Advances in Production Engineering & Management ISSN 1854‐6250

Volume 15 | Number 1 | March 2020 | pp 81–92 Journal home: apem‐journal.org

https://doi.org/10.14743/apem2020.1.351 Original scientific paper

The impact of using different lean manufacturing tools on

waste reduction
Leksic, I.a,*, Stefanic, N.a, Veza, I.b
a
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Zagreb, Croatia
b
University of Split, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE INFO

Lean and green production was introduced to the western manufacturing Keywords:
industry nearly thirty years ago. The essence of the new business model was Green production;
to eliminate waste through lean tools according to Taiichi Ohno’s eight cate‐ Lean manufacturing;
gories of waste. Many companies became more competitive with waste reduc‐ Lean tools;
tion techniques but some of them faced, and still are facing failures. Such Waste reduction;
failures are closely related with misapplication of lean and green tools, and its Waste management;
sequential order of implementation. In order to define most powerful lean Waste reduction techniques
tools for reduction of certain types of waste, a study was made among lean
*Corresponding author:
companies. The concept of a study was to define best lean toolbox for reduc‐
[email protected]
tion of each category of waste and to determine right sequential order of lean
(Leksic, I.)
tools implementation. Stepwise multiple regression model revealed that Total
Productive Maintenance, Poka‐Yoke, Kaizen, 5S, Kanban, Six Big Losses, Article history:
Heijunka, Takt Time, Andon, OEE, SMED, and KPIs are best waste management Received 17 September 2019
techniques. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that 5S, Kaizen, Kanban, Revised 4 March 2020
Poka‐Yoke and TPM are highly recommended for start of every lean manufac‐ Accepted 17 March 2020
turing initiative.
© 2020 CPE, University of Maribor. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Many studies have proven that lean and green production can improve operational performance,
regardless of the industry where it has been applied [1]. Despite this, many organisations face
problems with lean implementation, less than 10 % of organisations which have implemented
lean in the U.K. were successful [2]. Studies made in automotive plants in the U.K., U.S.A., and
India also showed that the success rate of lean implementation is also low [3]. Each organisation
has its individual view of lean methodology, but the success of lean implementation is closely
related to the work culture and ongoing efforts to create a value‐system approach [4]. Many or‐
ganisations undergoing lean implementation are looking for a lean‐tools implementation ‘cook‐
book’; however, this can provide only short‐term improvements [5]. During the process of ‘going
lean’, lean tools are the key to the lean philosophy for organisations because they represent
something practical. Philosophy is good for business, but tools work [6]. To achieve long‐term
benefits from lean production (LP), organisations should focus on building the proper culture,
where the culture represents the values, traditions, and ways of thinking that shape the organi‐
sation’s identity [7]. Recent studies of proper lean implementation have pinpointed that the
transition should be made with a project‐based approach, with focus on the specific lean tool [8].
If the selection model of lean tools is inaccurate during the lean implementation period, the lean
success will be poor or even suspended [9]. All lean activities should have process approach,

81
Leksic, Stefanic, Veza

where problems have to be solved one after another. Study on Czech companies pointed that
usage of standard parts together DFLs (Design for Logistics) can make great results [10].

2. Literature review on lean implementation

The lean concept can be implemented through various methods, but consistent vision is a ‘must‐
have’ when an enterprise is moving towards LP [11]. Another vital task for going lean is to create
sense of urgency [12] and to create short‐term goals to achieve a continuous pace of small im‐
provements [13]. These elements are important for lean implementation, but the most signifi‐
cant element for adoption and sustainability of the lean concept is the organisational culture
[14]. It is easier to implement lean in collectivistic cultures than in cultures that promote indi‐
vidualism [15]. The lean concept is a continuous process of seeking perfection that involves eve‐
ryone in the organisation, including the owners, with a vision of creating a competitive business
[16]. The next key element of a successful lean transition is creation of deep understanding
among people that the activities they perform have impact on themselves [17]. If an organisation
is trying to change its employees’ mind‐set, the leaders must expend much effort toward achiev‐
ing the desired behaviour. Lean leadership is the interconnection between the lean toolbox and
continuous improvement of the organisation. Leadership is an important element of continuous
improvement but leading as an activity is not value‐adding, whereas a shop‐floor worker is the
person who adds value to the product. Shop‐floor workers must be encouraged to drive contin‐
uous lean improvement [18], so to describe importance of shop floor workers, an often quoted
Toyota principle could be used: ‘Before we build cars, we build people’ [14].
Many authors are proposing a lean roadmap or framework for the transition process of lean
implementation to provide an organisation with a general set of guidelines for lean applicability
[19]. It has been proven several times that the best lean transitions are provided in the form of
roadmaps, where the framework contains well‐structured information on principles and prac‐
tices [8]. In addition, many studies have proven that small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs)
and large companies face different challenges during the lean transition; thus, the lean frame‐
work must be adapted to the enterprise size [20]. The next necessity in a successful lean transi‐
tion is management commitment and leadership [21]. Management must be charismatic, active,
and visible on every level and share their enthusiasm for execution of the transition [22]. In lean
management, it is preferable that the management know the company very well, and ideally,
they should have worked their way up through all organisation levels. This ensures that man‐
agement has deep knowledge on all business and production activities, while their deep sense
for organisational processes gives them an advantage in coaching others [23]. Every company,
but also every country can take benefit from this business model. Recent authors have revealed
advantages of lean companies in comparison with others towards going Industry 4.0. Lean com‐
panies have better organizational integration, standadatization on all levels, complete and pre‐
cise communication while all activities are essential. This way integration of machines and real
time data is minimized to only value‐added activities, and Industry 4.0 is meaningful [24].
Lean production can be described and measured as a toolbox full of methods and tools for
waste reduction or elimination [25]. On a strategic level, LP can be described as a philosophy; on
a tactical level, LP is a set of principles; and on an operational level, LP is a set of practices and
tools [26]. Therefore, the biggest challenge for an organisation is to acquire the proper lean tool
in time to effectively accomplish its desired goals [27]. People involved in the lean transition
must have sound knowledge and an in‐depth understanding of lean thinking to achieve effective
lean tools and sustain the transformation process [28]. There are over one hundred lean tools
that can be implemented, but the most important lean management tools are 5S, Bottleneck
Analysis, Continuous Flow, Value Stream Mapping (VSM), Heijunka (Level scheduling), Hoshin
Kanri (Policy deployment), Jidoka (Autonomination), Just‐In‐Time (JIT), Kaizen (Continuous
improvement), Kanban (Pull System), Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Muda (Waste), Overall
Equipment Effectiveness (OEE), Plan‐Do‐Check‐Act analysis (PDCA), Poka‐Yoke (Error Proof‐
ing), Root cause analysis, Single‐Minute‐Exchange of Dies (SMED), Visual Factory, SMART goals,
Standardised Work, Takt Time, Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), Gemba (The real place)

82 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 15(1) 2020

 The impact of using different lean manufacturing tools on waste reduction

and Six Big Losses, as of March 23, 2017, as Vorne Industries listed on its website. Some re‐
searchers suggest implementing all or most lean tools to achieve a successful lean transition
[29], but the most frequently used lean principles among large multinational enterprises are
Standardised work, Kaizen, Quality programs, Pull System, Flow Orientation, Value Stream, Em‐
ployee Involvement, Visualisation, Customer Focus, Stability and Robustness, Workplace Man‐
agement, and JIT. SMEs have a distinctive characteristic compared to large companies, and study
made in Serbia has revealed that Standardized Work, 5S, VSM and Kaizen can have significant
role in lean implementation [30]. All these principles and tools must be seen as a direction, and
not as an end goal [31]. However, the implementation of a different set of lean tools, in conjunc‐
tion with other relevant factors, will put the organisation in a different state at certain times.
Lean was first adopted by automotive industry [32], so it is significant to mention major lean
tools that have the most positive impact on automotive organisations. Research on 91 automo‐
tive organisations has resulted in awareness that 5S, OEE, the 8‐step problem‐solving method,
Pareto Analysis, Elimination of Waste, Kaizen, Setup Time Reduction, Process Mapping, and VSM
are the lean tools that are the most influential in automotive industry environment [33]. All these
tools have significant meaning in their respective environments; however, tools must not be
copied directly from the literature. Lean practices and tools must be adapted carefully for each
organisational framework to achieve a continuous improvement with a strong local impact [34].

3. Materials and methods

3.1 Overview
The guiding concept of this research was to point out major operational features of the lean
transition process, with the ultimate goal of addressing the best lean tools for reduction or even
elimination of waste according to Taiichi Ohno’s 8 types of waste. The research was carried out
in Croatia during 2017 and 2018 in the form of a questionnaire, where lean companies were
identified through the three criteria presented in subchapter 3.2.
Generally speaking, all interviewed persons were from upper or middle management and
closely related to business development. The survey covered nearly 300 companies; however, it
should be noted that approximately 230 companies stated that they do not use or have never
used lean manufacturing in their management models.
The questionnaire form was divided into three segments, where each segment was designed
to reveal a certain aspect of the lean transition:
1) The first segment of questionnaire was in the form of scoreboard, where respondents pro‐
vided information about their waste according to Taiichi Ohno’s 8 types of waste.
2) The second segment of the questionnaire was based on a lean‐tools implementation
framework, and respondents provided information about the lean tools they had imple‐
mented, the lean tools had some positive impact, and the sequential order of lean tools
implementation.
3) The third segment of the questionnaire was in the same form as the first segment, as a
scoreboard, where respondents provided information about their improvements accord‐
ing to Taiichi Ohno’s 8 types of waste. This segment of the questionnaire was designed to
provide feedback about the lean implementation success.
3.2 Criteria for selecting the lean companies
Three forms of acquiring data were used for identifying lean companies in Croatia:
 The first form was created at the Green and Lean Production conference 2017 (GALP
2017). This conference was chosen for data collection because this is the largest confer‐
ence in Croatia that deals with lean manufacturing. This conference was attended by ap‐
proximately 150 lean practitioners from 40 companies.
 The second method was by contacting the Croatian Chamber of Economy and obtaining a
list of all the companies that had attended lean presentations and courses in the last five

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 15(1) 2020 83

Leksic, Stefanic, Veza

years. In this method, approximately 70 companies were contacted, although only 13

companies stated that they use lean manufacturing. These 13 companies completed the
questionnaire.
 The last method was based on simply interviewing the best companies in Croatia. The best
way to find successful companies in Croatia was to procure a list of the best companies in
2017 from the most‐read business journal. Nearly 200 companies were contacted, while
32 replied affirmatively, saying that they use lean manufacturing.
Altogether, approximately 300 companies were covered by this research, where 63 companies
were pinpointed as companies that used or still use lean production tools in their everyday ac‐
tivities.
3.3 Used software tools
This study was made in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) on a sample of 63 lean
organisations, wherein a stepwise multiple linear regression model (SMLR) was carried out to
find the most significant lean tools for boosting the reduction of different types of waste. As
Taiichi Ohno categorised waste into eight types, it was logical to focus the survey on the quest
for the most significant lean toolbox for each waste type. The input variables were the lean tools
usage and improvement in the reduction level of the observed waste type. Specifically, the de‐
pendent variable (improvement level of waste reduction for the observed waste type) was
measured on a scale from 0 to 3, where 0 stood for ‘no improvement’, 1 stood for ‘small im‐
provement’, 2 stood for ‘medium improvement’, and 3 stood for ‘huge improvement’. On the
other hand, the independent variable (lean tools usage) was qualitative, where 0 stood for ‘we
did not use this lean tool’ and 1 stood for ‘we used this lean tool’. This statistical approach has
resulted in clear findings, and the most significant lean tools for waste reduction forecast were
determined.

4. Results and discussion

Generally speaking, the concept of lean manufacturing appeared in Croatia several years ago, but
many companies still have not had enough courage to implement this concept and culture in
their core business activities. Almost 300 companies and 25 lean tools were included in this sur‐
vey, and 12 lean tools were identified as the best for boosting waste reduction.
4.1 Waste (losses) before going Lean
Lean is the constant search for perfection, where people make incremental daily improvements
by eliminating waste. Therefore, it is important to see where the organisation creates small, me‐
dium, and large losses before the lean concept is implemented. If the organisation does not know
its type and scale of waste, it is possible that incorrect lean tools will be launched to reduce or
solve waste. When we talk about the scale of waste in a Croatian organisation, it is clear from
Table 1 that these organisations generally have medium or small losses.
Table 1 Survey responses regard waste (losses) before lean
Rank Type of Waste Subtype of Waste 0 1 2 3
(Losses)
Producing products that can't be launched on the market 43% 37% 19% 2%
Conducting unnecessary operations 2% 56% 33% 10%
Surplus
7 Excess administration 8% 35% 37% 21%
production
Poor market demand forecasting 19% 46% 30% 5%
Production ‘just in case’ 32% 30% 27% 11%
Unnecessary circulation of material between operations 16% 35% 40% 10%
Excess
4 Ineffective data transfer 3% 30% 52% 14%
transport
Unsuccessful communication: unreliability and data loss 8% 41% 37% 14%

84 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 15(1) 2020

 The impact of using different lean manufacturing tools on waste reduction

Table 1 (continuation)
Latency between operations 5% 41% 37% 17%
Poor production and processes planning 8% 32% 44% 16%
5 Waiting
Waiting for approval or signature 25% 44% 16% 14%
Untimely supplier delivery 11% 33% 38% 17%
Excess Unreliable or faulty technological equipment 37% 38% 21% 5%
8
processing Bad product design requiring too many processing 35% 27% 32% 6%
Huge inventory on hand ‘frozen capital’ 17% 27% 37% 19%
3 Redundant stock
Huge quantities of redundant data in the archives 8% 35% 38% 19%
Bad machinery arrangement resulting in movement 22% 44% 21% 13%
Unnecessary
6 Workers wandering in order to obtain information 13% 49% 27% 11%
movements
Poor workplace ergonomics 14% 48% 24% 14%
Interruption of production flow for poor information 14% 33% 41% 11%
2 Fallout (reject)
Time required for fault correction 10% 27% 37% 27%
Insufficient use Insufficient use of employee potential 5% 41% 32% 22%
1 of employee Poor detection of capable employees 5% 46% 33% 16%
potential Insufficient inclusion of workers in the improvements 2% 38% 40% 21%
Note: scale of waste defined as: 0 = no waste; 1 = small waste;
2 = medium waste; 3 = huge waste

4.2 Most frequently used lean tools and sequential order of implementation
The lean concept is a philosophy, lifestyle, and culture, but the development of such a lifestyle
and culture must be supported by tangible practices, which brings us back to the significance of
lean tools. In recent years, there has been a lack of studies made on the sequential order of im‐
plementation of lean tools. Enterprises crave a lean implementation cookbook, but nearly all
authors have given up on this topic. It is clear that each company has its individual starting point
and financial strength before going lean, but some lean tools should have an advantage in im‐
plementation over others. Therefore, we can see from Table 2 and Fig. 1 that 5S and Kaizen are
the lean tools most used at the beginning of the lean transition. These lean tools are not state‐of‐
the‐art tools from the lean concept view, but these tools effect fast and visible improvements in
the shop‐floor environment. Study made on 49 Polish enterprises revealed that most frequently
used tools are 5S, 5xWhy, SMED, Team Work, Standardized Work, Root cause analysis and TPM
[35]. All these tools are also in narrow focus of Croatian companies but they tend to use more
Standardized Work, Kaizen, 5S, KPIs and VSM. However, Polish companies have ranked waiting,
unnecessary movements, fallouts and redundant stock as major waste. On the other hand, Croa‐
tian companies have most challenges with reduction of insufficient use of employee potential,
fallouts, redundant stock and excess transport. In other settings, such as Lithuania, study among
41 enterprises revealed that most used lean tools are employee training, quality control line in
work process, standardized work, gemba, 5S, lean dashboards and PDCA.
Generally speaking, the tools like 5S, Kaizen, VSM, Kanban, Standardised Work, SMART Goals,
Muda, and Gemba were the first choice for eliminating waste in Croatian companies. It should be
pointed that 5S, Kaizen and Mieruka (Visual Management) are also backbone of most lean initia‐
tives in Vietnam. But then also, Vietnam study revealed that these tools can be more powerful if
people have deep understanding on performed tasks. More precisely, if people see benefit in
activities, performance will be better, consequently resulting better effectiveness [17].
After the implementation of these tools, the Croatian companies have focused on the imple‐
mentation of tools like Poka‐Yoke, Andon, Continuous Flow, Jidoka JIT, KPIs, OEE, SMED, etc.
These tools are more sophisticated than the first one, because they are more complex and re‐
quire a deep understanding of lean. It is also notable that these tools require more financial re‐
sources in implementation than 5S, Kaizen, VSM, etc. In the last phase of lean transition at the
Croatian companies, tools like Heijunka and TPM played a significant role.

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 15(1) 2020 85

Leksic, Stefanic, Veza

Table 2 Lean tools implementation framework according to survey participants

Lean practice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
5S 49% 22% 19% 8% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Andon 0% 13% 25% 25% 13% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 0%
Bottleneck Analysis 7% 34% 14% 14% 24% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Continuous Flow 5% 25% 0% 15% 15% 15% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 0%
VSM 23% 27% 27% 3% 7% 3% 7% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0%
Heijunka 0% 0% 17% 0% 33% 17% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0%
Hoshin Kanri 15% 5% 15% 15% 25% 0% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Jidoka 11% 33% 11% 11% 17% 0% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0%
JIT 9% 0% 17% 22% 4% 4% 17% 4% 9% 4% 4% 4%
Kaizen 41% 24% 11% 19% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0%
Kanban 27% 7% 20% 0% 13% 13% 7% 7% 0% 0% 7% 0%
KPIs 14% 20% 26% 11% 6% 9% 3% 3% 3% 3% 0% 3%
Muda 24% 33% 14% 10% 0% 5% 0% 5% 0% 5% 0% 0%
OEE 8% 15% 31% 0% 8% 15% 8% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0%
PDCA 8% 25% 17% 25% 17% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Poka‐Yoke 0% 17% 25% 17% 8% 8% 0% 0% 8% 8% 0% 8%
Root Cause Analysis 16% 0% 11% 16% 16% 16% 11% 5% 0% 0% 11% 0%
SMED 0% 5% 19% 19% 19% 10% 5% 10% 0% 0% 0% 10%
Visual Factory 4% 16% 28% 4% 20% 20% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%
SMART Goals 25% 11% 18% 14% 18% 11% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Standardized Work 23% 21% 8% 15% 10% 5% 8% 5% 0% 0% 3% 0%
Takt Time 14% 7% 0% 29% 0% 7% 14% 7% 0% 7% 0% 0%
TPM 0% 0% 0% 24% 14% 14% 24% 14% 5% 0% 0% 0%
Gemba 19% 19% 25% 6% 13% 19% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Six Big Losses 0% 20% 0% 20% 0% 20% 20% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0%

Standardised Work 95
Kaizen 95
Muda 95
Continuous Flow 95
Hoshin Kanri 95
Jidoka 94
Bottleneck Analysis 93
SMART Goals 93
Visual Factory 92
5S 89
Root Cause Analysis 89
Gemba 88
Andon 88
KPIs 86
SMED 86
Heijunka 83
TPM 81
VSM 80
Six Big Losses 80
OEE 77
PDCA 75
JIT 74
Takt Time 71
Kanban 67
Poka‐Yoke 67
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of positive impact Percent of usage among enterprises

Fig. 1 Lean tools impact according to survey participants

86 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 15(1) 2020

 The impact of using different lean manufacturing tools on waste reduction

Table 3 Survey responses regarding waste (losses) reduction after lean implementation
Rank Type of Waste Subtype of waste‐reduction improvement 0 1 2 3
(Losses)
Producing products that can be placed on the market 40% 48% 10% 3%
Better operations performance 16% 57% 19% 8%
Surplus
6 Reducing administration 19% 52% 21% 8%
production
Better market demand forecasting 29% 48% 17% 6%
Production with smaller stock 22% 51% 21% 6%
Better circulation of material between operations 22% 29% 41% 8%
3 Excess transport Better data transfer 6% 46% 37% 11%
Better communication: data reliability 6% 44% 38% 11%
Reducing latency between operations 11% 48% 27% 14%
Better production and processes planning 8% 43% 32% 17%
4 Waiting
Reducing waiting time for approval or signature 40% 35% 19% 6%
Better and faster supplier delivery 44% 37% 13% 6%
Excess Reliability or better choice of technological equipment 49% 38% 10% 3%
8
processing Better product design not requiring a lot of processing 54% 29% 11% 6%
Reducing inventory on hand ‘frozen capital’ 33% 46% 11% 10%
7 Redundant stock
Reducing quantity of redundant data in the archives 25% 54% 14% 6%
Machinery arrangement resulting in less movement 38% 38% 19% 5%
Unnecessary
5 Shorter wandering to obtain information 17% 51% 25% 6%
movements
Better workplace ergonomics 30% 37% 30% 3%
Improvement of the production flow 13% 40% 35% 13%
2 Fallout (reject)
Reducing time for fault correction 11% 38% 33% 17%
Insufficient use of Better use of employee potential 10% 43% 37% 11%
1 employee Better detection of capable employees 6% 48% 33% 13%
potential Inclusion of workers in the improvement processes 6% 38% 33% 22%
Note: scale of improvement defined as: 0 = no improvement; 1 = small improvement;
2 = medium improvement; 3 = huge improvement

Many companies in Croatia mentioned waste elimination as a trigger for going lean, precisely
67 %. Other triggers mentioned by more than 50 % of participants were increase of efficiency
(89 %), profitability (70 %), productivity (67 %) and reduction of manufacturing costs (65 %).
Just as a comparison, Polish organizations seek to increase company’s operation (81 %) and be
more competitive (50 %) through lean management [35]. Again, Lithuanian companies are more
oriented on increase of efficiency, problem solving, housekeeping level and overall improvement
of organization [36]. The biggest improvements in waste elimination of Croatian companies
were achieved in terms of the use of employee potential, fallouts, transportation, and waiting
(see Table 3). When we examine Table 1 to determine the largest waste in Croatian companies
according to the survey responses, we can see that the insufficient use of employee potential and
fallouts are in first and second place. Therefore, many Croatian companies have detected their
weakest spots and tried to solve them through the lean concept correctly. On the other hand,
redundant stocks and excess transportation were detected by the Croatian companies as the
third and fourth most significant waste through survey responses, but waste‐reduction progress
was not as high as it should be. Excess transportation is in fourth place, and redundant stock is
in seventh place of waste‐reduction progress. Therefore, we can conclude that only the appro‐
priate lean toolbox can reduce the targeted waste type.
4.3 Most significant lean tools for waste reduction or elimination
The backbone of this research was to find statistically significant lean tools for the reduction of
different types of waste. As was said earlier, SMLR was executed on a sample of 63 organisations
to address among 25 basic lean tools only one with statistically significant positive impact on
waste reduction. Eight SMLR analyses were carried out in SPSS to analyse the relationship be‐
tween single dependent variable (waste‐reduction improvement level on the observed waste
type) with twenty‐five independent variables (lean tools usage). The goal was to find a set of
independent variables that significantly influence the dependent variable. More simply, the goal

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 15(1) 2020 87

Leksic, Stefanic, Veza

was to find, for each waste type, a set of statistically significant variables (lean tools) in the data
set, resulting in the best models to increase the predicted waste‐reduction improvement level.
Such SMLR models could direct lean beginners in right direction during lean implementation
and point statistically significant positive lean tools for certain waste types.
Dependent variable for each type of waste was precisely defined through two or more quanti‐
fiable measures (subtype of waste‐reduction improvement), see Table 3. Survey respondents
had to evaluate their subtype of waste‐reduction improvement on a scale from 0 to 3 and those
answers were summarised into one number from 0 to 3 that was presenting waste‐reduction
improvement level on the observed waste type. On the other hand, independent variables were
defined through the survey respondent used or the implemented lean tools. Each organisation
used different lean tools, therefore it was necessary to examine if there is any connection be‐
tween used or implemented lean tools and waste‐reduction improvement level of observed
waste type.
The first step for building SMLR models was to check normality, linearity, homoscedasticity,
and multicollinearity of data. All assumptions for building SMLR models were checked before
running the models. Statistical analyses carried out in SPPS showed us that each type of waste
has its best SMLR model for prediction of waste‐reduction improvement level (see Table 4).
These models are pinpointing statistically significant positive independent variables (lean tools)
for prediction of waste‐reduction improvement level. In layman's terms, the lean tools in Table 4
are good for implementation in terms of waste reduction, but each type of waste should be re‐
duced with unique set of lean tools presented in the mentioned table.
Furthermore, we can divide the statistically significant lean tools into two groups. The first
lean tools group comprises lean tools that statistically significantly reduce several waste types.
These tools are TPM, Poka‐Yoke, Kaizen, 5S, and Kanban (see Table 5). The second lean tools
group comprises lean tools that are statistically significantly reducing only one type of waste.
These tools are Six Big Losses, Poka‐Yoke, Heijunka, Takt Time, Andon, OEE, SMED, and KPIs
(see Table 5).
Summarizing findings presented in Tables 2, 4 and 5 we can say that each lean implementa‐
tion should be launched and supported by 5S, Kaizen, Kanban, Poka‐Yoke and TPM since these
waste management techniques reduce several types of waste. In doing so, 5S and Kaizen should
be implemented first, Kanban and Poka‐Yoke immediately after, while TPM as most powerful
waste management technique should be implemented last and with great care. This way, com‐
pany will achieve quicker higher level of lean maturity whereas progress will be visible on every
corner.
Table 4 Best SMLR lean toolbox models for prediction of dependent variable
Surplus Excess Waiting Excess Redundant Unnecessary Fallout Insufficient use
production transport processing stock movements (reject) of employee
potential
R 0.628 0.681 0.742 0.546 0.59 0.582 0.585 0.521
R² 0.394 0.464 0.55 0.298 0.348 0.339 0.342 0.271
p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TPM Poka‐Yoke Takt Time Poka‐Yoke OEE SMED Poka‐Yoke TPM
0.697 0.740 0.712 0.653 0.572 0.521 0.932 0.711
B (β)
(0.564) (0.410) (0.435) (0.356) (0.352) (0.353) (0.470) (0.441)
Six Big Losses 5S Andon TPM Kanban Kaizen Kaizen Kaizen
0.546 0.557 0.638 0.410 0.545 0.392 0.516 0.359
B (β)
(0.254) (0.387) (0.312) (0.269) (0.353) (0.277) (0.326) (0.232)
Heijunka 5S TPM KPIs
0.599 0.394 0.446 0.329
B (β)
(0.248) (0.285) (0.320) (0.235)
Kanban TPM
0.350 0.368
B (β)
(0.210) (0.255)

88 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 15(1) 2020

 The impact of using different lean manufacturing tools on waste reduction

Table 5 Most significant lean tools for waste reduction

Lean tool Sum of waste types this tool Usage of this tool will average make progress
statistically significantly reduces in waste reduction on scale from 0 to 3
TPM 5 0.526
Poka‐Yoke 3 0.775
Kaizen 3 0.422
5S 2 0.475
Kanban 2 0.447
Six Big Losses 1 0.546
Heijunka 1 0.599
Takt Time 1 0.712
Andon 1 0.638
OEE 1 0.572
SMED 1 0.521
KPIs 1 0.329

On the other hand, if organization has goal to reduce one specific type of waste, then statisti‐
cally significant waste management techniques presented in Table 4 should be applied. For ex‐
ample, if an organisation has problems with redundant stocks, it should use OEE, Kanban, and
TPM to ensure that waste reduction will be done in a best possible way. The multiple‐correlation
coefficient (R) for the redundant‐stocks lean toolbox is 0.590, which means that we have a good
level of prediction of the dependent variable. The coefficient of determination (R2) is 0.348,
which means that our independent variables explain 34.8 % of the variability of our dependent
variable. Table 4 also shows that all independent variables statistically significantly predict the
dependent variable, p < 0.05 (i.e., the regression model is a good fit of the data). Finally, we can
see from the unstandardized coefficients (B) for the redundant‐stocks lean toolbox that the use
of OEE will improve the reduction of redundant stocks by 0.572 points, the use of Kanban will
provide another 0.545 points of improvement, and use of TPM will provide another 0.446 points
of improvement. This result shows us that OEE is best predictor of the dependent variable (im‐
provement level of waste reduction on the redundant stocks). Specifically, if we implement OEE
in our organisation, we will improve the waste reduction of redundant stock of 0.572 point on a
scale from 0 to 3.
A stepwise multiple regression model has shown us that organisations must use the proper
lean toolbox for each type of waste. The desired outcome will be achieved with less effort and
within a shorter period. This approach is an optimal path, and those who use this logic are say‐
ing, ‘We prefer to use a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer’.

5. Discussion
There are many factors for lean implementation success. These factors are primarily related to
active leading by management, employee education, communication, employee involvement in
improvement processes, etc. No matter how well management leads the lean implementation,
sooner or later, the lean toolbox will appear, and many questions will be raised. Among many
authors, the lean framework is in the top ten critical success factors for lean success. There is no
lean concept without lean practices. Lean without tools is just a philosophy. However, lean tools
without a value‐adding culture are unnecessary.
The Croatian industry missed its chance to be the pioneer of lean in Europe many years ago,
but it has a chance now to become more competitive for the upcoming Industry 4.0. and to re‐
duce negative environmental impacts by applying this concept. This survey documented that
companies tend to make lean transitions in no more than nine steps, where each step produces a
wish to implement one or more lean tools. Some lean tools or practices are used more frequently
than others, but their significance cannot be determined only by their occurrence ratio. Lean‐
tools impact feedback, determined by an SMLR model, must be the measure of their greatness.
The presented statistical model has shown us that TPM, Poka‐Yoke, Kaizen, 5S, Kanban, Six Big
Losses, Heijunka, Takt Time, Andon, OEE, SMED, and KPIs are statistically significant lean tools
for waste reduction or even elimination.

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 15(1) 2020 89

Leksic, Stefanic, Veza

Lean was created in a manufacturing environment, and its significance is commonly related
to operative and strategic mind‐set changes. This survey documented that lean is still the most
frequently used method for the operative and strategic restructuring process. Lean tools are not
a state‐of‐the‐art product of the lean concept; they are simply visible practices that introduce a
desired cultural and mind‐set change among all people. A value‐adding culture is a final product
of lean, whereas a consistent search for perfection must be its basic principle.
Lean is one of many concepts for business improvement; however, successful lean implemen‐
tation is characteristic of many market leaders. Organisational changes are a necessity on to‐
day’s market. If market leaders are willing to make deep changes, then there is no excuse for
others to not make the necessary changes. Many organisations wanted to adopt lean throughout
the years, but lack of knowledge, loss of enthusiasm, and bad decisions led to poor change. Lead‐
ers and management are setting the direction of the change by their principles and practices.
Lean tools are not just boring procedures, they are setting a framework for future changes. Lean
can be simple, pragmatic, and comprehensive for all users only through lean tools. They repre‐
sent organisational directions and aims.

6. Conclusion
This paper documented the most frequent and most significant basic lean tools for waste elimi‐
nation among lean practitioners. The documented lean implementation framework enabled us
to examine the occurrence of lean tools in all lean implementation stages, where the key lean
tools were pinpointed. The results can help organisations see the lean experts’ way of thinking.
Every organisation should investigate the best practices in their industry for lean implementa‐
tion. The lean practices identified in this survey are not unique lean implementation paths. Each
company should redesign and adapt the lean framework for its needs.
In brief, the management must have a deep understanding of organisation waste and sound
knowledge of the lean toolbox to make lean implementation more successful. It is wise to use
lean tools that reduce several types of waste as the first steps of lean implementation because
they have a statistically significant positive impact on waste reduction. Each lean tool has its
own waste‐reduction impact. Some tools are more reliable for waste reduction, and others for
other tasks. Generally speaking, management should know its priorities before going lean. Going
lean is a never‐ending process, and tools and practices have a huge impact on lean transfor‐
mation and creation of smart factories.
This study has some limitations. The lean practitioners interviewed through this survey were
involved in lean implementation, but they had an individual view on waste before and after the
lean concept. Second, the lean implementation is a long process in which many lean tools are
implemented. The presented study investigated 25 basic lean tools; however, the interviewed
lean practitioners might have implemented other lean tools during their implementation. Third,
some interviewed organisations have a higher lean maturity level and have been using the lean
concept much longer than others. Therefore, they have better progress in terms of waste elimi‐
nation. In general, these results are based on the subjective vision of lean practitioners.
Lean implementation has many critical factors for success. This study has proven that lean
tools are involved in every lean implementation. In addition to lean tools, there are many other
factors that influence the success, duration, and sustainability of the lean concept. Further inves‐
tigations should focus more on how managers conduct lean‐tools implementation in various
industries and other countries.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to all the organisations and managers interviewed in this study. In addition, we acknowledge
the support provided by University of Zagreb.

90 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 15(1) 2020

 The impact of using different lean manufacturing tools on waste reduction

References
[1] Marodin, G.A., Saurin, T.A. (2013). Implementing lean production systems: Research areas and opportunities for
future studies, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51, No. 22, 6663-6680, doi: 10.1080/00207543.
2013.826831.
[2] Baker, P. (2002). “Why is lean so far off? If lean manufacturing has been around for decades, why haven’t more
manufacturers got further with it?”, Works Management -London then Horton Kirby then Swanley-, Vol. 55, No.
10, 26-29.
[3] Mohanty, R., Yadav, O., Jain, R. (2007). Implementation of lean manufacturing principles in auto industry,
Vilakshan-XIMB Journal of Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1-32.
[4] Taylor, A., Taylor, M., McSweeney, A. (2013). Towards greater understanding of success and survival of lean
systems, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51, No. 22, 6607-6630, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2013.
825382.
[5] Yadav, O.P., Nepal, B., Goel, P.S., Jain R., Mohanty, R.P. (2010). Insights and learnings from lean manufacturing
implementation practices, International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Vol. 6, No. 4, 398-422,
doi: 10.1504/IJSOM.2010.032916.
[6] Liker, J.K., Meier, D.P. (2006). The Toyota way fieldbook: A practical guide for implementing Toyota's 4Ps, McGraw-
Hill, New York, USA.
[7] Conti, T. (2010). The dynamics of value generation and their dependence on an organisation’s internal and ex-
ternal value system, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 21, No. 9, 885-901, doi: 10.1080/
14783363.2010.487701.
[8] Mostafa, S., Dumrak, J., Soltan, H. (2013). A framework for lean manufacturing implementation, Production &
Manufacturing Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, 44-64, doi: 10.1080/21693277.2013.862159.
[9] Pavnaskar, S.J., Gershenson, J.K., Jambekar, A.B. (2003). Classification scheme for lean manufacturing tools, In-
ternational Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41, No. 13, 3075-3090, doi: 10.1080/0020754021000049817.
[10] Koblasa, F., Šírová, E., Králíková, R. (2019). The use of process thinking in the industrial practice – Preliminary
survey, Tehnički Vjesnik – Technical Gazette, Vol. 26, No. 3, 786-792, doi: 10.17559/TV-20150617135306.
[11] Sim, K.L., Rogers, J.W. (2009). Implementing lean production systems: Barriers to change, Management Research
News, Vol. 32, No. 1, 37-49, doi: 10.1108/01409170910922014.
[12] Fullerton, R.R., Wempe, W.F. (2009). Lean manufacturing, non‐financial performance measures, and financial
performance, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, 214-240, doi: 10.1108
/01443570910938970.
[13] Henderson, B.A., Larco, J.L. (2003). Lean transformation: How to change your business into a lean enterprise,
Oaklea Press, Virginia, USA.
[14] Liker, J.K. (2004). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer, McGraw-
Hill, New York, USA.
[15] Wiengarten, F., Fynes, B., Pagell, M., de Búrca, S. (2011). Exploring the impact of national culture on investments
in manufacturing practices and performance: An empirical multi‐country study, International Journal of Opera-
tions & Production Management, Vol. 31, No. 5, 554-578, doi: 10.1108/01443571111126328.
[16] Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R., Nelder, G. (2006). Critical success factors for lean implementation within SMEs,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17, No. 4, 460-471, doi: 10.1108/17410380610662889.
[17] Nguyen, D.M. (2015). A new application model of lean management in small and medium sized enterprises,
International Journal of Simulation Modelling, Vol. 14, No. 2, 289-298, doi: 10.2507/IJSIMM14(2)9.304.
[18] Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system – Beyond large-scale production, 1st edition, Productivity Press, New
York, USA, doi: 10.4324/9780429273018.
[19] Anand, G., Kodali, R. (2010). Analysis of lean manufacturing frameworks, Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Systems, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1-30, doi: 10.1142/S0219686710001776.
[20] Powell, D., Riezebos, J., Strandhagen, J.O. (2012). Lean production and ERP systems in small-and medium-sized
enterprises: ERP support for pull production, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51, No. 2, 395-
409, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2011.645954.
[21] Netland, T.H. (2015). Critical success factors for implementing lean production: The effect of contingencies,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54, No. 8, 2433-2448, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2015.1096976.
[22] Garcia-Sabater, J.J., Marin-Garcia, J.A. (2011). Can we still talk about continuous improvement? Rethinking ena-
blers and inhibitors for successful implementation, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 55, No.
1-2, 28-42, doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2011.041678.
[23] Emiliani, B. (2008). Practical lean leadership – A strategic leadership guide for executives, Center for Lean Busi-
ness Management, Wethersfield, USA.
[24] Kolberg, D., Zühlke, D. (2015). Lean automation enabled by Industry 4.0 technologies, IFAC-PapersOnLine, Vol.
48, No. 3, 1870-1875, doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.359.
[25] Narasimhan, R., Swink, M., Kim, S.W. (2006). Disentangling leanness and agility: An empirical investigation, Jour-
nal of Operations Management, Vol. 24, No. 5, 440-457, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2005.11.011.
[26] Čiarnienė, R., Vienažindienė, M. (2015). An empirical study of lean concept manifestation, Procedia – Social and
Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 207, 225-233, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.091.
[27] Browning, T.R., Heath, R.D. (2009). Reconceptualising the effects of lean on production costs with evidence from
the F-22 program, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27, No. 1, 23-24, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2008.03.009.

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 15(1) 2020 91

Leksic, Stefanic, Veza

[28] Yadav, O.P., Nepal, B.P., Rahaman, M.M., Lal, V. (2017). Lean implementation and organizational transfor-mation:
A literature review, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2-16, doi: 10.1080/10429247.2016.126
3914.
[29] Bhasin, S., Burcher, P. (2006). Lean viewed as a philosophy, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 17, No. 1, 56-72, doi: 10.1108/17410380610639506.
[30] Vorkapić, M., Radovanović, F., Ćoćkalo, D., Đorđević, D. (2017). Applicability of the lean concept to the manage-
ment of small-scale manufacturing enterprises in Serbia, Tehnički Vjesnik – Technical Gazette, Vol. 24, No. 6,
1929-1934, doi: 10.17559/TV-20150807194942.
[31] Karlsson, C., Åhlström, P. (1996). Assessing changes towards lean production, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 16, No. 2, 24-41, doi: 10.1108/01443579610109820.
[32] Kadarova, J., Demecko, M. (2015). New approaches in lean management, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol.
39, 11-16, doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30234-9.
[33] Arunagiri, P., Gnanavelbabu, A. (2014). Identification of high impact lean production tools in automobile indus-
tries using weighted average method, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 97, 2072-2080, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.
450.
[34] Holtskog, H. (2013). Continuous improvement beyond the lean understanding, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 7, 575-579,
doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2013.06.035.
[35] Antosz, K., Stadnicka, D. (2017). Lean philosophy implementation in SMEs – Study results, Procedia Engineering,
Vol. 182, 25-32, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.107.
[36] Vilkas, M., Koreckaja, I., Katiliūtė, E., Bagdonienė, D. (2015). Adoption of lean production: Preliminary evidence
from Lithuania, Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 213, 884-889, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.
11.500.

92 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 15(1) 2020