Discernible approaches to Lean

Some authors report different approaches to Lean, i.e. they contend that the method of Lean implementation varies by organisation. Emiliani (2008) crudely typifies approaches as ‘fake Lean’ or ‘real Lean’ where fake Lean relates to an approach based around the tools of Lean and real Lean refers to a management system where ‘respect for people’ is central. Radnor and Walley (2008) in their research of Lean implementation in eight public sector organisations also report two distinct approaches to Lean which they classify as ‘full’ implementation that is linked to the long term strategy of the organisation or ‘RIE’ based which is linked to local objectives. Like Emiliani (2008) and Radnor and Walley (2008), Pettersen (2009) acknowledges the ‘two main traditions of Lean as: ‘tool box Lean’ and ‘Lean Thinking’ and links these to two different types of goals: internally focused goals and externally focused goals; ‘an internally focused cost reduction initiative will differ substantially from an externally focused initiative to improve customer satisfaction’ (p.5). Further the author notes that Lean exists at two levels, both operational and strategic (see Hines et al, 2004) and that Lean can be seen as having a practical as well as a philosophical orientation (see Shah and Ward, 2007; Bhasin, 2008). The author uses goal oriented axis to compile an illustration of four discernible approaches to Lean production. Figure 2.6 replicates the table from Pettersen where the author employs the bracketed terms ‘operational’ and ‘strategic’ from the work of Hines et al (2004), and the bracketed terms ‘philosophical’ and ‘performative’ from the work of Shah and Ward (2007).

61

Figure 2.6: Characterisation of approaches to Lean (Source: Pettersen, 2009)

Pettersen (2009) offers little descriptive or empirical application of the four distinct approaches he identifies; however, the extant literature provides a good basis for exploring the validity of figure 2.6. For example, the bottom left quadrant (1) represents an approach to Lean that is ‘discrete’ and ‘performative’ i.e. an isolated event with a start and end time designed to ‘get things done’ and thus utilises a ‘Toolbox Lean’ approach. This approach to Lean implementation is in evidence in the literature with many authors lamenting upon patchy and fragmented approaches to Lean implementation which some authors argue are potentially destructive to the system as a whole (Towill and Christopher, 2005; Waldman and Schargel, 2006; Young and McClean, 2008; Proudlove et al, 2008; Radnor et al, 2012).

The upper left quadrant (2) reflects a discrete approach that is labelled as ‘ostensive’ i.e. ‘seeming to be true or genuine, but open to doubt’ (Encarta Dictionary, January 2010). This definition resonates with Liker’s hypothesis that whilst organisations are talking about Lean, they are often not actually doing Lean they are merely applying a few tools to some pre-defined problems. The classification is perhaps a reflection of the mantra ‘Lean is more than a set of tools’, yet many organisations are found to define Lean primarily by a set of highly visible tools such as Rapid Improvement Events (RIEs – a short burst of improvement activity usually taking place over 3-5 days), Value Stream Mapping

(VSM – a high level process map used to identify waste in a process) and 5S (a structured approach to standardisation: sort, straighten, sweep, standardise and sustain) (Bicheno, 2004; Roth, 2006). Applications of the tools of Lean without

Leanness Lean Thinking

Toolbox Lean Becoming Lean

Continuous (Strategic) Discrete (Operational) Ostensive (Philosophical) Performative (Practical) 2 4 1 3

62

the underlying philosophy are historically a common fallacy that has led to the failure of most Lean implementations in Western sectors (Bhasin, 2008; Emmiliani, 2008; Holweg, 2007; Womack and Jones, 2006; Liker, 2006; Roth 2006). Spear (2004) cautions that where organizations merely imitate the tools and not the principles of Lean the result is a rigid inflexible system. The addition of a layer of Lean tools by top managers to their organisation’s existing practices does not make an organisation Lean (Roth, 2006).

Moving across to the right hand column of Pettersen’s framework, the term ‘continuous’ is defined as a process oriented perspective that focuses on continuous efforts to improve. An organisation that does so in a performative manner (Box 3), i.e. improvements that are aimed at reaching certain goals of performance or targets for example places an organisation on the path to ‘Becoming Lean’. Box 4 identifies organisations that appear to embed Lean as ‘part of their daily work’ (Hines et al 2008; Corbett, 2007). Essentially Pettersen’s framework makes the distinction between Lean implementation that is discrete (left hand column) or process oriented (right hand column). Pettersen’s term ‘discrete’ closely resonates with the functional perspective, discussed in section 2.1, that has been shown to limit Lean implementation (McNulty, 2003 and McNulty and Ferlie, 2004).

The additional dimension Pettersen’s (2009) framework offers is one of the organisation’s goals: pragmatic or systemic. This depiction of a typology of Lean presents an alternative approach to defining Lean. Moving away from a binary perspective of ‘real lean’ and ‘fake lean’, Pettersen’s (2009) typology resonates with the notion of Lean as a ‘journey’ (Fillingham, 2007; Radnor 2010) and takes into consideration the influence of context (Taylor and Taylor, 2008). However, as already stated, Pettersen (2009) offers little empirical evidence for the existence of divergent approaches to Lean implementation.

63

Section 2.5 Summary of Part One and implications for research