JMTM 05 2012 0057

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Status of lean manufacturing practices in Indian industries and government initiatives: A

pilot study
S.J. Thanki Jitesh Thakkar
Article information:
To cite this document:
S.J. Thanki Jitesh Thakkar , (2014),"Status of lean manufacturing practices in Indian industries and
government initiatives", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 25 Iss 5 pp. 655 - 675
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-05-2012-0057
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 20:46 02 September 2016 (PT)
Downloaded on: 02 September 2016, At: 20:46 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 46 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 721 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"Lean manufacturing: literature review and research issues", International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 34 Iss 7 pp. 876-940 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-08-2012-0315
(2012),"Lean manufacturing performance in Indian manufacturing plants", Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 24 Iss 1 pp. 113-122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410381311287517
(2015),"Lean implementation in Indian process industries – some empirical evidence", Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26 Iss 1 pp. 131-160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
JMTM-05-2013-0049
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:394461 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm
Status of LM
Status of lean manufacturing practices
practices in Indian industries
and government initiatives
A pilot study 655
S.J. Thanki Received 25 May 2012
Revised 4 December 2012
Department of Mechanical Engineering, S.V.M. Institute of Technology, 24 December 2012
Bharuch, India, and 10 January 2013
Accepted 13 January 2013
Jitesh Thakkar
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management,

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report a pilot study on lean awareness and implementation
using the survey data collected from about 32 industries situated in western and eastern region
of India.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey instrument containing 45 statements was designed to
assess respondents’ attitude and awareness toward lean practices and to explore the level of lean
implementation in the organization. The instrument was distributed personally or through mail to the
employees of 32 industries and they were supported for any query about the questions. Descriptive
statistical analysis, hierarchical cluster analysis and ANOVA were used to analyze the data with
SPSS statistical software.
Findings – The research uncovers the fact that the current status of lean implementation and
awareness in Indian industries is not so encouraging and the reason for that is, the human-related
issues are not tackled properly. Quality and process technology, are the two key areas where industries
are indicating inadequate efforts and poor insight.
Research limitations/implications – The study conducted was limited to 32 industries situated
in the eastern and western region of India. The data collected for few industries rely on only one
respondent.
Practical implications – The study identifies the lean implementation status based on nine lean
assessment key areas and uncovers the major roadblocks for lean practices in Indian industries.
It provides key insights to lean practicing industries and lean practitioner about the major barriers and
key areas for the improvement.
Originality/value – The paper reports comprehensive insights on current awareness and
implementation of lean manufacturing (LM) in India. It also highlights the initiatives taken by
Government of India to increase the competitiveness of the Indian industries, specifically of
manufacturing sector, through the adoption of LM techniques. This would provide a platform for
carrying out a detailed research in LM in Indian context.
Keywords Waste reduction, Empirical research, Lean manufacturing, Industry competitiveness
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The concept of lean manufacturing (LM) was originated at Toyota plant, Japan after Journal of Manufacturing Technology
the Second World War as a manufacturing strategy to minimize or eliminate the non- Management
Vol. 25 No. 5, 2014
value added activities (waste) in the production and operation system. The concept pp. 655-675
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
was introduced by Taiichi Ohno and Shigeo Shingo at Toyota as “Toyota Production 1741-038X
System” (TPS) (Pavnaskar et al., 2003). The powerful counter poison to waste (muda) is DOI 10.1108/JMTM-05-2012-0057
JMTM lean thinking. “Lean thinking provides a way to specify value, line up value-creating
25,5 actions in the best sequence, conduct these activities without interruption whenever
someone requests them, and perform them more and more effectively. In short, lean
thinking is lean because it provides a way to do more and more with less and less – less
human effort, less equipment, less time, and less space – while coming closer and closer
to providing customers with exactly what they want” (Womack and Jones, 1996). In the
656 current business scenario and competitive market environment, it is extremely important
to understand, examine and analyze the existing production or manufacturing practices
at organization to make it free from muda. Adopting and practicing the lean tools
can help to improve the current production system and to make it free from muda. As far
as Indian industrial scenario is concerned, The Government of India had established
“National Manufacturing Competitive Council (NMCC)” in the year of 2004 under the
Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) with a vision to energize and
sustain the growth of manufacturing industries. Under this program, The Ministry had
conceptualized ten components out of which the first one is “Lean Manufacturing
Competitive Scheme,” with the objectives of reducing waste, increasing productivity,
introducing innovative practices for improving overall competitiveness, inculcating good
management systems and imbibing a culture of continuous improvement. The scheme is
operational since July, 2009. A three-tier structure is proposed for the implementation
of the scheme with a group of ten (72) MSME units, called a Mini Cluster or a Special
purpose vehicle (SPV), at the lowest tier while LM Screening and Steering Committee
(SSC) at the highest tier (Figure 1). The scheme is being implemented through National
Productivity Council (NPC), New Delhi as a nodal agency or National Monitoring and
Implementing Unit (NMIU) and financially supported by Government of India toward
the cost of conducting awareness programs and implementation of LM techniques
(GOIMSME, 2010). As reported in MSMEs annual report for year 2011-12 (GOIMSME,
2012), 104 SPVs were formed in clusters and 98 lean consultants deployed for the
implementation of lean techniques. This indicates the Indian Government’s concern
about the LM implementation in Indian industries. Saurin et al. (2011) has suggested
that it is more sensible to assess lean practices than lean principles in the industries
which are at the early stages of lean implementation. This study is aimed to explore the
current status of lean implementation at Indian industries and to identify the barriers to
lean implementation. A questionnaire-based pilot survey was carried out in about 32
Screening and Steering Committee (SSC):

Tier 1 (Highest Level) Responsible for overall policy formation,
scheme implementation and monitoring. Formation of Technical
Headed by Development Commissioner MSME Advisory Committee
(TAC): Comprised of highly
experienced productivity
National Monitoring and Implementing Unit (NMIU): To consultants and responsible
Tier 2 to take decisions on
facilitate implementation and monitoring of the Scheme
productivity related issues
Formation of Special purpose vehicle

Mini Cluster (MC): A (SPV): Establishment of a Trust/ A Privet
Figure 1. Tier 3 (Lowest local Level) group of approximately limited company/ A Society/ A Similar
Lean manufacturing 10 MSMEs entity (as per appropriate Indian legislation
acts) and responsible for engagement of
competitive scheme Lean manufacturing consultant to
implementation structure implement specific lean techniques
Indian industries. The results obtained were examined and analyzed to answer the Status of LM
following questions: practices
(1) What is the current level of lean implementation?
(2) What is the status of awareness of lean practices?
(3) What are the barriers to lean implementation?
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section provides the review of
657
literature which reveals the various lean assessment criteria and importance of lean
status study for Indian industries. This is followed by discussion on the methodology
used to analyze the data and the succeeding section presents the outcome of the data
analysis. The next section includes the discussion on the implication of the study.
The final section concludes the findings of the research and provides the direction to
extend the work in future.
2. Literature review
LM is a philosophy for structuring, operating, controlling, managing and continuously
improving industrial production systems. It is popularly known as TPS which attempts
for integrating and shortening the timeline between the supplier and the customer
by eliminating hidden waste like over-production, work in progress (WIP) inventory,
finished goods inventory, waiting time, inappropriate processing, unnecessary motion
or movement of parts and workers, transportation, defects, etc. applying some of the
standard tools, like value stream mapping (VSM), production smoothing (heijunka),
continuous improvement (kaizen), 5S, single-minute die exchange, total quality
management, just-in-time, etc (Sahoo et al., 2008). Features of a typical LM model
include: one unit at a time production; non-value added time eliminated; production in
the work content time only, i.e. LM facility is capable of producing product in only the
sum of its value added work content time; relocation of required resources to the point
of usage; and all processes balanced to produce at same takt rate (Pattanaik and
Sharma, 2009). The effective implementation of lean principles involve cultural
changes in organizations, new approaches to product and to serving customers, and a
high degree of training and education of employees, from upper management to the
shop floor (Sim and Rogers, 2009). One of the major obstacles that many companies
face is the lack of know-how to continuously implement lean practices (Srinivasaraghavan
and Allada, 2006). Wan and Chen (2008) has stated that compared to “how to become
leaner,” the statement “how lean the system is” received less attention in the literature and
studies which affirms the objective of the paper to assess the lean implementation level and
lean awareness status in the Indian industries and to identify the barriers to that. Sanchez
and Perez (2001) has proposed 36 lean indicators divided in to six check list groups like
elimination of zero-value activities, continuous improvement, multifunctional teams, just in
time ( JIT) production and delivery, integration of suppliers and flexible information system
to assess the manufacturing changes toward lean production. Vinodh and Balaji (2011)
presented a fuzzy logic-based computerized decision support system consists of five
leanness enablers, 20 leanness criteria and 59 leanness attributes for leanness assessment
of the organization. Nordin et al. (2010) have performed a study to explore lean
implementation status in Malaysian automotive industries and identified the barriers and
driving factors for lean implementation. Study has revealed main barriers to implement
LM system as the lack of understanding lean concepts and shop floor employees’ attitude
while driving factors for successful lean implementation are the desire to focus on
JMTM customers and to achieve the organization’s continuous improvement. Based on a study
25,5 performed at one automobile component manufacturing firm, Singh et al. (2010a) have
concluded that the current lean status of Indian industries is inadequate and lots of work
needs to be done to enrich lean benefits. Gulyani (2001) has studied the effect of poor
transportation on lean production in India but the study was limited to an automotive
industry. Singh et al. (2010b) have indentified 26 key lean implementation issues in Indian
658 industries and reduced them into five broad categories but the study was confined to
manufacturing, machine tools and automobile industries only. Mathew and Jones (2012)
reported a case study performed at Toyota Kirloskar Motors (TKM) plant in the Karnataka
state of India and uncovered various aspects of labour-related problems persisting within
the plant like sense of job insecurity; non-recognition of external trade union; disrespect for
local workers, their culture and customs and treatment of the workers. Ghosh (2012) has
studied the current state of lean implementation in 79 Indian manufacturing plants
and found significant improvement in operational metrics by implementing lean. Panizzolo

et al. (2012) have indicated that similar to other developing countries, the lean
implementation process was slow in India largely because of the anxiety in changing the
mind-set of people, lack of awareness and training about the lean concepts, and cost and
time involved in lean implementation. The paper also highlights the fact that there is no
specific percentage identified as the level of diffusion of LM in India and it can be
progressed by reviewing the studies, research, or substantiating data available in this
regard. As indicated by Anand and Kodali (2010), the numbers of papers describing lean
implementation in Indian industries are very few and lean principles are predominantly
practiced in automobile industries in India. The review of literature suggests the scarcity
of information about current status of lean practices in Indian industries. In light of
above findings, the present study is an attempt to explore the current status of lean
implementation and lean awareness in all the possible sectors of Indian industries and not
only limited to automobile and manufacturing sectors and to discover the barriers to lean
implementation in Indian industries. The study also highlights the initiatives taken by
Government of India to propagate the lean principles and practices in Indian industries. A
comprehensive summary of select contemporary contributions in the domain of LM is
reported in Table I.
3. Research methodology
The primary goal of the study is to explore the current status of Indian industries in
lean awareness and lean implementation. To accomplish the predefined goal, a
questionnaire-based survey was carried out in 32 industries mainly in eastern and
western region of India. The survey instrument, developed based on the referred
literature, was divided mainly in two modules namely X and Y. Questions related to
employees own involvement, awareness and their attitude toward lean principles,
management involvement and commitment toward lean implementation were included
in module X. The module Y of the instrument was developed to identify the current
state of lean implementation within the organization. Five-point Likert scale has been
used to state the respondents opinion with a minimum rating of 1 and maximum rating
of 5 with an equal interval of 1. As shown in Figure 2, the survey instrument was
distributed to the selected industry employees either personally or through e-mail.
Some recipients were contacted by visiting their respective industries. The category of
respondent industries include chemical, petrochemical, manufacturing, fertilizer,
power, oil industry, steel industry, electronics and glass industry. The products/
services offered by the respondent industries include manufacturing of air handling
Sl. no. Reference Contribution
1 Karlsson and Åhlström (1996) Developed an operationalized model summarizing ten lean production principles to follow the progress in an
effort to introduce lean production, to assure the correct action direction of lean production and to measure the
progress in different variables
2 Sanchez and Perez (2001) Proposed a check-list model with 36 lean indicators disseminated in six groups to assess the changes towards
lean production and also discussed the importance of lean indicators for developing company’s
manufacturing strategy
3 Rawabdeh (2005) Presented a waste assessment model for job shop environment comprising of features like waste relationship,
waste relationship matrix and assessment questionnaire
4 Srinivasaraghavan and Allada Presented a leanness measurement methodology based on Mahalanobis distance (MD) and suggested
(2006) Mahalanobis Taguchi Gram-Schmidt method (MTGS) as better method to identify the direction of
abnormality
5 Achanga et al. (2006) Investigated four critical success factors for lean implementation within SMEs and proposed leadership and
management commitment as the most critical factor
6 Shah and Ward (2007) Proposed a conceptual definition of lean production as “Lean production is an integrated socio-technical
system whose main objective is to eliminate waste by concurrently reducing or minimizing supplier, customer,
and internal variability.” They characterized lean production into ten unique sub-dimensions and strongly
advocated the presence of these ten constructs in survey instrument to adequately measure lean production
7 Wan and Chen (2008) Developed DEA model comprising cost and time of production process and product values as three variables
of decision-making unit (DMU) of proposed model to measure the leanness level of manufacturing system.
Also proposed a fractional program to calculate leanness scores based on the slack-based measure (SBM)
model
8 Gurumurthy and Kodali (2009) Proposed a 12 phase, 54 step benchmarking model to assess the lean implementation status of the
organization
9 Hallgren and Olhager (2009) Analyzed the impact of competitive intensity of industry as external driver and competitive strategy as
internal driver on quality, delivery, cost, and flexibility performance using structural equation modeling to
choose between lean and agile manufacturing for improving operations
10 McDonald et al. (2009) A worker assignment binary integer programming model is developed and solved using branch and bound
method to ensure the job rotation and to determine the skill and training requirements to satisfy the customer
demand in lean environment with an objective to minimize the present cost which includes various cost
factors like, initial and incremental training cost, inventory cost and cost of poor quality
(continued )
practices
lean assessment tools

on lean attributes and
659
Status of LM
Table I.
Contemporary literature
25,5
660
Table I.
JMTM
Sl. no. Reference Contribution
11 Saurin et al. (2011) Developed a four-stage lean production (LP) assessment framework comprising 18 LP practices and their
attributes for manufacturing cells and also developed a relationship model of interfaces among lean practices
12 Eswaramoorthi et al. (2011) Analyzed the results based on survey conducted to identify the current level of lean practices, reasons for
inadequate priority to lean concepts, types of lean tools employed, perceived level of different wastes and
common difficulties encountered in Indian machine tool industries. Concluded that the current status of lean
practices is in infant stage and suggested aggressive approach for improvement
13 Hodge et al. (2011) A hierarchical lean implementation approach based on lean implementation model, developed using data
collection and case studies performed for textile industries located in North and South Carolina, USA, was
proposed to satisfy the overall goal of customer satisfaction
14 Neumann et al. (2012) Performed an empirical investigation to discourse the status quo of Lean Production in Austrian companies
with three perspectives as currently applied principles and methods as well as their degree of implementation,
the acceptance of implementation and the structural/organizational integration
15 Mathur et al. (2012) Proposed and demonstrated a simple scheduling heuristic to improve productivity quickly and effectively
through a case study in a spring manufacturing SME in India
16 Majed Alsmadi et al. (2012) Empirically analyzed the difference in the relationship between Lean practices and firm performance in the
UK manufacturing and service sectors
17 Bhasin (2012) Analyzed 68 lean operating manufacturing organizations in UK effort to enlighten the factors contributing to
the low numbers of successful lean conversions and identified prominent barriers in relation to the
organization’s size
18 Subha and Jaisankar (2012) Analyzed engineering goods manufacturing firms in India and clarified the need of a balanced
implementation of business principles in adoption of lean manufacturing practices that facilitate to achieve
operational benefits
19 Vinodh and Dinesh Kumar (2012) Developed a decision support system for multi grade fuzzy leanness assessment (DSS-MGFLA) consists of
five leanness enablers, 20 leanness criteria and 59 leanness attributes and validated in an Indian relays
manufacturing organization
20 Vinodh and Joy (2012) Used structural equation modelling (SEM) technique to analyze lean manufacturing practices in 60 SME’s
located in Tamil Nadu, India and to identify the critical success factors for its implementation. Identified
manufacturing management, manufacturing strategy and manufacturing responsibility leanness as
important drivers for lean manufacturing
Electronic Databases Status of LM
Literature Review
(e-journals/e-books) practices
Books
Government Reports
Survey Instrument Development
661
Personal Contact
Data Collection Industry Visits
Reliability Analysis E-mail
(Cronbach’s α)
Hierarchical Cluster Data Analysis
Analysis (Ward’s Method,
Squared Euclidean Guidance/Support to

Distance, Field, 2005) respondents
Identification of Lean 3 x 2 matrix Representation

Implementation Barriers Lean Awareness vs Level of Lean Figure 2.
and Improvement areas Implementation
Research methodology
units, boiler erection and overhauling, pipeline fabrication and erection, civil
construction, fabrication and erection of tanks and vessels, manufacturing of wire
mesh gratings, drilling boring equipment, manufacturing of industrial gases and fuels,
kitchenware manufacturing, beverage alcohol production, manufacturing of engine
lubricants, manufacturing of electric motors, power generation and transmission, steel
production, steel processing, manufacturing of AC units, television, washing machines,
fertilizer production, manufacturing of bearing, manufacturing of seamless tubes and
pipes, manufacturing of sanitary ware, manufacturing of clear glass bottles and
tumblers, etc. Survey recipients hold positions as general manager, deputy general
manager, chief manager, senior manager, process manager, head (electrical and
instrumentation), head (quality control/quality assurance), design engineer, maintenance
engineer, store officer and shop floor engineer. The work experience of the respondents
was varying from 30 years to five years. In all, 59 responses are utilized to assess
reliability and to conduct the data analysis. Although the sample size used in the pilot
study appears to be small (59 only), it is quite adequate as suggested by Shah and Ward
(2007) who had used 63 responses to conduct a pilot study for identifying a dimensional
structure corresponding to lean production concept. The purpose of the pilot study
presented here is to explore the current lean status of the select Indian industries and to
design the future research based on the outcome of the pilot study and not to generalize
the results obtained. Successful implementation of lean practices or improvement in
the existing manufacturing facilities necessitates assessment of the current state of
manufacturing practices and operations within the organization. Taj (2008) had used lean
assessment tool developed by Lee (2004) to assess the state of lean practice in 65
manufacturing plants in China. Nine Key areas namely inventory, teams and corporate
culture, process and process technologies, maintenance, plant layout and material
handling, suppliers, setups, quality and scheduling and production control suggested
by Lee (2004) are evaluated in the present study to identify the critical areas for
improvement in Indian industries. The data collected using module X are used to device a
JMTM 3 2 matrix representation of lean awareness/opportunity vs level of lean
25,5 implementation in Indian industries and to describe the approach of the industry
toward lean practices. The reliability of the data collected is evaluated using Cronbach’s
a-coefficient with SPSS statistic 17.0 software.
3. Results and discussion

662 The data collected in survey are evaluated for reliability using Cronbach’s a-coefficient
(Eswaramoorthi et al., 2011). Cronbach’s a-coefficient calculated for various groups
of questions is represented in Tables II and III. The generally acceptable value for
Cronbach’s a is 0.7 but it can be as low as 0.6 in the case of exploratory research (Field,
2005). The Cronbach’s a-values in case presented are ranging from 0.601 to 0.859,
except one group of module X, which shows good internal consistency of the data
collected (Gliem and Gliem, 2003).
The data collected with module X are used to explore the employees’ commitment
and attitude toward lean practices. The mean and standard deviation (SD) of the data
for each question is presented in Table IV.
Table IV shows the mean and SD of the responses. The results reveal that the
employees are very much aware of the barriers preventing from providing an excellent
service (mean ¼ 3.20) but they are reluctant to remove or address those barriers
(mean ¼ 2.83). The reason for this attitude is human behavior and resistance to change.
Author has perceived the following causes for employees’ reluctance to eliminate
the barriers:
. existing union work rule;
. perception of additional work load;
. oppose to take the initiative and accept the challenges;
. fear of committing mistakes and losing the job; and
. lack of monitory reward policy.
Group Cronbach’s a
A1-A2-A3 0.565
Table II. A4-A5 0.767
Cronbach’s a-values A6-A7-A8-A9-A10 0.629
for related questions A12-A13 0.807
(Module X) A11-A14-A15 0.649
Key area group Cronbach’s a
Teams and corporate culture 0.802

Process and process technologies 0.851
Table III. Suppliers 0.811
Cronbach’s a-values Setups 0.859
for related questions Quality 0.789
(Module Y) Scheduling and production control 0.601
Issues Mean SD
Status of LM
practices
Understanding of the overall policy of the organization 3.28 0.8
Establishing specific goals 3.59 0.8
Considering our customer to be the king 3.91 0.9
Continuous identification of problem areas 3.39 0.9
Continuous evaluation of progress 3.50 1.0 663
Employees know the requirements of customers and they can explain the requirements 3.15 1.0
Perform market research in order to identify customer requirements and our competitive
position 3.00 0.9
Projecting department/function as the perfect role model 2.96 0.9
Knowing the barriers preventing from providing an excellent service/operation 3.20 0.9
Barriers are systematically removed 2.83 1.0
Focus on customer is the main theme for the training of employees 3.04 1.2
Quality policy is regularly maintained on the basis of collected information about quality 3.55 1.1
Staff understands the idea of variation in relation to quality 3.17 1.0 Table IV.
Company has a system for the collection of data on customer satisfaction 3.22 1.1 Mean and standard
Company has a system to involve the suppliers/customers in process/product design deviation for
modifications 3.09 1.1 module X data
The survey carried out by Neumann et al. (2012) in 110 Austrian industry to identify
the current status quo of lean production supports these causes by saying that most
commonly cited limiting factor during the implementation phase is the willingness of
the employees to deal with the lean philosophy and not the principles and methods
themselves and also suggested that companies which have further implemented LP,
tend to focus not only on lean methods but also on lean culture.
Further analysis of the data brings out an interesting observation about the
respondent industries that most of them are showing the evidence of soundly based
systematic approaches toward lean practices and are able to establish prevention-
based systems with good integration into normal operations and planning. At the same
time, they are applying only about half of their potential in all relevant areas and
activities. The reason behind this fact may be:
. lack of insight toward lean practices and its benefits;
. uncertainness regarding the appropriate lean tool or principle in their
organizations; and
. initial huge investment of time and money.
Data collected with module Y of the instrument are analyzed and the responses are
distributed in nine key areas of lean assessment tool suggested by Lee (2004). The
results so obtained are represented in Table V.
Figure 3 clearly indicates that scheduling and production control and maintenance
are two areas where industries are scoring highest score which is similar to the results
reported by Taj (2008) about his assessment of 65 manufacturing plants in China.
The two areas scoring lowest are quality and process and process technology.
These results match with the information provided in a report published by NMCC,
Government of India (2006, p. 52) where it is suggested to apply appropriate managerial
and technological practices like LM to improve poor quality of product and process
technology for building the competitiveness in global market. This confirms the validity
JMTM of the research. The poor performance of Indian industries in these areas indicates the
25,5 inadequate application of lean tools like:
. statistical process control (SPC);
. giving more quality responsibility to workers;
. process capability analysis; and
664 . use of statistical tools like design of experiments (Taguchi method), ANOVA, etc.
for continuous process improvement.
Figure 4 represents the performance of respective industrial sectors with respect to
nine key areas while the highest and lowest scores obtained by respective industrial
sectors in key areas are presented in Table VI. The results reflect that majority of the
industrial sectors are executing well in maintenance area while they are performing
inadequate in process and process technology area.

Shah and Ward (2003) had suggested three-point scale ((1) no implementation; (2)
some implementation; (3) extensive implementation) for the measurement of LM
practices. In the present study, implementation level of LM practices in Indian
Key Areas Mean of responses (five-point Likert scale)
Inventory 3.83
Teams and corporate culture 3.51
Process and process technologies 3.41
Maintenance 4.19
Plant layout and material handling 3.60
Table V. Suppliers 3.85
Mean of the responses Setups 3.55
for nine lean assessment Quality 3.27
key areas Scheduling and production control 3.97
Inventory
5
Scheduling and Teams and
Production 4 Corporate
Control Culture
3
2
Process and
Quality 1 Process
Technologies
0
Setups Maintenance
Figure 3.
Performance of
participant industries in Plant Layout and
Suppliers Material
key manufacturing areas
Handling
Service
Scheduling and
Production Control
Status of LM
practices
Quality
FMCG
Setups
Petrochemical Supplier 665

Plan Layout and
Material Handling
Power
Maintenance
Manufacturing Process and

Process Technology
Teams and
Figure 4.
Corporate Culture
Chemical Performance of
Inventory respective industrial
sectors in key areas
0 1 2 3 4 5
Key area (score)

Industry sector Highest Lowest
Chemical Maintenance (4.467) Process and process technology (3.4)

Manufacturing Maintenance (4.167) Process and process technology (2.95)
Power Inventory (5) Plant layout and material handling (3)
Maintenance (5)
Setup (5)
Petrochemical Supplier (4.165) Inventory (2.835)
FMCG Maintenance (5) Process and process technology (3)
Scheduling (5) Table VI.
Service Inventory (4) Process and process technology (3) Scores obtained by
Maintenance (4) Plant layout and material handling (3) respective industrial
Supplier (4) sectors
industries is classified as high level of implementation, intermediate level of lean

implementation and low level of implementation. Hierarchical cluster analysis, with
means of key area score of each industry, is performed using Ward’s method and
applying squared Euclidean Distance to group the results of survey (Nordin et al.,
2010). The outcome of this is represented as 3 2 matrix (Figure 5).
Above matrix reflects the fact that 64 percent of industries are having higher lean
awareness while 36 percent industries are at the lower stage of lean awareness. Out of
64 percent industries, only 32 percent of industries are able to reach to the higher level
of lean implementation. In all, 20 percent of industries are at lower stage of lean
awareness and so at the lower level of lean implementation. The participant industries
in the survey include 40 percent industries from manufacturing sector, 40 percent from
chemical sector and remaining 20 percent includes petrochemical, power, service and
consumer goods sector industries. The survey data analysis for two major industrial
sectors (manufacturing and chemical) indicates that performance of chemical sector
JMTM industries is more effective in both the areas of measurement, i.e. lean implementation
25,5 (mean: 3.847) and lean awareness (mean: 3.08) in comparison to manufacturing sector
with mean values of 3.512 and 2.985, respectively. The high-high corner of the matrix
includes 40 percent industries from manufacturing sector and 40 percent industries
from chemical sector while low-low corner of the matrix include 80 percent
industries from manufacturing sector only. These results explore the realness that the
666 manufacturing sector industries in India are at the scummier stage of both lean
awareness and so lean implementation. The scores obtained by Indian manufacturing
sector industries ponder their inadequate performance in process and process
technology criteria (mean: 2.949) and quality criteria (mean: 3.017) which is lowest in
all other industrial sectors. Poor performance of Indian manufacturing industries
in process technology and quality area might be due to lack of supporting technologies,
such as precision measuring, material engineering and process control. Table VII
represents the mean score and SD for different key areas of lean assessment tool for
each group. One-way ANOVA test is executed to establish whether any of these mean
differences are significant. The results reported in Table VIII indicate that each of the
nine criteria reliably distinguish between the three clusters ( po0.05) except quality
criteria ( p40.05). Similar results are presented for two criteria used to identify the lean
awareness status of the organizations, respectively in Table IX. The results reveals that
agreement with lean tools/principles criteria does not differentiate two clusters
represented as cluster with high level of implementation and cluster with low level
of implementation. The cluster with high level of lean implementation is characterized
by more sincere attempt toward lean approach.
High
0% 32 %
Level of
Lean Intermediate 16 % 24 %
Implementation
Figure 5. 20 % 8%
Matrix representation of
current lean status of Low
Indian industries Low High
Level of Opportunity / Awareness
High level of Intermediate level of Low level of

implementation implementation implementation
Criteria Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Inventory 4.125 0.58 4.084 0.53 2.714 1.27

Teams and corporate culture 3.856 0.26 3.445 0.31 3.276 0.51
Process and process technologies 3.469 0.57 3.516 0.45 2.334 0.79
Maintenance 4.875 0.23 4.384 0.45 3.596 0.61
Table VII. Plant layout and material handling 4.125 0.79 3.284 0.45 3.714 0.62
Mean and standard Suppliers 4.344 0.44 4.008 0.43 3.571 0.61
deviation for criteria Setups 4.500 0.35 3.418 0.39 2.991 0.93
groups related to level Quality 3.240 0.69 3.619 0.44 2.786 1.00
of lean implementation Scheduling and production control 4.360 0.43 3.995 0.58 3.143 0.79
5. Implications of study Status of LM
Some of the major issues resulting from the present study are: practices
. Issue 1. How to improve consciousness of the employees toward quality-related
issues?
. Issue 2. How to improve the existing status of processes and technological aspect
of processes? 667
. Issue 3. How to address the human behavioral panorama to change the attitude
of the employees toward lean practices?
Based on the analysis of the data and the reviewed literature, following suggestions are
delivered to improve the current status of lean practices in Indian industries.
High-quality product or service is the foremost requirement for the survival of
any organization in today’s global competitive environment. The methodology to

achieve the desirable and acceptable quality has large effect on productivity and overall
effectiveness (Lee, 2004). One of the effective tools for improvement in quality standards is
application of SPC. Direct involvement of the employees, specifically the operators, in SPC
application, empathizes on employees’ SPC training and higher number of production
operations under SPC scanning can help to improve the quality standards.
The major problems with large-scale process equipment are difficulties in scheduling,
handling, quality and changeovers when they are used for one or more processes with
higher lot size (Lee, 2004). Conversion to cellular manufacturing by producing in small
lots, having dedicated equipment sized to production requirements of the particular
product or product family and by improving the flexibility with cross-trained people the
issues related to process and process technology can be effectively tackled (Wilson, 2010).
Workforce empowerment through methodical lean education and training system
and encouragement of workers to participate actively in all the decision-making and
problem-solving processes (Papadopoulou and Ozbayrak, 2005), improvement in the
Criteria F p
Inventory 7.32 0.004

Teams and corporate culture 5.2 0.014
Process and process technologies 9.31 0.001
Maintenance 15.36 0.000
Plant layout and material handling 4.08 0.031 Table VIII.
Suppliers 4.67 0.020 One-way ANOVA
Setups 14.93 0.000 results for criteria groups
Quality 3.36 0.053 related to level of lean
Scheduling and production control 7.76 0.003 implementation
High level of Low level of

awareness awareness
Criteria Mean SD Mean SD F p
Table IX.
Sincerity towards lean approach 3.687 0.34 2.692 0.39 40.917 0.000 Mean, SD and
Agreement with lean tools/principles 2.986 0.17 2.994 0.52 0.003 0.955* ANOVA results for criteria
groups related to lean
Note: *At the 0.05 level, the population means are not significantly different awareness status
JMTM existing reward policy for enhancement of skills are some of the remedies to change the
25,5 employees attitude toward lean practices. For the successful implementation and long-
term sustainability human dimensions of motivation, empowerment and respect for
people are very important (Hines et al., 2004).
5.1 Managerial implications
668 Wilson (2010) has suggested five tests for management commitment to LM. Answer
“yes” to all five test questions (TQ) is sign of total commitment from management
toward lean initiatives. The five questions are:
(1) TQ1. Are you actively studying about, and working at, making your facility
Leaner and, hence, more flexible, more responsive, and more competitive?
(2) TQ2. Are you willing to listen to critiques of your facility and then understand
and change those areas in your facility that are not Lean?
(3) TQ3. Do you honestly and accurately assess your responsiveness and
competitiveness on a global basis?
(4) TQ4. Are you totally engaged in the lean transition with your:
. time;
. presence;
. management attention; and
. support (including manpower, capital, and emotional support)?
(5) TQ5. Are you willing to ask, answer, and act on the question: “How can I make
this facility more flexible, more responsive, and more competitive?”
The research presented uncovers the fact that the current status of lean
implementation and awareness in Indian industries is not so encouraging and the
reason for that is, the human-related issues are not tackled properly. To make the
significant improvement from here, the challenge for top management is how to change
the mind-set of the employees toward lean practices and how to encourage them to give
full support in this direction of improvement. They need to be educated and informed
about the lean benefits and should be valued when they contribute toward lean
improvements. The top management should target the lean philosophy “Company as
Community” as explained by Womack et al. (1990).
6. Conclusions and future research
Given the observations and results of this study, it appears that about 32 percent of the
industries are at the higher stage of both, lean awareness and lean implementation and
about 20 percent of the industries are at lower level for both the stages which include 80
percent industries from manufacturing sector. Indian manufacturing sector industries
need to strengthen their efforts to improve the existing status and need to give
attention to implement lean in all the key areas from a holistic perspective. The major
barriers for the lean practices in Indian industries are inadequate lean training and
lack of lean awareness programs for employees, poor application of statistical tools for
process improvement and uncertainty regarding the appropriate lean tool. The study
also suggests that quality and process and process technology are two key areas need
to be improved and catered for the successful implementation of lean principles in
Indian industries.
Report published by NMCC, Government of India (2006) brings out the vision of Status of LM
government to raise the share “manufacturing” up to 30-35 percent of GDP by year practices
2020 from the current status of about 17 percent. The strategy suggested in the report
is to launch “A National Program on Application of Lean Manufacturing” particularly
to support medium and small enterprises (SMEs) by applying appropriate managerial
and technological practices such as LM technologies, like 5S system (Sort, Set in order,
Shine, Standardize and Sustain), Visual controls, standard operation procedures 669
(SOPs), JIT, KANBAN, cellular layout, VSM, total productive maintenance (TPM), etc.
In this context, the research presented will provide a guideline to the Indian industries
and lean practitioner for successful implementation of lean principles.
The survey was limited to the eastern and western region industries of India.
The questionnaire responses for few industries were limited to only one respondent.
However, the purpose of this pilot study is to explore the possibilities of an extensive
research in the field of LM in India and not to generalize the findings of the study.
In view of this, the study will provide good assistance to government initiative of
imparting lean practices in Indian industries and facilitate contemporary researchers
in the domain area to develop detailed investigative questions for future research.
In future, some empirical study could be carried out for various groups or sectors of
industries to validate the outcome of the present research. The conceptual lean
implementation framework could be developed to accelerate the lean implementation
process in Indian industries.
References
Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R. and Nelder, G. (2006), “Critical success factors for lean
implementation within SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 460-471.
Anand, G. and Kodali, R. (2010), “Development of a framework for implementation of lean
manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Management Practice, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 95-116.
Bhasin, S. (2012), “Prominent obstacles to lean”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 403-425.
Eswaramoorthi, M., Kathiresan, G.R. and Prasad, P.S.S. (2011), “A survey on lean practices in
Indian machine tool industries”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 52 Nos 9/12, pp. 1091-1101.
Field, A. (2005), Discovering Statistics using SPSS, SAGE Publications India Private Ltd,
New Delhi, p. 668.
Ghosh, M. (2012), “Lean manufacturing performance in Indian manufacturing plants”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 113-112.
Gliem, J.A. and Gliem, R.R. (2003), “Calculation, interpreting and reporting Cronbach’s alpha
reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales”, in Ferro, T.R. and Dean, G.J. (Eds), Midwest
Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing and Community Education, The Ohio
State University, Columbus, OH, pp. 82-88.
Government of India (2006), The National Strategy for Manufacturing, National Manufacturing
Competitive Council, New Delhi.
Government of India (2010), Guidelines for the Implementation of Lean manufacturing
Competitiveness Scheme, Development Commissioner, Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises,
Government of India, New Delhi.
Government of India (2012), Annual Report 2011-12, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprises, Government of India, New Delhi.
JMTM Gulyani, S. (2001), “Effect of poor transportation on lean production and industrial
clustering: evidence from the Indian auto industry”, World Development, Vol. 29 No. 7,
25,5 pp. 1157-1177.
Gurumurthy, A. and Kodali, R. (2009), “Application of benchmarking for assessing the lean
manufacturing implementation”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 274-308.
670 Hallgren, M. and Olhager, J. (2009), “Lean and agile manufacturing: external and internal drivers
and performance outcome”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 976-999.
Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve a review of contemporary lean
thinking”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,
pp. 994-1011.
Hodge, G.L., Goforth Ross, K., Joines, J.A. and Thoney, K. (2011), “Adapting lean manufacturing
principles of the textile industry”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 237-247.
Karlsson, C. and Åhlström, P. (1996), “Assessing changes towards lean production”, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 24-41.
Lee, Q. (2004), “Lean manufacturing strategy”, Strategos, available at: www.strategosinc.com
(accessed 27 June 2011).
McDonald, T., Ellis, K.P., Van Alken, E.M. and Koelling, C.P. (2009), “Development and
application of a worker assignment model to evaluate a lean manufacturing cell”,
International journal of Production Research, Vol. 47 No. 9, pp. 2427-2447.
Majed Alsmadi, M., Almani, A. and Jerisat, R. (2012), “A comparative analysis of lean practices
and performance in the UK manufacturing and service sector firms”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 381-396.
Mathew, S. and Jones, R. (2012), “Toyotism and Brahminism: employee relations difficulties
in establishing lean manufacturing in India”, Employee Relations, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 200-221.
Mathur, A., Mittal, M.L. and Dangayach, G.S. (2012), “Improving productivity in Indian SMEs”,
Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, Vol. 23 Nos 11/12,
pp. 754-768.
Neumann, C., Kohlhuber, S. and Hanusch, S. (2012), “Lean production in Austrian industrial
companies: an empirical investigation”, in Jodlbauer et al. (Eds), Modelling Value,
Physica-Verlag HD, pp. 293-312.
Nordin, N., Deros, B.M. and Wahab, D.A. (2010), “A survey on lean manufacturing
implementation in Malaysian automotive industry”, International Journal of Innovation,
Management and Technology, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 374-380.
Panizzolo, R., Garengo, P., Sharma, M.K. and Gore, A. (2012), “Lean manufacturing in developing
countries: evidence from Indian SMEs”, Production Planning & Control: The Management
of Operations, Vol. 23 Nos 10/11, pp. 769-788.
Papadopoulou, T.C. and Ozbayrak, M. (2005), “Leanness: experiences from the journey to date”,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 784-807.
Pattanaik, L.N. and Sharma, B.P. (2009), “Implementing lean manufacturing with cellular layout:
a case study”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 42 Nos 7/8,
pp. 772-779.
Pavnaskar, S.J., Gershenson, J.K. and Jambekar, A.B. (2003), “Classification scheme for lean
manufacturing tools”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41 No. 13,
pp. 3075-3090.
Rawabdeh, I.A. (2005), “A model for the assessment of waste in job shop environments”, Status of LM
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 8,
pp. 800-822. practices
Sahoo, A.K., Singh, N.K. and Tiwari, M.K. (2008), “Lean philosophy: implementation in forging
industry”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 36 Nos 5/6,
pp. 451-462.
Sanchez, A.M. and Perez, M.P. (2001), “Lean indicators and manufacturing strategies”, 671
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 11,
pp. 1433-1451.
Saurin, T.A., Marodin, G.A. and Ribeiro, J.L.D. (2011), “A framework for assessing the use of lean
production practices in manufacturing cells”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 49 No. 11, pp. 3211-3230.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2003), “Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and
performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 129-149.

Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007), “Defining and developing measures of lean production”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 785-805.
Sim, K.L. and Rogers, J.W. (2009), “Implementing lean production systems: barriers to change”,
Management Research News, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 37-50.
Singh, B., Garg, S.K. and Sharma, S.K. (2010a), “Development of index for measuring leanness:
study of an Indian auto component industry”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 46-53.
Singh, B., Garg, S.K. and Sharma, S.K. (2010b), “Scope for lean implementation: a survey of 127
Indian industries”, Int. J. Rapid Manufacturing, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 323-333.
Srinivasaraghavan, J. and Allada, V. (2006), “Application of mahalanobis distance as a lean
assessment metric”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 29
Nos 11/12, pp. 1159-1168.
Subha, M.V. and Jaisankar, S. (2012), “Balanced adoption of lean manufacturing practices in
engineering goods manufacturing firms”, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 273-279.
Taj, S. (2008), “Lean manufacturing performance in China: assessment of 65 manufacturing
plants”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 217-234.
Vinodh, S. and Balaji, S.R. (2011), “Fuzzy logic based leanness assessment and its decision
support system”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 13,
pp. 4027-4041.
Vinodh, S. and Dinesh Kumar, C. (2012), “Development of computerized decision support system
for leanness assessment using multi grade fuzzy approach”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 503-516.
Vinodh, S. and Joy, D. (2012), “Structural equation modelling of lean manufacturing practices”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 1598-1607.
Wan, H. and Chen, F.F. (2008), “A leanness measure of manufacturing systems for qualifying
impacts of lean initiatives”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 23,
pp. 6567-6584.
Wilson, L. (2010), How to Implement Lean Manufacturing, The McGraw Hill Companies Inc.,
New York, NY.
Womack, J. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth for Your
Corporation, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine That Changed the World, Harper
Perennial, New York, NY.
JMTM Appendix. Survey instrument
Discussion X
25,5 Self-assessment for manufacture excellence
672
(Continued )
practices
673
Status of LM
JMTM Discussion Y
Manufacture excellence implementation
25,5 Please circle your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements (Likert
scale from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 3 ¼ neither agree nor disagree, to 5 ¼ strongly agree)
674
About the authors

S.J. Thanki is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the S.V.M.
Institute of Technology, Bharuch, Gujarat. He obtained his Bachelor’s Degree in Production
Engineering and Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from the S.V. Regional College of
Engineering and Technology, Surat (now known as National Institute of Technology, Surat) in 1997
and 2001, respectively. At present he is pursuing his PhD in the area of Lean Manufacturing from
the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, IIT Kharagpur. Associate Professor S.J. Status of LM
Thanki is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: shashankthanki@yahoo.com
Jitesh Thakkar is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Industrial Engineering and
practices
Management at the IIT Kharagpur. He obtained his Doctoral Degree in the area of Supply Chain
Management from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi in 2009. He did his M.Tech. in
Industrial Engineering with 9.157 CGPA from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi and
Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering with Gold Medal from B.V.M Engineering College, S.P. 675
University, Gujarat. He is a recipient of award “Excellence in teaching and research (for Year
2007)” given by Charutar Vidya Mandal – a leading educational trust in Gujarat. He has 15
research publications in peer reviewed international journals like International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive
Advantage, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, etc.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. NawanirGusman Gusman Nawanir Gusman Nawanir is a PhD candidate in the School of Technology
Management and Logistics at the Universiti Utara Malaysia. His bachelor degree was in industrial
engineering department at the Andalas University. His master of science was completed in operations
management program (by full research) at the College of Business of Universiti Utara Malaysia. His main
research interests include Lean manufacturing, inventory management and performance measurement. He
has published his papers in several journals and conferences. LimKong Teong Kong Teong Lim Dr Kong
Teong Lim is an Associate Professor of Operations Management and former Head of Department of
Operations Management at Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM). He received his BSc in Applied Statistics in
1991, MSc in Mathematics (Applied Statistics) in 1993 from Universiti Sains Malaysia and PhD in Quality
Management in 2003 from UUM. He has been at UUM since 1994. His primary research and publication
areas are quality improvement and management, production and operations management, Lean operations,
knowledge management, performance management and appraisal. His teaching interests are in the areas of
quality management, statistical process control and improvement, production management and statistical
data analysis. He is a member of the Editorial Board for the Journal of Technology and Operations
Management. In addition, he was also appointed as the external course assessor for the course operations
management, as well as the reviewer for academic papers published in local and international journals
and conference proceedings. OthmanSiti Norezam Siti Norezam Othman Dr Siti Norezam Othman is
an Associate Professor of Operations Management at Universiti Utara Malaysia. She attained her Doctor
of Engineering in Engineering Management from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia in 2007. Her research
interests cover topics in supplier-buyer relationships, technology transfer, technology assessment and
operations management. In relation to her research interest, she has supervised PhDs and Master students.
She is also the managing editor for Journal of Technology and Operations Management as well as referee
for journal and proceeding articles, and was nominated as internal examiner for postgraduate thesis. She has
authored a number of academic papers for journals, international conferences and modules. To strengthen
her research interest, she affiliates with the International Association of Management of Technology.
School of Technology Management and Logistics, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia . 2016.
Lean manufacturing practices in Indonesian manufacturing firms. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma
7:2, 149-170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Vikram Sharma Mechanical-Mechatronics Engineering Department, The LNM Institute of Information
Technology, Jaipur, India Amit Rai Dixit Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian School of
Mines, Dhanbad, India Mohammad Asim Qadri Mechanical Engineering Department, Galgotias College
of Engineering and Technology, Greater Noida, India . 2015. Impact of lean practices on performance
measures in context to Indian machine tool industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
26:8, 1218-1242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Sri Hartini, Udisubakti Ciptomulyono. 2015. The Relationship between Lean and Sustainable
Manufacturing on Performance: Literature Review. Procedia Manufacturing 4, 38-45. [CrossRef]

JMTM 05 2012 0057

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

JMTM 05 2012 0057

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

Status of lean manufacturing practices in Indian industries and government initiatives: A

Downloaded on: 02 September 2016, At: 20:46 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management,

Screening and Steering Committee (SSC):

Formation of Special purpose vehicle

extend the work in future.

and found significant improvement in operational metrics by implementing lean. Panizzolo

Sl. no. Reference Contribution

lean assessment tools

Sl. no. Reference Contribution

Survey Instrument Development

Squared Euclidean Guidance/Support to

Identification of Lean 3 x 2 matrix Representation

3. Results and discussion

Key area group Cronbach’s a

Teams and corporate culture 0.802

inadequate in process and process technology area.

Key Areas Mean of responses (five-point Likert scale)

Petrochemical Supplier 665

Manufacturing Process and

Key area (score)

Chemical Maintenance (4.467) Process and process technology (3.4)

industries is classified as high level of implementation, intermediate level of lean

High level of Intermediate level of Low level of

Inventory 4.125 0.58 4.084 0.53 2.714 1.27

any organization in today’s global competitive environment. The methodology to

Inventory 7.32 0.004

High level of Low level of

performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 129-149.

About the authors

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Anda mungkin juga menyukai