Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering

Comparison and evaluation of maintenance operations in lean versus non-lean

production systems
Farman A. Moayed Richard L. Shell

Downloaded by Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria At 14:20 20 May 2016 (PT)

Article information:
To cite this document:
Farman A. Moayed Richard L. Shell, (2009),"Comparison and evaluation of maintenance operations in lean
versus non-lean production systems", Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 15 Iss 3 pp. 285
- 296
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552510910983224
Downloaded on: 20 May 2016, At: 14:20 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 25 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3357 times since 2009*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2013),"A methodology for effective implementation of lean strategies and its performance evaluation in
manufacturing organizations", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19 Iss 1 pp. 169-196 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637151311294912
(2000),"Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage", International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 20 Iss 8 pp. 959-978 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570010332971
(2009),"Defining lean production: some conceptual and practical issues", The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 Iss 2
pp. 127-142 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17542730910938137

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:595906 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2511.htm

METHODOLOGY AND THEORY

Downloaded by Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria At 14:20 20 May 2016 (PT)

Comparison and evaluation of

maintenance operations in lean
versus non-lean production
systems

Lean versus nonlean production

systems
285

Farman A. Moayed
Department of Health, Safety and Environmental Health Sciences,
Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana, USA, and

Richard L. Shell
Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Nuclear Engineering,
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Abstract
Purpose Previous studies have found general differences between non-lean and lean production
systems, but none of them have identified the major factors in supporting operations such as
maintenance which are important in shifting the production from a non-lean to a lean system. The
purpose of this paper is to determine the major factors and parameters of maintenance operations that
are most effective in enhancing production to a lean system.
Design/methodology/approach A questionnaire is constructed and a direct mail survey is
conducted in the greater Cincinnati/tri-state region. The data collected are analyzed with SAS software
using contingency tables with Fishers exact test and a logistic regression analysis method.
Findings The results show strong correlations between a lean production system and some of the
major maintenance variables and parameters such as annual costs of maintenance personnel,
parts/materials, and training.
Originality/value The results of this study can be used as a guideline for engineers, experts and
managers in order to monitor the maintenance operation during the transition process from a non-lean
to a lean production system.
Keywords Lean production, Maintenance, Productive maintenance
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The lean production system is not new, but is useful enough that many companies are
still adapting it in order to keep their competitive edge in local and/or global markets.
This system helps companies to reduce their costs by eliminating waste, improving
quality and increasing customer satisfaction.
The traditional mass production system, which is referred to as a non-lean
production system in this article, started at the Ford automotive plant in Michigan in
early 1900 when the Model T was launched. At that time it was a revolutionary
innovation in manufacturing systems, especially in the automotive industry. In this
system operations were broken down into small elements completed by unskilled or
low-skilled workers. It used single-purpose equipment and machinery. This approach

Journal of Quality in Maintenance

Engineering
Vol. 15 No. 3, 2009
pp. 285-296
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1355-2511
DOI 10.1108/13552510910983224

JQME
15,3

Downloaded by Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria At 14:20 20 May 2016 (PT)

286

helped to reduce costs and assembly time but at the same time set-ups and
changeovers were costly due to the large numbers of machinery and the training of
labor. Therefore the production line had to be up and running for a long period of time
with minimal changes and stops in order to be cost-effective. Even if a particular
product or part was defective the production flow should not be interrupted. Buffers of
parts and materials between workstations and an increase in inventory were very
common in non-lean production systems; if the production flow was halted at any
given point, the rest of the line could continue with production (Womack et al., 1990).
After the Second World War, Toyota made big changes in mass production systems
and implemented its own approach, known as the Toyota Production System (TPS; the
first recorded version of lean production). In this system, if there was a problem in
parts or subassemblies almost all workers were allowed to stop the production line in
order to solve the problem. Obviously this required multi-skilled and trained workers
participating in problem solving and quality improvement. With this new production
system multi-task machinery was used more often, which increased flexibility. In such
systems one of the goals was to reduce set-up and changeover times, which eventually
led to a reduction in temporary inventories or buffers between workstations. The
Toyota Production System was gradually named the lean production system, and
drew the attention of manufacturers from all around the world (Womack et al., 1990;
Ohno, 1978).
The term lean production was introduced by Krafcik (1989) and by Womack et al.
(1990) in the book The Machine That Changed the World. The latter publication
presented the results of a major MIT study to systematically identify the best practice
of Japanese and other automobile manufacturers worldwide. Lean production is lean
in that it uses about one half of the various production resources (labor, manufacturing
space, tool investment, engineering hours, inventory, etc.) used in the Ford-style mass
production that was prevalent into the 1980s (Enkawa and Schvaneveldt, 2001;
Gardner, 2001).
The essence of lean production may be considered as equivalent to the just-in-time
(JIT) and TPS. Lean production can be also considered an extended JIT that includes
new intra-organizational and inter-organizational aspects (Enkawa and Schvaneveldt,
2001).
A company with a lean production system, just like any company, is made of
different departments such as administratiion, human resources, accounting,
maintenance, etc. They are responsible for supporting the companys primary
operation, which is production. In order to change from a non-lean production system
to a lean production system, not just the primary operation should be changed, but also
the supporting departments need to be modified and changed. This is because the new
production system demands new requirements from other departments. Figure 1
demonstrates the different major inter-related sections of a manufacturing system,
where each component of these subsystems performs critical tasks and may have
interactions with production systems as well as with each other (Montgomery and
Levin, 1996).
2. Literature review
Maintenance, or plant engineering, is responsible for machine tool and equipment
repair, in-plant construction, and the repair of other mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical

Lean versus nonlean production

systems

Downloaded by Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria At 14:20 20 May 2016 (PT)

287

Figure 1.
Inter-related sections of a
manufacturing system

problems that may or may not be directly related to production (Montgomery and
Levin, 1996). Based on the companies strategy and policies, different maintenance
systems can be selected and implemented (Wireman, 1998). Waeyenbergh and Pintelon
(2004) explained explicitly how to develop and decide on a maintenance system
according to the production line requirements and specifications through a case study.
And Cooke (2003) provided four different examples about the steps required to be
taken in order to switch from one form of maintenance system to another.
Several researchers (e.g. Forza, 1996; Delbridge et al., 2000) have studied the effects
of lean production system practices on other organizational departments of
manufacturing companies. Forza (1996) conducted research in Italy in order to find
the differences in work organization between lean and non-lean production systems,
mainly regarding employees and human resources, including the maintenance
department. The results of that research showed statistically significant differences in
maintenance operations in regard to the way maintenance crews participate in lean
systems, for example team work, reliance on quality feedback, and the implications of
statistical process control techniques.
Delbridge et al. (2000) researched the extent of teamwork in nine countries located in
Europe, North America and Asia in order to study the responsibilities of teams, team

JQME
15,3

Downloaded by Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria At 14:20 20 May 2016 (PT)

288

members and functional specialists for different operations and from different sections
of companies under lean production systems, including maintenance. Their findings
showed that in lean companies skilled blue-collar employees in the maintenance
department had primary responsibility, and production workers, team leaders and
engineers had very limited or no responsibility.
There are four different main maintenance systems explained in the literature,
which are briefly explained here.
2.1 Unplanned (reactive) maintenance
Unplanned maintenance or breakdown repair is the practice of caring for equipment
when and only when it is not functioning properly, and there is no particular person or
department responsible for it. Maintenance personnel take action only if the machine or
equipment is broken and cannot continue production. If a company has not much and
simple equipment the problem may not be overwhelming but if there is lots of
equipment and/or it is complicated, then the production systems always tend to
breakdowns and maintenance personnel trying to catch up with production. When an
unplanned maintenance requirement occurs the capacity of the production system is
reduced, workers are idle and this causes direct labor costs to rise. Because of the
urgency of calling in breakdown maintenance crews and acquiring the necessary spare
parts, overall costs will increase (Nicholas, 1998; Walker, 1999).
2.2 Planned maintenance
This system is always organized and a person or a department is always responsible
for keeping records and taking action in the case of breakdown. The necessary spare
parts have already been purchased and are kept in inventory. Maintenance procedures
and manuals are always available. In this case machine downtime is less than
unplanned maintenance because spare parts are available. The overall maintenance
costs are less than unplanned maintenance because worker and machine idle time tend
to be reduced (Walker, 1999; Wireman, 1998).
2.3 Preventive maintenance (PM)
This is the practice of tending to equipment so it will not break down and will operate
according to requirements. It entails understanding and maintaining all physical
elements of manufacturing machine components, equipment, and systems so they
perform consistently at the level required by design (Nicholas, 1998; Wireman, 1998).
PM is work activity that has been programmed on a regular basis to inspect
equipment, uncover potential problems and make necessary repairs to ensure that the
system does not fail during normal operation. The costs include maintenance personnel
costs, inventories kept for maintenance procedures and lost time when the equipment
is down for repairs (Walker, 1999; Wireman, 1998).
2.4 Total productive maintenance (TPM)
TPM is a well-defined and organized maintenance program that places a high value on
teamwork, consensus building and continuous improvement. Specific actions required
include restoring equipment to a like-new condition, having operators involved in
maintenance, training the labor force and using overall PM effectively (Walker, 1999).

Downloaded by Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria At 14:20 20 May 2016 (PT)

A goal of TPM is to upgrade equipment so it performs better and requires less

maintenance than when it was new. In TPM the responsibility of maintaining
equipment is spread throughout many departments, such as production, engineering,
and maintenance, and to a range of people, especially equipment operators and shop
workers. In TPM, operators perform basic equipment repairs and team of maintenance
staff re-design and reconfigure equipment to make it more reliable and easier to
maintain (Nicholas, 1998; Wireman, 1998).
3. Objectives
Due to the differences between non-lean and lean production systems, it is expected
that there should be differences among the maintenance operations to support each
production system, such as planning, scheduling, personnel training, which can be
tracked through maintenance costs and expenses, machine downtime and other
statistics.
Regardless of the type of production system, maintenance operations consist of
particular activities that must be done by maintenance department personnel in any
organization or company to guarantee the availability of physical assets or machinery.
These activities are, but not limited to, maintenance (predictive, preventive, total
productive), inventory and procurement, training, financial optimization, and
statistical analysis, availability ratio of equipment, maintenance cost per running
time or units, and several other factors (Wireman, 1998; Hartmann and Charles, 2001;
Al-Najjar et al., 2004).
The primary objective of this study was to verify whether the maintenance
operations in a lean production system are the same as those in a non-lean production
system (null hypotheses) by comparing the fundamental parameters in any
maintenance system. These parameters and variables were defined to evaluate
maintenance operations. Then the correlation between these variables and the type of
production system (lean and non-lean) were studied by building contingency tables
and conducting Fishers exact test and logistic regression models.
Since previous studies did not specifically investigate maintenance operations in
lean versus non-lean production systems, no detailed information is available in terms
of important parameters or measures regarding maintenance operations. In the case of
rejecting the null hypothesis, the results of this research will lead to the basic
parameters to evaluate maintenance operations in any company so that management
can assess the operation of their maintenance departments transition from a non-lean
to a lean production system and plan for improvement.
4. Methodology
In order to complete this research, a survey was conducted to collect data about
manufacturing companies. The general subject population eligible for this study was
any manufacturing company in the USA, and because of limited resources (time,
money and personnel) the companies and manufacturers in the greater
Cincinnati/tri-state region were selected as the target population for this survey.
After considering all options and constrains (i.e. mail survey, phone survey,
face-to-face survey and internet survey), a direct mail survey was selected as the most
appropriate method for data collection (Salant and Dillman, 1994; Erdos and Morgan,
1983; Mangione, 1995).

Lean versus nonlean production

systems
289

JQME
15,3

Downloaded by Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria At 14:20 20 May 2016 (PT)

290

The questionnaire used in this research was comprised of two parts. The first part
was made up of four questions to determine whether the responding company had a
lean production system, while the second part was made up of 13 questions to assess
the companys maintenance operations.
The questionnaire was reviewed and approved on two separate occasions by
manufacturing experts at the University of Cincinnati, where the research was
conducted in 2002. The approval criteria were variables to assess the leanness and the
maintenance operation. The questionnaire was mailed to subjects in a one-month
period using the US Postal Service in June 2002. The participants were asked to answer
all questions objectively and to reply either by fax or regular mail. The last reply was
received at the end of August of 2002. After receiving each reply, it was immediately
entered into a computer database along with the returned letters.
After completing data collection, Fishers exact test was conducted on contingency
tables, followed by logistic regression analysis using SAS System Version 9.0 for
Windows on a personal computer. The correlation between the leanness of a
production system and variables for maintenance operation was analyzed and the
variables with strong correlations were determined.
5. Results
The mailing list consisted of contact information of 552 companies in the greater
Cincinnati/tri-state area, and 52 responses were received either by mail or fax. The
questionnaires sent to 34 companies were returned to the sender due to wrong mailing
addresses. Nine companies replied that they were not a manufacturing company and
the survey did not apply to them, which led to a response rate of 10.22 percent, which is
as expected for a direct mail survey (Erdos and Morgan, 1983).
Figures 2 and 3 show the distribution of responding companies with regard to their
size based on their number of employees and approximate annual revenues respectively.
The US Census Bureau uses different brackets for size and annual revenue, which makes
it difficult to compare the sample distribution to the actual population.
First, responding companies were divided into two groups, i.e. lean and non-lean
companies, based on their subjective answers to the first section of the questionnaire,
which were whether the companies had successfully implemented JIT, kanban,
multi-skilled workers, and TQM (i.e. the basic elements of lean manufacturing). Based on
the replies the sample was divided into two groups: 22 companies with lean production

Figure 2.
Distribution of responding
companies based on their
size (number of
employees)

Downloaded by Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria At 14:20 20 May 2016 (PT)

systems and 30 with non-lean production systems. Then the second section of the
questionnaire was used to assess the maintenance operation based on its parameters.
Contingency tables were created for input and output variables, followed by
Fishers exact test and logistic regression analysis (Agresti, 2002; Hosmer and
Lemeshow, 2000; Neter et al., 1999). The analysis was conducted using SAS Version 9
for Windows with Proc Freq and Proc Logistic procedures (Cody and Smith, 1997; Der
and Everitt, 2002; Freund and Littell, 2000).
The Fishers exact test results showed that there were statistically significant
differences between the lean production system and the companys annual revenue
( p value 0:0367), and its size ( p value 0:0069), and the correlation was stronger
with the number of production employees than maintenance. Fishers exact test with
logistic regression analysis showed that a strong and negative correlation existed
between the lean production system and the level of inventory and work-in-process
( p value 0:0090).
The Fishers exact tests also showed a significant correlation between the lean
production system and the type of maintenance system ( p value 0:0385). Further
analysis showed an even stronger correlation between the lean production system and
maintenance expenditures a positive correlation with personnel and a negative
correlation with parts/material ( p values 0:0143 and 0.0049, respectively). It also
showed that a lean production system had a significant positive correlation with the
cost of training for maintenance personnel ( p value 0:0325).
Other findings of this research suggested that there were strong and negative
correlations between a lean production system and the average lag-time between
machine-down and repair request ( p value 0:0088), average ratio of machine
down-time to production time ( p value 0:0134), and number of back orders for spare
parts/materials during maintenance operations ( p value 0:0067).
Analysis of the data using Fishers exact test and logistic regression showed a
significant and negative correlation between lean a production system and the average
time of relationship between companies and suppliers ( p value 0:0306), which is at
odds with the concept of a lean production system and will be discussed further.
Two different logistic regression models were developed for this data analysis. The
first a simple model with no interaction of independent variables and the second one
with interactions of some of the input variables. Table I shows the analysis of
maximum likelihood estimates of parameters using the model without interactions.

Lean versus nonlean production

systems
291

Figure 3.
Distribution of responding
companies based on their
approximate annual
revenue

JQME
15,3

Downloaded by Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria At 14:20 20 May 2016 (PT)

292

Table I.
Analysis of maximum
likelihood estimates
(without interaction)

Parameter

df

Estimate

Standard
error

1. Number of employees
2. Number of production employees
3. Number of maintenance employees
4. Type of maintenance system
5. Annual costs of maintenance personnel
6. Annual costs of maintenance parts/material
7. Annual costs of maintenance personnel training
8. Level of inventory and work-in-process
9. Lag time between machine-down and repair request
10. Ratio of machine down-time and production time
11. Backorders of parts/material for maintenance operation
12. Relationship with suppliers

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

21.7523
0.6196
0.0103
20.3963
1.8665
21.7792
2.0597
0.2451
20.0243
20.0244
20.8303
212.4734

1.2086
0.9417
1.6945
0.7021
1.3328
1.4158
1.4292
0.5764
0.5503
0.8747
4.8296
188.1

The second model was constructed with interactions of a few variables included.
Table II shows the analysis of maximum likelihood estimates for the second logistic
regression model. The interactions included in the second models were between:
.
number of employees and number of maintenance employees;
.
number of production employees and number of maintenance employees;
.
annual cost of maintenance personnel and annual revenue;
.
annual cost of maintenance parts/material and annual revenue;
.
level of inventory/work-in-process and annual revenue; and
.
annual costs of maintenance training and number of maintenance employees.

Table II.
Analysis of maximum
likelihood estimates (with
interactions)

Parameter

df

Estimate

Standard
error

1. Number of employees
2. Number of production employees
3. Number of maintenance employees
4. Type of the maintenance system
5. Annual costs of maintenance personnel
6. Annual costs of maintenance parts/material
7. Annual costs of maintenance personnel training
8. Level of inventory and work-in-process
9. Lag time between machine-down and repair request
10. Ratio of machine down-time to production time
11. Backorders of parts/material for maintenance operation
12. Relationship with suppliers

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

29.9975
12.4254
4.2121
0.5524
101.9
2114.4
2.9435
4.0080
21.0683
20.2241
22.1510
260.8925

5.3827
6.2142
10.3471
1.5843
87.0205
93.1701
6.1017
6.4832
1.2927
2.5563
10.6918
55.3386

Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item

1
1
1
1
1
1

5.6919
28.7427
224.0888
27.7258
21.4076
1.8804

2.8550
4.7466
21.2825
23.0688
1.7927
2.8843

1*item 3
2*item 3
5*annual revenue
6*annual revenue
8*annual revenue
7*item 3

Downloaded by Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria At 14:20 20 May 2016 (PT)

The authors suspect that these variables can act as inter-related variables, such that a
change in one of them can affect the dependent variable (outcome) as well as the other
variable at the same time. Therefore the interaction of variables mentioned above was
included in the second logistic regression model.
The log-likelihood was used to evaluate the goodness of fit for both models. the
likelihood ratio statistic was 14.4585 ( p value 0:2724) and 26.8741 ( p value 0.0814)
for models 1 and 2, respectively (22 log L 35:502 for the first model and 21.240 for
the second model).
6. Discussion
As explained before, none of the available publications specifically investigated the
differences of maintenance systems between lean and non-lean production systems in
detail (Waeyenbergh and Pintelon, 2004; Cooke, 2003; Forza, 1996; Delbridge et al., 2000).
Other researchers and experts described the major variables and parameters in any
maintenance system that can be used to assess its performance regardless of the type of
production system (Al-Najjar et al., 2004; Wireman, 1998; Hartmann and Charles, 2001).
The primary objective of this research was to determine the variables and
parameters that play a significant role in a maintenance system while transiting from a
non-lean to a lean production system. A direct mail survey was conducted in the
greater Cincinnati/tri-state region and Fishers exact test was performed on
contingency tables followed by logistic regression analysis on the collected data.
According to the results of logistic regression with interactions (Table II), a lean
production system had a negative correlation with the number of employees, which is
consistent with the assumption that lean system requires less manpower. However it
also had positive correlations with the number of production and maintenance
employees, but it had a negative correlation with the interaction of these two variables.
One logical explanation for this kind of relationship is that by changing the production
system from non-lean to lean, companies tend to employ more labor in both production
and maintenance operations, probably due to a larger profit margin, but the negative
relationship with their interaction suggests that simultaneous increases in both
variables is not a good indicator to transfer from a non-lean to a lean system. This
correlation requires further investigation.
The results also showed a positive correlation between the type of maintenance
system and a lean production system. This suggests that changing the production
system from non-lean to lean requires upgrading the maintenance system from
unplanned to planned maintenance, then to preventive maintenance, and eventually to
total productive maintenance.
Regarding the costs of maintenance, personnel and parts/material, the logistic
regression model showed a significant and positive correlation between the lean
production system and the costs of maintenance personnel and a negative correlation
with parts and materials. This is also in accord with the concept of a lean production
system, in which more personnel involvement and lower parts/material consumption
are expected. It also showed that in order to change to lean production more training
for maintenance is required so personnel can become familiar with the new systems
features and requirements and prepare for an upgraded maintenance system. The
interaction of maintenance costs with annual revenue had negative correlations for
personnel costs, and positive correlations for parts/materials, with a lean production

Lean versus nonlean production

systems
293

JQME
15,3

Downloaded by Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria At 14:20 20 May 2016 (PT)

294

system. This contradiction with the concept of a lean production system might be due
to possible biases caused by the heterogeneity of sample, which requires more
investigation. Another possible reason could be that this correlation is different in
different sections of industry.
Considering the results of the logistic regression, a reduction of the inventory and
work-in-process level could be another factor in transferring from a non-lean to a lean
production system, as well as a reduction in lag time between machine downtime and
repair request, and a reduction in the ratio of downtime to production time. These
results, including the decrease in level of backorders caused by maintenance operations
in a lean system, are in accord with the general concept of a lean production system.
One more contradiction with the philosophy of a lean production system found in this
study was the negative correlation between the lean production system and the length of
companies relationship with their suppliers. Womack et al. (1990) explained that
successful Japanese automobile makers known for being lean had long-term
relationships with their suppliers. One reason for this discrepancy in this study could
be that if most of the participating companies were relatively young then the result for
this parameter would be inconclusive and require more investigation. Another potential
reason could be that the length of the relationship could be different for different
suppliers. In order to investigate this assumption a larger sample is needed and the
sample should be stratified based on the industry section and the type of supplier.
Another reason for the contradictions found in this study could be that a lean
production system has two different meanings in the USA and Japan. Also, in this
study, the assessment of the leanness of companies was subjective. Fairris and
Tohyama (2002) conducted a study comparing the extent of success of implementing
the lean system in the US versus Japan. They argued that the lean production model in
the USA has met with less success and that this is due to institutional mechanisms in
Japan that help to incorporate it into production, but that are absent in the USA.
This study has its own limitations which might have contributed to the
contradictions. One of the limits was the sample size. A sample of 52 companies was
the expected size for this survey method, but the sample did not have a uniform
distribution regarding the companies size, and annual revenue. It could be biased in
one direction or another.
One suggestion that could enhance the later studies and research in this field is that
the sample should be stratified to different sub-samples based on the industry section
in which the participating companies were active, and each group should be analyzed
and studied separately. The authors did not choose this approach in data analysis due
to the small size of the sample. In fact this might be another reason for the
contradictions explained above.
One argument might be that the result of this study just mentions the types of
maintenance programs in lean and non-lean companies and does not prove any existing
correlation between them. However, the results show significant differences in the type
of maintenance programs between these two groups of companies, and that is enough to
show that there is a trend that managers and engineers need to consider when transiting
to a lean manufacturing system. Therefore a second suggestion could involve lean
production and maintenance program assessment methods, and unlike this research it
should be more comprehensive and preferably done by visiting sites and interviewing a
set of each companys personnel from top management to shop-floor employees.

Downloaded by Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria At 14:20 20 May 2016 (PT)

7. Conclusion
Considering all the results and outcomes of this research, one practical implication
would be that in the process of transferring a non-lean production system to a lean
production system, the maintenance operation would need to be modified accordingly.
The overall change would be an upgrade in the maintenance system from unplanned to
planned maintenance, then preventive maintenance, and eventually total productive
maintenance. The most important factors in this modification, in no particular order,
are training of maintenance personnel, level of inventory and work-in-process,
including maintenance parts/material, a reduction in the lag time between downtime
and repair request, and a reduction in the ratio of downtime to production time.
However, this study does not investigate the success of any form of maintenance
system in the context of either a lean or a non-lean manufacturing system. That can be
the subject of another study.
These results and the findings of this study and future research in this area could be
helpful in creating guideline for engineers and managers who are involved in the
implementation of lean production systems. They can make more informed decisions
and choose the correct strategy in transforming from a non-lean to a lean production
system and make adjustments in maintenance operations in order to meet all the
requirements of a lean production system.
References
Agresti, A. (2002), Categorical Data Analysis, 2nd ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Al-Najjar, B., Hansson, M. and Sunnegardh, P. (2004), Benchmarking of maintenance
performance: a case study in two manufacturers of furniture, IMA Journal of
Management Mathematics, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 253-70.
Cody, R.P. and Smith, J.K. (1997), Applied Statistics and the SAS Programming Language, 4th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Cooke, F.L. (2003), Plant maintenance strategy: evidence from four british manufacturing
firms, Journal of Quality in Maintenance, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 239-349.
Delbridge, R., Lowe, J. and Oliver, N. (2000), Shop floor responsibilities under lean team
working, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 11, pp. 1459-79.
Der, G. and Everitt, B.S. (2002), A Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using SAS, 2nd ed., Chapman
& Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Enkawa, T. and Schvaneveldt, S.J. (2001), Just-in-time, lean production, and complementary
paradigms, in Salvendy, G. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial Engineering, 3rd ed., Wiley, New
York, NY, pp. 554-61.
Erdos, P.L. and Morgan, A.J. (1983), Professional Mail Surveys, Krieger Publishing Co.,
Melbourne, FL.
Fairris, D. and Tohyama, H. (2002), Productive efficiency and the lean production system in
Japan and the United States, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 529-54.
Forza, C. (1996), Work organization in lean production and traditional plants. What are the
differences?, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 42-62.
Freund, R.J. and Littell, R.C. (2000), SAS System for Regression, 3rd ed., SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
Gardner, D.L. (2001), Lean organizational pay design, in Zandin, K.B. (Ed.), Meynards
Industrial Engineering Handbook, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 7.41-50.

Lean versus nonlean production

systems
295

JQME
15,3

Downloaded by Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria At 14:20 20 May 2016 (PT)

296

Hartmann, E.H. and Charles, H.L. (2001), Total productive maintenance, in Zandin, K.B. (Ed.),
Meynards Industrial Engineering Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 16.57-77.
Hosmer, D.W. and Lemeshow, S. (2000), Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York,
NY.
Krafcik, J.F. (1989), Triumph of the lean production system, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 41-52.
Mangione, T.W. (1995), Mail Survey: Improving the Quality, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Montgomery, J.C. and Levin, L.O. (1996), The Transition to Agile Manufacturing: Staying Flexible
for Competitive Advantage, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Neter, J., Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J. and Wasserman, W. (1999), Applied Linear Regression
Models, 3rd ed., Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Nicholas, J.M. (1998), Competitive Manufacturing Management, Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
Ohno, T. (1978), Toyota Production System, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Salant, P. and Dillman, D.A. (1994), How to Conduct Your Own Survey, Wiley, New York, NY.
Waeyenbergh, G. and Pintelon, L. (2004), Maintenance Concept Development: A Case Study,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 89, pp. 395-405.
Walker, D.L. (1999), Operations Management: A Supply Chain Approach, International Thomson
Business Press, Boston, MA.
Wireman, T. (1998), Developing Performance Indicators for Managing Maintenance, Industrial
Press, New York, NY.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine That Changed the World, Rawson
Associates, New York, NY.
Corresponding author
Farman A. Moayed can be contacted at: fmoayed@indstate.edu

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

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Downloaded by Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria At 14:20 20 May 2016 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Moacir Godinho Filho, Marcel Heimar Ribeiro Utiyama. 2016. Comparing the effect of different
strategies of continuous improvement programmes on repair time to reduce lead time. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology . [CrossRef]
2. Wenchi Shou, Xiangyu Wang, Jun Wang, Lei Hou, Martijn TruijensIntegration of BIM and Lean
Concepts to Improve Maintenance Efficiency: A Case Study 373-380. [CrossRef]
3. Wael Hadid Brunel Business School, Brunel University, London, UK S. Afshin Mansouri Brunel
Business School, Brunel University, London, UK . 2014. The lean-performance relationship in services: a
theoretical model. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 34:6, 750-785. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
4. Teonas Bartz Federal University of Santa Maria UFSM, Santa Maria, Brazil Julio Cezar Mairesse Siluk
Federal University of Santa Maria UFSM, Santa Maria, Brazil Ana Paula Barth Bartz Federal University
of Santa Maria UFSM, Santa Maria, Brazil . 2014. Improvement of industrial performance with TPM
implementation. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 20:1, 2-19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Adnan Hj. Bakri, Abdul Rahman Abdul Rahim, Noordin Mohd. Yusof, Ramli Ahmad. 2012. Boosting
Lean Production via TPM. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 65, 485-491. [CrossRef]
6. Mustafa Alshawi and Jack GouldingMark SharpWFS Consulting Ltd, London, UK Keith JonesSchool
of Architecture, Design and Construction, University of Greenwich, London, UK. 2012. Perceived
inefficiency in social housing maintenance. Construction Innovation 12:4, 414-428. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]