Effect of Lean Manufacturing On Operational Performance

EFFECT OF LEAN MANUFACTURING PRACTICES ON
OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF MANUFACTURING

FIRMS IN MOMBASA COUNTY, KENYA
BY:
FATMA KASYOKA SAID
REG. NO: D61/77096/2012
SUPERVISOR: MR.STEPHEN ODOCK
A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MASTERS OF BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION DEGREE, SCHOOL OF BUSINESS,
UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI
MAY, 2014
DECLARATION
I declare that this research project is my original work and has never been submitted to
any other University for assessment or award of a degree.
Signature.. Date
FATMA KASYOKA SAID
D61/77096/2012
This project has been submitted with our authority as the university supervisor.
Signature. Date
MR. STEPHEN ODOCK
Lecturer,
Department of Management Science, School of Business
University of Nairobi
Acknowledgement
Firstly, I would like to express my gratefulness to my supervisor, Mr.stephen Odock.

Thank you for the support and guidance.
My gratitude also goes to various scholars whose works in the areas of lean
Manufacturing, lean in supply chain, and supply chain management, enabled to
understand the context of this study and also in the writing of this project.
To my dear husband, Mr. Ali Hassan and children, I will not forget to appreciate your
priceless support during the my study period. Thank you for the love and
understanding you have shown to me despite my working for long hours.
DEDICATION
This project is dedicated to my family.

My husband Mr. Ali Hassan ,my children Fahima Ali, Maryam Ali, Farsan Ali, Said
Ali,and Talaldost Ali for their undying love for me.
And to my parents Mr. Said Shaban and Mrs Maryam Shaban, thank you so much for
your endless encouragement and support and for believing in me.
God bless you so much.
ABSTRACT
Companies operating in the presents' rapidly changing and highly competitive market
have been pressured to improve all aspects of operational performance; quality,
flexibility and customer response time. They have retorted by adopting a set of
practices that is fast becoming the dominant paradigm in manufacturing - Lean
Manufacturing. Lean Manufacturing involves continuous elimination of waste from
the value chain of manufacturers thus enhancing customer value through continuous
improvement of operational performance of the manufacturers. The research surveyed
the effect of lean practices on the operational performance of manufacturing firms in
Mombasa county. The study aimed to achieve three objectives: To determine the
extent to which manufacturing firms in Mombasa County have adopted lean
manufacturing practices; To establish the effect of lean manufacturing practices on
operational performance of manufacturing firms in Mombasa County and the
challenges faced by firms adopting lean manufacturing. The data analyzed was
gathered using a semi-structured questionnaire targeting operations managers of
manufacturing firms in Mombasa. The results were presented using tables,
percentages, mean scores, frequencies and charts for easy understanding. The findings
indicated that most manufacturing firms in Mombasa practiced Lean manufacturing.
It was also clear that Lean Manufacturing firms had seen improvement in their
operational performance. The results however show that JIT as Lean practice showed
a negative relationship with Operational Performance. The study found that the most
experienced challenge was high costs of implementation. The study recommends
more awareness of the importance of lean practices in Manufacturing firms and
support from the top management as critical tool for takeoff. It also recommends that
for Lean manufacturing to be successful it has be practiced in the entire Supply Chain.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................i
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION........................................................................1
1.1 Background of the study........................................................................................1
1.1.1 Lean Manufacturing......................................................................................1
1.1.2 Operational performance...............................................................................1
1.1.3 Lean Manufacturing and Operational Performance......................................1
1.2 Research Problem...................................................................................................1
1.3 Research Objectives...............................................................................................1
1.4 Value of the study...................................................................................................1
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................1
2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................1
2.2. Theoretical foundation of the study......................................................................1
2.2.1 Theory of Constraints (TOC)........................................................................1
2.2.2 Resource Based Theory (RBV).....................................................................1
2.3 Lean Manufacturing Practices................................................................................1
2.3.1 Just -In Time (JIT).........................................................................................1
2.3.2 Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)...........................................................1
2.3.3 Continuous Improvement/ Kaizen................................................................1
2.3.4 Automation/Jidoka........................................................................................1
2.3.5 Value Stream Mapping..................................................................................1
2.4 Challenges of adopting Lean Manufacturing.........................................................1

2.7 Empirical Literature Review..................................................................................1
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................1
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................1
3.2 Research Design.....................................................................................................1
3.3 Population of Study................................................................................................1
3.4. Sample and Sampling technique............................................................................1
3.5 Data Collection........................................................................................................1
3.6 Data Analysis..........................................................................................................1
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................1
APPENDIX 1................................................................................................................1
A1.Questionnaire..........................................................................................................1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CI - Continuous Improvement
HRM - Human Resource Management
JIT - Just -in -Time
KAM Kenya Association of Manufacturers
LM - Lean Manufacturing
NSE- Nairobi Stock Exchange
NVA - Non Value Adding Activities
RBV Resource Based View
SMED - Single Minute Exchange of Die
TOC Theory of Constraints
TPM - Total Productive Maintenance
TPS -Toyota Production System
TQM - Total Quality Management
VA - Value Adding
VSA - Value Stream Analysis
VSM Value Stream Mapping

ISO- International Standards
NEMA-National Environment Management Authority
OEE- Overall Equipment Effectiveness
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study
Today, firms are operating in a fast changing and highly competitive globalized
market, thus pressuring them to improve quality, flexibility, and customer response
time (Womack & Jones, 2003). To achieve these improvements, researchers have
increasingly proposed the implementation of lean in the manufacturing process as a
way to achieve the required competitive advantage (Womack & Jones, 2003; Taylor,
2006; Cudney & Elrod, 2011). The focus of LM is on specifying value from the
perspective of the customer and removing waste from the value stream of a product
(Womack & Jones, 2003). LM results to increased productivity, improved product
quality, reduced inventory, reduced lead time and elimination manufacturing waste
(Shah & ward, 2003).
The ideologies of Lean Manufacturing, Resource based view (RBV) and Theory of
constraints theories (TOC), compliment each other's goals and objectives, since their
foundation is based on using less resources to produce maximum output. According to
RBV the resources that a firm controls are the determinants of a firm's performance
(Barney, 2001) and thus they should be utilized sparingly and economically in order
to achieve maximum output. Equally, lean manufacturing involves creating more
value for customers through waste minimization (using resources cautiously).
Goldratt (1988), asserts that TOC views a manufacturing firm as system and there's
always something that limits its performance. LM offers a profound toolkit which can
be applied to constrained processes in order to significantly improve the operational
performance whereas TOC focuses on eliminating the constraint in the process for
continuous improvement.
Mombasa County is the second biggest city in Kenya and forms a big part of the
Kenyan manufacturing sector. Kenya has a large manufacturing sector serving both
the local and the world market and is dominated by subsidiaries of multinationals. The
performance of the sector has been affected by low capital injection, use of obsolete
technologies, scarce resources, overproduction, and lack of knowledge on how to
become lean resulting to enormous wastes impeding their growth (Kimani, 2013).
This study will aim to identify the lean manufacturing practices can improve
operational performance of manufacturing firms in Mombasa County, Kenya and the
success factors in their implementation.
1.1.1 Lean Manufacturing
Lean Manufacturing is a systematic approach that improves value to the customer by
identifying and eliminating waste through continuous improvement by flowing the
product at the pull of the customer in pursuit of perfection (Manrodt, Vitasek &
Tompson, 2008). Shah & Ward, (2003), describe lean manufacturing as a business
system for managing product development, operations, suppliers, and customer
relations that requires less human effort, space, capital, and time to make products
with fewer defects to precise customer desires. Womack and Jones (1996) define Lean
Manufacturing as a business and production philosophy that shortens the time
between order placement and product delivery by eliminating waste from a products
value-stream. Lean Manufacturing is simply the systematic removal of waste by all
members of the organization from all areas of the value stream (Worley, 2004).
It is commonly believed that Lean started in Japan (Toyota, specifically) but Henry
Ford had been also using similar concept about Lean as early as the 1920s when he
confirmed they were able to keep the price of Ford products low by constantly
minimizing the production process (Kilpatrick, 2003). The LM concept was
conceived by Toyota Motor Company, Japan and was known as Toyota Production
System (Shah & Ward, 2007) . Toyota Production System (TPS) was operationalized
by Taiichi Ohno, who was trying to ensure survival of the Toyota Motor Company
after the post world war II economic depression (Womack & Jones, 1996).
The main focus of lean manufacturing practices is on value, more than on cost, and
seeks to remove all non-value adding components especially processes whilst
improving those that add value. This approach involves an extremely rigorous,
questioning analysis of every detail of product development and production, seeking
to continuously establish the ultimate source of problems. Only by eliminating the
cause at source can the possibility of that fault recurring be removed (Womack &
Jones, 2003). The concept of Lean Manufacturing is considered to improve a firms'
performance through elimination of waste (Shah & Ward, 2007). There are eight
wastes highlighted in TPS which are overproduction, waiting, conveyance, over
processing, excess inventory, excess movement, defects and unused employee
creativity, and the biggest one being overproduction (Wee &Wu, 2009).
Lean is a comprehensive set of practices that when combined and developed, make a
company more flexible and more responsive to customer demand (Shah &Ward,
2003). The major benefits of LM are increased productivity, improved product quality
and manufacturing cycle time, reduced inventory, reduced lead time and elimination
of manufacturing waste (Agus & Hajinoor, 2012). To achieve those benefits, the LM
philosophy uses several concepts such as Continuous improvement(CI), Total

Productive Maintenance (TPM), Jidoka, Just-in-Time (JIT), and Value Stream
Mappings (VSM), (Belekoukias, Garza-Reyes & Kumar, 2014).
1.1.2 Operational performance
In today's dynamic and rapidly changing workplace and globalised economy, the
ability to achieve and maintain high performance and productivity in organizations is
a key challenge facing manufacturing firms today (Womack & Jones, 2003). To be
able survive in those harsh conditions is the objective of any organization, because its
only through continuous operations and improved performance that organizations are
able to grow and progress.
Operational performance refers to the measurable aspects of the outcomes of a firms

processes, such as reliability, production cycle time, and inventory turns which in turn
affects business performance measures such as market share and customer
satisfaction(Voss, Ahlstrom, & Blackmon, 1997). Operational performance is simply
the effectiveness and efficiency of an organization in transforming inputs into

outputs.
Knowing the determinants of operational performance is vital important especially in

the context of the current economic crises because it enables the identification of
those factors that determine if there's indeed any progress or improvement in the
operations of a manufacturing firm. This information will help managers to find and
diagnose the problems in their processes and irregular performance or unsatisfactory
progress can be revealed clearly (Anvari, Zulkifli & Yusuff, 2013).This study will
consider the most important measures of operational performance; cost, speed,

dependability, quality and flexibility (Belekoukias, Garza-Reyes & Kumar, 2014).
1.1.3 Lean Manufacturing and Operational Performance
Wheatley (2005) discussed the following to be reasons why organizations are
adopting LM; continued pressure to improve operational performance, pressure to
maintain competitive advantage in price and service, pressure to improve profit,
customers demanding shorter order-cycle times and reduced prices. All the reasons
are relative to exemplary operational performance. Operational performance metrics
determine if LM will most definitely improve performance of manufacturing firms.
Several studies support that LM has evolved to become a leading approach in

improving operations performance specifically inventory turnover, quality, lead time,
labor productivity, space utilization, flexibility (Shah &Ward, 2003; Fullerton &
Wempe,2009; Agus & Hajinoor, 2012). Shah and Ward (2003) examined the effect on
operational performance of the lean practices and contextual factors and concluded
that LM practices are positively related to operational performance. Lean
manufacturing is designed to eliminate waste and improve operations in every area
extending from production to customer relations, product design, supplier networks
and factory management (Agus & Hajnoor, 2012).
Lean manufacturing practices offers a manufacturing firm the platform to achieve

superior operational performance and a distinctive competitive edge (Womack &
Jones, 2003). LM practices bear a direct relationship to improvements in operational
performance (Agus & Hajinoor, 2012). LM philosophy if carefully adopted and
implemented can definitely form the roadmap to global manufacturing excellence

(Papadopoulou & Ozbayrak, 2005).
1.1.4 Manufacturing industry in Mombasa

Manufacturing is the process of transforming of raw materials into either intermediate
goods or final products to meet customer demand. Kenya has a large manufacturing
sector serving both the local market and the rest of the world. According to KAM
(2014), there are about three thousand and seven hundred (3700) established multisector manufacturing firms in Kenya. Manufacturing activities are concentrated
around the three largest urban centers; Nairobi, Mombasa, and Kisumu cities.
Mombasa is the second-largest city in Kenya, and is home several giant
manufacturing firms which include, the Kenya Oil Refinery, Bamburi cement, several
steel manufacturers, and bottling companies. Other manufacturing firms within the
county include the Export processing zones and small and medium scale
manufacturing firms such as bakeries and plastic manufacturers. The study will focus
on Mombasa County due to its familiarity and easy accessibility to the researcher to
save time and cost.
The Manufacturing sector is currently facing a lot of challenges as a result of

increasing cost of doing business culminating from increased costs of transportation,
poor infrastructure and rains, increased costs of labor as a factor of production,
increased energy charges and increasing power costs, power outages and fluctuations,
higher lending rates and fluctuating exchange rates in addition to that congestion,
delays and redundant checks of merchandise plus hefty regulations by regulatory
bodies. These challenges have hindered the growth of the sector since they have
negatively affected the supply of inputs, rising time and cost of transfer of raw
materials to producers (KAM, 2014). This scenario has made manufacturers to realize
that their value chain needs improvement to able survive in the harsh settings.
Management of the value chain using LM practices is one way to cope, because it
results to improved operational performance, growth in market share, suppliers and
distribution channels and provide the platform for continuous improvement
(Njunguna, 2013).
1.2 Research Problem
Manufacturers are nowadays facing intense global competition, rapid technological
changes and fast changing customer needs. LM is the new paradigm, since both the
developed and developing countries are practicing it in order to improve operational
performance (Ferdousi & Ahmed, 2009).
The concept of LM evolved from the
Toyota Production System (TPS) and is considered to continuously improve a firms

performance through elimination of waste (Mannan & Ferdousi, 2007). Lean
manufacturing is a system for improving a firms value creation and customer relations
using requires less human effort, space, capital, and time in the precise customer
requirements (Shah & Ward,2003). The main focus of lean manufacturing is on value,
more than on cost, and seeks to remove all non-value adding components especially
processes whilst improving those that add value (Womack, et al.2003).
Under the economic pillar of the Kenya vision 2030, manufacturing
sector is
expected to deliver the envisaged 10 per cent economic growth rate per annum, by
increasing and sustaining its contribution to Gross Domestic Product by at least 10
percent per annum. Mombasa being the second largest city, has a large contribution
towards the projected objectives. One possibility for manufacturing firms to achieve
the projected results is to turn to LM .Manufacturing companies that do not keep up
with the lean manufacturing paradigm will eventually lose out to competitors. (Agus
& Iteng 2013).
In theory, many academicians have asserted that lean manufacturing can result in
positive operational performance outcomes (Lewis, 2000; Cua, Mckone & Schroeder,
2001; Shah &Ward, 2003 and Agus & Hajinoor, 2012). The researchers claim that the
implementation of lean manufacturing had resulted in better operational performance
such as increasing production volume, reducing lead time, enhancing customer
satisfaction and flexible production method. Consistent with this, Shah and Ward
(2003) in their study, emphasize that the implementation of lean manufacturing had a
significant and positive relationship with operational performance. Agus and
Hajinoor(2012) in their study on Malaysian manufacturing firms have addressed the
key relationships between lean production, product quality performance and business
performance. Their results support the conceptual model, demonstrating strong
association between lean manufacturing, product quality performance, and business
performance.
In Kenya, studies done were consistent with other researchers that lean manufacturing
will ultimately lead to improved in operational performance of manufacturing firms
(Kisombe, 2012; Kimani, 2013; Rono, 2013 and Rubeya, 2013).To validate those
findings Ondiek(2012) and Kisombe (2012) found out that lean manufacturing is a
continuous process whose objective to produce high quality products at the pace of
customer with little or no waste. Rono, 2013 did a case study on Bamburi cement and
concurred with Tourki (2010) that many organizations have realized that adopting
Lean manufacturing will enable them survive in the global market. Rono also admits
that the benefits of lean manufacturing are consistent with the research done by other
scholars that lean manufacturing not only reduces operational costs but also targets to
drastically elevate the competitiveness of a company (Mehta, Mehta & Mehta ,2012).
However, Lewis (2000) warns that LM may not directly improve operational
performance as it may be intervened by other variables. Moori, Pescarmona and
Kimura, (2013), argues that, some studies found that the adoption of JIT tools does
not improve profitability. The empirical results regarding improvement in operational
performance of LM companies are vague and paint an ambiguous picture (Agus &
Hajinoor, 2012). To add on that, most studies in Kenya had not examined the
relationship of LM and operational performance quantitatively as it was the case in
this study. A related study done by Kanyanya, 2013 on Lean manufacturing practices
and performance of organizations listed at the Nairobi Stock Exchange (NSE). This study
specifically focused on operational performance and targeted manufacturing firms in
Mombasa county. This study aimed to uncover: What is the effect of adopting LM
practices on the operational performance of manufacturing firms in Mombasa

County?
1.3 Research Objectives
The study seeks to achieve the following research objectives:
i.
To determine the extent to which manufacturing firms in Mombasa County
ii.
have adopted lean manufacturing practices.

To establish the effect of lean manufacturing practices on operational
performance of manufacturing firms in Mombasa County.
iii.
To find out the challenges faced by manufacturing firms in adopting lean

manufacturing practices.
1.4 Value of the study

The study will be of significance to other researchers since information from the
literature review is limited and thus provide an elementary reference for future
studies.
The study will serve as a point of reference for firms aiming to adopt the lean
practices to improve their performance and inform them of the challenges they are
likely to face.
The findings will help in the formulation of polices which will help in the regulation
of the sector. As well as act as a guide in the ISO policy formulation and NEMA
regulations to help protect the scarce resources and environment at large.
10
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on a review of literature on lean manufacturing. It outlines the
theoretical literature, Lean practices and challenges faced in implementation of LM.
Finally it gives the overview of the empirical studies on lean practices.
2.2. Theoretical foundation of the study

In this study the concept lean manufacturing will conceptualized using two related
theories. These are The Theory of Constraints and the Resource Based View theory.
2.2.1 Theory of Constraints (TOC)
The Theory of Constraints (TOC) is a business philosophy that was developed by Dr.
Eliyahu M. Goldratt, and usually applied to running and improving an organization. The
Theory of Constraints is a methodology for identifying the most important limiting

factor (the constraint) that stands in the way of achieving a goal and then
systematically improving that constraint until it is no longer the limiting factor (Lean
Enterprise,2009). The Theory of Constraints takes a scientific approach to
improvement. It assumes that every complex system, for example the manufacturing
11
process, consists of multiple linked activities, and consequently one of them will
become a constraint upon the entire system (the constraint activity is the weakest
link in the chain). According Mabin and Balderstone (1999), if TOC is applied
logically and methodically it will answer these three questions essential to any process of
ongoing improvement: What to change?, To what to change?, How to implement the
change?
TOC offers a practical structure for directing LM efforts where they will do the most
good and avoiding the pitfalls of applying them where they will add no value (Leach,
2000). One of the appealing characteristics of the Theory of Constraints is that it
inherently prioritizes improvement activities same as lean does through continuous

improvement. The top priority in TOC is always on the current constraint and in lean
is waste elimination. A successful Theory of Constraints implementation will have the
following benefits as in lean manufacturing: Increased profits, quick improvement in
production, improved capacity, reduced lead time, reduced inventory (Lewis 2000).
2.2.2 Resource Based Theory (RBV)
A resource-based view is the ability of a firm to deliver sustainable competitive
advantage when resources are managed such that their outcomes cannot be imitated
by competitors (Hooley & Greenley, 2005). The RBV theory as a basis for
competitive advantage of a firm lies primarily in the application of a bundle of
valuable tangible or intangible resources at the firm's disposal. RBV says that a firms
sustainable competitive advantage is reached by virtue of unique resources being rare,
valuable, inimitable, non-tradable, and non-substitutable, as well as firm-specific
(Barney, 2001).
12
To transform a short-run competitive advantage into a sustained competitive

advantage requires that these resources are heterogeneous in nature and not perfectly
mobile (Barney, 1991). If these conditions hold, the bundle of resources can sustain
the firm's above average returns. RBV supports efficient use of resources in an
unmatched way and thus compliments the core of LM which is to minimization of all
forms of waste and continuously imporove procesess (Keyser & Sawhney, 2013).
2.3 Lean Manufacturing Practices

Lean manufacturing is implemented through some practices which are undertaken to
bring about improvements in organization. This study will focus on five of the most
essential practices of LM as advocated by Belekoukias, Garza-Reyes, &Kumar,
(2014) in their study, Just-in-Time (JIT), Total Productive Maintenance (TPM),
Automation, Value Stream Mapping (VSM) and Continuous Improvement (CI).
2.3.1 Just-in Time (JIT)
JIT is a technique in a flow process where the needed parts, components or materials
are delivered to the point of need only at the time of need and the amount needed
(Ohno, 1988). JIT states that an organization should produce the right item at the right
time (Womack & Jones 2003); this helps in reducing inventories and possible wastes.
The tools of JIT are; one piece flow, pull system, takt time, cell manufacturing,
kanban, multifunctional employees (Rocha-Lona, Garza-Reyes, and Kumar 2013).
JIT is a tool if well implemented, improves performance through reduction of costs,

better quality products and increased production (Rono, 2013). JIT is based on pull
13
production, top management and employee involvement, elimination of wastes, good

supplier relations, and total quality control (Pheng & Chuan, 2001).
2.3.2 Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)
TPM is a holistic approach to maintenance that focuses on proactive and preventive
repairs to maximize operational time of machines and equipment. It capitalizes on
progressive maintenance methodologies and calls upon the knowledge and
cooperation of operators, equipment vendors, engineering, and support personnel to
ensure production flows smoothly (Shah & ward, 2007). TPM relies on tools such as
Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE), single minute exchange of die (SMED),
autonomous repairs and quality repairs (Belekoukias, Garza-Reyes, & Kumar, 2014).
Results of machine optimized performance include; elimination of breakdowns,
reduction of unscheduled and scheduled downtime, improved utilization, higher
throughput, and better product quality (Shah & Ward, 2003). This results to lower
operating costs, longer equipment life, and lower overall maintenance costs.
2.3.3 Continuous Improvement/ Kaizen
Continuous improvement is the technique of endless creation of value and removal of
waste from a value chain. This entails the continual pursuit of improvements in
quality, cost, delivery and design (Bhasin & Burcher, 2006). Once implanted as part
of an organization's culture, kaizen acts as a platform for the sustainment of lean
manufacturing. Rocha-Lona, Garza-Reyes and Kumar (2013), suggest brainstorming,
continuous flow, data check sheet, run charts, Pareto chart, VSM, mistake proofing
and process maps as tools that most commonly used to achieve the kaizen strategy.
14
The preliminary radical improvement in a process does not stop at the initial
achievement; instead, it is followed by continuous incremental improvements in order
to pursue perfection (Womack & Jones, 1996). The authors argue that the concept of
perfection in lean manufacturing refers to endless improvement. It focuses on
elimination of non value added activities in the process.
2.3.4 Automation/Jidoka
Automation, also known as Jidoka, is a lean method that targets the reduction of
quality defects with the use of tools that include mistake proofing devices (Pokayokes),visual control systems (Andons) and a full working system (Belekoukias,
Garza-Reyes, & Kumar, 2014). Jidoka means providing machines and operators the
ability to detect an abnormal condition and instantly take action based on the detected
condition. The equipment becomes capable of discriminating against unacceptable
quality, making the process more reliable (Khalil, Khan, & Mahmood, 2006).
Jidoka is the process that focuses on quality control and the automation of the functions
of the production supervision, which means that the personnel is warned in case of an
abnormal situation in order to stop the production line. This helps prevents wastage and
defects in the output. It aids by focusing on understanding why the problems occurred and
how they can be avoided in future (Kanyanya, 2013).
2.3.5 Value Stream Mapping

Value stream Mapping(VSM) is a process of understanding what actually happens
along the products value chain by visually mapping the flow of information and
material, (Rao, Subbaiah, Rao & Rao, 2011). VSM is often considered as the basis for
the implementation of other lean techniques, and it helps to track activities for value
creation, starting from conception till delivery to the end customer (Cudney & Elrod,
15
2011). Taylor (2006) describes VSM as a very important first step that helps to
achieve the desired alignment in value chain activities in order to improve it.
The
steps in VSM include: education on the importance of VSA, creation of value
chain structure and selection of focus value stream, mapping of individual facilities
and activities within the focus value stream, development of current state map for the
value chain, identification of issues and opportunities for improvement within the
chain, development of future state map for the value chain and recommendation for
improvements (Taylor, 2006).
2.4 Challenges of adopting Lean Manufacturing
Despite the merits of adopting LM, implementation challenges are surmountable.
Resistance to change by people is one of the major challenge in adopting lean (Wong,
Wong, & Ali, 2009) and evidence on its likely benefit to end users is hard present
(Rono, 2013). LM radically impacts every person in every function of an
organization, and literally changes the organizational culture. Another challenge to a
lean organization is to create a culture that will generate and sustain long-term
dedication from top management to the entire workforce (Prakash &Kumar, 2011).
Under LM employees are most likely to become productive but at the same time may
find their work more stressful (Womack et al., 1996).
Failure to expand LM to the supply chain is another drawback of lean. If critical

suppliers cannot deliver on time, and in smaller quantities, the benefits of Lean will be
greatly diminished or even non-existent. Building and managing a lean supply chain
poses a challenge owing to the highly interconnected nature of the activities in the
supply chain (Agus & Hajinoor, 2012).
16
According to this authors the size of the firm might be a setback as evidenced in their
study that large US manufacturers adopted JIT practices more frequently than small
manufacturers and that large manufacturer were doing well than the small scale (Shah
& ward, 2003).
A company may implement the building blocks in the wrong sequence. For example,
if batch sizes are reduced prior to reducing changeover time, and changeover times
are lengthy, equipment utilization will drop, and the ability to serve customers will be
reduced. According to Bhasin &Burcher (2006) the major difficulties companies
encounter in attempting to apply lean are a lack of direction, a lack of planning and a
lack of adequate project sequencing. These challenges can be dealt with so as to
enable manufacturing firms enjoy the countless benefits of adopting LM.
2.7 Empirical Literature Review
Various studies have concluded that LM has helped numerous companies improve
operational performance (Shah & Ward, 2007; Agus &Hajinoor, 2012; Ghosh, 2012;
Nawanir, Teong & Othman, 2013). Adoption of lean manufacturing practices leads to
a positive and significant impact on both operational and business performance
(Nawanir, Teong & Othman, 2013). Ghosh (2012) found out that the most vital
operational metrics in LM firms improved: high productivity, reduced lead time,
improved output and reduced inventory. Agus and Hajinoor (2012) their study
revealed a strong association between LM, product quality performance and
manufacturing performance. Cua et, al. (2006) found out that JIT, TPM and TQM can
positively and radically affect quality, cost, flexibility and delivery of a firm.
17
In Kenya, studies concede that LM improves the performance of a manufacturing firm

(Kisombe, 2012; Kanyanya, 2013;Rono, 2013). Kanyanya (2013) confirmed that LM
firms are able to be more responsive to market trends, use materials economically, cut
lead times, enabling them to produce products and services less expensively than their
non-lean counterparts. In a case study on Bamburi Cement Limited in Mombasa,
Rono (2013) found a positive outcome after implementation LM within all systems in
the value chain. To validate those findings, Kisombe (2012) found out that LM was a
continuous process whose objective to produce high quality products at the pace of
customer with little or no waste. Rono, 2013 also acknowledges that LM not only
reduces operational costs but also targets to drastically elevate the competitiveness of
a company.
Nonetheless some studies have identified that the adoption of JIT tools or the use of
models based on TQM does not improve profitability (Moori, Pescarmona & Kimura
2013). Lewis (2000), in his case-based research, argues LM methods involve not only
benefits but also costs and that becoming lean does not automatically result in
improved operational performance. In addition, Bhasin and Burcher (2006) insist that
less than ten percent of the companies succeed in implementing lean manufacturing
practices. Moreover findings show that focus over value creating activities towards
the final customer is still missing in most of the companies implementing lean
(Kanyanya, 2013).
SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW
Theory and concept of lean manufacturing is not yet fully developed, in spite of its
potential for gains in operations (Anand & Kodali, 2008). Just as effect of lean
manufacturing on operational performance is an open question, given the differences
18
of empirical studies (Mannan & Ferdousi 2007). Few studies on the relationship of
lean manufacturing and operational performance have been done in Kenya. Thus there
was a need to clearly paint the right picture of the relationship between LM and
operational performance. It was necessary to determine if adopting LM will lead to an
improved operational performance. This research was driven by the fact that Kenyan
researchers have noted that there an urgent need for further research in the area of
Lean manufacturing (Ondiek, 2012; Kisombe, 2012; Kimani, 2013; Rono, 2013). This
research will add more knowledge to the concept and bring in the latest fad in lean
manufacturing practice.
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter outlined the research methodology to be used, the study design, target
population, data collection instruments procedures and data analysis instruments.
3.2 Research Design
The research design used in this study was Descriptive Cross-sectional survey. A
Descriptive Research design emphasis is on determining the frequency with which
something occurs or the extent to which two variables co-vary. It attempts to describe
and explain conditions of the present by using many subjects and questionnaires to
fully describe a phenomenon. Cross-sectional study is where the sample selected is
representative of the target population and the emphasis is on the generation of
summary statistics such as averages and percentages. This research design was
favorable for this study because it used questionnaires to collect data from a sample of
manufacturing firms in Mombasa county to be able to understand the how LM covary with the operational Performance of the firms.
19
3.3 Population of Study

The population of study was all manufacturing firms in Mombasa County which were
members of KAM by end of year 2013. Some firms which have headquarters in
Nairobi but have branches in Mombasa County were also be considered. The total
population was one hundred and thirty manufacturing firms representing all sectors of
the industry.
3.4. Sample and Sampling technique.

The study took the sample from the KAM directory, 2014. It adopted a stratified
proportionate sampling design. According to Mugenda and Mugenda (2008) a sample
space of a 20%, 30% or 40% of the total population can to be chosen if the population
of study is small. In this study 40% of the target population will be used as the target
population is a small one: the sample will be 49 rounded off to 50 firms. A sample
size of 50 manufacturing firms will be calculated using stratified sampling such that
each subsector is represented the study.
As worked out below:
Sample Size = x/n * Z = y
Where x = population of a particular sub-sector
n = target population
Where: x/n = weight over population
Z = sample space
Y = sample size
Hence, sample size determined in each stratum as shown in table 1 below:
20
Table1: Manufacturing firms and sub-sectors and sample.

Total
No. Sector
1
Building construction and mining
2
Chemical and allied
3
Energy, electrical and electronics
4
Fresh produce
5
Food and beverages
6
Leather and footwear
7
Metal and allied
8
Motor vehicle and Accessories
9
Paper and paperboard
10
Pharmaceutical & Med equipment
11
Plastic and Rubber
12
Services and Consultancy
13
Textile and Apparels
14
Timber, wood and furniture
Total
Pop. size
7
10
6
0
24
0
16
7
4
2
9
27
18
0
130
Weight
Sample
7/130*50
10/130*50
6/130*50
0
24/130*50
0
16/130*50
7/130*50
4/130*50
2/130*50
9/130*50
27/130*50
18/130*50
0
size
3
4
2
0
9
0
6
3
2
1
3
10
7
0
50
Source: KAM directory, 2014.
3.5 Data Collection

Primary data was collected using a closed ended questionnaire that aided in
specifically addressing the issues were relevant to the study and to obtain unbiased
21
information that is up to date. Obtaining first-hand data would also improve the
validity of the research. The respondents were operations managers of manufacturing
firms.
Closed ended questionnaires were used in the collection of quantitative data for
analysis using a five point Likert-scale. The questionnaire comprises of three sections,
first section, seeks information on the manufacturing firm, the second section is
divided into two parts, first part will evaluate the extent to which the manufacturers
have adopted of Lean Manufacturing practices, part two will test the effect of lean
manufacturing adoption on operational performance, third section, will establish the
challenges facing manufacturing firms when adopting lean manufacturing. The
questionnaires will be self-administered to the operations managers on a give and
take later' basis, who shall be given a period of three days to fill them.
3.6 Data Analysis and Presentation
The completed questionnaires were first edited carefully to detect errors and
omissions this helped ensure consistency and completeness. Classification of the data
was done to reduce raw data into homogeneous groups. Descriptive statistics was
used to analyze objective one and the findings were presented using tables ,frequency
distribution charts and pie charts. To analyze objective two, regression analysis and
standard deviations was used and their findings were presented in tables and pie
charts. The value of the coefficient of correlation (R) was computed to determine the
magnitude and direction of the relationship.
The model will be constructed using the lean practices and operational metrics
discussed in the study as follows:
22
Y = 0 + 1X1 + 2X2+ 3X3+ 4X4 + 5X5 +

Y is the dependent variable representing operational performance; 0 is a constant
factor which is also the value of the dependent variable when X 1, X2, X3, X4 & X5 are
equal to zero. X1 is JIT variable, X2 is TPM variable, X3 is CI variable and X4 is
Jidoka variable and X5 is VSM variable. 1, 2, 3, 4and 5 are constants associated
with X1, X2, X3, X4 and X5 respectively. Random error represents all other minor
effects on the model which have not been captured. The measures used in this study
were derived from several criteria, which have been conceptualized and used in
previous empirical studies on LM and operational performance (Belekoukias, GarzaReyes & Kumar, 2014). Challenges to LM implementation which was objective
three was analysed using mode to determine the frequency of a challenge. The
findings were presented in tables and frequency distribution charts.
A copy of the survey questionnaire is provided in appendix 1
23
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction
This chapter contains data analysis and presentation of findings. The research
questions are answered in this chapter in line with the objectives of the study and
information sought to determine the outcome.
4.2 General Findings
4.2.1 Response rate
The number of questionnaires presented to the respondents was 50 a total of 42 were
completed satisfactorily and returned; this gave the study an eighty four percent
response rate. The table below shows the studys response rate.
Table 2: Response rate
Valid responses
Expected Responses
Received Responses
Un received Responses
Respondents
Percentage
50
42
8
(%)
100%
84%
16%
Number
Source: Research Data (2014)

From Table 2 above it can be deduced that the respondents were cooperative and
provided sufficient responses to the questionnare. The study had a response rate of
84% based on the duly and correctly filled questionnaires.
4.2.2 Firms operation period
24
The study sort to determine the period of time the firms under study had been in
operation, this would help the researcher determine if the sample was experienced in
Manufacturing. The findings of the study are as shown in the table below:
Table 3: Duration in Business
Cumulative
Frequency Percentage Percentage
Valid 1-3 years
2.4
2.4
3-5 years
21.4
23.8
5-10 years
16
38.1
61.9
over 10 years 16
38.1
100.0
Total
42
Source: Research data
100.0
The respondents were asked to indicate the number of years they have been in
business. Majority of the respondents representing 38.1% responded that they have
been in business for 5-10years consequently another 38.1% also indicated that they
have been in business for over 10years. 21.4% of the respondents said they have been
in business for 3-5 years, also 2.4% of the respondents said they have been in business
for 1-3 years. From the results it can be inferred that majority of the respondents had
the necessary experience in manufacturing and had utilized
practices. Therefore they could give an objective response.
Figure 1: Graph showing duration in business
25
lean manufacturing
The figure above shows a diagrammatic representation of the number of years the
respondents have been in business.
4.2.3 Annual Turnover
The researcher sought to find out the annual turnover of manufacturing firms in
Mombasa county.
The findings were presented in the table below
Table 4: Annual Turnover
26
Cumulative
Frequency
percentage Percentage
2.4
2.4
less than kshs 1 million
2.4
4.8
less than kshs 2 million
14.3
19.0
over kshs 2 million
34
81.0
100.0
42
100.0
Valid less than kshs 500,000
Total
Respondents were asked to indicate their annual turnover, majority of the respondents
representing 81% said their turnover was over kshs 2million. 14.3% said their annual
turnover was less than kshs 2million, while 2.4% said that their turnover was less than
kshs 500,000. From the above results it can be inferred that the majority of the
respondents have an annual turnover of more than kshs 2million and thus can afford
to practice lean manufacturing.
Figure 2: Graph showing Annual Turnover of Manufacturing firms in Mombasa

County
27
The figure above shows a diagrammatic representation of the annual turnover of the
respondents.
4.2. Improvement in operational performance
Table 5: Improvement in operational performance
Cumulative
Valid
yes
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
42
100.0
100.0
100.0

The respondents were asked to indicate if there was improvement in operational
performance; all the respondents representing 100% responded that there was
improvement in operational performance.
Figure 3: A pie chart of improvement in operational performance
28
The figure above shows a diagrammatic representation of improvement in operational

performance.
4.3 Lean Manufacturing Practices

In this section the descriptive of the lean manufacturing practices are analyzed and
interpreted. The study sought to determine the extent to which lean manufacturing
practices were implemented in the manufacturing firms under study. The findings are
as shown below:
4.3.1.JUST IN TIME
29
Table 4: Descriptive statistics of Just in Time

Std.
N
Production of products with same components and spares
Reduced inventory levels and spare requirements
Faster response to customer demands and order
Output as per demand (Pull production)
Cumulative average
Mean
Rank
Deviation Variance
Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
42
42
42
42
.499
.472
.247
.290
.377
4
3
1
2
3.81
4.33
4.60
4.38
4.28
.109
.106
.077
.083
.375
.707
.687
.497
.539
.6075
Source: Research data,2014

From table 3, The study found that the cumulative average of variance for just in time
implementation practice was .377. Faster response to customer demands and orders
which had a mean of 4.60 was viewed by the respondents the JIT practice that was
most implemented. This was followed by Output as per demand (pull production)
which had a mean of 4.38. The least viewed as being implemented was production of
products with same components and spares was ranked 4 th with a mean of 3.81. The
study also revealed that JIT was mainly implemented where there's need to reduce
inventory levels and creation of space. It was also revealed that JIT was being
implemented by the manufacturing to fasten response to customers demands and
orders and increase output per demand.
4.3.2 Continuous improvement or Kaizen

Table 5: Descriptive statistics of Continuous improvement or Kaizen
30
Std.
N
Mean
Deviation Variance Rank

Statistic
Std.
Statistic Statistic Error Statistic
Statistic
Incremental improvement of manufacturing process 42

Improved customer service and product quality
42
Improving teamwork and innovation
42
4.67
4.40
4.24
.074 .587
.091 .477
.082 .532
.228
.344
.283
Cumulative average
4.44
.083 .532
.285
2
1
3

From table 5 above the total cumulative average variance for the extent to which
kaizen was being implemented by the manufacturing firms was found to be .532. The
study revealed that Kaizen was implemented continuously so as to improve the
manufacturing process which hada mean score of 4.67. Kaizen was also put into
practice to improve product quality and enhance customer services with the second
highest mean of 4.4. The impact of Kaizen in improving team work and innovation
was felt with a mean score of 4.24.
4.3.3 Total productive Maintenance

Table 6: Descriptive statistics of Total Product Maintenance
31
Std.
TPM parameters
N
Mean
Statistic Statistic
Deviation
Variance
Rank
Std. Error Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
3
2
Shared responsibility for equipment 42

Operators maintain their own
42
equipment
Maximized use of plant equipment 42
3.95
.068
.439
.344
4.00
.096
.625
.228
4.62
.083
.539
.283
Cumulative average
4.19
.082
.534
.285

From the table 6, the average variance for TPM was 0.285.It can be seen that the
respondents viewed that maximized use of plant equipment with a mean of 4.62 was
high after implementing TPM. Operators had being empowered to maintain their own
equipment having a mean of 4.00 and lastly shared responsibility for equipment
which had a mean of 3.95.This shows that TPM encourages operators to take care of
their working equipment encouraging teamwork through shared responsibility and
thus maximize its use or lifespan.
4.3.4. Automation/Jidoka
Table 7: Descriptive statistics of Automation/Jidoka
32
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N
Assist workers with masculine requirements of work

Workers can monitor multiple stations
Quickly identify and resolve manufacturing issues
Cumulative average
Mean
Deviation
Variance
Rank
Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
42
42
42
2
1
3
4.45
4.62
4.36
.103
.083
.075
.670
.539
.485
.449
.290
.235
4.48
.087
.565
.325

The table above shows the descriptive statistics for Jidoka. It can be seen that workers
can monitor multiple stations with a mean of 4.62 was viewed by respondents to have
been completely implemented. This was followed by Assist workers with masculine
requirements of work which had a mean of 4.45 and the least Jidoka practice
implemented was quickly identify and resolve manufacturing issues which had a
mean of 4.36.
4.2.5 Value streaming Mapping

Table 8: Descriptive statistic of Value stream mapping
33
Std.
N
Interpreted flow of information and materials

Visual picture of current and future objectives
Improved communication and teamwork
Cumulative average
Mean
Deviation Variance Rank
Statistic Statistic Std. Error
Statistic
Statistic Statistic
42
42
42
4.10
4.02
4.21
.057
.087
.073
.370
.563
.470
.137
.316
.221
4.11
.072
.468
.225
2
3
1

Table 8 above indicates that value streaming improved communication and team work
since it had a mean of 4.21. This was enabled because of the interpreted flow of
information and materials which had a mean of 4.10 .Lastly it was also found out that
the firms were visionary since both current and future objectives were taken into
account. This shows that the firms were geared towards improving the firm
performance.
4.2.6 summary of lean manufacturing practices
Table 9: Lean manufacturing practices
Lean manufacturing practices
Mean
Std. Deviation Variance Rank
Just in time
Continuous improvement/ kaizen
4.28
.6075
.377
4.44
.532
.283
Total productive maintenance (TPM) 4.19
.534
Automation/ Jidoka
4.48
.565
.325
Value stream mapping (VSM)
4.11
.468
.225
.285
3
2
4

From table 9 above, the lean manufacturing practices were analyzed to find out which
practices are implemented by the manufacturing firms. From the results, the a good
number of manufacturing firms automation with a mean of 4.48, then CI coming in
second, followed by JIT, TPM had also been implemented by manufacturing firms in
Mombasa county then VSM was least implemented with a mean of 4.11.From the
34
results we can deduce that there is extensive LM implementation by manufacturing

firms in Mombasa county.
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Series 1
Series 2
series 4
series 4
Series 2
Series 1
4.4 Lean manufacturing adoption challenges

The study sought to determine the challenges faced by the firms in adopting lean
manufacturing practices .The findings of the study were as shown below:
Table 9: Lean manufacturing adoption practices
Description
Total
Resistance to change
0.063
0.25
0.656
0.875
1.563
3.407
Lack of top management support
0.0625 0.313
0.563
1.25
3.1875
0.375
1.625
0.781
3.281
Failure to implement lean into the supply 0.125

35
0.375
chain
Wrong implementation sequence
0.125
0.25
0.375
1.125
0.938
2.813
Customer dissatisfaction
0.032
0.102
0.134
Plant size issues
0.313
0.656
1.125
2.094
High costs of implementation
1.25
0.475
0.656
3.381
Source: Research Data

From table 11 above it was deduced that the main challenges affecting the adoption of
lean manufacturing practices were resistance to change due to fear of the unknown
and high costs of implementation. Resistance to change had the highest score of 3.407
while costs of implementation was second with a score of 3.381.Failure to implement
lean into supply chain was thirdly ranked as a factor affecting the implementation of
lean manufacturing practices with a score of 3.281.The study revealed that plant size
was also a factor affecting the adoption of the lean practices as the size has direct
influence on the scale of operation. Wrong implementation sequence after adoption
was also deduced as a factor hindering the adoption of the lean manufacturing
practices.
4.4 Correlation Analysis
Correlation is a single number that describes the degree of the relationship between
two variables. A Pearson correlation indicated the direction, strength and significance
of the multi variety relationships for all variables in this study. According to Sekeran
(2003) theoretically there could be a perfect positive correlation between two
36
variables which is represented by 1.0 or a perfect negative correlation which is

represented by -1.0
Table 10: Correlation
37
Correlations
Operational
Operational performance
Pearson Correlation
performance
JIT
CI
TPM
JIDOKA
-.950
.889
.274
-.939
.050
.111
.726
.061
Sig. (2-tailed)
JIT
CI
TPM
JIDOKA
VSM
Pearson Correlation
-.950
-.843
-.325
.806
Sig. (2-tailed)
.050
.157
.675
.194
Pearson Correlation
.889
-.843
-.187
-.931
Sig. (2-tailed)
.111
.157
.813
.069
Pearson Correlation
.274
-.325
-.187
-.006
Sig. (2-tailed)
.726
.675
.813
Pearson Correlation
-.939
.806
-.931
-.006
Sig. (2-tailed)
.061
.194
.069
.994
Pearson Correlation
-.835
.875
-.519
-.738
.611
Sig. (2-tailed)
.165
.125
.481
.262
.389
.994

The correlation analysis table provided the nature of the relationships between the
variables. The study found that operational performance was negatively correlated to
just in time with a negative correlation value of -0.95.The correlation analysis also
revealed that operational performance was positively correlated to continuous
improvement with the two having a correlation value of
0.889 .The effect of
continous improvement on operational performance was found to be significant since

the significant (0.111) value was above the threshold of 0.05.
The study also revealed that operational performance was positively correlated to total
productive maintenance with the two having a correlation value of 0.274.The effect of
total productive maintenance on operational performance was found to be highly
38
significant with the significant value being 0.726. Jidoka was found to be negatively
correlated to operational performance with a correlation of -0.939. The effect of
jidoka on operational performance was f0ound to be slightly significant with the
calculated significant value being 0.061 .
It was deduced by the study that value stream mapping was negatively correlated to
operational performance of the firms under study. Operational performance had a
correlation value of -0.835 with value stream mapping. The impact of value stream
mapping was found to be slightly significant with a value of 0.165 which was above
0.05 significant level.
The study also revealed how the implementation of one lean practice was correlated
to the other. The study found out that Just in time was negatively correlated to
continuous improvement and total productive maintenance with the two having a
negative correlation values of -.843 and -.325 respectively .This finding indicates that
the higher the implementation of continuous improvement practice and total
productive maintenance the lower the possibility or chances of just in time being put
into practice. It was also deduced that just in time was positively correlated to jidoka
and value stream mapping .Jidoka and value stream mapping had correlation values of
0 .806 and 0.875 with Just in time. Thus the adoption of value stream mapping and
jidoka propels the implementation of just in time practice.
4.5 Regression Analysis
The regression model was done with operational performance indicators such as
product quality, flexibility, delivery speed and manufacturing costs as the dependent
variable. The findings of the study are as shown below:
39
Table 11: Regression coefficients

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Coefficients
95.0% Confidence Interval for B Collinearity Statistics

Upper
Model
1
Std. Error
(Constant) -9.245
211.498
JIT
.616
-.857
Beta
-.692
Sig.
Lower Bound
Bound
-4.371E-2
.972
-2696.582
2678.093
-1.392E0
.397
-8.684
6.969
Tolerance
VIF
.289
3.463
E0
CI
1.249
2.037
.305
6.131E-1
.650
-24.639
27.138
.289
3.463
TPM
1.120
.892
.269
1.256E0
.428
-1033.927
954.608
1.00
E0
JIDOKA
-.526
.120
-0.938
-4.379
.143
-2.053
1.001
1.001
1.00
VSM
-2.335
.542
-1.338
-4.311
.145
-9.219
4.548
4.55
1.001
2.196
a. Dependent Variable: Operational performance
The regression coefficient table above helped establish the following regression
equation
Op = - 9.245 - 0.857JIT + 1.249CI + 1.120TPM - 0.526JIDOKA - 2.335VSM
From the above equation the study found that holding just in time, continuous
improvement, total productive maintenance, jidoka and value stream mapping lean
manufacturing practices to constant zero, operational performance of the of the firm
would be -9.245.This observation indicates that the practices play an important role in
enhancing the operational efficiency and performance of the manufacturing firms. A
factor increase in continuous improvement would
lead to an increase in the
operational performance of the firm by factor of 1.249 and also a unit increase in total
productive maintenance would lead to an increase in firm operational performance
by a factor of 01.120.Thus the study found that continuous improvement and total
productive maintenance were positively related to operational performance as shown
by table10 above. The study found that just in time, jidoka and value stream mapping
40
had an inverse relationship to operational performance. A factor decrease in just in

time would lead to an increase in operational performance by a factor of 0.857.Also a
factor decrease of jidoka and value stream mapping would increase operational
performance by a factors of 0.526 and 2.335 respectively. This information shows
that theres a positive relationship between continuous improvement, total productive
maintenance and operational performance. It also showed that there was a inverse
relationship between just in time, jidoka ,value stream mapping
and operation
performance.
Table 12: Regression model summary

Model Summary
Adjusted
Model
1
R
.964
R Std. Error of the Change Statistics
R Square
Square
Estimate
R Square Change
F Change
df1
df2
Sig. F Change
.929
.786
7.27213201
.929
6.497
.267
a. Predictors: (Constant), CI, JIT,TPM,JIDOKA,VSM
The regression model summary helped in determining the nature and strength of the
variables relationship. It also showed the proportionate variability changes on the
dependent variable as a result of changes in independent variables.
From the data in table 11 above the adjusted R
was 0.786 which means that there
was 78.6% variation in operational performance
due to changes in lean
manufacturing practices. The correlation coefficient tells us the strength of

relationship between the variables. The study found that the correlation coefficient
was 0.964 thus there was a strong
positive relationship between the lean
manufacturing practices under study and the firms operational performance. The R2
equally confirmed that there was a high correlation between the lean manufacturing
practices and the firms operational performance with 92.9% of the manufacturing
41
firms operational performance changes depending on the changes of just in time,

continuous improvement, jidoka, total productive maintenance and value stream
mapping(lean manufacturing practices).
Table 13: Analysis of variance
ANOVAb
Model
1
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
Sig.
Regression
687.190
343.595
6.497
.267a
Residual
52.884
52.884
Total
740.074
a. Predictors: (Constant), CI, JIT,TPM,JIDOKA,VSM

b. Dependent Variable: Operational performance
Analysis of variance was done so as to test the reliability of the regression model
used in establish the nature and strength of the relationship between the variables.
From the above ANOVA table the significant value for the model was 0.267 which
means that the model was statistically significant in analyzing variables the since the
significant value was above the threshold of 0.05.
42
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presented the summary of key findings, which were set out in order with
the study objectives. The objectives of the study were: to determine the extent to
which manufacturing firms in Mombasa County have adopted lean manufacturing
practices, to establish the effect of lean manufacturing practices on operational
performance of manufacturing firms in Mombasa County and to find out the
challenges faced by manufacturing firms in adopting lean manufacturing practices. It
also presented the conclusions and recommendations of the study.
5.2 Summary of the findings and Conclusions
5.2.1 Effects of lean manufacturing practices on operational performance
The study found that holding just in time, continuous improvement, total productive
maintenance, jidoka and value stream mapping lean manufacturing practices to
constant zero, operational performance of the of the firm would be -9.245.This
observation indicates that the practices play an important role in enhancing the
operational efficiency and performance of the manufacturing firms (Table 11)
Thus the study found that continuous improvement and total productive maintenance
were positively related to operational performance as shown by table11 above. The
study found that just in time, jidoka and value stream mapping had an inverse
relationship to operational performance.
43
The study found that factor decrease in just in time would lead to an increase in
operational performance. Also a factor decrease of jidoka and value stream mapping
would increase operational performance This information shows that theres a positive
relationship between continuous improvement, total productive maintenance
and
operational performance. It also showed that there was a inverse relationship between
just in time, jidoka ,value stream mapping and operation performance.
4.4: Operational Performance
In this section the operational performance statistics are computed and interpreted.
Table 10: Descriptive statistics Product Quality
Std.
N
Improved features in products

Quality output without defects
Increased product reliability and usability
Valid N (listwise)
Mean
Deviation
Variance
Rank
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
42
42
42
.490
.513
.517
.240
.263
.268
2
3
1
4.17
4.07
4.31
.076
.079
.080
42

From the table 10, it can be seen that the respondents agreed that increased product
reliability and usability which had a mean of 4.31 is an effect of lean manufacturing
practices on product quality. This was followed by improved features in products
which had a mean of 4.17 and the least was quality output without defects which had
a mean of 4.07.
Table 11: Descriptive statistics of Flexibility
44
Std.
N
Increased product customization

Reduced set-up time of production equipment
Faster response to customers and timely delivery
Valid N (listwise)
Mean
Rank
Deviation
Variance
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
42
42
42
.521
.539
.504
.272
.290
.254
3
2
1
4.14
4.38
4.45
.080
.083
.078
42

From table 11, it can be seen that the respondents strongly agreed that faster response
to customers and timely delivery which had a mean of 4.45 is an effect of lean
manufacturing practices on flexibility. This was followed by reduced set-up time of
production equipment which had a mean of 4.38 and the least agreed with was
increased product customization which had a mean of 4.14.
Table 12: Descriptive statistics of Delivery speed
Std.
N
Speedy delivery of customer orders

Product availability
Raw materials readily available or near firm
Valid N (listwise)
Mean
Rank
Deviation
Variance
Statistic Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
42
42
42
.082
.081
.081
.533
.526
.526
.284
.276
.276
1
2
2
4.36
4.33
4.33
42

From table 12, the respondents agreed that the most effect of lean manufacturing
practices on delivery speed was speedy delivery of customer orders which had a mean
of 4.36. This was followed by product availability and raw materials being readily
available or near firm which both had a mean of 4.33.
Table 13: Descriptive statistics of manufacturing costs
45
Std.
N
Reduced material costs and stock out costs

Reduced manufacturing costs
Uninterrupted production thus lower costs
Valid N (listwise)
Mean
Rank
Deviation
Variance
Statistic Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Statistic
Statistics
42
42
42
.070
.075
.089
.455
.484
.576
.207
.235
.332
3
1
1
4.19
4.24
4.24
42

From table 13, it can be seen that the respondents most agreed that uninterrupted
production thus lower costs and reduced manufacturing costs which both had a mean
of 4.24 are effects of lean manufacturing practices on manufacturing costs. The least
agreed with was reduced material costs and stock out costs which had a mean of 4.19.
4.5: Challenges of Adopting Lean Manufacturing
In this section the descriptive statistics of the challenges of adopting lean
manufacturing are computed and analyzed.
Table 14: descriptive statistics of Adopting Lean Manufacturing
Std.
N
Failure to implement lean into the supply chain
Plant size issues
Any other challenge (specify)
Valid N (listwise)
Mean
Rank
Deviation
Variance
Statistic Statistic
Std. Error
Statistic
Statistic
Statistics
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
.090
.161
.159
.169
.174
.184
.184
.149
.581
1.042
1.031
1.093
1.131
1.191
1.191
.964
.337
1.085
1.064
1.195
1.278
1.418
1.418
.930
4
7
2
3
6
5
1
8
3.83
3.52
4.24
3.98
3.55
3.74
4.26
1.26
42

From table 14, the respondents agreed that high cost of implementation which had a
mean of 4.26 was a challenge of adopting lean manufacturing practices. This was
followed by failure to implement lean into the supply chain which had a mean of 4.24,
46
then it was followed by wrong implementation sequence which had a mean of 3.98
which was followed by resistance to change which had a mean of 3.83. The least
agreed with as the challenge of adopting lean manufacturing was lack of top
management support which had a mean of 3.52. The respondents were also asked to
indicate if there were any other challenges of adopting lean manufacturing and they
slightly disagreed that there were any other challenges.
4.6: Regression Analysis
In this section regression analysis was done to determine if there is a relationship
between lean manufacturing practices and operational performance.
Table 15: Regression model summary
Adjusted
R Std. Error of the
Change Statistics
Model
R Square
Square
Estimate
R Square Change
F Change
df1
df2
Sig. F Chang
.964a
.929
.786
7.27213201
.929
6.497
.267
a. Predictors: (Constant), Value stream mapping (VSM), just in time, continuous improvement/ kaizen,
automation/jidoka, total product maintenance (TPM)
From data in the above table 15 the adjusted R 2 was a 0.964 which means that there
was
96.4% positive variation in operational performance index due to changes in
Value stream mapping (VSM), just in time, continuous improvement/ kaizen,

automation/jidoka and total product maintenance (TPM). The correlation coefficient
tells us the strength of the relationship between the variables. The study found that the
correlation coefficient was 0.929 thus there was a strong positive relationship between
the lean manufacturing practices and operational performance.
Table 16: Analysis of Variance
47
Model
1
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Sig.
Regression
687.190
137.438
6.497
.267a
Residual
52.884
26.442
Total
740.074
a. Predictors: (Constant), Value stream mapping (VSM), just in time, continuous improvement/ kaizen,
automation/jidoka, total product maintenance (TPM)
b. Dependent Variable: Operational performance index
From the above ANOVA table the significant value for the model was 0.267 which
means that the model was statistically significant since it is higher than 0.05.
Table 17: Regression coefficients
Model
1
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
Beta
Std. Error
(Constant)
-9.245
211.498
Sig.
-4.371
.972
Just in time
-.857
.616
-.692
-1.392
.397
Continuous improvement
1.249
2.037
.305
6.131
.650
Total productive management
1.120
.892
.269
1.256
.428
Automation
-.526
.120
-0.938
-4.379
.143
Value stream mapping
-2.335
.542
-1.338
-4.311
.145

From the above table the following regression equation was established
Y= - 9.245 - 0.857X1 + 1.249X2 + 1.120X3 - 0.526X4 - 2.335X5 + 211.498
From the above equation the study found that holding Value stream mapping (VSM),
just in time, continuous improvement/ kaizen, automation/jidoka and total product
maintenance (TPM) to constant zero, Operational performance index (dependent) of
the petroleum distributing firms would be -9.245.
A factor decrease in just in time would lead to an increase in operational performance
by factor of 0.857, a unit increase in continuous improvement would lead to an
48
increase in operational performance by 1.249, an increase in a unit of total product

maintenance by a factor of one would lead to an increase of 1.120 in the firms
operational performance, a unit decrease in automation or jidoka would lead to an
increase in operational performance by 0.526, a unit decrease in value stream
mapping would lead to a 2.335 increase in operational performance. This information
shows that theres a positive relationship between, continuous improvement/ kaizen
and total product maintenance (TPM) and operational performance. It also showed
that there was a negative relationship between automation/jidoka, Value stream
mapping (VSM), just in time and operational performance.
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction
This chapter summarizes the research findings and also presents conclusions and
recommendations of the study. The conclusions are drawn from the findings of the
study which sought to find out the extent to which manufacturers have adopted lean
49
manufacturing practices, the effect of lean manufacturing practices on operational

performance and the challenges of adopting lean manufacturing.
5.2 Summary of Findings
The objectives of the study were to establish the extent to which manufacturers have
adopted lean manufacturing practices in Mombasa County, the effect of lean
manufacturing practices on operational performance and the challenges of adopting
lean manufacturing
The target respondents were heads of operations departments, general managers,
logistics managers, distribution managers and their supervisors. Most of them have
been in business for over 10years. Most of the respondents had an annual turnover of
over kshs. 2million.
5.2.1 To establish the extent to which manufacturers have adopted lean
manufacturing practices
The research outcome provides an insight on the extent to which manufacturers have
adopted lean manufacturing practices. Just in time, continuous improvement/kaizen,
total productive maintenance, automation/jidoka and value stream mapping were the
lean manufacturing practices under research in this section and the respondents agreed
that the firms have extensively implemented these practices.
5.2.2 The effect of lean manufacturing adoption on operational performance
Product quality, flexibility, delivery speed and manufacturing costs were the
performance indicators used. From the results the respondents strongly agreed that
adoption of lean manufacturing practices have a positive effect on operational
50
performance, through the improved features in product quality, increased product

customization, reduced set-up time, speedy delivery of consumer orders and reduced
manufacturing costs.
From the regression analysis, theres a positive relationship between Value stream
mapping (VSM), just in time, continuous improvement/ kaizen and total product
maintenance (TPM) and operational performance. It also showed that there was a
negative relationship between automation/jidoka and operational performance.
The study established following regression equation
Y= - 9.245 - 0.857X1 + 1.249X2 + 1.120X3 - 0.526X4 - 2.335X5 + 211.498
From the above equation the study found that holding Value stream mapping (VSM),
just in time, continuous improvement/ kaizen, automation/jidoka and total product
maintenance (TPM) to constant zero, Operational performance index (dependent) of
the petroleum distributing firms would be -9.245.
A factor decrease in just in time would lead to an increase in operational performance
by factor of 0.857, a unit increase in continuous improvement would lead to an
increase in operational performance by 1.249, an increase in a unit of total product
maintenance by a factor of one would lead to an increase of 1.120 in the firms
operational performance, a unit decrease in automation or jidoka would lead to an
increase in operational performance by 0.526, a unit decrease in value stream
mapping would lead to a 2.335 increase in operational performance. This information
shows that theres a positive relationship between, continuous improvement/ kaizen
and total product maintenance (TPM) and operational performance. It also showed
51
that there was a negative relationship between automation/jidoka, Value stream

mapping (VSM), just in time and operational performance.
5.2.3 Challenges of adopting lean manufacturing
High cost of implementation was seen as the most agreed with to be a challenge of
adopting lean manufacturing. This was followed by failure to implement lean into the
supply chain then it was followed by wrong implementation sequence which was
followed by resistance to change. The least agreed with as the challenge of adopting
lean manufacturing was lack of top management support. The respondents were also
asked to indicate if there were any other challenges of adopting lean manufacturing
and they slightly disagreed that there were any other challenges.
5.3 Conclusions
From the findings the study there is a strong positive correlation between lean
manufacturing
practices
and
operational
performance;
Manufacturers
have
extensively implemented the lean manufacturing practices. The challenges faced by

manufacturers in adoption of lean manufacturing are resistance to change lack of top
management support failure to implement lean into the supply chain wrong
implementation sequence customer dissatisfaction plant size issues high costs of
implementation.
5.4 Recommendations
From the findings and conclusions of the study, manufacturing firms should adopt
lean manufacturing practices such as just in time, kaizen; jidoka value stream
52
mapping and total productive maintenance in order positively affect operational

performance.
The manufacturing firms should also be in the front run in addressing the challenges
which affect the implementation of service quality management. These challenges are
resistance to change lack of top management support failure to implement lean into
the supply chain wrong implementation sequence customer dissatisfaction plant size
issues high costs of implementation.
5.5 Limitations of the study
Firstly, the study was limited in scope by the fact that it only covered manufacturing
firms in Mombasa County. Ideally, there would have been representativeness if it
covered all the manufacturing firms in Kenya. Secondly, the researcher faced some
resistance from some of the respondents as they feared that the information they gave
would be used by competitors to fight them business wise. This was however resolved
through the issuance of the introduction letter and explanation that the information
would be confidential.
Thirdly, the researcher also faced challenges in terms of resources such as finances for
commuting to the different firms and time in the sense that, a lot of time was needed
to going to the firms, meeting with managers, convincing them to fill the
questionnaires and finally going back to pick them.
5.6 Suggestions for Future Research
53
The study only covered manufacturing firms in Mombasa County there is need to
conduct a research on the several manufacturing firms in Kenya as a whole and see if
there will be any variations in the findings.
APPENDIX 1
A1.Questionnaire
I am a post graduate student at the University of Nairobi. As part of the requirements
for the Master of Business Administration course, I am required to conduct research
and develop a research project (report) thus this questionnaire is meant to help me in
data collection. Kindly assist by participating in answering the questions. The
information collected will strictly be used for academic purposes. The topic for the
project is: The effect of Lean Manufacturing Practices on operational performance of
manufacturing firms in Mombasa County, Kenya.
SECTION A: GENERAL INFORMATION

54
Kindly answer all the questions by ticking in the appropriate box or filling in the
spaces provided.
Q1. Name of organization...................................................................................
Q2. Organization address.....................................................................................
Q3. Type of business.............................................................................................
Q4.How long has the firm been in operation?

a)
b)
c)
d)
1-3 years [ ]
3-5 years [ ]
5-10 years [ ]
Over 10 years [ ]
Q5. Annual turnover

a)
b)
c)
d)
Less than Kshs 500,000

Less than Kshs1million
Less than Kshs 2millon
Over Kshs 2million
[]
[]
[]
[]
Q6.Has the company been improving in Operational performance? YES [ ]
SECTION B: Part One (1) Lean Manufacturing Practices

Q7.what extent has the Lean manufacturing practices implemented?
55
NO [ ]
Using a five-point Likert scale state the extent of implementation. = no

implementation, 2 = little implementation, 3 = some implementation, 4 = extensive
implementation, and 5 = complete implementation.
Lean Manufacturing Practices
Scale
1
1. Just in Time
a) Production of Products with same components and spares
b) Reduced inventory levels and space requirements
c) Faster response to customer demands and order
d) Output as per demand (Pull production)
2. Continuous Improvement/ Kaizen
a) Incremental improvement of manufacturing process
b) Improved customer service and product quality
c) improving teamwork and innovation
4. Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)
a) Shared responsibility for equipment
b) Operators maintain their own equipment
c) Maximized use of plant equipment
4. Automation/Jidoka
a) Assist workers with masculine requirements of work
b) Workers can monitor multiple stations
c) Quickly identify and resolve manufacturing issues
5. Value Stream Mapping (VSM)
a) Interpreted flow of information and materials
b) Visual picture of current and future objectives
c) Improved communication and teamwork
SECTION B: Part Two (2) Operational Performance

Q8.What is the effect of lean manufacturing practices on operational performance as
per the indicators. State the extent to which you agree with the following lean
56
manufacturing effects on operational performance.1= Slightly disagree, 2 = Disagree,

3= Slightly Agree, 4 = Agree, 5= Strongly agree.
LM practice
Indicator
A. Product quality
A1. Improved features in products
A2. Quality output without defects
A3. Increased the product reliability and usability
B. Flexibility
B1.Increased Product customization
B2. Reduced set-up time of production equipment
B3. faster response to customers and timely delivery
D. Delivery speed
D1. Speedy delivery of customer orders
D2. Product availability
D3. Raw materials readily available or near firm
E. Manufacturing costs
E1.Reduced material costs and stock out costs
E2. Reduced manufacturing costs
E3. Uninterrupted production thus lower costs
SECTION C: Challenges of adopting Lean Manufacturing
57
Q12. Please indicate the extent to which each of the following factors was a challenge
in the implementation and lean manufacturing performance. Using the following
scale: 1= Slightly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3= Slightly Agree, 4 = Agree, 5= Strongly
agree.
Challenges
Failure to implement lean into the supply chain
Plant size issues
Any other challenge (specify)
Thank you for your cooperation.
58
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presented the main findings of the study based on the research
objectives. The data collected from the field was analyzed and the results of the
findings presented in form of tables, pie charts and bar graphs.
4.2 General Findings

4.2.1 Response rate
The number of questionnaires presented to the respondents was 50 a total of 47 were
successfully completed and returned; this gave the study 94% response rate. The table
below shows the studys response rate.
Table 2: Response rate
Valid responses
Expected Responses
Respondents
50
Percentage Number (%)

100%
Received Responses
43
86%
59
Un received Responses
14%
From Table 2 above it can be deduced that the respondents were cooperative and
provided sufficient responses to the stated questions in the questionnaires
administered. The study had a response rate of 86% of properly and correctly filled
questionnaires.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Sector
Building construction and mining
Chemical and allied
Energy, electrical and electronics
Fresh produce
Food and beverages
Leather and footwear
Metal and allied
Motor vehicle and Accessories
Paper and paperboard
Pharmaceutical & Med equipment
Plastic and Rubber
Services and Consultancy
Textile and Apparels
Timber, wood and furniture
Total
Total
Sample
response
Pop. size
7
10
6
0
24
0
16
7
4
2
9
27
18
0
130
size
4
2
2
0
10
0
7
3
2
1
3
10
7
0
50
4
2
2
0
10
0
7
1
1
1
2
7
4
0
43
4.2.2 Manufacturing firms size and experience in manufacturing.

The study sort to determine the size of the manufacturing plant through annual
turnover in Kenyan shillings. And experience through years of operation. The findings
of the study are as shown below:
Table 3: Years the manufacturing firms have been on Operation.
60
Duration (Years)
1-3 Years
3 -5 Years
5- 10 Years
Over 10 Years
Frequency
Percentage (%)
0
8
14
21
0%
18.6%
32.6%
48.8%
The study revealed that most of the firms surveyed had been in operation for a period
of 10 years and above with a 48.8% average as illustrated by table 3 above. No firms
had been in operation for a period between 1-3 years. Thus many of the firms had
been in existence for a while and thereby had experience in manufacturing and must
have utilized lean manufacturing practices in one way or the other.
The researcher also wanted to determine the size of the firms using level of annual
turnover of the manufacturing firms under investigation. The study found out that
most of the manufacturing firms were large enough to implement some lean
manufacturing practices as they had an annual turnover of more than two million. As
shown in the table below:
Annual turnover
Frequency
Percentage (%)
0%
4.7%
16.3%
34
79%
Less than Kshs 500,000
Less than Kshs1million

Less than Kshs 2millon
Over Kshs 2million
61
4.3 Lean manufacturing practices

The study sought to determine the extent to which lean manufacturing practices were
implemented in the manufacturing firms under study. The findings are as shown
below:
Table 4: Just in Time implementation extent

Extent of Implementation
Average
Production of products with same components
.214
Reduced inventory levels and space requirements

Faster response to customer demands and order
Production of products as per customer demand(Pull production)
.886
.847
.864
Total cumulative variance
2.811
The study found that the cumulative variance for just in time implementation practice
was 2.811. The study also revealed that JIT was mainly implemented where there's
need to reduce inventory levels and creation of space. This need of inventory
reduction and space creation had a variance of .886 as illustrated by table 4. It was
also revealed that JIT was being implemented by the manufacturing firms resulted to
faster response to customers demands and orders and increased output per demand.
The two findings had variances of .847 and .864 respectively.
62
Table 5: Kaizen implementation extent
Extent of implementation
Incremental improvement of Manufacturing process
Improved customer services and product quality
Improved team work and Innovation
Variance
.877
.828
.787
2.492

From table 5 above the total cumulative variance for the extent to which kaizen was
being implemented by the manufacturing firms was found to be 1.892. The study
revealed that Kaizen was implemented continuously so as to improve the
manufacturing process. Kaizen was also put into practice so as to improve product
quality and enhance customer services in return. The impact of Kaizen in improving
team work and innovation as a necessity for its adoption and implementation had a
variance of .787.
Table 6: Total productive Maintenance implementation extent
Shared responsibility for equipments
Operators Maintain their own equipments
Maximized use of plant equipments
Variance
.884
.816
.897
2.597

The study also sought to determine the extent of TPM implementation within the
manufacturing firms under study. The study found out that the firms maximized use of
plant so as to ensure total productive maintenance. Maximized plant usage had a
63
variance of .897.The study also revealed that there was shared responsibility for
equipments with a variance of .884. It was also deduced that operators did maintain
their own equipments to some extent. The total variance value for productive
maintenance implementation was 2.597.
Table 7: Jidoka implementation extent
Assist workers with masculine requirements
Variance
.268
Workers monitors multiple stations
. 689
Quickly identify and resolve manufacturing issues
.946

1.903
Table 7 above revealed that jidoka was implemented so as to help in quickly

identification and resolving of manufacturing issues. Jidoka was also being
implemented to ease workers monitoring of multiple stations. According to the study
resolving manufacturing process had the highest variance of .946 while monitoring
had a variance of .689.The total variance for jidoka was found to be 1.903
Table 8: Value Stream mapping (VPM)
Interpreted flow of information and material
Variance
.563
Visual picture of current and future objectives
.795
64
Improved communication and team work
.678

2.036
It was found out that the Value stream mapping practice was implemented to some
extent. Its implementation had a total variance of 2.036.The practice was mainly
implemented to enable visualization of current and future objectives. It was also
implemented to improve communication and team work.
4.4 Effects of lean practices on operational performance indicators

The study sought to determine the effects of lean manufacturing practices on
operational performance. The findings of the study were as follows.
Operational metric
Quality
Speed
Cost
Flexibilit
y
LM Result
Product performance
.877
.108
.110
.175
Product features
.840
.071
.194
.128
Perceived Overall product quality
.828
.249
.094
.119
Order fulfillment speed
.187
.884
.145
.264
Delivery speed
.173
.874
.171
.273
Total product costs
.153
.142
.907
.158
65
Direct Manufacturing costs
.169
.145
.906
.142
Flexibility to change product mix
.203
.215
.171
.843
Flexibility to change output volume
.156
.317
.149
.643
Percentage of variance (%)
47.649
15.468
13.431
23.452
47.649
63.117
Cumulative percentage of variance (%)
76.548
100
It was deduced that lean manufacturing practices had different effects on operational
performance. The operational performance variables had different variances with
respect to the lean practices. Quality had a total variance of 47.649%, speed had a
variance value 15.468%, and cost had 13.431% while flexibility had 23.452%. It can
thus be deduced that quality and flexibility are greatly affected by lean manufacturing
practices
4.5 Correlation Analysis
Correlation is a single number that describes the degree of the relationship between
two variables. A Pearson correlation indicated the direction, strength and significance
of the bivariate relationships for all variables in this study. According to Sekeran
(2003) theoretically there could be a perfect positive correlation between two
variables which is represented by 1.0 or a perfect negative correlation which is
represented by -1.0
The study sought to determine the direction, strength and significance of the effects of
lean manufacturing practices on operational performance. The findings are as shown
below by table
66
Table 9: correlation analysis of variable

Correlations
Operational
performance
Operational
Pearson
performance
Correlation
JIT
CI
TPM
JIDOKA VSM
.889
.275
-.939
-.834
.041
.111
.725
.061
.166
4
1
4
-.879
4
-.259
4
.838
4
.839
.121
4
1
.741
4
-.188
.162
4
-.934
.161
4
-.515
.812
4
1
.066
4
-.006
.485
4
-.740
.994
4
1
.260
4
.610
.390
4
1
-.959
Sig. (2-tailed)
JIT
N
Pearson
4
-.959*
CI
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
.041
4
.889
4
-.879
TPM
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
.111
4
.275
.121
4
-.259
4
-.188
JIDOKA
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
.725
4
-.939
.741
4
.838
.812
4
-.934
4
-.006
VSM
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
.061
4
-.834
.162
4
.839
.066
4
-.515
.994
4
-.740
4
.610
Sig. (2-tailed)
.166
.161
.485
.260
.390
Correlation
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

67
From the correlation table above it can be deduced that correlation of one variable to
itself equals to 1
What is clear, lean production is not a guarantee for business success. It might be
a necessary but definitely not sufficient condition. However, we expect that firms with
better (and continually improving) operational performance sustain a moderate business
position. Advanced lean manufacturers likely belong to this group of companies.
T.C.
Papadopoulou and M. O zbayrak
REFERENCES
Agus, A., & Hajinoor, M. S. (2012). Lean production supply chain management as
driver towards enhancing product quality and business performance: Case study of
manufacturing companies in Malaysia. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 29(1), 92-121.
Agus, A., & Iteng, R.(2013). Lean Production and Business Performance: The
Moderating Effect of the Length of Lean Adoption.
Anand, G., & Kodali, R. (2009). Development of a framework for lean manufacturing
systems. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 5(5),
687-716.
Anvari, A., Zulkifli, N., & Yusuff, R. M. (2013). A dynamic modeling to measure lean
performance within lean attributes. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 66(5-8), 663-677.
68
Balderstone, S. J., & Mabin, V. J. (1998). A Review of Goldratts Theory of

Constraints (TOC)lessons from the international literature. In Annual Conference
of the Operational Research Society of New Zealand.
Barney, J., (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal
of management, 27(6), 625-641.
Belekoukias, I., Garza-Reyes, J. A., & Kumar, V. (2014). The impact of lean methods
and tools on the operational performance of manufacturing organizations.
International Journal of Production Research, (ahead-of-print), 1-21.
Bhasin, S., & Burcher, P. (2006). Lean viewed as a philosophy. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(1), 56-72.
Cua, K. O., K. E. McKone-Sweet, and R. G. Schroeder. 2006. Improving
Performance through an Integrated Manufacturing Program.Quality Management
Journal 13 (3): 4560.
Cudney, E., & Elrod, C. (2011). A comparative analysis of integrating lean concepts
into supply chain management in manufacturing and service industries.
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 2(1), 5-22.
Fullerton, R. R., & Wempe, W. F. (2009). Lean manufacturing, non-financial
performance measures, and
financial performance. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 29(3), 214-240.

Ghosh, M. (2012). Lean manufacturing performance in Indian manufacturing plants.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 24(1), 7-7.
Goldratt, E. M., & Fox, R. E. (1988). The fundamental measurements. The Theory of
Constraints Journal, 1(3), 1-21.
Http://www.kam.co.ke.
69
Kanyanya, O. C. (2013). Lean Manufacturing Practices And Performance Of

Organizations Listed At The Nairobi Securities Exchange (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Nairobi).
Keyser, R. S., & Sawhney, R. S. (2013). Reliability in lean systems. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 30(3), 223-238.
Khalil, M. S., Khan, M. A., & Mahmood, T. (2006). Lean Six SigmaA tool to
improve productivity, quality and efficiency in manufacturing and industrial
sector. Official Conference of the International Association for Management
Technology, PR China, Beijing (pp. 22-26).
Kilpatrick, J. (2003). Lean principles. Utah Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 15.
Kimani, M. W. (2013). Lean Supply Chain Management In Manufacturing Firms In
Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).
Kisombe, S. M. (2012). Lean manufacturing tools and techniques in industrial
operations (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).
Leach, L. P. (2000 ) Critical Chain Project Management. Boston: 2045-2060.
Lewis, M. A. (2000). Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20(8), 959-978.
Mabin, V. J., & Balderstone, S. J. (1999).The world of the theory of constraints: a
review of the international literature. CRC Press.
Mannan, M. A., & Ferdousi, F. (2007). Essentials of Total Quality Management.
University Grant Commission of Bangladesh. pp, 4.
Manrodt, K. B., vitasek, K. L., & Thompson, R. H. (2008). Putting lean to work.
Logistics Management, 47(8).
70
Melton, T. (2005). The benefits of lean manufacturing: what lean thinking has to offer
the process industries. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 83(6), 662673.
Moori, R. G., Pescarmona, A., & Kimura, H. (2013). Lean Manufacturing and
Business Performance in Brazilian Firms. Journal of Operations and Supply
Chain Management, 6(1), 91-105.
Nawanir, G., Teong, L. K., & Othman, S. N. (2013). Impact of lean practices on
operations performance and business performance: Some evidence from
Indonesian manufacturing companies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 24(7), 1019-1050.
Njuguna, M. M. (2013). Value Chain Management Practices And Supply Chain
Performance Of Large Manufacturing Firms In Nairobi (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Nairobi).
Papadopoulou, T. C., & zbayrak, M. (2005). Leanness: experiences from the journey
to date. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 16(7), 784-807.
Pheng, L. S., & Chuan, C. J. (2001). Just-in-time management of precast concrete
components. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(6), 494501.
Rahman, S., Laosirihongthong, T., & Sohal, A. S. (2010). Impact of lean strategy on
operational performance: a study of Thai manufacturing companies. Journal of
manufacturing technology management, 21(7), 839-852.
Rocha-Lona, L., J. A. Garza-Reyes, & V. Kumar. 2013. Building Quality Management
Systems: Selecting the Right Methods and Tools. Boca Raton, FL: Productivity
Press, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis.
71
Rono, F. C. (2013). Lean Manufacturing Practices in A Continuous Process Industry:

A Case Study of Bamburi Cement Limited (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Nairobi).
Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2003). Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and
performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(2), 129-149.
Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2007). Defining and developing measures of lean production.
Journal
of operations management, 25(4), 785-805.
Taylor, D. H. (2006). Strategic considerations in the development of lean agri-food

supply chains: a case study of the UK pork sector. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 11(3), 271-280.
Voss, C. A., Ahlstrom, P., & Blackmon, K. (1997). Benchmarking and operational
performance: some empirical results. Benchmarking for Quality Management &
Technology, 4(4), 273-285.
Wee, H. M., & Wu, S. (2009). Lean supply chain and its effect on product cost and
quality: a case study on Ford Motor Company. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 14(5), 335-341.
Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Beyond Toyota: how to root out waste and
pursue
perfection. Harvard business review, 74(5), 140.
Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (2003). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste And Create
Wealth In Your Corporation, Revised And Updated Author: James P. Womack,
Daniel T(2003):396.
Worley, J. M. (2004). The role of socio cultural factors in a lean manufacturing
implementation (Doctoral dissertation).
72
73
74

Effect of Lean Manufacturing On Operational Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Effect of Lean Manufacturing On Operational Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effect of Lean Manufacturing On Operational Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFFECT OF LEAN MANUFACTURING PRACTICES ON

OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF MANUFACTURING

REG. NO: D61/77096/2012

SUPERVISOR: MR.STEPHEN ODOCK

A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

Firstly, I would like to express my gratefulness to my supervisor, Mr.stephen Odock.

This project is dedicated to my family.

2.4 Challenges of adopting Lean Manufacturing.........................................................1

VSM Value Stream Mapping

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

philosophy uses several concepts such as Continuous improvement(CI), Total

Operational performance refers to the measurable aspects of the outcomes of a firms

the effectiveness and efficiency of an organization in transforming inputs into

Knowing the determinants of operational performance is vital important especially in

consider the most important measures of operational performance; cost, speed,

Several studies support that LM has evolved to become a leading approach in

Lean manufacturing practices offers a manufacturing firm the platform to achieve

implemented can definitely form the roadmap to global manufacturing excellence

1.1.4 Manufacturing industry in Mombasa

The Manufacturing sector is currently facing a lot of challenges as a result of

The concept of LM evolved from the

Toyota Production System (TPS) and is considered to continuously improve a firms

Under the economic pillar of the Kenya vision 2030, manufacturing

practices on the operational performance of manufacturing firms in Mombasa

To determine the extent to which manufacturing firms in Mombasa County

have adopted lean manufacturing practices.

To find out the challenges faced by manufacturing firms in adopting lean

1.4 Value of the study

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.2. Theoretical foundation of the study

Theory of Constraints is a methodology for identifying the most important limiting

inherently prioritizes improvement activities same as lean does through continuous

To transform a short-run competitive advantage into a sustained competitive

2.3 Lean Manufacturing Practices

JIT is a tool if well implemented, improves performance through reduction of costs,

production, top management and employee involvement, elimination of wastes, good

2.3.5 Value Stream Mapping

steps in VSM include: education on the importance of VSA, creation of value

Failure to expand LM to the supply chain is another drawback of lean. If critical

In Kenya, studies concede that LM improves the performance of a manufacturing firm

3.3 Population of Study

3.4. Sample and Sampling technique.

Table1: Manufacturing firms and sub-sectors and sample.

Source: KAM directory, 2014.

3.5 Data Collection

Y = 0 + 1X1 + 2X2+ 3X3+ 4X4 + 5X5 +

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Source: Research Data (2014)

Figure 1: Graph showing duration in business

Table 4: Annual Turnover

less than kshs 1 million

less than kshs 2 million

over kshs 2 million

Valid less than kshs 500,000

Figure 2: Graph showing Annual Turnover of Manufacturing firms in Mombasa

Source: Research data

The figure above shows a diagrammatic representation of improvement in operational