The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm

JMTM
27,8
Systemic leanness
An index for facilitating continuous
improvement of lean implementation
1014 Gopalakrishnan Narayanamurthy and Anand Gurumurthy
Quantitative Methods and Operations Management (QM and OM) Area,
Received 10 April 2016 Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, Kerala, India
Revised 19 September 2016
20 September 2016
21 September 2016 Abstract
Accepted 22 September 2016
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe a leanness assessment methodology that takes into
account the interaction between lean elements for computing the systemic leanness and for assisting
continuous improvement of lean implementation.
Design/methodology/approach – Key elements determining the leanness level were identified by
reviewing the relevant literature and were structured as a framework. Graph-theoretic approach (GTA)
was used as the assessment methodology for its ability to evaluate the interaction between the
elements in the developed framework.
Findings – Interactions between the lean elements were configured. Application of the proposed GTA
for assessing systemic leanness was demonstrated. Scenario analysis was performed and a scale was
developed to assist firms in comparing their systemic leanness index.
Research limitations/implications – This paper is unique in developing an assessment approach
for measuring the systemic leanness. In addition, this study explains how the implementation of lean
thinking (LT) in a value stream can be continuously improved by proposing a systemic leanness index
that can be benchmarked. The proposed approach to measure systemic leanness can be tested across
different value streams in future for extending its generalizability.
Practical implications – Proposed framework and leanness assessment approach presents an
innovative tool for practitioners to capture the systemic aspect of LT. Proposed assessment approach
supports practitioners in achieving continuous improvement in lean implementation by revealing the
lean elements that need to be focused in future.
Originality/value – Study introduces a new perspective for LT by studying the importance of
interactions between the lean elements and by incorporating them to assess the systemic leanness.
Keywords Evaluation, Continuous improvement, Lean, Lean manufacturing, Lean production
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Toyota Production System in the name of lean manufacturing has been implemented by
various manufacturing firms across countries for more than four decades (Stone, 2012).
For past one decade, lean implementation has also grown significantly in the domain of
services (Narayanamurthy and Anand, 2016). In both manufacturing and services, lean
adoption in general consists of broadly three stages (as shown in Figure 1).
Stage 1 – lean implementation readiness: by borrowing the change readiness
definition from Walinga (2008), lean thinking (LT) implementation readiness is defined
as the state in which a value stream planning to implement LT is best prepared to
change internally and externally (over supply chain) to adapt and accept lean practices.
Stage 2 – lean implementation: many definitions are available in literature on LT
Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management
implementation in the name of lean manufacturing (for more details on lean definitions
Vol. 27 No. 8, 2016
pp. 1014-1053
refer to Papadopoulou and Özbayrak, 2005). In this study, LT implementation can be
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited considered as a path in which a value stream proceeds with imbibing different lean
1741-038X
DOI 10.1108/JMTM-04-2016-0047 practices to harvest benefits by reducing wastes and variability.
 Stage 3 – lean implementation assessment: anchoring on LT implementation Systemic
definition, LT assessment is defined as a procedure that needs to be performed at leanness
regular intervals by a value stream implementing LT to examine and quantify the
extent of leanness and benefits attained. Srinivasaraghavan and Allada (2006) have
mentioned similar insights on LT assessment by stating that it should not be a one-time
procedure but it needs to be measured over multiple time periods to arrive at a specific
direction for future improvements. 1015
A literature review published recently by Narayanamurthy and Anand (2016) on
leanness assessment clearly indicates that the number of assessment studies (stage 3)
in lean literature are very less when compared to the number of implementation
studies (stage 2). In specific, they indicate that no study in literature has tried to
develop an assessment approach that can capture the systemic interactions of lean
elements while assessing their implementation. The objective of this study is to
address this unique gap.
According to Bayou and De Korvin (2008), a measure capturing “leanness” has to
possess seven characteristics: relative, dynamic, long-term, fuzzy logical, objective,
integrative and comprehensive. By developing an integrated systemic leanness
measure in this study, all the seven characteristics are addressed by generating a
common focus on overall leanness (Wong et al., 2014). Dynamics and interactions
between the lean elements within the system have a significant effect on the systemic
leanness attained and ignoring these dynamics would mislead the stand taken by the
decision makers (Krishnamurthy and Chan, 2013). Therefore, it is essential to
incorporate these interactions for accurately assessing the leanness level.
Looking from the practitioner perspective, value stream managers implementing
LT would like to know answers to the following research questions that can arise
in the lean journey:
RQ1. Whether relevant lean elements for a given value stream are implemented?
If so, how well are they implemented?
RQ2. How to capture the inter-relationships between the lean elements? What is
their impact on the leanness level attained by the value stream?
RQ3. Where does the value stream stand (in terms of various lean practices that are
implemented) in comparison to other benchmarking counter-parts?
RQ4. Which other practices can be implemented to improve upon the value stream
in a “systemic fashion?”
As no study in literature has answered these research questions, we believe current
study to be unique with potential contribution for both research and practice.

Lean Lean
Lean
Implementation Implementation
Implementation
Readiness Assessment

Figure 1.
Continuous Improvement
Basic LT framework
Source: Authors
JMTM To assess the systemic aspect of lean philosophy by incorporating these interactions
27,8 and to address the above-listed practitioner questions that arise in their lean journey,
it is necessary to address the following requirements:
• develop a leanness assessment approach that can capture both the
implementation and interaction of lean elements;
1016 • customize the leanness assessment approach to compute a numerical index of
“systemic leanness” that can capture the implementation of various lean
elements and the interaction between them;
• perform scenario analysis to develop a scale that can assist practitioners in
benchmarking the value stream’s systemic leanness index; and
• deliver a decision support system to managers of the value stream
implementing LT by revealing the areas of improvement to further advance
LT implementation.
Above requirements are being addressed in this study by developing a
graph-theoretic approach (GTA) based leanness assessment tool to compute
“systemic leanness” that can capture the inheritance (degree of implementation) of
lean elements and interaction (degree of relationship) between lean elements.
Therefore, “Systemic leanness index” computed in the assessment can be defined as
an actual measure of leanness attained by the entire value stream and not a particular
sub-unit of the value stream, after incorporating the inheritance of lean elements
and interactions between the lean elements. Finally, a scale is developed by
performing scenario analysis to position a value stream in a continuum of 0-1 based
on their systemic leanness index and assist the value stream in benchmarking its
leanness with its peers or itself in future. Following sections in the study are
structured as shown in Figure 2.

2. Literature review
The review was carried out to document the different types of leanness assessment
studies published in literature. The review also identified the elements and
sub-elements used in the leanness assessment studies, synthesized and developed an

• Leanness assessment studies

• Identify lean elements and sub-elements
Literature • Frequency analysis and framework development
Review • Need for systemic leanness
• Assessment as a driver for continuous improvement

• Step by step description of applying GTA

Application of • Digraphs to capture the interactions
GTA • Data collection and permanent computation
• Scenario analysis and scale development

• Comparing systemic leanness of different

Results and value streams
Figure 2. discussion • Discussion on scale for systemic leanness
• Research and practical implications
Organization of
sections in the study
Source: Authors
integrated framework, and discussed the need for considering the interactions. In this Systemic
section, we also discuss how the assessment can assist in continuous improvement of leanness
lean implementation journey.

2.1 Leanness assessment studies

A literature review of studies on leanness assessment was carried out to identify
the different methodologies used (presented in Table I). Leanness assessment 1017
literature has not discussed the interaction between the leanness elements
and has not utilized a methodology to understand them. For instance,
methodologies such as Delphi techniques (Azevedo et al., 2012) and if-then rules
(Vimal and Vinodh, 2012) assess the leanness level of each element using a scale
without incorporating the relationships between the elements. Chauhan and
Singh (2012) incorporated only linear hierarchical relationship between the elements
by employing analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methodology. AHP assumes that
main elements and sub-elements within main elements are independent of each
other. Wong et al. (2014) study is the only one to capture the inter-relationships
between various elements by employing analytic network process (ANP)
methodology. However, this paper would be different from that of Wong et al.
(2014) for the following reasons:
(1) proposes a “systemic leanness index” which emphasizes the systemic
aspect of LT by capturing not only the interactions between various lean
elements and sub-elements but also the degree of inheritance of each
lean element;
(2) the study also develops a scale that can help in positioning a value stream in a
continuum of 0-1 based on their systemic leanness index; and
(3) assessment methodology proposed in this study can act as a decision
support system to managers of the value stream implementing LT by
systemically revealing the areas of improvement to facilitate CI in LT
implementation.
From this review, it is evident that variety of assessment methodologies have been
developed in the literature. But, none of them provide a systemic leanness input to the
value stream manager implementing LT about where the value stream stands in their
lean practices implementation.
2.1.1 Lean elements and sub-elements. After performing the detailed literature
review of leanness assessment studies, elements used to assess the leanness were
documented. These elements were observed to fall broadly into two categories, namely,
practices and performance measures. Studies in the category of practices assessed the
leanness level by collecting data on the implementation aspects of practices (Saurin
et al., 2011). On the other hand, assessment studies based on performance measures
used certain quantitative performance metrics to estimate the leanness level attained
(Detty and Yingling, 2000). As this study focuses on assessing the leanness level of
practices implemented, review of assessment studies falling under the practices
category was carried out in detail.
2.1.2 Frequency analysis and framework development. Table II provides a snapshot
of the frequency representation of the number of papers that has considered these
practices for assessment. In total, 73 lean elements that were identified are then
categorized into elements and sub-elements. Categories were generated in the process
 27,8

1018

Table I.
JMTM

Review of leanness
assessment literature
Practice/
Nature of performance
Author(s) Year Country Sector paper based Methodology adopted Results

Oleghe and 2016 – Manufacturing Conceptual Performance Quantitative fuzzy logic-based lean index Inferred that Deterministic model tends to
Salonitis study under or overestimate leanness performance
and the variation model provides a more
robust lean assessment
Azadeh et al. 2015 Iran Manufacturing Empirical Practice DEA, fuzzy DEA, fuzzy cognitive map, Evaluated overall lean performance metric and
study decision making trial and evaluation impact of leanness factors on lean strategy.
laboratory, and analytic hierarchy process Results showed that the production procedure
has the most impact on leanness strategy
Susilawati et al. 2015 Indonesia Manufacturing Empirical Practice Fuzzy logic and value stream mapping A method to deal with the multi-dimensional
study concept, unavailability of benchmark, and
uncertainty, which arises from the subjective
and vague human judgment for the
measurement of degree of leanness, is proposed
Matawale et al. 2014 India Manufacturing Empirical Practice Fuzzy-based leanness assessment system Estimated overall lean performance metric
study using generalized interval-valued (IV) and identified ill-performing areas
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers set
Wong et al. 2014 Malaysia Manufacturing Empirical Practice Analytic network process (ANP) and Derived a lean index to assess the leanness
study interview with experts to identify enablers level of the organization in sustaining lean
transformation
Camacho-Miñano 2013 Spain Manufacturing Conceptual Performance Literature review on papers that has Identified the most used assessment models.
et al. study empirically analyzed how lean Considering the financial and operational
manufacturing (LM) impacts financial indicators along with the contextual factors,
performance they found that LM had a positive and
significant impact on financial performance
Anvari et al. 2013 Iran Manufacturing Empirical Performance Fuzzy membership functions Measured the value of the influence of lean
study attributes on manufacturing systems and
identified lean attribute score (LAS)
Vimal and Vinodh 2013 India Manufacturing Empirical Practice Artificial neural network (ANN) has been Proposed a conceptual model for assessing
study used for performing fuzzy logic based leanness and identified the weaker criteria to

(continued )
 Practice/
Nature of performance
Author(s) Year Country Sector paper based Methodology adopted Results

leanness assessment along with triangular further improve the leanness level of the
fuzzy numbers organization
Krishnamurthy and 2013 – Manufacturing Empirical Practice Used system dynamics approach to arrive atEvaluated the performance associated with
Chan study a leanness score based on overall work-in-lean implementation by examining the multi-
stage production system through variable
process (WIP) efficiency, overall service level,
and overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) stochastic system parameters capturing the
dynamics associated with increasing the
responsiveness level of manufacturing firms
Malmbrandt and 2013 – Service Conceptual Practice Literature review, workshops and semi- Developed and validated a 34 item
Åhlström study structured interviews with expert practitioners instrument containing operational measures
of lean service
Behrouzi and 2013 Iran Manufacturing Empirical Practice Integrated stochastic-fuzzy modeling approach Probability function of the total leanness was
Wong study identified and different leanness situations
were consequently predicted. A total leanness
index was calculated and connected to fuzzy
sets (linguistic terms)
Chauhan and Singh 2012 India Manufacturing Empirical Practice Questionnaire survey and AHP Elimination of waste was found to be the
study most important parameter of lean
manufacturing, followed by “just in time
deliveries
Hofer et al. 2012 USA Manufacturing Empirical Performance Confirmatory factor analysis, bivariate Established the mediating role of inventories
study correlations, and regression model in the relationship between lean practices and
firm performance
Vimal and Vinodh 2012 India Manufacturing Empirical Practice Fuzzy logic-based inference method and Developed a comprehensive leanness
study leanness level using IF-THEN rules assessment model as well as leanness
evaluation using fuzzy IF-THEN mechanism
Vinodh and Vimal 2012 India Manufacturing Empirical Practice 30 criteria based leanness assessment Developed two leanness index to study the
study methodology using fuzzy logic level of lean implementation and obstacle
identification

(continued )
leanness

1019
Systemic

Table I.
 27,8

1020

Table I.
JMTM
Practice/
Nature of performance
Author(s) Year Country Sector paper based Methodology adopted Results

Deif 2012 – Manufacturing Empirical Performance Variability source mapping (VSMII) Used variability index as a metric to measure
study the overall variability level of the system and
based on it recommended a variability
reduction plan
Azevedo et al. 2012 Portugal Manufacturing Empirical Practice Delphi technique using interviews from Proposed an agilean index to assess the
study company managers and secondary data agility and leanness of individual companies
sources and their corresponding supply chain
Karvonen et al. 2012 Finland Service Empirical Practice Adapted LESAT to guide the Modified seven assessment items concerning
study transformation of software development life-cycle processes in the original LESAT
companies toward lean and compared the modified LESAT with a
Ericsson R & D lean assessment approach
called “Lean amplifier”
Sezen et al. 2012 Turkey Manufacturing Empirical Practice Questionnaire based empirical survey and Developed a model for measuring adherence
study statistical analysis to lean practices and assessed the
relationship between the firm performance
and the adoption of lean principles
Vinodh and Balaji 2011 India Manufacturing Empirical Practice Fuzzy logic Developed leanness measurement model for
study providing leanness index
Vinodh and 2011a India Manufacturing Empirical Practice Multigrade fuzzy approach Identified leanness score and improvement
Chintha study suggestions for the case industry
Vinodh and 2011b India Manufacturing Empirical Practice Fuzzy QFD Approach helps in identification of lean
Chintha study competitive bases, lean decision domains,
lean attributes and lean enablers for the
organization
Pedersen and 2011 Denmark Service Empirical Practice Negotiated order perspective Identified a number of factors within the
Huniche study structural context and the negotiation
context that are deemed important for the
fate of lean projects in the public sector

(continued )
 Practice/
Nature of performance
Author(s) Year Country Sector paper based Methodology adopted Results

Vinodh et al. 2011 India Manufacturing Empirical Practice Fuzzy association rules mining (FARM) Developed a leanness evaluation tool for the
study approach decision makers
Saurin et al. 2011 – Manufacturing Empirical Practice Direct observations, analysis of documents, Developed a framework of LP practices and
study interviews and a feedback meeting illustrated it using a case study
Asadi and Panahi 2011 Tehran, Manufacturing Empirical Practice Dimensional analysis model Developed a model to assess the factors and
Iran study determine the degree of adaptability of the
production line for implementing lean
Seyedhosseini et al. 2011 – Manufacturing Empirical Practice Balance scorecard approach and decision Selected the leanness criteria and identified
study making trial evaluation laboratory the company’s lean strategy map with the
(DEMATEL) approach cause and effect relationships
Bhasin 2011 UK Manufacturing Empirical Practice Auditing and Spearman’s rho correlations Based on the audit, study classifies the
study organization into seven evident phases which
can be used in identifying the juncture of lean
an organization has accomplished
Singh et al. 2010 India Manufacturing Empirical Practice Fuzzy set theory Leanness indices have been developed and
study presented separately on 100 points scale for
all parameters
Woehrle and 2010 USA Manufacturing Conceptual Practice Box scores are used as a complementary tool Attempted to solve the dilemma between lean
Abou-Shady study for lean accounting implementation benefits and financial and
accounting reporting methods
Anand and Kodali 2009 India Manufacturing Empirical Practice Benchmarking Difference between the practices
study implemented and performance measures
followed in the case organization with respect
to Toyota and the XYZL was observed
Wan and Chen 2009 – Manufacturing Empirical Practice Adaptive assessment approach Web-based decision support tool has been
study developed as a guiding tool for applying the
right lean technique at the right time on the
right spot

(continued )
leanness

1021
Systemic

Table I.
 27,8

1022

Table I.
JMTM
Practice/
Nature of performance
Author(s) Year Country Sector paper based Methodology adopted Results

Puvanasvaran et al. 2009 Malaysia Manufacturing Empirical Practice Survey and regression Measured the degree of adoption of lean
study manufacturing principles and the degree of
leanness and degree of commitment of the
company
Bayou and De 2008 USA Manufacturing Empirical Practice Fuzzy logic Ford’s system is 17% leaner than GM’s system
Korvin study vis-à-vis the benchmarked company’s system
Wan and Chen 2008 USA Manufacturing Conceptual Performance Data envelopment analysis (DEA) and Unit-invariant leanness measure with a self-
study Slacks-based measure (SBM) contained benchmark to quantify the
leanness level of manufacturing systems
Sanati and 2008 – Manufacturing Empirical Practice Axiomatic design methodology Amount of leanness was determined in each
Seyedhoseini study phase and finally combined to make a unique
measure for total leanness
Srinivasaraghavan 2006 USA Manufacturing Empirical Practice Mahalanobis distance (MD) calculated using Classified firms into two groups: advanced
and Allada study Mahalanobis Taguchi system (MTS) and lean group and average/below average group
Mahalanobis Taguchi Gram Schmidt system
(MTGS)
Achanga et al. 2005 UK Manufacturing Empirical Practice Interviews through questionnaires Leadership, management, finance
study organizational culture and skills, and expertise
are classified as the most pertinent issues
critical for the successful adoption of lean
manufacturing within SMEs environment
Doolen and Hacker 2005 USA Manufacturing Empirical Practice An exploratory study using the survey Assessed the range of lean practices
study questionnaire implemented and the level of adoption of
these practices
Seth and Gupta 2005 India Manufacturing Empirical Performance Value stream mapping Current and future VSM was used as a
study technique to achieve cycle time and
productivity improvement at supplier end for
an auto industry by analyzing the takt time
calculations

(continued )
 Practice/
Nature of performance
Author(s) Year Country Sector paper based Methodology adopted Results

Taj 2005 China Manufacturing Empirical Practice Survey Lean profile chart was developed based on the
study responses received for lean assessment tool
Kojima and 2004 South Manufacturing Empirical Practice Questionnaire based empirical survey and Analysed various factors to determine the
Kaplinsky Africa study statistical analysis motivators for lean practices adoption
Marlow and Casaca 2003 UK and Service Conceptual Practice Uses performance indicators at two levels – Developed total quality ports management
Portugal study internal and external system
Arbos 2002 Spain Service Empirical Practice OM I concepts (O-T diagram) Analyzed the variability in service industry
study and proposed future actions that can be taken
as it exceeds the threshold
Soriano-Meier and 2002 UK Manufacturing Empirical Practice Survey supplemented with structured short Categorized firms into three categories based
Forrester study interviews, external and internal secondary on their degree of commitment and degree of
data and plant observation leanness scores – (1) Lean, (2) In-transition,
and (3) Traditional
Sanchez and Perez 2001 Spanish Manufacturing Empirical Practice Survey of manufacturing plants Identified most used lean production
region of study indicators to assess the company’s
Aragon improvements
Detty and Yingling 2000 – Manufacturing Empirical Practice Discrete event simulation based modeling Developed a tool to assist organizations to
study using time as the variable of study before and quantify, at the planning and evaluation
after lean implementation stage, the benefits they can expect from
applying lean principles to their system
Karlsson and 1996 Sweden Manufacturing Empirical Practice Case organization was studied to understand Operationalized model to access changes
Åhlström study the change process taking place while introducing lean production
Source: Authors
leanness

1023
Systemic

Table I.
 27,8

1024
JMTM

Table II.

distribution
their frequency
from literature and
Snapshot of the list
of elements identified
Elements S. No. Sub-elements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Human resource practices (HURP) 1 Flexible workforce * *

2 Multi-skilled personnel *
3 Employee involvement * *
4 Employee empowerment/Autonomy *
5 Self-directed work teams
6 Safety-improvement programs * *
7 Team management for decision making
8 Employee training * *
9 Organization hierarchy *
10 Decentralized responsibilities *
11 Employee work attitude
12 Employee suggestions
13 Group problem-solving
14 Clear definition of positions and authority
Management practices (MANP) 15 Flattened organizational structure *
16 Organizational culture * * *
17 Continuous improvement culture * * *
18 Flexible business system *
19 Smooth information flow *
20 Asset reduction *
21 Preventive maintenance *
22 Total quality management * * * * *
23 Knowledge management * *
24 Competitive benchmarking
25 Quality management programs * * * * *
26 Pull system * *
27 Frequency of new product introduction * *
Notes: 1 – Achanga et al. (2006); 2 – Agarwal et al. (2007); 3 – Allen et al. (2001); 4 – Anvari et al. (2013); 5 – Asadi and Panahi (2011); 6 – Azevedo et al. (2012);
7 – Bayou and De Korvin (2008); 8 – Bhasin (2011); 9 – Behrouzi and Wong (2013); 10 – Borenstein et al. (2004); 11 – Chan et al. (2003); 12 – Deif (2012);
13 – Doolen and Hacker (2005); 14 – Emiliani (2000); 15 – Karlsson and Åhlström (1996); 16 – Oleghe and Salonitis (2016); 17 – Azadeh et al. (2015)
Source: Authors
of classification and were performed by both the authors separately to ensure the Systemic
consistency. Inconsistent classification of few elements was once again discussed leanness
among the authors to arrive at a consensus. Finally, the process delivered five elements,
namely, supplier interface practices (SUIP), management practices (MANP),
human resource practices (HURP), process practices (PROP), and customer interface
practices (CUIP). In total, 73 lean sub-elements were then grouped under these elements.
Frequency analysis methodology similar to that of Shah and Ward (2003) is 1025
being followed in the current study. If the count of appearance of sub-elements was
found to be equal or greater than 5 (i.e. it appeared in 10 percent of the papers
reviewed), then it was considered, as it revealed its obvious importance.
On the other hand, if the count was lesser than 5, such elements were combined
with more frequently used elements based on their relevance and plausible
relationship. For instance, asset reduction sub-element was observed to appear in less
than 5 percent of articles and hence it was combined with more frequently repeating
and related CI practice. Asset reduction is a practice which enhances the achievement
of CI by removing the non-value adding assets and thereby providing more space for
value adding activities. If some of the elements were mentioned by only one or two
authors, such elements were eliminated, if it is found to be not related to lean.
Similarly, some of the sub-elements within the element were observed to be
conveying the same or similar meaning and hence were combined together based on
the context. For example, group problem-solving and team approach were combined
together as team approach for problem-solving. As a result of this process, 22 distinct
sub-elements were obtained distributed under the five elements as shown in Table III.
Figure 3 shows the lean elements framework with sub-elements classification for
assessing the systemic leanness of a value stream.
2.1.3 Need for systemic leanness – importance of interactions. Dynamics and
interactions between the elements within the system have a significant effect on
overall leanness attained. Ignoring these dynamics would mislead the stand
taken by the decision makers (Krishnamurthy and Chan, 2013). Implementing
LT is not about implementing few elements such as 5S, supermarkets, pull/kanban,
etc. in a piecemeal fashion. Rather, these lean elements are inter-related and
should be seen as a system (Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005; Anand et al., 2009).
For example, if pull production has to be implemented, then the output should
be free from defects (requiring the implementation of poka-yoke or mistake-
proofing), and standard containers with kanban cards should be in place. Naturally,
accounting for these interactions plays an important role in leanness assessment
to facilitate CI.
To assess the systemic aspect of lean philosophy and drive a common
focus on leanness and CI (Wong et al., 2014), an assessment methodology that can
incorporate the interactions and compute an integrated systemic measure is
developed. A “systemic leanness index” is developed by capturing the degree
of inheritance of various lean elements and the degree of interaction between
various lean elements. “Systemic leanness” can be defined as a measure of leanness
attained by an entire system and not a particular part of the system, after
incorporating the interactions between the lean elements. GTA is utilized to compute
the “systemic leanness” by capturing the degree of inheritance and degree
of interaction.
JMTM Elements and S.
27,8 notation No. Sub-elements Abbreviation Notation
Supplier interface 1 Supplier involvement (in product development SUIN B11
practices (SUIP) (B1) and production)
2 Availability of smaller number of strategic, and AVSU B12
qualified suppliers in proximity
1026 3 Technological assistance to and from the TEAS B13
suppliers
4 Information and profit sharing with suppliers IPSS B14
Management 1 Flat organizational structure and flexible FOFB B21
practices (MANP) (B2) business systems
2 Continuous improvement culture through total CIMC B22
quality management (TQM), total preventive
maintenance (TPM), asset reduction, etc.
3 Smooth information flow and feedback system SIFS B23
within organization and across supply chain
4 Effective knowledge management techniques EKMT B24
(of both tacit and explicit knowledge)
5 Top management commitment (through TMCM B25
supportive strategy, infrastructure, and
technical support)
Human resource 1 Multi-skilled, cross-functional and flexible MSCF B31
practices (HURP) (B3) workforce
2 Employee involvement, suggestions, and EISE B32
empowerment through job rotation and
decentralized responsibilities
3 Team approach (for working, decision making, TEAM B33
and problem-solving)
4 Employee welfare programs (such as training, EMWE B34
and safety improvement programs)
Process practices 1 Setup time, cycle time, and lead time reduction TIRE B41
(PROP) (B4) through cellular layout, quick changeover,
rapid replenishment, etc. practices
2 Work standardization and effective scheduling WSES B42
3 Inventory and lot size reduction ILSR B43
4 Production smoothing and continuous flow PSCF B44
production through advance lean tools
adoption such as JIT, pull system, process
adaptability, information sharing, etc.
5 Preliminary lean tools adoption such as visual PLTA B45
controls, VSM, autonomation, concurrent
engineering, etc.
6 Quality control practices such as autonomous QLCP B46
defect control, error proofing, statistical
process control, etc.
Customer interface 1 Minimum delivery lead time and on-time delivery MDLT B51
practices (CUIP) (B5) 2 Demand stabilization with allowable variety DEST B52
through standard/modular/platform
Table III. component, sub-assembly, and products
Lean elements and 3 Customer involvement and their requirement CIRA B53
sub-elements adoption
obtained Source: Authors
 Systemic
Management
leanness
Practices
(MANP)

1027
Supplier Human
Interface Resource
Practices Practices
(SUIP) (HURP)
Systemic
Leanness
Score

Customer
Process
Interface Figure 3.
Practices
Practices Lean elements
(PROP)
(CUIP) framework for
classifying the LT
sub-elements
Source: Authors

2.2 Assessment as a driver for continuous improvement

In this section, we discuss how assessment can drive in the achievement of CI of
process improvement initiatives such as LT (a comprehensive review on CI can be
found in Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005). Bhuiyan and Baghel (2005) defined CI as a culture
of sustained improvement targeting the elimination of waste in all systems and
processes of an organization. Narasimhan et al. (2006) defined leanness as the
accomplishment of production with minimal waste due to unneeded operations,
inefficient operations, or excessive buffering in operations. By comparing these
definitions, it can be inferred that assessment of leanness enhances the CI culture.
Supporting this dependency, Bhuiyan and Baghel (2005) have mentioned one of
the methodologies to achieve CI culture to be lean manufacturing along with others like
Six Sigma. Also, the objective of both leanness attainment and CI is to eliminate waste
systemically. Therefore, assessment of leanness drives the attainment of CI culture by
eliminating wastes.
Even though CI is considered to be simple and cost-effective (Robinson, 1991;
Bessant et al., 1994; Boer et al., 2000), many studies in the literature have documented
lack of success in CI of several initiatives including LT (Schoeder and Robinson,
1991; Bessant and Caffyn, 1997). To understand the reasons behind the failure,
subsequent studies attempted to develop methods for assessment of initiatives such
as TQM, LT, etc. to drive them towards succeeding in CI (Shortell et al. 1995; Caffyn,
1999; Jørgensen et al., 2003; Keshavarz and Baghdarnia, 2013). But, none of the
assessment techniques developed so far has considered the systemic aspect of LT
initiative to drive it towards CI. This study links the assessment of systemic
leanness as a driver for CI.
JMTM 3. Application of GTA
27,8 GTA methodology is chosen to incorporate the relationships within the elements and
sub-elements for assessing the systemic leanness. Other methodologies such as ANP
and interpretive structural modeling (ISM) techniques can also be used to develop the
relationship. But ANP requires a large number of pairwise comparison and ISM
delivers only relationships among the elements without leanness computation. Hence,
1028 the GTA methodology is used for this study. Flowchart explaining the step-by-step
procedure for applying GTA is shown in Figure 4.
GTA has been widely used in various fields in the literature (Mohan et al., 2003;
Kulkarni, 2005; Wagner and Neshat, 2010; Anand et al., 2013; Aravind Raj et al., 2013;
Muduli and Barve, 2013; Attri et al., 2014; Bhanot et al., 2015). The reasons for wide
variety of applications of GTA are:
• versatility of methodology to provide solutions for problems from any
domain;
• highly suitable for performing visual analysis of a complex system and makes it
easy to conduct analysis at systemic level;
• develops graphs for understanding the system as a whole with clear-cut
identification of system, sub-system, and components; and
• delivers single index at the end of the approach thereby providing simple
objective outcomes.
The mathematical model developed using GTA considers two things: contribution of
the element itself, i.e. the inheritance, and the extent of dependence among other
elements, i.e. their interactions. Inheritance and interaction are captured in a matrix
derived from the digraphs. The inheritances fill the diagonal elements of the matrix
and interactions fill the off-diagonal elements of the matrix. With this data on
inheritance and interaction for elements and sub-elements, systemic leanness of the
entire system can be calculated. Mathematical aspects of GTA can be found in Grover
et al. (2004, 2006).

3.1 Demonstration
In this study, application of GTA for systemic leanness assessment is conducted by
using the step-by-step procedure shown in Figure 4. A value stream in a firm
which has been implementing LT for the last two years is considered for assessment
in this research. A practitioner associated with lean implementation in the selected
value stream was asked to provide the empirical ratings. Ratings for leanness
assessment of a value stream can also be obtained from multiple individuals having
knowledge about the lean implementation journey to triangulate the outcome of the
assessment. Through this demonstration of applying GTA to assess leanness, the
value stream can arrive at an understanding on what sub-elements and elements of
the proposed framework need to be focussed in future to attain higher systemic
leanness index.
Some of the sub-elements identified within an element can be implemented
individually while some are interdependent on the implementation of other sub-elements
within the given element. To capture and understand this interaction, digraphs showing
the directional relationships are constructed between sub-elements within an element and
all the elements. Five-point Likert scale was used to obtain the degree of interaction
 Start

Objective: Assessment of “Systemic Leanness” to drive “Continuous Improvement” in LT Implementation

Literature review: Development of a framework with elements and sub-elements of LT

Graph-theoretic approach application

1. Development of digraphs 2. Matrix representation of digraphs 3. Quantification of the matrix elements 4. Compute the permanent of matrices
Captures customized Diagonal cells represent implementation Seek ratings from the team implementing LT on (1) off- (1) Evaluate the permanent function for the matrices
interdependency configuration of and off-diagonal cells represent diagonal cells of matrix for lean elements and sub- of sub-elements within each element
all elements and all sub-elements interaction between lean elements elements within every element and (2) diagonal cells of (2) Substitute these values computed in the
within every element matrix for sub-elements individual element matrix to compute its
permanent

Systemic leanness index

Scenario analysis of best-case and worst-case

Scale for systemic leanness assessment

Stop

Source: Authors
leanness

applying GTA
the step-by-step
1029
Systemic

Flowchart explaining
Figure 4.

procedure for
JMTM between the elements and sub-elements (as shown in Table IV). Saaty (1980) scale
27,8 was used to capture the degree of inheritance of each of the sub-elements within an
element (as shown in Table V).

3.2 Algorithm
Algorithm used by Anand and Kodali (2010) is being adapted for the current study.
1030 The entire algorithm comprises of five phases, namely, development of digraphs,
matrix representation of digraphs to derive variable permanent matrix (VPM),
quantification of VPM-BSSi, evaluating the VPM-B, and finally the calculation of
systemic leanness scores for best-case and worst-case scenarios.
3.2.1 Development of digraphs. Step 1: specify clearly in detail the problem
that needs to be addressed. In this study, the problem is to assess the systemic
leanness attained by a value stream that has been implementing various lean
practices.
Step 2: identify the elements and sub-elements that influence the problem faced.
Represent the elements as Bi’s, where i varies from 1 to n and n is the total number of
elements which is five in the current study (shown in Table III).
Step 3: represent the sub-elements within each element I as Bij ’s where j varies from 1
to m and m is total number of sub-elements within an element. Sub-elements in the
current study and their notations are listed in Table III.

S. No. Degree of interaction Assigned value

1 Very strong 5
2 Strong 4
Table IV. 3 Medium 3
5-point Likert scale 4 Weak 2
to obtain the degree 5 Very weak 1
of interaction Source: Authors

Assigned
value Degree of inheritance Explanation

1 Extremely low When the company has no knowledge about the sub-element, and
it has not been implemented
3 Low When the company knows about the sub-element, but it has not
been implemented
5 Average When the company knows about the sub-element, but it has been
implemented only to certain extent
7 High When the company knows about the sub-element and it has been
implemented properly and well documented
9 Extremely high When the company knows about the sub-element and it has been
implemented properly as a result of which excellent results have
Table V. been achieved
9-point Saaty scale 2, 4, 6, 8 Represent the Used, when compromise is needed between the above described
to obtain the degree intermediate values assigned values
of inheritance Source: Adapted from Saaty (1980)
Step 4: After identifying the elements and sub-elements, develop the relationships Systemic
between the elements logically using a digraph depending on their interactions. Nodes leanness
of the digraph (i.e. the circles) are used to capture the degree of inheritance of elements
as Bi and that of sub-elements as Bij . The edges of a digraph (i.e. the arrows) represent
the interactions between the elements as bij and between the sub-elements as bijk .
Figure 5 shows the digraph capturing the inheritances and interactions between
elements (Bi’s). It could be clearly observed that bidirectional relationships have been 1031
constructed between all the five elements. The logic behind the interactions constructed
in the digraph of elements is explained in Table VI.
Domain knowledge, expertise in the field, general practices that are followed in an
organization and literature support is used to establish the relationships. For
instance, to establish the relationship between SUIP and MANP, information sharing
(IPSS) at the supplier interface (sub-element under SUIP) is required to implement
smooth information flow (SIFS) both within (between different processes or
departments) and across the value stream (sub-element under MANP). Depending
upon the implementation of various LT practices in a given value stream, the
digraphs can be suitably modified by changing/removing the nodes and their
associated edges.
Step 5: similarly through proper logical reasoning, diagraphs were
constructed for sub-elements under each element (as shown from Figures 6 to 10).
For example, in Figure 6, SUIN will be employed by a value stream only
when suppliers are fewer in number and strategic in nature (AVSU), thereby
validating the relationship b112 directed from SUIN to AVSU. Logical reasoning
for the reverse relationship, i.e. b121 directed from AVSU to SUIN is that the value
stream attempting to achieve AVSU would wish to attain long-term relationship
with those strategic suppliers. To achieve a long-term relationship with the strategic
suppliers, the value stream will implement SUIN in the production process and
involve them for CI.

Management Practices (MANP)

B2 b32
b21
b12 b23
b13
Human
B3 Resource
Supplier B1 b31 Practices
Interface b25 b52 (HURP)
Practices
b42
(SUIP)
b24
b51 b14
b15 b34 b43

b41
b53
b35 B4
B5
b54 Figure 5.
Digraph capturing
Customer Interface Practices
b45 Process Practices the inheritance and
(CUIP) (PROP) interaction between
all five elements (Bi’s)
Source: Authors
JMTM Element Symbol Reason
27,8
B1 b12 In general, practices of management attempting to implement LT are
dependent on supplier interface practices. If the suppliers are not involved,
then it could hinder the implementation of certain LT management practices.
For example, information sharing at the supplier interface is required to
implement smooth information flow across the supply chain, both within
1032 (between different processes or departments) and across the organization.
Also, supplier interface practices such as vendor managed inventory, profit
sharing, etc. would lead to changes in management decisions on the inventory
level and location, procurement capacity, number of suppliers, product
design and development, etc. thereby changing the management decisions
and practices. Many papers are available in literature supporting this
relationship including Powell (1995), Dyer et al. (1998), Ahire and O’shaughnessy
(1998), Vonderembse and Tracey (1999), Tan et al. (2002), Kaynak (2003),
Li et al. (2006), etc.
b13 Supplier interface practices would lead to the transfer of certain non-core processes
from the case organization to the supplier side. This would, in turn, lead to changes
in the processes being performed in the case organization and thereby would lead to
changes in the job profiles of the employees. Some employees would be moved from
the process transferred to the supplier to another process. Papers in the literature
supporting this relationship include Stuart (1997), Handfield and Bechtel (2002),
Kaynak (2003), etc.
b14 Supplier interface practices could lead to changes in the process practices. For
instance, transferring of certain processes to suppliers end or by creating proximal
suppliers to the manufacturing plant to reduce inventory would demand changes in
the process practices in the case organization. For example, movement of a sub-
assembly area to the supplier’s side would result in changes in the process plan for
the manufacturer. Papers in the literature supporting this relationship include Ahire
and O’shaughnessy (1998), Handfield and Bechtel (2002), Kaynak (2003), etc.
b15 Practices such as information sharing with suppliers would help in instantaneously
transferring the customer requirements and thereby help in achieving higher
involvement of customers. Papers in the literature supporting this relationship
include Ahire and O’shaughnessy (1998), Shin et al. (2000), Handfield and Bechtel
(2002), Li et al. (2006), etc.
B2 b21 Management decisions and practices would decide on ensuring high supplier
interface practices to involve them in the product design, process improvements
and production to ensure the smooth conduct of activities and also to utilize the
expertise of the suppliers in the processes. Many papers are available in the
literature supporting this relationship including Ahire and O’shaughnessy (1998),
Tan et al. (2002), Kaynak (2003), Li et al. (2006), etc.
b23 To achieve continuous improvement culture, management practices would impact
human resource practices such as conducting a training program, implementing job
rotation, organizing employees into team, etc. Top management commitment plays
an important role in achieving different human resource practices such as
empowerment, employee involvement, etc. Flat organization structure and flexible
business systems would help in involving the employees through their suggestions
and empowerment. Papers in the literature supporting this relationship include
Powell (1995), Adam et al. (1997), Dow et al. (1999), Samson and Terziovski (1999),
Table VI. Kaynak (2003), etc.
b24 Management set continuous improvement strategies such as Total quality
Logical reasoning
management (TQM), total productive maintenance (TPM), asset reduction, etc.,
behind the
would impact the process level practices such as layout, standardization, inventory
directional
interactions between
the lean elements (continued )
Element Symbol Reason
Systemic
leanness
reduction, etc. In addition, implementation of certain process practices such as pull
system, visual control, autonomation, etc. is highly dependent on top management
commitment. Papers in literature supporting this relationship includes Powell (1995),
Adam et al. (1997), Choi and Eboch (1998), Ahire and O’shaughnessy (1998), Das et al.
(2000), Wilson and Collier (2000), Douglas and Judge (2001), Kaynak (2003), etc.
b25 Management implementing LT would attempt to involve customers in the process
1033
to understand what is value adding to customers and thereby design or modify
their processes to focus on delivering that value and removing the non-value adding
tasks. Smooth information flow between the customers and organization through
feedback system is highly necessary for involvement of customers and to adopt
their requirements. It can also be clearly seen that top management commitment is
mandatory for customer interface practices to succeed. Papers in the literature
supporting this relationship include Powell (1995), Choi and Eboch (1998), Ahire and
O’shaughnessy (1998), Dow et al. (1999), Samson and Terziovski (1999), Das et al.
(2000), etc.
B3 b31 Involving suppliers and developing new relationships between them require a
change in the way the suppliers are treated. With practices such as Vendor
Managed Inventory (VMI), supplier’s personnel would be taking over certain
activities that are followed by the case organization. Hence, human resources of the
organization should be briefed and adequately trained. In addition, transfer of
processes to suppliers may also lead to change in jobs for certain employees. Hence
unions and employee associations would resist this change to safeguard their jobs.
Papers in the literature supporting this relationship include Stuart (1997), Li et al.
(2006) Handfield and Bechtel (2002), Kaynak (2003), etc.
b32 Human resource practices such as employee suggestions play a significant role in
achieving management practices such as continuous improvement culture. Shop
floor employee’s involvement, union’s support, and their feedback are essential for
top management to achieve smooth information flow and effective implementation
of knowledge management. In addition, for effective implementation of employee
empowerment and suggestion schemes, flat organization structure, and flexible
business systems need to be in place beforehand. Papers in the literature supporting
this relationship include Powell (1995), Dow et al. (1999), Samson and Terziovski
(1999), Kaynak (2003), etc.
b34 Implementing LT in an organization require employees who consistently
work on improving the process by removing non-value adding tasks. Employee
involvement and employee suggestions based on their shop floor process
knowledge would help in achieving standardization, lead time reduction, and
quality control practices. Papers in literature supporting this relationship includes
Flynn et al. (1994), Flynn et al. (1995), Mohrman et al. (1995), Powell (1995), Ahire
et al. (1996), Black and Porter (1996), Adam et al. (1997), Grandzol and Gershon
(1997), Kaynak (2003), Malcolm Baldrige Award criteria (Criteria for Performance
Excellence, 2002), etc.
b35 Customer involvement and adoption of their requirements would require a
flexible workforce with multi-skills and cross-functional knowledge. Demand
stabilization through standard/modular/platform component, sub-assembly, and
products cannot be achieved at process level without appropriate employee
suggestions and their team approach. Papers in the literature supporting this
relationship include Anderson et al. (1995), Adam et al. (1997), Grandzol and
Gershon (1997), Dow et al. (1999), Samson and Terziovski (1999), Handfield and
Bechtel (2002), etc.

(continued ) Table VI.

JMTM Element Symbol Reason
27,8
B4 b41 Change in the process practice would invariably impact the supplier interface practices.
For instance, by changing the technology associated with the process, new
specifications would be imposed on the raw materials supplied or on the technology
adopted at the supplier end. These will be communicated through supplier interface
practices and supplier needs to adapt the practices accordingly to deliver the
1034 demanded materials. Similarly, JIT delivery adoption by the focal firm would want
suppliers to adopt lot size reduction, standard containers, kanban, etc. Papers in
the literature supporting this relationship include Ahire and O’shaughnessy (1998),
Kaynak (2003), etc.
b42 Successful implementation of lean tools can only be achieved by allocating
dedicated resources which would require intense top management commitment.
Effective knowledge management techniques, smooth information flow, and
feedback system will also be achieved as by-products of successful implementation
of LT. Papers in the literature supporting this relationship include Choi and Eboch
(1998), Ahire and O’shaughnessy (1998), Das et al. (2000), Wilson and Collier (2000),
Douglas and Judge (2001), Kaynak (2003), etc.
b43 Preliminary and advance lean tools adoption at the process level would
require employee training and multi-skilled, cross-functional and flexible
workforce. In addition, quality control and lean tool adoption would require
team approach to preexist. Papers in literature supporting this relationship
includes Flynn et al. (1994), Mohrman et al. (1995), Powell (1995), Ahire et al.
(1996), Black and Porter (1996), Adam et al. (1997), Grandzol and Gershon (1997),
Kaynak (2003), Malcolm Baldrige Award criteria (Criteria for Performance
Excellence, 2002), etc.
b45 Standardization of the processes has to be achieved without impacting the
customer requirements which in turn demands customer involvement. To set
the permissible level of inventory, lot size, lead time, quality, and extent of
standardization, customer involvement needs to be embraced to gather the
requisite knowledge. Also, the process level changes will have an impact on
customers as it would require them to rethink and reset the expectations.
For example, if the process is changed to accommodate mixed model
manufacturing, then the customers (within supply chain) too need to have their
expectations reset on process and systems. Papers in literature supporting this
relationship includes Flynn et al. (1994), Ahire et al. (1996), Black and Porter (1996),
Adam et al. (1997), Grandzol and Gershon (1997), Choi and Eboch (1998), Ahire and
O’shaughnessy (1998), Forza and Filippini (1998), Rungtusanatham et al. (1998),
Das et al. (2000), Malcolm Baldrige Award criteria (Criteria for Performance
Excellence, 2002), etc.
B5 b51 Customer demand stabilization through standard modular approches by reducing
the variety would require frequent information sharing with suppliers to assess the
feasibility of implementing the modular designs. Of course, the interaction between
customer and supplier may not be direct, but through the firm (which implements
lean) connecting them. Papers in the literature supporting this relationship include
Ahire and O’shaughnessy (1998), Handfield and Bechtel (2002), etc.
b52 Incorporating customer inputs and adopting their requirement are mandatory for
an organization imbibing lean management practices. To achieve delivery in
minimum time, top management commitment and continuous improvement culture
along with smooth information flow are mandatory. Papers in the literature
supporting this relationship include Ahire and O’shaughnessy (1998), Dow et al.
(1999), Samson and Terziovski (1999), Das et al. (2000), etc.

Table VI. (continued )

Element Symbol Reason
Systemic
leanness
b53 Minimum delivery lead time and on-time delivery to customers areimpossible to
achieve without involving and empowering employees. Unless employees
understand the significance of customers and their requirements, it might be
difficult to sustain and satisfy the customers. Papers in the literature supporting
this relationship include Anderson et al. (1995), Adam et al. (1997), Grandzol and
Gershon (1997), Handfield and Bechtel (2002), Dow et al. (1999), Samson and
1035
Terziovski (1999), etc.
b54 Value adding processes in a value stream are determined by involving customers in
the production and by studying their key requirements. Customer involvement and
adoption of their requirements would demand certain process level practices such
as process adaptability, information sharing, quality control, etc. to preexist. Papers
in literature supporting this relationship includes Flynn et al. (1994), Ahire et al.
(1996), Adam et al. (1997), Black and Porter (1996), Grandzol and Gershon (1997),
Ahire and O’shaughnessy (1998), Choi and Eboch (1998), Forza and Filippini (1998),
Rungtusanatham et al. (1998), Das et al. (2000), Malcolm Baldrige Award criteria
(Criteria for Performance Excellence, 2002), etc.
Source: Authors Table VI.

b121

B 21
B 11
AVSU
SUIN b211
b24 1

b131

b231
b141 b411 b311
Figure 6.
Digraph capturing
the inheritance and
B 31 interaction between
B 41 the sub-elements
b341 TEAS
IPSS within the element
“supplier interface
practices (SUIP)”
Source: Authors

3.2.2 Matrix representation of digraphs to derive VPM. Step 6: VPM at the system level
is represented as VPM-B. VPM-B derived based on the digraph represented in Figure 5
is as shown below:

B1 b12 b13 b14 b15

2
b21 B b23 b24 b25
3
VPM‐B ¼ b31 b32 B b34 b35 (1)
b41 b42 b43 B4 b45
b51 b52 b53 b54 B5
JMTM
b122
27,8 B 12 b132
FOFB
b212
b322

1036 b232 B 32
B 22
SIFS
CIMC b342

b432
b422 b522
b242 b142 b532
b512
Figure 7. b252
Digraph capturing
the inheritance and
interaction between B 42
B 52
the sub-elements EKMT
within the element TMCM
“management b542
practices (MANP)”
Source: Authors

b 213
B 23
B 13
EISE
MSCF b 123
b 133
b 423

b 233 b 323
b 413 b 313
Figure 8.
Digraph capturing
the inheritance and
interaction between B 33
the sub-elements B 43
TEAM
within the element EMWE b 433
“human resource
practices (HURP)”
Source: Authors

The nodes in the digraph (represented as B1-B5) occupy the diagonal position in the
VPM-B. Edges in the digraph (represented by bij’s) occupy the off-diagonal position in
the VPM-B. If an arrow is absent between the elements, the value corresponding to that
relationship in the VPM-B is assigned to be “0”.
Step 7: the permanent equation of VPM-B (per B) is a standard matrix
function which is commonly used and defined in combinatorial mathematics.
Computation of permanent for a matrix follows the same procedure as that
of computation of determinant for a matrix but with all signs positive in the
determinant computational formulae. per B can be evaluated using the equation
 Systemic
B 14
b214 b314 leanness
TIRE b134
b124
b234
b154
B 34
B 24
b324 1037
4
b144 b344 ILSR
WSES b424 b41
b244
b434
b534
B 44
b254 b524 PSCF b634
b514 b364
b624
b544 b534
b644 Figure 9.
B 54 b464 b614 Digraph capturing
the inheritance and
PLTA
b264 interaction between
B 64
the sub-elements
QLCP within the element
b564 “process practices
(PROP)”
Source: Authors

b215
B 25
B15
DEST
MDLT

b315
b235 b325
Figure 10.
Digraph capturing
the inheritance and
interaction between
B 35 the sub-elements
CIRA within the element
“customer interface
practices (CUIP)
Source: Authors

given in Figure 11, which represents general form of the permanent equation for any
5 × 5 matrix. To solve this equation, data for elements in the matrix has to be
collected. Next phase explains the process of obtaining the values for elements
of VPM-B in detail.
3.2.3 Quantification of VPM-BSSi. Step 8: each element Bi in VPM-B can be
considered as a sub-system with the corresponding sub-elements affecting them.
To find out the values of Bi and the interaction values bij in the VPM-B, the VPM for
JMTM VPF – B = per B
5

27,8 =  Bi +      (bi j bj i ) Bk Bl Bm
i =1 i j k l m

+  (bi j bj k bk l + bi k bk j bj i ) Bl Bm
i j k l m

⎛
+  (bi j bj k ) (bk l bl k ) Bm
⎝i j k l m
⎝
1038 +     ((bi j bj k bk l bl i ) + (bi l bl k bk j bj i )) Bm ⎛
i j k l m

+     ⎛bi j bj i (bk l bl m bm k + bk m bm l blk )

Figure 11. i j k l m ⎝
General form of the ⎝
+  (bi j bj k bk l bl m bm i bm l + bi m bm l blk bk j bj i )
permanent equation i j k l m
⎛
for a 5 × 5 VPM-B
Source: Grover et al. (2004)

each sub-system (VPM-BSSi) needs to be constructed as explained in Section 3.2.2.

A sample VPM-BSS1 for the element “SUIP” sub-system derived from its corresponding
digraph (shown in Figure 6) is shown below:

B11 b112 b113 b114

b121 B12 b123 b124
VPM‐BSS1 ¼ (2)
b131 0 B13 b134
b141 0 0 B14

From these matrices, the permanent for each of the sub-systems are calculated after
obtaining the values for bij ’s and bijk ’s. Assessment can be performed by making the
value stream managers to answer the following questions:
• What is their understanding regarding different sub-elements classified under
their respective element?
• How effectively they have implemented the sub-elements?
• How one implemented element or sub-element influences other? How much have
they contributed in implementing it?
Answers in the form of ratings can be obtained based on the evaluator’s knowledge,
and direct observation of existing situation within the value stream. VPM-BSS1 shown
in the following equation captures the values for diagonal elements depicting the level
of inheritance of each sub-element under the element “SUIP”:

7 b112 b113 b114

b121 7 b123 b124
VPM‐BSS1 ¼ (3)
b131 0 6 b134
b141 0 0 5

Step 9: values for bijk ’s are also obtained based on the degree of interaction between
sub-elements within an element. Updated Equation (3) with values filled in for both the
diagonal and off-diagonal elements is shown in the following equation: Systemic
7 2 3 3 leanness
4 7 3 3
VPM‐BSS1 ¼ (4)
3 0 6 3
2 0 0 5 1039
From VPM-BSSi where i varies from 1 to 5, the permanent of the matrices can be
calculated, which are represented as per (BSSi). A sample permanent value for VPM-BSS1
representing the systemic leanness score for the element “SUIP” is shown below:
Per ðBSS1 Þ ¼ 2;601
The obtained value can also be expressed in the logarithmic term as log10 (2,601)
for easy interpretation, which will be equal to 3.415. In a similar manner, the
permanent and their logarithmic values for the remaining sub-system matrices are
calculated and are shown in Table VII. These permanents will be filled as diagonal
elements in Equation (1) to compute its permanent which in turn represents the
systemic leanness.
3.2.4 Evaluating the VPM-B. Step 10: to evaluate the value of VPM-B at system level,
off-diagonal and diagonal values needs to be inputted. In the diagonal of the VPM-B, the
permanent values obtained in Section 3.2.3 are used. The values of off-diagonal elements
(bij’s) for VPM-B are inputted by collecting data on the degree of interactions among the
elements (Bi’s). The complete VPM-B with data is as shown below:

Main Factor SUIP MANP HURP PROP CUIP

SUIP 2;601 3 2 3 2
MANP 4 48;741 2 4 3
(5)
HURP 1 3 5;796 3 1
PROP 4 3 4 1; 188;024 3
CUIP 1 4 2 4 264

Finally, per B is calculated to be 2.3 × 1020 (logarithmic transformation of Per B is

20.36) by integrating the degree of inheritance of sub-elements, the degree of
interaction between the elements and the degree of interaction between various sub-
elements under each element. This per B value represents the single numerical index
which quantifies the extent of systemic leanness attained. This index can be
benchmarked with other value streams known for LT implementation (say value
streams in Toyota) or with the same value stream at different time-points. The next
phase will discuss developing a scale through the analysis of best-case and
worst-case scenarios.
3.2.5 Calculation of systemic leanness scores for best-case and worst-case scenarios.
Step 11: per B needs to be calculated for different case scenarios to understand the
range within which the values of systemic leanness can vary (Grover et al., 2006).
The practical best-case scenario can occur only if the value stream under assessment
has implemented all the LT sub-elements under five elements to the fullest extent.
 27,8

1040
JMTM

Table VII.

for best-case

case scenario
Permanent values

scenario and worst-

Highly log10
log10 maximum log10 (highly Maximum (maximum Minimum log10 Highly log10 (highly
Current (current value maximum value) value value) value (minimum minimum minimum
value value) (theoretical (theoretical (practical (practical (worst- value) value (ideal value) (ideal
System /Sub- (case (case best-case best-case best-case best-case case (worst-case worst-case worst-case
system example) example) scenario) scenario) scenario) scenario) scenario) scenario) scenario) scenario)

Per BSS1 (SUIP) 2,601 3.415 16,636 4.221 8,892 3.949 108 2.033 8 0.903
Per BSS2 (MANP) 48,741 4.688 27,5424 5.44 94,143 4.974 503 2.702 24 1.38
Per BSS3 (HURP) 5,796 3.763 14,886 4.173 10,467 4.02 131 2.117 6 0.778
Per BSS4 (PROP) 1,188,024 6.075 12,773,216 7.106 2,863,149 6.457 150,989 5.179 312 2.494
Per BSS5 (CUIP) 264 2.423 954 2.98 810 2.908 10 2 0.301 0.0
Per B 2.3 × 1020 20.36 8.3 × 1023 23.92 2.03 × 1022 22.31 1.08 × 1013 13.03 1.55 × 106 6.19
Source: Authors
In that case scenario, the degree of inheritance of elements and sub-elements will have a Systemic
maximum value of 9, i.e. for instance, VPM for BSS1 will be re-written as: leanness
9 2 3 3
4 9 3 3
VPM‐BSS1 ¼ (6)
3 0 9 3
1041
2 0 0 9

Similarly, the VPM for other sub-systems are re-written in such a way that the diagonal
elements have the value of “9.” Revised permanent values of the five sub-systems are
shown in Table VII. Based on these revised permanent values of BSS1-BSS5, systemic
leanness for the practical best-case is calculated. In this case scenario, the VPM-B is
found to be 2.03 × 1022, which on logarithmic transformation is equal to 22.3.
Step 12: theoretical best-case situation is computed by considering maximum values
for both inheritances and interactions in sub-systems. Based on this, Equation (6)
is re-written as:

9 5 5 5
5 9 5 5
VPM‐BSS1 ¼ (7)
5 0 9 5
5 0 0 9

Similarly, the VPM for other sub-systems are re-written in such a way that the diagonal
elements have the value of “9” and off-diagonal non-zero elements have the value of “5.”
Revised permanent values of the five sub-systems are shown in Table VII. Based
on these revised permanent values of BSS1-BSS5, systemic leanness for the theoretical
best-case is calculated. In this case scenario, the VPM-B is found to be 8.3 × 1023, which
on logarithmic transformation is equal to 23.92. But achieving such a state is
considered practically infeasible as the degree of interaction between all the
sub-elements and elements cannot be at its maximum of “5.”
Step 13: worst-case situation can occur if a value stream has not transformed itself into
lean or has failed in successfully implementing the sub-elements during the
transformation. Such situations can be found in a value stream that has just started the
process of implementing LT. Therefore, the degree of inheritance of sub-elements will have
a minimum value of 1. In this case scenario, the VPM for BSS1 will be re-written as follows:

1 2 3 3
4 1 3 3
VPM‐BSS1 ¼ (8)
3 0 1 3
2 0 0 1

Similarly, the VPM for other sub-systems are also re-written in such a way that the
diagonal elements have the value of “1.” Revised permanent values of the five
sub-systems are shown in Table VII. Based on these permanent values of BSS1-BSS5,
JMTM the systemic leanness is found to be 1.08 × 1013, which on logarithmic transformation
27,8 is equal to 13.03.
Step 14: in the ideal worst-case situation, a value stream has not implemented any of
the sub-elements and the relationship between sub-elements is also poor. Such a
situation may exist in a value stream which is still functioning under traditional
paradigm. Under such circumstances, values for both the degree of inheritance and
1042 degree of interaction is “1”. In this case scenario, Equation (8) will be re-written as:

1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
V PM‐BSS1 ¼ (9)
1 0 1 1
1 0 0 1

Similarly, the VPM for other sub-systems are also re-written in such a way that the
diagonal elements and off-diagonal non-zero elements have the value of “1.” Revised
permanent values of the five sub-systems are shown in Table VII. Based on these
permanent values of BSS1-BSS5, systemic leanness for the ideal worst-case situation is
found to be 1.55 × 106, which on logarithmic transformation is equal to 6.19.

4. Results and discussion

Figure 12 plots the logarithmic transformed permanent values of the five elements and
final systemic leanness score for four different extreme scenarios and a case example.
Scenario analysis carried out provides a continuum on which any value stream can be
plotted to understand their current status and to identify their future target systemic
leanness score. The continuum also helps a value stream to perform self-benchmarking
by comparing its present and past systemic leanness score. Thus, this would facilitate
CI of LT implementation.

4.1 Comparing systemic leanness of different value streams

Case study (i.e. value stream) assessed has obtained systemic leanness of 20.36 which is
lesser than the practical best-case systemic leanness of 22.31 but much better than the
worst-case systemic leanness of 13.03. As value stream example considered has been
implementing LT for past two years, elements have higher contribution when
compared to worst-case scenarios. On the other hand, a gap still exists between the
value stream considered and practical best-case in the systemic implementation of LT.
value stream manager and lean implementation team has to focus on bridging this gap

Scenario Analysis
30
log10 (permanent value)

25

20

15 Case example

Figure 12. Practical best case – Maximum value

10
Scenario analysis Theoretical best case– Maximum value
5
of five elements Worst case– Minimum value
and the final 0 Ideal worst case– Minimum value
SUIP MANP HURP PROP CUIP Systemic
systemic leanness Leanness
Score
in future to achieve CI. Systemic leanness and individual element leanness can be Systemic
benchmarked to generate a future action plan for the value stream. Apart from this, the leanness
worst-case and best-case scenario analysis acts as a substitute for sensitivity analysis
to a certain extent and thereby can help in analyzing the impact of change in values
given by the evaluators.
Figure 13 explains the impact of the systemic feature on the final systemic leanness
attained. For demonstration, two value stream examples are considered which has 1043
been implementing LT. It has been assumed here that due to various strategic and
operational reasons, example 1 has not considered the implementation of LT practices
under HURP and example 2 has not considered the implementation of LT in
SUIP. VPM for elements not considered for implementation is inputted as shown in
the following equation:
2 2 2 2
2 2 1 1
VPM ¼ (10)
1 0 1 3
2 0 0 1

Other than this, both value stream examples considered have attained identical leanness
level in all other elements. In a traditional assessment procedure without considering the
interactions, the systemic leanness attained by these two examples would be significantly
different based on the weight for each of the elements which can finally mislead
the conclusions and future directions taken by the value stream in its lean
implementation journey. By incorporating the systemic component of leanness attained
after considering the interactions, it can be clearly seen that the systemic leanness attained
finally in both the examples are almost identical even though the individual element’s
leanness score, i.e. HURP and SUIP is different. This shows that it is important to
consider the interactions at elements and sub-elements while assessing the leanness of
a value stream.
Figure 13 also shows the importance of considering the individual element leanness
scores along with the systemic leanness score to understand where the future focus
needs to be. Thus, it enables the operations manager/value stream manager to
continuously improve the implementation of various LT practices. Considering only
systemic leanness score might end up in misleading future directions. Assessment
procedure proposed in this study by considering the interactions provides a choice of
choosing the target area for implementation of lean to attain the same systemic
leanness score as another organization – say the competitor but without imitating what

Scenario Analysis 18.74

22
18.4
log10 (permanent value)

17
Case example 1
12
3.415 1.792
Case example 2
Figure 13.
Practical best case–Maximum value
7 3.763
Theoretical best case–Maximum value
Impact of
1.792
Worst case –Minimum value interactions between
2
Ideal worst case –Minimum value elements on final
–3
SUIP MANP HURP PROP CUIP Systemic systemic leanness
Leanness Score
attained
Source: Authors
JMTM has been done by the competitor thereby providing the flexibility of introducing lean
27,8 practices which has proper fit for the overall organization culture and setting.
The study also shows that two value streams can attain similar systemic leanness
score with different lean practices implemented. For instance, consider a service
value stream whose focus is primarily on CUIP and on the other hand consider an R&D
value stream whose primary focus would be on HURP, but the systemic leanness score
1044 attained by both the value streams could be similar with different leanness scores of
individual elements.

4.2 A scale for systemic leanness

Logarithmic transformed systemic leanness values obtained for different case
scenarios were normalized to obtain a 0-1 continuum. Ideal worst-case and theoretical
best-case were transformed to 0 and 1 in the rating continuum. For instance,
normalized value of systemic leanness score attained by the value stream example
considered is as shown below:

20:366:19
Normalized value of case example ¼ ¼ 0:8
23:926:19
Normalized values of other scenarios were evaluated using the same procedure.
Table VIII presents the normalized rating scale for systemic leanness at different
scenarios. Table IX provides a lookup table for categorization of systems based on their
final systemic leanness values. Similar rating scales were also created for all the
elements to see where the value stream stands in the continuum (as shown in Table X).
From the scale developed, it can be inferred that the value stream example
considered is performing more than average and close to the best-case situation. The
quantified value for each element found by analyzing the Bi’s in VPM-B can be called as
leanness index of those respective elements such as management practices index,
human resource practices index, etc. Comparing these Bi’s, it is possible to infer which
practice or element contributes maximally to the systemic leanness attained. It also

Scenario log10 (permanent value) Normalized value

Ideal worst-case 6.19 0.0

Table VIII. Worst-case 13.03 0.4
Normalized rating Case example 20.36 0.8
scale for systemic Practical best-case 22.31 0.9
leanness score at Theoretical best-case 23.92 1.0
different scenarios Source: Authors

Table IX. Range of normalized systemic leanness score Organization category

Lookup table for
categorization of 0-0.4 (ideal worst-worst) Traditional
organizations based 0.4-0.9 (worst-practical best) Transforming
on systemic 0.9-1.0 (practical best-theoretical best) Toyota equivalent
leanness scores Source: Authors
leaves with elements that contribute minimum to the systemic leanness, thereby Systemic
guiding the value stream managers to focus on those elements to continuously improve leanness
their leanness level. For the value stream assessed, it can be clearly inferred that
PROP element contributes maximum to the systemic leanness level attained and
CUIP element contributes the minimum. Hence CUIP element has to be targeted by the
value stream manager to implement customer related lean practices which would, in
turn, raise the systemic leanness attained. 1045
4.3 Research implications
Assessment methodology demonstrated captures the key determinants of performance
of lean production system discussed in literature, i.e. the actions taken, the principles
implemented, and the changes made to the value stream to achieve the desired
performance (Narasimhan et al., 2006). Krishnamurthy and Chan (2013) tried to address
this gap by incorporating the inter-relationships using system dynamics approach to
arrive at a leanness score but the elements considered by them were limited only to
overall work-in-process efficiency, overall service level, and overall equipment
effectiveness. The current study is first of its kind to describe an approach to assess the
“systemic leanness” by considering the interactions between the elements representing
the entire supply chain of a value stream. By taking into account the interactions
among various elements/sub-elements, systemic leanness score assessed using the
proposed GTA methodology is expected to be closer to reality (Biazzo and Panizzolo,
2000). The individual contribution of each element and the total contribution of all the
elements are quantified as systemic leanness scores. Bhuiyan and Baghel (2005)
mentioned that managers need to achieve CI at three levels, namely top management,
group or functional, and individual or employee level, to reap maximum benefits. The
assessment framework proposed and demonstrated in this study evaluates CI of lean
initiatives at all these three levels within the value stream.
As the study is limited to a single case example, the generalizability of the inferences
is not claimed. Future evaluation needs to be carried out by implementing the proposed
methodology across multiple value streams. Subsequent research studies can use GTA
methodology to conduct leanness assessment of value stream based on the performance
measures and their interactions. Limitation of GTA methodology is that the
computational complexity may increase when the number of elements and sub-
elements considered for a given problem increases. Even for the problem under study, the
manual calculation of permanent for a matrix of order higher than five is a bit
cumbersome.

log10 SUIP log10 MANP log10 HURP log10 PROP log10 CUIP
Scenario (SUIP_PV) NV (MANP_PV) NV (HURP_PV) NV (PROP_PV) NV (CUIP_PV) NV

Ideal worst-
case 0.903 0.0 1.38 0.0 0.778 0.0 2.494 0.0 0.0 0.0
Worst-case 2.033 0.3 2.702 0.3 2.117 0.4 5.179 0.6 2.0 0.7
Case example 3.415 0.8 4.688 0.8 3.763 0.9 6.075 0.8 2.423 0.8
Practical Table X.
best-case 3.949 0.9 4.974 0.9 4.02 1.0 6.457 0.9 2.908 1.0 Normalized rating
Theoretical scale for all the
best-case 4.221 1.0 5.44 1.0 4.173 1.0 7.106 1.0 2.98 1.0 elements at different
Source: Authors scenarios
JMTM 4.4 Practical implications
27,8 GTA as a methodology to assess leanness of a value stream is a unique attempt and
provides with a tool for practitioners to perform systemic leanness assessment.
Assessment method developed assists practitioners in assessing the leanness
performance of different elements apart from guiding in ranking and comparing them
within or across the value stream (Grover et al., 2005). Leanness assessment method
1046 demonstrated in this study helps practitioners in identifying the future focus areas
for improvements and guides the firm in investing its resources on a more required
dimension. Assessment assists the value stream in having a focused journey of lean
implementation and thereby achieving CI in the LT initiative. In addition, leanness
assessment demonstrated in this study can help in self-assessment as mentioned by
Jørgensen et al. (2003) which in turn can assist in identifying and addressing the
barriers. Scale developed in this study based on the scenario analysis plays a key role
in self-assessment. It assists in the categorization of value streams based on their
level of leanness which acts as an immediate feedback to push them from traditional
to Toyota equivalent in long run. Therefore, leanness assessment demonstrated in
this study can act as a sensor to detect the untapped or less-tapped improvement
initiatives for achieving CI.

5. Conclusion
This study began with four research questions unanswered in leanness assessment
literature. Each one of them has been answered in detail through this study. Leanness
assessment method demonstrated in this study can rank the level of implementation of
different lean elements thereby answers the first research question. The second
research question is answered by demonstrating an assessment methodology using
GTA which can capture the impact of interactions between the lean elements on final
leanness score computed. Systemic leanness score obtained as a result of conducting
the demonstrated leanness assessment and final lookup table developed through
scenario analysis can assist in understanding the position of the value stream in
comparison to other benchmarking partners. This answers the third research question.
Finally, individual element permanent value reveals the elements with scope for further
improvement, thereby answers the fourth research question.
In summary, in this study, we have developed a framework by identifying different
elements and sub-elements that contribute to the systemic leanness of a value stream.
Systemic leanness were quantified by considering the degree of inheritance
of sub-elements and the degree of interaction between the elements and between the
sub-elements under a particular element. The relationship between these elements
and sub-elements were established by drawing relevant support from the literature and
practice. The structured procedure of applying GTA over the framework developed
has been demonstrated in detail using a case example. Permanent value of system level
matrix representing the systemic leanness and permanent values of the sub-systems
representing individual element leanness were computed. In addition, both the best-
case and worst-case scenario outputs were computed to assess the position of the case
example in the continuum. Permanent values computed in the process of leanness
assessment can be used by the value stream managers to benchmark with other best-
in-class value streams or with the same value stream by benchmarking with their past
leanness level. Leanness assessment demonstrated reveals the improvement initiatives
that needs to be focussed by the value stream managers and thereby guides them with
a way forward to achieve CI and pursue perfection.
Acknowledgment Systemic
The authors would like to thank Dr M. Sowmiya and Vandhana Narayanan for helping leanness
in proofreading and improving the readability of the manuscript. An initial version of
this paper entitled “A novel methodology for assessing leanness using graph-theoretic
approach” was presented in the 21st EurOMA Conference held on June 20-25, 2014
hosted by University of Palermo, in Italy. The authors thank the session chairs of the
conference for constructive feedback. Special thanks to the Doctoral Advisory 1047
Committee members of one of the authors for their critical comments.

References
Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R. and Nelder, G. (2005), “Critical success factors for lean
implementation within SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
doi: doi.org/10.1108/17410380610662889.
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.
Adam, E.E., Corbett, L.M., Flores, B.E., Harrison, N.J., Lee, T.S., Rho, B.H., Ribera, J., Samson, D.
and Westbrook, R. (1997), “An international study of quality improvement approach and
firm performance”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17
No. 9, pp. 842-873.
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M.K. (2007), “Modeling agility of supply chain”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 443-457.
Ahire, S.L. and O’shaughnessy, K.C. (1998), “The role of top management commitment in quality
management: an empirical analysis of the auto parts industry”, International Journal of
Quality Science, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 5-37.
Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y. and Waller, M.A. (1996), “Development and validation of TQM
implementation constructs”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-56.
Allen, J., Stewart, D. and Robinson, C. (2001), Lean Manufacturing: A Plant Floor Guide, Society of
Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, MI.
Anand, G. and Kodali, R. (2009), “Application of benchmarking for assessing the lean
manufacturing implementation”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 274-308.
Anand, G. and Kodali, R. (2010), “A mathematical model for the evaluation of roles and
responsibilities of human resources in a lean manufacturing environment”, International
Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 63-100.
Anand, G., Mazumdar, P. and Muthusubramanian, S. (2013), “Graph theoretic approach for
analysing the readiness of an organisation for adapting lean thinking: a case study”,
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 396-427.
Anand, G., Ward, P.T., Tatikonda, M.V. and Schilling, D.A. (2009), “Dynamic capabilities through
continuous improvement infrastructure”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 6,
pp. 444-461.
Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R.G. and Devaraj, S. (1995), “A path analytic
model of a theory of quality management underlying the deming management method:
preliminary empirical findings*”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 637-658.
Anvari, A., Zulkifli, N. and Yusuff, R.M. (2013), “A dynamic modelling to measure lean
performance within lean attributes”, International Journal Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 66 Nos 5-8, pp. 663-677.
JMTM Aravind Raj, S., Sudheer, A., Vinodh, S. and Anand, G. (2013), “A mathematical model to evaluate
the role of agility enablers and criteria in a manufacturing environment”, International
27,8 Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 19, pp. 5971-5984.
Arbos, C.L. (2002), “Design of a rapid response and high efficiency service by lean production
principles: methodology and evaluation of variability of performance”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 169-183.
1048 Asadi, S. and Panahi, H. (2011), “A model for evaluating the degree of leanness case study:
buttermilk production line in Tehran Pegah milk company”, World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology, Vol. 73 No. 49, pp. 987-988.
Attri, R., Grover, S. and Dev, N. (2014), “A graph theoretic approach to evaluate the intensity of
barriers in the implementation of total productive maintenance (TPM)”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 10, pp. 3032-3051.
Azadeh, A., Zarrin, M., Abdollahi, M., Noury, S. and Farahmand, S. (2015), “Leanness assessment
and optimization by fuzzy cognitive map and multivariate analysis”, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 42 No. 15, pp. 6050-6064.
Azevedo, S.G., Govindan, K., Carvalho, H. and Cruz-Machado, V. (2012), “An integrated model to
assess the leanness and agility of the automotive industry”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 66, pp. 85-94, doi: doi.org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.12.013.
Bayou, M.E. and De Korvin, A. (2008), “Measuring the leanness of manufacturing systems – a
case study of ford motor company and general motors”, Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 287-304.
Behrouzi, F. and Wong, K.Y. (2013), “An integrated stochastic-fuzzy modelling approach for supply
chain leanness evaluation”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 1677-1696.
Bessant, J. and Caffyn, S. (1997), “High-involvement innovation through continuous
improvement”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 7-28.
Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., Gilbert, J., Harding, R. and Webb, S. (1994), “Rediscovering continuous
improvement”, Technovation, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 17-29.
Bhanot, N., Rao, P.V. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2015), “Sustainable manufacturing: an interaction
analysis for machining parameters using graph theory”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 189, pp. 57-63, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.192.
Bhasin, S. (2011), “Measuring the leanness of an organization”, International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 55-74.
Bhuiyan, N. and Baghel, A. (2005), “An overview of continuous improvement: from the past to the
present”, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 761-771.
Biazzo, S. and Panizzolo, R. (2000), “The assessment of work organization in lean production: the
relevance of the worker’s perspective”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 6-15.
Black, S.A. and Porter, L.J. (1996), “Identification of the critical factors of TQM”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Boer, H., Berger, A., Chapman, R. and Gertsen, F. (2000), CI Changes: From Suggestion Box to
Organisational Learning, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot.
Borenstein, D., Becker, J.L. and do Prado, V.J. (2004), “Measuring the efficiency of Brazilian post
office stores using data envelopment analysis”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 1055-1078.
Caffyn, S. (1999), “Development of a continuous improvement self-assessment tool”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 1138-1153.
Camacho-Miñano, M.D.M., Moyano-Fuentes, J. and Sacristán-Díaz, M. (2013), “What can we learn Systemic
from the evolution of research on lean management assessment?”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 1098-1116.
leanness
Chan, F.T., Qi, H.J., Chan, H., Lau, H.C. and Ip, R.W. (2003), “A conceptual model of performance
measurement for supply chains”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 635-642.
Chauhan, G. and Singh, T.P. (2012), “Measuring parameters of lean manufacturing realization”,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 57-71. 1049
Choi, T.Y. and Eboch, K. (1998), “The TQM paradox: relations among TQM practices, plant
performance, and customer satisfaction”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 59-75.
Das, A., Handfield, R.B., Calantone, R.J. and Ghosh, S. (2000), “A contingent view of quality
management: the impact of international competition on quality”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 31
No. 3, pp. 649-690.
Deif, A. (2012), “Assessing lean systems using variability mapping”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 3, pp. 2-7,
available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2012.07.002
Detty, R.B. and Yingling, J.C. (2000), “Quantifying benefits of conversion to lean manufacturing
with discrete event simulation: a case study”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 429-445.
Doolen, T.L. and Hacker, M.E. (2005), “A review of lean assessment in organizations: an
exploratory study of lean practices by electronics manufacturers”, Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 55-67.
Douglas, T.J. and Judge, W.Q. (2001), “Total quality management implementation and
competitive advantage: the role of structural control and exploration”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 158-169.
Dow, D., Samson, D. and Ford, S. (1999), “Exploding the myth: do all quality management
practices contribute to superior quality performance?”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-27.
Dyer, J.H., Cho, D.S. and Chu, W. (1998), “Strategic supplier segmentation: the next ‘best practice’
in supply chain management”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 57-77.
Emiliani, M.L. (2000), “Supporting small businesses in their transition to lean production”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 66-71.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1994), “A framework for quality management
research and an associated measurement instrument”, Journal of Operations management,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 339-366.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1995), “The impact of quality management
practices on performance and competitive advantage”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 659-691.
Forza, C. and Filippini, R. (1998), “TQM impact on quality conformance and customer
satisfaction: a causal model”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 55 No. 1,
pp. 1-20.
Grandzol, J.R. and Gershon, M. (1997), “Which TQM practices really matter: an empirical
investigation”, Quality Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4.
Grover, S., Agrawal, V.P. and Khan, I.A. (2004), “A digraph approach to TQM evaluation of an
industry”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 42 No. 19, pp. 4031-4053.
Grover, S., Agrawal, V.P. and Khan, I.A. (2005), “Human resource performance index in
TQM environment”, International Journal of Management Practice, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 131-151.
JMTM Grover, S., Agrawal, V.P. and Khan, I.A. (2006), “Role of human factors in TQM: a graph theoretic
approach”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 447-468.
27,8
Handfield, R.B. and Bechtel, C. (2002), “The role of trust and relationship structure in
improving supply chain responsiveness”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 367-382.
Hofer, C., Eroglu, C. and Rossiter Hofer, A. (2012), “The effect of lean production on financial
1050 performance: the mediating role of inventory leanness”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 138 No. 2, pp. 242-253.
Jørgensen, F., Boer, H. and Gertsen, F. (2003), “Jump-starting continuous improvement through
self-assessment”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23
No. 10, pp. 1260-1278.
Karlsson, C. and Åhlström, P. (1996), “Assessing changes towards lean production”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 24-41.
Karvonen, T., Rodriguez, P., Kuvaja, P., Mikkonen, K. and Oivo, M. (2012), “Adapting the lean
enterprise self-assessment tool for the software development domain”, 38th EUROMICRO
Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), Izmir,
September 5-8, pp. 266-273.
Kaynak, H. (2003), “The relationship between total quality management practices and their
effects on firm performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 405-435.
Keshavarz, M. and Baghdarnia, M. (2013), “Assessment of student professional outcomes for
continuous improvement”, Journal of Learning Design, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 33-40.
Kojima, S. and Kaplinsky, R. (2004), “The use of a lean production index in explaining the
transition to global competitiveness: the auto components sector in South Africa”,
Technovation, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 199-206.
Krishnamurthy, A. and Chan, W.K.V. (2013), “Investigating the impact of the dynamics
associated with increasing responsiveness level on leanness”, Proceedings of the 2013
Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico,
May 18-22, available at: www.iienet2.org/uploadedFiles/IIE/Community/Technical
Societies and Divisions/Lean/Lean_details_pages/2013%20Lean%20Student%20Winner
%201st.pdf (accessed August 16, 2013).
Kulkarni, S. (2005), “Graph theory and matrix approach for performance evaluation of TQM in
Indian industries”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 509-526.
Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T.S. and Subba Rao, S. (2006), “The impact of supply chain
management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance”,
Omega, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 107-124.
Malmbrandt, M. and Åhlström, P. (2013), “An instrument for assessing lean service adoption”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 33 No. 9, pp. 2-2.
Marlow, P.B. and Casaca, A.C.P. (2003), “Measuring lean ports performance”, International
Journal of Transport Management, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 189-202.
Matawale, C.R., Datta, S. and Mahapatra, S.S. (2014), “Leanness estimation procedural hierarchy
using interval-valued fuzzy sets (IVFS)”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 21
No. 2, p. 1.
Mohan, M., Gandhi, O.P. and Agrawal, V.P. (2003), “Systems modelling of a coal-based steam
power plant”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of
Power and Energy, Vol. 217 No. 3, pp. 259-277.
Mohrman, S.A., Tenkasi, R.V., Lawler, E.E. and Ledford, G.E. (1995), “Total quality management:
practice and outcomes in the largest US firms”, Employee Relations, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 26-41.
Muduli, K. and Barve, A. (2013), “Modelling the behavioral factors of green supply chain Systemic
management implementation in mining industries in Indian scenario”, Asian Journal of
Management Science and Applications, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 26-49.
leanness
Narasimhan, R., Swink, M. and Kim, S.W. (2006), “Disentangling leanness and agility: an
empirical investigation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 440-457.
Narayanamurthy, G. and Anand, G. (2016), “Leanness assessment: a literature review”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 36 No. 10, 1051
pp. 1115-1160.
Oleghe, O. and Salonitis, K. (2016), “Variation modeling of lean manufacturing performance using
fuzzy logic based quantitative lean index”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 41, pp. 608-613, available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.008
Papadopoulou, T.C. and Özbayrak, M. (2005), “Leanness: experiences from the journey to date”,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 784-807.
Pedersen, E.R.G. and Huniche, M. (2011), “Determinants of lean success and failure in the Danish
public sector: a negotiated order perspective”, International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 403-420.
Powell, T.C. (1995), “Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical
study”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Puvanasvaran, A.P., Tay, C.H., Megat, M.H.M.A., Tang, S.H., Rosnah, M.Y., Muhamad, M.R. and
Hamouda, A.M.S. (2009), “Leanness achievement through people development system in
implementing lean process management”, American Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 105-119.
Robinson, A.G. (1991), Continuous Improvement in Operations: A Systematic Approach to Waste
Reduction, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rungtusanatham, M., Forza, C., Filippini, R. and Anderson, J.C. (1998), “A replication study of a
theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method: insights from
an Italian context”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 77-95.
Saaty, T.L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation,
1st ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Samson, D. and Terziovski, M. (1999), “The relationship between total quality management
practices and operational performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 393-409.
Sanati, F. and Seyedhoseini, S.M. (2008), “New concept in leanness development and assessment
in plant life cycle (PLC)”, International Journal of Industrial Engineering & Production
Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 57-65.
Sanchez, A.M. and Perez, M.P. (2001), “Lean indicators and manufacturing strategies”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 11,
pp. 1433-1452.
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.
Schoeder, D.M. and Robinson, A.G. (1991), “America’s most successful export to
Japan: continuous improvement programs”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 67-81.
Seth, D. and Gupta, V. (2005), “Application of value stream mapping for lean operations and
cycle time reduction: an Indian case study”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 44-59.
JMTM Seyedhosseini, S.M., Taleghani, A.E., Bakhsha, A. and Partovi, S. (2011), “Extracting leanness
criteria by employing the concept of balanced scorecard”, Expert Systems with Applications,
27,8 Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 10454-10461.
Sezen, B., Karakadilar, I.S. and Buyukozkan, G. (2012), “Proposition of a model for measuring
adherence to lean practices: applied to Turkish automotive part suppliers”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 14, pp. 3878-3894.
1052 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.
Shin, H., Collier, D.A. and Wilson, D.D. (2000), “Supply management orientation and supplier/
buyer performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 317-333.
Shortell, S.M., O’Brien, J.L., Carman, J.M., Foster, R.W., Hughes, E.F., Boerstler, H. and O’Connor, E.J.
(1995), “Assessing the impact of continuous quality improvement/total quality management:
concept versus implementation”, Health Services Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 377.
Singh, B., Garg, S.K. and Sharma, S.K. (2010), “Development of index for measuring leanness: study
of an Indian auto component industry”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 46-53.
Soriano-Meier, H. and Forrester, P.L. (2002), “A model for evaluating the degree of leanness of
manufacturing firms”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 104-109.
Srinivasaraghavan, J. and Allada, V. (2006), “Application of mahalanobis distance as a lean
assessment metric”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 29 No. 11, pp. 1159-1168.
Stone, K.B. (2012), “Four decades of lean: a systematic literature review”, International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 112-132.
Stuart, F.I. (1997), “Supply chain strategy: organizational influence through supplier alliances”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 223-236.
Susilawati, A., Tan, J., Bell, D. and Sarwar, M. (2015), “Fuzzy logic based method to measure
degree of lean activity in manufacturing industry”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems,
Vol. 34, pp. 1-11.
Taj, S. (2005), “Applying lean assessment tools in Chinese hi-tech industries”, Management
Decision, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 628-643.
Tan, K.C., Lyman, S.B. and Wisner, J.D. (2002), “Supply chain management: a strategic
perspective”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 6,
pp. 614-631.
Vimal, K.E.K. and Vinodh, S. (2012), “Leanness evaluation using if – then rules”, The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 407-413.
Vimal, K.E.K. and Vinodh, S. (2013), “Application of artificial neural network for fuzzy logic based
leanness assessment”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 274-292.
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 Chintha, S.K. (2011a), “Leanness assessment using multi-grade fuzzy approach”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 431-445.
Vinodh, S. and Chintha, S. (2011b), “Application of fuzzy QFD for enabling leanness in a
manufacturing organisation”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 6,
pp. 1627-1644.
Vinodh, S. and Vimal, K.E.K. (2012), “Thirty criteria based leanness assessment using fuzzy logic
approach”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 60
Nos 9-12, pp. 1185-1195.
Vinodh, S., Prakash, N.H. and Selvan, K.E. (2011), “Evaluation of leanness using fuzzy association Systemic
rules mining”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 57
Nos 1-4, pp. 343-352.
leanness
Vonderembse, M.A. and Tracey, M. (1999), “The impact of supplier selection criteria and supplier
involvement on manufacturing performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 33-39.
Wagner, S.M. and Neshat, N. (2010), “Assessing the vulnerability of supply chains using graph 1053
theory”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 126 No. 1, pp. 121-129.
Walinga, J. (2008), “Toward a theory of change readiness: the roles of appraisal, focus and
perceived control”, The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 315-347.
Wan, H.D. and Chen, F.F. (2008), “A leanness measure of manufacturing systems for quantifying
impacts of lean initiatives”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 23,
pp. 6567-6584.
Wan, H.D. and Chen, F.F. (2009), “Decision support for lean practitioners: a web-based adaptive
assessment approach”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 277-283.
Wilson, D.D. and Collier, D.A. (2000), “An empirical investigation of the Malcolm Baldrige
national quality award causal model”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 361-383.
Woehrle, S.L. and Abou-Shady, L. (2010), “Using dynamic value stream mapping and lean
accounting box scores to support lean implementation”, American Journal of Business
Education, Vol. 3 No. 8, pp. 67-75.
Wong, W.P., Ignatius, J. and Soh, K.L. (2014), “What is the leanness level of your organisation in
lean transformation implementation? An integrated lean index using ANP approach”,
Production Planning & Control, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 273-287.

About the authors

Gopalakrishnan Narayanamurthy is currently pursuing his Fellow (Doctoral) Program in
Management in Quantitative Methods and Operations Management (QM & OM) at the Indian
Institute of Management Kozhikode (IIMK), Kerala, India. He was also a Fulbright-Nehru
Doctoral Research Scholar at the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, USA.
His research interest is in assessment of process improvements in services.
Anand Gurumurthy is an Associate Professor in the area of “Quantitative Methods and
Operations Management (QM&OM)” at the Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode (IIMK),
Kerala, India. Prior to this appointment, he was an Assistant Professor with the Mechanical
Engineering Department of Birla Institute of Technology & Science (BITS) Pilani, Pilani Campus,
Rajasthan, India, where he also completed his PhD in the area of Lean Manufacturing and ME in
Manufacturing Systems Engineering. He received his BE in Mechanical Engineering from the
University of Madras, India. He has around 12 years of teaching/research experience. He started
his career as a Production Engineer with one of India’s leading industrial houses – the TVS
Group. He has published around 40 papers in peer-reviewed national and international journals
such as International Journal of Production Research, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Production Planning & Control, etc. He has also presented many papers in various
national/international conferences. His current research interests include application of lean thinking
in other sectors, operations management and world-class manufacturing. Anand Gurumurthy is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]