Analysis of whether Lean is viewed as an ideology by British organizations

Abstract

Purpose

The paper aims to reflect upon an in-depth investigation undertaken to decipher whether British organizations embraced Lean as an ideology. Various contributing factors such as the technical considerations and the prevailing cultures were taken into account in order to make a valid assessment.

Design/methodology/approach

The methodology principally analysed primary data meticulously captured from survey questionnaires undertaken in 68 British manufacturing organizations representative of small, medium and large entities. Furthermore, an extensive Lean audit was devised and subsequently undertaken in 20 companies as a comprehensive validating exercise.

Findings

The results revealed that no sample organization was deemed to be embracing Lean as an ideology; however, those representing more of the essential inputs were the organizations that performed better. Evidently concoctions of inputs were deemed essential for this situation to exist and this was further validated by Lean audits undertaken and analyzed in 20 organizations. The findings also revealed that substantial investment in time and money is required for a successful implementation.

Research limitations/implications

A research limitation would noticeably invoke a natural extension by replicating the investigation in a non-manufacturing environment in order to determine whether the Lean journey mirrors the stages depicted within this investigation.

Originality/value

The creativity value of the research demonstrates that the results suggest that whilst considerable investment is required for organizations to be deemed to be embracing Lean as an ideology, nonetheless, this does result in the respective organization benefiting from much greater levels of efficiency.

Citation

Bhasin, S. (2013), "Analysis of whether Lean is viewed as an ideology by British organizations", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 536-554. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410381311327396