Case study summaries Case study A

Company O is a NZ SME that initiated lean in 2007 as one of the Direct funded members. They focused on implementing 5S’s into their core manufacturing process during the 12 months NZTE provided financial assistance. Company O compartmentalised lean into a tool for the manufacturing department and they failed to develop a holistic organisation-wide change strategy. The driver behind the lean implementation was the NZTE subsidy. The SMT were not fully committed to the initiative and failed to develop a champion to drive the CI process after the consultant’s departure. Their lean transformation stalled after the initial 12 months.

Case study B

Company E is a large NZ company with three manufacturing sites across the country. The organisation was close to fiscal crisis in 2006 and the owner-operator turned to the 20 Keys programme as a last-ditched attempt to revive the business. The 20 Keys programme was initiated in 2006 however the programme did not result in the radical changes the owner-operator was seeking. The organisation underwent re-structuring during 20 Keys programme and the lean initiative was abandoned as a result. A new Operations Manager with lean implementation experience was hired during the restructure to oversee the day-to-day running of the main manufacturing site. The Operations Manager had initiated several low-key ‘embryo’ projects in 2008 to renew their lean drive.

Case study C

Company V is a large NZ company that initiated lean as one of the Direct funded members in 2008. The CEO implemented lean as a methodology to implement a CI culture and Company V seemed on track to achieving this cultural transformation. The CEO demonstrated strong commitment to change and had invested significant time and money into ongoing staff training. However, Company V still needed to gain a better understanding and alignment to their customer demands and place greater emphasis on developing internal lean leaders to ensure their lean journey led to a CI culture.

Case study D

Company C is a small job-shop that implemented 20 Keys in 2005 as a last resort to avoid financial failure. They had averted crisis but it was unclear as to what role lean had played in survival as the market conditions had changed and the company had downsized since 2005. They had implemented the 20 Keys as a tool to improve the manufacturing operations for five years. After five years of implementing lean as a tool the SMT had realised that their existing approach was not sustainable and that they needed to take a holistic culture-change approach to implementing lean if they were to sustain improvements in the long-term. The SMT was formulating strategies to embed a CI culture at the time of this case study.

Case study E

Company T is a small job-shop that undertook lean as a Direct funded member in 2007. The NZTE subsidy had convinced the SMT to commit to lean but the SMT showed no commitment to change and relied on the consultant to drive the programme. The consultant drove the initiative for 12 months with little success. The organisation did not have a strategy for change, they placed little emphasis on developing the lean champion’s capabilities to drive changes and their overall focus on staff training was poor. They also found it difficult to adapt lean into their job-shop environment due to their poor understanding of lean. Overall their progress with lean was inconsequential.

Case study F

Company J is a small job-shop that implemented the 20 Keys in 2007. Although the SMT was committed to the initiative, their understanding of lean was purely tools based. This lack of understanding together with a poor change strategy, high staff resistance and lack of implementation know-how on the shop floor meant that they had not sustained their lean transformation. They also struggled to apply the concepts of the 20 Keys to their job-shop environment.

Case study G

Company D is a large NZ company that implemented the 20 Keys programme in 2005. They made little progress over the five years they attempted lean and have primarily focused on ‘cleaning and organising’ of the manufacturing operations. The

NZTE funding was the main driver behind their decision to undertake lean and the SMT were never committed to leading the changes. They had a tools based understanding of lean, lacked a champion to implement changes and they failed to develop a strategy for change. The combination of these factors meant that they failed to make any significant gains with the 20 Keys programme.

Case study H

Company K is a small job-shop that implemented the 20 Keys programme in 2007. They focused on ‘cleaning and organising’ the manufacturing department and staff development which resulted in considerable short-term gains in productivity. Their understanding of lean was tools based and this erroneous understanding of lean together with a lack of SMT commitment, a poor change strategy and high staff turnover meant that they were unlikely to sustain lean.

Case study I

Company B is a large NZ company with several manufacturing sites across the country. They implemented 20 Keys at one of these sites in 2005. The NZTE funding had convinced the SMT to undertake the 20 Keys programme which they saw as a cost-cutting tool. They primarily focused on ‘cleaning and organising’ the manufacturing operations for two years before abandoning their lean transformation indefinitely due to financial stress.

Case studies J & K

Company G and P had gone into receivership as a result of the economic downturn some months before the data collection phase of this study. Company G undertook the 20 Keys programme in 2006 and Company P undertook the Direct approach in 2007 and neither succeeded in embedding a CI culture.