Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERSITEIT GENT
FACULTEIT ECONOMIE EN BEDRIJFSKUNDE
ACADEMIEJAAR 2015 – 2016
DEVELOPING A READINESS INDEX FOR
LEAN PRACTICES IN AGRICULTURE
Masterproef voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van
Master of Science in de
Toegepaste Economische Wetenschappen: Handelsingenieur
Thomas Boussauw
onder leiding van
Prof. Dr. Véronique Limère & Dr. Manoj Dora
III
PERMISSION
Ondergetekende verklaart dat de inhoud van deze masterproef mag geraadpleegd en/of
gereproduceerd worden, mits bronvermelding.
Undersigned gives permission to put this thesis to disposal for consultation and to copy parts of it for
personal use. Any other use falls under the limitations of copyright, in particular the obligation to
explicitly mention the source when citing parts out of this thesis.
Thomas Boussauw
Gent, 17 mei 2016
IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Lean management has moved from purely manufacturing plants to operations of all kind. The
principles are implemented in companies, everywhere and in every sector. Such as airline
maintenance, healthcare, IT industry, insurance, and the public sector. One of the sectors that lag
behind is the agriculture.
The first goal of this master thesis is to gauge how acquainted the farmers already are with the
concept of lean and how high the interest and enthusiasm is towards these lean practices. The
second aim is to detect the readiness factors specific for farmers. This way they can assess if they
are ready to commence the lean journey.
Literature was reviewed to gather all the readiness factors required for a successful
implementation of lean. Based on the literature review 6 categories of readiness factors were
identified. Next a Readiness Index was developed in the form of a questionnaire. Questions
concerning all of the 6 categories were developed specifically for the agricultural industry. Via
the questionnaire the preparedness of the companies was checked. Further, the researcher
organized a focus group meeting. Three managers, who completed the questionnaire,
participated. Finally, ‘Innovatiesteunpunt’, Innovation Support Centre (ISP) for Agricultural and
Rural Development was contacted. Meeting with them resulted in new insights for both sides.
All the data gathered from the questionnaires and personal interviews was analysed by using a
case study approach. This way the important and subjective interpretations and views of the
researcher could be incorporated in the results. Thirty companies were visited and this resulted in
56 completed questionnaires from both management and staff.
Multiple conclusions are drawn based on the research and the analysed data. Following are some
factors, which show the preparedness for lean. Management of the participating firms is willing
to look into the lean concept and the application of its practices to achieve higher profitability
and eliminate wastes and losses. The employees in contrast, want to stay in their comfort zone
and aren’t interested in new lean techniques. Further, the organizations have close relationships
with their clients. Actively seeking feedback, through questionnaires, isn’t necessary here. The
direct communication between both parties is sufficient to understand the requirements,
satisfaction level and complaints of the customers.
V
Next, some factors that indicate a low level of readiness to change are provided. Regarding the
processes in the companies there is a lot of room for improvement. The implementation of
several types of lean practices could potentially reap benefits in terms of increased productivity.
There are potential benefits by implementing visual board, organizing small meetings and storing
equipment correctly. Both managers and employees indicated that there is a big opportunity to
ameliorate production processes using lean practices. Next, employees need more
encouragement to think along with the managers. They also need to be educated concerning lean
management. The managers need to listen to their employees. By doing this, new and
unsuspected issues and solutions for operational processes will come up.
Employees stated that the management could involve the staff more in the efficient functioning
of the company. There is a lot of unused knowledge. Informing employees about lean
management and encouraging them to step up and mean something in the organization is a
working point.
On the whole, the data states that there is definitely potential for the application of lean practices
in agriculture. Based on the readiness factors and the data, we can conclude that some readiness
factors need more attention than others to succeed in applying lean practices within the firm. The
horticultural and agricultural sector in Flanders is ready for lean in terms of good communication
with the customers and progressive leadership. Management is interested in lean and understands
its benefits. The horticultural and agricultural sector in Flanders is not ready for lean in terms of
encouragement, motivation and involvement of employees and the efficiency of operational
processes.
VI
SAMENVATTING
Lean management is ontstaan in productiebedrijven en is momenteel aanwezig in allerhande
industrieën. De principes worden overal geïmplementeerd en in verscheidene sectoren. Zoals
luchtvaart, onderhoud, gezondheidszorg, IT, verzekeringen en de publieke sector. Eén van de
sectoren die achter blijft is de landbouwindustrie.
De eerste doelstelling van deze master thesis is het peilen naar hoe goed de landbouwers op de
hoogte zijn van het concept lean en in welke mate er enthousiasme en interesse aanwezig is naar
deze lean praktijken. Het tweede doel bestaat uit het ontdekken van de readiness factoren
specifiek voor de landbouw. Zodoende kunnen zij zelf evalueren of ze al dan niet klaar zijn om
aan de implementatie van lean te beginnen.
Een zeer grondige literatuurstudie heeft ertoe geleid alle readiness factoren op te lijsten die nodig
zijn voor een succesvolle implementatie van lean. Op basis van deze literatuurstudie werden 6
categorieën van readiness factoren vastgesteld. Daarna werd een Readiness Index opgesteld in de
vorm van een vragenlijst. Voor iedere categorie werden 5 vragen opgesteld specifiek voor de
landbouwsector. Verder werd via deze vragenlijst de bereidheid/gereedheid van de deelnemende
bedrijven gecontroleerd. Vervolgens werd er een paneldiscussie georganiseerd door de
onderzoeker. Drie managers, die ook de vragenlijst hadden ingevuld, namen hieraan deel. Ten
slotte was er contact met het ‘Innovatiesteunpunt’. De ontmoeting met hen bracht nieuwe
inzichten met zich mee over verschillende topics voor beide partijen.
Alle data die voortkwam uit de vragenlijsten en de persoonlijke interviews werd geanalyseerd
met behulp van een case study methode. Op deze manier konden de belangrijke en subjectieve
interpretaties van de onderzoeker ook geïncorporeerd worden in de resultaten. Dertig bedrijven
werden bezocht en dit resulteerde uiteindelijk in 56 ingevulde vragenlijsten van zowel
management als werknemers.
Verscheidene conclusies zijn getrokken op bases van de geanalyseerde data. Volgend worden
enkele factoren belicht die aantonen dat bedrijven in de landbouw klaar zijn om lean te
implementeren. Het management van de deelnemende bedrijven is bereid om zich te verdiepen
in de lean principes en de hier op volgende implementatie om zodoende hogere winsten te
bewerkstelligen en verliezen te elimineren. De werknemers hier in tegen willen niet uit hun
VII
comfort zone gerukt worden en tonen veel minder interesse in de lean technieken. Verder hebben
de organisaties een hechte band met hun klanten en actief op zoek gaan naar feedback via
vragenlijsten is hier niet noodzakelijk. Het rechtstreekse contact tussen beide partijen is
voldoende om de wensen, tevredenheid en klachten van het cliënteel te weten te komen.
Verder volgen er enkele factoren die wijzen op een laag niveau van readiness to change. Met
betrekking tot de processen binnen de bedrijven is er een grote marge voor verbetering. De
implementatie van verscheidene lean praktijken brengt potentiële voordelen met zich mee op het
gebied van verhoogde productiviteit. Er zijn zeker voordelen te halen uit het invoeren van
visuele borden, het organiseren van kleine vergaderingen en het correct opbergen van materiaal.
Zowel managers als werknemers wijzen erop dat het verbeteren van de processen via lean
praktijken een grote opportuniteit is. Verder hebben werknemers meer aanmoediging nodig om
mee te denken met het management. Ze moeten ook de nodige kennis inzake lean aangebracht
worden. Managers moeten luisteren naar het personeel. Hieruit zullen onverwachte oplossingen
vloeien voor problemen bij de operationele processen.
Het personeel gaf aan dat het management meer kan doen om de werknemers te betrekken bij het
efficiënt werken van de organisatie. Er is heel wat ongebruikte kennis. Het personeel informeren
inzake lean management en hen aanmoedigen om zich in te zetten en iets te betekenen binnen
het bedrijf is een werkpunt.
De resultaten tonen aan dat er absoluut potentieel is voor de implementatie van lean praktijken in
de landbouwsector. Op basis van de readiness factoren en de data, kunnen we besluiten dat
sommige factoren veel meer aandacht nodig hebben dan andere om te slagen in het succesvol
implementeren van lean in de onderneming. . De tuinbouw- en landbouwsector in Vlaanderen is
klaar voor lean op het gebied van goede communicatie met de klanten en progressief leiderschap.
Het management toont grote interesse in lean en ze weten wat de potentiële voordelen zijn. De
tuinbouw- en landbouwsector in Vlaanderen is niet klaar voor lean wat betreft aanmoediging,
motivatie en betrokkenheid van zijn werknemers en de efficiëntie van operationele processen.
VIII
ACKNOWLEGEMENT
For the past two years I worked on this master thesis. I learned a lot about the agricultural sector
and due to the personal interviews I encountered a lot of interesting people. The research
demanded quite some efforts and time to be able to present it to you as is. Nevertheless, this
would never have been possible without the support and guidelines of some people who I would
like to thank here.
First of all I would like to thank my co-promotor, prof. Manoj Dora, for offering me the
opportunity to write my thesis handling about the new, interesting and emerging topic of lean
implementation in the agricultural sector. Further, my honest thanks go to the incredibly
enthusiastic PhD candidate, Darian Pearce, who always had a clear answer on my questions and
supported me in every way possible. I want thank them both for the interesting discussions
concerning our research topic, it gave me a lot of new things to reflect on and new insights,
which helped ameliorating my thesis. Next a big thank you to my promotor, prof. dr. Véronique
Limère and prof. dr. Xavier Gellynck, for supporting me during the different phases of my
master thesis. And especially dr. Xavier Gellynck, for giving me the first introduction to the
agricultural industry and initiating my interest into the sector during the class of ‘agricultural
economics’.
I should thank all the participants, who offered me some precious time to complete my
questionnaire, provide me with the necessary feedback and occasionally gave me an interesting
tour of their company. Next to that, thank you for aiding me with the addresses of your
colleagues. I would like to especially thank Chris Goossens and Tom Leybaert for their
enormously appreciated help regarding the focus group meeting, answering all my additional
questions and helping clarifying some of the topics of lean in agriculture.
Further I thank Veerle Serpieters and Ilse Geyskens from ‘Innovatiesteunpunt’ for the interesting
discussion regarding lean in agriculture. This gave me new approaches to some of the topics.
The interviews took place in the whole off Flanders. This entailed over 100 phone calls and 2500
kilometres of burning rubber and consuming fuel. Without the financial as well as the social and
emotional support of my family, you would not be reading this honest acknowledgement. Thank
you for rereading my work, for supporting and encouraging me when I needed it the most.
IX
CONTENT
PERMISSION ............................................................................................................................. III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ IV
SAMENVATTING ..................................................................................................................... VI
AKNOWLEGEMENT ............................................................................................................ VIII
CONTENT .................................................................................................................................. IX
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... XI
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... XII
LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................... XIII
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
1.1. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2. RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION ........................................................................................... 3
1.2.1. LEAN RESULTS IN AGRICULTURE ....................................................................... 4
1.2.2. ORGANISATIONAL READINESS .......................................................................... 12
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................... 14
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 17
2.1. LEAN THINKING IN AGRICULTURE ........................................................................... 17
2.1.1. THE AGRO-BUSINESS VS. MANUFACTURING .................................................. 17
2.1.2. TRANSFERING LEAN TO AGRICULTURE .......................................................... 21
2.1.3. STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................................................... 25
2.1.4. LEAN LEADERSHIP ............................................................................................... 26
2.2. MEASURING READINESS FOR CHANGE ................................................................... 29
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 32
3.1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 32
3.2. READINESS FACTORS ................................................................................................... 32
Category 1: Leadership ..................................................................................................... 34
Category 2: Processes ....................................................................................................... 35
X
Category 3: Employees ..................................................................................................... 36
Category 4: Customer Relations ....................................................................................... 37
Category 5: Supplier Relations ......................................................................................... 38
Category 6: Willingness .................................................................................................... 40
3.3. DATA COLLECTION ....................................................................................................... 40
3.4. DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 43
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................... 45
4.1. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 45
LEADERSHIP ................................................................................................................... 45
PROCESSES ...................................................................................................................... 47
EMPLOYEES .................................................................................................................... 48
CUSTOMER ...................................................................................................................... 49
WILLINGNESS .................................................................................................................. 50
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION & REMARKS ......................................................................... 53
RESEARCH QUESTION: ............................................................................................................... 53
CONNECTING METHODS TO ANALYSIS OF RQ’S......................................................................... 55
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 57
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 1.1
APPENDIX 1: TABLE OF READINESS FACTORS ............................................................. 1.1
APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF READINESS PAPERS ......................................................... 2.1
APPENDIX 3: MANAGER QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................... 3.1
APPENDIX 4: EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................... 4.1
APPENDIX 5: RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 5.1
XI
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: A FIVE-PHASE FRAMEWORK FOR SIX SIGMA IMPLEMENTATION IN SMES ......................... 13
FIGURE 2: OUTLINE OF THE ORC MODEL BY LEHMAN (2002). ................................................................... 16
FIGURE 3: 5 STEPS OF LEAN IMPLEMENTATION (JONES & WOMACK, 2013) ........................................... 21
FIGURE 4: VALUE STREAM CURRENT STATE MAP ....................................................................................... 24
FIGURE 5: THE AGRO-FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN (BURCH & LAWRENCE, 2005). ........................................... 25
FIGURE 6: THE LEADERSHIP MATRIX SHOWING LEADERSHIP ON AGRICULTURAL FIRMS .............. 27
FIGURE 7: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LEAN LEADERSHIP (DOMBROWSKI & MIELKE, 2014) ... 28
FIGURE 8: READINESS FOR CHANGE QUADRANTS ...................................................................................... 30
XII
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: THE FIVE PRINCIPLES OF LEAN .......................................................................................... 2
TABLE 2: TRANSFERRED LEAN PRINCIPLES ....................................................................................... 9
TABLE 3: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MANUFACTURING & AGRICULTURE ............................................ 20
TABLE 4: THE SEVEN WASTES OF LEAN AND AN EIGHTH WASTE ..................................................... 23
TABLE 5: PARTICIPATING COMPANIES ............................................................................................ 42
XIII
LIST OF ACRONYMS
IMVP the International Motor Vehicle Program
VSM Value Stream Map
FVCA Food Value Chain Analysis
SME Small and medium-sized enterprises
GTA Graph Theoretic Approach
ISP Innovation Support Centre
RF Readiness Factor
FTE Full Time Equivalent
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND
Lean thinking was initially developed as a manufacturing method found on the shop floors of
Japanese manufacturer Toyota Motor Corporation. Development of the method over a period of
more than 50 years and its continuous implementation led Toyota to become the most successful
motor manufacturing company in the world. Toyota strives for high quality cars and focuses on
the health of its employees by tenacious devotion to continuous improvement in all the facets of
the company.
John Krafcik, researcher at the International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP) initially coined the
term ‘lean production’. The IMVP was initiated at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in
1985. The IMVP performed an enormous benchmarking study. They gathered data from
automobile manufacturers all over the globe in order to grasp the variations in productivity and
quality. After five years of research the findings of the study were published in the renowned
book ‘The Machine that Changed the World’ (Womack, Daniel T. & Daniel R, 1990).
Here the results of the study are presented together with the origins of lean manufacturing. The
word ‘lean’ was originally suggested here because in the study the best assembly plants, the
Japanese (Womack et al., 1990, p. 13):
Uses less of everything compared with mass production – half the human efforts in the
factory, half the manufacturing space, half the investments in tools, half the engineering
hours to develop a new product in half the time. Also it requires keeping far less than half
the needed inventory on site, results in many fewer defects, and produces a greater and
ever growing variety of products.
The Japanese automobile manufacturers were so far ahead of the Western manufacturers because
of a continuous quest for quality improvements since 1950 until 1980. In contrast to the Japanese
firms, which realized a huge quality evolution, the Western companies did not worry about all
2
the quality issues in these three decades. Later on the West realized they lagged behind and
started studying what was happening in Japan. (Dahlgaard & Dahlgaard-Park, 2006)
Womack and Jones(Womack & Jones, 1996). Specified the following five principles for
achieving lean enterprises and minimizing waste (See Table 1). Further on several comments on
the five principles will be presented.
Table 1: The five principles of lean
Specify value
Specify value as demanded and defined by the ultimate customer.
Especially engineers and experts can add complexity to the
products that is of no interest to the customer
Identify the Value Stream
The Value Stream contains all the actions needed to deliver a
product to the customer. Identify any non-value adding activity
and remove it
Flow Make the value-creating steps and processes flow continuously
without interruptions
Pull
Only produce what is demanded by the end customer. Let the
customer pull value from the producer. Prevent inventory stocks as
much as possible
Pursue Perfection The process of reducing space, mistakes, costs and time is a
continuous process which is a never ending story
Firstly, before lean was introduced to the industrialized world, the craft production approach was
the main production strategy; later on this was replaced by the mass production approach. These
five principles are the same as these, which were the fundamental standards of craft production.
Lean is a production philosophy, which tries to link the principles of craftsmanship with mass
production. Craft production focuses on the customers’ needs. Without a specific order from a
client, no production would commence. All work forces were committed to satisfy the
customers’ demands. The employees were proud of producing with a high quality standard,
which characterized the craftsmanship. Everybody understood the consequences of waste and
strived towards efficiency. These positive elements of craftsmanship were lost during the
3
transition to mass production. Where enormous invisible wastes emerged. (Dahlgaard &
Dahlgaard-Park., 2006)
The goal is to create a learning organization that aims to be more efficient and appreciates the
contributions of its employees. ‘Lean can be said as adding value by eliminating waste being
responsive to change, focusing on quality and enhancing the effectiveness of the work force.’
(Sharma, 2014)
Lean has moved from purely manufacturing plants to operations of all kind. The principles are
implemented in companies, everywhere and in every sector. Such as airline maintenance,
healthcare, oil production, non-profit, IT industry, publishing, insurance, and government
(Corbett, 2007).
One of the sectors that lag behind is the agricultural industry. Considering the novel character of
lean in agriculture, it seemed interesting to explore the readiness factors in order to see if farmers
are ready (i.e. prepared) to implement and invest in such quality improvement methods. Further
we want to assess how familiar they are with the concepts of lean and if there is an interest from
within the sector in implementing lean practices.
1.2. RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION
The economic cost of wastage of food production for human consumption amounts up to USD 1
trillion each year. Almost one-third of the produced food is wasted or lost. Nevertheless, the
hidden costs of this waste are much larger. Unconsumed food has a lot of impact on the
environment. All these extra costs need to be paid by our future generations. Moreover, by
amplifying ecological degradation, the wastage of agricultural products is related to even bigger
social costs, which influence society’s well-being.
In the agricultural sector there has been little attention on ameliorating efficiency at the
managerial level, specifically on eliminating waste compared to the service and manufacturing
industry (Sofokleous, 2007). Decisions in the agricultural industry are often made based on the
influence of the additional costs on the value stream. Both practitioners and researchers suggest
the utilization of quality management principles, such as lean management, to improve the
efficiency and competitiveness of the agricultural sector (Luning & Marcelis, 2009). Lean
practices try to adapt complicated processes to flow processes, standardize processes, remove
4
waste and deliver customer value (Spear & Bowen, 1999). Next to yield, achieving product
quality should be seen as a measure of an efficient farming process (Colgan, Adam &
Topolansky, 2013).
The agricultural industry in Flanders is capital intensive, employs high-tech machinery and a lot
of investments are required to compete with the competitors. To remain competitive in a
continuously evolving industry it is important to start implementing managerial based
approaches such as lean practices to increase productive capacity and reap the benefits.
1.2.1. LEAN RESULTS IN AGRICULTURE
Lean management has been studied for decades. Lean in agriculture has just made its
introduction in the world of research. Therefore, the content available on lean in agriculture is
very limited. We will start by listing the positive and negative points of applying lean in
agriculture. Due to the immaturity of academic papers regarding lean agriculture we will also
look at the transferability of lean, by looking at how lean has been converted from the
manufacturing industry to services, healthcare, etc.
(Levitt, 1972) was the first to study the transfer of techniques used in manufacturing to the
service industry. Next, (Allway & Corbett, 2002) developed new definitions for lean principles
and they showed different situations that demonstrated that it is possible to implement
manufacturing practices in service environments. Further, (Swank, 2003) unified some of the
results from the previous research concerning lean services. By performing a case study
regarding the applications of lean in a financial environment. Finally, (Bicheno, 2008) and (Song
et al., 2008) each presented a toolbox for the implementation of lean service techniques.
Now we will elaborate more thoroughly on some of these papers.
A study in the red meat industry in the UK showed us an augmentation of the profitability
through the whole value chain. By implementing lean practices, particularly standard operations
and takt-time, the potential increase of profitability is significant. The cost savings for the
farmers are 3,4% at their selling price (Zokaei & Simons, 2006).
(Colgan et al., 2013) performed a case study of the benefits of the implementation of lean
thinking in farms in the United Kingdom used the Five Principles of Lean, VSM and the Seven
5
Wastes theory. They found an increase in competitiveness by the reduction of waste and the
improvement of the food quality.
Results obtained from the Value Stream Maps indicate that there is a possibility for lean
improvements concentrated on dynamic markets outlets and more efficient utilisation and
allocation of fixed cost resources, such as skill, land, machinery, labour and buildings to add
value. This implies changes to the whole farming system. Study experts also pinpointed that
variable inputs such as sprays, feeding and fertilizers are essential to realize the highest quality
and yield potential of land and genetics. This is accomplished through cost/benefit risk
assessment, accurate budgeting and proficient application methods. They detected some more
specific examples for cattle breeding. The allocation of too much grassland to the herd showed
there is excess capacity. This entails the potential for the arable company to cultivate up to 30%
more of grassland. This will provide a better allocation of resources and augment gross margins
per hectare. Further it is possible to finish bulls 1-2 months faster at 13-14 months to the same
slaughter weight, by commencing full meal diet earlier after weaning. Thus reducing meal
demands by 9 tons. Another option to be more efficient is rotational grazing in three blocks to
achieve extra grassland utilisation.
Next they also found specific examples for arable firms. Notwithstanding that grain is an end-
user ready product at farm level, farmers didn’t have a lot of knowledge concerning marketing.
Short-term grain storage reduced the autonomy of farmers to make independent marketing
choices. Therefore, end-user sale options should be explored. Farmers should regularly seek
consumer market intelligence regarding beer, biscuit porridge and so on and keep this
information updated. Hence with good timing they can get higher prices for grain. Another
example is doing quality assessments of grain before movement off farm and for every load off
farm, linked to the field where it was grown. Finally, an efficient purchase policy for pesticides
based on cost and quality can reduce costs. This ensures correct crop coverage, reduces scorch
and increases yield value adding potential.
Nevertheless, there also arise difficulties in applying lean to farming. Measuring the financial
value that is being added by lean implementation is a big problem. Next farmers must be well
aware of the five principles of lean to successfully succeed in applying lean. Besides the farmers,
employees also need to be trained. They need to know the principles of lean. This can ensure
lower breakdowns and higher quality of products.
6
(Simons & Taylor, 2007) focus in their paper on the value chain involving the red meat industry.
They saw potential of improved vertical collaboration in the food chain. Two key
implementation issues were detected. In the first place the inter-company alignment of sub-
systems along with attention to chain organisational stability through time.
To accomplish better vertical cooperation, an agri-food specific methodology was developed,
Food Value Chain Analysis (FVCA). This is a consumer value and supply chain analysis method
based on tool and techniques from the lean paradigm.
By applying the case study approach a Current State Map was developed. This provided
performance key characteristics of the whole chain.
The supply time was 185h. This is the time from the pig leaving the farm until the finished
product is available in on the retail shelf. From these 185h only 1.4h were value-adding time,
time during which the product is processed to the form required by the consumer.
There was found a loss/defect rate across the whole chain of 20%. This contains losses at the
farm such as mortality, losses in processing and rejects.
It was found that only 50-60% of the usable meat entered the retail chain. They examined the
possibility to augment the utilization of the whole pig. A target of 75% was set, the goal being to
decrease waste and improve traceability, food safety and quality.
Further they made a selection of potential initiatives and so developed a Future State Map. An
important primary step was to ensure that all staff members were aware of waste elimination and
lean thinking. Next was defining customer value. Often the chain members, including the
farmers, didn’t have a consistent or clear view of the issues that are crucial to the customer.
One of the key projects was the development of an integrated regional system of pig production.
Here groups of farmers were specifically dedicated to breeding pigs for the retailer. This was all
linked to specific abattoirs, feed mills and processing plants.
Regarding the whole supply chain, they identified potential logistic benefits. They found two key
implementation issues. Firstly there is inter-company alignment of sub-systems. They want to
create an environment that is conducive to the implementation of lean-based improvements to all
the sub systems. Secondly chain organisational stability through time.
7
Andersson & Eklund concluded that applying lean principles in agriculture lead to a more
structured and less stressful work environment. The researchers examined what happens with the
work environment when lean thinking was applied in the agricultural business. Through
observations, questionnaires and interviews they found several positive effects. (K. Andersson &
Eklund, 2012) The implementation of lean thinking resulted in a psychosocial work
environment, which was more structured and less stressful. The results on the physical work
environment weren’t conclusive, but there was a positive effect due to the decrease of
transportations on the farm.
According to (Dyrendahl & Granath, 2011) some basic principles of lean still need to be adapted,
in order to be applicable in an agro context. Nevertheless, they specify that the reduction of
wastes and losses result in financial benefits for the organization. But by following the structure
of the Balanced Scorecard, lean proofs to be beneficial for agricultural firms. Their study shows
that there is a potential to augment profitability with 5.6% by using lean.
During a two-year pilot study, the Food Chain Centre at Cardiff Business School showed how
wasteful activities, which cost a lot of money and time, could be determined in the fresh produce
industry. They also provide potential solutions that can be adopted to realise savings, by
reducing waste and losses. They discovered that in excess of 95% of the time between harvesting
and consumer purchase is inactive time. Where the product is either waiting or involved in steps
that are non-value adding. (Centre, 2007)
(Voulgarakis, Folinas, Aidonis & Triantafillou, 2013) claim that using VSM analysis is an
effective tool to identify waste in the agro food supply chain.
A very important point to consider is that lean mustn’t be seen as yet another strategy, but as a
philosophy (Rymaszewska, 2014). Lean thinking must be viewed on long term and there is need
of continuous improvement. The company needs to become a learning organisation. Relentless
reflection is a crucial element here. (Bhasin & Burcher, 2006).
(Bowen & Youngdahl, 2009) presented three cases of successful lean implementation in
services. Three exemplary examples of the transferability of lean from manufacturing to
services: Taco Bell, Southwest Airlines and Shouldice Hospital. The outcome of the study
indicated that service companies could successfully apply lean practices, developed for the
manufacturing industry.
8
The lean principles they transferred to these companies are listed in Table 2. Taco Bell changed
its production strategy drastically and implemented these lean practices. Results can be seen in
the trade-offs between operations and efficiency with low cost and flexibility. They focussed on
customer and quality and optimised the human resource management.
Their lean operations need empowered employees who strive to solve problems and have social
skills that result in good customer service and teamwork. The company started with thorough
training of staff and performance-based pay for managers.
A major difference between lean service and lean manufacturing is that the former takes place
with the customer on site whereas the latter does not. Due to Taco Bell’s lean appeal to human
resources management they were able to turn the contact with their clients in their advantage.
This resulted in an increased customer service and quality.
It is important that the companies in the service industry firstly examine thoroughly what their
customers want. Untested assumptions about the expectations of customers in terms of service
quality have provided obstacles to adopting manufacturing principles to services.
Bowen and Youngdahl conclude that service companies can successfully implement a lean
service model. By embracing lean principles developed in manufacturing such as: employee
empowerment and value chain orientation.
Another company that realised significant ameliorations by applying lean principles is Jefferson
Pilot Financial Insurance Company (JPF) (Swank, 2003). They concluded that in order to assure
successful lean implementation it is imperative that the employees are well informed about why
and how the changes towards lean are necessary. Financial gains as well as intangible gains such
as quality perceived by clients were detected.
9
Table 2: Transferred lean principles
Author Lean principles developed for service industry
Bowen & Youngdahl
(1998)
Reduce the performance trade-offs
Make the value-added processes flow and implement customer-driven
system
Eliminate losses in the value chain of activities, from development to
delivery
Increase customer focus and involvement in the development and
delivery processes
Empower employees and team
Swank (2003)
Reduce the performance trade-offs
Make the value-added processes flow and implement customer-driven
system
Eliminate losses in the value chain of activities, from development to
delivery
Increase customer focus and involvement in the development and
delivery processes
Empower employees and teams
Segregate activities by complexity
Publish / present performance results
10
The same lean practices as Bowen and Youngdahl were implemented. But they added two more.
Segregating activities by complexity and presenting performance results. The principles are
listed in Table 2. The former was achieved by clustering tasks of equivalent levels of difficulty
into independent groups with their own performance goals. At JPF they distinguished two
groups. One that handled cases, which required a physician statement and the others handling
those, that didn’t. After the separation was done, the turnaround time for cases not needing a
statement fell by more than 80%.
The latter was posting performance results. They displayed the hourly productivity rates next to
the firm’s expectations. All employees could see when and where performance was inadequate.
The boards became a rallying point for employees to discuss ways of solving performance issues
and to encourage the group to set new performance records. The staff members quickly
understood that they wouldn’t be evaluated by their superior’s subjective opinion. They would
be rewarded for objective results, which they could track themselves.
The implementation of lean practices in JPF is not only delivering productivity gains, it is also
helping the company make more cost-effective capital investments. For instance, JPF will not
introduce new automation processes in divisions where the lean principles haven’t been applied.
Also all proposals for new processes first go through a lean analysis.
Change always encounters some sceptics. The team understood that to assure efficient
knowledge transfer to frontline employees and operational staff it needed to communicate the
‘how’ and ‘why’ of lean. Everyone within the firm needed to comprehend why the new process
was necessary. And lean implementation can’t be successful without continual adjustment as the
market changed.
By applying these principles, the insurance firm boosted its operations and augmented revenues,
diminish order-processing time by 70%, labour costs by 26% and error reduction around 40%.
All these gains are not only financial results, but also intangible gains on quality perceived by
clients.
(Leite & Ernani, 2010) demonstrate that empowerment of employees and focus on the customers
are two crucial factors of lean in services, along with overcoming the resistance to change of the
employees. They state that 5S standardization and Value Stream Mapping are two major tools,
which can be applied in the service industry.
11
Lean doesn’t have a specific model of tools and standards for services. The researchers state that
each authors use a mix of tools that suits the particular needs of a firm. This can be justified by
the broad variation of the nature of services. For instance, there are services related to food
production, logistics, hospitals, information technology, airlines and so on. They performed a
bibliographic study of the creation and evolution of the lean philosophy focused on the service
industry. Hereafter some results of their research will be elaborated.
Generating production flows and use pull systems by the customer is a standard of lean
manufacturing that can be transferred to services. Another very important factor is the human
aspect. Employees need to be empowered. In contrast to manufacturing, the service sector has a
big involvement of people, especially in the front office, but also in the back office. Here
manpower is one of the biggest factors in the overall cost. For manufacturing companies, high
costs are rather related to equipment and raw materials.
Next to focussing on people, lean service also concentrates on the customer. The first contact for
selling service is the customer. Differently from most industries, here the firm deals directly with
the client. They found that the best practices and tools applied to lean service are Value Stream
Mapping, production balancing and 5S standardization.
Despite possible limitation such as resistance to change, they confirmed that lean practices in
services have proved to be very positive. None of the case studies and papers researched in their
work mentioned significant disadvantages of implementing lean in services. On the contrary,
various cases showed large successes of the application of lean principles.
Lean in the service industry has showed its benefits. By using some lean tools such as VSM, 5S
standardization it was possible to transfer lean principles from manufacturing to service. Two
important lean principles developed in manufacturing were value chain orientation and employee
empowerment. Employees need to be empowered and they need to strive to solve problems. This
can be achieved through good training of staff. The service companies need to know what their
customers want.
There is some resistance to change. To transfer the knowledge about lean to all the employees,
they need to know the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of lean. Everyone in the firm needs to understand why
change is necessary.
12
Concluding we can state that the implementation of lean principles within the agricultural
industry can bring significant benefits. Compared to lean in services, similar lean practices return
in the agricultural sector. VSM and 5S standardization are effective tools to identify more
efficient ways to utilise and allocate fixed resources and to identify waste in the supply chain.
This reduction of waste brings an increase in profitability. Looking at the whole supply chain,
there can be found substantial logistic benefits.
Often the farmers didn’t have a clear insight of the problems, which are important to their
customers. Defining the customer value is necessary because the client is the central figure in
lean thinking. To achieve successful implementation of lean, it is important to ensure that the
work force has knowledge about lean thinking and they are aware of waste elimination. They
need to understand the five principles of lean. Training and encouragement of employees can
solve this issue. The employees need to be empowered and the resistance to change must be
eliminated. Another difficulty is to measure the financial value that is added by lean practices.
Lean manufacturing has extended to various types of services. Principles were adapted to the
needs of the specific industry. Some principles got more attention than others. And some
problems were detected and solved. The first research indicates that the same can be applied in
the agricultural sector.
1.2.2. ORGANISATIONAL READINESS
We can conclude that not many papers are available that talk about the organizational readiness
or preparedness of an agricultural organization for implementing lean thinking. We don’t know
how high the level of readiness for change is in the agriculture. Further we need to guess the
level of familiarity with the concept of lean that farmers have. There is little information about
whether lean is well established among farmers or not.
Many companies have attempted the successful implementation of lean management throughout
the whole organization. Even though some enterprises have managed to reap substantial benefits,
most of the organizations failed in this attempt. One of the reasons can be linked to the fact that
only few enterprises attempt to assess the organizational readiness before implementing lean
thinking (Gurumurthy, Mazumdar, & Muthusubramanian, 2013).
13
The readiness for change consists of generating an idea of a fully integrated lean organisation.
Helping staff to understand how lean impacts the organisation and being rational concerning the
timescales involved in implementing lean.
Factors such as the levels of departmental working, sub-optimal management styles and
distractions from other demands, for example performance reporting can influence the successful
implementation of lean. Capacity and a mind-set for change and improvement at a strategic level
are required to realise the full benefits of Lean (Radnor, Walley, Stephens, & Bucci, 2006). Later
we elaborate further on the determinants of success, critical success factors and readiness factors.
A lean implementation framework, specifically designed for SMEs suggests that the
implementation of Six Sigma takes place in five phases. Starting from assessing the readiness for
Six Sigma implementation to sustaining the benefits from the implementation (Kumar, Antony,
& Tiwari, 2011) (See Figure 1).
Figure 1: A five-phase framework for Six Sigma implementation in SMEs
14
Before implementing lean techniques in the organization, farmers need to know if they are up to
the task. Without knowing the requirements of implementing lean, the failure rate rises
significantly (Ramakrishnan & Testani, 2012). A lean readiness assessment prior to the
implementation can solve this problem.
So far there has been done little research into readiness assessments for the agricultural industry.
The lack of measuring this readiness can lead to negative change. This can bring loss of time,
money and energy. By measuring the readiness, the farmer can understand its current state and
assess his willingness to change. He can resolve barriers, which prevent him from implementing
the new techniques successfully.
All these factors, along with those mentioned above about lean results in agriculture (See 1.2.1.
LEAN RESULTS IN AGRICULTURE), explain why it is interesting to research the degree of
existing knowledge of lean management the farmers possess and to map and identify the
readiness of the farmers. Most studies are based on case studies. We will assess these objectives
via a thorough literature study, a questionnaire and finally a focus group meeting.
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The academic research into lean in agriculture is just getting started. Only few academic papers
exist and compared to the service industry, agriculture still has a long way to go. Recent studies
in lean methods in the agricultural context have shown that lean has potential to bring increases
in productivity to agricultural practices (Colgan et al., 2013; Simons & Taylor, 2007). In
addition, work by (Zokaei & Simons, 2006) and (Rougoor, Trip, Huirne, & Renkema, 1998)
shows that there is potential for managerial based interventions to increasing productivity to be
adopted by the agricultural sector. (Zokaei & Simons, 2006) holds the position that lean
management is transferable to agricultural practices, and (Rougoor et al., 1998), by extension,
supports this position. Therefore, an investigation into the possible, practical and viable
applications of lean management practices to the agricultural sector represents a key research gap
in the lean literature. This study seeks to address this gap comprehensively through the
assessment of the readiness to change of agricultural practices and the development of a
readiness index to assess the readiness for lean implementation of individual firms.
As a potential contribution to this new area of research, the first goal of this thesis is to gauge
how acquainted the farmers already are with the concept of lean and how high the interest and
15
enthusiasm is towards these lean practices. The second aim is to detect the readiness factors
specific for farmers. This way they can assess if they are ready to commence the lean journey. In
order to achieve this objective, the study utilize the Organizational Readiness for Change (ORC)
model compile modified by (Simpson, 2002) based on the work of (Lehman, Greener, &
Simpson, 2002; Simpson, 2002). The model, according to (Lehman et al., 2002), focuses on
motivation and personality attributes of program leaders and staff, institutional resources, and
organizational climate as an important first step in understanding organizational factors related to
implementing new technologies into a program. (See Figure 2)
The full ORC model is made out of 18 scales comprising one hundred and eleven distinct
treatment units. However, (Lehman et al., 2002) and (Simpson, 2002) state that the model
designed to be flexible and advise that sometimes it is necessary to make compromises. (Lehman
et al., 2002; Simpson, 2002) advise that in order to create a comprehensive yet relatively brief
instrument, it is useful to combine items from similar important constructs into a single scale.
The components to populate the ORC model were identified, extracted and combined based on a
review of 45 papers. The full description of the construction of the instrument is outlined in
chapter 3.2. READINESS FACTORS.
This point of investigation addresses RQ(a) through an investigation of a significant amount of
key literature. The factors that are indicative of readiness for change in terms of implementing
lean management practices in agriculture, thus form the index by which readiness for lean
implementation may be assessed. This readiness index is captured in the survey questionnaire,
which was subsequently utilized to conduct the survey.
Based on the objectives of this study, and an analysis of the available literature, a set of
appropriate research questions were formulated. Those research questions are set out here.
Research Questions: Based upon a set of determining factors indicative of readiness for change
for lean implementation, are agricultural and horticultural firms in Flanders ready (i.e. prepared)
to implement lean management practices in their operations?
RQ (a): What are the organizational deterministic factors that are suitable to assess readiness to
change for the implementation of lean in agricultural and horticultural firms in Flanders?
RQ (b): Which organizational deterministic factors indicate a high level of readiness to change
for lean implementation in agricultural and horticultural firms in Flanders?
16
RQ (c): Which organizational deterministic factors indicate a low level of readiness to change
for lean implementation in agricultural and horticultural firms in Flanders?
RQ (d): Which organizational deterministic factors indicate a high level of congruence, i.e.
shared beliefs and shared resolves (Weiner. 2009), between management and employees?
RQ (e): Which organizational deterministic factors indicate a high level of incongruence, i.e.
non-shared beliefs and non-shared resolves (Weiner. 2009), between management and
employees.
Figure 2: Outline of the ORC Model by Lehman (2002).
17
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. LEAN THINKING IN AGRICULTURE
As stated before, lean is increasingly implemented in other sectors than the manufacturing. The
agricultural sector significantly lags behind. The understanding of lean in this context is
substandard. Given the significance of waste and losses in the agriculture, it is time to implement
lean in order to eliminate these. Examples of various types of waste in agriculture are: paperwork
gets delayed due to inaccurate information, machinery breakdowns force employees to wait, a
packing line runs too slow and requires extra labour and a larger proportion of crops are rejected
due to inconsistent harvesting techniques. These are all wastes that can be eliminated to
smoothen the process and augment efficiency. Increasing efficiency and eliminating waste is so
important because of the food scarcity we will face in the next decades. The global crop demand
is expected to grow with 100%-110% from 2005 to 2050. When the current trends of greater
land clearing in poorer nations and greater agricultural intensification in richer nations were to
persist, this will have a harmful impact on our environment. The implementation of new global
technological improvements as well as moderate intensification of existing cropland, transfer of
beneficial technologies and efficient management practices can prevent this. When the future
global crop demand is to be met together with minimal environmental impacts, the attainment of
high yields on existing lands is necessary. And this is where lean management can be of
significant aid (Tilman, Balzer, Hill, & Befort, 2011).
There is a big difference between the production processes of a manufacturing company such as
Toyota and an agricultural business. To grasp the possibilities of applying lean thinking in the
agricultural sector we will start by setting out some specific characteristics of the agro-business.
2.1.1. THE AGRO-BUSINESS VS. MANUFACTURING
Adapting lean thinking to agriculture provides challenges. This is due to the generalized
differences between industrial production processes and general agricultural processes.
Agriculture is defined as the deliberate effort to modify a portion of earth's surface through the
cultivation of crops and the raising of livestock for sustenance or economic gain. Agriculture is
18
more than just breading livestock, dairy farming or growing crops. Specialized horticulture,
floriculture, fruit cultivation horse breeding and so on are also covered by agriculture.
Manufacturing is defined as the process of converting raw materials, components, or parts into
finished goods that meet a customer's expectations or specifications. Manufacturing commonly
employs a man-machine setup with division of labour in a large-scale production. Manufacturing
generally takes place inside a controlled production environment, otherwise known as the factory
of the production plant.
Know-how is more in the hands of individuals in agriculture. For the majority of farmers their
workplace and home are one and the same. Work and free time are both carried out on the farm.
This explains partly the familial character of the agro-business; it’s a real family business. The
biggest part of the knowledge is passed from generation to generation. When an employee
decides to leave the firm, this immediately means that a lot of knowledge is lost. This cannot be
said from manufacturing. In manufacturing, knowledge is more dispersed. Due to the large staff,
more people have the know-how of the processes in the company.
Weather is an extremely important external factor that affects farming. The timing of sowing and
harvesting is completely determined by the weather. Disastrous weather can mean a failed
harvest. The process decisions are entirely seasonal driven and the majority of processes on a
farm can be delayed a few days. A manufacturing environment is completely controlled and it is
possible to create the optimal circumstances to produce. In an assembly facility, you can plan
and the decisions are driven by the seasonality of demand for its products. The production
schedule is determined in advance and it needs to be followed.
The production decisions are entirely seasonal driven. Seasonality is intrinsic to farming
activities. The production completely depends on natural periodic cycles. The demand for labour
varies according to the seasons as well. Therefore in the labour intensive periods of sewing and
harvesting, a lot of seasonal workers are employed (Darpeix, et al., 2014). In contrast to
manufacturing where the decisions are driven by the seasonality of demand for its products and
the number of employees is kept as much as possible equally during the whole year.
In terms of labour, there is a big gap between the required levels of specialization of the
employees. Farm labourers must be flexible. They need to be able to work at various jobs.
Therefore, they need to possess multiple skills and a broad knowledge of the job. By comparison
19
the flexibility of manufacturing processes is strongly reduced. This is caused by trade and craft
unionization and the need for highly specific skills.
A farm can be described as a microenterprise, which has approximately 0 to 10 employees. An
SME, with between 50 and 250 employees has a more hierarchal structure than the
microenterprise. Additionally, the latter knows more interactions among employees and
employers. Also the boundaries between professional and private life could get diluted. In
Flanders, farms are mostly family-run businesses. There are often no extern employees. Only the
family works in the company. This is different for the big horticultural/floricultural and fruit-
farming firms. First of all there are a lot of seasonal employees. Further they show more
resemblances to SMEs. Often they have more than 10 permanent employees, excluding the
seasonal workforces.
Agriculture has become a very capital-intensive business. Total output can be increased if the
inputs such as labour or machinery are augmented. More people moved to the cities to work in
factories and mines during the industrial revolution in Europe. So to become more productive,
investments in machinery were necessary. (Pue-on & Ward, 2010) Thanks to technological
change and improvements in the process for producing goods it was possible to achieve a higher
efficiency standard with less employees.
Agriculture is characterized by buyer dominance whereas manufacturing characterized by
supplier dominance. Agricultural products are produced by a high number of relatively small
production units. This leads to a position of having no effective influence on market quantities
and prices. In manufacturing the opposite is generally true. Most of the industrial output is made
by vast enterprises consisting of various departments and factories. Often an oligopoly is formed;
here a few large companies dominate the entire market. Accordingly, they can wield an influence
on prices of goods they sell and resources they acquire. (Tewari, 2003)
Agricultural firms produce highly perishable products. Product value deteriorates significantly
over time. The speed of deterioration is highly dependent on temperature and humidity levels
(Blackburn & Scudder, 2009). Thanks to research and technical innovations fruit cultivators for
example are able to stock their fruit the whole year in specialized refrigerators. This way they are
able to sell the supply spread during the year. Manufacturing firms can stock their products for
long periods, depending on the industry.
20
Finally, farmers need to make a long-term production planning well in advance of the
finalization of the production. It is impossible to deviate from this schedule. If you own 200
dairy cows, you will receive milk from 200 cows. They sell their goods to big cooperatives at
market price. The demand is not considered in their production strategy. Often they also are
incentivized to produce as much as possible due to subsidies from the government. They produce
as much as possible nevertheless the demand is decreasing. This is also due to the high fixed
costs they have and the burden of big investments. This does not apply to horticulture. They need
to actively seek their buyers and create an area of distribution. They take the demand for their
goods into account in their production strategy. When the demand diminishes, the supply will
decrease as well. So this shows more resemblances with the manufacturing industry. The
differences are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Difference between manufacturing & agriculture
Manufacturing Agriculture
Independent on external factors (e.g. Weather) Highly dependent on external factors (e.g.
Weather)
Mostly non-seasonal driven Seasonal driven
Highly specialized labour Flexible labour
Many employees Few employees
Supplier dominance Buyer dominance
Non-perishable products Highly perishable products
Deviation from schedules possible Long-term production planning, no deviation
possible
21
2.1.2. TRANSFERING LEAN TO AGRICULTURE
(Kim, Spahlinger, Kin & Billi, 2006) state that a good way to achieve lean in your business is
following a five-step roadmap shown in Figure 3. (Colgan et al., 2013) performed a case study of
the benefits of the implementation of lean thinking in farms in the United Kingdom is a perfect
example. They use the Five Principles of Lean, VSM and the Seven Wastes theory. As a result
they find an increase in competitiveness by the reduction of waste and the improvement of the
food quality. To be successful, the farmers need to be familiar with the lean techniques and the
lean philosophy. This paper proves the positive effects lean can have on a farming business and
still it isn’t widely used.
The first step is to identify Customer Value that has already been discussed in the
introduction. It is important that the mentality of the farmers changes from producing the
maximum possible to producing what the customer really wants. What they value generally
includes products that are of high quality, safe and appropriate.
Figure 3: 5 steps of lean implementation (Jones & Womack, 2013)
22
The second step consists of going to the workplace and register how the processes work at
the moment itself. This way you can understand the problems, such as delay, inefficiency and
waste. To make all the steps of the process visible, a Current State Value Stream Map is
created (Figure 4).
This is an extremely powerful tool to systematically recognize and categorize waste. Based
on the Current State VSM, employees can identify all types of problems as stated above.
Next they need to aim to reduce or eliminate this waste by improving steps in the process.
There exist seven types of waste. Overproduction, waiting, transport, over processing, excess
Inventory, unnecessary movement and defects. In addition to this list there is an eighth
waste: unused employee potential. (See Table 4)
The third step is creating flow in the process. Every step should follow the preceding one
without any interruption. The employees gain value here; they need to bring new ideas to
smoothen the process. These concepts will be places on the Future State VSM. There are
multiple restrictions in the flow. Paperwork gets delayed due to inaccurate information,
machinery breakdowns force employees to wait, a packing line runs too slow and requires
extra labour and a larger proportion of crops are rejected due to inconsistent harvesting
techniques. These are all wastes that can be eliminated to smoothen the process and augment
efficiency.
The fourth step is generating processes from which customers pull what they need. Further
there is an unceasing loop between the current and future VSM’s.
Pursue perfection is the hardest and last step. As mentioned before, lean thinking is
successful when it is incorporated in the working culture. The employees need to be aware of
continuous improvement.
23
Table 4: The seven wastes of lean and an eighth waste
1. Overproduction Production for which there are no orders, wasting of resources and
employees time.
2. Waiting (time on
hand)
Employee down time due to delays in process. Capacity bottlenecks,
processing delays, equipment downtime, lack of raw materials.
3. Unnecessary
transport or conveyance
Carrying work in process (WIP) long distances, creating inefficient
transport, or moving materials, parts or finished goods into or out of
storage or between processes
4. Over processing or
incorrect processing
Taking unneeded steps to process parts. Inefficiently processing
causing unnecessary motion and producing defects. Waste is
generated when providing higher-quality products than is necessary.
5. Excess inventory
Excess raw material, WIP, or finished goods causing longer lead
times, obsolescence, damaged goods, transportation and storage
costs, and delay. Also extra inventory hides problems such as
production imbalances, late deliveries from suppliers, defects,
equipment downtime, and long set-up times.
6. Unnecessary
movement
Any wasted motion employees have to perform during the course of
their work, such as looking for, reaching for, or stacking parts, tools
etc. Also walking is waste.
7. Defects
Production of defective parts or correction. Repair or rework, scrap,
replacement production, and inspection mean wasteful handling,
time, and effort.
8. Unused employee
creativity (Liker 2004)
Losing time, ideas, skills, improvements, and learning opportunities
by not engaging or listening to your employees.
24
Figure 4: Value Stream Current State Map
25
2.1.3. STAKEHOLDERS
Research in the red meat supply in the UK shows that adoption of lean principles can be
appropriate for all instances in the industry. (Cox & Chicksand, 2005) Nevertheless the
commercial benefits of the implementation of lean collaboration are limited. There is ‘carcass
imbalance’. There are short-term fluctuations in demand and supply. As a consequence, the
power situations of buyer and supplier change frequently between buyer and supplier dominance
(Figure 5). This implies that the trust between the different stakeholders is low and opportunism
is the standard in the industry. It is a normal strategy in a sector confronted with high demand &
supply uncertainty. The numerous small farms don’t have the market power such as the much
bigger food processing companies and retailers. When lean practices are implemented
throughout the industry the multiple retailers of red meat will be the major beneficiaries. Due to
their Janus-faced dominance they can gain profitability from lean collaboration elsewhere in the
Figure 5: The agro-food supply chain (Burch & Lawrence, 2005)
26
chain. The result is that lean management can enhance some parties in the industry
commercially. Although it doesn’t appear to be a guarantee for a sustainable competitive
advantage for a lot of participants, except for the multiple retailers (Simons & Taylor, 2007).
Through the application of the Value Chain Analysis method to the UK meat industry it is clear
that there is no trusted relationship between the different entities of the value chain. (Fearne,
Bourlakis, Francis & Simons, 2003) This led to a lack of sharing information to optimize the
chain. Farmers focus on the price per kilo and they forget to take into account the additional
transportation and administrative costs. They use a supply-oriented system instead of a demand-
oriented system. So farmers don’t really respond on market signals, since they don’t produce
what the retailer/customer wants. This seems to be caused by three main reasons. Firstly, the
market signal itself is badly communicated. Secondly, the farmers receive high subsidies to
produce. Finally, the attitude of the farmers is still conservative. They still believe in the
production concept and they push their products on the market. It is most important to develop a
benefit sharing system between the participant firms. This can lead to a platform for continuous
improvement of trust and information sharing. Only then we can speak of a win-win situation
between all the parties of the value chain. This holds especially for dairy farms, cattle and crop
breeding firms. The horticulture has to look for their clients. This was explained above (2.1.1.
THE AGRO-BUSINESS VS. MANUFACTURING)
2.1.4. LEAN LEADERSHIP
Lean is often associated with the tools used to standardize processes and set up efficiency gains.
As described above, the implementation of these lean tools such as The Five Principles of Lean,
Six Sigma, VSM and the Seven Wastes theory have a big potential to augment efficiency and
profitability.
27
Nevertheless, Mr David Mann says: “implementing tools represents at most 20 per cent of the
effort in Lean transformations. The other 80 per cent of the effort is expended on changing
leaders’ practices and behaviours, and ultimately their mind-set”. (Mann, 2009) Lean thinking
must be viewed on long term and there is need of continuous improvement. (Rymaszewska,
2014) The focus on short-term benefits makes firms unprepared for changes towards lean.
Furthermore, unwillingness to change is common among managers of agricultural companies.
Devotion to short-termism will never allow drastic changes such as lean principles
implementation. The attitude of the employees needs to change. They need to embrace the
thought of empowerment. And the lean techniques need to be implemented in the entire value
chain to gain maximum benefits. There is a gap between lean tools and lean thinking. Lean
leadership bridges this gap.
The leadership at Toyota is different from this in agriculture. Toyota leadership is based on a
learning organization. This is paradoxical to agricultural leaders, who are task managers, defined
by a leadership with in depth understanding of the job and top-down management (Figure 6) (C.
Figure 6: The leadership matrix showing leadership on agricultural firms
28
Andersson & Andersson, 2014).
According to (Dombrowski & Mielke, 2014) lean leadership can be reached when leaders follow
a set of 15 rules, assigned to 5 principles for a sustainable Lean implementation. Figure 7 gives
the principles and shows some examples. These general principles are being widely applied now,
but the management often doesn’t dispose of the link to their specific work. Therefore the 15
rules, which are based on one or more of the 5 principles, can help to implement lean leadership
on the organization. It is designed to give practical assistance in the everyday lean leadership, not
to substantiate the theoretic fundamentals of lean leadership.
In Flanders most of the farms are still family-run firms. This means that the leader doesn’t need
to focus on the guidance of his employees, because there are none. Generally, husband and wife
will manage the farm. Possibly one of the sons/daughters can aid them and eventually take over
the firm. The horticultural companies do have more employees and focussing on the guidance of
their employees is crucial.
In consideration of this, leadership has less value in agriculture than in manufacturing
companies. The leadership concept is universally conceived as one leader who guides and
Figure 7: Fundamental principles of lean leadership (Dombrowski & Mielke, 2014)
29
commands other individuals. However, (Ulvenblad, Ståhl, Hoveskog, Tell & Ulvenblad, 2014)
say leadership can be seen differently. An individual needs to lead her-/ or himself in
encountering various situations. This is called self-leadership. It is the ability to lead yourself, so
you can superbly lead others. It is the modern version of the well-known saying, “Know thyself”.
Many enterprises fail while trying to transform into a lean organisation (research shows around
50%) due to neglect of the cultural elements that play a major role in sustaining a transformation.
The organization always gravitates towards the leaderships’ behaviour styles.
To be more successful there must be a focus on transformational leadership. The leader needs to
develop a company culture that is adaptive, flexible and willing to change together with a strong
process excellence roadmap. (Ramakrishnan & Testani, 2012)
Again for horticulture companies we see a difference with the usual agricultural firms. There are
a lot of small companies with more or less 10 permanent employees. However, there are also big
companies with 15-50 permanent employees. Here lean leadership plays an important role. It is
important that the leader of the firm communicates his long-term vision to his employees. This
means towards the controllers as well as to the employees who work under the supervision of
these controllers. Everybody in the firm needs to be involved in the amelioration of production
processes. So that employees engage themselves spontaneously. When the commitment grows,
the motivation of the employees also augments. They feel more valuable and their contributions
are actively used. This all starts with the leader. He must encourage his employees and be open
to their ideas. Not only within the management division of the company, but also with the
employees on the work floor. A major challenge is the language barrier. Most of the seasonal
workers only master their native language.
2.2. MEASURING READINESS FOR CHANGE
The absence of understanding organization readiness to adapt lean thinking is one of the factors
that promote the failure of implementing lean. (Gurumurthy et al., 2013) define organization
readiness as “organisational members’ change commitment and change efficacy to implement
organisational change. Failure to create sufficient readiness, accounts for one-half of the
unsuccessful big organisational change efforts.” This requires a huge amount of valuable time
and other resources. (Weiner, 2009) believes there is no distinct definition of organizational
30
readiness for change. He says explains that it can be defined from numerous viewpoints such as
human, financial, psychological, material and informational resources. (Siemieniuch & Sinclair,
2004) defined organizational readiness as a set of dependent activities that must be attended to
before an institution can start implementing lean practices.
Hence, (Gurumurthy et al., 2013) presented a mathematical model called “graph theoretic
approach (GTA)” to carry out organizational readiness analysis applied to a case of an Indian
manufacturing organization that is in the process of implementing lean management. Further the
GTA provided enough support to use this methodology for the assessment of degree of
organisational readiness (DOR).
They identified multiple factors for readiness assessment. These factors are categorized in 5
major groups: Top Management, Supplier, Employees, Customer and Organisation. Also the
inter-relationship between factors plays an important role in the model. Finally, by putting the
data in matrices, they calculated a readiness index, which quantifies the degree of organizational
readiness.
Figure 8: Readiness for change quadrants
31
(Dora, Lambrecht, Gellynck, & Van Goubergen, 2015) also propose different criteria to measure
the readiness of farms for lean implementation. Again there are 5 major groups, which are
similar to these above: Leadership, Measurement and Processes, People Management, Systems
& Control and Customer Focus.
(Ramakrishnan & Testani, 2012) first focus on creating a lean readiness for change assessment
that focuses on the operating culture, operating climate and the process/technology maturity.
This assessment will provide the organizational transformation team with baseline characteristics
of the culture, process maturity and climate, to identify areas that need to be addressed before
embarking on the change effort.
The factors that come out of the readiness for change assessment are evaluated based on two
criteria: Importance and Readiness for change (Figure 8). When the importance score is higher
than the readiness score, something in the organization must be adjusted before embarking on the
lean journey. Initiatives that fall into the red zone require an augmentation of organizational
readiness.
Measuring organizational readiness is not applied on the agricultural sector yet. Various methods
are based on mathematical models and matrices. Which is complicated for the initial research
into lean in agriculture. Therefore, we will develop a measuring method, which will be much
simpler and give a first impression on the readiness for lean practices.
32
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. INTRODUCTION
Prior to assessing the readiness of the agricultural organizations, a great deal of literature was
reviewed to gather all the readiness factors required for a successful implementation of lean.
Based on the literature review 6 categories of readiness factors were identified.
Next a Readiness Index was developed, which took the form of a questionnaire to assess the
readiness of all the participating companies. Questions concerning all of the 6 categories were
developed specifically for the agricultural industry. The questions are easy to understand and
concern the basic aspects of lean.
Further, a focus group meeting was organized. Three managers who completed the questionnaire
participated. The results of the research and the interviews were discussed and if necessary the
interpretation of the results were adjusted.
Finally, ‘Innovatiesteunpunt’, Innovation Support Centre (ISP) for Agricultural and Rural
Development was contacted. Meeting with them resulted in new insights for both sides.
In the next part, it will be demonstrated how the literature study was performed, how the most
critical readiness factors were chosen, how the questions were created for the questionnaire and
some descriptive statistics of the results of the questionnaire will be given. Finally, the method
for analysing the data is clarified.
3.2. READINESS FACTORS
First a profound literature study was performed. The literature review focused on published
articles and papers in journals. Papers regarding the implementation of lean, lean readiness
indices and lean readiness factors (RFs) were treated. Each article was reviewed to remove all
the papers, which were not associated with the lean implementation. There was no restriction as
to the sector or industry the paper was about. Articles concerning RFs within the agricultural
sector are extremely limited. Hence we wanted to create an as wide and general image as
possible of the different RFs. About 45 articles regarding lean implementation and transferability
were considered. The table in Appendix 1 shows the major readiness factors discussed in every
paper. The table in Appendix 2 summarizes all the consulted papers.
33
Readiness factors can be defined as ‘any practice or characteristic that aids an organizational
transformation by eliminating or nullifying possible inhibitors for success, or providing the
knowledge and capabilities required to succeed in establishing change’ (Al-Balushi et al., 2014).
(Catalanello & Redding, 1994) defined readiness for change as ‘a state of permanent,
organization-wide preparedness for large-scale systemic change’. (Weiner, 2009) says that
‘readiness for change refers to organizational members’ shared resolve to implement a change
(change commitment) and share belief in their collective capability to do so (change efficacy)’. It
can be determined if an organization is ready to take a new lean initiative on board by looking
into the RFs. They are important considerations that will augment the probability of success of
any lean application effort by identifying the capacity for a company to implement lean, before a
company needs to invest greatly in it (Antony, 2014). A shortage of readiness can cause
frustration among employees, resistance in the work force and confusion due to bad
communication of the top management. The employees will revert back to their old way of doing
things in no time and this results in a failed application of the new lean initiatives. They need to
indicate the direction for a successful implementation of the new initiatives. RFs gauge if an
organization is ready for lean management to change the culture of the firm (Radnor, 2010).
Hence if a farm wants to be sure it is prepared to embark on the lean journey, it needs to ensure
that the new practices are supported by the whole enterprise.
The most important RFs were selected and listed. The table in APPENDIX 1: TABLE OF
READINESS FACTORS compiles the essential factors of lean implementation that have been
addressed by various researchers. Later on the data related to these factors will be analysed,
discussed and a selection will be used to identify the readiness of farmers toward lean practices.
Fifteen factors are identified in the literature that was assessed. Due to the specific characteristics
of the agricultural business some of the factors are not taken into account. Almost all the
examined papers considered, deal either with manufacturing business, SMEs or service industry.
The factors can be used for the agricultural business, but the underlying facts need to be
adjusted.
The differences between manufacturing and agriculture have already been explained in chapter
2.1.1. THE AGRO-BUSINESS VS. MANUFACTURING. One major example is that employees
have a major influence on the implementation of lean. Farming businesses are mostly family-
owned companies and often they don’t have employees. The horticultural firms do have more
34
employees, but still not as many as in manufacturing companies and there are also a lot of
seasonal workers. Thus the content of the factor human resources needs to be adjusted with
caution. Subsequently most of the factors are bundled together in a larger category. We will
come back to that.
After reviewing all the literature finally 6 categories of readiness factors remained, specifically:
Leadership
Process
Employees
Customer Relations
Supplier Relations
Willingness to change
Each category will now be handled in more detail.
Category 1: Leadership
Capable and appropriate leadership is critical for the implementation of lean. Almost all the
literature reviewed agrees that this factor is absolutely necessary for successful lean
implementation. The leader needs to have a clear vision. A vision statement describes how a
company wants to be seen. As such, it describes values, standards and beliefs. Most importantly,
a vision is an endorsement of the intention to change. It drives the company forward and acts
against contentment.
Lean is a long-term process and requires a big financial investment as well as effort and time.
Management should encourage their employees and clearly communicate why quality-improving
techniques are necessary to remain competitive. (Gurumurthy et al., 2013) They need to
understand the business and the concept of lean thinking (AL‐Najem, Dhakal, Labib, &
Bennett, 2013). This all needs to be taken into account in the vision and communication of the
leader. Lack of top management commitment is one of the reasons for the failure of lean efforts
(Zhang, Waszink, & Wijngaard, 2000). Top management involvement helps to restructure and
influence the cultural change in attitudes of employees towards quality (Henderson & Evans,
2000).
35
In a farm there is no big work force. At most a few employees work on the farm. So the culture
in a big multinational can’t be compared with that of an agricultural farm. Within this category,
changes in the organizations’ culture are also included. Here it is mainly the leader who needs to
adjust his vision on the future of his enterprise. He needs to embrace lean change and make a
long-term investment. He must know the current status of his company to see if he can embark
on the lean journey. He needs to master the rules of lean and know the requirements to
implement it. This also holds for horticultural companies. However the leader has to manage
more employees. So clear communication gets an even more crucial role.
In the table we can find the readiness factors: leadership, strategy and vision and organisational
culture. These factors are taken together in our readiness factor ‘leadership’.
This category consist of 5 questions that aim to identify the level of leadership commitment in
terms of communicating his vision and objectives, supporting the employees, willingness to
embrace change and understanding the requirements and benefits of lean.
Category 2: Processes
Processes and systems are the foundation of an enterprise. Assessing these processes regularly is
necessary to optimize production. Measuring lead times and smoothening the flow of production
steps is straightforward in manufacturing environments. In agriculture external factors influence
the processes and the products are perishable. There is a big difference between the different
industries. Process management is one of the most important factors in terms of identifying non-
value-adding activities and increasing quality. Ineffective processes lead to more waste and
lower productivity per employee. (Al‐Najem et al., 2013)
A very important element of lean management is a central information medium. This is a place
where everybody can retrieve information concerning task planning and progress of the daily
tasks. Visual boards are perfectly suited to accomplish this. On a whiteboard, progress can be
written down and alterations can be added. In addition, it is also an ideal place for short
meetings.
Storing equipment at the correct place is necessary for operations to run smoothly. All the
necessary equipment needs to be immediately available. Placing tools at the wrong place can
36
cause delays. Every minute lost due to searching for equipment is a loss. This is one of the Seven
Wastes. Within agriculture the distances between the various parcels of land are substantial.
When equipment is forgotten at the central building, this results in immediate big time losses.
There must be attention for regular maintenance of machinery. The agricultural industry invests
a lot of money in new and high-tech machinery for harvesting, placing plants, sowing, and so on.
All these machines need regular maintenance. When one of these appliances fails, the whole
process is at a standstill. Preventing breakdowns is important to maintain the process flow and to
comply with the production planning.
Furthermore, when problems arise with one of the process steps it is necessary that the
employees report this to the managers and seek a solution to solve the issue. This concerns not
only problems, but also bottlenecks. When something can be done more efficiently it is
important to try to implement it. This is a basis step of lean management. Without inputs from
the employees the managers won’t be able to see all these complications.
Category 3: Employees
The contributions of the employees to try and implement lean are essential for a successful
application of lean management within the firm. There should be interplay between on the one-
hand employees and on the other hand the employer. The leader needs to encourage his
employees to support his long-term vision and report new ideas and problems with the
production. The employees need to be actively involved in creating a better and more efficient
work environment. A spontaneous enthusiasm represents the eagerness of the personnel to
support the employer. By personally participating in quality improvement activities, employees
gain new knowledge, see the perks of the new techniques, and achieve a sense of achievement by
solving quality problems. The participation can lead to durable changes in behaviour. (Zhang et
al., 2000)
Category 3 is a wide group of different readiness factors all regarding employees. The third
classification contains among other things: ‘Training’, ‘Clear Communication’, Human
Resources’, ‘Expertise’ and ‘Motivation, Recognition and Incentive’.
37
Staff members must be able to report information on errors, defects and inefficient process steps.
The management must encourage this, (Al‐Najem et al., 2013) because this is the only way
how the inputs of employees can contribute to more efficient processes and resolve existing
problems. These ideas of the personnel should be actively used. When they are not, the
enthusiasm of the employees will decrease and you can start all over again. A single effort for
creating readiness under the work forces may not be sufficient to maintain the necessary levels of
readiness. Hence the readiness efforts should be executed regularly before the implementation of
lean management.
The work forces need to be made ready for lean management (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder,
1993). They need to learn the ways of lean. It must become a part of their mind-set. When they
get used to lean thinking it is possible for the enterprise to successfully implement lean.
Otherwise the chances of a beneficial application slink drastically. One way of introducing lean
principles to your employees is by organising training sessions. Multiple lessons regarding lean
can be sufficient to lay a basis on which they can further develop their consciousness of lean.
Another important aspect is that the personnel should have a clear and well-defined job
description. When we look at manufacturing companies it is evident that everybody must know
their tasks. They are specialized in doing what needs to be done. This goes from screwing in a
bolt to transporting materials from one place to another. In the agricultural industry the tasks of
employees are more variable. Their job responsibilities are volatile and they need to be able to
perform different tasks in the enterprise. Employees need to water plants, sew them, transport
them, etc. Due to the numerous and diverse job tasks, it is impossible to talk about specialization.
Thus it is not obvious to form a clear and indisputable job description. Nevertheless, it still is
important that the staff members know what to do. Although they have various assignments it is
essential that they know what each of these tasks consists of.
Category 4: Customer Relations
To accomplish quality, it is crucial to know what customers want and to provide products that
match their requirements. The client has a central place within lean management. Only when
they are pleased with your products, the organisation will reap the benefits of satisfied
customers. In order to achieve superb quality management, maintaining a close relationship with
38
the customers is needed to thoroughly verify the customer’s needs, as well as to gain feedback on
the extent to which those needs are being met. A prosperous enterprise observes the need to
prioritise the customer in every decision made. The client must be intensely involved in the
development process of new products and variations. (Zhang et al., 2000)
Further the ultimate measure of company performance is customer satisfaction. The future
success of an enterprise is related to the satisfaction level of the customers. To enhance the
customer satisfaction, key priority must be given to all customer complaints. (AL‐Najem et al.,
2013) This way the management can assess where the problems are and deal with them to
achieve a superior customer satisfaction. Collecting costumer complaints is a good start, but not
sufficient. The collected complaints must be actively used to improve the processes, which are at
the root of the customers’ dissatisfaction.
Finally, the idea of value does not exist in lean without proper insight of to which customers all
the performed labour serves. (Al-Balushi et al., 2014) Lean calls for a precise understanding of
whom the customer is, which gains from the labour that is being performed. The goals and needs
off the various relevant customer groups cannot be correctly evaluated without knowledge of
which groups exist within the agricultural industry. Every group has its own wishes and
demands. For the horticulture this can be very profound. Plants need a minimum number of
buds; the stems need have a minimum diameter and so on. Different groups contain hard
discounters, exporters, wholesalers, garden centres, other horticultural companies, … Attributing
the wrong client to an otherwise correct product can result in the costumer not being satisfied
with the efforts made.
Category 5: Supplier Relations
Supplier quality management is a vital aspect of lean management, since high quality suppliers
enable companies to produce high quality products. The primary objective of organisations that
strive to cultivate top-notch products will be to select the suppliers, which deliver the highest
quality and price will have a lower importance in choosing the right supplier. Conversely, in
firms with lower quality standards, cost minimisation will be the main driver in looking for the
ideal supplier. Notwithstanding materials of lower quality can entail high costs. For example, if
39
the nutrients in the potting soil are not well balanced this can imply that the plants will not meet
the needed requirements. (Zhang et al., 2000)
Maintaining good and long-term co-operative relationships with suppliers will augment the
quality of products and enable the firm to receive their supplies at the exact right time. There will
be no time losses due to extra inspections of the delivered goods. Long-term relationships will
also reflect positively in supplier performance.
Further, It is highly recommended to involve suppliers in for example product development,
inventory management and so on. This could help organizations to improve the quality of their
products and become more efficient. (AL‐Najem et al., 2013)
Working together with local suppliers will make it easier to receive supplies fast and efficiently.
According to (Taj, 2005) having long-term relationships with as few suppliers as possible is
beneficial and crucial for an effective lean implementation.
Next (Shah & Ward, 2007) indicated that providing suppliers with frequent feedback on delivery
performance and quality will ameliorate the relationship and eliminate mistakes in the future.
Concluding, when organizations want to achieve a good supplier quality management, they
should gather detailed information regarding supplier performance, regularly conduct quality
checks, establish long-term relationships with the suppliers, give feedback on the delivery
performance of providers and consider product quality as the number one factor for selecting the
right suppliers (Zhang et al., 2000).
40
Category 6: Willingness
This category was added to the questionnaire to look if the farmers were really interested in the
application of lean within their firm and to look if their answers were consistent with their other
answers. Containing some general questions regarding their willingness to implement some
simple lean practices, and to assess how they feel about this new approach on the working of
their company.
3.3. DATA COLLECTION
The questionnaire consists of 30 questions divided into 6 categories. Each category has the same
number of questions. This way every group has the same weight. Based on the literature study,
six readiness factors were selected, which are the categories. Five questions for each group were
chosen. When there would be more questions, the attention of the participants would diminish.
The questions were simplified in order to ensure that all the participants were able to
comprehend and answer them. Therefore based on the questions and subjects found in the
research, streamlined questions were created. A 5-point Likert scale was used. This way the
answers could be nuanced. The questionnaire can be found in APPENDIX 3: MANAGER
QUESTIONNAIRE.
Two questionnaires were developed. The same questions were asked, but the one questionnaire
was from the viewpoint of the leader of the enterprise, the other from the viewpoint of the
employee. The questions were formulated accordingly. This way the answers from both the
managers and employees could be compared. And how they both think about the application of
lean in the company. The participants consisted of 30 companies, where 30 managers completed
the questionnaire. In addition, 26 employees completed the questionnaire.
Every questionnaire was completed during a face-to-face interview. Because lean isn’t an
expression that is well known within the agricultural industry, face-to-face interviews were
deemed to be a more effective approach. This allowed for the respondent’s knowledgeability to
be observed and assessed directly by the interviewer. Factors considered include which different
problems they were struggling, opportunities they saw in relation to lean management and so on.
41
The interviews were conducted in a consistent manner, to reduce possibility of bias. This was to
ensure that the participants, at least, had the same basic information about lean management.
First a short introduction in lean was given. So they were able to comprehend the context.
Mostly immediately afterwards, some feedback was given spontaneously. They explain how the
organization works, how the processes are organized and how the staff members are managed
and instructed.
Next some general information was asked. Are they familiar with the term lean? How many
employees do they employ, etc.
The interviewer assisted the completion of each questionnaire. Every question was explained
when necessary, this way there were no wrong interpretations possible. During the questionnaire,
a lot of additional questions were addressed. These questions came from the participants and
often the interviewer went more deeply into the subject. The survey took roughly 20 minutes.
Whenever it was possible, the interviewer got a tour of the company. This gave the researcher
more insight into the potential of the application of lean practices. And the possibility to compare
the reality against what the participants answered during the survey. A lot of knowledge about
the agricultural sector as well as the various subsectors within the agriculture was gained. The
differences between the subsectors became clear right away. For example: the magnitude of the
companies, the number of employees and the differences in the accommodation. Bigger
companies were able to receive clients in professional and clean meeting rooms, smaller
companies did not have this possibility. Further, the different production processes were
explained and shown on the work floor.
Over 60 companies in the agricultural and horticultural sector were contacted. In the end 30
companies were willing to participate. Ten tree nurseries, two fruit cultivators, one horse
breeder, two cattle breeders, one dairy farm, one tomato farm and finally thirteen horticulturists.
Horticulturists cultivate different sorts of plants and tree nurseries cultivate trees, but they both
belong to the segment of horticulture. This can be regarded as one big group of 23 firms. A
summary of the various companies can be found Table 5. An important remark here is that the
horticultural companies, which were interviewed, belong to the top level within the agricultural
sector. The different sizes and shapes of the various companies was a positive influence for the
42
research. This was the researcher could determine different organizational contexts were
influenced by the implementation of lean.
Table 5: Participating companies
Next ‘Innovatiesteunpunt’, Innovation Support Centre (ISP) for Agricultural and Rural
Development was contacted. Their mission is to inform and inspire farmers about new
challenges and opportunities and to support them with the development and implementation of
concrete projects. They recently started a project on lean management in agriculture. Two
innovation consultants are working on the project and one of them visited big farms in Denmark
where lean practices were tested. Meeting with them resulted in new insights for both sides.
Finally, a panel discussion was organized. Three managers who completed the questionnaire
participated. The results of the research and the interviews were discussed. Some misinterpreted
findings were corrected.
The agricultural sector in Flanders has known big efficiency gains through high-tech
infrastructure. It is a very capital-intensive sector and the employee count is low. This is one the
limitations in this research. Due to the low number of employees in the farms, it was not
opportune to focus on this sector. As explained before, this is why the focus of the participants is
in the horticultural sector. These companies are larger and have a much bigger work force.
SECTOR NUMBER OF
FIRMS >9 FTEs
SEASONAL
WORKERS
TREES 10 5 10-20
PLANTS 13 9 10-20
DIARY 1 0 0
HORSE BREEDING 1 0 0
FRUIT 2 0 220-300
TOMATOES 1 1 100
CATTLE 2 0 0
43
Human resources and leadership are major elements of lean management and within these
companies it is possible to implement more techniques than in the smaller farms. Employee
empowerment in farms is difficult because in Flanders most of the time they don’t have
employees and it’s a family-run business. Most of the companies within the horticulture have
more than 9 FTEs. During the intense selling season, a lot of seasonal workers join the staff.
To remain competitive in Flanders, all the organizations heavily invested in top-notch
machinery. This increases the efficiency and production. Almost all the leaders of these family-
owned companies are members of the family. They work hard every day and want their company
to remain profitable and healthy. So efficiency gains, regarding higher production is at the top of
their to-do list and most of the companies invested a lot of money to keep up with the
competition.
3.4. DATA ANALYSIS
To analyse the data, a qualitative case study approach based on the questionnaire results was
chosen. A case study can be considered as part of qualitative research and methodology, but also
as quantitative research or a combination of both approaches. Qualitative research is
distinguished by an interpretative paradigm, which stresses subjective experiences and the
meanings they have for the researcher. For that reason, the subjective views of a researcher play
a significant role in the study results (Starman, 2013). A case study or parallel case studies can
be useful when we want to answer the questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ and when we want to cover
contextual conditions because we suppose they are relevant to study object or when the
boundaries between the subject and context are not evident. One of the advantages of case
studies is the conceptual validity. It refers to the measurement of the indicators that present the
ideas that the researcher wants the measure in the best possible way. Many variables are difficult
to measure, such as power, communication, etc. Researchers need to execute a ‘contextualized
comparison’, which requires a thorough consideration of contextual factors. This is very difficult
in quantitative research, but common in case studies.
The case study methodology was the most appropriate method, given the context in which the
research was conducted. It seemed inappropriate to validate the research using statistical
44
analysis. The data from the questionnaire are subjective data and without the experience gained
during the personal interviews, they could be interpreted incorrectly.
Five arguments will be tested and supported by the data we will make a conclusion. The 5
arguments will be composed of the different categories of our RFs and for each argument all the
questions of the questionnaire will be treated.
A division was made between big companies and small companies. The latter are organizations,
which have less than 10 employees. Further a distinction will be made between the answers of
the employees and the managers of the firms. Lastly the data of all the participants, so employees
and leaders will be taken together to support my arguments.
45
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. RESULTS
The results presented here in the findings are based on the interviews. All the data is summarized
in the tables, which can be consulted in APPENDIX 5: RESULTS.
LEADERSHIP
The data state that smaller companies communicate their vision better towards their staff
members. A comparison of the measurements in Table 5. 1 and Table 5.2 shows these
differences in mean measurement for question L1. They have fewer employees and always
communicate directly with them. Due to this direct communication they believe they inform the
employees better about the vision of the company. They do have a closer relationship with all the
employees and they do talk more with each other, but this doesn’t say anything about
communicating the vision and objectives of the firm. During the panel discussion it was stated
that as long as business goes well, little attention is given to communicating the vision.
Smaller companies better support and encourage employees in comparison with bigger
organizations. A comparison of the measurements in Table 5. 1 and Table 5.2. shows these
differences in mean measurement for question L3. Again due to the smaller amount of
employees it is easier to maintain close contact with your employees.
The information gathered by the interviewer doesn’t allow concluding that the smaller
companies communicate better or support their employees better. During the personal interviews
it became clear that the answers from the bigger companies were closer to reality. They know
that communication is important and difficult to realise in a bigger firm. They try to achieve this
as good as possible, but they admit that it can be done in a better way than what currently is
done.
The research indicates that the leaders express their vision worse than the employees perceive.
The scores of L1 in Table 5.3 and Table 5.4 support this. Managers try their best to inform their
staff, nevertheless the employees often inquire more information. Motivated personnel wants to
be kept in the loop regarding the future of the company and which way to success has been
46
chosen. The vision of the firm also plays an important role in the job security of the work force.
During the panel discussion it became clear that the responsible employees request more
information regarding the vision. The executive employees are not interested. They just want to
do their job and it is more difficult for them to think along with the future of the company. They
don’t think the same way about the organization as the managers do.
The data signifies that leaders are convinced that they give encouragement, support and training
to their employees, but they disagree. The inequality of the score for L3 is obvious. Employees
want to acquire more knowledge. This means a higher job security for them. They will feel more
motivated when the organization invests in training. Again this refers to the responsible
employees. Executive staff wants to do their job and they are not looking forward to training.
The results show that managers understand the benefits from lean practices, in contrast to the
employees. The scores of L5 present a big difference. This corresponds with the introductory
question. The participants were asked if they were familiar with the concept of lean. Not a single
employee had ever heard of lean management. About half of the managers did, especially the
managers from the bigger firms. Lean thinking starts at the top-management level. When the
managers don’t think lean, the implementation doesn’t stand a change. If they are convinced of
the benefits and want to embark on the lean journey, it is crucial to inform the staff. This way
they know what is expected from them. Help solving problems, come up with new suggestions
for smoother processes, etc.
It is clear that this is an important factor to consider before starting with the application of lean.
Employees need to know what lean management stands for and how they can contribute to a
successful implementation.
The leaders are confident that they are managing the organization correctly. That they support
the staff members, communicate their vision and have knowledge about lean. The answers from
the employees are in general more negative than those from the managers. This indicates that the
staff members perceive that the leaders are doing not as good as they think. Support of
employees and communication of the vision must be enhanced. The employees show that they
want more information and involvement in the organization. Organizing small meetings and
encouraging employees to be more involved in the functioning of the enterprise can be a first
step in the right direction.
47
PROCESSES
The findings show that equipment is more often stored correctly in small firms. The data from
question P2 in Table 5.5 and Table 5.6 supports this. Smaller firms are convinced that loss of
time due to missing equipment doesn’t have an impact on the efficiency. From the interviewers’
perspective, these results are too optimistic. The bigger firms know where the problems in the
organization are situated. This results in a lower score for the bigger firms.
The research specifies that the employees help actively solve problems in small firms. The data
from question P5 in Table 5.5 and Table 5.6 justifies this. Due to the close relationship between
employer and employee in the smaller firms, the manager thinks his employees actively suggest
new solution and ideas. During the interviews it became immediately clear that sometimes the
staff brought up new ideas, but they were never implemented. Most of the time, the ideas were
not useful. The education level of the small work force in smaller companies is very low. This
reflects a lower ability to come up with new and beneficial ideas.
The data illustrates that the managers think their tools and equipment are stored correctly. The
comparison of Table 5.7 and Table 5.8 clearly specifies a big difference between the scores from
P2. Employees disagree with the managers. The scores are much lower and the high standard
deviations remain almost equal. The staff members work with the equipment every single day
and have more knowledge about the compliance of storing the tools correctly. The panel
discussion indicated that indeed the equipment is not always stored correctly. Some employees
who need the equipment the most know where everything is located. But when someone else
needs to utilize these tools, it is almost impossible to find. All the knowledge is in the hands of
one single employee. This is a point of consideration. By using SOP’s, protocols, not all the
knowledge is with one person. When he leaves the enterprise and someone else replaces him, he
will need to start all over again. When everything is stored correctly, he will be integrated much
faster.
The results indicate that managers believe that the machines are maintained on a regular basis, so
that breakdowns are minimized. The data from P3 agree with this argument. This is a question,
which the managers did not fully understand. Preventive maintenance is not well established
within these companies. They don’t see the possible benefits. Although nearly no organization
has a planning to maintain the machines on a regular basis, they often fix the machines
48
themselves. Nevertheless, this entails losses of time. The panel discussion as well indicated that
this is a significant problem and more attention needs to go to regular and preventive
maintenance.
The data pinpoints that visual boards are not used in the agricultural sector. The average scores
from all the participants together are very low and can be found in Table 5.9. We see a big
opportunity for amelioration regarding the business processes. The low score for P1 shows us
that visual boards are not used at all. These boards are the central information point of an
organization. At ISP they saw the application of these visual boards in Denmark. The companies
that already implemented it are very pleased with the results. It is a meeting place for the
employees and everybody in the firm knows what still needs to be done and what is already
finished. So double work is eliminated and information is distributed much faster. Due to the
high standard deviations we know that there is no consensus. One of the lean principles of
(Swank, 2003) was posting performance results. At one of the firms visited for the personal
interviews, they also used a tracking system with scanners to measure the hours effectively
worked and the volume of picked tomatoes. In the cafeteria there were big screens with a ranking
of the employees based on their efficiency. The employees received a bonus on top of their
salary. The bonus is calculated based on the volume picked and the quality of the tomatoes. The
boards became a rallying point for employees to encourage the group to set new performance
records. The staff members quickly understood that they wouldn’t be evaluated by their
superior’s subjective opinion. They would be rewarded for objective results, which they could
track themselves
Finally, we can conclude that the business processes can profit from lean principles. These easy
tools and techniques are not applied at this moment. Small changes in the processes and better
rules can lead to a smoother working environment, where the staff members know exactly what
to do the entire day.
EMPLOYEES
The research findings show that bigger firms train their employees more intensively. The data
from E5 in Table 5.10 and Table 5.11 clearly demonstrates the difference between big and small
enterprises. It was immediately observable that the bigger companies were more professional
49
compared to the smaller companies. Better infrastructure, more employees, security guidelines
throughout the whole company, etc. To remain competitive and enhance the quality of products,
it is important to train the personnel regularly.
The data specifies that smaller organizations think that the workers are more involved in the
business. Looking at the question E5 in Table 5.10 and Table 5.11 we see that the smaller
companies have higher scores for all the other questions. This can be explained due to the
smaller number of employees and the more direct contact between the staff and the management.
Employees can feel as if they can contribute to ameliorate the efficiency of the firm, but talking
about the issues of the organization is far from being involved. When the suggestions of
employees are heard, but not actively applied, there is no real involvement from the employee.
So we can’t conclude that the smaller companies handle their employees more efficiently.
The data from E3 in Table 5.12 indicates that the job description can be ameliorated. As
previously stated, the work in the agricultural sector is not specialized and employees need to be
flexible and master different kind of tasks (See 2.1.1. THE AGRO-BUSINESS VS.
MANUFACTURING). The job description can be clarified by utilizing a Standard Operating
Procedures (SOP). New employees on the work floor first got a simple explanation of what
needs to be done. Further they had to manage on their own. There were no written guidelines of
how to accomplish all the tasks, how to operate the machines, etc. This was one of the additional
observations of the personal interviews. For this matter, SOPs can be very helpful and contribute
to a faster integration of new employees. The ISP had information about farmers in Denmark
who created SOPs for the birth of a calf. This way he didn’t need be constantly on site during at
the end of the pregnancy and his employees knew exactly what to do when the delivery starts.
CUSTOMER
The findings illustrate that big companies don’t put enough effort in actively searching
customers’ feedback. In Table 5.13 and Table 5.14 we can compare the results from C1, C2.
These questions handle about the clients’ satisfaction level and feedback. The results are more
positive for smaller companies. For both groups the standard deviation of these answers is high.
When you have fewer clients, it is easier to maintain a close relationship with them. But a close
50
relationship doesn’t necessarily mean a relation where the leader actively wants to measure the
satisfaction levels of his clients. All the managers, especially from the bigger organizations,
conceded that clients were not actively contacted to assess the satisfaction level. They don’t feel
the need to do this, because they know exactly what product they deliver and what their clients
require. It is important to align these two factors. If not, the clients’ satisfaction level will
decrease. Asking customers for feedback is crucial to keep delivering products, which meet the
ever-changing demands of the client. The panel discussion revealed some interesting points. The
big companies often work for final clients and the smaller companies deliver their products to the
wholesale. Both groups of enterprises, small and big, have direct contact with their customers.
They have a close relationship with these big clients, because they return every year. Due to this
close contact they talk a lot and ask for feedback and what the requirements are for next year. So
there definitely is feedback, but actively searching feedback is not done in agriculture.
The data show that actively searching feedback and complaints of clients are not considered
important. Notice the low scores for C1, C2 and C5 together with high standard deviations in
Table 5.15. The organizations know the requirements of their clients. The complaints are
received and duly noted, but they are not actively resolved. Questioning customers to receive
important information about the opinion they formed regarding the service and product has a low
priority. The focus is more on the production and the delivery deadline. As explained above it is
crucial to align the ever-changing requirements of customers to the characteristics of the
products. Again the managers don’t seek actively for feedback, but due to the close relationship
with the clients, they know perfectly when the customers were satisfied or not.
WILLINGNESS
The data states that bigger companies are more willing to implement lean practices. We clearly
see the scores for W1 are higher for the big companies (Table 5.16 and Table 5.17). The
interviews clarified that bigger companies had more knowledge regarding lean management
before the start of the interview. The knowledge wasn’t profound, but the concept of lean was
heard of. Within the smaller companies many managers never heard about lean management.
The leaders of the bigger companies were more professional managers. This is a necessity,
51
because they employ a bigger work force and manage a bigger company. To organize more
people and bigger processes, there is a need for rules and good communication.
The results from questions W4 and W5 show equal scores, but the standard deviation is much
higher for the small enterprises. This indicates a more dispersed opinion whether to implement
some basic lean tools such as short meetings and visual boards. The average standard deviation
is also much higher for small companies then for the big. There is no consensus within the
management of the smaller organizations.
The experience from the interview shows that smaller companies have less employees and work
together with them every day. So they believe that the need for lean practices is lower for them
because the benefits are not high enough, because they have only few employees. They are not
eager to utilise a visual board, which can be a central point of information. They say everything
is organised and communicated by talking to each other. So they don’t believe they need extra
tools to ameliorate communication.
The results show that managers are more willing to change than the employees. A comparison of
the data from W1, W2 and W3 shows lower scores for the employees, which points to more
interest in lean practices by the management. (Table 5.18 and Table 5.19) No employee knew the
meaning of lean before the interview. Employees show a more conservative approach.
Everything is ok as is and they are not open for change. They want to be left in their comfort
zone. They need more information about lean principles. Due to the unknown they feel less
attracted to the concept of lean. Explaining lean theoretically to the executive employees can
form a problem. The panel discussion showed that it would be better to state that the necessary
changes also hold advantages for them. They are used of doing the task their way and need to
change this. This will bring resistance. But by explaining why the changes need to happen, they
will accept it faster.
The research findings indicate that there is an interest in lean practices, but no certainty of the
benefits. The results of all the participants suggest that the intention to implement exists, but
when asked if they want to implement some basic lean tools (W4 & W5), the scores go down.
(Table 5.20) We can clearly see there is a high willingness to implement lean, especially within
the bigger organizations. The interest is present and most of the managers want more information
about the concept of lean. In Belgium lean practices aren’t tested within the agriculture yet and
52
there doesn’t exist a methodology. This can discourage the managers to start implementing these
principles. They are scared of the high chances of failure and there is no example yet to base
their own efforts on. There needs to be made more information available. And the governmental
organizations, such as the ISP, need to support these initiatives for agriculture. This way the
anxiety will disappear and it will become easier to commence the lean journey.
53
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION & REMARKS
Research Questions:
Based upon a set of determining factors indicative of readiness for change for lean
implementation, are agricultural and horticultural firms in Flanders ready (i.e. prepared) to
implement lean management practices in their operations? In relation to this question, we need to
answer the following related inquiries:
RQ (a): What are the organizational deterministic factors that are suitable to assess readiness to
change for the implementation of lean in agricultural and horticultural firms in Flanders? RQ (a)
is answered in (3.2. READINESS FACTORS).
RQ (b): Which organizational deterministic factors indicate a high level of readiness to change
for lean implementation in agricultural and horticultural firms in Flanders?
The Readiness Factor Leadership got an overall high score. The leaders of the organizations,
which were interviewed, are all self-employed entrepreneurs. They are always looking for new
ways to achieve higher profitability. Although not everyone is familiar with the lean concept,
they see its potential and are open for new ideas. They don’t have any example of lean
implementation in the agricultural sector yet. A methodology does not yet exist. These factors
make it more difficult to immediately fully embrace lean. Nevertheless, the interest in a new way
of cost-reduction, efficiency and quality gains is clearly present. And the majority of the
managers is aware that there are multiple issues that can be executed in a more efficient way.
The companies, which were interviewed, stated that they don’t actively seek customers’
feedback. The focus group meeting made clear that this isn’t necessary. The companies have a
good and close relationship with their customers. Often their clients return every year. Due to
this close contact the feedback doesn’t need to be attained for example via a questionnaire. The
positive and negative points of the delivered products are communicated with the manager and
the specifications for next order are discussed.
RQ (c): Which organizational deterministic factors indicate a low level of readiness to change
for lean implementation in agricultural and horticultural firms in Flanders?
54
The data shows that the processes can ameliorate strongly. The production processes are
technologically well enhanced to remain competitive and boost productivity. But some simple
techniques to prevent time losses such as using visual boards and paying attention on the correct
storage of equipment are not yet applied in most of the firms.
The results indicate that employees are not sufficiently encouraged to think along with the
managers to solve problems and make processes more efficient. Further, most of the executive
employees want to stay in their comfort zone. The interest to think along with their bosses is
very low.
Next to this, the managers need to listen to their employees. Short meetings at the visual board
for example can effectuate new and fresh insights into the processes.
RQ (d): Which organizational deterministic factors indicate a high level of congruence, i.e.
shared beliefs and shared resolves (Weiner, 2009), between management and employees?
The data shows that there are multiple readiness factors that illustrate a high level of congruence
between management and staff. Both groups gave the RF Processes a very low score. The use of
visual boards is not existing and the eagerness to eliminate losses and wastage on the work floor
is very low. The RF Employees shows there is a high congruence. Both parties share the same
general opinion concerning training and development of employees. There is a lot of room for
improvement. Also the low involvement of the employees is a shared belief. Further, there is a
general feeling of knowing exactly what the customers require. Both groups indicate they
understand the requirements of their clients. Finally, the data specifies that the willingness to
start using visual boards and organize small meetings with the employees is very limited. These
are all shared beliefs based on the data gathered during the personal interviews. See the tables in
APPENDIX 5: RESULTS.
RQ (e): Which organizational deterministic factors indicate a high level of incongruence, i.e.
non-shared beliefs and non-shared resolve (Weiner, 2009), between management and
employees?
Based on the data in APPENDIX 5: RESULTS, it is clear to state that there exists a big
incongruence regarding the RF Leadership. Employees perceive that the efforts from the
management are worse than the leaders themselves believe. Better communication of the vision
and objectives, along with more support for the employees are necessary according to the
55
opinions of staff members. Further, employees indicate that equipment is often not correctly
stored and a schedule for maintenance of machines could improve the smoothness of operations.
Finally, there is again a clear difference between the beliefs of both groups concerning the RF
Willingness to change. The data states that management is more willing and prepared to get to
know the concept of lean. The managers always strive to improve profitability and they see a
good opportunity in the implementation of lean practices. Because lean in agriculture is new and
infant, there are no examples of successful implementation yet. The leaders are very interested in
the potential of lean. Although the risk of failure is considerable for now.
Connecting Methods to Analysis of RQ’s
Recent literature indicates that lean management practices could support productivity in the
agricultural sector. (Colgan et al., 2013), (Wu, 2003), (Taylor, 2006). In addition, studies
indicate that there is no reason why lean management practices cannot be adopted by agriculture,
since the method has proved transferable to many other sectors. (Zokaei & Simons, 2006),
(Standard & Davis, 2000), (Rougoor et al., 1998). Investigating the possible and useful
applications of lean management practices to the agricultural sector represents a key research gap
in the lean literature. This study seeks to address through the development and application of a
lean readiness assessment index to the agricultural context.
This study utilizes a structural approach to compile the readiness index, which considers
organizational financial, material, human and information resource. This is an adaptation of the
approach used in the healthcare sector by (Bloom, Devers, Wallace & Wilson 2000), (Welebob,
Johnson & Classen, 2003), (Lehman et al., 2002), (Demiris, Patrick & Khatri, 2003), (Demiris,
Courtney & Meyer, 2007), (Medley & Nickel, 2000), (Oliver & Demiris, 2004), (Snyder-
Halpern, 1998), (Snyder-Halpern, 2001). This point of investigation addresses RQ (a) through an
investigation of a significant amount of key literature. The factors that are indicative of readiness
for change in terms of implementing lean management practices in agriculture, thus form the
index by which readiness for lean implementation may be assess. This readiness index is
captured in the survey questionnaire, which was subsequently utilized to conduct the survey.
The agricultural and horticultural firm survey carried out in Flanders, Belgium, generated the
data necessary to answer research questions RQ (b) and RQ (c). The results for the survey that
56
was carried out is summarized in (APPENDIX 5: RESULTS). In addition, in order to capture the
element of “shared beliefs” of “shared commitment” put forth by (Weiner, 2009), the instrument
was administered to both managers within the sample group of firms as well as to firm
employees. Thus shared beliefs and shared commitments are assessed by measuring the degree
of congruency between manager and employee readiness ratings of readiness factors in the
questionnaire. The output of this analysis is utilized to answer research questions RQ (d) and RQ
(e).
One of the limitations of this study was the limited scope. 30 companies were interviewed. To be
able to perform good quantitative, statistical analysis, there is need for a bigger group of
respondents. This way the research questions can be statistically analysed.
Based on the interesting opinions of the management of the participating companies, it became
clear that there is a need for a framework for implementation for lean practices in agriculture. A
methodology, which can be utilized by any manager to apply lean in his/her organization. Next
to this, a balanced scorecard is can be developed to assess the readiness of the farmers.
57
REFERENCES
Adrijana Biba Starman. (2013). The case study as a type of qualitative research \t. Journal of
Contemporary Educational Studies, 1, 28–43.
Al-Balushi, S., Sohal, A. S., Singh, P. J., Al Hajri, A., Al Farsi, Y. M., & Al Abri, R. (2014).
Readiness factors for lean implementation in healthcare settings – a literature review.
Journal of Health Organization and Management, 28(2), 135–153. doi:10.1108/JHOM-04-
2013-0083
AL‐Najem, M., Dhakal, H., Labib, A., & Bennett, N. (2013). Lean readiness level within
Kuwaiti manufacturing industries. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 4(3), 280–320.
doi:10.1108/IJLSS-05-2013-0027
Allway, M., & Corbett, S. (2002). Shifting to lean service: Stealing a page from manufacturers’
playbooks. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 21(2), 45–54. doi:10.1002/npr.10019
Andersson, C., & Andersson, C. (2014). Lean leadership - The Toyota Way in Agricultural
Firms, (879).
Andersson, K., & Eklund, J. (2012). Work environment , Lean and agriculture, 1(2004), 661–
666.
Antony, J. (2014). Readiness factors for the Lean Six Sigma journey in the higher education
sector. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(2), 257–
264. doi:10.1108/IJPPM-04-2013-0077
Armenakis, A. a., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681.
Bhasin, S., & Burcher, P. (2006). Lean viewed as a philosophy. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, 17(1), 56–72. doi:10.1108/17410380610639506
Bicheno, J. (2008, February 1). The Lean Toolbox for Service Systems. Picsie Books.
Blackburn, J., & Scudder, G. (2009). Supply chain strategies for perishable products: The case of
fresh produce. Production and Operations Management, 18(2), 129–137.
doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2009.01016.x
Bloom, Devers, K., Wallace, N. T., & Wilson, N. (2000). Implementing capitation of Medicaid
mental health services in Colorado: Is \d qreadiness\d q a necessary condition? Journal of
Behavioral Health Services & Research, 27, 437–445.
Bowen, D. E., & Youngdahl, W. E. (2009). “ Lean ” service : in defense of a production-line
approach. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(3), 207–225.
Burch, D., & Lawrence, G. (2005). Supermarket own Brands, Supply Chains and the
Transformation of the Agri-Food System. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture
58
and Food, 13(1), 1–18.
Catalanello, R. F., & Redding, J. C. (1994). Strategic Readiness, The Making of the Learning
Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Centre, F. C. (2007). Applying Lean Thinking to the Fresh Produce Industry. Forum American
Bar Association.
Colgan, C., Adam, G., & Topolansky, F. (2013). Why try Lean? A Northumbrian Farm case
study. International Journal of Agricultural Management, 2(3), 170.
doi:10.5836/ijam/2013-03-06
Corbett, S. (2007). Beyond manufacturing: The evolution of lean production. McKinsey
Quarterly, 94–96.
Cox, A., & Chicksand, D. (2005). The Limits of Lean Management Thinking: European
Management Journal, 23(6), 648–662. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2005.10.010
Dahlgaard, J. J., & Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2006). The TQM Magazine Lean production, six
sigma quality, TQM and company culture Lean production, six sigma quality, TQM and
company culture. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management Measuring Business
Excellence Iss Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management (Vol. 18).
doi:10.1108/09544780610659998
Darpeix, A., Bignebat, C., & Perrier-Cornet, P. (2014). Demand for Seasonal Wage Labour in
Agriculture: What Does Family Farming Hide? Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(1),
257–272. doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12019
Demiris, G., Courtney, K. L., & Meyer, W. (2007). Current status and perceived needs of
information technology in Critical Access Hospitals: A survey study. Informatics in
Primary Care, 15(1), 45–51.
Demiris, G., Patrick, T., & Khatri, N. (2003). Assessing home care agencies’ readiness for
telehealth. AMIA ... Annual Symposium Proceedings / AMIA Symposium. AMIA Symposium,
825.
Dombrowski, U., & Mielke, T. (2014). Lean Leadership – 15 Rules for a Sustainable Lean
Implementation. Procedia CIRP, 17, 565–570. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.01.146
Dora, M. K., Lambrecht, E., Gellynck, X., & Van Goubergen, D. (2015). Lean manufacturing to
lean agriculture: it’s about time. 2015 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research
Conference (ISERC 2015).
Dorota Rymaszewska, A. (2014). The challenges of lean manufacturing implementation in
SMEs. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 21(6), 987–1002. doi:10.1108/BIJ-10-
2012-0065
Dyrendahl, C., & Granath, J. (2011, February 16). Lean för lantbruksföretaget. SLU, Dept. of
Economics.
59
Fearne, a, Bourlakis, M., Francis, M., & Simons, D. (2003). Identifying the Determinants of
Value in the UK Red Meat Industry: A Value chain Analysis Approach, 2002, 109–121.
doi:10.3920/JCNS2003.x034
Gurumurthy, A., Mazumdar, P., & Muthusubramanian, S. (2013). Graph theoretic approach for
analysing the readiness of an organisation for adapting lean thinking: A case study.
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 21(3), 396–427. doi:10.1108/IJOA-04-
2013-0652
Henderson, K. M., & Evans, J. R. (2000). Successful implementation of Six Sigma:
benchmarking General Electric Company. Benchmarking: An International Journal (Vol.
7). doi:10.1108/14635770010378909
Jones, D. T., & Womack, J. P. (2013). Lean Solutions: How Companies and Customers Can
Create Value and Wealth Together. Simon and Schuster.
Kim, C. S., Spahlinger, D. A., Kin, J. M., & Billi, J. E. (2006). Lean health care: what can
hospitals learn from a world-class automaker? Journal of Hospital Medicine, 1(3), 191–9.
doi:10.1002/jhm.68
Kumar, M., Antony, J., & Tiwari, M. K. (2011). Six Sigma implementation framework for SMEs
– a roadmap to manage and sustain the change. International Journal of Production
Research, 49(18), 5449–5467. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.563836
Lehman, W. E. K., Greener, J. M., & Simpson, D. D. (2002). Assessing organizational readiness
for change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22(4), 197–209. doi:10.1016/S0740-
5472(02)00233-7
Leite, R., & Ernani, G. (2010). Lean philosophy and its applications in the service industry : a
review of the current knowledge, (x).
Levitt, T. (1972). Production-line approach to service. Harvard Business Review, 50(5), 20–31.
Luning, P. A., & Marcelis, W. J. (2009). Food quality management: technological and
managerial principles and practices.
Mann, D. (2009). The Missing Link : Lean Leadership. Frontiers of Health Services
Management, 26(1), 15–26.
Medley, T. W., & Nickel, J. T. (2000). Predictors of Home Care Readiness for Managed Care: A
Multivariate Analysis. Home Health Care Services Quarterly, 18(2), 27–42.
doi:10.1300/J027v18n02_02
Oliver, D. R. P., & Demiris, G. (2004). An assessment of the readiness of hospice organizations
to accept technological innovation. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 10(3), 170–174.
doi:10.1258/135763304323070832
Pue-on, A., & Ward, B. D. (2010). The Impact of Capital Intensive Farming in Thailand: A
Computable General Equilibrium Approach. Paper Presented at the 2010 NZARES
60
Conference Tahuna Conference Centre – Nelson, New Zealand. August 26-27, 2010. .
Radnor, D. Z., Walley, P., Stephens, A., & Bucci, G. (2006). Evaluation of the Lean Approach to
Business Management and Its Use in the Public Sector, (20).
Radnor, Z. (2010). Transferring Lean into government. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 21(3), 411–428. doi:10.1108/17410381011024368
Ramakrishnan, S., & Testani, M. (2012). A Methodology to Assess an Organization ’ s Lean
Readiness for Change.
Rougoor, C. W., Trip, G., Huirne, R. B. M., & Renkema, J. A. (1998). How to de ® ne and study
farmers ’ management capacity : theory and use in agricultural economics, 18, 261–272.
Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2007). Defining and developing measures of lean production. Journal
of Operations Management, 25(4), 785–805. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.019
Sharma, A. (2014). What is Lean Manufacturing? International Journal of Sciences, 3, 44–49.
Siemieniuch, C. E., & Sinclair, M. a. (2004). A framework for organizational readiness for
knowledge management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
24(1), 79–98. doi:10.1108/01443570410511004
Simons, D., & Taylor, D. (2007). Lean thinking in the UK red meat industry: A systems and
contingency approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 106(1), 70–81.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.04.003
Simpson, D. D. (2002). A conceptual framework for transferring research to practice. Journal of
Substance Abuse Treatment, 22(4), 171–182. doi:10.1016/S0740-5472(02)00231-3
Snyder-Halpern, R. (1998). Measuring Organizational Readiness for Nursing Research
Programs. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 20(2), 223–237.
doi:10.1177/019394599802000207
Snyder-Halpern, R. (2001). Indicators of organizational readiness for clinical information
technology/systems innovation: A Delphi study. International Journal of Medical
Informatics, 63(3), 179–204. doi:10.1016/S1386-5056(01)00179-4
Sofokleous, C. (2007). Implementation of lean manufacturing improvement methodologies in a
small agricultural business.
Song, W., Tan, K. H., & Baranek, A. (2008). Effective toolbox for lean service implementation.
International Journal of Services and Standards, 5(1).
Spear, S., & Bowen, H. K. (1999). Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System:
EBSCOhost. Harvard Business Review, 77(5), 96–106.
Standard, C., & Davis, D. (2000). Lean thinking for Competitive Advantage. Automotive
Manufacturing and Production, December, pages 1–3.
Swank, C. K. The Lean Service Machine, Harvard Business Review 1–9 (2003).
61
Taj, S. (2005). Applying lean assessment tools in Chinese hi-tech industries. Management
Decision, 43(4), 628–643. doi:10.1108/00251740510593602
Taylor, D. H. (2006). Strategic considerations in the development of lean agri‐food supply
chains: a case study of the UK pork sector. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 11(3), 271–280. doi:10.1108/13598540610662185
Tewari, D. D. (2003). Principles of Microeconomics.
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., & Befort, B. L. (2011). Global food demand and the sustainable
intensification of agriculture. Pnas, 108(50), 20260–4. doi:10.1073/pnas.1116437108
Ulvenblad, P., Ståhl, J., Hoveskog, M., Tell, J., & Ulvenblad, P.-O. (2014). Agricultural business
model innovation in Swedish food production.
Voulgarakis, N., Folinas, D., Aidonis, D., & Triantafillou, D. (2013). APPLYING LEAN
THINKING TECHNIQUES IN THE AGRIFOOD, (November), 234–239.
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science,
4(1), 67. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-67
Welebob, E., Johnson, E., & Classen, D. C. (2003). for Computerized Physician Order Entry,
29(7), 336–344.
Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your
Corporation. London: Simon & Schuster.
Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). Machine that Changed the World.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Wu, Y. C. (2003). Lean manufacturing: a perspective of lean suppliers. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 23(11), 1349–1376.
doi:10.1108/01443570310501880
Zhang, Z., Waszink, A., & Wijngaard, J. (2000). An instrument for measuring TQM
implementation for Chinese manufacturing companies. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management (Vol. 17). doi:10.1108/02656710010315247
Zokaei, K., & Simons, D. (2006). Performance Improvements through Implementation of Lean
Practices : A Study of the U . K . Red Meat Industry. International Food and Agribusiness
Management Review, 9(2), 30–53.
1.1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: TABLE OF READINESS FACTORS
2.1
APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF READINESS PAPERS
No Author, year Objectives Methodology Focus of
research Findings
Suggestions/Future
researches
1 M. Kumar et
al., (2011)
Proposes a 5 phased
Six Sigma
implementation
framework for
SMEs
Triangulating the findings
from: primary data collected
from survey and multiple-case
studies and secondary data
obtained by analysing
frameworks proposed in the
literature on other CI initiatives
in SMEs
SMEs
Phase 0 = Readiness Index for SMEs
- 5 criteria that constitute Six Sigma
readiness index are: Leadership - Customer
Focus - Measurement and process -
Systems and Control - People Management
- A score of 3 for each criterion indicates
the organization is ready to sail through Six
Sigma implementation
Conduct further case
studies in companies to
test the practical
applicability of the
framework
2
S.
Ramakrishnan,
M.Testani
(2012)
Presents a
framework to assess
the readiness for
change in a
manufacturing
organization
engaged in a Lean
transformation
initiative
The Organizational Culture
Inventory is used to understand
the cultural outcomes on the
organization’s performance;
the Lean assessment focuses
on the operational
effectiveness and technology
maturity. For understanding
the skill level of employees a
questionnaire is used.
Manufacturing
Combining all these data into a readiness
for change dashboard reveals the areas for
improvement.
3 B. Weiner
(2009)
Defines a theory of
organizational
readiness for change
in the healthcare
delivery
Secondary data Healthcare
The theory described in this article treats
organizational readiness as a shared
psychological state in which organizational
members feel committed to implementing
an organizational change and confident in
their collective abilities to do so.
Testing the theory
would require further
measurement
development and
careful sampling
decisions
2.2
4 W. Lehman et
al., (2002)
An instrument for
assessing
Organizational
Readiness for
Change (ORC) has
been developed
based on a process
model of technology
transfer for
substance abuse
treatment agencies
Primary data: surveys of over
500 treatment personnel from
more than 100 treatment units
on 4 major ORC dimensions.
115 questions which represent
18 content domains which
include scales in four major
areas: motivation for change,
institutional resources of the
program, personality attributes
of the staff, and organizational
climate of the program
Services
The ORC can contribute to the study of
organizational change and technology
transfer by identifying functional barriers
involved.
The ORC needs testing
in larger, more
represent- ative samples
and other versions of
the ORC may need
development for other
specific populations
5 A. Armenakis
et al., (2002)
The objective is to
demonstrate how
Armenakis et al.,'s
frameworks can be
used to guide an
organization's
efforts to create
readiness for a
major change
Case study in creating
readiness for change in an IT
organization
IT
organization
According to their case description, they
feel the change message framework is
highly useful for guiding the change efforts
of organizations and for building readiness
6 A. Armenakis
et al., (1993)
Employee readiness
for organizational
change is examined
for how it can be
affected by change
agents.
Secondary data
Whirlpool's aggressive
readiness program as an
example
Manufacturing
The primary mechanism for creating
readiness for change is the message for
change.
The framework presented in this article
makes a case for identifying where change
is needed, then designing a readiness
program to influence the appropriate
beliefs, attitudes, and intentions so that
changes can be successfully implemented
2.3
7 P. Achanga et
al., (2006)
The aim is to
present the critical
factors that
constitute a
successful
implementation of
lean manufacturing
within
manufacturing
SMEs.
A combination of
comprehensive literature
review and visits to ten SMEs
were employed in the study.
Followed by interviewing the
relevant and key personnel.
Results were analysed and
validated through workshops,
case studies and Delphi
techniques.
Manufacturing
SMEs
Several critical factors that determine the
success of implementing the concept of
lean manufacturing within SMEs are
identified. Leadership, management,
finance organisational culture and skills and
expertise, amongst other factors; are
classified as the most pertinent issues
critical for the successful adoption of lean
manufacturing within SMEs environment.
Future work
should lead to a wider
spectrum of SMEs in
order to derive a more
concrete
multi-variant analysis
8
A.
Gurumurthy et
al.,(2013)
Many organizations
have failed to
implement Lean
Thinking. One of
the reasons can be
attributed to the fact
that not many
organizations are
attempting to
“assess the
organizational
readiness” before
implementing LT.
This paper aims to
address this issue.
Next to a literature review, a
hypothetical case study of an
Indian organization to
comprehensively assess
organizational readiness of the
case organisation using a
Graph Theoretic Approach
(GTA) were used
Manufacturing
*Different factors for readiness assessment
were identified based on the literature
support
*The GTA approach was utilized for
assessing the Organizational Readiness of
an organization, which is quite novel and
unique in the literatures
*A unique index called RI was proposed,
which measures the Degree of
Organizational Readiness (DOR)
Transformation to
agriculture is necessary.
But the objective is the
same
9 M. Dora et al.,
(2015)
Identify and
categorize lean
waste (seven deadly
wastes) and develop
a self-assessment
test for farmers
before embarking
on the lean
implementation.
This is a conceptual paper Agriculture
Before implementing lean, it is vital to
identify the readiness factors in order to see
if farms and farmers are up to such quality
improvement methods.A readiness index
has been created based on the operations
management literature.
This study can function
as a starting point for
empirical research
within the agriculture
2.4
10 S. Al-Balushi
et al., (2014)
The purpose of this
paper is to
determine the
readiness factors
that are critical to
the application and
success of lean in
healthcare
organizations
A comprehensive review of
literature focussing on lean and
lean healthcare
Healthcare
Leadership, organizational culture,
communication, training, measurement, and
reward systems are all commonly attributed
readiness factors throughout general change
management and lean literature.
The external validity of
the findings could be
enhanced if tested using
an empirical study
11 J. Antony
(2014)
This study tries to
reveal the readiness
factors (RFs) which
are required for the
successful
introduction and
development of a
Lean Six Sigma
(LSS) initiative
within the context of
higher education
(HE) sector.
Secondary data from literature
is used to justify the need for
RFs before any HE institutions
invest on continuous
improvement (CI)
methodologies such as LSS.
Followed by an empirical
study carried out across seven
UK universities.
Higher
Education
Institutions
The paper presents the RFs (5), which are
essential for the implementation and
sustainability of LSS. It is important to note
that RFs are prior to embarking on a CI
initiative whereas success factors are
determined once the senior management
team decides to invest on a specific CI
initiative (Lean)
The next stage of the
research is to carry out
empirical studies in a
number of HE
institutions to determine
the RFs for LSS as a
business process
improvement
methodology.
2.5
12
J. Antony, N.
Krishan et al.,
(2012)
This paper's goal is
to critically evaluate
whether Lean Six
Sigma (LSS) can be
a powerful business
improvement
methodology for
improving the
efficiency and
effectiveness of
higher education
institutions (HEIs).
The authors use secondary data
from literature to justify the
need for applying lean and the
benefits of adopting LSS
within the HEIs.
Higher
Education
Institutions
The paper presents the challenges and
barriers to be encountered during the
introduction of LSS in the higher education
sector, most useful tools and techniques for
process improvement problems, success
factors which are essential for the
implementation and sustainability of LSS.
The next phase of the
research will be looking
into the development of
a Lean Readiness Index
Model based on the
CSFs for the successful
implementation of LSS
within an HEI.
13 M. AL‐Najem
et al., (2013)
Develop a
measurement
framework to
evaluate the lean
readiness level
(LRL) and lean
systems (LS) within
Kuwaiti small and
medium-sized
manufacturing
industries
A comprehensive literature
review, semi-structured
interviews with 27 senior
managers, and a quantitative
survey administered to 50
SMEs was conducted
Manufacturing
SMEs
Many factors are revealed to affect SMEs
with respect to LS, including language
barriers and deficiencies in aspects
including quality workers in terms of
education and skills; technology;
government attention; know-how regarding
LS; market competitiveness; and urgency
for adopting LS
The LRL framework
should be tested in
SMEs that successfully
use LS, to provide a
benchmark. The study’s
findings can be used as
an internal checklist
prior to and during lean
implementation
14 Z. Radnor
(2011)
The paper analyses
the case studies not
only to assess if the
approach taken was
process or
continuous
improvement but
also to evaluate the
degree to which
conditions of
readiness related to
Lean were present.
Analysing 3 different case
studies performed in healthcare
institutions
Healthcare
Organisational readiness factors include
understanding of the process/system view,
customer view, data and engaging the staff
to ensure that Lean is not just about making
poor processes more efficient by focusing
on the tools.
A low degree of readiness has a significant
impact on the sustainability of Lean in
public services
2.6
15 B. Dale, M.
Smith (1997)
Presents the details
of a Quality
Management
Implementation
Grid to diagnose the
stage of
development of
their continuous
improvement
process
Based on empirical data and
practical experience they
developed the basis for the grid
Manufacturing
For those organizations considering using
self-assessment against one of the business
excellence models, it is suggested that they
use the grid, prior to embarking on the use
of these methods. In this way they can
relate the outcomes from this diagnosis
with the self- assessment
16 K. Ruikar et
al., (2006)
This paper describes
the development
and implementation
of VERDICT, an e-
readiness
assessment
prototype
application for
construction
companies
The triangulation methodology
is used. This method involves
the use of both qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Also
an e-readiness questionnaire is
used during the assessment.
(one for each category)
Construction
Companies
The e-readiness assessment model is based
on the premise that for any company to be
e-ready, its management, people, process
and technology have to be e-ready
The results of this work
will be further used to
develop
appropriate strategies
for achieving e-
readiness in
construction
organisations
17 K. Kwahk, J.
Lee (2008)
They examined the
formation of
readiness for change
and its effect on the
perceived
technological value
of an ERP system
leading to its use.
They developed a model of
readiness for change. The
model was then empirically
tested using data collected
from users of ERP systems in
Korea. Structural equation
analysis using LISREL
provided significant support
for all proposed relationships
Manufacturing
The study examined the role of readiness
for change in the context of ERP systems
implementation. The empirical findings
showed how readiness for change indirectly
influenced the behavioural intention to use
ERP systems. At the same time, readiness
for change was found to be enhanced by
two factors: organizational commitment
and perceived personal competence
2.7
18 D. Holt, et al.,
(2007)
This article
discusses the
development and
evaluation of an
instrument that can
be used to gauge
readiness for
organizational
change at an
individual level
Using a systematic item-
development framework as a
guide (i.e., item development,
questionnaire administration,
item reduction, scale
evaluation, and replication)
Manufacturing
The results suggest that readiness for
change is a multidimensional construct
influenced by beliefs among employees that
(a) they are capable of implementing a
proposed change (i.e., change-specific
efficacy), (b) the proposed change is
appropriate for the organization (i.e.,
appropriateness), (c) the leaders are
committed to the proposed change (i.e.,
management support), and (d) the proposed
change is beneficial to organizational
members (i.e., personal valence)
This paper has provided
a framework to further
explore the specific
factors that influence
readiness and a basis to
build reliable and valid
scales to measure those
factors
19
C.
Cunningham,
et al., (2002)
The goal is to
examine factors
influencing
readiness for
healthcare
organizational
change
654 randomly selected hospital
staff completed questionnaires
measuring the logistical and
occupational risks of change,
ability to cope with change and
to solve job-related problems,
social support and readiness
for organizational change.
Healthcare
Employees with an active approach to job
problem solving with higher job change
self-efficacy scores reported a higher
readiness for change.
The use of a single
corporate sampling
frame may have limited
the generalizability of
the findings
20 L. Eby et al.,
(2000)
The purpose of this
study was to
examine several
variables related to
employee
perceptions of
organizational
readiness for
change. Following
Armenakes et al.,'s
(1993) model
Two divisions of a national
sales organization
compromised the sample. 117
employees completed a
research questionnaire as part
of a training pre-assessment
Sales
organizations
This study provides an initial attempt to
understand the variables affecting perceived
readiness for change by offering the
suggestion that individual, job and work
group, and context-related factors are all
important antecedents of readiness for
change.
Field experiments are
needed which compare
divisions experiencing
change with those that
are not, to draw firm
causal conclusions
2.8
21 A. Armenakis
et al., (1976)
Stimulate further
research in the area
of Organizational
Development
evaluations so that
'irrational'
justifications for not
conducting such
evaluations of OD
efforts can be
minimized
107 returned questionnaires
from change agents were
considered usable responses
Manufacturing
The problems change agents encountered
were clustered in 3 categories:
Methodological, administrative and
miscellaneous
22 J. Jadhav et al.,
(2014)
The objective of this
paper is to present
an analysis of
research on lean
focusing on barriers
in its
implementation
A literature survey of peer-
reviewed journal articles,
survey reports, master theses,
doctoral theses and
paradigmatic books with
managerial impact is used as
the research methodology
Manufacturing
The identification of 24 lean barriers. The
success of lean implementation will not be
entirely based on application of appropriate
tools and techniques alone but also on the
top managements’ involvement and
leadership, workers’ attitude, resources and
the organizational culture
Could be a starting
point for new relevant
research that would
contribute to more
translucent knowledge
of lean
23 C. Matawale et
al., (2015)
The purpose of this
study is to provide
an efficient index
system for
evaluating leanness
extent of the
organizational
supply chain. Such
leanness estimation
can help the
enterprises to assess
their existing
leanness level and
can compare
different industries
that are adapting
this lean concept
The present work exhibits an
efficient fuzzy-based leanness
assessment system using
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers set.
Manufacturing
The methodology described here has been
found fruitful while applying for a
particular industry, in India, as a case study.
Apart from estimating overall lean
performance metric, the model presented
here can identify ill-performing areas
toward lean achievement
2.9
24
A.
Rymaszewska
(2014)
The purpose of this
paper is to identify
the lean
manufacturing
implementation
challenges in small
and medium
enterprises (SMEs).
The findings presented in this
paper were achieved through
the case study method. The
research utilizes the deductive
approach.
Manufacturing
SMEs
The results present an assessment of the
companies’ current situations. The results
uncover their readiness for lean
implementation and identify the challenges
that might hinder lean implementation.
Early identification of weaknesses will
make companies more aware of their own
capabilities. Moreover, it has potential for
making them better prepared for lean
implementation and more consistent in their
process.
The validity of the
findings could be
further improved by
adding more empirical
evidence to determine if
the outlined challenges
to lean implementation
can be generalized
25
S. Zargun, A.
Al-Ashaab
(2014)
The purpose of this
paper is to
determine lean
critical success
factors for
manufacturing
organisations in
developing
countries
This paper is based on an
extensive literature review of
factors that influence the lean
adoption process in developed
countries and mapping these
factors with lean current issues
in developing countries to
draw up successful factors
suitable for developing
countries
Manufacturing
The results of the literature review revealed
several factors that influence the process of
adopting lean manufacturing in developing
countries, including the organisational
infrastructure, trade agreements, political
and economic environments, ability and
willingness to change organisational
structure and culture and, top management
support and commitment
The recommended lean
key factors are a
conceptual-based
model. An empirical
based study is needed to
provide practical
evidence about the
validity of that model
26
R. Coronado
and J. Antony
(2002)
This paper
illustrates the
critical success
factors for the
successful
implementation of
six sigma projects
This paper reviews the
literature related to the critical
success factors for the effective
implementation of six sigma
projects in organisations
Manufacturing
These factors were derived from a thorough
analysis of various journal papers, books
and case studies
The next stage of the
research is to research
the priority of
importance of these
CSFs
2.10
27 Oakland and
Tanner (2007)
The objective was to
examine the
apparent gap
between often-seen
approaches and
“best practice”, the
output being a
helpful framework
to support future
initiatives
28 organisations, from a
variety of industries including
the public sector, were
interviewed to gain their
insights on how to manage
change successfully
Manufacturing
The research led to the definition of two
main constructs of change management:
readiness for change and implementing
change
28 L. Xiao Xia
Xu
The objectives of
this research are to
study what lean
tools local SMEs
have applied and
lean best practices
adopted in their lean
implementation, and
to evaluate and
select suitable lean
tools & lean best
practices for SMEs
in Singapore
Method: Phase 1 - Study the
lean tools & lean best practices
adopted by MNCs. Phase 2 -
Study the characteristics of
manufacturing environment in
SMEs and their needsPhase 3 -
Evaluate and identify most
suitable lean tools and lean
best practices for SMEsPhase 4
– Propose a program for SMEs
to embark on Lean journey in
Singapore
Manufacturing
SMEs
In this study, the gaps and challenges of
SMEs faced have been identified. To
address the identified issues, a program for
lean implementation has been proposed and
is being executed in Singapore industry
Develop a quick
assessment tool that
will be able to assess
the lean level of a
company and identify
the weak points for
improvement
29 T.Y. Lee et al.,
(2011)
This research paper
aims at developing a
self-assessment
model for
determining the
readiness of China
enterprises to
implement the Six
Sigma approach
An extensive literature review
has been conducted to provide
sufficient background
information. The developed
readiness self-assessment
model is validated by survey
method and the collected data
are analysed to determine the
effectiveness of the model
Manufacturing
This paper presents the first research study
to develop a Six Sigma readiness self-
assessment model targeting China
enterprises
For further research,
more organizations may
be included in the pilot
study to validate the
assessment model
2.11
30
R. Hensley
and K. Dobie
(2005)
The purpose of this
paper is to develop a
model to help
service
organizations assess
their readiness for a
six sigma program
and to provide
suggestions for
methods of
introducing it.
A review of relevant literature
is used to identify two
proposed components of
organizational readiness:
organizational experience with
improvement programs and
organizational understanding
of processes
Services
Two major indicators of preparedness were
identified as previous experiences with
quality programs and current measurement
of service processes. The resulting
organizational readiness framework allows
organizations to be placed into one of four
distinct quadrants – each having its own
requirements for implementation of six
sigma
Future research is
needed to validate the
model in multiple
service organizations
31 B. Weeks et
al., (1995)
The TQM literature
suggests that
success comes to
organizations ready
for a change in
climate.
Determining levels
of readiness or
conversely
resistance to change
is an important step.
To judge an organization’s
readiness to implement a
successful TQM programme,
strengths and weaknesses in
seven critical organizational
characteristics must be
assessed and in addition,
significant differences in
perception of such between
management and employees
should be considered
Manufacturing
Organizations should take the time to
diagnose and identify potential ways to
remove hurdles to TQM. If the information
has confirmed much of an organization’s
intuition about the management and
employees, it can still be useful to quantify
the most critical gaps more clearly and
identify them so an organization can
restructure and adjust their TQM
implementation
32
A.
Chakrabarty
and K.C. Tan
(2007)
This article aims to
review Six Sigma
application in
services along five
main themes. The
article seeks to draw
on these themes to
reflect on the wider
applicability of six
sigma in services
Secondary data Services
The article provides a theoretical
framework consisting mainly of critical
success factors, critical to quality
characteristics, and key performance
indicators as management guidelines to
widen the application of six sigma in
service industries
Further research can be
done in expanding the
knowledge base on the
discussed themes in
different types of
service industries
2.12
33 R. Shah and P.
Ward (2007)
This research takes
an initial step
toward clarifying
the concept of lean
production and
develops and
validates a multi-
dimensional
measure of lean
production
Secondary data is used. Also a
comprehensive, multi-step
approach is adopted.
Manufacturing
We develop an operational measure of lean
production and provide a framework that
identifies its most salient dimensions.
This instrument will allow the researchers
to assess the state of lean implementation in
firms and to test hypotheses about
relationships between lean production and
other firm characteristics that affect firm
performance
34 Z. Radnor et
al., (2006)
The objective of this
report is to present
the evidence of the
evaluation of Lean
in the public sector
as a means to embed
a continuous
improvement
culture
A review of the international
evidence on the use of lean in
the public sector.
Eight case studies of public
sector organisations using
Lean.
A survey of Scottish public
sector organisations using
Lean.
An evaluation of Lean
implementation using Rapid
Improvement Events in 3 pilot
sites in local government,
health and education in
Scotland
Public Sector
From the research, a number of success
factors have emerged which are important
considerations for embarking on Lean
programmes
2.13
35 Kumar et al.,
(2009)
This study presents
the results of the
survey conducted in
UK manufacturing
SMEs to investigate
into their quality
practices and
measure its impact
on the
organisational
performance of
SMEs
A survey-based approach is
adopted by designing a short
questionnaire addressing the
issues of quality practices in
SMEs
SMEs
Results of the survey revealed that factors
critical to success of quality initiatives are
equal in importance, irrespective of type of
initiatives implemented by the
firmResearch had shown that Six Sigma
initiative in many organisations have failed
either due to lack of understanding of how
to get started or due to failure to link the
initiative to strategic business goals and
measurable objectives.
36 J. Antony et
al., (2002)
This paper presents
the results of a study
on CSFs for TQM
implementation in
Hong Kong
organisations.
A detailed analysis of the
literature is performed to get
the success factors.
A factor analysis was carried
out that identified seven CSFs
with 38 elements of the
implementation of TQM
Manufacturing
The results of the study clearly indicate that
training and education is the most critical
factor for the successful implementation of
TQM in HK organisations followed by
quality data reporting and management
commitment
Further investigation is
needed by conducting
similar studies with a
large sample size to
verify and extend the
results of this research
37 S. Nitin et al.,
(2011)
The purpose of this
paper is to identify a
set of critical
success factors of
TQM
implementation
Comparing a set of 24
awards/frameworks as given
by various agencies and
researchers was performed
Manufacturing
The outcome of this study is a
comprehensive list of most important
critical success factors of TQM
implementation required for sustaining or
achieving manufacturing excellence
Future research can be
suggested in terms that
these CSF’s can be
clubbed together to
develop a framework
which can be
empirically tested
through a questionnaire
survey to get more
accurate results
2.14
38 M. Tickle et
al., (2016)
The purpose of this
paper is to improve
the understanding of
how organisations
successfully deploy
business excellence
(BE)
This is done by comparing the
tools and strategies
implemented by organisations
at different levels of BE
maturity. Data was gathered
via questionnaires, discussion
groups and interviews
Manufacturing Organisations with higher BE maturity
outperform their less mature counterparts
39
T. Doolen and
M. Hacker
(2005)
This paper describes
the development of
a survey instrument
to assess the
implementation of
lean practices within
an organization
Literature review and survey Manufacturing
It was found that while electronic
manufacturers have implemented a broad
range of lean practices, the level of
implementation does vary and may be
related to economic, operational, or
organizational factors
40 D. Heckl et al.,
(2010)
The purpose of this
paper is to present
and discuss results
from the first
empirical study on
the status and the
success factors of
Six Sigma in the
financial services
An empirical study using a
comprehensive and tested
survey instrument has been
conducted in banks, insurance
companies, and related service
providers
Financial
Service
Industry
Most companies apply the methodology in
pilot projects only. Dissatisfaction with Six
Sigma projects is often caused by
insufficient data quality and data quantity,
lack of resources, and missing support from
top management
41 Z. Zhang et al.,
(2000)
The objective is to
develop an
instrument for
measuring TQM
implementation for
Chinese
manufacturing
companies
By doing an extensive review
of the literature, 11 constructs
of TQM implementation were
identified
Manufacturing
An instrument measuring these constructs
was developed. Researchers will be able to
use this instrument for developing a quality
management theory
2.15
42
S. Bhasin and
P. Burcher
(2006)
The purpose of this
paper is to illustrate
that the
implementation
record suffers as the
prevailing opinion
fails to encapsulate
that an aspiring lean
enterprise shall only
succeed if it views
lean as a philosophy
rather than another
strategy
The paper is based on a
thorough literature search
concerning the success and
failure of lean implementations
and acts as a precursor for one
of the authors utilising a
combination of methodologies;
namely, interviewing, survey
questionnaire and participant
observation
Manufacturing
The analysis intimates that the major
difficulties companies encounter in
attempting to apply lean are a lack of
direction, a lack of planning and a lack of
adequate project sequencing. Knowledge of
particular tools and techniques is often not
a problem
43
J.S. Oakland,
S.J. Tanner
(2007)
The main purpose of
this paper was to
examine the
apparent gap
between often-seen
approaches change
initiatives and “best
practice”, the output
being a helpful
framework to
support future
initiatives. This led
to an Organisational
Change Framework
being developed
In total, 28 organisations, from
a variety of industries, were
interviewed to gain their
insights on how to manage
change successfully. The
research examined a number of
themes covering the triggers
for change, planning for
change, and implementing
change. The forces for change,
as experienced by the
respondents, were also
captured
Variety of
industries
The research showed that successful change
focuses on both strategic and operational
issues. The key link between the strategic
objectives and operational improvement is
the core processes, which need to be
understood, measured and improved. If the
link is broken, then the change is
ineffective
2.16
44 S. Taj (2005)
The research has as
goal to apply
assessment tools to
obtain some key
information about
the status of a
manufacturing
facility. This paper
offers a practical
and easy to use
assessment tool to
help manufacturing
managers to make
their manufacturing
operations more
productive
A spreadsheet-based
assessment tool is used to
evaluate nine key areas of
manufacturing. Participants are
asked to answer questions for
each area. A score is given for
each response in the
assessment. Scores are then
totalled for each of the nine
areas. The results are then
displayed in the score
worksheet and finally a lean
profile chart is created to
display the current status of the
plant and the gap from their
specific lean targets
High-tech
industry
Results of the lean assessment tool have
revealed a somewhat significant gap from
the lean manufacturing target, but have also
identified opportunities for improvement
45 Z. Radnor
(2010)
This paper evaluates
the transfer of a
Lean approach
developed by a
global
manufacturing and
logistics company
into a large UK
Government
department
The research takes a case study
approach based visiting ten
sites within one organisation
interviewing over 250 people
throughout the organisation
Public Sector
The findings indicate that the tools mostly
focused on the principle of Lean related to
reduction of waste and that some of the
concepts such as standard work may not be
appropriate for public services. On
reflecting on the findings, the paper
presents two frameworks – one for
clarifying the purpose of the tools in terms
of assessment, improvement and
monitoring and another, the House of Lean,
as a framework for not only for the tools
but also the factors to support the
implementation of the tools
3.1
APPENDIX 3: MANAGER QUESTIONNAIRE
As a student of Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, I
am conducting a survey as part of my thesis: ‘Developing a Readiness Index for Lean
Practices in Agriculture’. This is to assess the readiness of farmers in Flanders to
implement lean management techniques and to develop an easy-to-use readiness index.
The results of this questionnaire will be used solely for research purposes. All responses
of the survey will be treated completely confidential. The time to complete the survey is
circa 15 minutes.
Part 1: Farmers’ Details:
Name:
Age:
Education:
Core activity:
Side activities:
Function in the farm (employee/manager, leader):
If you answered employee, you don’t need to fill in the next two questions.
Land owned: Acres
How many employees work on the farm:
Have you ever heard of Lean Management?
3.2
Do you know any lean tools/techniques?
Do you use any, or ever tried to implement any tools/techniques to increase efficiency?
(Efficiency in terms of time, material, cost, quality)
3.3
Part 2: Questionnaire
To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding the use of lean
management practices when considering your company?
Please use the following scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree,
5 = strongly agree.
No Criteria to measure Lean Readiness Measurement Scale
Leadership Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
1 As a leader/manager I clearly communicate my
vision and objectives towards my employees 1 2 3 4 5
2 I am open to new ideas and provide resources
when required 1 2 3 4 5
3 I always provide support, direction and
encouragement to my employees 1 2 3 4 5
4
I fully understand that successful implementation
of tools/techniques, which increase efficiency,
comes with investments and requires a long-term
commitment
1 2 3 4 5
5
I do understand what the benefits of lean
management consist of. (e.g. no loss on
transportation, better quality of products,
smoother processes, etc.)
1 2 3 4 5
Processes
6
We use flowcharts or visual boards to track al the
major processes in the company.
Example: Do you use visual boards to track the
use of fertilizers, seeds and feed etc?
1 2 3 4 5
7 Equipment is always stored in the right location 1 2 3 4 5
8
We use a schedule for maintenance of equipment
so that machines are maintained on a regular
basis by skilled people
1 2 3 4 5
9 Occasionally time is lost due to forgetting
equipment at the farm 1 2 3 4 5
3.4
10
Everybody in the organization helps to identify
wastes and solve problems by generating new
ideas and solutions. (See description of wastes
below)
1 2 3 4 5
Waste = Paperwork gets delayed due to inaccurate information, machinery breakdowns force
employees to wait, a packing line runs too slow and requires extra labour and a larger proportion of
crops are rejected due to inconsistent harvesting techniques. These are all wastes that can be eliminated
to smoothen the process and augment efficiency.
Employees
11 My employees feel free to report information on
errors and defects 1 2 3 4 5
12
We promote the involvement of all our
employees in providing suggestions to improve
the system and processes
1 2 3 4 5
13 Each employee has a clear understanding of his
job description 1 2 3 4 5
14 Suggestions and ideas from employees are
actively used by the management 1 2 3 4 5
15 We support training and employee development 1 2 3 4 5
Customer Relations
16 We question our customers about their
satisfaction levels on a regular basis 1 2 3 4 5
17
We frequently seek customer feedback on
delivery performance and the quality of the
products
1 2 3 4 5
18 We understand our customers' requirements 1 2 3 4 5
19
We understand that agriculture has multiple
customers (Consumers, Retailers, Government,
etc)
1 2 3 4 5
20
We collect customer complaints so that problems
can be avoided in the future
1 2 3 4 5
Supplier Relations
3.5
21 We have a good and close relationship with our
suppliers 1 2 3 4 5
22
We utilise a clear strategy by which we evaluate
supplier performance in terms of quality,
delivery and prices
1 2 3 4 5
23 Local suppliers are used. This to avoid shipment
delays 1 2 3 4 5
24 We keep the number of suppliers deliberately as
low as possible 1 2 3 4 5
25 We give suppliers regular feedback on quality
and delivery performance 1 2 3 4 5
Willingness to change
26 I am interested in implementing lean
management tools/techniques in my company 1 2 3 4 5
27 I want to be further informed concerning lean
management 1 2 3 4 5
28 I will focus on eliminating wastes to improve
profitability 1 2 3 4 5
29 I will start using visual boards on the work floor
to communicate clearly with the employees 1 2 3 4 5
30 I will organise regular meetings to discuss the
processes and solve problems 1 2 3 4 5
4.1
APPENDIX 4: EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE
No Criteria to measure Lean Readiness Measurement Scale
Leadership Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
1 The leader/manager clearly communicates his
vision and objectives towards the employees 1 2 3 4 5
2 The leader is open to new ideas and provides
resources when required 1 2 3 4 5
3 the leader always provides support, direction and
encouragement to his employees 1 2 3 4 3
4
I fully understand that successful implementation
of tools/techniques, which increase efficiency,
comes with investments and requires a long-term
commitment
1 2 3 4 5
5
I do understand what the benefits of lean
management consist of. (e.g. no loss on
transportation, better quality of products,
smoother processes, etc.)
1 2 3 4 5
Processes
6
We use flowcharts or visual boards to track al the
major processes in the company.
Example: Do you use visual boards to track the
use of fertilizers, seeds and feed etc?
1 2 3 4 5
7 Equipment is always stored in the right location 1 2 3 4 5
8
We use a schedule for maintenance of equipment
so that machines are maintained on a regular
basis by skilled people
1 2 3 4 5
9 Occasionally time is lost due to forgetting
equipment at the company 1 2 3 4 5
10
Everybody in the organization helps to identify
wastes and solve problems by generating new
ideas and solutions. (See description of wastes
below)
1 2 3 4 5
4.2
Waste = Paperwork gets delayed due to inaccurate information, machinery breakdowns force
employees to wait, a packing line runs too slow and requires extra labour and a larger proportion of
crops are rejected due to inconsistent harvesting techniques. These are all wastes that can be eliminated
to smoothen the process and augment efficiency.
Employees Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
11 We feel free to report information on errors and
defects 1 2 3 4 5
12
The involvement of all the employees is
promoted in providing suggestions to improve
the system and processes
1 2 3 4 5
13 We have a clear understanding of our job
description 1 2 3 4 5
14 Our suggestions and ideas are actively used by
the management 1 2 3 4 5
15 Training and employee development are
supported 1 2 3 4 5
Customer Relations
16 We question our customers about their
satisfaction levels on a regular basis 1 2 3 4 5
17
We frequently seek customer feedback on
delivery performance and the quality of the
products
1 2 3 4 5
18 We understand our customers' requirements 1 2 3 4 5
19
We understand that agriculture has multiple
customers (Consumers, Retailers, Government,
etc)
1 2 3 4 5
20
We collect customer complaints so that problems
can be avoided in the future
1 2 3 4 5
Supplier Relations
21 We have a good and close relationship with our
suppliers 1 2 3 4 5
4.3
22
We utilise a clear strategy by which we evaluate
supplier performance in terms of quality,
delivery and prices
1 2 3 4 5
23 Local suppliers are used. This to avoid shipment
delays 1 2 3 4 5
24 We keep the number of suppliers deliberately as
low as possible 1 2 3 4 5
25 We give suppliers regular feedback on quality
and delivery performance 1 2 3 4 5
Willingness to change Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
26 I am interested in implementing lean
management tools/techniques in my company 1 2 3 4 5
27 I want to be further informed concerning lean
management 1 2 3 4 5
28 I will focus on eliminating wastes to improve
profitability 1 2 3 4 5
29 I will start using visual boards on the work floor
to communicate clearly with the employees 1 2 3 4 5
30 I will organise regular meetings to discuss the
processes and solve problems 1 2 3 4 5
5.1
APPENDIX 5: RESULTS
LEADERSHIP
Table 5. 1:Big companies
Table 5.2: Small companies
BIG MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
L1 3,53 0,93 1 5 4
L2 4,15 0,82 2 5 3
L3 3,68 0,88 2 5 3
L4 4,32 0,64 3 5 2
L5 3,97 0,80 2 5 3
AVERAGE 3,93 0,81 2 5 3
SMALL MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
L1 4,00 0,87 2 5 3
L2 4,36 0,66 3 5 2
L3 4,36 0,79 3 5 2
L4 4,36 0,79 2 5 3
L5 4,00 1,02 1 5 4
AVERAGE 4,22 0,83 2,2 5 2,8
5.2
Table 5.3: Leaders
Table 5.4: Employees
LEADERS MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
L1 3,90 0,84 2 5 3
L2 4,43 0,63 3 5 2
L3 4,23 0,68 3 5 2
L4 4,50 0,63 3 5 2
L5 4,27 0,74 2 5 3
AVERAGE 4,27 0,70 2,60 5,00 2,40
EMPLOYEES MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
L1 3,50 0,99 1 5 4
L2 4,00 0,85 2 5 3
L3 3,62 1,02 2 5 3
L4 4,15 0,73 2 5 3
L5 3,65 0,94 1 5 4
AVERAGE 3,78 0,91 1,6 5 3,4
5.3
PROCESSES
Table 5.5: Big companies
Table 5.6: Small companies
BIG MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
P1 2,59 1,10 1 5 4
P2 3,00 1,07 1 5 4
P3 3,12 1,09 1 5 4
P4 3,18 1,17 1 5 4
P5 3,18 1,03 1 5 4
AVERAGE 3,01 1,09 1 5 4
SMALL MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
P1 2,55 1,53 1 5 4
P2 3,68 1,09 2 5 3
P3 3,27 1,20 1 5 4
P4 3,50 1,10 2 5 3
P5 3,68 0,99 2 5 3
AVERAGE 3,34 1,18 1,6 5 3,4
5.4
Table 5.7: Leaders
Table 5.8: Employees
Table 5.9: All participants
LEADERS MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
P1 2,53 1,41 1 5 4
P2 3,50 1,11 1 5 4
P3 3,40 1,19 1 5 4
P4 3,43 1,14 1 5 4
P5 3,50 1,01 1 5 4
AVERAGE 3,27 1,17 1,00 5,00 4,00
EMPLOYEES MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
P1 2,62 1,13 1 5 4
P2 3,00 1,10 1 5 4
P3 2,92 1,02 1 5 4
P4 3,15 1,16 1 5 4
P5 3,23 1,07 1 5 4
AVERAGE 2,98 1,09 1 5 4
ALL MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
P1 2,57 1,28 1 5 4
P2 3,27 1,12 1 5 4
P3 3,18 1,13 1 5 4
P4 3,30 1,14 1 5 4
P5 3,38 1,04 1 5 4
AVERAGE 3,14 1,14 1 5 4
5.5
EMPLOYEES
Table 5.10: Big companies
Table 5.11: Small companies
Table 5.12: All participants
BIG MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
E1 4,03 0,90 2 5 3
E2 3,62 1,02 2 5 3
E3 3,82 1,03 1 5 4
E4 3,71 0,84 2 5 3
E5 3,85 0,93 1 5 4
AVERAGE 3,81 0,94 1,6 5 3,4
SMALL MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
E1 4,18 0,80 2 5 3
E2 3,82 0,85 2 5 3
E3 4,14 0,77 3 5 2
E4 4,00 0,62 3 5 2
E5 3,18 1,30 1 5 4
AVERAGE 3,86 0,87 2,2 5 2,8
ALL MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
E1 4,09 0,86 2 5 3
E2 3,70 0,95 2 5 3
E3 3,95 0,94 1 5 4
E4 3,82 0,77 2 5 3
E5 3,59 1,12 1 5 4
AVERAGE 3,83 0,93 1,6 5 3,4
5.6
CUSTOMER
Table 5.13: Big companies
Table 5.14: Small companies
Table 5.15: All participants
BIG MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
C1 3,06 1,09 1 5 4
C2 3,45 1,03 1 5 4
C3 4,16 0,52 3 5 2
C4 4,39 0,67 3 5 2
C5 3,87 0,96 2 5 3
AVERAGE 3,79 0,85 2 5 3
SMALL MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
C1 3,86 1,15 1 5 4
C2 3,81 1,12 1 5 4
C3 4,24 0,89 1 5 4
C4 4,38 0,97 1 5 4
C5 3,82 1,10 1 5 4
AVERAGE 4,02 1,05 1 5 4
ALL MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
C1 3,38 1,16 1 5 4
C2 3,58 1,06 1 5 4
C3 4,22 0,69 1 5 4
C4 4,39 0,79 1 5 4
C5 3,87 1,00 1 5 4
AVERAGE 3,89 0,94 1 5 4
5.7
WILLINGNESS
Table 5.16: Big companies
Table 5.17: Small companies
BIG MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
W1 4,18 0,58 3 5 2
W2 4,12 0,65 3 5 2
W3 4,30 0,59 3 5 2
W4 3,67 0,96 1 5 4
W5 3,91 0,77 2 5 3
AVERAGE 4,04 0,71 2,4 5 2,6
SMALL MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
W1 3,86 0,89 2 5 3
W2 4,00 0,87 2 5 3
W3 4,36 0,58 3 5 2
W4 3,55 1,30 1 5 4
W5 3,68 1,25 1 5 4
AVERAGE 3,89 0,98 1,8 5 3,2
5.8
Table 5.18: Leaders
Table 5.19: Employees
Table 5.20: All participants
LEADERS MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
W1 4,20 0,85 2 5 3
W2 4,23 0,82 2 5 3
W3 4,50 0,51 4 5 1
W4 3,60 1,25 1 5 4
W5 3,80 1,06 2 5 3
AVERAGE 4,07 0,90 2,20 5,00 2,80
EMPLOYEES MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
W1 3,88 0,53 3 5 2
W2 3,88 0,60 2 5 3
W3 4,12 0,60 3 5 2
W4 3,64 0,91 1 5 4
W5 3,84 0,90 1 5 4
AVERAGE 3,87 0,71 2 5 3
ALL MEAN STDEV MIN MAX RANGE
W1 4,05 0,73 2 5 3
W2 4,07 0,74 2 5 3
W3 4,33 0,58 3 5 2
W4 3,62 1,10 1 5 4
W5 3,82 0,98 1 5 4
AVERAGE 3,98 0,83 1,8 5 3,2
![18F]FLUORO-N,N-DIMETHYLAMINOETHANOL AS …lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/001/790/044/RUG01-001790044_2012_0001... · universiteit gent faculteit farmaceutische wetenschappen vakgroep](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5af4e91e7f8b9a190c8da930/18ffluoro-nn-dimethylaminoethanol-as-libugentbefulltxtrug01001790044rug01-00179004420120001universiteit.jpg)
