El protagonismo de la comarca en las épocas de inestabilidad y sus limitacio nes como sector refugio

An intriguing issue arises when we start to examine assessment of the Lean state of organisations. Traditionally, assessment in business is aimed at standardisation (e.g.

engineering) and performance (e.g. operations and finance). Drucker has been quoted to say that ‘If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it’ (Hesselberth, 2008). Perhaps atypical and in contrast Deming, cited in Graff (1991) states that "It is nonsense to say that if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it". Deming quotes an example of productivity measurement and makes the case that productivity measurement does not improve productivity (Deming, 1986). This appears quite contrary to his philosophy of measurement. Deming was after all a statistician and promoted statistics to improve quality and performance (Deming, 1975). The apparent contradiction does not devaluate Deming’s statements to the scholars of his work and are quite reconcilable.

A brief preamble on the use of the words ‘measurement’, ‘assessment’ and ‘evaluation’ may clarify the use during this brief discourse. It is accepted that ‘measurement’ is often but not exclusively used in an accounting context, where ‘assessment’ and ‘evaluation’ are more often used as an appraisal of non-financial indicators. For the purpose of this section, this common use is mostly maintained, however there may be some cross-over between the terms where they relate better to original texts or appear more appropriate.

In the true Lean philosophy it may not be important to assess how Lean the organisation is as long as it continues to improve the system and its processes to create value for the customer. In reality however, business managers like to know where they are. Neely provides ample reason for performance measurement (1999) in a rapidly changing world. Evaluation of Lean and indeed, if a company measures as Lean, is no guarantee that the business performs. There may be correlational and even causal effects that need addressing. Bourne et al (2000) and Kaplan and Norton (1998) assert that measurement results serve as a tool to assist refocusing on the organisation’s strategy. The principle for performance measurement should be based

Page 84 of 372

on the philosophy that improvements in non-financial measures drive financial performance, while financial performance indicators are ‘lag’ indicators, reporting on the past (Kaplan and Norton, 2001).

A simple truth is that businesses generally tend to assess the annual or quarterly bottom line, and that is quite harmful to Lean transformation (Maskell and Kennedy, 2007). Maskell and Kennedy (2007, p63) quote Fiume and Cunningham, both CFOs of effective lean

manufacturers, who state that

“The average recipient of a standard cost-based profit and loss statement does not understand the document in his hands. It communicates nothing. Worse still, for those few that do understand it, these statements fail to give meaningful information about what is really happening in the operation.” The reasons for the failure of conventional measurement are exquisitely summarised by Bhasin (2008). Because financial statements tell the story too late, we need to address Lean measurement. Lean assessment intends to give regular information on what is really

happening. Mahidhar (1998) emphasises the importance of properly designed measurements to support Lean enterprise transformation.

A number of philosophies and tools have been developed over the years. Bhasin (2008) believes that organisations must adopt more holistic performance assessment systems as Lean benefits are not always obvious. He looks at several different assessment systems and combines these into a Dynamic Multi-Dimensional Performance (DMP) model which considers success dimensions and balanced scorecard dimensions in four different time perspectives from very short term to very long term. He follows this up with a table representing both technical and cultural elements (Bhasin, 2008), without transforming the table into an actual tool. Shah and Ward (2007) develop a multi-dimensional model of Lean, using three

underlying constructs (supplier related, customer related and internally related) as main groups for a restricted number of defined Lean elements. They too develop a model but do not transform it into a usable instrument.

For organisations that are adopting the Lean paradigm, it is important to have regular indications of being on the right track. It would be futile to wait for the end-of-year financial

Page 85 of 372

performance or even regular financial performance numbers. These organisations need assessment methods that are readily observable and can be made visual on very short terms

to affect employees’ behaviour. Although non-financial measures are difficult to establish (Allio, 2006, in Bhasin, 2008) and there is a lack of established and validated instruments for measuring ‘leanness’ within an organisation (Grigg et al, 2010), there are several useful instruments to assist the organisation.

Kobayashi developed ‘20 Keys to Workplace Improvement’ (1995) which combines twenty inter-related areas that impact quality and costs for organisations and provides descriptive and five-point rateable steps within each of the 20 keys. The keys are based on his ‘Practical Program of Revolutions in Factories’ (PPORF) and the book itself provides useful

recommendations to move from one level within a key to the next. Although the 20 keys have been designed as very practical steps, Kobayashi emphasises the need for a broader base and commitment within the whole organisation. An example of the model is found in figure 2-21, while Appendix 4 provides a relational summary of all 20 keys.