Lean manufacturing concept, application, limitations- an

overview
 Table of Contents
Abstract......................................................................................................................................3

Chapter 1: Introduction..............................................................................................................4

2. Various reported definitions of LM...................................................................................8

II. Objectives of the Paper:...................................................................................................10

III. Results and Discussions.................................................................................................11

Problem formulation and purpose........................................................................................13

Delimitations........................................................................................................................14

Thesis structure....................................................................................................................15

Chapter 2: Theory....................................................................................................................16

2. Theory..............................................................................................................................16

2.1 What is Lean..................................................................................................................17

2.2 Origin of Lean................................................................................................................18

2.3 Lean Manufacturing implementation checkpoints.........................................................20

2.3.1 Lean principles............................................................................................................22

2.3.2 Lean Tools...................................................................................................................25

2.4 Factors that inhibit Lean.................................................................................................28

2.5 Process industry characteristics and prospects of LM implementation.........................29

2.6 Formulating research Hypotheses..................................................................................34

2.7 Summary........................................................................................................................39

Chapter 3: Methodology..........................................................................................................40

3.1 Literature review............................................................................................................40

3.1.1 Limitations of the period of study...............................................................................41

3.1.2 Nature of literature review..........................................................................................42

3.2 Interview: Interpersonal and questionnaire-based.........................................................42

3.3 Case study Analysis.......................................................................................................45

Chapter 4: Results....................................................................................................................48
 4. Results..............................................................................................................................48

4.1 Literature case study analysis.........................................................................................50

4.1.1 Glass and Ceramics.....................................................................................................50

Chapter 5- Conclusion..............................................................................................................52

References................................................................................................................................62
Abstract

Purpose – The advent of recession at the beginning of twenty-first century forced many

organizations worldwide to reduce cost and to be more responsive to customer demands.

Lean Manufacturing (LM) has been widely perceived by industry as an answer to these

requirements because LM reduces waste without additional requirements of resources. This

led to a spurt in LM research across the globe mostly through empirical and exploratory

studies which resulted in a plethora of LM definitions with divergent scopes, objectives,

performance indicators, tools/techniques/methodologies, and concepts/elements. The purpose

of this paper is to review LM literature and report these divergent definitions, scopes,

objectives, and tools/techniques/methodologies.

Design/methodology/approach – This paper highlights various definitions by various

researchers and practitioners. A total of 209 research papers have been reviewed for the

research contribution, research methodology adopted, tools/techniques/methodologies used,

type of industry, author profile, country of research, and year of publication.

Findings – There are plethora of LM definitions with divergent objectives and scope. Theory

verification through empirical and exploratory studies has been the focus of research in LM.
Automotive industry has been the focus of LM research but LM has also been adopted by

other types of industries also. One of the critical implementation factors of LM is

simultaneous adoption of leanness in supply chain. LM has become an integrated system

composed of highly integrated elements and a wide variety of management practices. There is

lack of standard LM implementation process/framework.

Originality/value – The paper reviews 209 research papers for their research contribution,

research methodology, author profile, type of industry, and tools/techniques/methodology

used. Various characteristics of LM definitions are also reviewed.

Keywords Lean manufacturing, Lean production, Lean literature review

Paper type Literature review

Chapter 1: Introduction

Twenty-first century manufacturing is characterized by customized products. This has led to

the complex production planning and control systems making mass production of goods

challenging. Many organizations, particularly automotive organizations, struggled in the new

customer driven and globally competitive markets. These factors present a big challenge to

organizations to look for new tools and methods to continue moving up the ladder in the
changed market scenario. While some organizations continued to grow on the basis of

economic constancy, others struggled because of their lack of understanding of the changed

customer mind-sets and cost practices. To overcome this situation and to become more

profitable, many manufacturers turned to “lean manufacturing” (LM). The goal of LM is to

be highly responsive to customer demand by reducing waste. LM aims at producing products

and services at the lowest cost and as fast as required by the customer. The lean concept

originated in Japan after the second world war when Japanese manufacturers realized that

they could not afford the massive investment required to rebuild devastated facilities. Toyota

produced automobiles with lesser inventory, human effort, investment, and defects and

introduced a greater and ever growingvariety of products. LM gives the manufacturers a

competitive edge by reducing cost and improving productivity and quality. Various authors

have documented quantitative benefits of lean implementation such as improvement in

production lead time, processing time, cycle time, set up time, inventory, defects and scrap,

and overall equipment effectiveness. The various qualitative benefits include improved

employee morale, effective communication, job satisfaction, standardized housekeeping,

team decision making, etc. The generic term “LM” came into existence from the International

Motor Vehicle Programme researchers of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The

project was focussed to bridge the significant performance gap between Western and

Japanese automotive industries. Womack et al. (1990) through their book The Machine that

Changed the World popularized lean concept in manufacturing. In early 1990s LM concept

was viewed as a counter-intuitive alternative to traditional Fordism manufacturing model

(Womack et al., 1990). The modern concept of LM/management can be traced to the Toyota

Production System (TPS), pioneered by Japanese engineers Taiichi Ohno and Shigeo Shingo.

Sugimori et al. (1977) portray TPS made of two components – Just-In-Time (JIT) production

system and a respect-for-human system – with focus on active employee participation and

elimination of wasted movements by workers. Monden (1983) introduced the JIT concepts to

a broad audience in the USA emphasizing the importance of small lot sizes, mixed model

production, multifunction workers, preventive maintenance, and JIT delivery by suppliers.

TPS itself has undergone tremendous improvement during its journey over the last 40 years

(Spear, 2004). The economic success of Japanese companies in the 1980s can also be

attributed to the customized integrated application of TQM (Basu, 2001). Toyota was one of

the leading Japanese companies which started statistical quality control in 1949 (Dahlgaard

and Park, 2006). In a nutshell, it can be said that lean practices were implemented based on

several ideologies that appeared prior to it such as JIT (Monden, 1983), Zero Inventories
(Hall, 1983), Japanese Manufacturing Techniques (Schonberger, 1982), and TPS (Ohno,

1979; Monden, 1983). LM over the time has seen a lot of transformations which have been

discussed by contributors such as Womack et al. (1990), Womack and Jones (1996), Oliver et

al. (1996), Delbridge (1998), Shah and Ward (2003), Delbridge et al. (2000), Bicheno (2004),

Hines et al. (2004), Holweg (2007), Bhasin (2008), etc. Institutes like Cardiff Business

School, SLOAN Management Institute at MIT, Cambridge-MIT Institute’s Centre for

Competitiveness and Innovation are pioneers in championing the LM knowledge. Many

books have also been published by different authors such as Oliver et al. (1994), Womack

and Jones (1996), Delbridge (1998, 2003), Pascal (2002), Liker (2004), Mann (2005), etc. to

enrich the knowledge of lean after the seminal work done by Womack et al. (1990) in the

book; The Machine That Changed the World. LM is generally described from two points of

view, either from a philosophical perspective related to guiding principles and overarching

goals (Womack and Jones, 1996; Spear and Bowen, 1999), or from the practical perspective

of a set of management practices, tools, or techniques that can be observed directly (Shah and

Ward, 2003). The paper is structured as: Section 2 presents the reported definitions of LM.

Section 3 presents a review of 209 research papers on LM. Sections 4 and 5 present the
descriptive and critical analyses of the review respectively. Conclusions and future research

issues are given in Section 6.

2. Various reported definitions of LM

This section presents a compilation of the various reported definitions of LM with

connotation. Principles of lean thinking have been broadly accepted by many

production/operation managers and have been applied successfully across many disciplines.

Some researchers and practitioners across the world have studied and commented on LM

definitions. Intention is to compile the scholarly definitions of LM showing how the

principles, objectives, and scope of LM have changed overtime (1988- 2012). Pettersen

(2009) compared the contemporary literature and concluded that there is no consensus on a

definition of LM among the authors. The authors also seem to have different opinions on

which characteristics should be associated with the lean concept. This paper presents lean

definitions reflecting the changing goals, principles, and scope (Table I). From the above

definitions it is clear that lean may be a way (Storch and Lim, 1999; Howell, 1999), a process

(Womack et al., 1990), a set of principles (Womack et al., 1990), a set of tools and techniques

(Bicheno, 2004), an approach (NIST, 2000; Taj and Morosan, 2011), a concept (Naylor et al.,

1999), a philosophy (Liker, 1996; Cox and Blackstone, 1998; Singh, 1998; Comm and
Mathaisel, 2000; Liker and Wu, 2000; Alukal, 2003; Holweg, 2007; Shah and Ward, 2007;

De Treville and Antonakis, 2006), a practice (Framework of the LAI, MIT, 2000; Simpson

and Power, 2005), a system (Womack and Jones, 1994; Cooper, 1996; Shah and ward, 2007;

Hopp and Spearman, 2004), a program (Hallgren and Olhager, 2009), a manufacturing

paradigm (Rothstein, 2004; Seth and Gupta, 2005), or a model (Alves et al., 2012). Scope of

LM includes product development (Krafcik, 1988), operations management (Narasimhan et

al., 2006), total supply chain (Womack et al., 1990; Singh, 1998; Naylor et al., 1999; Comm

and Mathaisel, 2000; Cooney, 2002), human design element (Shah and Ward, 2003),

manufacturing paradigm (Rothstein, 2004; Seth and Gupta, 2005), market demand, and

environment changes (Alves et al., 2012). Various goals for which LM is implemented are –

to get large variety of products with fever defects (Krafcik, 1988), to integrate product

development, supply chain management, and operation management (Womack et al., 1990),

to reduce cost/produce more with less (Hayes and Pisano, 1994), to reduce time to delivery

(Liker’s, 1996), to level the production schedule (Naylor et al., 1999), to improve quality at

low cost (Liker and Wu, 2000), to remove waste from system (Worley, 2004), to maximize

capacity and minimize inventory (De Treville and Antonakis, 2006), to improve productivity

and quality (Bhamu et al., 2012), to achieve agility (Alves et al., 2012), etc. It is clear that
there is an absence of common definition of the concept. This lack of clarity is evident from

multiplicity of descriptions and terms used with respect to LM (Shah and Ward, 2007). The

ambiguity exists because LM evolved over a time (Womack et al., 1990; Spear and Bowen,

1999; Hopp and Spearman, 2004; Shah and ward, 2007). Confusion of definition also exists

due to substantive disagreement about what comprises LM and how it can be measured

operationally (Shah and Ward, 2007).

Lean manufacturing is an important tool used across the industries in the recent scenario. At

present the industries are facing a higher level of competition because of the globalization. In

this context, to remain and compete in the market, companies need to deploy certain tools and

techniques which are useful to the uplift their performance and to respond rapidly to the

customer‘s needs. The fundamental concept of lean manufacturing is to provide a quality

product while also ensuring that the product does not cost too much to the customer. In this

paper an attempt has been made to present a review of the literature to identify the important

and useful contributions to this Lean concept. Lean manufacturing utilizes a wide range of

tools and techniques; the choice of tools is based on the requirement. Many parameters

contribute success of lean. Organizations which implemented lean manufacturing have higher
level of flexibility and competitiveness. However, lean manufacturing provides an

environment that is highly conducive to waste minimization.

II. Objectives of the Paper:

 To find the level of Lean implementation in different sectors.

 To find out the tool used most and least under Lean implementation.

 To examine the benefits and barriers of Lean implementation in manufacturing.

 To evaluate the implementation of the Lean manufacturing

III. Results and Discussions

The research papers related to Lean manufacturing from various reputed journals have been

considered for the review. After doing thorough study of the Lean implementation,

(Annexure 1) the results of the research papers considered for the review. The considered

review papers have been grouped based on awareness about the Lean, lean implementation,

Barrier and benefits of Lean and performance. There are quite a good number of studies

available in the body of literature focusing on the awareness and Potential for implementation

of Lean tool in different sector. The one important such study is discussed below.
Roba Salem et al, (2015) studied on the level of recognition of lean concepts, principles,

tools, and techniques in different industrial sectors in Qatar, to ass‘s lean awareness and to

know the perception about lean benefits and lean challenges. Data were collected from 333

organizations from various sectors like oil and gas, academic institutions and service sectors

through an on-line survey. Results showed that industries in Qatar need to give more credit to

lean thinking in order to strategically advance current efficiencies as well as cope with

competition at global level. Research also reveals that there is a differences on the levels of

awareness, recognition and appreciation of lean concepts in different industrial sectors.

Chaple (2014) investigate the enablers and barriers in implementing the Lean principles and

lean diffusion in Indian manufacturing industries. Result shows that the trend in lean

manufacturing for research now is focused on lean assessment. Leanness attracts focus to

answer specific questions of different levels of managers responsible for lean implementation

to assess the lean implementation level and to justify spending over lean implementation. He

worked on multiple criterion decision-making (MCDM) for lean assessment to assess lean

performance holistically & popularity of lean in India; but when it comes to success, its only

start of journey. Other than automobile and electronics industry, others are having medium to

low diffusion of lean in India.

Pratik Chikhalikar (2015) study focused on the implementation of the lean in the engine

manufacturing unit in India. Research identified the important lean tools and time horizon to

implement the same. Study revealed that following factors effects on lean implementation

they are 7 Types of waste, Lack of information transmission, Improper inventory

management, Bottleneck operation, Material flow and transportation problem, JIT, Kanban,

Kaizen, TPM, 6 sigma, 5S, Single Minute Exchange of Die.

Rakesh kumar and vikas kumar (2015) conducted a study to establish the significance of

Lean Manufacturing elements related to Indian manufacturing industry, study also list the

benefits gained-, major obstacles faced- and identifies the adverse impact such as over cost

cutting, exceptionally low inventories, over dependence of Lean guideline, physical and

mental health, society, product quality.

Sudipta Chowdhury (2015) conducted a study to improve the productivity of the furniture

manufacturing industry in India. Various lean strategies such as Single-Minute Exchange of

Dies (SMED), Gemba (The real place) and Short Interval Control were implemented. Result

revealed that significant improvement in both monetary terms and also in reduction of

processing time of different lots. Study also reveals that Overall Equipment effectiveness
increased in a higher multifactor productivity of 2.26. It was realized through this study that

lean strategies can successfully be implemented in furniture manufacturing industry.

Problem formulation and purpose

Although there is a wide range of books and articles covering the implementation and effects

of Lean Manufacturing in discrete manufacturing industries, to the authors’ knowledge, there

is no research work available that combines the vital information of notable scholarly

published articles on LM for the process industry, taking into account the unique

characteristics of each sector; the process industry is divided into many sectors and

subsectors, each one baring specific production parameters which may vary greatly among

different industrial facilities, that pose a key role in the implementation of LM tools. This

thesis is intended to provide guidance and perspectives for researchers who want to delve into

the Lean Manufacturing paradigm on process industries to continue their research, or

Industrial Supervisors responsible for production, who have decided to adopt LM practices in

their facilities and are on the initial steps of implementing the appropriate tools. This work

will be the collection of handful information from high-impact publications which can act as

a stepping stone of LM research. In parallel, a case study regarding a process industry that

has implemented LM, with data acquired through a structured questionnaire-based and semi-
structured interpersonal interviews, will provide a closer look into the practical implications

of moving towards a lean philosophy direction and will allow for an evaluation and

verification or opposition of our research hypotheses.

Delimitations

In this thesis, the research methodology conducted consists firstly of reviewing published

peer-reviewed scientific papers in order to gain an insight of the status of LM implementation

in process industries and accordingly formulate hypotheses of research. Additionally, an

elaboration into these scientific works will be conducted so that all the essential information

that a reader/future researcher needs are presented in this text. Criteria for the selection of the

research articles are given below: i. Scientific papers published in international journals and

conference proceedings which have a peer-review process will preferably be selected for this

thesis. ii. The present research is conducted on articles that were published from the year

2000 onwards for more up-to-date information. After this literature review, a case study

analysis will be conducted on one process industry facility that will be evaluated as an

example of the theoretic framework structured through the initial parts of the thesis. Only one

facility will be examined on the grounds of the thesis due to the following reasons: i. There is

a general lack of will to disclose information of production characteristics, as these can be

considered as competitive advantages. ii.The limited timeframe of the thesis conduction does

not allow for extended indexing of process industries that are active in the area of interest.

Thesis structure

Chapter 1 consists of the brief presentation of the problem in question, together with

background information regarding the motive behind the analysis of our thesis.

Chapter 2 is the theoretic core of the thesis. The basic principles and concepts behind the

practical implications that will be examined in the chapters to follow are established in this

section.

Chapter 3 comprises of the methodology of our analysis, together with comments on the

availability of data sources as well as reasons for the selection of the specific pattern of

analysis. Chapter 4 is the results and discussion section of the present thesis. The outcome of

the literature review conducted coupled with the case study analysis is demonstrated.

Chapter 5 discusses the observation of our analysis.

Chapter 6 concludes our analysis and provides suggestions for further elaboration on the

topic of discussion.
Chapter 2: Theory
2. Theory

This chapter comprises the theoretic framework of the present thesis. The core principles and

basic tools of Lean Manufacturing are presented, together with implementation elements in

industry, as depicted in various sources of academic literature. In parallel, the unique

characteristics of the Process industry are analyzed with a comparison to the Manufacturing

industry traits, while highlighting the motive and necessity of this analysis, before presenting

the connection with Lean Manufacturing.

2.1 What is Lean

Lean, also denoted to as Lean Management, Lean Manufacturing (LM), Lean Enterprise, or

Lean Production, is a set of principles, tools and techniques that many industrial

organizations or companies opt to implement, in order to enhance the efficiency of

production and overall customer value while at the same time eliminating waste (Mwacharo,

2013). Lean is generally used in manufacturing and supply chain management but it is a

philosophy that can be applied to an entire industry organization (Mwacharo, 2013). The

primary idea of LM is to supply better quality commodities to more consumers at a lower

price. In doing so, it eventually leads society to more prosperity (Melton, 2004). The
importance of creating an organized production system based on LM is enormous. The main

points of LM are (Melton, 2005; Womack and Jones, 2003):

• Eliminate waste in the production process

• Build quality into the production process

• Reduce costs.

• Create and formulate tools that will add value to the organization’s functional performance.

The introduction of lean thinking in business is composed of five discrete phases that form a

continuous process since lean embeds the notion of continuous improvement:

1. Analyzing and documenting the current process and measuring performance. Page 13 of 75

2. Accurately defining value and the value stream network.

3. Identifying undesirable effects and suggesting changes to eliminate the source of these

effects.

4. Applying recommended changes

5. Measure the achieved performance. (Womack and Jones, 2003; Melton, 2005) Figure 3

provides a holistic view of the introduction of Lean from thinking to manufacturing.

2.2 Origin of Lean

Lean manufacturing is the name under which the Toyota Production System (TPS) became

widely known and later on adopted by many companies worldwide (Shimokawa et al., 2009).

It is the fruit of the persistent and yearly research and efforts of Toyota Motor Company‘s

chief production engineer Taichi Ohno, under the supervision of the engineer and one of

Toyota family owners, Eiji Toyoda, to increase productivity and efficiency of the corporation

plant in Nagoya, Japan, in times of severe difficulties for the company. The trigger for these

makeovers was a visit and subsequently a set of comparisons to Ford’s Rouge automotive

manufacturing facility in Detroit, USA. Ohno set off to bring some of the high-efficiency

production characteristics he witnessed in Detroit, hoping to aid Toyota increase productivity

and improve its economics; instead, he established a system that proved to be a breakthrough

Lean—the term selected to describe TPS—was first mentioned by John Krafcik (Krafcik,

1988), in an attempt to highlight the core differences between the dominant model of mass

production and the new model demonstrated by Ohno. Lean production required such fewer

resources to the extent where a new product could be produced in half the time that would be

necessary otherwise in terms of mass production (Womack et al., 1990). Direct adoption of

the processes and operational characteristics of mass production that gave the Rouge factory
the lead in productivity was not possible, due to significant differences in market conditions

as well as workforce consistency among the two countries. In parallel, the weakened

Japanese economy deprived the business of cash liquidity that was necessary for major

equipment upgrades. On top of that, during his own visits to Ford’s facility, Ohno realized the

extent of waste created as a result of the mass production methods applied in Detroit. These

were the main motives behind Ohno’s questioning and analysis of the reasons of lower

productivity rates in the Nagoya-based Toyota factory versus the much higher efficiency of

the Ford Rouge factory (Womack et al., 1990). In Table 1 a comparison between lean and

mass production characteristics is depicted.

2.3 Lean Manufacturing implementation checkpoints

The implementation of Lean manufacturing- its principles as described by Womack in 1990-

as depicted in literature and the case studies on various industries do not seem to follow a

specific methodology. Instead each time, the principles are applied according to the

experience and the suggestions of the engineer or consultant responsible for bringing LM into

a facility (Tsigkas, 2013). This suggests that a different combination of lean tools can be

utilized, depending on the various aspects of the value-creating process, in order to turn to a

lean approach. On the grounds of a production process, LM is effectuated as follows: 1. A

product or product type is elected as the flow unit to be studied and improved. This flow unit

is the value that the customer pays for eventually. 2. The value stream is drawn, presenting in

detail all steps entailed in the production process. The performance of each process is

calculated as the flow rate of units processed in a specific period of time. The process with

the smaller flow rate- nominated as the bottleneck of the entire production process- provides

the actual production rate that should be followed. In this way, inventory accumulations are

eliminated, as each process handles the number of units that can directly proceed on to the

next process. 3. The flow of units is meticulously structured and optimized so that none of the

types of waste are present. In the same time, work is done towards normalizing flow to avoid
variations in the production; by estimating average demand of the product over an extensive

period of time, such as one year, the daily production required to cover this demand is

estimated and set as the target quantity.

4. Next, in the process, the pull notion is effectuated: production only occurs according to the

actual demand from the customer. Thus, in the early processes of the production operation,

no material or part is produced unless required downstream. 5. Finally, a measurement of the

performance and efficiency achieved by eliminating waste and coordinating production to

skip inventory accumulation and variances in the previous steps gives information and signs

for further improvement. This further improvement triggers the cycle to begin again.

Constant analysis of the incoming production data, continuous education of all staff to better

grasp the lean principles and get involved in the optimization of the production process,

consist of the notion of perfection described in lean. (Womack and Jones, 2003; Tsigkas,

2013).

2.3.1 Lean principles

The three major lean thinking concepts are (Womack and Jones, 2003): • Value identification

• Waste elimination • Flow (of value to the customer) generation The critical set point of lean

thinking is value. Value is created by the business in the form of a product or service that the
customer will buy; thus, it is the customer who defines the product’s value, based on their

needs and desires. This value from a producer’s aspect is difficult to be calculated and

distinguished due to the fact that the production process is composed of many different steps,

some of which have no connection to the final product sold; in fact, according to lean

thinking, some of these actually don’t add any sort of value to the product, and they only

comprise of waste (Womack and Jones,2003). Waste, or Muda as in Japanese, can be

encountered in seven different forms: defaults, overproduction, waiting, conveyance,

processing, inventory, and motion. Each of these types of waste has its own causes and

solutions and when eliminated, provides multiple benefits: • The defaults that require

reworking at the end of the production process are the result of quality issues that should have

been resolved long ago, and while they add no further value to the final product, they add up

to cost, utilizing labor, time and materials that could be allocated to value- bringing

operations. • Overproduction causes inventory pileup requires additional space for storage

and handling, deprives of useful workhours and most importantly hinders problem resolution

thus further creating waste. • Waiting is time wasted while processes such as setup

changeovers, equipment breakdown or material delivery delays take place. In a production

facility, time is a valuable resource and cannot be spared. • Conveyance is the excess
transportation of materials and people, caused by poor planning of operations or facilities’

layout. Resources should be allocated wherever needed in the minimum time required.

Processing refers to over processing when operations that take place are not required to meet

the customer demands. This is the result of poorly defined quality standards or poor control

of quality. • Inventory, although vital for the smooth operation of a producing facility, absorb

material, spatial and human resources when in excess. Additionally, extra inventory covers

supply chain quality issues that can be detected and resolved as soon as the abundance of

materials is depleted and precisely what is needed is ordered. • Motion is linked to the core of

workers’ behavior; unnecessary actions, work layouts that promote futile movement, lifting

of heavy machinery, take up time and effort and render workers counterproductive. (Drew,

McCallum and Roggenhoffer, 2004; Melton, 2005; Ohno, 1988) Flow according to Melton

(2005), “is the concept which most obviously contradicts with mass production systems; the

comparison of one-piece flow versus batch and queue processes. It is a lack of flow in our

manufacturing processes which accounts for the huge warehouses which house the mass of

inventory which consumes the working capital of the business.” Flow incorporates the stream

of value across the processes of the business. In the context of lean manufacturing, flow must

be continuous and steady, without blockages or fluctuations, for example, due to inventory
accumulation (Womack and Jones, 2003; Melton, 2005). There are two structure principles

behind LM: the first is the just-in-time manufacturing (JIT) and the second is Jidoka, which

can be transcribed as build in quality. JIT is the idea of producing and delivering solely, what

is needed at the amount and time needed, employing the minimum resources required. This

leads to delivery of higher quality products at a lower cost and in less time. Jidoka is the

concept of empowering the workers to continually improve quality of the production process

by observing and interfering so that, at the sight of a single defect, the production must be

halted- referred to as Poka Yoke in Japanese- until the issue is resolved. These two ideas

together effectuate the elimination of waste, Muda (Art of Lean, n.d.; Ohno, 1988).

2.3.2 Lean Tools

A set of lean tools can be implemented to achieve the aims of lean philosophy and can be

categorized into three categories: quality, production processes, and methods. Quality lean

tools, such as the following contribute to the improvement of the quality offered to the

customer: Page 18 of 75 • Kaizen is the concept of constant improvement; there is always

space for further optimization of a process, and this should be the background thought in

every operation of an industry. • Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) is the aspect of

equipment and machinery maintenance, where prevention of defaults with correction and
proper use is prevalent during handling. • Poka- Yoke is the idea of empowering every single

worker that takes part in the production process to take immediate action whenever needed in

order to prevent defaults in the production. Thus, the worker is transformed from a simple

actuator into a major contributor to the production process. Production process tools such as

JIT, aim to make the production procedure more efficient. Among these are the following: •

Cellular manufacturing is the separate production of a specific part or product in one line or

area, where all necessary tools and materials are gathered and organized in place so that

maximum production efficiency can be achieved. • Production smoothing or, as referred to in

Japanese, Heijunka, is the normalization of daily production. A steady pace in the production

process improves overall efficiency and contributes to JIT. Last, method lean tools assist in

optimizing the overall operation of the producing facility. Some of these are the following: •

Work standardization refers to accurately defining each operation of the production process

and the circumstances under which these are carried out so that better control of the outcome

and a higher rate of efficiency and default detection is achieved. • Setup reduction time is the

concept of interchanging equipment easily, in low timeframes and efficiently so that the

production process can achieve better flexibility when a variety of products is produced. •

Line balancing defines the unanimous pace of work around a producing facility so that
synchronization is achieved among the different operations (Art of Lean, n.d.; Abdulmalek et

al., 2006; Ohno, 1988). These three categories of lean tools are often interrelated and provide

multiple benefits and results to the overall improvement of a production facility and process

(Abdulmalek, Rajgopal and Needy, 2006; Melton, 2005). In the following figure the structure

of lean, from lean tools utilized up to the further aims of lean techniques implemented in the

process, is depicted in Figure 4.

2.4 Why go Lean

As depicted in literature (Ohno, 1988; Womack and Jones, 2003; Tsigkas, 2013; LMJ, 2014),

there are several benefits of using Lean in an organization: • Improved quality – the lean

process goes through several activities with problem-solving techniques to strengthen the

production process and steadily eliminate defaults, eventually improving quality of the

product. • Faster delivery times – By applying the principles of just-in-time and pull,

production orders are conducted when needed and therefore delivered faster to the customer.

Lead time is reduced.

• Improved visual management - LM enhances management by setting up visual control of

the process, thus allowing for easy identification of the problem when it occurs in the

manufacturing process.

2.4 Factors that inhibit Lean

Despite the benefits LM can have on an organization, there are issues which hinder

successful lean implementation (Melton, 2005). The two primary problems are the perception

that there are no tangible benefits from lean adoption and the inherent humane resistance to

change. Managers, as well as workers, often defy the effect of the changes introduced in the

context of LM and stall or cancel further process modifications. Figure 6 presents some of the
issues that arise from the difference between the lean theory and lean practice, as

consequences of the human factor.

Moreover, LM implementation is not a one-off process but rather, it is continuous

(Mwacharo, 2013) and should constantly be supported (Drew, McCullum and Roggenhofer,

2004). The firms or organizations need to revise their strategy on a regular basis to sustain the

efficiency achieved due to lean adoption; a company must be well prepared before

implementing LM and must commit to doing all the hard work needed for a smooth transition

into lean thinking. Otherwise LM might prove to be beneficial initially, but in the long run, it

will fail miserably (Bicheno and Holweg, 2009). Although one might think that reducing

inventory, as instructed by LM, at once is the solution, this is not the right way to implement

lean. It should be a gradual process, identifying waste and removing it step-by-step.

Therefore, determining the real Muda in all the departments is also a big challenge.

Therefore, keeping motivation for a regular assessment of already implemented LM tools is

one of the major obstacles to lean adoption.

Implementation of lean not only on manufacturing facilities but also on all the departments of

a company such as accounting, human resources, marketing, distribution and Lean Theory

Lean practice Autonomy Empowerment Workers participation Best way for organizing
production Implementation of lean production is uneven between countries/ companies

Limited participation No real power/Depends on the social relations in the company Limited

autonomy or closely monitored by the management Page 23 of 75 so on (Womack, and

Jones, 2003) is also a major challenge. To reap the total benefit of lean philosophy all

departments need to modify their operations accordingly otherwise the results could be

detrimental, with significant losses (Bicheno and Holweg, 2009).

2.5 Process industry characteristics and prospects of LM implementation

The manufacturing of products can be divided into two main categories (King et al., 2008): •

Products assembled from smaller ready-made parts into individual units, such as computers,

automobiles, cell phones, electronics, etc. • Products that during production undergo specific

refining processes such as chemical reactions, blending, baking, etc. and in their final state

cannot be separated into their original parts. Examples of such products are foods, chemicals,

pharmaceuticals, and materials. The former is referred to as discrete industry and the second

as process industry (Abdulmalek, Rajgopal and Needy, 2006; King et al., 2008). Often, the

principal and rather a simplistic comparison between the two types of industries is whether

the form of processing is discrete or continuous. A better-refined distinction lies upon the

final outcome of the production operation: in discrete manufacturing a large number of

different parts is reduced The Need to get closer to customers in an increasingly competitive

environment. The desire to be compliant in an increasingly regulated environment The

potential benefits: • Financial – decreased operating cost, potential capital avoidance. •

Customer – better understanding of their needs. • Quality – more robust processes leading to

less errors. • People – empowered multi-skilled teams • Knowledge – Increased

understanding of the whole supply chain including the manufacturing processes and all other

processes within value stream. Natural resistance to change seen as: • Skepticism on the

validity of the lean philosophy. • We ve seen this before assuming lean is another

improvement initiative or fad • Lack of availability of time – too busy with the day job

Concerns about the impact of change on regulatory compliance. Production culture • Large

campaigns, large batches, minimal changeovers, never stop producing. • Manufacturing

drives the supply chain – support needs to keep up Functional Culture – staying in functional

silos Facilitating factors Inhibiting factors Being Lean Page 24 of 75 towards the end of the

manufacturing industry assembly line while on the contrary, the limited raw materials

initially provide a wide variety of different products at the end of the process industry

production process (King et al., 2008). A more detailed comparison of the manufacturing-

discreet and process industry’s main characteristics is depicted in the following table:
Additionally, a segmentation of the process industry based on the type of product they

produce can be conducted into the following categories: 1. Glass, ceramics, stone, and clay:

Typical products of this category are lighting products, flat glass, fiber optics glass, glass

containers, concrete, gypsum, cement, paving and plaster, abrasives and asbestos. 2. Steel and

metal: In this category belong coils, sheets, slabs, bars, stainless steel and structural steel,

sheet metal, primary smelt refining as well as nonferrous metals. 3. Chemicals: This sector

comprises of many important product categories such as pharmaceuticals, detergents, paints,

inorganic and organic chemicals, cosmetics, plastic products and agricultural chemicals. 4.

Food and beverages: Regarding a large variety of products such as meat and dairy products,

canned food, baked goods, sugar products, oils, alcoholic beverages, and refreshments. 5.

Textile: The category includes clothes and clothing, carpeting, towels, cord and twine,

automotive upholstery, reinforcing materials, bulletproof vests, decorative braids, and

ribbons. 6. Lumber and wood: Products including general logging, wood containers, mobile

homes, miscellaneous wood products and panels.

Paper and pulp: Including cardboard, newsprint, printer’s paper, packaging material tics, etc.

(Abdulmalek, Rajgopal, and Needy, 2006) Stemming from the above segmentation within the

process industry but also from the different definitions that have been attributed as a result of

the comparison to the manufacturing- discrete industry, it is evident that a brief base of

characterization is not adequate. Instead, classifying and deciding on the type of operations

conducted in a process industry is not easy, should not do under a broad scope but instead

should take into account specific production operations and characteristics. An efficient

characterization framework that is fruitful for further conclusions should include a) product

characteristics, b) process characteristics and also, c) information of the stage at which the

product reaches its final discrete state. These three traits are crucial for evaluating a facility

and deciding upon improvements or enhancements in the production process (Abdulmalek,

Rajgopal, and Needy, 2006). The product characteristics of a process industry stem from the

raw materials used and the volume of the produce; there can be many, or few raw materials

used and likewise, these can be similar or come from a wide variety. For instance, in the meat

food industry, meat is the main ingredient which leads to a variety of products while in the
baked goods industry, a group of raw materials is necessary for the final outcome.

Concerning the volumes produced, there can be small batch produces dedicated to a specific

market segment, such as pharmaceuticals or high- volume goods such as beverages. From

these examples, it is immediately obvious that vast differences can be found even in

industries of the same sector (Abdulmalek, Rajgopal, and Needy, 2006). The process

characteristics concern the flow of raw materials through the production operation processes

and are defined by the type, setup and use of the equipment that is employed. While process

industries are assumed to have a continuous flow process with automated routines and

specific dedicated equipment, in reality, there can be many setup variations where machines

may either be of general use and quite flexible or specific and dedicated. For instance, in the

pharmaceuticals sector, a general use mixture tank can be dedicated to the production of a

specific drug only. On the other hand, in the food sector, a general container can be employed

for the production of many different flavors. On the other hand, in the chemicals sector, a

reactor tank can be dedicated to a single material process with Page 26 of 75 specific

circumstances applied due to the unique nature of the process (Abdulmalek, Rajgopal, and

Needy, 2006). Finally, the stage at which the materials are reaching a discrete, single unit

product form is a key determinant for the characterization of the process industry. The
general assumption is that in process industry materials are blended or processed and reach

their complete discrete form at the end of the continuous operation process. However, that is

not always the case, and the differences among different sectors can be huge; for example, in

the textile industry the discrete units are produced at the very first stages of the producing

process while in the chemicals industry the products become discrete at the final stage

(Abdulmalek, Rajgopal, and Needy, 2006).

2.6 Formulating research Hypotheses

The above analysis and re-classification of process industry and its various sectors allow a

reconsideration of LM implementation. The prevalent idea that LM is suitable only for

industries of discrete manufacturing, mostly attributed to the fact that lean thinking originally

came from one such industry, Toyota Automotive, can be re-evaluated. In each case,

evaluation and assessment of the lean tools that are available needs to be conducted. For

instance, in a liquid manufacturing industry, the production line cannot stop as often as in a

discrete assembly industry, upon the detection of default or problem in the production

process. Another similar aspect is the inventory parts that in manufacturing industries

accumulate as a result of the multi-segmented production/ assembly operation and are signs

of a process default; in the chemical industries, such inventory cannot accumulate because
production operations consist of few steps, however, the spare parts that are present to cover

for equipment failure, can be a corresponding indicator of a default in the production process

(King et al., 2008; Floyd, 2010; Panwar et al., 2015). Stemming from the process industry

classification scheme presented above, the type of product that is produced directly limits or

allows the implementation of specific tools of LM. Industries that utilize small quantities of

raw materials and produce high volumes of the final products, such as beverage industries,

are inherently more efficient and do not require or allow tools such as JIT and standardization

to be implemented. However, due to the high dependency on equipment reliability and

availability, the lean tools of Kaizen and Total Productive maintenance would be very

beneficial (Abdulmalek, Rajgopal and Needy 2006). Page 27 of 75 Hypothesis 1 (H1):

Quality lean tools such as Kaizen and Total Productive Maintenance are better-suited for

Process industries that require only a few raw materials and produce large volumes of a

limited variety of products. In a similar aspect, while in manufacturing industry the

bottlenecks of the production can be dealt with adding more workers around the specific

process, in a high-volume process industry a corresponding solution would deal with

machinery and equipment efficiency rather than the number of workers (King et al., 2008).

Regarding the process characteristics, the inherent flexibility of the production process allows
the application of some lean tools and excludes the use of others. For instance, in the

production process of pharmaceuticals that is quite inflexible due to the setup of the

equipment, tools such as Total Productive Maintenance that tend for the efficiency of the

machinery are handy, but production smoothing or small batches would not be easily applied

nor effective. On the contrary, a high variety and flexible industry such as the beverage or the

food industry would be benefited from implementing lean tools such as SMED and work

standardization (Abdulmalek, Rajgopal and Needy 2006; King et al., 2008).

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Process industries utilizing inflexible and dedicated machinery cannot

implement Production process lean tools such as batching and Production levelingHeijunka.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Process industries utilizing flexible and non- dedicated machinery can

implement Method lean tools such as Work Standardization and SMED- single minute

exchange die.

Concerning the stage at which the product becomes discrete, it is deducted that process

industries are not always continuous and bare some common characteristics with discrete

manufacturing industries. For instance, in the textile industry where the fabrics become

discrete units quite early in the process, lean tools such as small batches and just-in-time can

be very useful (Abdulmalek, Rajgopal and Needy 2006; King et al., 2008).
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Production process lean tools such as batching and Just-In-Time are

better-suited for Process industries where the product becomes discrete at the early stages of

the production process.

Lean production techniques can have an enormous impact not only on discrete manufacturing

but also on process industries (Dunstan, Lavin and Sanford, 2006.). Panwar et al. (2015)

provide a succinct description of the impact LM effectuates on the process industry and how

these production operations improve with the adoption of lean principles. In one of the

earliest works on Lean implementation in the process industry (Billesbach, 1994), it is vividly

shown that there are various benefits lean thinking can offer, apart from waste reduction also

increased profits. According to this research “The plant simultaneously achieved 10%

improvement in product quality and 300% increase in employees’ suggestions.” (Billesbach,

1994); the case study analyzed in this context was a textile plant, as a typical example of the

process industry. In yet another relevant study, the impact of LM is vividly depicted in steel

industries (Abdulmalek and Rajgopal, 2007). The authors, in this case, provided an in-depth

analysis regarding lean implementation using a simulation approach to show the benefits

observed in the steel industry. After applying LM, lead time was reduced at a significant

percent- around ~70%- of total production time. In a survey about the influence of LM on

food, chemical and textile industries conducted by Koumanakos (2008), it was demonstrated
that organizations without lean implementation had lower profits due to maintaining higher

inventories. On the contrary, the improvement of financial performance was evidenced when

the process industries of that type utilized and implemented LM. Lean manufacturing not

only assists in enhancing manufacturing performance through removing different types of

wastes in the process industry but it also works as an impetus to compete efficiently in the

present days, where quintessential priorities such as product quality, feedback capability and

customer satisfaction are prevalent (McLeod 2008; Gabauer, Kickuth, and Friedli 2009).

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Process industries can benefit from the implementation of LM tools,

either by reducing required resources and/ or waste, or by increasing overall performance

rates.

It should be highlighted that although the literature mentioned above substantiates the

necessity of examining and implementing lean principles in the process industry and while, as

research has shown, LM techniques can be more beneficial for process industries than for

discrete manufacturing industries (White and Prybutok, 2001), in a relative survey that was

Page 29 of 75 conducted regarding implementation of LM in the industrial world, results

showed that only 32% of the process industries examined had adopted LM as opposed to an
80% of discrete manufacturing industries that had already implemented LM (Fullerton, R. R.,

2003).

2.7 Summary

This chapter has provided a theoretical framework for this thesis work. In this chapter, an in-

depth, comprehensive overview of Lean paradigm is provided to the reader. Origin of lean is

discussed along with the process of lean thinking which allowed for elaboration into process

industry as far as LM is concerned. Moreover, the importance of LM implementation on

process industries and the challenges that arise from this effort have been analyzed. In the

end, the research hypotheses that will be evaluated in the following chapters are formulated.
Chapter 3: Methodology
The present chapter describes the methods and tools used to structure and support the

arguments of this thesis problem and test the hypotheses formulated in the theoretic analysis

chapter. At first, a literature review of academic journals is conducted in order to examine the

validity of the Hypotheses formulated previously. Afterward, through interpersonal and a

semi-structured questionnaire interviews, data is acquired for a specific company facility as

part of a case study, in order to validate the hypotheses and to further support the arguments

extracted from the prior journal review. Figure 8 presents the research methodology of this

thesis.

3.1 Literature review

The initial part of the present thesis consists of the literature review. The aim of conducting

this critical literature review is to provide a clear insight of the issue under examination and
present important aspects of the research that has been conducted so far as well as the various

trends of contemporary or future research that are of interest to the authors and possibly to the

readers. Therefore, at the beginning of this research, an effort was made to gather information

from a wide range of academic journal articles but also from well-known books.

3.1.1 Limitations of the period of study

No limitation was set concerning the publishing time period of journals and books selected,

regarding the aspects of general and historic information and principles of Lean

Manufacturing; the literature sources available date back to the 90’s and contain an elaborate

analysis of the routes and results expected from LM, which was considered rather important

in order to provide an accurate description of this system. However, considering the

proportionally late adoption of LM practices in the fields of process industries but also due to

the fast occurring changes in the production processes of the relevant sectors, the query for

relevant data was limited to scientific papers published in international journals and

conference proceedings after the year 2000, to get the most recent and up- to- date

information. As sources of data query and retrieval, the BTH library database (BTH, 2018)

was employed, as it gives full access to the journals of interest. Additionally, queries were

conducted through the Google Scholar (2018) search engine database for all up-to-date
information and cross-references, which were afterward crosschecked with the BTH library

database (BTH, 2018) in order to get hold of the complete articles that were only partially

retrieved.

3.1.2 Nature of literature review

According to Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2012), the literature review can be either

deductive or inductive. In the deductive approach, research is conducted on a theoretical basis

and afterward evaluated through data analysis. On the contrary, an inductive

approachreasoning from detailed facts to general principles/rules- is conducted when a set of

data is gathered, and the aim is to explain it via a newly proposed theory that will be

interrelated to existing literature. For the present thesis, the literature review was conducted

as per the deductive approach; the aim is to evaluate the impact of Lean Manufacturing on

process industry, first by exploring existing literature and then by testing the validity of the

deducted assumptions in an actual case study.

3.2 Interview: Interpersonal and questionnaire-based

An interview can be either fully structured, semi-structured on unstructured. In a fully

structured interview, the questions to be asked to the person interviewed are standardized and

predefined, already from the organization of the examination process. In a semi-structured

interview, only a set of topics for discussion have been predetermined; the actual setup of the

Page 33 of 75 questions, the way and order they are presented lies in the attitude of the

conductor. Last, an unstructured interview is similar to open dialogue with no limits, apart

from the general thematic of the conversation (Robson and McCartan, 2016). For the

execution of the case study analysis, a set of interviews was conducted. According to the

types of interviews described above, a preliminary unstructured interview was performed

with the Production Engineer of Facility A, on the 16th of February 2018, in order to acquire

general data concerning Facility A and details of its mode of operation regarding LM impact.

In the latter stages of the current thesis analysis, a questionnaire which is considered as a

structured interview (Robson and McCartan, 2016) was sent out to specific staff members of

Facility A of Company B. This questionnaire has helped us to acquire detailed data of the

production process and get a broader spectrum of opinions on the practices and effects of LM

implementation. We sent this questionnaire to the employees who are the members of the LM

implementation team. The questionnaire recipients include the Facility Head Manager, the

Production Manager, the Quality Control Manager, the Production & Maintenance Manager,

the Logistics & Purchasing Supervisor and one of the Bottling operators. The questionnaire

that was sent out was divided into two sectors, company characteristics/general overview and
LM implementation- impact. The questions were selected meticulously so that they would

give a broad view of the issues under the research scope: identify the facility under analysis,

understand the unique characteristics that define the production process, show which LM

tools are of importance and finally point out the outcome of the LM implementation.

Additionally, it should be noted that this questionnaire is addressed to facilities that already

implement or have implemented LM practices; the target of this data query is to understand

which LM practices better suit a facility according to its needs and goals and which is the

outcome of this implementation. Thus, questions regarding the steps of implementation or the

possible problems that arose during this process are not included in the questionnaire.

Regarding the format of the information retrieved, the questions require answers on a scale

from one to five, defining in this way the magnitude of the size/ effect under question. This

kind of data can be efficiently collected, analyzed and presented for statistical analysis.

However, a free commenting section has also been included so that the interviewees have

been able to give personal insight based on their experience of LM. These free commenting

Page 34 of 75 answers are not intended to be compared or statistically analyzed but allow for

a better understanding of each worker’s idea of LM as witnessed on a daily basis, through

different work positions and perspectives. Some of the questions presented to the
interviewees were: - What is the type of products produced? - What is the volume of the raw

materials required? - What is the volume of the final products produced? - What is the

flexibility of the equipment utilized in the process? - When did the implementation of LM

tools begun in the organization? - Which LM tools are on the scope of the implementation? -

What has been the impact of the implementation of LM tools in the production process? This

questionnaire can be utilized as a guide to analyze any case study of a process industry’s

production process characteristics and LM practices implementation and thus allow the

testing of the research hypotheses formulated in the context of the present thesis.

3.3 Case study Analysis

The case study analysis was planned and carried out in order to support the findings from the

theoretic review with real-world data. As Yin describes (2013), a case study is a tool used to

answer a question: what, why, how? In the context of this thesis, a case study is utilized to

answer the question what: “What is the impact Lean Manufacturing has on process

industries?”. The industrial facility selected for the conduction of the case study analysis will

be named Facility A of Company B for reasons of confidentiality. The reason for the

nondisclosure of the facility’s and company’s full data is the nature of the data enquired: the

production techniques can often be regarded as a competitive advantage against the

competition. Moreover, the exact identity of the facility will not add more knowledge to the

issue under discussion. Thus in order to avoid a confidentiality agreement between Company

B and BTH as well as for the rapid conduction of this research and free discussion on the case

study outcome, the identity data will be kept generic. Facility A is an alcoholic beverage

bottling unit located in the industrial area of Volos, Greece. It is a medium-sized facility,

employing 20-50 workers in total. There are two types of alcoholic beverages that are bottled

in seven sizes of glass bottles, 0,05lt, 0,2lt, 0,35lt, 0,75lt, 1lt, 2lt, and 5lt. The production

process consists of six different production stages: Page 35 of 75 - The alcoholic

fermentation/ preparation of the alcoholic beverages takes place in a set of specialized tanks

suitable for the chemical procedure. - The prepared alcoholic beverages are transferred into

common but dedicated storage tanks, due to the highly aromatic character of one of the two

beverages, so common usage of the storage tanks would lead to extended and costly cleaning

requirements. - The beverages are transported through a network of pipelines to the bottling

line, filling the bottles via automatic filler. The empty bottles are manually supplied to the

bottling utility. - The bottles are labeled passing by an automatic labeling machine. The labels

are manually supplied to the labeling utility. - The bottles are placed into boxes of various

capacities according to the client specifications. The boxes are manually supplied to the
boxing utility. - The boxes are set upon a pallet via an automatic palletizing unit. The pallets

are manually supplied to the palletizing utility (Production Engineer of Facility A, personal

communication, 16th February 2018). Facility A poses certain characteristics of interest that

reflect the literature review findings of the previous chapters, as mentioned in paragraph “2.5

Process industry characteristics and prospects of LM implementation”: • As regards the

product characteristics, there are only two beverages that are produced in very large volumes,

based on relatively high volumes of a limited variety of raw materials. • As regards the

process characteristics, this is a simple but inflexible process; there are only seven discrete

production stages that involve the utilization of some unique equipment–the alcoholic

distillation/ fermentation tanks–, some common but dedicated machinery–the ready mixture

storage tanks– and general industrial machinery–the labeling and palletizing utilities. There

cannot be any reconfiguration among these discrete production stages; the order of flow is

specific. • As regards the stage at which the product reaches its final discrete state, this takes

places in stage 3, in the middle of the production operation, when the alcoholic mixture is

filled into bottles. The specific facility was selected because, according to the authors’

knowledge, it has implemented principles of LM in the past years and at the time that the

present thesis analysis is conducted the implementation has yielded results and is
continuously supported by Page 36 of 75 company B, both for facility A as well as for other

facilities located in other countries (Production Engineer of Facility A, personal

communication, 16th February 2018). By analyzing the facility’s characteristics as mentioned

above and information regarding LM implementation as deducted from the interviews–both

interpersonal and questionnaire-based– there will be fruitful conclusions bridging the case

study analysis with the implications of the literature review conducted in the first part of the

thesis.

Chapter 4: Results
4. Results

Two databases have been employed as a source of information for the present thesis. These

are the BTH library (BTH, 2018) and Google Scholar (Google Scholar, 2018). Google

Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine of scholarly literature for various disciplines.

Among the various online search engine databases available for scholarly literature (ie. Web

of Science and Scopus), Google scholar was chosen due to its efficacy and ever-increasing

improvement through its advanced algorithm to find the most relevant papers in the subject

under the research scope (Aalst, 2010; Jamali and Nabavi, 2015). Furthermore, the BTH

library database allowed full access to some of the papers which are not openaccessed in
Google scholar. Figure 9 presents the year-wise distribution of scientific paper works of

process industries regarding lean implementation which was studied for the conduction of

this thesis. It has been already mentioned that information was obtained from the research

works dating from 2000 onwards. As demonstrated by Panwar et al. (2015, Fig. 3), only a

limited number of research papers has been published in the pre-2000 period, as part of

scientific works in different types of publications (Journal, conferences, etc). Additionally,

the interest and enthusiasm of researchers and practitioners for the possibilities of LM

implementation in the process industry have been gradually increasing since 2000.

Figure 10 shows the number of case studies for different types of process industries

investigated in this thesis.

4.1 Literature case study analysis

4.1.1 Glass and Ceramics

In the work conducted by Bonavia and Marin (2006), regarding the ceramics industry in

Spain, a number of 76 facilities was studied for the type of LM tools and the extent that these

were utilized. The facilities examined, as described in this work, require a small number of

raw materials and produce a range of 100-200 different patterns of products, which require

the same manufacturing facilities. The products are homogenous and are produced in a

similar way, becoming discrete from the early stages of the production process, after the

molding phase. The machinery is placed in line one after the other and setup changeover

times take up a lot of time. Thus there is little flexibility. The workers only perform specific

tasks on which they are highly specialized. The general notion of production is stock
oriented. Some special constraints that are outlined are the necessity to keep the fire ovens at

maximum capacity around the clock and the high degree of automation in the production line.

The results of the analysis conducted show that standardization of operations and Total

Productive Maintenance were the tools utilized by all the facilities of the research.

Interestingly, Single Minute Exchange Die (SMED) was not implemented by all the

examined facilities which would be expected due to the expensive and heavy machinery

utilized for the production process. Results were not unanimous regarding the performance

increase relating to LM. The next case study we investigated was conducted by (Patel and

Thakkar, 2014) for Indian ceramic process industry which produces bricks. The lean

manufacturing tool 5S (Gapp, Fisher and Kobayashi, 2008)—Seiri (Sort), Seiton (Straighten,

Set), Seiso (Shine, Sweep), Seiketsu (Standardize), Shitsuke (Sustain)—was applied in this

work to figure out the problems of a ceramic industry in India and checked how 5S helps to

eliminate unnecessary waste and thereby increase the efficiency of the company. This case

study dealt with “reducing the process wastes, the process flows smoothness, preserving

proper quality control, enhancing storage facilities, safety, security, and savings of process

cost.” Visual management techniques in the form of ‘before lean’ and ‘after were also used to

understand the impact of lean tools. The company applied the lean technique to mainly two
departments; those are storage department and insulator department. After applying the 5S

lean tool, the storage department showed improvement in the space utilization was 12.91%

(Patel and Thakkar, 2014) along with the reduction of other process wastes such as the

movement of the employee. The workplace of the insulator department became more

effective than ‘before lean’ states. Moreover, this case study also provided a notion that 5S

techniques should be checked periodically for the long-term benefits to the company.

Chapter 5- Conclusion
Lean is applicable for all the type of the organization irrespective of their size, lot of work has

been carried out in manufacturing sector that to in different functional areas, the level of

implementation varies across the sectors and their size. It is evident from the research paper

studied that kanban, continuous flow and TPS are the most commonly used lean tools in the

organization. The Reduction of waste, Inventory reduction and Productivity improvement are

commonly cited benefits across the lean implemented firms. Apart from these management of

employee involvement are the most commonly cited barriers across the implemented

organization. These parameters are also component of the quality of work life, so it can be

concluded that QWL needs to be studied across the lean implemented firms in order to get

higher light on the issue also to reveal the linkage between QWL dimensions with the lean
implementation. In this paper, an attempt is made to review and identify different lean

manufacturing tools that helps for the improvement of productivity. The types of lean

manufacturing tools studied as: Value Stream Mapping (VSM), Single Minute Exchange of

Dies (SMED), Overall Equipment Efficiency (OEE), Cellular Manufacturing (CM),

Assembly Line Balancing (ALB), Kanban system, Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), and

Maynard Operation Sequence Technique (MOST).The implementation of lean manufacturing

tools is low cost solution and needs integration of lean elements with proper sequence to

achieve productivity and profitability in the industry. Lean tools helps in achieving reliable

deliveries, enhanced safety, motivating working environments, fewer breakdowns. It is like

the boon of nectar provided to the world wide organizations for betterment of their own

prospects. The present survey definitely helps the industries, SME’s for choosing one of the

lean tools that will suit it for employing enhanced results with low costs. In the world of

Industry 4.0, Lean manufacturing tools can provide the best solution to the expanding need of

higher productivity. Conclusion of this survey reveals that the successful Lean Manufacturing

System implementation needs integration and simultaneous implementation of Lean elements

along with proper sequence. The survey also proposes the detailed implementation Road Map

which gives a unified theory for Lean Manufacturing System implementation. Thus the
proposed implementation structure reduces the implementation duration and reduces

manufacturing system divergence. As a result it is proposed that the Lean Manufacturing

System can be sustained in competitive business environment. Future research should try to

find Scheduling structures in-line with EPEI pull system by considering the whole lean

elements. In this chapter, the findings from the literature-based case studies analyzed as well

as the questionnaire-based case study conducted, are discussed and connected to the

theoretical framework set out in the first chapters. The information assembled from the

published journals give a good overview of the various characteristics observed between

different sectors or even different segments belonging to the same sector of Process

Industries. Next, structured on these characteristics, a path towards LM implementation is

observed in each case, allowing for the testing of the formulated hypotheses. Last, the

findings from a case study of Facility A, structure and enhance this theory- stemming

hypotheses. From the results obtained from the scholarly published literature case study

analysis, it is deducted that one of the main reasons for LM implementation on Process

industries is to improve not only productivity but also enhance the overall production process.

The comparison between the data retrieved from the literature case study analyses and

observations from Facility A show the existence of a correlation; correlation in this context is
the reliability of the information provided by the respondents of the questionnaire.

Additionally, it can be deduced that the answers received from the questionnaires are reliable

due to the anonymity of the respondents and the non-disclosure of the company’s profile;

after all, knowing that the company name will not be disclosed is believed to have prompted

and inspired the respondents to provide more reliable and honest responses. The literature-

based case study analyses are in line with the theoretic findings that suggest that (Panwar et

al., 2015) “the inflexibility of equipment, compulsion to utilize full capacity for cost

effectiveness, quality dependency on time, temperature, high variations in demand, strict

environmental considerations and other such typical process characteristics could cause for

successful implementation of lean in process industries”. As discussed in chapter 2.6, the

characteristics that describe the production process of a facility can differ greatly among

different process industries; however, these characteristics define key points and provide the

actual margin needed in the various options of LM implementation. Towards the

investigation of this scheme, the first four columns of Table 5. Page 51 of 75 depict the said

variance, even in facilities that produce similar products. As expected, the variety and volume

of raw materials differ from small to large, as do the corresponding final product attributes.

For instance, the Steel and Metal industry case studies examined (Abdulmalek, Rajgopal, and
Needy, 2006; Abdulmalek and Rajgopal, 2007) show a small variety of raw materials and

products- both require less than 5 raw materials and produce sheets of steel for further uses-

required and produced in medium quantities respectively. On the contrary, the two Chemicals

case studies analyzed (Chowdhury and George, 2012; Nenni, Giustiniano and Pirolo, 2018),

as expected, required a large variety in medium amounts of raw materials for the production

of an extended variety of products in medium quantity. Moreover, as expected in certain

cases, such as among the two Food process industries examined (Andersson, et al., 2009;

Tanco, et al., 2013), the variety and volume of raw materials required was smaller in the latter

case, due to the specificity of the product typepastries- while the volume of the final product

was larger compared to the former case study, due to the size of the producing facility and its

penetration to the market. Regarding the production process characterization, in terms of

flexibility and uniqueness or dedication of the equipment and machinery utilized, again there

was a range of flexible and inflexible processes. The majority of the case studies showed

inflexible processes, due to the fact that most production sequences consisted of an initial

formulating stage such as baking, mixing, bathing and other forms of specific processing

followed in most cases by subsequent, further stages of purifying or formulating. Last, the

third parameter of the model explained in paragraph 2.6 of the theoretic framework, the stage
at which the final product becomes discrete, as expected was varied from early to later stages

of the production process, among the different case studies. For example, in the Ceramics

case studies (Bonavia and Marin, 2006; Patel and Thakkar, 2014) a discrete form was

identified from the earlier stages whereas in the Food process industries examined

(Andersson, et al., 2009; Tanco, et al., 2013) the product reached a discrete stage in the later

stages of the production. From all these endogenous differences observed in each sector, the

necessity to take into account the characteristics in each case specifically before moving on to

further discussion and suggestion of the suitable practices for LM implementation is obvious

and prevalent. This thesis sets out to investigate and identify the impact of lean

manufacturing on process industries. Published scholarly articles have been employed

throughout the present research, to find out the impact. Moreover, a questionnaire-based case

study analysis was conducted to support the literature based arguments further. In the course

of the thesis, an in-depth, comprehensive overview of the Lean paradigm was provided, in

particular towards a model of implementation on the process industry. The goal was to

outline the importance and difficulties of LM implementation on process industries as well as

the challenges and expectations that arise from this effort. In doing so, several research

hypotheses were formulated in order to test the aspects of implementation and the overall
impact of LM on process industries. The hypotheses testing procedure was conducted in two

parts: a literature-based case study review as well as a case study analysis conducted through

structured, questionnaire-based interviews. In the end, results of the case studies and

thoughtful discussion from the case study observations are provided to justify the formulated

hypotheses. The thesis reveals the importance of the inherent production process

characteristics of each facility that sets out to implement lean as well as the range of

expectations and benefits that can be witnessed upon successful employment of the most

suitable LM practices. Additionally, attention is drawn towards the necessity of a continuous

organization commitment in the adoption of LM. The findings suggest that a careful design

plan is taking into account all production data referring to the following three variables, must

be conducted prior to setting out for the implementation of any LM practices: - Variety and

Volume of raw materials and products - Type of machinery utilized in the production process

- The stage at which the product becomes discrete After these details have been outlined, the

appropriate LM tools that can be utilized should be selected according to the following

directions: Page 57 of 75 - Process industries that require only a few raw materials and

produce large volumes of a limited variety of products should orient their efforts towards the

implementation of Quality lean tools such as Kaizen, TPM and 5S. - Production process lean
tools such as Batching and Production Levelling- Heijunka should be out of the scope of

implementation process industries that utilize dedicated and inflexible machinery and

equipment. - SMED, Work Standardization and relevant Method lean tools could be included

in the implementation scope of companies baring both flexible and inflexible production

processes, regarding the type of machinery utilized. - The stage at which the product becomes

discrete is not an important parameter when opting to implement Production process lean

tools such as JIT. - If the target upon the decision of LM implementation involves reducing

required resources and/ or waste or increasing overall performance rates, then with careful

and meticulous efforts the implementation will have positive effects in the long term.

Attention should be draw to the fact that from the beginning of the implementation and

onwards “One of the most important things in the successful implementation of lean

manufacturing is the stakeholders’ involvement and continuous attention.” This analysis

consists of a detailed collection of information on LM implemented in many different sectors

of process industries. Even though the depth of the analysis does not extend greatly, these

initial steps are expected to be precious for lean practitioners that are occupied in a process

industry environment, exactly because they point to the relevant information that one should

look into, leaving outside other aspects of lean that are not of importance. The findings from
the comparative analysis suggest that there are many reasons for which to try and implement

LM in a process industry facility. As deducted, whichever the production characteristics

might be, a process industry can to some degree implement some lean practices and witness a

positive result; the initial doubts usually witnessed in such environments regarding LM, with

this work can be avoided more easily. Moreover, the definition of crucial characteristics in a

production process allows for a critical judgment as regards the overall expectations on LM.

Since any decision to effectuate changes in a production process is accompanied by an

investment plan, the guidelines provided in this work can be utilized as some of the criteria

for the conduction of such a plan, in order to reach a verdict whether this investment would

be suitable and probable to bring positive results. Thus, for an organization with many

different facilities, this thesis could be very helpful in estimating investment the risk and

expected profits and deciding on the correct time and way of implementing LM. In this work,

an assembly of literature-based case study analyses were conducted and compared to one

questionnaire based case study. A wider collection of questionnaire-based case studies would

broaden the range of data and personal opinions from LM implementation responsible

supervisors and workers. In another aspect, while this study focused on groups of lean tools

that could be better suited and implemented in process industries, depending on the type of
the production process and the relevant production characteristics, a future work could

consist of an analysis of many different lean practices and tools separately, their

implementation as well as the impact they would effectuate on different sectors of the process

industry. Additionally, in this work lean was observed solely from the production process

aspect in process industries. However, these industries usually penetrate the FMCG Page 59

of 75 Moreover, while the scope in this thesis was the implementation and the outcome of

LM, it would be of interest to investigate the factors that inhibit successful implementation on

process industries. Further research could be conducted on the economic effects of a broader

lean implementation in the process industry, as this sector is predominant in the global

economies and any small alteration in the production process can have a major effect in the

real economy and the growth rates.

References
Aalst, J. v., 2010. Using Google Scholar to Estimate the Impact of Journal Articles in

Education. Educational Researcher, 39(5), pp. 387-400.

Abdulmalek, F. A., Rajgopal, J. and Needy, K. L., 2006. A Classification Scheme for the

Process Industry to Guide the Implementation of Lean, Engineering Management Journal,

18:2, pp.15-25.

Abdulmalek, F. A., and Rajgopal. J., 2007. Analyzing the Benefits of Lean Manufacturing

and Value Stream Mapping via Simulation: A Process Sector Case Study. International

Journal of Production Economics, 107 (1): 223–236.

Abrahamsson, S. and Isaksson, R., 2012. Implementing Lean – Discussing Standardization

versus Customization With Focus On National Cultural Dimensions. Management and

Production Engineering Review, 3(4), pp. 4–13.

Andersson, S., Armstrong, A., Bj re, A., Bowker. S., Chapman, S., Davies, R., Donald, C.,

Egner, B., Elebring, T., Holmqvist, S., Inghardt, T., Johannesson, P., Johansson, M.,

Johnstone, C., Kemmitt, P., Kihlberg, J., Korsgren, P., Lemurell, M., Moore, J., Pettersson, J.

A., Pointon, H., Pontén, F., Schofield, P., Selmi, N. and Whittamore, P., 2009. Making
medicinal chemistry more effective—application of Lean Sigma to improve processes, speed

and quality. Drug Discovery Today, 14(11-12), pp. 598-604.

Anthony, P., 2018. Lean in a Lean Economy. [online] Manufacturing Today. Available at:

http://www.manufacturing-today.com/sections/columns/2001-lean-in-a-lean-economy

[Accessed 2 Apr. 2018].

Art of Lean, Inc. (n.d.). Toyota Production System Basic Handbook. 1st ed. [ebook]

Available at: http://www.artoflean.com/files/Basic_TPS_Handbook_v1.pdf [Accessed 10

Feb. 2018] Atradius Conduction Team, 2017. Global Economic Outlook 2017: No time for

complacency. Atradius [online] atradius.nl. Available at: [Accessed 20 Feb. 2018]

Aulakh, S. S. and Gill. J. S., 2008. Lean Manufacturing – A Practitioner’s Perspective. 2008

IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management,

Singapore, pp.1184-1188.

Bamford, D., Forrester, P., Dehe, B. and Leese, R. G., 2015. Partial and iterative Lean

implementation: two case studies. International Journal of Operations & Production Page 61

of 75 Management, 35(5), pp. 702-727.