The TQM Journal Volume 21, Issue 2, 2009, pp.105-215

Articles

The quality of life as attribute of sustainability Alain Lepage (pp. 105-115) Keywords: Economic sustainability, Measurement, Political systems, Quality of life ArticleType: Research paper

Criteria requirements of the European business excellence model: a suggested approach Evanthia P. Vorria, George A. Bohoris (pp. 116-126) Keywords: Best practice, Business excellence, European quality model, Total quality management ArticleType: Viewpoint

Defining lean production: some conceptual and practical issues Jostein Pettersen (pp. 127-142) Keywords: Lean production, Total quality management ArticleType: Conceptual paper

Lean-kaizen public service: an empirical approach in Spanish local governments Manuel F. Suarez Barraza, Tricia Smith, Su Mi Dahlgaard-Park (pp. 143-167) Keywords: Continuous improvement, Lean production, Local government, Service improvements, Spain ArticleType: Case study

What does GRI-reporting tell us about corporate sustainability? Raine Isaksson, Ulrich Steimle (pp. 168-181) Keywords: Business excellence, Construction industry, Economic sustainability, Reports, Stakeholder analysis ArticleType: Research paper

Quality engineering for early stage of environmentally conscious design Tomohiko Sakao (pp. 182-193) Keywords: Communication, Customers, Design management, Economic sustainability, Quality concepts ArticleType: Research paper

Towards a stakeholder methodology: experiences from public eldercare Åsa Wreder, Peter Johansson, Rickard Garvare (pp. 194-202) Keywords: Customer orientation, Elderly people, Patients, Research methods, Stakeholder analysis, Sweden ArticleType: Research paper

Exploring process management: are there any widespread models and definitions? Klara Palmberg (pp. 203-215) Keywords: Literature, Organizations, Process management, Quality concepts ArticleType: Research paper

Defining lean production: someconceptual and practical issues

Jostein PettersenDivision of Quality Technology and Management and

Helix VINN Excellence Centre, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the definition of lean production and themethods and goals associated with the concept as well as how it differs from other popularmanagement concepts.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on a review of the contemporary literatureon lean production, both journal articles and books.

Findings – It is shown in the paper that there is no consensus on a definition of lean productionbetween the examined authors. The authors also seem to have different opinions on whichcharacteristics should be associated with the concept. Overall it can be concluded that lean productionis not clearly defined in the reviewed literature. This divergence can cause some confusion on atheoretical level, but is probably more problematic on a practical level when organizations aim toimplement the concept. This paper argues that it is important for an organization to acknowledge thedifferent variations, and to raise the awareness of the input in the implementation process. It is furtherargued that the organization should not accept any random variant of lean, but make active choicesand adapt the concept to suit the organization’s needs. Through this process of adaptation, theorganization will be able to increase the odds of performing a predictable and successfulimplementation.

Originality/value – This paper provides a critical perspective on the discourse surrounding leanproduction, and gives an input to the discussion of the implementation of management models.

Keywords Lean production, Total quality management

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionWhen initiating research concerning the concept of lean production (LP) one line ofquestions naturally comes to mind: “What is lean? How is lean defined? How does leanrelate to other management concepts? What does lean have in common with othermanagement concepts? What discriminates lean from other management concepts?”

Seeking answers to these questions, will lead to the realization that they areexceedingly hard to find. It seems logical that a management concept as popular aslean should have a clear and concise definition. Much disappointingly, the definition oflean production is highly elusive. Some authors have made attempts to define theconcept (e.g. Lewis, 2000; Hines et al., 2004; Shah and Ward, 2007), while others haveraised the question of whether the concept is clearly defined (see Dahlgaard andDahlgaard-Park, 2006; Engstrom et al., 1996; Lewis, 2000).

A justified question is whether the convergent validity of lean actually makes anydifference – does it matter how we define lean? There are various opinions on theeffects of this.

The absence of a clear definition has a number of consequences for practitionersseeking to implement lean as well as researchers trying to capture the essence of the

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2731.htm

Defining leanproduction

127

The TQM JournalVol. 21 No. 2, 2009

pp. 127-142q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1754-2731DOI 10.1108/17542730910938137

concept. These issues have been addressed by a number of researchers. The lack of adefinition will lead to communication difficulties (Dale and Plunkett, 1991 in Boaden,1997). It will complicate education on the subject (Boaden, 1997). Researching thesubject will be difficult (Godfrey et al., 1997; Parker, 2003) – although Boaden (1997)states that this is not essential. There will also be difficulties in defining overall goalsof the concept (Andersson et al., 2006).

Parker (2003) states that the multitude of interpretations on what lean really ismakes it harder to make claims towards the effects of lean, thus increasing therequirements that researchers specify exactly what they are researching. Karlsson andAhlstrom (1996) point out that the lack of a precise definition also will lead todifficulties in determining whether changes made in an organization are consistentwith LP or not, and consequently difficulties in evaluating the effectiveness of theconcept itself.

Purpose of the articleThe main purpose of this article is to give a presentation of what lean production is.This will be done through a review of contemporary literature on lean and summary ofpractices associated with lean as well as the stated purpose of the concept. Based onthis, an evaluation of the construct validity of lean will be made.

The paper will conclude with a discussion of the practical implications of theconstruct validity of lean.

Research approachHackman and Wageman (1995) reviewed the TQM concept and raised the question of“whether there really is such a thing as TQM or whether it has become mainly a bannerunder which a potpourri of essentially unrelated organizational changes areundertaken”. This is a valid question for any construct similar to TQM, and theconcept of lean production is no exception. Following the reasoning of Hackman andWageman, this question calls for the evaluation of the concept’s convergent anddiscriminant validity. Hackman and Wageman (1995) describe the two kinds ofvalidity as follows:

Convergent validity reflects the degree to which [different] versions [of the concept] [. . .] sharea common set of assumptions and prescriptions. [. . .]

Discriminant validity refers to the degree to which [the concept] can be reliably distinguishedfrom other strategies for organizational improvement (Hackman and Wageman, 1995).

In other words, the discriminant validity tells us whether or not a concept carries anynews value compared to other existing concepts, whereas the convergent validity,strictly speaking, tells us whether or not the concept itself really exists.For this article, the two major citation databases ISI and Scopus have been searched forarticles containing the terms “lean production” or “lean manufacturing” in the topic,abstract or keywords. The 20 most cited articles from each database were selected forfurther study.

Through reading these and other articles on the subject, the most influential bookswere identified. This list was verified through using the citation analysis software“publish or perish”.

TQM21,2

128

The reviewed literature will be compared by listing the characteristics of leanpresented by each author. The idea is that a method, tool or goal that is central to leanwill be mentioned by every author on the topic. The purpose or goal of lean shouldlogically be the same for all authors. Concurrence among the authors will signify a highconvergent validity. If lean passes this convergent validity criterion, an evaluation ofthe discriminant validity can be made, based on a comparison with TQM. Hackmanand Wageman (1995) concluded that TQM passed the tests of both convergent anddiscriminant validity, making it a good concept to compare against lean production.

Literature reviewThe two database searches produced a total of 37 articles (see Appendix), of which 12of them contained presentations of techniques and/or overall goals associated with LP,thus contributing to a conceptual discussion.

The 12 articles that are deemed suitable for a further analysis are Krafcik (1988),Oliver et al. (1996), Sanchez and Perez (2001), Lewis (2000), Mumford (1994),James-Moore and Gibbons (1997), MacDuffie et al. (1996), Dankbaar (1997), White andPrybutok (2001), Hayes and Pisano (1994), Jagdev and Browne (1998) and Cusumano(1994).

A number of books turned up in the literature search. An investigation of the books’citation rankings led to a filtering process with 13 books remaining. These areWomack et al. (1990), Womack and Jones (2003), Bicheno (2004), Ohno (1988), Monden(1998), Liker (2004), Feld (2001), Dennis (2002), Schonberger (1982), Shingo (1984),Rother and Shook (1998), Jones and Womack (2002) and Smalley (2004).

The publications by the Lean Enterprise Institute (Rother and Shook, 1998; Jonesand Womack, 2002; Smalley, 2004) are very specific on certain tools (mainly valuestream mapping), and were not deemed suitable for a conceptual discussion about leanin general.

An overview of lean characteristicsTable I is a presentation of the most frequently mentioned characteristics of lean in thereviewed books. Characteristics that have been discussed by less than three authorshave been excluded from the presentation. The characteristics in the table are sortedbased on frequency of discussion in the reviewed literature.

Looking at the table reveals some interesting aspects about the ideas surroundinglean. The only two characteristics that all authors discuss are “setup time reduction”and “continuous improvement”, indicating that these are central to the concept. On thecondition that pull production can be seen as a special case of just-in-time production,all authors lift this characteristic as well. Failure prevention ( poka yoke) andproduction leveling (heijunka) also seem to be central characteristics of leanproduction.

AnalysisConvergent validity of leanThe characteristics listed in Table I have some relation to one another, motivating anaffinity analysis. One way of grouping these characteristics is presented in Table II.

Through grouping the characteristics a more homogeneous image of the leancharacteristics arises. For all but three of the groups all authors have discussed at least

Defining leanproduction

129

Goa

l

Mak

ep

rod

uct

sw

ith

few

erd

efec

tsto

pre

cise

cust

omer

des

ires

On

e-p

iece

flow

Red

uce

was

tean

dim

pro

ve

val

ue

Cu

stom

erfo

cus

(hig

hq

ual

ity

,lo

wco

st,

shor

tti

me)

Rob

ust

pro

du

ctio

nop

erat

ion

Cos

tre

du

ctio

n

Eli

min

ate

was

tean

dre

du

ceco

sts

Imp

rov

eq

ual

ity

and

pro

du

ctiv

ity

Cos

tre

du

ctio

nth

rou

gh

was

teel

imin

atio

n(W

omac

kan

dJo

nes

and

Wom

ack

etal.)

Lik

erB

ich

eno

Den

nis

Fel

dO

hn

oM

ond

enS

chon

ber

ger

Sh

ing

o

Kaiz

en/c

onti

nu

ous

imp

rov

emen

t£

££

££

££

££

Set

up

tim

ere

du

ctio

n£

££

££

££

££

Just

inti

me

pro

du

ctio

n£

££

££

££

£K

anba

n/p

ull

syst

em£

££

££

££

£P

oka

yoke

££

££

££

££

Pro

du

ctio

nle

vel

ing

(Hei

junka

)£

££

££

££

£S

tan

dar

diz

edw

ork

££

££

££

££

Vis

ual

con

trol

and

man

agem

ent

££

££

££

££

5S/h

ouse

kee

pin

g£

££

£(£

)£

££

Andon

££

££

££

£S

mal

llo

tp

rod

uct

ion

££

££

££

£T

ime/

wor

kst

ud

ies

££

££

££

£W

aste

elim

inat

ion

££

££

££

£In

ven

tory

red

uct

ion

££

££

££

£S

up

pli

erin

vol

vem

ent

££

££

££

Tak

ted

pro

du

ctio

n£

££

££

£T

PM

/pre

ven

tiv

em

ain

ten

ance

££

££

££

Au

ton

omat

ion

(Jid

oka

)£

££

££

(con

tinued

)

Table I.A presentation ofcharacteristics associatedwith lean production. Thecharacteristics are sortedby accumulatedfrequency

TQM21,2

130

Goa

l

Mak

ep

rod

uct

sw

ith

few

erd

efec

tsto

pre

cise

cust

omer

des

ires

On

e-p

iece

flow

Red

uce

was

tean

dim

pro

ve

val

ue

Cu

stom

erfo

cus

(hig

hq

ual

ity

,lo

wco

st,

shor

tti

me)

Rob

ust

pro

du

ctio

nop

erat

ion

Cos

tre

du

ctio

n

Eli

min

ate

was

tean

dre

du

ceco

sts

Imp

rov

eq

ual

ity

and

pro

du

ctiv

ity

Cos

tre

du

ctio

nth

rou

gh

was

teel

imin

atio

n(W

omac

kan

dJo

nes

and

Wom

ack

etal.)

Lik

erB

ich

eno

Den

nis

Fel

dO

hn

oM

ond

enS

chon

ber

ger

Sh

ing

o

Sta

tist

ical

qu

alit

yco

ntr

ol(S

QC

)£

£N

O!

££

£T

eam

wor

k£

££

££

Wor

kfo

rce

red

uct

ion

££

££

£10

0%in

spec

tion

££

££

Lay

out

adju

stm

ents

££

££

Pol

icy

dep

loy

men

t(H

oshin

kanri

)£

££

£Im

pro

vem

ent

circ

les

££

££

Roo

tca

use

anal

ysi

s(5

wh

y)

££

££

Val

ue

stre

amm

app

ing

/flow

char

tin

g£

££

£E

du

cati

on/c

ross

trai

nin

g(O

JT)

££

£E

mp

loy

eein

vol

vem

ent

££

£(£

)L

ead

tim

ere

du

ctio

n£

££

Mu

lti-

man

nin

g(£

)£

££

Pro

cess

syn

chro

niz

atio

n£

££

Cel

lula

rm

anu

fact

uri

ng

££

(£)

Table I.

Defining leanproduction

131

one of the characteristics in the group. In the group labeled as human resourcemanagement none of the characteristics are discussed by authors Bicheno and Shingo.The authors Ohno and Schonberger have not discussed any of the characteristics in thegroup labeled as supply chain management. Furthermore, the bundled techniques haveslightly lower figures. This indicates that the two groups human relationsmanagement and supply chain management are not definable characteristics of lean,contrary to the findings of Shah and Ward (2003). However, the scores are quite high,indicating that they are important (although not vital) parts of the lean concept.

Looking at the goals presented by the reviewed authors (Table I) raises somequestions towards the convergent validity of lean. The general opinion that thepurpose of lean is to reduce waste does not seem to hold, although some authors(Bicheno, 2004; Monden, 1998; Shingo, 1984) argue for this. As discussed above thereare two main traditions of lean; “toolbox lean” and “lean thinking”. This is also evident

Collective term Specific characteristics

Just in time practices (100%) Production leveling (heijunka)Pull system (kanban)Takted productionProcess synchronization

Resource reduction (100%) Small lot productionWaste eliminationSetup time reductionLead time reductionInventory reduction

Human relations management (78%) Team organizationCross trainingEmployee involvement

Improvement strategies (100%) Improvement circlesContinuous improvement (kaizen)Root cause analysis (5 why)

Defects control (100%) Autonomation (jidoka)Failure prevention (poka yoke)100% inspectionLine stop (andon)

Supply chain management (78%) Value stream mapping/flowchartingSupplier involvement

Standardization (100%) Housekeeping (5S)Standardized workVisual control and management

Scientific management (100%) Policy deployment (hoshin kanri)Time/work studiesMulti manningWork force reductionLayout adjustmentsCellular manufacturing

Bundled techniques (56%, 67%) Statistical quality control (SQC)TPM/preventive maintenance

Note: The figures in parentheses indicate the percentage of the authors that have discussed at leastone of the characteristics in the group

Table II.A suggestion for agrouping of leancharacteristics

TQM21,2

132

in the differences of goals in the reviewed literature. Generally speaking, there are twodifferent types of goals, internally focused (Liker, 2004; Feld, 2001; Ohno, 1988;Monden, 1998; Schonberger, 1982; Shingo, 1984) and externally focused (Womack et al.,1990; Womack and Jones, 2003; Bicheno, 2004; Dennis, 2002; Schonberger, 1982). Onecould argue that the differences in formulation of purpose are very small thus makingit a minor issue. However, an internally focused cost reduction initiative will differsubstantially from an externally focused initiative to improve customer satisfaction.

The division of lean production in the two parts discussed above has led todiscussions of which one is more correct. A common statement is that “lean is morethan a set of tools” (Bicheno, 2004), arguing for a more philosophical approach to lean.However, there is also another position that argues for a more practical and projectbased approach to lean and that “lean is a collection of waste reduction tools”. Thiskind of statement is hard to find explicitly in academic texts, but very common amongcertain practitioners.

Neither of the positions are more correct than the other, since lean exists at bothlevels, having both strategic and operational dimensions (Hines et al., 2004). Inaddition, lean can be seen as having both a philosophical as well as a practicalorientation (Shah and Ward, 2007).

Through adapting and combining the four approaches to lean suggested by Hineset al. (2004) and Shah and Ward (2007) respectively, lean can be characterized in fourdifferent ways. The terms practical and philosophical are substituted by the termsperformative and ostensive. The terms operational and strategic are substituted by theterms discrete and continuous.

In Table III four different approaches to lean production are presented. The termostensive signifies a shift of focus from general philosophy towards issues that canonly be defined by examples, whereas performative and practical focus on the thingsthat are done. The term discrete signifies a focus on isolated events, such as individualimprovement projects using the “lean toolbox” (see Bicheno, 2004; Nicholas and Soni,2006), or the final state of “leanness” (see Krafcik, 1988). As a contrast, the termcontinuous signifies a process oriented perspective, focusing on the continuous efforts;the philosophy of “lean thinking” or “the Toyota way” (see Womack and Jones, 2003;Liker, 2004) or the process of “becoming lean” (see Liker, 1998; Karlsson andAhlstrom,1996).

Although the score is not perfect, lean seems to be a reasonably consistent conceptcomprising just in time practices, resource reduction, improvement strategies, defectscontrol, standardization and scientific management techniques. However, it is hard toformulate a clear definition that captures all the elements of lean and integrates thevarious goals in the reviewed literature. In other words, lean can be said to (barely)

Discrete Continuous(Operational) (Strategic)

Ostensive (Philosophical) Leanness Lean thinkingPerformative (Practical) Toolbox lean Becoming lean

Note: The terms in parentheses are the ones suggested by Hines et al. (2004) and Shah and Ward(2007) respectively

Table III.An illustration of the four

definable approaches tolean production

Defining leanproduction

133

pass the convergent validity test, although there is no clear agreement among theauthors as to the overall purpose of the concept.

Discriminant validity of leanSo what is then the difference between TQM and lean production? In the followingsection Lean and TQM are compared based on the analysis made by Hackman andWageman (1995). The discussion is done with three different aspects; basicassumptions, change principles and interventions:

(1) Basic assumptions:. Quality. In lean, quality does not receive the same amount of attention as in

the TQM literature. The main focus in the lean literature is on just-in-time(JIT) production. JIT is assumed to decrease total cost, as well as highlightproblems. This is done through reducing the resources in the system, so thatbuffers do not cover up the problems that arise. In the short-termperspective, the reduction of resources implies a direct reduction of cost. Inthe long run, the reduction and subsequent elimination of buffers is assumedto highlight the problems that exist in production, thus being a vital sourceof continuous improvement (e.g. Shingo, 1984; Ohno, 1988; Krafcik, 1988).

A common opinion is that the purpose of lean is waste elimination. Theliterature review does not show support for this being the very purpose, butwaste elimination is definitely an important aspect of the concept. Someauthors argue that waste is reduced in order to increase the value for thecustomer (e.g. Dennis, 2002; Bicheno, 2004), whereas others argue that it is astrategy for reducing cost (e.g. Ohno, 1988; Monden, 1998). Reducing wasteis also a significant part of TQM, but under the banner of poor-quality-costs(see Hackman and Wageman, 1995; Sorqvist, 1998). A major differencebetween TQM and lean in this aspect is the precision in defining waste. Inthe majority of the lean literature, waste or muda is based on the sevenforms[1] defined by Ohno (1988), whereas TQM has a very general definitionof poor-quality-costs, including everything that could be eliminated throughimprovement (Sorqvist, 1998).

. Employees and the quality of their work. One major critique of the leanconcept is that it is generally weak concerning the employees” perspective.The proponents of lean production usually have a strong instrumental andmanagerial perspective, discussing employees in terms of components in theproduction system (see Kamata, 1982; Berggren, 1992, 1993).

The extensive discussion about jidoka and poka yoke in the lean literaturesuggests that employees cannot be trusted to produce good quality, thuscreating a necessity for removing the possibility of human error from thesystem.

. Organizations as systems. One thing that lean and TQM have in common isseeing the organization as a system (see Womack and Jones, 2003; Bicheno,2004). But there is a slight difference in perspective between the twoconcepts. Whereas TQM has a strong focus on the internal structure andintegration of departments within the organization, lean stresses a supplychain perspective, seeing the internal production operations as a part of a

TQM21,2

134

value stream from the sub-suppliers to the end customer (e.g. Rother andShook, 1998; Jones and Womack, 2002).

. Quality is the responsibility of senior management. This is anotherperspective that lean and TQM share, but again with some differences.TQM-managers should create structures that support the employees inproducing products of high quality (Deming, 1986; Hackman and Wageman,1995). The idea is the same in lean, but the rationale for doing this seems tobe centered around eliminating the human factor from the system throughjidoka and poka yoke. Using the terminology of McGregor, one could arguethat TQM seems to be based on theory Y, whereas lean seems to be based ontheory X (see Ezzamel et al., 2001).

(2) Change principles:. Focus on processes. Within the lean concept the term value stream is usually

preferred (Womack and Jones, 2003). The term process is usually used at alower level of abstraction that TQM theorists would call sub-processes oractivities (see Riley, 1998). The conception that management should analyzeand improve the processes and train the employees is also shared by the twoconcepts.

. Management by fact. The literature on lean does not really stress themanagement by facts explicitly. However, this is implicit in the descriptionof lean practices, many of which are analytical tools designed to help achieveJIT production. Although this is a shared perspective between lean andTQM, there is a difference. Within TQM the analysis of variability throughusing statistical tools is a central concept (Hackman and Wageman, 1995). Inthe lean tradition, this is not seen as equally important. In fact, some authorsargue against the use of statistical tools for analyzing productionperformance, recommending alternative tools such as increased inspectionand visualization of problems (e.g. Dennis, 2002; Liker, 2004).

. Learning and continuous improvement. In the words of Hackman andWageman (1995) TQM is “pro-learning, with a vengeance” (p. 330). Thelearning aspects are not emphasized as much in literature on lean. Asdiscussed above, the lean literature is generally weaker on the humanbehavior side, focusing more on instrumental techniques for improvingsystem performance. There is a clear focus on continuous improvement,which implies that some form of learning is required. However, the questionis who is learning. TQM is focused on stimulating creativity and individualefforts for improvement (Hackman and Wageman, 1995), whereas leanplaces strong emphasis on the standardization of work and collectivelearning (Niepce and Molleman, 1998; Thompson and Wallace, 1996).

(3) Interventions:. Analysis of customer requirements. Customer focus is one of the hallmarks of

TQM, where every improvement should be based on an investigation of thecustomer’s requirements, whether the customer is internal or external. Thelean concept does not emphasize customer interests. Some authors arguethat the very purpose of lean is to please the customer (e.g. Dennis, 2002), but

Defining leanproduction

135

methods for analyzing customer requirements are extremely rare in thereviewed literature, suggesting this is not a typical lean intervention.

. Supplier partnerships. The suppliers are seen as important in both lean andTQM. Both concept stress the point that long term partnerships should bemade with suppliers and that improvements should be done in collaborationwith them. Although this matter is not discussed by all authors in thisanalysis, the majority of them do (see Table I).

. Improvement teams. Quality circles have a central role in much of the TQMliterature, and can be put to use in problem solving or improvementactivities. In the lean literature, improvement teams are explicitly discussedby just about half of the reviewed authors. However, they are oftenimplicated in discussions about improvement activities.

. Scientific methods for performance measurement and improvement. BothTQM and lean employ various scientific methods for analysis andevaluation of performance. However, these methods differ significantly, andthe tools associated with one concept are generally not mentioned inliterature on the other one. The purpose of measurements also differs. InTQM measurements are done in order to identify problems and to documentimprovement, whereas lean theorists argue that measurements should bemade for planning and synchronization purposes;, e.g. for setting productionrate (see Ohno, 1988; Bicheno, 2004).

. Process management techniques. As discussed above, the term process isused in slightly different ways by authors on TQM and lean. In the leanliterature, different techniques are presented for both overall process leveland individual activities. At an organizational level value stream mapping(VSM) can be used for highlighting several kinds of problems in theprocesses (Rother and Shook, 1998). At a more operational level, differenttime/work study techniques are discussed, e.g. so-called spaghetti charts(e.g. Bicheno, 2004).

Lean and TQM – same but differentAt a philosophical level, lean and TQM have many ideas in common, in particularconcerning continuous improvement and the systems perspective. However, at a moreoperational level, the two concepts differ significantly. The fundamental values of thetwo concepts are also quite different, especially regarding humanistic values.

ConclusionsThere is no agreed upon definition of lean that could be found in the reviewedliterature, and the formulations of the overall purpose of the concept are divergent.Discomforting as this may seem for lean proponents, there seems to be quite goodagreement on the characteristics that define the concept, leading to the conclusion thatthe concept is defined in operational terms alone. Formulating a definition thatcaptures all the dimensions of lean is a formidable challenge.

According to Hines et al. (2004) lean is constantly evolving, implying that any“definition” of the concept will only be a “still image” of a moving target, only beingvalid in a certain point in time. This may be an explanation to the apparent differences

TQM21,2

136

between authors on the subject. Based on this, it is hard not to raise the question ofwhether a consistent definition of lean is possible to produce. Also, one can questionwhether a definition will be useful at all, regarding the ever changing nature of the typeof constructs that management concepts such as TQM and lean are. Nonetheless,attempts have been made in this article to present the essentials of lean production andconvey its most salient philosophical elements, hopefully clearing up some of theconfusion that surrounds the concept.

Lean is also significantly different from its closest relative TQM, leading to theconclusion that lean is a management concept of its own. The conclusion from Shahand Ward (2003) that TQM and other bundles are parts of lean is not supported by thisstudy.

Womack et al. (1990) argue that the lean principles are applicable to any industry. Ifthis is correct, then the Japanese should logically have distributed the knowledge ofthese principles throughout all domestic Japanese industry. This does not seem to bethe case. The only “true” lean producers in Japan are confined to the automobileindustry, represented by, e.g. Toyota, Honda and Mazda, whereas other areas ofindustry are performing at the same level as (or worse than) western competitors[2].This was pointed out more than 20 years ago by Keys and Miller (1984), implying thatthe principles constituting LP have not received any wide-spread attention outside theauto-industry. Cooney (2002) argues that the possibility to become “lean” (through JITin particular) is highly dependent upon business conditions that are not always met,thus limiting the “universality” of the concept.

When embarking on a journey towards lean, it is important to acknowledge thedifferent perspectives that the concept comprises. Raising the awareness of thesedifferences may help make the message clearer and avoid conflicting opinions onwhich concept the organization is implementing. The obvious fallibility of the claimeduniversality of lean should help motivate an adaptational approach to implementingthe concept, aiming to find a production concept that agrees with the contextual factorsand previous production practices that exist within the organization. Making activechoices with regard to values and techniques should increase the odds of succeeding inthe improvement of the production system.

Notes

1. Transportation, Inventory, Motion, Waiting, Overproduction, Overprocessing, Defects.

2. Shu Yamada, University of Tsukuba – Seminar at Linkoping University, 2007.

References

Adler, P.S. and Cole, R.E. (1993), “Designed for learning – a tale of 2 auto plants”,Sloan Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 85-94.

Andersson, R., Eriksson, H. and Torstensson, H. (2006), “Similarities and differences betweenTQM, six sigma and lean”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 282-96.

Benders, J. and Van Bijsterveld, M. (2000), “Leaning on lean: the reception of a managementfashion in Germany”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 50-64.

Berggren, C. (1992), Alternatives to Lean Production: Work Organization in the Swedish AutoIndustry, ILR Press, New York, NY.

Defining leanproduction

137

Berggren, C. (1993), “Lean production – the end of history”, Work Employment and Society, Vol. 7No. 2, pp. 163-88.

Bicheno, J. (2004), The New Lean Toolbox: Towards Fast, Flexible Flow, 3rd ed., PICSIE Books,Buckingham.

Boaden, R. (1997), “What is total quality management. . .and does it matter?”, Total QualityManagement & Business Excellence, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 153-71.

Cappelli, P. and Rogovsky, N. (1998), “Employee involvement and organizational citizenship:Implications for labor law reform and ‘lean production‘”, Industrial and Labor RelationsReview, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 633-53.

Cooney, R. (2002), “Is ‘lean’ a universal production system? Batch production in the automotiveindustry”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 10,pp. 1130-47.

Cusumano, M.A. (1994), “The limits of lean”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 27-32.

Cutchergershenfeld, J., Nitta, M., Barrett, B., Belhedi, N., Bullard, J. and Coutchie, C. (1994),“Japanese team-based work systems in North America – explaining the diversity”,California Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 42-64.

Dahlgaard, J.J. and Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2006), “Lean production, six sigma quality, TQM andcompany culture”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 263-81.

Dankbaar, B. (1997), “Lean production: denial, confirmation or extension of sociotechnicalsystems design?”, Human Relations, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 567-83.

Delbridge, R., Lowe, J. and Oliver, N. (2000), “Shopfloor responsibilities under leanteamworking”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 11, pp. 1459-79.

Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Dennis, P. (2002), Lean Production Simplified: A Plain Language Guide to the World’s MostPowerful Production System, Productivity Press, New York, NY.

Dyer, J.H. (1994), “Dedicated assets – Japan manufacturing edge”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 72 No. 6, pp. 174-8.

Engstrom, T., Jonsson, D. and Medbo, L. (1996), “Production model discourse and experiencesfrom the Swedish automotive industry”, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 141-58.

Ezzamel, M., Willmott, H. and Worthington, F. (2001), “Power, control and resistance in ‘thefactory that time forgot’”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 1053-79.

Feld, W.M. (2001), Lean Manufacturing: Tools, Techniques, and How to Use Them, St LuciePress, Boca Raton, FL.

Godfrey, G., Dale, B., Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. (1997), “Control: a contested concept inTQM research”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17No. 6, pp. 558-73.

Hackman, J.R. and Wageman, R. (1995), “Total quality management: empirical, conceptual, andpractical issues”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2.

Hayes, R.H. and Pisano, G.P. (1994), “Beyond world-class – the new manufacturing strategy”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 77-86.

Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary leanthinking”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,pp. 994-1011.

Jagdev, H.S. and Browne, J. (1998), “The extended enterprise – a context for manufacturing”,Production Planning & Control, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 216-29.

TQM21,2

138

James-Moore, S.M. and Gibbons, A. (1997), “Is lean manufacture universally relevant?An investigative methodology”, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 899-911.

Jones, D.T. and Womack, J.P. (2002), Seeing the Whole, Lean Enterprise Institute, Brookline, MA.

Kamata, S. (1982), Japan in the Passing Lane: An Insider’s Account of Life in a Japanese AutoFactory, Pantheon Books, New York, NY.

Karlsson, C. and Ahlstrom, P. (1996), “Assessing changes towards lean production”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 24-41.

Karlsson, C. and Ahlstrom, P. (1997), “A lean and global smaller firm?”, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 10, pp. 940-52.

Keys, J.B. and Miller, T.R. (1984), “The Japanese management theory jungle”, The Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 342-53.

King, A.A. and Lenox, M.J. (2001), “Lean and green? an empirical examination of the relationshipbetween lean production and environmental performance”, Production and OperationsManagement, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 244-56.

Krafcik, J.F. (1988), “Triumph of the lean production system”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 30No. 1, pp. 41-51.

Lamming, R. (1996), “Squaring lean supply with supply chain management”, InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 183-96.

Lewis, M.A. (2000), “Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage”, InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 959-78.

Liker, J.K. (1998), Becoming Lean: Inside Stories of US Manufacturers, Productivity Press,New York, NY.

Liker, J.K. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s GreatestManufacturer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Lowe, J., Delbridge, R. and Oliver, N. (1997), “High-performance manufacturing: evidence fromthe automotive components industry”, Organization Studies, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 783-98.

MacDuffie, J.P. and Helper, S. (1997), “Creating lean suppliers: diffusing lean productionthroughout the supply chain”, California Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 118-19.

MacDuffie, J.P., Sethuraman, K. and Fisher, M.L. (1997), “Product variety and manufacturingperformance: evidence from the international automotive assembly plant study”,Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 350-69.

Mason-Jones, R. and Towill, D.R. (1997), “Information enrichment: designing the supply chain forcompetitive advantage”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 137-48.

Monden, Y. (1998), Toyota Production System: An Integrated Approach to just-in-time, 2nd ed.,Chapman & Hall, London.

Mueller, F. (1994), “Societal effect, organizational effect and globalization”, Organization Studies,Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 407-28.

Mumford, E. (1994), “New treatments or old remedies: is business process reengineering reallysocio-technical design?”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 313-26.

Naylor, J.B., Naim, M.M. and Berry, D. (1999), “Leagility: integrating the lean and agilemanufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain”, International Journal of ProductionEconomics, Vol. 62 Nos 1-2, pp. 107-18.

Nicholas, J. and Soni, A. (2006), The Portal to Lean Production: Principles and Practices for DoingMore with Less, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Defining leanproduction

139

Niepce, W. and Molleman, E. (1998), “Work design issues in lean production from asociotechnical systems perspective: neo-Taylorism or the next step in sociotechnicaldesign?”, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 259-86.

Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-scale Production, Productivity Press,Portland, OR.

Oliver, N., Delbridge, R. and Lowe, J. (1996), “Lean production practices: internationalcomparisons in the auto components industry”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7(special issue).

Parker, S.K. (2003), “Longitudinal effects of lean production on employee outcomes and themediating role of work characteristics”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4,pp. 620-34.

Riley, J.F. (1998), “Process management”, in Juran, J.M. and Godfrey, A.B. (Eds), Juran’s QualityHandbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Rother, M. and Shook, J. (1998), Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to Create Value andEliminate Muda, Lean Enterprise Institute, Brookline, MA.

Sanchez, A.M. and Perez, M.P. (2001), “Lean indicators and manufacturing strategies”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 11, pp. 1433-51.

Scarbrough, H. (1998), “The unmaking of management? Change and continuity in Britishmanagement in the 1990s”, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 691-715.

Schonberger, R.J. (1982), Japanese Manufacturing Techniques: Nine Hidden Lessons in Simplicity,Free Press, New York, NY.

Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2003), “Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, andperformance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 129-49.

Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007), “Defining and developing measures of lean production”, Journalof Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 785-805.

Shaiken, H., Lopez, S. and Mankita, I. (1997), “Two routes to team production: Saturn andChrysler compared”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 17-45.

Shingo, S. (1984), A Study of the Toyota Production System from an Industrial EngineeringViewpoint, Japan Management Association, Tokyo.

Smalley, A. (2004), Creating Level Pull, Lean Enterprise Institute, Brookline, MA.

Sorqvist, L. (1998), Poor Quality Costing, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

Thompson, P. and Wallace, T. (1996), “Redesigning production through teamworking – casestudies from the Volvo Truck Corporation”, International Journal of Operations& Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 103-18.

Weinberg, G.M. (1992), Quality Software Management, Vol. 1: Systems Thinking, Dorset HousePublishing Co., New York, NY.

White, R.E. and Prybutok, V. (2001), “The relationship between JIT practices and type ofproduction system”, Omega, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 113-24.

Williams, K., Haslam, C., Williams, J., Cutler, T., Adcroft, A. and Johal, S. (1992), “Against leanproduction”, Economy and Society, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 321-54.

Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1994), “From lean production to the lean enterprise”, HarvardBusiness Review, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 93-103.

Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (2003), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in YourCorporation, Free Press, New York, NY.

Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World: The Story ofLean Production, Rawson Associates, New York, NY.

TQM21,2

140

Wood, S. (1999), “Human resource management and performance”, International Journal ofManagement Reviews, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 367-413.

Zhu, Q.H. and Sarkis, J. (2004), “Relationships between operational practices and performanceamong early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinesemanufacturing enterprises”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 265-89.

Further reading

Conti, R., Angelis, J., Cooper, C., Faragher, B. and Gill, C. (2006), “The effects of lean productionon worker job stress”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 1013-38.

AppendixThe works shown are the result of the literature search and the details may be found in thereference list:

Adler and Cole (1993).

Benders and Van Bijsterveld (2000),.

Berggren (1993).

Cappelli and Rogovsky (1998).

Cusumano (1994).

Cutchergershenfeld et al. (1994).

Dankbaar (1997).

Delbridge et al. (2000).

Dyer (1994).

Ezzamel et al. (2001).

Godfrey et al. (1997).

Hayes and Pisano (1994).

Jagdev and Browne (1998).

James-Moore and Gibbons (1997).

Karlsson andAhlstrom (1997).

King and Lenox (2001).

Krafcik (1988).

Lamming (1996).

Lewis (2000).

Lowe et al. (1997).

MacDuffie and Helper (1997).

MacDuffie et al. (1996).

Mason-Jones and Towill (1997).

Mueller (1994).

Mumford (1994).

Naylor et al. (1999).

Niepce and Molleman (1998).

Oliver et al. (1996).

Defining leanproduction

141

Sanchez and Perez (2001).

Scarbrough (1998).

Shah and Ward (2003).

Shaiken et al. (1997).

Thompson and Wallace (1996).

Weinberg (1992).

White and Prybutok (2001).

Williams et al. (1992).

Womack and Jones (1994).

Wood (1999).

Zhu and Sarkis (2004).

About the authorJostein Pettersen has a MSc with specialization in Quality Management. He is currently a PhDcandidate at the Department of Quality Technology and Management as well as the HELIXVINN Excellence Centre at Linkoping University. His research is directed towards thedissemination and implementation of lean production. Jostein Pettersen can be contacted at:jostein.pettersen@liu.se

TQM21,2

142

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Lean-kaizen public service:an empirical approach in Spanish

local governmentsManuel F. Suarez Barraza

Graduate School of Business Administration and Leadership (EGADE),Technologico de Monterrey at Toluca, Toluca, Mexico

Tricia SmithESADE Graduate School, Barcelona, Spain, and

Su Mi Dahlgaard-ParkInstitute for Service Management, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Abstract

Purpose – Recently, the operations management academic literature has seen articles focusing on thetransfer of “lean” thinking or kaizen concept from the private to the public sector. In Spain, during thelast 15 years, some local councils have also followed similar improvement initiatives sometimes underthe umbrella of “global quality programmes” trying to support continuous process and serviceimprovement. The research question for this article is: How is lean-kaizen applied in local councils inSpain? The aim is to shed light on how lean thinking is applied in order to improve those servicesprovided to the public by local councils by describing empirical studies in specific Spanish contexts.

Design/methodology/approach – The case study approach was adopted in this research. Theresearch design conducted was of the longitudinal and retrospective type.

Findings – The results of the empirical evidence show that three techniques related to lean-kaizenhave a direct effect on the processes and management systems in local councils. The three techniquesare: 5S, gemba kaizen workshops and process mapping. These techniques improved the processes andquality of public services provided by the councils. These results suggest the first indications ofdocumented lean-kaizen public service.

Originality/value – A review of the academic literature of lean thinking and kaizen conceptindicates that the managerial application of the techniques in the public sector are few and far betweenand have been barely explored at the empirical level. The paper makes a contribution to the deeperunderstanding of the usefulness of applying lean-kaizen in local government in order to improve theprocesses and services provided to the public – the emergence of lean-kaizen public service.

Keywords Continuous improvement, Service improvements, Local government, Lean production, Spain

Paper type Case study

1. IntroductionThe term lean thinking, or lean production (Womack et al., 1990; Womack and Jones,1996), was first introduced into the field of operations management in the well-knownbook by James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones called The Machine that Changed theWorld (Womack et al., 1990). Lean thinking can be considered as a methodology thathas its origins in the Toyota Production System (TPS) and whose principal objective isthe creation of low-cost improvements based on the reduction of muda (waste)(Takeyuki, 1995; Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park, 2006). In the same theoretical line,the concept of kaizen (or continuous improvement) has received much attention as a

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2731.htm

Lean-kaizenpublic service

143

The TQM JournalVol. 21 No. 2, 2009

pp. 143-167q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1754-2731DOI 10.1108/17542730910938146

key to Japan’s competitive success (Imai, 1986). Various numbers of studies, whichhave focused on the Toyota Production System or lean thinking, have showed thefundamental importance of kaizen (Oliver and Wilkinson, 2002; Lindberg and Berger,1997; Dahlgaard-Park, 1999; Bateman and David, 2002; Liker, 2004; Aoki, 2008). Imai(2006) claimed that kaizen is often underlying principles of lean production and TotalQuality Management.

The literature on lean thinking and Japanese kaizen concept centres mostly onthe automotive industry where it started (Imai, 1986; Womack and Jones, 1996;Bicheno, 1999; Hines, 1999; Bateman and David, 2002; Liker, 2004). Because of thepossible documented benefits of both concepts in the literature, such as improvedcustomer focus, improvements in quality which reduce process cycle time, cutproduction costs and were likely to improve delivery performance and customersatisfaction (Sohal, 1996; Standard and Davis, 2000; Taylor and Brunt, 2001;Nyusten, 2002; Liker, 2004; Manufacturing Foundation, 2004), other types oforganisations such as the public services sector have recently taken up the conceptof lean thinking and Japanese kaizen in order to introduce these techniques to theirown management activities (Yasin et al., 2001; Suarez-Barraza, 2001; Vonk, 2005;Radnor et al., 2006; Radnor and Walley, 2008). However, in the literature reviewedon lean thinking and kaizen concept, very few empirical research studies of theapplications of both concepts to public services have been identified, particularly inrelation to local councils, whose role is to serve the public good – the council is thelocus of the interface between the community and the services provided to thepublic through local government policies.

This paper, then, presents empirical findings from research undertaken in threelocal councils in Spain who applied certain elements of lean thinking and kaizenconcept with the overt intention of improving their processes and levels of service tothe communities they served: in other words, they applied the concept of“lean-kaizen public service.” We set out to answer the question: How is lean-kaizenapplied in local councils in Spain? The empirical findings are based on three casestudies in which three techniques of lean-kaizen were applied by Spanish localcouncils: 5S, gemba-kaizen workshops and process mapping (Imai, 1986; Convis,2001; Liker, 2004).

2. Existing research2.1 Lean-kaizen: concept, principles and techniquesToday there is a considerable body of academic literature about lean thinking orlean production and the concepts have changed from being exclusively related toproduction and manufacturing to becoming associated with a more general view ofthe firm, as in the company as a lean enterprise (Womack and Jones, 1994), or as amanagement philosophy (Krizner, 2001; Bhasin and Burcher, 2006). Various writershave identified the Toyota Production System (TPS) as the origin of the concept oflean thinking developed by Taiichi Ohno in the 1950s in the Toyota MotorCompany (Monden, 1998; Bendell, 2006; Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park, 2006).However, the concept “lean production” was firstly coined by the IMVP(International Motor Vehicle Program, established at MIT in 1985) researcherJohn Krafcik (Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park, 2006). The “invention” of the termlean production was a result of the world’s most comprehensive benchmarking

TQM21,2

144

study ever seen among various automobile assembly plans all over the world inorder to understand the differences in quality and productivity. The results of thisfive-year-long benchmarking study was firstly published in The Machine thatChanged the World (Womack et al., 1990), and the word “lean” was suggested herebecause the best assembly plants (Toyota plants) used less of everything – half thehuman efforts in the factory, half the manufacturing space, half the investments intools, half the engineering hours to develop a new product, far less than half theneeded inventory on site. In a second publication, Womack and Jones (1996)describe lean thinking as the perfect antidote to muda or waste elimination. Theymean the concept can be understood as the systematic attempt to search outactivities that add value by the elimination of muda (waste) in all activities of theprocesses in an organisation. Womack et al. (1990, p. 13) put it like this:

Mass-producers set a limited goal for talks themselves – “good enough,” which translatesinto an acceptable number of defects, a maximum acceptable level of inventories, a narrowrange standardized products. To do better, they argue, would cost too much or exceedinherent human capabilities. Lean producers, on the other hand, set their sights explicitly onperfection: continually declining costs, zero defects, zero inventories, and endless productvariety. Of course, no lean producer has ever reached this Promised Land – and perhaps noneever will, but the endless quest for perfection continues to generate surprising twists.

Similarly, Womack (2002) identifies five key guiding principles in organisations thatapply lean thinking:

(1) Specify the value desired by the customer.

(2) Identify the value stream for each product providing that value and challengeall of the waste (or muda).

(3) Make the product flow continuously.

(4) Introduce pull between all steps where continuous flow is impossible.

(5) Manage toward perfection so that the number of steps and the amount of timeand information needed to serve the customer continually falls.

To achieve these principles, various authors have proposed a combination oftechniques that are necessary to be able to implement lean thinking in organisations(Sohal and Eggleston, 1994; Monden, 1998; Lewis, 2000; Liker, 2004; Bicheno, 1999;Hines et al., 2004; Bhasin and Burcher, 2006; Radnor and Walley, 2008). On the basis ofthe literature reviewed, the following is a list of those techniques (if not all of them, atleast the majority) deemed to be necessary for the successful application of leanthinking:

(1) Pull production-kanban. A system of cascading production delivery instructionsfrom downstream to upstream activities in which upstream supplier does notproduce until the downstream customer signals a need (kanban system).

(2) Streamlined layout. A layout designed according to optimum operationalsequence or flow.

(3) Total productive maintenance (TPM). The mechanism needed to maintain thereliable functioning of the machinery in the workshop (Ohno, 1978).

Lean-kaizenpublic service

145

(4) 5S and visual control. Represent the foundations of continuous improvementwhile preserving a working atmosphere of order, cleanliness and safety (Ho andCicmil, 1996).

(5) Single minute exchange of dies (SMED). The mechanisms necessary to reducelead time and which make sure there is a continuous flow in the processes forthe change-over times on machines.

(6) Supplier development. This requires working closely with the suppliers todevelop mutual understanding and trust. (Henderson et al., 1999).

(7) One piece flow. This requires a consistent flow of work process so as to avoidscrap and backflows without interruptions.

(8) Cell design. Work processes are designed to form work cells which are locatedclose to each other with the object of cutting down on unneeded transport andwaiting times.

(9) Process mapping and value stream mapping. This means to search out andunderstand the ways the organisation works from the point of view of anintegrated and inter-related system, for which it is necessary to analyse anddocument all the work processes undertaken in the organisation.

As mentioned above, muda or waste elimination is the main target of lean thinking. Inthat sense, according to the literature to apply the lean thinking approach we need avery basic idea of Japanese management system, the kaizen or continuousimprovement concept, because kaizen activities are implemented through theidentification and elimination of muda at every time, every moment and for everyone in the shop floor (gemba in the Japanese term) (Imai, 1986, 1997; Wittenberg, 1994;Brunet, 2000). For Ohno (1978, p. 42), the Founder of TPS, states, “improvement is botheternal and infinite”. This suggests that the concept of kaizen is not a program with alimited time frame, but a process of activities that are implemented continuously(Sawada, 1995).

According to Ohno (1978), improving the operating efficiency can be done throughthe elimination of the seven types of waste, namely waste of overproduction, waste oftime on hand, waste in transportation, waste of processing itself, waste of stock onhand, waste of movement and waste of making defective products. The lean thinkingtechniques and tools used to implement and/or apply lean system in order to eliminateand minimize muda are some time referred to as “kaizen building blocks” (Imai, 1997;Bateman and David, 2002). In fact, according to Imai (1986) and another authors, someof this lean-kaizen techniques and tools such as 5S, muda elimination andstandardization can be considered as the basic pillars to apply lean thinkingapproach in an organization (Imai, 1986, Nemoto, 1987; Gondhalekar et al. 1995;Bateman and Brander, 2000; Brunet and New, 2003; Suarez-Barraza, 2007). In otherwords, the journey toward lean can be initiated in implementing a kaizen effort usingthis building block techniques and tools.

The literature of continuous improvement refers two main approaches to implementthe kaizen efforts (Aoki, 2008). Each of them is according to the length of time overwhich the improvement activity is focused; the longer one is kaizen based in traditionalJapanese Quality Management system (Imai, 1986, 1997, Cheser, 1998; Brunet and New,2003; Suarez-Barraza, 2007; Aoki, 2008). In the case of process improvement (kaikaku or

TQM21,2

146

kairyo in Japanese term), short-term (one or two weeks) projects that consist of breakthrough kaizen events are implemented in a focused area. The literature knows them asa kaizen blitz (a bombardment of improvements), quick kaizen events or gemba-kaizenworkshops (Sheridan, 1997; Melnyck and Calanton, 1998; Bateman and David, 2002;Montabon, 2005). Nevertheless, both approaches are considered in the literature as afirst attempt in order to implement further refined, useful lean thinking techniques andtools such as JIT manufacturing (producing to transferring to the next customer onlywhat is needed when is needed), kanban, poka-yoke (error-proofing), andom (visualdisplay boards and lights), SMED, TPM, and heijunka (to level production batch sizeand variety) (Lewis, 2000; Bateman and David, 2002; Bateman and Rich, 2003;Bateman, 2005; Imai, 2006). The main aim for this kind of improvement effort is tofollowing lean thinking principles such as specify value by specific product, identifythe value stream for each product, make the value flow without interruptions and letthe customer pull value from the producer (Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park, 2006).Therefore, some authors consider this kaizen journey to a lean enterprise as alean-kaizen approach (Bodek, 2004; Alukal and Manos, 2006; Manos, 2007).

2.2 Lean-kaizen applications in the public sectorAs mentioned in the introduction, nearly all the literature on lean-kaizen has beencentred on its applications in the private sector, in manufacturing, and mainly in largeand multinational firms (Radnor and Boaden, 2008). However, some authors haveproposed that similar methodologies might be transferred to other, non-manufacturingcontexts such as restaurants, hotels, education, administrative companies, hospitalsand health-care firms, among others (Bowen and Youngdahl, 1998; Spear, 2005; Collinsand Muthusamy, 2007; Suarez-Barraza, 2001, 2008).

Having said that, and based on a review of the relevant literature, there is very littleevidence of the application of lean-kaizen in the public sector with the purpose ofimproving public services. However, very recently there has been some research thatbegins to touch on this area. One of the first articles on this theme derives from work byYasin et al. (2001) which looks into the benefits of the application of just in time (JIT) (alean thinking principle) in public sectors but from a quantitative point of view. Theconclusions were drawn that there could be a potential benefit to the improvement ofwork processes in public services by using JIT. In the same research line, Bhatia andDrew (2006) indicate the vast operational potential of lean approach to improveproductivity and customer satisfaction in local governments which process largeamounts of papers and documents related to public services provided to citizens in thecommunity. They also indicate, though, that the quality of the service varies dependingon the context of the public sector – whether it is in USA or in Europe.

The literature review also finds a small number of papers which focus ondescriptive case studies which show examples of the application of some lean-kaizentechniques in processes such as tax collection in the Connecticut Department of Labourin the USA (Hasenjager, 2006) or the case of the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, whereimprovements were made into the processes of police force recruitment and healthservices of the city (Krings et al., 2006). Thus a recent article concludes that:

There is little doubt of the applicability of lean to the public sector. . .many of the processesand services in the public sector can gain greater efficiency by considering and implementinglean (Radnor et al., 2006, pp. 75-6).

Lean-kaizenpublic service

147

Following the lead of these authors and others, there are signs that there is a growingbody of evidence that indicates lean-kaizen can be implemented in whateverimprovement programmes concerned with processes and operations that aim toeliminate and minimize muda (waste), improve the work-flow of the processes and theinvolvement of the citizen-client with processes (Furterer and Elshennawy, 2005;Radnor et al., 2006; Krings et al., 2006). The techniques that have been reported ashaving practical and direct application to the public sector are; value stream mapping,the 5S, process mapping, kaizen blitz or quick kaizen and six sigma (Furterer andElshennawy, 2005; Radnor et al., 2006; Radnor and Boaden, 2008; Radnor and Walley,2008). Some others researchers also included lean-kaizen techniques applied in publicsector such as improvement or kaizen teams, process redesign methodologies (kaikakuor kairyo approach) and problem solving and quality tools (Collins and Muthusamy,2007; Suarez-Barraza and Lingham, 2008).

Finally, it is important to note that in spite of the research already described, theempirical evidence of the application of lean-kaizen in the public sector is extremelyrecent and the debate is ongoing as to whether it can be used at all in the public sectorcontext (Radnor and Boaden, 2008), while there are some authors who challenge itsviability or application altogether (Hines et al., 2004).

3. MethodologyThe research method adopted for this research was a case study analysis (Yin, 2003).The purpose of this type of methodological design is to build theory from case studies(Eisenhardt, 1989). Thus the theory is constructed through understanding the keyquestions of “How” and “Why”: in this case these refer to how and why the localCouncil worked to achieve the sustained application of lean thinking over a number ofyears (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). The methodological design used one longitudinalcase study and two retrospective ones (Leonard-Barton, 1990). A total of three differentcouncils were chosen. In accordance with Leonard-Barton (1990), the combination oflongitudinal and retrospective case studies allows for a reduction in the potential forstatistical error when collecting data, as well as helping to identify deeply embeddedcodes and patterns in the data.

3.1 Data gatheringThe collection of the data was made using four research methods:

(1) direct observation;

(2) participative but non-intrusive observation;

(3) documentary analysis; and

(4) in-depth semi-structured interviews, in that order.

While collecting the data, special attention was paid to the triangulation of the fourmethods to ensure they converged on the same phenomena (Eisenhardt, 1989).

3.2 Data analysisIn order to analyse the data, a database was set up to capture the networks andmatrices of the patterns obtained. In the same way, when the evidence had beenreviewed, analysed and coded, a first draft of each case study was made and this wasshown to the main informants in each Council to seek their opinion. The revision of the

TQM21,2

148

first draft not only helped to validate the data collection process but also served toidentify possible gaps and thus allowed for the collection of further data and patternswhich were relevant to the study. By doing this, an iterative process of viewing andreviewing the data was developed (Pettigrew, 1997; Pettigrew et al., 2001).

4. Field study4.1 Background and context to the casesThe empirical research was undertaken in three Spanish town councils. Each of themhas been making efforts to modernise and improve their public services since the endof the 1980s. These three councils have received various awards and certificates fromexternal official bodies which recognise their management achievements based onaspects of quality, improvement and excellence (see Table I). In addition, eachcontinues, in their own ways and from their particular perspectives, to seek continuousimprovements in their work processes and public services with the objective of givingsatisfaction to their communities (the citizens they serve) and to other stakeholders(Suarez-Barraza and Ramis-Pujol, 2008).

4.1.1 Case study of council A. Council A is a reference point in Spain and in Europefor the application of models of quality and excellence (Parrado-Diez, 2001). This localSpanish Council is located in the metropolitan region of Barcelona, employs a staff of296 employees who administer a town of about 46,194 inhabitants. The council isnotable for its political context because it is controlled with an absolute majority by theCatalan Socialist Party – the same political party as the national ruling party – andhas been so for its entire democratic history, which is to say since 1983. In fact, therehave only been three mayors throughout its history and all of them have belonged tothe same political party. The result has been not only political and organisationalstability for more than 15 years but also has meant that this council, in its technicalcontext, has been used to an organisational structure which is especially managerial in

Town/City CouncilMethodologicalfocus Organisational characteristics

Lean-kaizentechnique applied

“A” (Townsituated in themetropolitan areaof Barcelona)

Longitudinal(two-yearintervention)

Spanish Council recognised for itsbroad experience in managementsystems related to Excellence andTotal Quality (more than 15 yearsexperience). It received theIberoamerican Quality Award

5SProcess mapping

“B” (Capital of theProvince of theBasque Country)

Retrospective Spanish Council which began to applya Total Quality ManagementProgramme and was a pioneer inSpain in lean thinking techniqueapplications

5SGemba-kaizenworshops

“C” (Situated in theAutonomousCommunity ofMadrid)

Retrospective Spanish Council recognised for itsbroad experience in managementsystems related to Excellence, ProcessImprovement and Total QualityManagement (more than 20 yearsexperience)

Process mappingkaizen workshops

Table I.Case studies selected

Lean-kaizenpublic service

149

character. Beyond the political dimension, the mayor and his 21 councillors (politicalappointments all) occupy the managerial roles of managing director and senior staff.They are responsible for the running of the municipality, fulfilling the roles ofmanagers of the various council departments.

Since 1989, council A has been incorporating different kinds of improvement andquality measures, ranging from improvement teams, which have the task of problemsolving, quality of service techniques like surveys, interviews with citizens and so on,to EFQM (European Foundation of Quality Management) self-assessment. In factcouncil A has won various national and international awards, such as the 2000Iberoamerican Award for Quality and special recognition from the EFQM jury in 2000for the high score achieved in its self-evaluation. Finally, council A applied processredesign techniques that transform the needs and expectations of citizens into “ServiceCommitments” (process quality standards for internal operations). Recently council Abegan to explore lean-kaizen techniques in order to continuously improve theirprocesses and public service, such as 5S in the Operating Maintenance Department,and strategic mapping.

4.1.2 Case study of council B. Town council B is situated in Alava, the administrativecapital of the Basque Country, and the council has some 2,200 employees. The town isfamous for its green belt and quality of life and has a population of approximately227,000. As for the political context, the council was governed by the Basque NationalistParty (PNV) from 1979 to 1999. At the time of writing, the political party in power is thePartido Popular (PP) now in its second term of office. The organisation of its technicaldepartments reflects the classic bureaucratic model in which there are three politicalmacro areas (Civic Services; Town Planning, Zoning and Transport, andAdministration) on which all the technical departments depend.

Council B has been a pioneer in Spain in its application of lean-kaizen techniques tolocal government, although its first experience was not successful (Imaz, 2005).However, since 2001, council B has been applying the 5S technique in differentdepartments and work processes of the public organisation. For instance, theyimplemented 5S in the Mayor’s office, social services office, parks and gardensdepartment and in the fire department workshop. Using the same improvementconcepts, in 2005 council B set up its first gemba-kaizen workshop in order to improvethe process of collecting capital gains tax in the taxation department by finding andeliminating muda (waste).

4.1.3 Case study of council C. In 2006, the Spanish Quality in Management Circle(Club de Excelencia de Gestion) nominated council C as one of the best town councils inEurope for its use of the citizen-as-active participant customer model, an honour sharedwith Liverpool Council in UK. This council C is situated in the metropolitan area ofMadrid. It has some 1,140 employees who are responsible for the administration of atown with a population of just over 107,000. In the last few years, this town has seenconsiderable industrial development and has become a focal point for investment byprivate companies which have noted the potential of this active and up-and-comingtown for developing their businesses.

At the end of 2005, council C was awarded the Seal 500 Plus by the EFQM, a prizefor excellence that recognised the strides it had made in modernisation andimprovement efforts. From its first Quality Plan to the second Quality Plan, council Capplied lean-kaizen techniques such as process mapping and kaizen workshops. The

TQM21,2

150

purpose was to develop what they called an “Intelligent Council”. In other words,council C practices continuous improvements in its processes and public services usinga close-to-the-customer (customer proximity) model to serve its citizens.

A summary of the cases selected is shown in Table I.

4.2 Lean-kaizen public service in local councils4.2.1 5S application. Osada (1991) developed the original concept of 5S in the early1980s as a result of the work in Toyota Motor Company. 5S is the acronym for fiveJapanese words seiri, seiton, seiso, seiketsu, and shitsuke (Hirano, 1995). Whentranslated, these words literally mean organisation, neatness, cleanliness,standardisation and discipline, respectively. Some authors claim that 5S representthe basic pillars of lean-kaizen. In other words, implementing 5S represents the startingpoint of any continuous improvement efforts (Ho and Cicmil, 1996; Imai, 1997; Liker,2004; Imai, 2006), because the 5S are the basic “blocks” to create improvement habits inemployees (Suarez-Barraza and Ramis-Pujol, 2005).

(1) 5S application in council B. Council B was a pioneer in Spain regarding theapplication of 5S in its management of local government. Two municipaldepartments were chosen as places to implement 5S: the Parks and Gardensdepartment (the workshop) and the Social Services department (the office).There were five stages in the implementation as shown in Table II.

The results of the implementation of the 5Ss could be measuredquantitatively after a period of four months and the direct benefits in eacharea of application are:. Social Service Department: 7.500 kg recycled paper; 172 linear meters of shelf

space was reduced which was 44 per cent of the initial space; 11.000 hangingfolders were sent for recycling which was 50 per cent of the initial total; 475filing shelves A-Z were eliminated, leaving 39, which was 8 per cent of theinitial total; and savings in process work time on filing activities was 600hours/year.

. Parks and Gardens Departments: 25 per cent extra free space on shelves;50 per cent reduction of gasoline stock; and 600 kg scrap eliminated.

In addition to these results, different qualitative improvements appeared such asthe ease with which materials and documents were now located, cleaning wasmade easier, there was a feeling of more room to move and work and anatmosphere of good-will, which positively affected the way of working in theoffice and work-shops. Overall, with better visual control of the materials anddocuments, inventory-keeping greatly benefited. However, the people involvedin the implementation process all agreed that they encountered problems in thefollowing ways; the standard application of the 5S techniques meant it took anexcessively long time to introduce, and that certain individuals were resistant tothe new system.

The experience regarding the new systems in this council can be summed upin the words of the director of Social Services:

Regarding the 5S, this department had problems with inadequate space, one of ourmain complaints was “ we don’t have enough room” “ I need more cupboard space”

Lean-kaizenpublic service

151

Steps toapply 5S Implementation of the 5S stages

1. Presentation of theproject

Prior activities to 5S implementationProject presentation with the aim of explaining the purpose of 5Simplementation, the scope and main reasons. One of the main politicians, thetwo department directors selected for 5S application, the instructor of theconsultancy company and the quality service coordinator participated in thepresentationSelection of the 5S leader and coordination of the 5S team.Selection of the departments to implement 5S

2. Activities prior to theimplementation of theproject and 5Straining program

Prior activities to 5S implementationHeld a coordination meeting with a consultancy companyCreated a 5S training manualEstablished 5S’s output indicators (Example: kg. of scrap, kg. of paper, newphysical space, etc.)Took current situation photos (50 in total)Initial basic 5S training for both selected departmentsEstablished visual control of the 5S implementation resultsDesigned and established the selection criteria of office and workshop material

3. Implemented 5S intwo selecteddepartments (SocialService and Parks andGardensdepartments). 14sessions of 0.5 shiftsin both departments

Implementation of 5SSeiri (Organisation):Change in work process. In the Social Service department 13,000 duplicatedpaper copies of files were eliminated. In the Parks and Gardens department itwas decided not to store gasoline for public vehiclesElimination of garbage and unnecessary material in both departmentsRelocation and elimination of closets, shelving, computers, park equipment inorder to get more physical spaceSeiton (Neatness):Visual document control was established in the Social Service department.Shelves, desks and boxes of the offices were labelled with big letters andnumbers. In the Parks and Gardens department new shelves and newcontainers on wheels were addedIn the Parks and Gardens department the “everything on wheels” criterionwas establishedIn the Social Service department a new office layout was designed andestablished and all the material was relocated according to the use andfrequencySeiso (Cleanliness):Deep cleanliness of offices and workshops was appliedFloors, walls and doors were painted in both departmentsUnnecessary documents were eliminated in Social Service departmentsParks and Gardens department utilized new garbage containersBoth departments established preventitive cleanliness proceduresSeiketsu (Standardization):Order point was established for office material in Social Service departmentand spare part management for Parks and Garden departmentUse of colour-coding in document management of each service in SocialService departmentUse of colour-coding for material already repaired and waiting for repairestablished in the Parks and Gardens departmentA tool panel was established in Parks and Gardens departmentIn both departments work standards and monitoring plans were established(check list, workplace supervision, evaluation schedules, etc.)

4. Diffusion andreflective process

Post activities of 5S implementationPresentation of the results to the of rest of the council by departments whichhad implemented 5S

5. Implementationconclusions

Post activities of 5S implementationQuarterly meetings were held in order to observe the sustainability of theimprovementsB council started the planning process of the next 5S implementation

Table II.Implementation of 5S incouncil B

TQM21,2

152

and I felt there was far too much paper everywhere and as I am very tidy this was veryvexing and then came Txus who suggested we try this new system . . .although noteveryone in the section joined in because some people were resistant to the idea andanyway we couldn’t cover everything. We set up a team of administrators, technicalpeople, and managers and tried to follow the 5S to the letter. We actually didn’tmanage to do it exactly by the book but we managed something similar. We clearedout tons of paper, set up criteria to work better, and ended up with spare cupboardsand a feeling that the places in the department where we had introduced the changeswere cleaner, roomier. . . [. . .. . .].

(2) 5S application in council A. After having been awarded the Iberoamerican prizefor Quality and a special mention by the jury of EFQM in 2000 for itsmanagement system, council A found itself at a stage where it needed to followup new challenges that arose from their success. The general feeling was thatfrom 2004 many of the managers and employees seemed to think that they haddone it all and no further improvements were called for. To counter thisattitude, the words “review and rediscover” began to circulate in the discourseof the managers responsible for quality in council A. Their first action was – touse their term – to go “back to basics”. To do this they decided, together withmanagement and senior figures in the council, to introduce the 5S in theinstallations units (the workshops and stores for electrics, painting andplumbing).

The experience of implementing the 5S was similar to that of Council B buton a lesser scale because the processes were introduced to a smaller area of theCouncil. In addition, the objective was different, too, because the aim was tore-motivate and explore new alternatives that would support the previousinitiatives to modernize and improve the council. An example of how thisobjective was perceived is given below in the words of the coordinator ofquality when the moment came to set up the process of quality using the 5S:

We didn’t want to say to them that their warehouse was dirty or untidy, in fact we hadsaid how organised it was, Joan had been good at this for years, no, our message wasmore focused on trying to follow a philosophy of continuous improvement every day,the Japanese kaizen, here in the warehouse, separating the things which weren’tneeded, organising and setting up the visual control systems for materials andrepairs. Also to clean and maintain all the materials there. I said that if we took theseactions there would be clear benefits within three or four months. . .(transcriptionfrom the diary of the researcher, 24 February 2006).

As a result of the application of the 5S, in this council they threw out about twotons of materials and unneeded equipment which they found in the InstallationsUnit. In fact, it was thought that the amount of unnecessary equipment todispose of would be much less at the beginning of the exercise because theemployees believed that the warehouse was in good order. However, theemployees learnt by direct experience that the application of 5S indeed reducedwaste so thereafter the team worked better, the organisation and systems in thewarehouse improved again and the final result was an improved level of serviceto the citizens. Also the relationship between the management and the staff wasstrengthened because their objectives were in alignment: “to give better serviceto the community.”

Lean-kaizenpublic service

153

Coordinator of the Installations Unit: I think the two initiatives joined together- asPaco said- because first it was the Council’s idea, because they knew us and then, witha bit of encouragement from them, we took it on. In fact we work with thousands ofbits and pieces and if it’s not well organized and clean it ends up as chaos. This wentwell for us.

Technician 2: Doing the work ourselves helped us a lot, and I think we all changed ourways a bit. Now that we’ve finished we have to adapt ourselves to the new systemespecially for small things but once you get used to where everything is everythingworks better. At any rate we have to keep thing in order and work as a real team andalthough it’s hard work everyone is supporting us.

Coordinator of the Installations Unit: I think in the end it was very positive, we got agreat result, perhaps what’s missing now is dealing with the upkeep, a bit of checking,doing some routine checks, maybe that’s the point, to see where we are at the moment.But if we are to carry on with this discipline we have to work on it, it isn’t automatic,we have to keep on with it, and it isn’t easy. (E-EL-08 September 2006).

During the implementation of 5S two key actions were identified that werecritical in achieving the results obtained in council A. First, unlike the previouscase, this Council engaged the service of an external consultant (not a company)who led the implementation process although the responsibility for theapplication lay with the Head of the Installations Unit. In fact he nominated ayoung worker who was very keen on these ideas to be the leader of theimplementation team for the 5S, someone who was not in any way linked to thepower structure of the council, even though the official head of the project wasthe Unit head. Another difference in this case was the way the techniques wereapplied. Rather than follow the methods for manufacturing centres, which werethe origin of 5S, the techniques were applied in a far more flexible way and in arhythm which adapted itself to the day-to-day work of the Installations Unit.

4.2.2 Gemba-kaizen workshops application. Gemba-kaizen workshops application incouncil B: in 2006 council B set up gemba-kaizen workshops specifically to work in theTax office. They did this in the continuing spirit of modernisation and improvement,with the help of a firm of consultants. This type of technique is characterised by thesearch for and elimination of muda (waste) in workshops that are run by the employeeswho work in the department, all looking for improvement ideas (Montabon, 2005). Inthe case of council B, the process where improvements were to be made was in thecollection of taxable capital gains on real estate properties. This search was motivatedby the fact that achieving a smooth management system and removing errors in thecouncil’s collection of this tax was a critical factor in obtaining resources for this typeof organisation. The improvement objective of the gemba-kaizen workshop was to“reduce the time taken to process the applications submitted in relation to capital gainstax claims”.

Having established the objective of the improvement, the five-day long workshopworked on its development. The first day (a Monday in the middle of March 2006) sawa presentation by the work-team, which was composed of the Head of the PublicManagement department, the tax team, and four more employees in the same area, whotogether had a combined work experience of 14 years. During that day, there was abrief training session on the concepts of lean thinking as well as an explanation given

TQM21,2

154

by the consulting firm to the work-team regarding the objective to reach during theweek, and what steps were to be taken to find what was redundant or wasteful in theircurrent working practices (muda).

From Tuesday to Thursday that week, the employees in the work-team (who knewthe processes) detected various wasteful or redundant steps in their work of taxcollection, and identified a total of 17 points of waste and proposed 16 actions toimprove them, one of which was rejected because of the difficulty of implementing it inthe public domain. Six of these represented 20 per cent of the main causes thatgenerated 80 per cent of the disfunctionalities in the capital gains tax collection system.The work team made a Pareto diagram to help make the analysis (see Figure 1).Having identified the wasteful elements, they set up the actions needed to bring aboutimprovements. In Table III we can see the six wasteful activities, and the actions takento improve them in the critical process of capital gain tax collection, and the resultsobtained after the actions had been implemented.

During the five-day gemba-kaizen workshop, notable improvements in theelimination of wasteful and inefficient activities were achieved, principally the sixmost critical ones. After a further three months of applying the improvementtechniques the time lag between tax application forms arriving at the office (inputs)and being dealt with and despatched (outputs) became less and less as time went on,confirming the clear gains to the process involved in the capital gains tax collectionsystem, the work in process (WIP), as far as processing the requests was concerned. Inthe following figures we can see the analysis of the priorities regarding wastefulactivities and the trends in WIP regarding the tax request forms (see Figure 2).

Gemba-kaizen workshops application in council C: the second Quality Plan incouncil C stated in action plan number 10 that there should be kaizen workshops aspart of the strategy to improve processes. The objectives for these workshops wereaimed at obtaining specific benefits flowing from immediate improvements aftercompletion of the workshops and to set up a work-team using the methodology oflean-kaizen based on the creativity and participation of all its members. To this endthey leant on the techniques of the gemba-kaizen workshops or the kaizen blitz, whichwere adapted to the specific needs of this council.

Figure 1.Pareto analysis to

establish the prioritiesregarding detectedwasteful processes

Lean-kaizenpublic service

155

Waste – muda Improvement actions Results

(A) Lack of employees withmulti-skills in some process’sactivities

Multi-skill matrix drawn upA training procedure was drawnup following the principles of“learning by doing”All public technicians were trainedaccording the multi-skill matrix

The public technicians learnedabout different types of tax oncapital value activitiesThe response to demand onservices was improved, becausemore technicians already knewdifferent types of processactivities (capital gains taxprocess)

(B) There was nopre-classification of inputs(tax due on capital gainsrequests). All the requestschosen without any criteria

A standard work-flow wasestablished. Some examples are:An employee at the front deskclassified the requests into threegroups (Easy ¼ A, Middledifficulty ¼ B; High difficulty ¼ C)The public technichian in charge ofcapital gains tax processesdistributed different requestsfollowing the multi-skills matrixevery day. All the requests werecollected in the input post box inorder to get a visual control ofprocess and document flowOn the main shelves of the requestfiles, one public technichiancollected three post boxes labelledin big letters A, B, C, for inputrequests and output requests(requests already registered)At the end of each day, one of thepublic technicians counted thenumber of finished requests(output) and entry requests (input)

Process work activities werebalanced to get a lean processflow. Focus at all times on themulti-skill matrixGrouping all the requests in thesame physical place savedprocess time in walkingneedlesslyWork-process flow was easy tovisualize

(C) Fax and mail documentswere accumulating in thepost-box without any kind ofdelivery criteria

A clear role was designed for anemployee, and standard work wasestablished

Delay times searching for fax andmail documents were eliminatedAccumulated documentsdisappeared

(D) Sales and purchase ofproperty certificates andinheritance certificates werenot coordinated andorganized. Employeeswasted time looking for thesedocuments

Priorization activities were startedfor inheritance certificates; theywere dealt with before dealing withthe sales/purchase certificatesA work standard was establishedfor managing the sales/purchasecertificates

Delay-time when searching fordocuments was eliminated andalso duplicated activities wereeliminated

(E) Inadequate office layoutfor lean process flowrequirements

Physical change to the work officestation

With the new physical changes,the layout was improved and thetax office gained more space.Unnecessary walking (muda)was minimized

(F) The software for taxingthe value capital process haslow adaptability for thecurrent managementrequirements

Some software modification wasapplied in order to get adaptabilityand flexibility in managing theprocess

The software modificationgained a lean process flow whenthe request was capturedDuplicated activities wereeliminated

Table III.Summary of theapplication ofgemba-kaizen workshopsin council B

TQM21,2

156

In the same way as in council B, a five-day kaizen workshop was organised, althoughthis time the planning and management fell to the Quality department of the council.The setting-up of the workshop consisted of contacting the relevant departmentwanting to participate in the workshop to find out their particular needs, employing anexternal firm of consultants to support the work, and finally obtaining all the necessaryinfrastructure requirements for the workshop to run (class-rooms, office materials andstationery, computers etc). In addition, the day before the workshop was to begin, theQuality department called a meeting with the participants of the department inquestion to give an informative presentation that lasted 1 hour in which the contents ofthe workshop were explained; this was done together with the external consultants.

The methodology used in the kaizen workshops was as follows. The first two dayswere spent making flow diagrams of the selected processes by pinning up a large sheetof paper on the wall and sketching out the components of the processes and theirlinkages. The third and fourth day was spent identifying the internal clients (the otherdepartments involved in the process) and their needs. Finally, in the last two days, timewas spent on teasing out which processes did not contribute to the process (identifyingwasteful activities or materials or muda) and what should be done to improve oreliminate them. It should be noted that for council C, the actions that did not add valuewere understood as whatever did not fulfil the requirements both for the internalclients as well as for the external ones and especially those actions which were deemedunnecessary or caused delays.

At the end of the kaizen workshops week, the department who had asked for thetraining was responsible for putting into place all the actions for improvements thathad been identified as detracting from adding value. This plan of action was drawn upon the last day of the workshop. Similarly, during the week following the workshop,the participating department completed a report about the outcomes of the workshopwhich was distributed to all members in the department, whether they had attendedthe workshop or not, so that from that moment on the responsibility for implementingthe improvements was shared by everyone equally. After six months, the Coordinating

Figure 2.Changes in the

input-output time forprocessing the capital

gains tax collection forms

Lean-kaizenpublic service

157

Committee of council C made an assessment of the results obtained from the kaizenworkshops that had run.

Up to the time when council C received the Gold Seal from EFQM (the end of 2005)they had set up about 15 kaizen workshops. From these, 273 actions for improvementhad been implemented which directly affected 94 micro-processes in the council. One ofthe most successful was the Licence Improvement Project. This involved streamliningthe wide variety of papers required to grant a permit (a licence) for some publicactivity. In addition, there was a reduction in the time required to respond to enquiriesfrom citizens (duration of the process cycle.) After introducing the improvementsgenerated by the kaizen workshops a new typology for licences was set up whichreduced the number to three, based on the complexity of the application and technicalrequirements of the permit. Thus there were now: Immediate Licence Type A, whichwas granted at the moment of application; and Immediate Licence Type B which wasprocessed within three days of the application being presented and which required anappointment with some one in charge. The third type, Type 3 or Special Licence, was aunified permit which combined various permits that were needed for complex actionslike building a house, or transporting materials, or setting up a business. This last typeof licence required the analysis of the various stakeholders needed for signatures, ortechnical documents, or the types of payment terms or specific payment of taxes.

By the simple fact of putting into practice this new typology, the time required forprocessing licences of Type A on average fell from two days to one day. For LicenceType B, the time fell to 2.8 days from six days before the improvement. These resultsare well below (ie far superior to) the legal minimum standard set for the delivery of thelicence and embrace the commitment of good services to citizens (standards of service).

4.2.3 Process mapping application. The application of the technique known as“process mapping” in lean-kaizen could only be observed taking place in councils Aand C. In both cases, according to the evidence found, the application of the processmapping technique was the result of experience gained through changes which weremade over time to the efforts to modernise and improve using lean thinking principles.

In the case of council A, the application of process mapping was put into practiceafter this council had gone through different stages in improvement efforts, from teamsworking on improvements that used a methodology of problem solving, toself-evaluation schemes based on the model of excellence EFQM, with the objectiveof improving the management quality of public services. As there was recognition ofits usefulness by the quality coordinators of council A, process mapping enabled themto potentiate the interrelationships between work groups in the organisation from theirown point of interest regarding the processes as well as the commitments of serviceestablished with the citizens. In fact, using this technique, they had identified 12 keyprocesses to develop that in their opinion brought added value to the community (seeFigure 3). This set of processes was divided into the service process, or things thattransformed the needs and requirements of the citizens into Service Commitments thatthey had to fulfil; the support service which facilitated the management and delivery ofthe services and the strategic process which underpinned the planning and strategicdevelopment of the organisation.

In this way, the management system of council A used a conceptual map of thework processes it had to manage as the source of its efforts to improve those processes(see Figure 3).

TQM21,2

158

In the case of council C, process mapping was the tool to align the operationalmanagement with the strategic management of the council. In the same way, theintroduction of this lean thinking process council C had been as a direct result ofvarious events during different stages of improvements they had tried to bring aboutfrom their early attempts to reach improvements through the management ofobjectives, to the confirmation of two quality improvement plans at the institutionallevel which were based on the self-assessment models of excellence EFQM. For councilC this alignment of the strategic process with the operational process had allowed themto reduce functional “silos” and internal departmental barriers within the organisation.By achieving this there was a better flow of information and better communicationbetween the departments which led to swifter and smoother work processes and publicservices. The process map for council C, which is shown in Figure 4, represents thereference point for all aspects of the town management as set out in the municipal planof action or strategic plan.

Finally, supported by empirical data, it can be shown that these three uses oflean-kaizen in the context of town councils have allowed us to visualise the suitabilityin the public sector of those techniques more often considered to belong in the privatesector. The following is a synthesis of what was analysed in the field work (seeTable IV).

5. Conclusions and managerial implicationsThe empirical results found in the three case studies show that the three local councilsthat we investigated were able to achieve some significant improvements in their workprocesses and public services in the following areas; in the organisation and order in

Figure 3.Process map of Town

Council A

Lean-kaizenpublic service

159

their work areas, saving space and resources, reducing time of response to requests forservice from the citizens and a general improvement in the public services offered tothe community. From this study, some positive lessons were learnt during the conductof the research which can be described as follows:

. Some tangible and intangible impacts were observed in the managementpractices of the councils where lean-kaizen was applied.

. The impact of the improvements in some work processes allowed these publicentities to improve in certain aspects of their managerial efficiency andeffectiveness.

. Two of them have begun to use the more systematic thinking (managementsystem) and strategic thinking associated with lean-kaizen in process mappingleaving behind the potential mistake of only focusing in a very specific way onone tool or one technique of lean-kaizen in an environment where isolatedimprovement actions are temptingly easy to absorb into an organisationalculture.

. The application of the three techniques described of lean-kaizen in the threeorganisations was applied and tested for some years at different moments in timewhich permitted the organisations in question to learn from their experiences

Figure 4.Process map of towncouncil C

TQM21,2

160

Lea

n-kaizen

Lea

n-kaizen

Lea

n-kaizen

Con

cep

tsIm

ple

men

tati

onm

anag

emen

tsy

stem

Case

AP

rob

lem

Th

ere

isa

nee

dto

imp

rov

eth

eor

gan

izat

ion

and

wor

kst

and

ard

sin

the

war

ehou

seL

ong

tim

ed

elay

sin

the

pu

bli

cse

rvic

eW

ork

pro

cess

frag

men

ted

Fee

lin

gof

“ev

ery

thin

gd

one”

Nee

dfo

rco

mp

lem

enta

ryre

sou

rces

Nee

dfo

rin

teg

rati

onof

5Ste

chn

iqu

esin

the

mu

nic

ipal

man

agem

ent

syst

eM

Som

ein

terd

epar

tmen

tal

bar

rier

sb

etw

een

dep

artm

ents

Sol

uti

onA

pp

lica

tion

ofor

der

,org

aniz

atio

nan

dcl

ean

lin

ess

acti

ons

Un

der

stan

din

gth

ep

roce

ssfl

ow,t

he

rela

tion

ship

sof

the

acti

vit

ies

and

stan

dar

ds

pro

cess

5Sim

ple

men

tati

onW

ork

pro

cess

defi

ned

thro

ug

hp

roce

ssm

app

ing

Ap

pli

cati

onof

pu

bli

cm

anag

emen

tsy

stem

that

sear

ches

out

the

mai

nte

nan

cean

dim

pro

vem

ents

inth

ew

ork

pro

cess

and

pu

bli

cse

rvic

eT

he

wor

kp

roce

ssim

pro

vem

ent

and

man

agem

ent

isth

ece

ntr

alax

isof

the

mu

nic

ipal

man

agem

ent

syst

emCase

BP

rob

lem

Ex

cess

ofn

o-v

alu

eac

tiv

itie

s(m

uda

)in

the

wor

kp

roce

ssL

ong

tim

ed

elay

sin

the

pu

bli

cse

rvic

eQ

ual

ity

pro

ble

ms

inth

ep

ub

lic

serv

ice

del

iver

yC

itiz

ens’

dis

sati

sfac

tion

Ort

hod

oxap

pli

cati

onof

5Ste

chn

iqu

eR

etic

ence

ofso

me

emp

loy

ees

Ex

cess

ive

tim

efo

rth

e5S

imp

lem

enta

tion

mak

esso

me

emp

loy

ees

fru

stra

ted

Nee

dfo

rin

teg

rati

onof

5Ste

chn

iqu

esin

the

mu

nic

ipal

man

agem

ent

syst

em

Sol

uti

onA

pp

lica

tion

ofor

der

,org

aniz

atio

nan

dcl

ean

lin

ess

acti

ons

Un

der

stan

din

gth

ep

roce

ssfl

owan

dp

roce

sscy

cle

tim

eF

req

uen

cyan

aly

sis

ofcu

stom

erco

mp

lain

ts

Les

son

sle

arn

edfr

om5S

app

lica

tion

Dif

fusi

onof

the

5Sap

pli

cati

onto

oth

erd

epar

tmen

tsP

olit

ical

and

top

man

agem

ent

sup

por

t

Fir

stev

iden

ceof

imp

rov

emen

tac

tion

sin

the

pu

bli

cm

anag

emen

tsy

ste

Dev

elop

men

tof

mu

nic

ipal

acti

onp

lan

(str

ateg

icp

lan

)th

atli

nk

sth

eim

pro

vem

ent

acti

ons

Case

CP

rob

lem

Ex

cess

ofn

o-v

alu

eac

tiv

itie

s(m

uda

)in

the

wor

kp

roce

ssL

ong

tim

ed

elay

sin

the

pu

bli

cse

rvic

eQ

ual

ity

pro

ble

ms

inth

ep

ub

lic

serv

ice

del

iver

yW

ork

pro

cess

frag

men

ted

Lac

kof

tota

lin

vol

vem

ent

ofth

ep

arti

cip

ants

inth

ekaizen

wor

ksh

ops

Lac

kof

effe

ctiv

etr

ain

ing

inle

ante

chn

iqu

es

Nee

dfo

rin

teg

rati

onof

kaizen

wor

ksh

ops

inth

em

un

icip

alm

anag

emen

tsy

ste

Som

ein

terd

epar

tmen

tal

bar

rier

sb

etw

een

dep

artm

ents

Sol

uti

onU

nd

erst

and

ing

the

pro

cess

flow

and

the

rela

tion

ship

sof

the

pro

cess

acti

vit

ies

Fre

qu

ency

anal

ysi

sof

cust

omer

com

pla

ints

Dif

fusi

onan

dap

pli

cati

onto

oth

erd

epar

tmen

tsC

han

ge

oftr

ain

ing

stra

teg

yu

sin

gan

inte

rnal

inst

ruct

orP

olit

ical

and

top

man

agem

ent

sup

por

t

Th

ew

ork

pro

cess

imp

rov

emen

tan

dm

anag

emen

tis

oper

ated

thro

ug

ha

coor

din

atio

nco

mm

itte

eu

sin

gp

roce

ssm

app

ing

Imp

rov

emen

tac

tion

isin

teg

rate

din

the

mu

nic

ipal

acti

onp

lan

(str

ateg

icp

lan

)

Table IV.Summary of lean-kaizenapplications in the case

studies

Lean-kaizenpublic service

161

and adapt the techniques to their own public service situation, thereby reducingprobable differences when such techniques are introduced in private sectorfirms.

. In two of the cases, in councils A and C, the application of lean-kaizen changedfrom being a temporary project, one which was fashionable or inspired bypolitical command, to be a consolidated effort which has become institutionalisedand supported slowly but surely over time so as to become part and parcel ofeveryday management.

. The work done on the lean-kaizen techniques was undertaken by the employeesof the councils themselves which facilitated their participation and commitmentto the journey and effort to improve called lean-kaizen.

However, according to our empirical evidence we also found some possible barriers orinhibitors of lean-kaizen initiative during the application effort. We described ourinhibitors as follows:

. Some inhibitors range from errors in the application of lean-kaizen andcontracting consultants who are not very sensitive to the public sectorparticularities, to a poor understanding and incorrect or orthodox application oflean-kaizen techniques and tools at the beginning of the improvement efforts. Inthe middle of the implementation, other inhibitors may appear, such as: “thefeeling that everything has been achieved”, tiredness and jadedness on the partof the players involved (improvement program managers and some middlemanagers and employees).

. The second significant inhibitor was the lack of clarity and constancy in the aimto improve (Why do we need to apply lean-kaizen in public local government?)and the unfortunate consequence that local government pressures distractmiddle managers and employees effort as improvement is replaced withtraditional public management “fire-fighting” (identified in case B).

. The third inhibitor identified was lack of consolidation and institutionalization ofa close link between the strategic, operational and political public managementdimensions during the implementation of the municipal management system.Therefore the main consequence of this inhibitor could be the lack ofconsolidated support lean-kaizen management infrastructure or the lack ofintegration and institutionalisation of the improvement effort into themanagement system of the entire city council.

. In addition, external or “political shocks”, such as possible political changes dueto a new term of office leading to a temporary “freeze” on lean-kaizen efforts,blocked and inhibited progress.

. Following the public service traditional bureaucratic model fourteeninterviewees (from three cases studies) identified a more serious inhibitor andproposed that not all of middle managers or technical employees (servicemanagers) supported the lean-kaizen initiative. The poor level of internalinvolvement and supported attributed by the informants to result from lack ofunderstanding, lack of communication, low levels of functional benefitsperceived by middle managers and the classical departmental barriers betweenmunicipal areas.

TQM21,2

162

Finally, it is important to say that the three cases also show us the first empiricalevidence of certain lean-kaizen principles being applied, virtually directly, and withquantifiable benefits, to the public sector – to work processes in public service. Thusthis paper is a good example for managers and directors in public office who want to beor who are already involved in the implementation of specific lean-kaizen initiativesbecause it demonstrates that their efforts can and do have positive impacts and can besustained over time. In fact, through these case studies we can also show thatlean-kaizen public service, understood to mean a first integrated effort of lean thinkingto eliminate waste (muda) from the public work processes which most critically affectthe delivery of public services to citizens, can be practicably applied in local councils.We note, however, that it is necessary to continue corroborating our findings with moreempirical case studies which will contribute to the ongoing consolidation of thetheoretical concepts of this paper.

References

Alukal, G. and Manos, A. (2006), Lean kaizen. A Simplified Approach to Process Improvements,American Society of Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.

Aoki, K. (2008), “Transferring Japanese kaizen to overseas plants in China”, International Journalof Operations & Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 518-39.

Bateman, N. (2005), “Sustainability: the elusive element of process improvement”, InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 261-76.

Bateman, N. and Brander, C. (2000), “The drive for process improvement”, ManufacturingEngineer, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 241-6.

Bateman, N. and David, A. (2002), “Process improvement programmes: a model for assessingsustainability”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22No. 5, pp. 515-26.

Bateman, N. and Rich, N. (2003), “Companies’ perceptions of inhibitors and enablers for processimprovement activities”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 185-99.

Bendell, T. (2006), “A review and comparison of six sigma and the lean organisations”, The TQMMagazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 255-62.

Bhasin, S. and Burcher, P. (2006), “Lean viewed as a philosophy”, Journal of ManufacturingTechnology Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 56-72.

Bhatia, N. and Drew, J. (2006), “Applying lean production to the public sector”, The McKinseyQuarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 97-8.

Bicheno, J. (1999), The New Lean Toolbox, Picsie, London.

Bodek, N. (2004), Kaikaku, the Power and Magic of Lean. A Study of Knowledge Transfer,PCS Press, Vancouver, WA.

Bowen, D.E. and Youngdahl, W.E. (1998), “Lean service: in defense of a production-lineapproach”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 207-25.

Brunet, A.P. (2000), Kaizen: From Understanding to Action, Institution of Electrical Engineers,IEE Savoy Place, London.

Brunet, A.P. and New, S. (2003), “Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study”, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1426-46.

Lean-kaizenpublic service

163

Cheser, R. (1998), “The effect of Japanese kaizen on employee motivation in US manufacturing”,The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 197-217.

Collins, K. and Muthusamy, S. (2007), “Applying the Toyota production system to a healthcareorganization: a case study on a rural community healthcare provider”, The QualityManagement Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 41-52.

Convis, G. (2001), “Role of management in a lean manufacturing environment”, AutomotiveManufacturing and Production, No. 7, pp. 1-7.

Dahlgaard, J.J. and Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2006), “Lean production, six sigma quality, TQM andcompany culture”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 263-81.

Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (1999), “The evolution patterns of quality management: some reflectionson the quality movement”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4/5, pp. 473-80.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, The Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.

Furterer, S. and Elshennawy, A. (2005), “Implementation of TQM and lean six sigma tools inlocal governement: a framework and a case study”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 16No. 10, pp. 1179-91.

Gondhalekar, S., Babu, S. and Godrej, N. (1995), “Towards using kaizen process dynamics: a casestudy”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 9,pp. 192-209.

Hasenjager, J. (2006), “Lean government (is not an oxymoron)”, Industrial Engineer, Vol. 38 No. 7,pp. 43-7.

Henderson, B., Larco, J.L. and Martin, S. (1999), Lean Transformation: How to Change YourBusiness into a Lean Entetprise, Oaklea Press, Richmond, VA.

Hines, P. (1999), Value Stream Mapping, Addison-Wesley, London.

Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve. A review of contemporary leanthinking”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,pp. 994-1011.

Hirano, H. (1995), 5 Pillars of the Visual Workplace: The Sourcebook for 5S Implementation,Productivity Press, Tokyo.

Ho, S. and Cicmill, S. (1996), “Japanese 5-S practice”, The TQMMagazine, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 45-53.

Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen – The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, Random House, New York, NY.

Imai, M. (1997), Gemba Kaizen, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Imai, M. (2006), “What is total flow management under kaizen focus?”, Three days ConferenceLecture in Barcelona, Spain, 4-6 December.

Imaz, T. (2005), “Planes de Calidad en la Administracion Local: La Implicacion de las personas”,Revista de Estudios Locales, Noviembre-Diciembre, pp. 34-40 (in Spanish).

Krings, D., Levine, D. and Wall, T. (2006), “The use of lean in local government”, PM PublicManagement, Vol. 88 No. 8, pp. 12-17.

Krizner, K. (2001), “Manufacturers adopt a lean philosophy”, Frontline Solutions, July, pp. 1-5.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1990), “A dual methodology for case studies: synergistic use of alongitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites”, Organization Science, Vol. 1 No. 3,pp. 248-66.

Lewis, M. (2000), “Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage”, InternationalJournal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 959-78.

TQM21,2

164

Liker, J. (2004), The Toyota Way, Simon & Schuster Inc., New York, NY.

Lindberg, P. and Berger, A. (1997), “Continuous improvement: design, organization andmanagement”, International Journal Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 86-101.

Manos, A. (2007), “The benefits of kaizen and kaizen events”, Quality Progress, Vol. 40 No. 2, p. 47.

Manufacturing Foundation (2004), “Lessons in lean”, June.

Melnyk, S.A. and Calanton, R. (1998), “Short-term action in pursuit of long-term improvements:introducing kaizen events”, Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4,pp. 69-76.

Monden, Y. (1998), Toyota Production System. An Integrated Approached to Just in Time,Engineering & Management Press, Norcross, GA.

Montabon, F. (2005), “Using kaizen events for back office processes: recruitment of frontlinesupervisor co-ops”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 10,pp. 1139-47.

Nemoto, M. (1987), Total Quality Control for Management. Strategies and Techniques fromToyota and Toyoda Gosei, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Nyusten, T. (2002), “Big results with less”, Quality Progress, October, pp. 2-7.

Ohno, T. (1978), Toyota Production System. Beyond Large-scale Production, Productivity Press,New York, NY.

Oliver, N. and Wilkinson, B. (2002), The Japanization of British Industries, 2nd ed.,New Developments in the 1990s, Blackwell, Oxford.

Osada, T. (1991), The 5-S, Five Keys to a Total Quality Environment, Asian ProductivityOrganisation, Tokyo.

Parrado-Dıez, S. (2001), “El enfoque participativo de la gestion de la calidad y los objetivosorganizativos: ‘Convergencia o divergencia’ Un analisis empırico”, Proceedings ofV Congreso de la Asociacion Espanola de Ciencia Polıtica y de la Administracion, La LagunaTenerife (in Spanish).

Pettigrew, A.M. (1997), “What is a processual analysis?”, Scandinavian Journal of Management,Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 337-48.

Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R. and Cameron, K. (2001), “Studying organizational change anddevelopment: challenges for future research”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44No. 4, pp. 697-713.

Radnor, Z. and Boaden, R. (2008), “Editorial: lean in public services – panacea or paradox?”,Public and Money Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 3-7.

Radnor, Z. and Walley, P. (2008), “Learning to walk before we try to run: adapting lean for thepublic sector”, Public and Money Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 13-20.

Radnor, Z., Walley, P., Stephens, A. and Bucci, G. (2006), Evaluation of the Lean Approach toBusiness Management and its Use in the Public Sector, Research Findings, ScottishExecutive, Edinburgh.

Sawada, N. (1995), “The kaizen in Toyota production system”, CHU-SAN-REN Quality ControlCourse, Nagoya, pp. 1-38.

Sheridan, J. (1997), “kaizen blitz”, Industry Week, Vol. 246 No. 16, pp. 19-27.

Sohal, A.S. (1996), “Developing a lean production organisation: an Australian case study”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2.

Lean-kaizenpublic service

165

Sohal, A.S. and Eggleston, A. (1994), “Lean production: experience among Australianorganisations”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14No. 11.

Spear, S.J. (2005), “Fixing health care from the inside, today”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 3No. 8, pp. 78-98.

Standard, C. and Davis, D. (2000), “Lean thinking for competitive advantage”, AutomotiveManufacturing and Production, December, pp. 1-3.

Suarez-Barraza, M.F. (2001), “La filosofıa del kaizen, una aplicacion practica en un area deservicio del sector publico”, Revista CONTACTO. La revista de la Calidad Total.Suplemento de desarrollo organizacional, Vol. 11, pp. 11-16 (in Spanish).

Suarez-Barraza, M.F. (2007), El KAIZEN: La filosofıa de Mejora Continua e InnovacionIncremental detras de la Administracion por Calidad Total, Editorial Panorama, Mexico,D.F. (in Spanish).

Suarez-Barraza, M.F. and Lingham, T. (2008), “Kaizen within kaizen teams: continuous andprocess improvements in a Spanish municipality”, The Asian Journal on Quality, Vol. 9No. 1, pp. 1-21.

Suarez-Barraza, M.F. and Ramis-Pujol, J. (2005), “Continuous improvement under Alfred Schutz’sapproach of scientific interpretation and the common sense of human action”, Proceedingsof the Quality Management and Organizational Development (QMOD 2005), Palermo,Sicily, Italy, June 29.

Suarez-Barraza, M.F. and Ramis-Pujol, J. (2008), “Process standardisation and sustainablecontinuous improvement: a closer look at the application of ISO 9000 to Logrono CityCouncil (Spain)”, International Journal of Quality and Standards, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 1-35.

Takeyuki, F. (1995), Implementing C-JIT (New JIT) A Practical Approach, Chu-San-RenCorporation, Nagoya.

Taylor, D. and Brunt, D. (Eds) (2001), Manufacturing Operations, Thompson, London.

Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S. (1995), “Explaining developments change in organizations”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 510-40.

Vonk, J. (2005), “Process improvement in business permits through kaizen”, InnovationsManagement, Spring, pp. 33-4.

Wittenberg, G. (1994), “Kaizen, the many ways of getting better”, Assembly Automation, Vol. 14No. 4, pp. 12-17.

Womack, J.P. (2002), “Lean thinking: where have we been and where are we going?”, Formingand Fabricating, Vol. 9 No. 9, pp. L2-L6.

Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1994), “From lean production to the lean enterprise”, HarvardBusiness Review, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 93-104.

Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking – Banish Waste and Create Wealth in YourCorporation, Simon & Schuster, London.

Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Ross, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, RawsonAssociates, New York, NY.

Yasin, M., Wafa, M. and Small, M.H. (2001), “Just-in-time implementation in the public sector.An empirical examination”, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 1195-204.

Yin, R. (2003), Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks,CA.

TQM21,2

166

Further reading

Kume, H. (1985), Statistical Methods for Quality Improvement, AOTS, Tokyo.

Mizuno, S. (1988), Company Wide Quality Control, Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo.

Suarez-Barraza, M.F. (2008), “Las Capsulas de Mejora. Una metodologıa practica y rapida paramejorar la competitividad de las Pymes”, Editorial Grupo Gasca-SISCO, Mexico, D.F. (inSpanish).

Corresponding authorManuel F. Suarez Barraza can be contacted at: manuelfrancisco.suarez@ itesm.mx

Lean-kaizenpublic service

167

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints