had different levels of necessity for various degrees of lean practices:

• For example:


Results (2/2)

• The bottleneck table indicated the most and least required improvement routines for various degrees of lean practices:


Discussion (1/2)

• For some implementation of lean practices:• The most required routines, in line with De Jager et al. (2004), were:

1. Getting the improvement habit;

2. Shared problem solving;

3. Focusing improvement;

4. Aligning improvement;

• The not required routines were, contrasting to Jorgensen Dabhilkar and Bengtsson, (2004), Jørgensen et al. (2006) and Boer and Laugen (2006), were:

1. Understanding improvement;

2. Leading the way;

3. Improvement of improvement;

4. The learning organisation


Discussion (2/2)

• For partial implementation of lean practices:• The most required routines were:

1. Getting the improvement habit;

2. Leading the way;

3. Understanding improvement;

4. Improvement of improvement.


Conclusions

• In line with Womack and Jones (2003), lean practices could beimplemented up to some extent without any presence of improvement routines;

• Not all individual improvement routines were necessary to go beyondsome extent of lean practices;

• Getting the improvement habit was required the most, and most likely even led to the implementation of lean practices;

• A (formal) learning organisation was amongst the least required improvement routines for both some and extended implementation of lean practices in manufacturing SMEs.


Thank you for your attention

Definitions (1/4)

• Operational performance: the accomplishment of an organization's primary activities, measured against pre-set standards of:


• (i) cost

• (ii) quality

• (iii) delivery speed

• (iv) delivery dependability

• (v) delivery flexibility

• (vi) product flexibility

• (vii) volume flexibility (Slack, Chambers, &

Johnston, 2010; Vickery et al. 1993; Sakakibara et al. 1997; McKone et al. 2001; Pont et al. 2008; Slack et al.

2010);

Definitions (2/4)

• Lean practices: a set of methods, procedures and tools aimed at creating customer value and reducing product lead time (Shah & Ward, 2007):


• (i) involved employees

• (ii) productive maintenance

• (iii) controlled processes

• (iv) pull

• (v) flow

• (vi) low setup

• (vii) supplier feedback

• (viii) JIT delivery

• (ix) developing suppliers

• (x) involved customers (Shah & Ward

2007);

Definitions (3/4)

• SMEs: companies that employ between 10 - 250 employees (EC 2005, p.11);


Definitions (4/4)

• Continuous improvement routines: “a particular bundle of routines which can help an organization improve what it currently does”:


• (i) understanding improvement

• (ii) getting the improvement habit

• (iii) focusing improvement

• (iv) leading the way

• (v) aligning improvement

• (vi) shared problem-solving

• (vii) improvement of improvement

• (viii) the learning organisation (Bessant, Caffyn & Gallagher, 2001, p. 68);

ELEC2017 3.2 w. knol - learning lean in manufacturing sm es

Business

Transcript of ELEC2017 3.2 w. knol - learning lean in manufacturing sm es