Operador de enlace (join)

Hines et al. (2004) explored the evolution that Lean has undergone since its inception. Lean is an approach developed during a research project on Japanese firms (Womack et

al. 1990), who built upon quality management practices (Flynn and Flynn 2004) and

pursued the elimination of waste in order to increase the value firms were able to provide customers from a given input. Consistent with the structured method of Six Sigma, Lean consists of practices that promote the visualization, analysis, identification and elimination of waste (Bicheno 2004). Bessant and colleagues (for example Bessant et al. 1993; Bessant et al. 1994; Bessant and Francis 1999b; Kerrin 1999) considered such tools as providing a foundation upon which to pursue improvement, which in turn promoted the

35

development of continuous improvement capabilities. However, while presented as lower cost forms of improvement (compared to Six Sigma), without long-term investment in human resource development, firms had difficulty developing improvement capabilities and sustaining improvement initiatives (Bessant et al. 1993). Consistent with this view, Hines et al. (2004) emphasized the importance of integrating the basic Lean tools with more complex aspects of the approach to promote longer-term development and sustain the benefits firms were able to realise from Lean initiatives. This process of progressing beyond waste elimination was described as a means of providing firms with a more sustainable competitive advantage compared to the short-term benefits realised from the application of standard tools. Lean tools provided firms with a means of visualizing and developing understanding of operational processes and focusing on improving those processes customers valued, similar to aspects of Six Sigma. However, unless firms were able to make progress with the tools they used and developed the aims they pursued, following initial improvements, returns on improvement efforts would reduce over time, consistent with Li and Rajagopalan’s (1998) and Zangwill and Kantor (1998).

Also consistent with the need to maintain investment in Lean initiatives, Narasimhan et al. (2006) found that firms performed better if they balanced the pursuit of Lean with maintaining organisational flexibility. If firms pursued waste reduction activities alone, Narasimhan et al. (2006) found they were less able to adapt to changing environments, compared to those firms pursuing an Agile orientation. This highlights similarities with particular work on quality management (for example, Benner and Tushman 2003), where over focus on reducing process variation limited a firm’s ability to change or engage in innovative activities. Similarities between Lean and Six Sigma can also be found in De Treville and Antonakis (2006), who proposed Lean job design as having the potential of being intrinsically motivating for operational staff. This is consistent with the need to develop a sense of challenge within projects through setting stretch targets, but supporting those in projects with sufficient training and support (Linderman et al. 2003; Choo 2011). De Treville and Antonakis (2006) also found that “excessive leanness” (p.99) resulted in firms that were unable to resolve more complex operational issues. There were insufficient resources available to critically review completed projects and undergo more fundamental changes (Mukherjee et al. 1998) or

36

engage in double loop learning (De Treville and Antonakis 2006, p.114), a term that will be discussed in section 2.4.

Bateman and colleagues’ (Bateman and David 2002; Bateman and Rich 2003; Bateman 2005) explored process improvement via the implementation of Lean techniques. By engaging with government-funded initiatives (Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders), firms received support to improve operational processes in order to improve the competitiveness of British Manufacturers (IndustryForum 2012). Support consisted of tuition in Lean tools such as waste reduction (seven forms), workplace management (5S) and value stream mapping, amongst others, applied via Deming’s (1994) PDCA improvement cycle (Bateman and David 2002). By providing a relatively controlled sample of firms pursuing improvement and receiving relatively standard support, the work allowed the identification of inhibitors and enablers that determined whether improvement activities became embedded (Bateman and Rich 2003). Improvements became embedded once improvements were sustained and further process improvements were carried out following the removal of external support. Consistent with earlier work on quality management (Handfield and Melnyk, 1998) and work on continuous improvement (Bessant et al. 2001), culture and management support were considered critical to the success of process improvement activities (Bateman 2005).

Unlike the work conducted on Six Sigma, Bateman’s work was empirically richer, covering 40 improvement activities across 22 companies. However, without a strong theoretical underpinning, the work did not explore the underlying mechanisms behind the identified enablers and inhibitors of process improvement. For example, drawing from De Treville and Antonakis (2006), while resources may have appeared to enable further improvements, the role of individual motivation was overlooked. The work also overlooked the potential impact of the ‘Hawthorne effect’, where the act of measuring performance resulted in performance improvement that was acknowledged in later work (Done et al. 2011). Alternatively, improvements may have been supported and enabled by the resources from the external body and motivated by customer participation in improvement activities. Herzberg (1968) stated that an important way of controlling for this effect was to include control subjects where no intervention took place, which was

37

not done within Bateman’s work. This can be observed in the results of Bateman (2005, p.264), where the level of improvement reduced overtime for some of the firm involved in the research. Done et al. (2011) partially addressed this issue by exploring how firms balanced short-, medium- and long-term outcomes of best practice interventions. However, without building upon a theoretical foundation, Done et al.’s (2011) findings were broadly consistent with those presented by Bateman and Rich (2003, p. 194).

What the finer grained exploration of Done et al. (2011) made possible was the identification of additional practices that affected the success of best practice interventions, which included rewards and recognitions. Done et al. (2011) stated that rewards in the short term promoted longer-term improvements in the effectiveness of interventions. Complimenting this view was practitioners sources, where exemplar cases consistently referred to the enrolment of practitioners in further training programmes (IndustryForum 2012). While the best practice intervention pursues a different approach to Six Sigma, this finding is consistent with Anand et al. (2009). They presented the importance of linking process improvement goals with individual career progression in order to sustain improvement initiatives. Training of this form may have also provided individuals with the skills necessary for solving more complex problems that had to be pursued once the basic tools had been applied and the simpler problems has been solved (Linderman et al. 2003).