IMPLEMENTINGLEAN–DISCUSSINGSTANDARDIZATION …603367/... · 2013-02-05 · Culture’s impact and possible mitigation for Western companies have been studied and described by for

Management and Production Engineering Review

Volume 3 • Number 4 • December 2012 • pp. 4–13DOI: 10.2478/v10270-012-0029-6

IMPLEMENTING LEAN – DISCUSSING STANDARDIZATION

VERSUS CUSTOMIZATION WITH FOCUS

ON NATIONAL CULTURAL DIMENSIONS

Sten Abrahamsson, Raine Isaksson

Gotland University, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Sweden

Corresponding author:

Sten Abrahamsson

Gotland University

School of Humanities and Social Sciences

621 67 Visby, Sweden

phone: +46 70 8392233

e-mail: [email protected]

Received: 29 October 2012 Abstract

Accepted: 25 November 2012 Lean or Toyota Production System (TPS) has more or less successfully been implementedin the Western world’s businesses and organizations for the past 20 years. Several authorshave discussed what it is that creates a successful implementation, and several studies havebeen presented where strategies for implementations have been studied. Culture’s impactand possible mitigation for Western companies have been studied and described by forexample Womak & Jones. Proponents of the concept of Lean argue that culture is nota constraint for implementation of Lean. Lean Management is called a philosophy but itis often used as a change strategy in the sense that it is implemented with the view ofimproving performance. A change strategy could be seen as a product that might have to becustomized with the view of improving the effectiveness of the implementation. On the otherhand abandoning a standardized approach comes with the risk of severely altering the changestrategy, possibly to its detriment. Implementing Lean will have an effect on the companyculture. Does it make any sense customizing the implementation to culture if the issue ischanging the culture? The purpose of this paper is to highlight and discuss the balancebetween a customized implementation and a standardized implementation. Which are themain arguments for standardization and customization and how could these be reconciled?A literature study of Lean implementation has been carried out and compared with Leanprinciples and theories from change management with focus on change drivers and changebarriers. Main drivers of Hofstede’s national cultural dimensions are compared with Leanprinciples to identify possible drivers and barriers in different cultures. The theory synthesison drivers and barriers is subjected to a first test in a case study on Lean implementationaccording to a standardized approach. The implementation is made in a small Swedishfactory belonging to a worldwide industrial company. Results from the literature review andthe case study indicate that both customization and standardization are needed.

Keywords

Lean, Lean implementation, change management, customization, cultural dimensions.

Introduction

Lean or Toyota Production System (TPS) hasmore or less successfully been implemented in theWestern world’s businesses and organizations for thepast 20 years. Several authors have discussed whatit is that creates a successful implementation, and

several studies have been presented where strategiesfor implementations have been studied. Culture’s im-pact and possible mitigation for Western companieshave been studied and described by, see for example[1]. Proponents of the concept of Lean argue that cul-ture is not a constraint for implementation of Lean.There are several factors that affect organization-

4


al culture. Some of the most common factors citedinclude the geographic location (continent, country,part of the country), the organization’s size, locationsize (urban, rural), company tradition, the type ofoutput (if goods or/and services).

It could be that organizational culture plays arole in the implementation of Lean and in the wayof how Lean is being worked with. Interesting ques-tions are if and how implementation and use of Leanshould be adjusted as a function of the culture. Re-sults of such a study should help us to plan and con-duct Lean implementation in a better way.

Lean Management is called a philosophy but itis often used as a change strategy in the sense thatit is implemented with the view of improving perfor-mance. A change strategy could be seen as a prod-uct that might have to be customized with the viewof improving the effectiveness of the implementa-tion. On the other hand abandoning a standardizedapproach comes with the risk of severely alteringthe change strategy possibly to its detriment. Im-plementing Lean will have an effect on the companyculture. Does it make any sense customizing the im-plementation to culture if the issue is changing theculture? In this paper we discuss arguments for andagainst a customization of a Lean program and ofthe introduction of it.

Methodology

As a starting point we compare the 14 Lean prin-ciples based on Liker [2] with the five cultural di-mensions of Hofstede [3]. The indications from thiscomparison are compared with results from a litera-ture survey reviewing articles and the most commonbooks on Lean. This gives us some indications onhow culture could affect implementation and the useof Lean. In a case study of Lean implementation inSweden we study in practice whether we can supportindications from our theoretical reasoning.

The chosen case study is on Lean implementa-tion in Sweden carried out with an implementationmethodology developed in Brazil with roots in aFrench organizational culture. The case only high-lights parts of the theoretical indications found. How-ever, the example serves as basis for the discussionof how to view the possibly opposing requirementsof customer focus and standardization.

The implementation material from the Swedishcompany was studied. Additionally five interviewsand a plant visit were carried out. The studiedcompany has used the World Class Manufacturing(WCM) as the name of the implemented way of work-ing. They clearly describe the content in WCM as

part of Lean. They do not make any references intheir implementation material to other definitions ofWCM. In this work we have seen the implementationthrough the perspective of Lean.

The information was collected from interviewswith the

• Consultant used by the global company (Instruc-tor);

• The country coordinator (WCM Coordinator);• Factory manager (WCM Leader);• Manager production line 1 (staff member);• Manager production line 2 (staff member).

The interviews were carried out with supportfrom some main questions to secure that all plannedareas were covered. The interviews followed the com-mon interview methodology for auditors, startingwith general open question which support the in-terviewed person to describe in own words the sit-uation. Findings are then checked with more precisequestions, which can be answered by yes or no.

The main questions were:

• Have you observed any cultural differences be-tween your organization and the way World ClassManufacturing (WCM) has been implemented?

• What has been most difficult?• What has been the easiest?• What should have been done differently?• Have you seen any results from the implementa-tion?

A complement to the interview was a visit to thefactory and a guided walk through the productionwith presentation of the WCM work.

Other relevant documents, such as guidelines andquality results have also been studied. Finally, thevisit and the factory round trip provided us with vi-sual information.

The version of Lean implemented has been com-pared with the theoretical indications found on pos-sible cultural effects. Additionally a more general dis-cussion has been carried out from the perspective ofhow to view customization versus standardization.

Literature survey

Implementation strategies have been describedby some authors [1, 2, 4] and [5]. Some different ap-proaches have been described as tools first or phi-losophy first, parallel or sequential implementation,etc. The cultural effect has been one of the parame-ters. Womack & Jones [1] have in their book LeanThinking, concluded that the concept of Lean is us-able in different countries and in different branches.This conclusion has been backed up by different casestudies. They also pointed out the changes different

Volume 3 • Number 4 • December 2012 5


countries have had to do to get further improvementand better implementation of Lean thinking. A typ-ical cultural element where German companies dif-fered was that: “German firms show a clear discom-fort with horizontal teamwork of the sort needed tooperate Lean enterprises” [1]. Another cultural pa-rameter identified by [1] is the need for alternatingcareers. The common way to make career is not pos-sible in Lean enterprises.

The need for a flat organization, strong teamleaders and well-developed multifunctional teams hasbeen described by [4]. He also refers to [6] that “itis first necessary to change employee’s attitudes toquality, in order to attain a material flow contain-ing only value adding operations” [4]. The number ofhierarchical levels in an organization [4] is frequent-ly tightly connected to the companies’ culture. Bigcompanies, public authorities and municipalities areknown to have many layers in their organizations.Here, the task of delayering is probably challenging.Many authors have pinpointed the need for chang-ing people’s way of thinking for example [6] and [1]state “...to change the way your employees think bydirectly demonstrating a better way” [1]. In the Stay-ing Lean: thriving, not just surviving [7], the authorsdescribe the need for behavioral changes and engage-ment. Their conclusion is that in the same way thatthere are differences in organizational culture thereare differences in national cultures. These differencescan affect the approach and speed of change. In theirexample they demonstrate how the vision and direc-tion can be set but how the organizations then areallowed to implement Lean considering the differentnational cultures. Each implementation was there-fore different but all were successful.

In a study on Lean implementation in HealthCare [5] Poksinska has not identified any single cor-rect way of implementing Lean. Different environ-ments need different strategies and ways of imple-menting. Hallencreutz and Turner [8] claim thatthere is not any acknowledged best practice forchange. Kotter has a well-known eight-step mod-el for change [9]. Particular focus in this model ison creating the sense of urgency as the first stepof change [10]. Kotter [9] even indicates that theresometimes is a need to create a crisis mentality toget things moving. This could indicate that a mecha-nistic approach of Lean implementation without thenecessary preceding work to create motivation andurgency might fail. This risk might be bigger in orga-nizations with a low Power Distance Index [3] whereemployees want to be motivated and expect morethan only marching orders. Lean requires challenginggoals, which if accepted could create the motivation

and urgency needed for breakthrough improvement.A genuine core value of customer focus could alsohelp to create the sense of urgency of doing the ut-most to satisfy customers.

There are parts in Lean that seemingly actagainst changes such as standardization and usingproven solutions [2]. Particularly customer focus andcustomized products could be seen as going againstthe urge to standardize. In the case of producinggoods it should be possible to standardize the pro-duction while maintaining the customization of prod-ucts. Car manufacturing of today with the movingbelt produces a variety of cars simultaneously.

For the delivery of services where the customeris part of the production, standardization could bea challenge, like in for example health care. In or-der to customize services, training and education ofcustomers is a common thing. Examples are such asgetting a haircut and visiting the dentist. We most-ly know what is expected from us. When we areon holidays we are offered a welcome drink wherewe are informed of the essentials of how to use andbuy services. In order to assure good quality it mighteven be necessary to put formal requirement on cus-tomers like having a driving license or complyingwith some other requirements like even having topass a course and to acquire a certificate to classi-fy as customer [11].

The implementation of a new way of leading andworking could be seen as a service, which is offeredto an organization and its employees. In this contextthe employees could be considered customers thatmight require some customization of both how theimplementation is done and how the steady state isgoing to look like.

Culture and corporate culture have many defi-nitions. This work includes a limited investigationof existing definitions and descriptions of corporateculture. A well known definitions is Edgar Schein’sdefinition: “A pattern of shared basic assumptionsthat the group learned as it solved its problems thathas worked well enough to be considered valid andis passed on to new members as the correct way toperceive, think, and feel in relation to those prob-lems” [12]. A simpler definition could be – as we doit here. The content is both visible as instructions,such as the organizational chart and invisible, suchas how we act in our relations between the organiza-tional members.

Geert Hofstede and Gert Jan Hofstede have in-troduced different cultural dimensions describing thedifferent cultures we can identify. Even if a cultureis not always following country borders, the dimen-sion has been measured for different countries. In this

6 Volume 3 • Number 4 • December 2012


study we have used five cultural dimensions, Pow-er Distance Index (PDI), Individualism (IDV), Mas-culinity (MAS), Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)and Long-Term Orientation (LTO).

Correlation between Lean

and Hofstede’s five dimensions

We have compared Lean’s 14 principles based onLiker [2] and the five dimensions of Hofstede [3] withthe purpose of getting a general picture of how theculture of different countries could affect an orga-nization’s will and capacity to implement and useLean. This correlation is hard to assess and the re-sults in Table 1 should be seen as a starting point.The correlation was evaluated by weak, medium andstrong correlation and if the correlation was positiveor negative. For each of the cultural dimensions acorrelation sum was calculated by weak (W) as 1,medium (M) as 2 and strong (S) as 3.

The dimension PDI, UAI, MAS and LTO in Ta-ble 1 seem to be important to look at from the orga-

nizational perspective (who has the power and whichrules and procedures should we follow?). The resultsin Table 1 indicate that a strong PDI and MAS areaffecting a Lean organization negatively and that astrong UAI and LTO are affecting Lean organizationpositively. The Individualism (IDV) seems to haveless of an effect.The number of connections indicates that PDI

and UAI have the biggest impact on the differentprinciples of Lean.Which Lean principles are mostly affected by dif-

ferent cultures? From Table 1 and the estimate ofthe correlation, we can see that it is “Develop excep-tional people and teams who follow your company’sphilosophy” if we use the number of connections itis “Make decisions slowly by consensus, thoroughlyconsidering all options, implement decisions rapid-ly”.Results in Table 2 indicate that Japanese culture

supports Lean principles by having a low PDI and ahigh UAI and LTO. These are the principles foundin Table 1 to have a possible correlation with Leanprinciples.

Table 1The table presents a correlation between Liker’s 14 principles for Lean with Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions (PowerDistance Index (PDI), Individualism (IDV), Masculinity (MAS), Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) and Long-Term

Orientation (LTO)). The authors have done the assessment.

Likers 14 principles PDI IDV MAS UAI LTOSum

of correlations

Long-Term Philosophy M+ S+ 5

Create continuous process flow to bring problems to the surface M+ 2

Use “pull” system to avoid overproduction W+ 1

Level out the workload W– −1

Build a culture of stopping to fix problems, to get quality rightthe first time

S+ S– W+ 1

Standardized tasks are the foundation for continuous improve-ment and employee empowerment

M– W+ S+ 2

Use visual control so no problems are hidden 0

Use only reliable, thoroughly tested technology that servesyour people and processes

S+ 3

Grow leaders who thoroughly understand the work, live thephilosophy, and teach it to others

W+ 1

Develop exceptional people and teams who follow your

company’s philosophy

S– M- M– –7

Respect your extended network of partners and supplier bychallenging them and helping them improve

W– W– –2

Go and see for yourself to thoroughly understand the situation M– M+ 0

Make decision slowly by consensus, thoroughly consider-

ing all options, implement decision rapidly

S– M+ S– M+ –2

Become a learning organization through relentless reflectionand continuous improvement

W– W– M+ 0

Sum of correlation –12 3 –6 10 8

Number of connections 8 5 3 8 4



Table 2The cultural dimensions for Japan, France, Brazil and Sweden [13].

Cultural dimension Japan Brazil France SwedenLean optimum

(Assessment has been done by authors)

Power Distance Index (PDI) 54 69 68 31 Low

Individualism (IDV) 46 38 71 71

Masculinity (MAS) 95 49 43 5 Low

Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) 92 76 86 29 High

Long-Term Orientation (LTO) 88 44 63 53 High

The results show that we could expect some im-plementation problems for Sweden due to the lowindex for UAI. This could be by employees puttingthings into question that are not well explained. Em-ployees would most likely not be prepared to followstrict rules without understanding the purpose.

In our case the implementation methodology hasbeen prepared in a culture affected by Brazil andFrance. These countries have a better fit for UAI,but a less favorable PDI and MAS. The Lean ef-fect on PDI is visible in team development and inmaking consensus decisions. The difference betweenBrazil and Sweden is the largest for UAI, which couldindicate that implementation of reliable, thoroughlytested technology and standardized methods for im-plementing without a good motivational componentcould encounter resistance. On the other side to builda culture of stopping whenever observing a problemto fix it, should be easier for Sweden.

The company studied

The company in question belongs to a worldwidebuilding materials group with operations almost allover the world with a total of around 190 000 em-ployees in 46 countries. The Swedish company hasabout 300 employees. The current factory is locat-ed in a small town in central Sweden (number ofinhabitants around 12 000). The number of employ-ees at the plant is 25 and its organization is a typicalline organization with a manager and two supervisorsresponsible for two different production lines. TheGroup to which the Swedish plant belongs to, hasin Brazil developed and tested the model for imple-menting what they call World Class Manufacturing(WCM). In their implementation material they de-fine the Objectives of the WCM training program as:

“Based on a standard approach, to transfer theconcepts of the Lean Thinking and its tools to theWCM Coordinators & Managers;

Support the WCM coordinators, the plant man-agers and all WCM (Company name) communitymembers in their implementation of the Lean tools;

To coach them so as to certify their abilities toautonomously continue the Lean implementation af-ter the training period”.

The material supported by the Group is alsoclearly following the principles and tools that aretypical for a company working with Lean.

Despite the fact that Lean and WCM cannot beregarded as exact synonyms, this article will not dis-cuss these differences. By support of the clear linkbetween the companies WCM and Lean tools andprinciples the article will look at the implementationfrom a Lean perspective.

Method of implementation

The implementation is based on standardizedmethods and materials. The implementation is di-vided in eight modules. Each module contains twoparts

• Workshop;• Implementation task list.

To conduct the workshops and to do the tasks somestandardized materials are used. The timetable forthe implementation is to implement each module inthe plant with one to two months between them. Theimplementation of a module starts with a workshopfollowed by task list to do in the period to the nextmodules.

The implementation has been presented as a PD-CA cycle.

Fig. 1. The implementation process as a PDCA cycle,[source: case company, educational material].



The standardized eight modules are:1. Introduction to Lean thinkingIntroduce the key concepts of Lean Thinking, startto identify the production lines problems and setaction plans;

2. Value Stream MappingIdentify the systemic problems and set actionplans;

3. A3-paperDefine the (company name) strategic and tacticobjectives and how to deploy them;

4. Stabilized job in the 4MsSet action plans to achieve stability in Manpower,Method, Materials and Machines;

5. Stabilized work (standards)Set action plans to apply standardization in orderto achieve stability;

6. Focused improvementBased on the current standard, set action plans toimprove continuously and apply the new improvedstandard;

7. Pull system of the salesSet action plans to minimize the demand variationin order to stabilize the production flow;

8. Create pulled production flowsSet action plans to produce what is necessary,when it is necessary avoiding over production andachieving high service levels.

Standardized materials that are used are• Presentation slides;• Simulation games and practical exercises;• Workshop evaluation forms;

• Indicators chart and templates;• Checklist;• Action plans.

Follow up is made by three audits (made by threeinternational coordinators).

The implementation is organized in a hierarchicalorganization:

• Program manager;• Instructor;• WCM Coordinator (country level);• Plant manager (WCM Leader);• Staff members.

The knowledge transformation is going from topto bottom and the technical support is going fromWCM coordinator to bottom. Problem is escalatedfrom origin up to the level, which solves the problem.Follow up is made by reports between staff membersand WCM leader weekly, WCM leaders and Man-aging director monthly and Managing director andWCM Director quarterly.

Results from the interviews

The interviewed persons have given a similar pic-ture about the implementation. The answers havesome differences depending on the position of theinterviewed person. The WCM Coordinator has pre-sented more general thoughts, probably due to hisexperience from many implementations and plants.The results that can be categorized to cultural be-havior are presented in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Summary of answers to question: “Which cultural behavior is affecting Lean implementation?”.



Fig. 3. Summary of answers to the question: “Which is the most difficult and which is the easiest part in theimplementation of Lean?”

Fig. 4. Summary of answers to the question: “What should be done differently the next time?”

The results from the question about the most dif-ficult and the easiest part in the implementation areshown in Fig. 3.

In Fig. 4 results are showing what the interviewedpeople would have done differently if they should dothe implementation one more time.

The WCM instructor emphasized the importanceof the management support and the selection of theWCM coordinator. From his experience from othercountries and factories he said that most of the toolsneed modifications between countries and also be-tween factories. This can create “problems” at the

audits due to the auditors not expecting any vari-ation or any alternatives in the standardized work.It is important that the resources at the factory arechecked and dimensioned to the rate of implementa-tion.

Analyzing the implementation

and the cultural changes

We could look at Fig. 2 where delegation andopen climate is clearly linked to the cultural be-havior. This cultural behavior has forced the imple-



mentation to work more with arguments to answer“Why” and to give the whole picture about the com-ing changes. The second question in Fig. 2 concerningresistance to measurements is also found in Fig. 3 tothe left (most difficult). Again the person responsi-ble for implementation needed to present good argu-ments for monitoring and measurements. It was on-ly when the team members could see improvementsfrom measurements that it was accepted. Other ex-amples of changes needed and resistance are:

• The international instructor points out that mostof the tools need modifications between countriesand also between factories. He also has identifiedthat standardized work is coming in early in theprogram. It could be a little too early especiallyfor the Nordic countries.

• The WCM leader points out that they have devel-oped a new tool for identifying and working withimprovements (observation notes on small pre-pared note books and frequency measurements).

• The supervisor for line 1 pointed out that the staffmembers were not prepared to have their compe-tence matrix visible on a white board. Today it canbe seen on a PC screen located at the work place.This could be seen as a small modification of thesteady state situation due to cultural differences.

• Standardizing had a sense of monitoring whichwas not natural for the company culture.

• The sense of monitoring and aversion against mea-surements on personal performance has been hardto overcome.

The changes and resistance have not stopped theimplementation. It may have improved it and per-haps it was needed to get the implementation to con-tinue. At this stage it is not possible to say if therewill be any permanent differences in the steady statecompared to the standardized form. It could be thatwhen time goes that the way of working will be ad-justed to the original model of implementation. Pos-itive effects could in the future change the feeling ofbeing monitored.

These findings are supported by the literaturesurvey and especially the conclusion and descriptionHines et al. have [7] made. The suggested approachfrom the Instructor “The implementation is ratherrigid and it would be better to make a diagnosis of

the plant and choose proper tools” seems to be verywise. To know where you stand is a good start tofind the way to the goal.

Some of the answers also indicate that the imple-mentation strategies suffer from not showing the bigpicture. The assumption of the Swedish corporateculture requiring, that more time has to be spent onexplaining the purpose, is supported by:

• The most difficult to do in the implementation isto catch the flow and to see the whole picture.After that it is only hard work, (WCM Leader).

• Some parts could have been made differently asgiving the big picture in the beginning, (Staffmember supervisor line 1).

• In Sweden it is a wish by many co-workers to beinvolved and affect the way of working. They alsoquestion decisions and handling with “Why”. Wehave to convince our co-workers that our decisionsand handling is the best, (WCM Coordinator).

Without making any deeper analysis the resultfrom the interviews showed that the implementa-tion was more tool orientated than people orientat-ed. Our comparison with Lean principles and Hof-stede’s cultural dimensions in Table 1 is support-ed by the indication that the standardization hasbeen one of the difficult areas in the implementa-tion (difference in UAI between countries). We havealso noted that the Swedish low index for power dis-tance could explain some of the implementation dif-ficulties relating to direct orders and to control ofwork. The difference in the PDI and the way it af-fects the decisions of the organization, can also beseen in the context where the model for implemen-tation was prepared. The implementation method-ology coming from Brazil and France having a highPDI did probably not include the need for consen-sus and involvement that is typical for the Swedishculture with a low PDI. The tools and standardiza-tion are supported by a high UAI. The resistanceagainst monitoring and order giving could maybe beexplained by the difference in PDI between Braziland Sweden.

Standardization or customization

of implementation

What speaks for standardization of the imple-mentation and what speaks for a customized imple-mentation? Based on [8] there is no best way of im-plementing change, which would support customiza-tion. Lean principles promote standardization as animportant part of continuous improvement. By firststandardizing a process it becomes possible to im-prove it. Standardization often involves reduced over-all development costs. Customization means that thevariations among customers might affect how the op-timal implementation is carried out. Customizationmight also have to take into consideration existing re-sources and the depth of customer interaction wherecustomers might have to get involved.

Why standardize or customize our work? Well,we want to increase customer value of our product.



This basic principle should be leading in the choiceof the degree of standardization and customization.What gives most value to the customer? We should,therefore, for each situation evaluate the degree ofstandardization and customization.

Conclusion and findings

Previous experience and conclusions from imple-mentations described in the literature have been sup-ported by this case study. We know that we need toalter the plans for implementation due to the situ-ation and culture the organization has. Implemen-tation should start with a diagnosis of the organi-zation followed by planning and adjusting the im-plementation strategies for each plant and to ensurethat resources and timing are matching. From ourcase study we have learnt that educating and pre-senting the big picture in the beginning are impor-tant activities. We need to convince our staff withgood arguments. In the process of implementationof a new way of working the employees are the cus-tomers and logically therefore customization is need-ed. For the steady state work with Lean the externalcustomers are in focus and it could be that some cul-tural changes in the organization are needed in orderto be able to deliver better products. Here, the em-ployee views still are important, but they could beseen to have second priority to what is required bythe external customer. That is the employees shouldhave a say of how things are introduced but less ofa say of what is introduced as long as it is based onsound and proven principles.

We can see that the various cultural dimensionssupport Lean in different ways, some with posi-tive correlation others with negative correlation. Theclearest effect is a high value of the Power Distance(PDI) that seems to have a negative impact on Lean.The reason is that it will be difficult to empower peo-ple to point out errors and difficult to work in teamswhere roles should be equal. Uncertainty Avoidance(UAI) seems to have a positive correlation with Leanwhere the greatest impact is expected from stan-dardization and the use of well-proven technology.Sweden’s low value for UAI can manifest itself inan unwillingness to fit in an overly standardized andcontrolled system.

It should be of interest to further study how dif-ferences in cultures could affect Lean implementa-tion. A starting point could be observing differencesbetween “optimal Lean culture” and the country cul-ture. It could also be of interest to see how Lean im-plementations are modified by the culture of wherethey have been prepared and how this affects the

implementation in other cultures. This should be rel-evant for many multinational companies where cen-tral strategies could have been affected by the culturewhere it was prepared. A culturally biased implemen-tation of Lean could encounter avoidable problems.To study the country culture and the organizationalculture prior to implementation could improve thechange success rate.

Further research

The case study indicates that previous interpreta-tions on the cultural effects on implementation seemto be valid. The next step is to identify successfulstrategies for different cultures. Do we have strategiesbest suited for our countries (cultures)? An inter-esting observation that Womack and Jones [1] haveraised, is that the manager must be able to conductthe work to be able to change the way the staff isthinking. In some countries in Europe this is a typicalsituation where the expectation is that the supervi-sor and the management are those that have the bestcompetence for doing the work they are responsiblefor. In the Nordic countries the manager should bethe leader and coach and it is the staff members whohave the best skills to do the work. How should theNordic countries do? Should they train managers todo the staff members work in a good way or continueto improve the skills of leading a team?Reference [14] points out that, “Lean manage-

ment is learnt best by doing and not by reading orby classroom lectures, or through distant theoreti-cal analysis”. An example on the coaching part inLean is presented by [15]. Here, examples of bothknowing and doing are presented. There are exam-ples of a leader who is doing more coaching thangiving instructions. Combining general managementtheory with Lean Management is an interesting areaof further research [16].

References

[1] Womack J.P., Jones D.T., Lean Thinking Banishwaste and create wealth in your corporation, SimonSchuster UK Ltd, 2003.

[2] Liker Jeffrey K., The Toyota Way, McGraw-Hill:USA, 2004.

[3] Hofstede G., Hofstede G.J., Cultures and Organi-zations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill: USA,2005.

[4] Ahlstrom P., Sequence in the Implementation ofLean Production, in European Management Jour-nal, 16, 3, 327–334, 1998.



[5] Poksinska B., The Current State of Lean Implemen-tation in Health Care: Literature Review, in QualityManagement in Health Care, 19, 4, 319–329, 2010.

[6] Roos L.-U., Japanisation in Production Systems:Some Case Studies of Total Quality Management in

British Manufacturing Industry. Japanisering inom

produktionssystem: Nagra fallstudier av Total Quali-

ty Management i brittisk tillverkningsindustri, Busi-ness School of Gothenburg University, Gothenburg,1990.

[7] Hines P., Found P., Griffiths G., Harrison R., Stay-ing lean: thriving, not just surviving, Lean Enter-prise Research Centre, Cardiff, 2008.

[8] Hallencreutz J., Turner D-M., Exploring Organiza-tional Change Best Practice – are there any clear cut

models and definitions?, in International Journal ofQuality and Service Sciences, 3, 1, 60–68, 2011.

[9] Kotter J.P., Leading Change, Harvard BusinessSchool Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1996.

[10] Kotter J.P., The Sense of Urgency, Harvard Busi-ness School Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 2008.

[11] Abrahamsson S., Isaksson R., Adding requirementson customers to current quality models to improve

quality – development of a customer – vendor inter-

action, Proceedings of the International Conference-quality and service sciences, 13th QMOD Confer-ence, August 31 – September 1, Cottbus, Germany,2010.

[12] Schein E.H., Organization Culture and Leadership,San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publischers, 1992.

[13] Hofstede G., Hofstede G.J., Retrieved 20.11.2012from http://www.geerthofstede.nl/research-vsm/dimension-data-matrix.aspx.

[14] Emiliani M L., Origins of Lean management inAmerica, in Journal of management History, 12, 2,167–184, 2006.

[15] Spear S.J., Learning to Lead at Toyota, in HarvardBusiness review, 82, 5, 78–86, May 2004.

[16] Ljungblom M., A comparative study between Devel-opmental leadership and Lean leadership – similar-

ities and differences, Management and ProductionEngineering Review, in press.


Documents

IMPLEMENTINGLEAN–DISCUSSINGSTANDARDIZATION …603367/... · 2013-02-05 · Culture’s impact and possible mitigation for Western companies have been studied and described by for