A model for evaluating the degree of leanness of

manufacturing firms
Horacio Soriano-Meier
Universidad de Los Andes, Merida, Venezuela
Paul L. Forrester
Department of Commerce, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
Introduction to the concept of
``leanness''
Since the publication of the lean production
thesis (Womack et al., 1990) interest in the
concept of leanness has grown and further
evolved into notions of agility and
responsiveness. The lean concept has many
appeals for the practitioner: it aggregates
related principles of improvement via TQM,
synchronicity and coordination via just-in-
time management, and integration via
computer-aided processes to the areas of
design, factory management, supply and
distribution (see Forrester et al., 1996). It is
important that lean manufacturing can only
be achieved through time, and that it is not
possible to use it as a panacea to solve short-
term competitive problems (Womack and
Jones, 1996). So lean manufacturing is best
viewed strategically as a formidable weapon
in increasingly competitive markets
(So derkist and Motwani, 1999). Theoretically
and critically lean production also has appeal
to academics. It represents a natural
progression from Fordist mass production,
though there has also been debate on the
extent to which it represents a new paradigm
(Williams et al., 1992). Elements representing
the implementation of lean manufacturing
are evident across sectors, but the pace of
change is dramatically different and the
specific outcomes vary company by company
(Kochan et al., 1997). Despite this interest,
however, there have been few attempts to
precisely define leanness in an operational
context or model leanness with a view to
developing an instrument to measure the
extent of its adoption in particular firms.
In developing a clear definition of what
exactly comprises leanness, the authors
relied upon the model developed by Karlsson
and A

hlstro m (1996) that operationalises the

principles of lean production. Nine variables
of leanness were thus identified, namely: the
elimination of waste (EW), continuous
improvement (CI), zero defects (ZD), JIT
deliveries (JIT), pull of materials (PULL),
multifunctional teams (MFT),
decentralisation (DEC), integration of
functions (IF), and vertical information
systems (VIS). Our research also
incorporated the measurement of managerial
commitment to lean production based on a
model developed by Boyer (1996).
The tableware sector of the UK ceramic
industry was chosen as the setting for the
present research because fundamental
theoretical, methodological and practical
factors made it a suitable selection. The main
purpose of this study is to assess whether
lean production can be applied to any
industry, including craft production sectors,
as hypothesised by Womack et al. (1990). The
tableware sector of the ceramic industry is
ideal for examining this theoretical issue.
Previous research in the use of lean
production practices exists for the
automobile industry (Womack et al., 1990),
and in the electronics, auto supply,
machinery and mechanical sectors (Forza,
1996). However, the tableware sector is
characterised by a craftsmanship type of
production and this makes the sector an
interesting choice for research, to test the
generalisation made by Womack et al. (1990).
The rationale behind this choice is to
examine whether lean production practices
can be applied to craft production, and if so,
to what extent. By offering a case study that
is different from the types of industries
examined in previous research, the present
study will help assess the level of
generalisability of Womack et al.'s assertion.
In so doing, this study extends theoretical
understanding of lean production. From a
methodological perspective, because no
similar research has been conducted before
on a craftsmanship industry, the study also
offers opportunities for new insights. First,
there was a need to create an appropriate
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-6061.htm
[ 104]
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
13/2 [2002] 104109
# MCB UP Limited
[ISSN 0957-6061]
[DOI 10.1108/09576060210415437]
Keywords
Lean production,
Manufacturing strategy,
Ceramics industry, Modelling
Abstract
Clarifies the concept of lean
manufacturing and what it
comprises. Commences with a
review of the lean production
literature and, specifically, existing
models that identify the variables
and component elements of lean
production firms. Presents a
research instrument for measuring
the degree of leanness possessed
by manufacturing firms. Research
questions were developed and
incorporated into structured survey
questionnaires for both
manufacturing directors and
managing directors that enabled a
quantitative assessment to be
made for the various components
of leanness. The survey was
completed by over 30 firms in the
UK ceramics tableware industry
and so represents a comprehensive
overview of the state of play in that
sector. The figures derived allowed
for hypotheses testing and a
quantitative analysis. Presents
selected results and conclusions
from the current survey to illustrate
the application and usefulness of
the instrument. Argues that,
though developed specifically for
the tableware industry, the
research instrument can be
adapted for use in other industries.
Received: August 2000
Accepted: October 2001
instrument for data collection for the
tableware industry, specifically tailored to
assess the adoption of lean production
principles in this particular industrial
sector.
Research design and methodology
The main research tool used in the study of
the tableware industry was a survey, and it is
prescribed that this survey, in adapted
format, can be deployed for data collection in
future studies testing the leanness of
manufacturing firms. This survey was also
supplemented with structured short
interviews, external and internal secondary
data and plant observation to increase
familiarity with the tableware industry and
triangulate any results derived for the study
for validation purposes. The aim in deploying
the survey was to examine the relationship
between the main components of the
Karlsson and A

hlstro m conceptual
framework presented above, the adoption of
lean production principles, and managerial
commitment to lean production. Because the
relevant data were not available in secondary
form, primary data collection was necessary.
The data generated also enabled the testing of
a number of research hypotheses. For the
purpose of this paper we will concentrate on:
H1. Firms which claim a high degree of
managerial commitment to lean
production programmes (as measured
by commitment to JIT and TQM
programmes) simultaneously support
this commitment with investments in
the supporting manufacturing
infrastructure (SMI)[1], as measured
by quality leadership (QLEAD), group
problem solving (GROUP), training
(TRAIN), and worker empowerment
(WEMP).
H2. Firms that claim to have adopted lean
production principles (as measured by
degree of adoption, DOA) have been
making actual changes in the direction
of the lean production principles (as
measured by elimination of waste,
continuous improvement, zero defects,
JIT deliveries, pull of raw materials,
multifunctional teams,
decentralisation, integration of
functions, and vertical information
systems).
H3. Firms that have made, in tandem,
investments in the SMI and actual
changes in the direction of the
principles of lean production are
better performers.
The unit of analysis in the study was the
firm. The sources of information were at two
levels of the organisation: top management
(usually chief executive level) and
production and operations managers. A
different questionnaire was administered to
each level. Questionnaire one, addressed to
production and operations managers, was
used to gauge the extent of adoption of lean
production principles. Questionnaire two,
directed to managing directors/CEOs, was
used to measure the level of commitment of
management to lean production. Both
questionnaires were self-administered in the
presence of the researcher. The two groups of
questionnaires measured different variables
and, therefore, were analysed independently.
A short structured interview was conducted
during the meeting to gather more
information about the firm and the manager.
In addition, 14 plant visits were scheduled
and carried out. The objective was to observe
the production process closely. Information
about performance was considered a very
sensitive and confidential matter for the
majority of firms and a pilot study showed
that it was difficult to obtain through a
survey. Therefore, two approaches were
applied in order to collect the required data.
First, the annual accounts were requested
from an internal source at the firm (the
managing directors). However, few agreed to
provide them. Second, external data from an
independent source, Companies House
Search, was acquired to gather available
public financial information about each of
the firms surveyed.
The population was defined as ``firms with
35 employees or more, included in the listings
maintained by Business Link Staffordshire
under the headings `vitreous china table/
kitchen products' and `fine earthenware
table/kitchen products'.'' A list of 45 firms
with these characteristics was provided. A
basic assumption of the study was that the
surveyed firms could have as few as 35
employees for the new production paradigm
to be viable. The rationale for this is that a
typical process in this industry contains six
steps
1 preparation of the clay;
2 moulding and drying;
3 firing;
4 decorating and glazing;
5 firing;
6 and packing.
If at least five workers were assigned to each
step, it would add up to 30 workers. In
addition to these workers, the firm would
also need at least five administrative staff,
including managers and clerks, for a total of
[ 105]
Horacio Soriano-Meier and
Paul L. Forrester
A model for evaluating the
degree of leanness of
manufacturing firms
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
13/2 [2002] 104109
35 employees. ``The Potteries'', in North
Staffordshire, is known traditionally as the
heart of ceramic tableware production in the
UK, as it is here where the vast majority of
tableware production sites are located. Three
experts from CERAM plc (formerly the
British Ceramic Research Institute) revised
the list provided by Business Link
Staffordshire. They excluded firms that were
no longer in business, companies in the same
group, and companies from other sectors
wrongly included in the list (e.g.
miscellaneous products and refractories).
They also included other firms that were not
in the list which, in their opinion, were
relevant to the study. The revised list
contained 36 firms. All of these firms were
contacted and 33 agreed to participate. All
completed the two questionnaires (except for
one firm's managing director who did not
collaborate). The response rate was therefore
over 90 per cent, which is exceptionally high
compared to previous similar research in
other industries (see, for example, Forza,
1996).
Operational measures used in
Questionnaire One (operations
managers)
This questionnaire was designed specifically
to measure the variables related to the
assessment of the adoption of lean production
principles. It was administered in person by
the researcher to the senior production
managers of the participating firms. The
questionnaire measured two dependent and
nine independent variables, as follows. The
first dependent variable, ``degree of adoption
of lean production principles'' (DOA), was
measured by asking the respondents to: ``Rate
the degree of adoption of the following lean
production principles'', followed by a list of
nine principles. The respondents rated their
answers on a seven-point scale with scores
ranging from 1 (No adoption) to 7 (Total
adoption), with a score of 4 (Partial adoption)
as the middle point of the scale. The mean
and the standard deviation were computed
with the scores of these nine answers. The
mean is the value of the dependent variable
DOA. The second dependent variable,
``degree of leanness'' (DOL), was measured as
the mean value of the nine separate variables
in the model developed and tested by (1996).
This model was intended to measure the
adoption of lean production practices
concerned with work organisation in the
production and operation function. These
nine principles of lean production identified
by Karlsson and A

hlstro m and listed

previously serve as nine independent
variables. Theoretically derived indicators
(determinants) lying behind each of these
principles were developed. Operationalised
indicators (measurements) that had been
found to be suitable for use in assessing
changes towards lean production were also
developed. Each indicator shows the
direction of the changes undertaken by the
firm.
Operationalised measures used in
Questionnaire Two (MDs/CEOs)
This questionnaire was used to measure the
variables related to the assessment of the
managerial commitment to lean production.
It was administered in person by the
researcher to each of the managing
directors/CEOs of the participating firms.
The questionnaire measured two dependent
and four independent variables. The
dependent variables were ``commitment to
JIT'' and ``commitment to TQM
programmes''. These were measured by
asking the respondents the question: ``Rate
management commitment to the following
programmes'', followed by the two
programmes, JIT and TQM. The respondents
rated management commitment to each
programme on a seven-point Likert scale,
with 1 representing no commitment, 4
representing a partial commitment, and 7
representing a total commitment to both JIT
and TQM. The independent variables quality
leadership (QLEAD), group problem solving
(GROUP), training (TRAIN), and worker
empowerment (WEMP) were measured. The
respondents rated their answers for the first
three variables on a seven-point Likert scale
with scores ranging from 1 (Strongly
disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree), with a score of
4 (Neither agree nor disagree) as the neutral
point of the scale. The fourth variable,
WEMP, was also measured by means of a
seven-point Likert scale but the headings of
the scores were different, ranging from 1 (No
emphasis), 4 (Moderate emphasis) to 7
(Extreme emphasis). This questionnaire to
measure managerial commitment to lean
production was adopted with little
modification from the model of Boyer (1996)
who examined four infrastructure
investments considered to be important for
supporting a JIT or TQM program and
which, he argues, contribute to increased
productivity. These were quality leadership,
group problem solving, training and worker
empowerment.
[ 106]
Horacio Soriano-Meier and
Paul L. Forrester
A model for evaluating the
degree of leanness of
manufacturing firms
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
13/2 [2002] 104109
Results and hypotheses testing
from the Tableware study
H1. Firms which claim a high degree of
managerial commitment to lean
production programmes (as measured by
commitment to JIT and TQM
programmes) simultaneously support
this commitment with investments in the
supporting manufacturing
infrastructure, SMI, as measured by
quality leadership (QLEAD), group
problem solving (GROUP), training
(TRAIN), and worker empowerment
(WEMP).
The results from the survey data in relations
to these variables are shown in Table I.
Cronbach's coefficient Alpha was used to
assess inter-item reliability, with alpha
values of 0.7 or higher considered to indicate
acceptable reliabilities for established scales.
All Alphas exceed this threshold. About 41
per cent (13 out of 32) of the firms have a
commitment rating of 5, 6 or 7 for JIT, which
indicates a moderate degree of emphasis
placed on JIT programmes. In contrast, about
69 per cent (22 out of 32) of the firms had a
commitment rating of 5, 6 or 7 to TQM, which
shows a very strong emphasis on TQM
programmes. The correlations between each
of the SMI variables and management
commitment to JIT are all significant
(p < 0.05). QLEAD has the largest correlation,
highly significant (p < 0.01). Similarly, the
correlations between each of the SMI
variables and management commitment to
TQM are all highly significant (p < 0.01), with
QLEAD having the largest correlation.
Regression analyses were used to
determine the strength of the relationship
between the SMI variables and each of the
commitments. For JIT, QLEAD accounts for
28 per cent of the variance in JIT and is
highly significant (p < 0.01). No other
variable entered the equation. For TQM, two
variables entered the model: QLEAD
explains 64 per cent of the variance in TQM
followed by WEMP with 13 per cent, and both
are highly significant (p < 0.01). The complete
model explains 77 per cent of the variance in
TQM and is significant at p < 0.01. Taken
together, therefore, these findings provide
support for H1.
H2. Firms that claim to have adopted lean
production principles (as measured by
degree of adoption, DOA) have been
making actual changes in the direction
of the lean production principles (as
measured by elimination of waste
(EW), continuous improvement (CI),
zero defects (ZD), JIT deliveries (JIT),
pull of raw materials (PULL),
multifunctional teams (MFT),
decentralisation (DEC), integration of
functions (IF), and vertical
information systems (VIS).
About 58 per cent (19 out of 33) claim to have
adopted the lean production principles
(scores 4), which indicates a high degree of
emphasis on the adoption of lean principles.
Overall reliabilities of the scales of the nine
principles of lean production show moderate
to high Alphas (see Table II). The
correlations between each of the principles
and the degree of adoption (DOA) are all
significant except for PULL and IF. EW, CI,
MFT, DEC and VIS are highly significant
(p < 0.01); ZD, and JIT are significant as well
(p < 0.05). VI and CI have the largest
correlations. Regression for DOA shows VI as
the first variable to enter the equation. It
explains 40 per cent of the variance in DOA
and is significant at p < 0.01. CI also enters
the equation and accounts for 13 per cent of
the variance significant at p < 0.01. The
combination of the two variables explains 53
per cent of the variance in DOA and is
significant at p < 0.01. These findings provide
support for H2.
H3. Firms that have made, in tandem,
investments in the SMI and actual
changes in the direction of the
principles of lean production are
better performers.
Degree of leanness (DOL) was measured as
the average of the actual changes taking
place between 1998 and 1995 (as measured by
the nine principles of lean production).
Degree of commitment (DOC) was measured
by the level of investment in SMI (as
measured by QLEAD, GROUP, TRAIN and
WEMP). PERFORMANCE was measured by
the Sales per Employee ratio and the Asset
turnover ratio (see Table III).
Regression for performance shows that
DOL is the most important variable,
explaining 18.4 per cent of the variance in
performance and is significant at p < 0.01.
Cluster analysis was used to classify firms
Table I
Results pertaining to commitment and the
supporting manufacturing infrastructure
Scale Mean SD Cronbach's Alpha
Commitment to JIT 4.03 1.45
Commitment to TQM 5.13 1.41
QLEAD 5.11 1.27 0.79
WEMP 4.78 0.85 0.81
GROUP 4.57 1.95 0.92
TRAIN 4.44 1.13 0.71
[ 107]
Horacio Soriano-Meier and
Paul L. Forrester
A model for evaluating the
degree of leanness of
manufacturing firms
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
13/2 [2002] 104109
into relatively homogeneous groups based on
the two variables considered DOL and DOC.
From the data two groups or clusters
emerged: cluster 1 (labelled TRADITIONAL)
with 12 firms and cluster 2 (labelled NON-
TRADITIONAL). In order to refine the
classification obtained with cluster analysis,
the NON-TRADITIONAL group of firms was
further divided into two groups: LEAN and
IN-TRANSITION firms. As indicated in
Table IV, LEAN firms met the condition of
having above-average DOC and DOL scores;
IN-TRANSITION were those with above-
average scores in either DOC or DOL.
TRADITIONAL were defined as those whose
means were lower than the average DOL and
DOC scores.
This procedure gave the following results:
25 per cent of the firms were LEAN (eight out
of 32), 37.5 per cent were IN-TRANSITION (12
out of 32) and 37.5 per cent were
TRADITIONAL (12 out of 32). One-way
ANOVAs, followed by Tukey's HSD
procedure, were performed on the DOL, DOC
and PERFORM means to test H3. LEAN-firms
means are significantly higher than those of
TRADITIONAL-firms for all of the three
variables indicating that LEAN-firms show
significantly higher DOL, DOC and
PERFORM. LEAN-firms have significantly
higher DOL than IN-TRANSITION-firms, and
higher means for DOC and PERFORM.
However these are not statistically
significant. Taken together, these findings
provide support for H3.
Conclusions
There have been many advocates and many
critics of lean manufacturing. However little
has been done to operationalise and measure
its adoption in an organisational context. The
aim of this paper has been to clarify and
operationalise the concept of lean
manufacturing, and to develop and test a
model that can evaluate the degree of
leanness possessed by manufacturing firms.
The results have provided support to the
three proposed hypotheses. The findings
show that:
.
there is a strong relationship between
managerial commitment to JIT/ TQM and
investments in the supporting
manufacturing infrastructure;
.
there is a correlation between firms'
claims to the adoption of lean production
and actual changes made in this direction;
and
.
there is a positive relationship between
investments in SMI and actual changes
towards lean principles, and performance.
The main finding is that lean production has
been applied successfully in the tableware
industry. This has implications for theory as
it helps to validate the generalisation made
by Womack et al., that lean production can be
applied in any type of industry including
craft manufacturing sectors. This paper has
practical implications for managers as it
provides a means to help the firm to measure
its degree of commitment to lean production
via TQM and JIT programmes, and its degree
of adoption of lean principles. Finally, it is
important to remark that lean
manufacturing is not a panacea to solve
short-term competitive problems, and that its
effects can only be seen in the long term. This
paper has provided an instrument to
measure the adoption of lean manufacturing,
which can help to assess its value from a
strategic perspective. More research is
needed to make use of the tool in different
industries in order to be able to clarify the
controversy over lean manufacturing. In this
way, the benefits and the limitations will be
exposed more explicitly than so far. In our
opinion, there still remains a large future
research agenda relating to the lean debate.
Table II
Results pertaining to degree of adoption of lean production principles
Scale Mean SD Cronbach's Alpha
Degree of adoption (DOA) 4.13 0.89 0.77
1) Elimination of waste (EW) 4.35 0.67 0.85
2) Continuous improvement (CI) 4.10 1.33 0.72
3) Zero defects (ZD) 4.47 0.93 0.68
4) Just in time deliveries (JIT) 4.19 0.79 0.53
5) Pull of raw materials (PULL) 3.97 0.95 0.61
6) Multifunctional teams (MTF) 4.53 0.71 0.77
7) Decentralisation (DEC) 3.86 0.75 0.70
8) Integration of functions (IF) 4.14 1.20 0.35
9) Vertical information systems (VIF) 4.58 0.90 0.70
Table III
Degrees of leanness, commitment and performance levels
Variable Mean SD CORR with DOC CORR with PERF
DOL 4.24 0.54 0.52* 0.44*
DOC 4.72 1.06 0.43*
PERF 3.80 1.79 0.43*
Note: * p < 0.01
Table IV
Lean, in-transition and traditional firms
1 = Lean firms for DOL > 4.24 and DOC > 4.72
2 = In transition for DOL 4.24 and DOC 4.72 or
for DOL 4.24 and DOC 4.72
3 = Traditional for DOL < 4.24 and DOC < 4.72
[ 108]
Horacio Soriano-Meier and
Paul L. Forrester
A model for evaluating the
degree of leanness of
manufacturing firms
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
13/2 [2002] 104109
Note
1 SMI is the ``human/organizational
infrastructure'' that supports manufacturing.
References
Boyer, K.K. (1996), ``Longitudinal linkages between
intended and realized operations strategies'',
International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 18 No. 4.
Forrester, P.L., Hassard, J.S. and Lilley, S. (1996),
``Pulling it together and pushing it out: people
and practices in `post-modern' production'',
Proceedings of 2nd International Managing
Innovative Manufacturing Conference,
Leicester, June.
Forza, C. (1996), ``Work organization in lean
production and traditional plants: what are
the differences?'', International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16
No. 2.
Karlsson, C. and A

hlstro m, P. (1996), ``Assessing

changes towards lean production''
International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 16 no. 2,
pp. 24-41..
Kochan, T., Lansbury, R. and MacDuffie, J.P.
(1997), After Lean Production, Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, NY.
So derkist, K. and Motwani, J. (1999), ``Quality
issues in lean production implementation'',
Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 No. 8.
Williams, K., Haslam, C., Williams, J., Cutler, T.,
Adcroft, A. and Johal, S. (1992), ``Against lean
production'', Economy and Society, Vol. 21
No. 3.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean
Thinking, Touchstone Books, London.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, J. (1990), The
Machine that Changed the World, Macmillan,
New York, NY.
[ 109]
Horacio Soriano-Meier and
Paul L. Forrester
A model for evaluating the
degree of leanness of
manufacturing firms
Integrated Manufacturing
Systems
13/2 [2002] 104109