外文翻譯--精益生產(chǎn)的定義一些概念和實踐問題

1、<p>　　Defining lean production: some conceptual and practical issues</p><p>　　Author(s): Jostein Pettersen</p><p>　　Company：Division of Quality Technology and Management and Helix VINN Exce

2、llence Centre, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden</p><p>　　Citation: The TQM Journal, </p><p><b>　　Abstract:</b></p><p><b>　　Purpose– </b><

3、/p><p>　　The purpose of this paper is to investigate the definition of lean production and the methods and goals associated with the concept as well as how it differs from other popular management concepts.<

4、/p><p>　　Design/methodology/approach– </p><p>　　The paper is based on a review of the contemporary literature on lean production, both journal articles and books.</p><p>　　Findings– &l

5、t;/p><p>　　It is shown in the paper that there is no consensus on a definition of lean production between the examined authors. The authors also seem to have different opinions on which characteristics should b

6、e associated with the concept. Overall it can be concluded that lean production is not clearly defined in the reviewed literature. This divergence can cause some confusion on a theoretical level, but is probably more pro

7、blematic on a practical level when organizations aim to implement the concept. Th</p><p>　　Originality/value– This paper provides a critical perspective on the discourse surrounding lean production, and give

8、s an input to the discussion of the implementation of management models.</p><p>　　Keywords: </p><p>　　Lean production; Total quality management</p><p><b>　　Article</b>&l

9、t;/p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　When initiating research concerning the concept of lean production (LP) one line of questions naturally comes to mind: “What is lean? How is lean defined? How does

10、lean relate to other management concepts? What does lean have in common with other management concepts? What discriminates lean from other management concepts?”</p><p>　　Seeking answers to these questions, w

11、ill lead to the realization that they are exceedingly hard to find. It seems logical that a management concept as popular as lean should have a clear and concise definition. Much disappointingly, the definition of lean p

12、roduction is highly elusive. Some authors have made attempts to define the concept (e.g. Lewis, 2000; Hines et al., 2004; Shah and Ward, 2007), while others have raised the question of whether the concept is clearly defi

13、ned (see Dahlgaard and </p><p>　　A justified question is whether the convergent validity of lean actually makes any difference – does it matter how we define lean? There are various opinions on the effects o

14、f this.</p><p>　　The absence of a clear definition has a number of consequences for practitioners seeking to implement lean as well as researchers trying to capture the essence of the concept. These issues h

15、ave been addressed by a number of researchers. The lack of a definition will lead to communication difficulties (Dale and Plunkett, 1991 in Boaden, 1997). It will complicate education on the subject (Boaden, 1997). Resea

16、rching the subject will be difficult (Godfrey et al., 1997; Parker, 2003) – although Boade</p><p>　　Parker (2003) states that the multitude of interpretations on what lean really is makes it harder to make c

17、laims towards the effects of lean, thus increasing the requirements that researchers specify exactly what they are researching. Karlsson and Åhlström (1996) point out that the lack of a precise definition also

18、will lead to difficulties in determining whether changes made in an organization are consistent with LP or not, and consequently difficulties in evaluating the effectiveness of the co</p><p>　　Purpose of the

19、 article</p><p>　　The 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 of practices associa

20、ted with lean as well as the stated purpose of the concept. Based on this, an evaluation of the construct validity of lean will be made.</p><p>　　The paper will conclude with a discussion of the practical im

21、plications of the construct validity of lean.</p><p>　　Research approach</p><p>　　Hackman and Wageman (1995) reviewed the TQM concept and raised the question of “whether there really is such a t

22、hing as TQM or whether it has become mainly a banner under which a potpourri of essentially unrelated organizational changes are undertaken”. This is a valid question for any construct similar to TQM, and the concept of

23、lean production is no exception. Following the reasoning of Hackman and Wageman, this question calls for the evaluation of the concept's convergent and discriminant val</p><p>　　Convergent validity refle

24、cts the degree to which [different] versions [of the concept] […] share a common set of assumptions and prescriptions. […]</p><p>　　Discriminant validity refers to the degree to which [the concept] can be re

25、liably distinguished from other strategies for organizational improvement (Hackman and Wageman, 1995).</p><p>　　In other words, the discriminant validity tells us whether or not a concept carries any news va

26、lue compared to other existing concepts, whereas the convergent validity, strictly speaking, tells us whether or not the concept itself really exists.</p><p>　　For this article, the two major citation databa

27、ses ISI and Scopus have been searched for articles containing the terms “l(fā)ean production” or “l(fā)ean manufacturing” in the topic, abstract or keywords. The 20 most cited articles from each database were selected for furthe

28、r study.</p><p>　　Through reading these and other articles on the subject, the most influential books were identified. This list was verified through using the citation analysis software “publish or perish”.

29、</p><p>　　The reviewed literature will be compared by listing the characteristics of lean presented by each author. The idea is that a method, tool or goal that is central to lean will be mentioned by every

30、author on the topic. The purpose or goal of lean should logically be the same for all authors. Concurrence among the authors will signify a high convergent validity. If lean passes this convergent validity criterion, an

31、evaluation of the discriminant validity can be made, based on a comparison with TQM</p><p>　　Literature review</p><p>　　The two database searches produced a total of 37 articles (see Appendix),

32、of which 12 of them contained presentations of techniques and/or overall goals associated with LP, thus contributing to a conceptual discussion.</p><p>　　The 12 articles that are deemed suitable for a furthe

33、r analysis are Krafcik (1988), Oliver et al. (1996), Sánchez and Pérez (2001), Lewis (2000), Mumford (1994), James‐Moore and Gibbons (1997), MacDuffie et al. (1996), Dankbaar (1997), White and Prybutok (2001),

34、Hayes and Pisano (1994), Jagdev and Browne (1998) and Cusumano (1994).</p><p>　　A number of books turned up in the literature search. An investigation of the books' citation rankings led to a filtering p

35、rocess with 13 books remaining. These are Womack 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

36、 Shook (1998), Jones and Womack (2002) and Smalley (2004).</p><p>　　The publications by the Lean Enterprise Institute (Rother and Shook, 1998; Jones and Womack, 2002; Smalley, 2004) are very specific on cert

37、ain tools (mainly value stream mapping), and were not deemed suitable for a conceptual discussion about lean in general.</p><p>　　An overview of lean characteristics</p><p>　　Table I is a presen

38、tation of the most frequently mentioned characteristics of lean in the reviewed books. Characteristics that have been discussed by less than three authors have been excluded from the presentation. The characteristics in

39、the table are sorted based on frequency of discussion in the reviewed literature.</p><p>　　Looking at the table reveals some interesting aspects about the ideas surrounding lean. The only two characteristics

40、 that all authors discuss are “setup time reduction” and “continuous improvement”, indicating that these are central to the concept. On the condition that pull production can be seen as a special case of just‐in‐time pro

41、duction, all authors lift this characteristic as well. Failure prevention (poka yoke) and production leveling (heijunka) also seem to be central characteristics of </p><p>　　Analysis Convergent validity of l

42、ean</p><p>　　The characteristics listed in Table I have some relation to one another, motivating an affinity analysis. One way of grouping these characteristics is presented in Table II.</p><p>

43、　　Through grouping the characteristics a more homogeneous image of the lean characteristics arises. For all but three of the groups all authors have discussed at least one of the characteristics in the group. In the grou

44、p labeled as human resource management none of the characteristics are discussed by authors Bicheno and Shingo. The authors Ohno and Schonberger have not discussed any of the characteristics in the group labeled as suppl

45、y chain management. Furthermore, the bundled techniques have s</p><p>　　Looking at the goals presented by the reviewed authors (Table I) raises some questions towards the convergent validity of lean. The gen

46、eral opinion that the purpose 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 there are two main traditions of lean;

47、“toolbox lean” and “l(fā)ean thinking”. This is also evident in the differences of goals in the reviewed literature. Generally speaking, there are tw</p><p>　　The division of lean production in the two parts dis

48、cussed above has led to discussions of which one is more correct. A common statement is that “l(fā)ean is more than a set of tools” (Bicheno, 2004), arguing for a more philosophical approach to lean. However, there is also a

49、nother position that argues for a more practical and project based approach to lean and that “l(fā)ean is a collection of waste reduction tools”. This kind of statement is hard to find explicitly in academic texts, but very

50、common a</p><p>　　Neither of the positions are more correct than the other, since lean exists at both levels, having both strategic and operational dimensions (Hines et al., 2004). In addition, lean can be s

51、een as having both a philosophical as well as a practical orientation (Shah and Ward, 2007).</p><p>　　Through adapting and combining the four approaches to lean suggested by Hines et al. (2004) and Shah and

52、Ward (2007) respectively, lean can be characterized in four different ways. The terms practical and philosophical are substituted by the terms performative and ostensive. The terms operational and strategic are substitut

53、ed by the terms discrete and continuous.</p><p>　　In Table III four different approaches to lean production are presented. The term ostensive signifies a shift of focus from general philosophy towards issues

54、 that can only be defined by examples, whereas performative and practical focus on the things that are done. The term discrete signifies a focus on isolated events, such as individual improvement projects using the “l(fā)ean

55、 toolbox” (see Bicheno, 2004; Nicholas and Soni, 2006), or the final state of “l(fā)eanness” (see Krafcik, 1988). As a contrast</p><p>　　Although the score is not perfect, lean seems to be a reasonably consisten

56、t concept comprising just in time practices, resource reduction, improvement strategies, defects control, standardization and scientific management techniques. However, it is hard to formulate a clear definition that cap

57、tures all the elements of lean and integrates the various goals in the reviewed literature. In other words, lean can be said to (barely) pass the convergent validity test, although there is no clear agreeme</p>&l

58、t;p>　　Discriminant validity of lean</p><p>　　So what is then the difference between TQM and lean production? In the following section Lean and TQM are compared based on the analysis made by Hackman and Wa

59、geman (1995). The discussion is done with three different aspects; basic assumptions, change principles and interventions:</p><p>　　1. Basic assumptions: </p><p>　　? Quality. In lean, quality

60、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 highlight problems. Thi

61、s is done through reducing the resources in the system, so that buffers do not cover up the problems that arise. In the short‐term perspective, the reduction of resources implies a direct reduction of cost. In the long r

62、un, the reduction and subsequen</p><p>　　? Employees and the quality of their work. One major critique of the lean concept is that it is generally weak concerning the employees” perspective. The proponents o

63、f lean production usually have a strong instrumental and managerial perspective, discussing employees in terms of components in the production system (see Kamata, 1982; Berggren, 1992, 1993).?The extensive discussion abo

64、ut jidoka and poka yoke in the lean literature suggests that employees cannot be trusted to produce good quality, </p><p>　　? Organizations as systems. One thing that lean and TQM have in common is seeing th

65、e organization as a system (see Womack and Jones, 2003; Bicheno, 2004). But there is a slight difference in perspective between the two concepts. Whereas TQM has a strong focus on the internal structure and integration o

66、f departments within the organization, lean stresses a supply chain perspective, seeing the internal production operations as a part of a value stream from the sub‐suppliers to the end customer (e.</p><p>　　

67、? Quality is the responsibility of senior management. This is another perspective that lean and TQM share, but again with some differences. TQM‐managers should create structures that support the employees in producing pr

68、oducts of high quality (Deming, 1986; Hackman and Wageman, 1995). The idea is the same in lean, but the rationale for doing this seems to be centered around eliminating the human factor from the system through jidoka and

69、 poka yoke. Using the terminology of McGregor, one could arg</p><p>　　2. Change principles:</p><p>　　? Focus on processes. Within the lean concept the term value stream is usually preferred (W

70、omack and Jones, 2003). The term process is usually used at a lower level of abstraction that TQM theorists would call sub‐processes or activities (see Riley, 1998). The conception that management should analyze and impr

71、ove the processes and train the employees is also shared by the two concepts.</p><p>　　? Management by fact. The literature on lean does not really stress the management by facts explicitly. However, this is

72、 implicit in the description of lean practices, many of which are analytical tools designed to help achieve JIT production. Although this is a shared perspective between lean and TQM, there is a difference. Within TQM th

73、e analysis of variability through using statistical tools is a central concept (Hackman and Wageman, 1995). In the lean tradition, this is not seen as equally i</p><p>　　? Learning and continuous improvement

74、. In the words of Hackman and Wageman (1995) TQM is “pro‐learning, with a vengeance” (p. 330). The learning aspects are not emphasized as much in literature on lean. As discussed above, the lean literature is generally w

75、eaker on the human behavior side, focusing more on instrumental techniques for improving system performance. There is a clear focus on continuous improvement, which implies that some form of learning is required. However

76、, the question is who i</p><p>　　3. Interventions</p><p>　　? Analysis of customer requirements. Customer focus is one of the hallmarks of TQM, where every improvement should be based on an inve

77、stigation of the customer's requirements, whether the customer is internal or external. The lean concept does not emphasize customer interests. Some authors argue that the very purpose of lean is to please the custom

78、er (e.g. Dennis, 2002), but methods for analyzing customer requirements are extremely rare in the reviewed literature, suggesting this is not a typica</p><p>　　? Supplier partnerships. The suppliers are seen

79、 as important in both lean and TQM. Both concept stress the point that long term partnerships should be made with suppliers and that improvements should be done in collaboration with them. Although this matter is not dis

80、cussed by all authors in this analysis, the majority of them do (see Table I).</p><p>　　? Improvement teams. Quality circles have a central role in much of the TQM literature, and can be put to use in proble

81、m solving or improvement activities. In the lean literature, improvement teams are explicitly discussed by just about half of the reviewed authors. However, they are often implicated in discussions about improvement acti

82、vities.</p><p>　　? Scientific methods for performance measurement and improvement. Both TQM and lean employ various scientific methods for analysis and evaluation of performance. However, these methods diffe

83、r significantly, and the tools associated with one concept are generally not mentioned in literature on the other one. The purpose of measurements also differs. In TQM measurements are done in order to identify problems

84、and to document improvement, whereas lean theorists argue that measurements should be made</p><p>　　? Process management techniques. As discussed above, the term process is used in slightly different ways by

85、 authors on TQM and lean. In the lean literature, different techniques are presented for both overall process level and individual activities. At an organizational level value stream mapping (VSM) can be used for highlig

86、hting several kinds of problems in the processes (Rother and Shook, 1998). At a more operational level, different time/work study techniques are discussed, e.g. so‐called sp</p><p>　　Lean and TQM – same but

87、different</p><p>　　At a philosophical level, lean and TQM have many ideas in common, in particular concerning continuous improvement and the systems perspective. However, at a more operational level, the two

88、 concepts differ significantly. The fundamental values of the two concepts are also quite different, especially regarding humanistic values.</p><p>　　Conclusion</p><p>　　There is no agreed upon

89、definition of lean that could be found in the reviewed literature, 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 goo

90、d agreement on the characteristics that define the concept, leading to the conclusion that the concept is defined in operational terms alone. Formulating a definition that captures all the dimensions of lean is a formida

91、ble challenge.</p><p>　　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 being valid in a cert

92、ain point in time. This may be an explanation to the apparent differences between authors on the subject. Based on this, it is hard not to raise the question of whether a consistent definition of lean is possible to prod

93、uce. Also, one can question whether a definition will be useful at all, regarding the ever changi</p><p>　　Lean is also significantly different from its closest relative TQM, leading to the conclusion that l

94、ean is a management concept of its own. The conclusion from Shah and Ward (2003) that TQM and other bundles are parts of lean is not supported by this study.</p><p>　　Womack et al. (1990) argue that the lean

95、 principles are applicable to any industry. If this is correct, then the Japanese should logically have distributed the knowledge of these principles throughout all domestic Japanese industry. This does not seem to be th

96、e case. The only “true” lean producers in Japan are confined to the automobile industry, represented by, e.g. Toyota, Honda and Mazda, whereas other areas of industry are performing at the same level as (or worse than) w

97、estern competitors [</p><p>　　When embarking on a journey towards lean, it is important to acknowledge the different perspectives that the concept comprises. Raising the awareness of these differences may he

98、lp make the message clearer and avoid conflicting opinions on which concept the organization is implementing. The obvious fallibility of the claimed universality of lean should help motivate an adaptational approach to i