International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences

Assessing lean’s impact on operational integration

Inger Gamme, Silje H. Aschehoug,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Inger Gamme, Silje H. Aschehoug, (2014) "Assessing lean’s impact on operational integration",
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 6 Issue: 2/3, pp.112-123, https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJQSS-02-2014-0013
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-02-2014-0013
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 06:19 13 November 2018 (PT)

Downloaded on: 13 November 2018, At: 06:19 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 28 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1053 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"Exploring barriers in lean implementation", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 5
Iss 2 pp. 122-148 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-12-2012-0014">https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJLSS-12-2012-0014</a>
(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 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/14637151311294912">https://doi.org/10.1108/14637151311294912</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:273599 []
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.
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 06:19 13 November 2018 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1756-669X.htm

IJQSS
6,2/3
Assessing lean’s impact on
operational integration
Inger Gamme
Department of Technology, Economy and Management, Gjøvik University
112 College, Gjøvik, Norway and Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Trondheim, Norway, and
Silje H. Aschehoug
Department of Production and Product Development, SINTEF Raufoss
Manufacturing, Raufoss, Norway
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 06:19 13 November 2018 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to establish a major project to create new insights on lean in the
specific Norwegian context and further build on international research. Lean is relevant for the
manufacturing industry, service, finance, healthcare and public sectors in Norway. There are, however,
still many research questions to be raised.
Design/methodology/approach – Two case companies have been studied, to identify what these
companies have experienced as important enablers and disablers in their lean implementation process.
The following research questions will be addressed: In what way(s) does lean contribute to greater
operational integration? In what way(s) does lean hinder operational integration? The research
methodology is based on semistructured interviews with selected persons from different levels within
the companies.
Findings – From this study, several common contributing factors have been found: the importance of
commitment and presence on the part of management, use of visualization tools for information
exchange, formal meeting arenas and cross-functional work. Furthermore, the companies perceived the
following as hindrances to achieving operational integration: insufficient involvement in
implementation and design of tools, lack of commitment within the management, lack of customer
focus, working in functional silos, lack of dissemination within the company and distance.
Practical implications – Based on empirical findings from initial mapping of each company’s
experiences with operational integration after a lean implementation process, recommendations on how
to achieve better operational integration will be presented.
Originality/value – The research initiative provides knowledge experience from lean
implementation processes in two different Norwegian case companies within different sectors.
Keywords Lean, Operational integration, Team boards, Visualization
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Quality and
Service Sciences
Vol. 6 No. 2/3, 2014
pp. 112-123
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1756-669X
DOI 10.1108/IJQSS-02-2014-0013
Introduction
Increased global competition and production costs, together with scarce resources, are
forcing companies to think in new directions. Effective and precise information and
knowledge sharing in modern complex organizations are essential to sustain
The current research was funded by the Norwegian Research Council through the project
“Lean Operations”. The authors would like to thank the research team within the project Lean
Operations, for providing data for conducting this study.
 competitiveness in the current increased competition caused by globalization. To Operational
achieve improved process flow and sustainable and flexible processes without
undesirable incidents, it is important to have an optimal information flow. A well-known
integration
tool to achieve streamlined processes and interfaces between them is lean. The
principles and techniques of lean have become the benchmark for European
manufacturing companies competing in the global market place over the past several
decades. Nowadays, almost all significant market operators have, to some extent, 113
introduced lean principles, inspired primarily by the success of the Toyota Production
System (TPS). Even though the lean principles have been known for several decades,
companies are still struggling to succeed in the implementation and use of lean.
It remains an open question whether lean implementation proves to be a driver for
increased interaction and collaboration in companies or whether lean implementation
processes hinder such. This article aims to address this issue by drawing on available
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 06:19 13 November 2018 (PT)

scientific and management literature within the lean field. By further understanding the
effect lean has on interaction and collaboration processes in the Norwegian industry,
companies can establish strategies for implementation practices for lean in industries in
which lean has not yet been implemented. Hence, the overall objectives of the present
article are as follows:
• To present the theoretical background of lean in an operational integration
context.
• To explore and present both positive and negative effects lean implementation has
on operational integration. Specifically: in what way(s) does lean contribute to
more operational integration? In what ways does lean hinder operational
integration?

Theory
Lean
The history of lean has its roots in the Japanese industry after World War II. The
Japanese succeeded by exercising competence in modern manufacturing techniques and
principles in a product- and technology-driven industry. These principles and
techniques were originally adopted from the USA and Europe, and were further
developed and adjusted to fit the Japanese environment and culture, resulting in the
TPS, among others (Liker, 2003). The term “lean” was first introduced as the “lean
production system” by John Krafcik, after a review of the TPS. This was later on
popularized as “lean manufacturing” by Womack et al. (1990) in the book The Machine
that Changed the World. Lean was initially most widely used in manufacturing
companies, but in recent years, it has been further developed and used for varied sectors
such as healthcare, military and public organizations (Liker, 2006).
The primary concept of lean is to identify and eliminate waste throughout the total
value chain, streamlining the flow between process steps. It is most known as a set of
useful tools to improve a business, but to achieve a successful lean implementation
process, it is important that each employee adopt the way of thinking (Liker, 2003). To
succeed with a lean implementation process, it is important to have a robust and
structured change process (Bhasin, 2012). Achanga et al. (2006) also point out leadership,
management, finance, organizational culture and skills and expertise as the most
important factors to succeed in implementing lean.
 IJQSS Typical in lean is the focus on visualization of different kinds of information (Lindlof
and Soderberg, 2011). This is in accordance with Liker (2006) exhortation: “Align your
6,2/3 organization through simple, visual communication”.

Operational integration
Various versions of the term “operational integration” have been used in the existing
114 research, and few authors present a formal definition (Pagell, 2004). From a review of the
extant research, Kahn and Mentzer (1996) ended up viewing operational integration as
a multidimensional concept comprising two different processes: interaction and
collaboration. They consider interaction to be a tangible process consisting of verbal
and documented interdepartmental information exchanges. Collaboration is considered
an intangible process, defined as a department’s willingness to work together.
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 06:19 13 November 2018 (PT)

The need for more streamlined production to increase efficiency requires closer
collaboration between members in the value chain and better control of the
interdependencies between the process steps, where interdependencies include sharing
of resources and synchronization of prerequisite activities (Malone and Crowston, 1994).
It has been observed that collaboration can be a contributing factor to reduce functional
myopia and further enable operational integration (Stevens, 1990; Kahn and Mentzer,
1996; Stank et al., 2001) and that to achieve knowledge creation in a company, a dynamic
interaction between different roles in the organization has to be in place (Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995). Furthermore, to be able to optimize not only each process step but also
the whole value chain, it is important for all participants in the value chain to understand
the requirements of their customer’s customers and also the conditions for their
suppliers’ suppliers (Horvath, 2001).
Based on a mix of the two constructs, interaction and collaboration, Kahn and
Mentzer (1996) formulated the following definition: “Interdepartmental integration is
formally defined as a process of interdepartmental interaction and interdepartmental
collaboration which brings departments together into a cohesive organization”. They
further emphasize that the level of interaction and collaboration should differ according
to the need in different situations. Among several factors that affect operational
integration, structure and culture at the plant, top management support, reward
systems and amount of formal and informal communication between functions can be
mentioned as the most common (Pagell, 2004).

Visualization as a tool to increase operational integration

When implementing lean, many companies start with visual planning, this is a part of
Toyota’s “Obeya”. Obeya is Japanese for “big room” and is a method to plan and visually
communicate (Morgan and Liker, 2006). To our knowledge, little research exists on the
method “visual planning”, but according to Lindlof and Soderberg (2011), visual
planning could contribute to increased operational integration. Visualization tools are
found to contribute to achieving a more streamlined work process, making process
expectations more clear and task prioritization easier (Olausson and Berggren, 2010).
Through visualization, it is also easier to reveal bottlenecks, and as visual planning
contributes to more operational transparency, it also enables faster responses when
problems occur. Visualization is a powerful tool not only for manufacturing but also for
other sectors. The following criteria are suggested to ensure success when developing a
tool for visualization:
 • the team must be empowered to create its own visualization system; Operational
• the system has to be kept simple; integration
• aim for a colorful system;
• electronic versions should be avoided;
• only figures that are important to control the process should be displayed; and
• the process should be clearly visual together with progress parameters (Parry and 115
Turner, 2006).

Hines et al. (2006) argue for the benefits of using visual planning systems as a tool for
improving communication within teams. Additionally, they refer to experiences of
increased cross-functional communication when using visual tools in a product
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 06:19 13 November 2018 (PT)

development environment. This is further confirmed by Lindlof and Soderberg (2011),

who, in a study, identified efficient communication, shared understanding, ability to
prioritize tasks and efficient leveling of workloads as advantages of using lean visual
systems.

Research design
The research presented in this article represents a wider Norwegian research project.
The overall project is built on international research to create new insights on lean in the
specific Norwegian context. The project period started in 2006 and will be finished in
2015. Six large Norwegian companies from different industry segments are
participating in the research project. Four of the selected companies represent
traditional manufacturing companies, whereas one company is in the telecom industry,
and the final company is in the insurance/banking industry. Two of these six companies
were chosen for the current case studies in which the focus is on interaction processes in
connection with lean implementation.
There are several ways of doing science; a case study is one way. This approach can
be useful for understanding complex social phenomena. It is used in many situations to
gain knowledge of groups, organizations and related phenomena within a real-life
context. The aim is to obtain a rich comprehension of the social scene, to be able to
describe the context in which events occur and, further, to determine the extent to which
existing theories help us to understand the case or require modification (Eisenhardt and
Graebner, 2007). In a case study, selecting an appropriate sample is important.
Important criteria include relevance to the research questions, whether the phenomenon
that is the focus of the study is likely to occur during the case study and whether the
study is feasible and ethical (Karlsson, 2009; Yin, 2009). The case companies for the main
research project were chosen because they all have a history of implementing lean in
their organizations and work actively with lean today. Norwegian companies were
selected so that we could examine lean in the Norwegian context. Finally, the companies
selected are all large in terms of revenues and employees, and are further within the
same sociocultural context; hence, it is feasible to compare the degree of operational
integration in processes in the companies. The two companies which are studied in this
article are one company which produces components for the automobile industry and a
company which delivers services within insurance and banking. Tables I and II give a
brief overview of the case companies’ characteristics and the companies’ lean focus.
 IJQSS Company characteristics Company A Company B
6,2/3
Year of study November 2011 November 2011
Main product Insurance life and pension, Billet production, extruded and
insurance assets, banking welded aluminum products for
automotive industry
Number of employees 1200 513
116 Revenues 2011 48 BNOK 1.3 BNOK
Formal interviews 8 16
Type of informants CFO/COO CEO
Customer managers Lean managers
Lean managers Production managers
Staff members Production operators
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 06:19 13 November 2018 (PT)

Table I. Union rep. Union rep.

Case company Lean implementation year 2006 2002-2003: Old system
characteristics 2009: New system

Company characteristics Company A Company B

Lean focus Customer pull, interplay and Visual management, A3 problem

interaction, accomplishment,
transformation, continuous
improvements, visual
management, Six Sigma
Lean results Reduced costs, adaption to
individualization, increased
customer focus
Table II. Lean management Lean
Case company lean focus system
solving, standardization of
processes, failure mode and
effect analysis (FMEA),
performance measurements
(KPI), training and education
Reduced costs, improved product
quality, reduced adaptation time
in production, increased
productivity, more stable
processes
Self-developed operating system
based on lean

Data collection
For the case studies, a research protocol describing data collection methods, including
an interview guide, was developed prior to the research. The interview guide included
questions on the following topics:
• lean company philosophy;
• lean implementation and history;
• lean organization; and
• lean training and history.

Semistructured interviews were conducted; the semistructured format meant that the
interviews were allowed to proceed at their own pace, giving the informants the
opportunity to come with additional important information and data. These types of
interviews are normally used when researchers wish to understand the informant’s
 experiences and how he/she reflects on the subject (Kvale, 1997). Data triangulation was Operational
achieved by collecting the same information from multiple sources, such as documents
and direct observations in the fields (Yin, 2009). The use of triangulation is a way to
integration
increase the robustness of the research (Patton, 1990). Internal procedures, annual
reports, tools and process charts, etc. were carefully reviewed to confirm or disconfirm
information from the informants. In addition, plant tours and walk throughs were made
in all companies to visually observe the effects of lean in the organization. 117
All interviews were recorded and later transcribed. The data were further analyzed
and coded (Tjora, 2011) into main categories to identify possible enablers and disablers
for operational integration after implementing lean in the two different value chains.
Tabular data analysis was performed with the objective of identifying issues and
themes relevant for interaction processes.
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 06:19 13 November 2018 (PT)

Findings and discussion

The two companies were studied to discover which factors are experienced as
contributors and hindrances to operational integration when implementing lean. The
field codes which are coded as enablers or disablers for operational integration are
summarized in two separate tables, Tables III and IV, and further discussed below.
Company A used consultants to lead the lean implementation process, and one of
the main focuses of this process was to achieve an efficiency increase of 30 per cent.
Prior to the implementation process, the company had a larger information meeting

Lean contributed to operational integration Lean hindered operational integration

More openness and self-evaluation gives
possibilities for improvements in line with
continuous improvement paradigm
Lowered barriers for contacting and
asking colleagues for help
Increased customer focus interaction and
accomplishment of work in the
organization
Increased teamwork across departments
when attending customer needs
Increased sharing of knowledge- and
competence
Increased information exchange
Increased use of cross-functional
workshops
Increased use of inter-departmental
exchange programs to improve workflow
Increased employee participation in
department meetings
Increased use of team boards for sharing
information inside or across departments
Increased sense of belonging, ownership
and visibility of employees due to team
board implementation
Difficulty in involving and informing all employees
affected by process improvements because of lack
of availability
Collaboration and interaction in cross-functional
projects have become more difficult since
everything has grown bigger
Insufficient customer focus in cross-functional
teams
Some sub-optimization experienced as employees
protect their own departments at the cost of
serving the customer
Table III.
Company A, enablers or
disablers for operational
integration
 IJQSS Lean contributed to operational integration
6,2/3
More frequent meetings for information
exchange
Increased competence utilization through
team work
Increased use of team boards for
118 information exchange in departments or
across departments
Implementation of weekly management-
employee meetings for improved
communication and problem-solving
(WOC: (walk–observe–communicate)
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 06:19 13 November 2018 (PT)
Lean hindered operational integration
Increased top-down culture
System implemented without employee involvement
creates mistrust and lack of commitment
Focus on up-time and number of produced parts
makes involvement of operators in improvements
difficult
Increased KPI focus causes sub-optimization,
experienced as departments focusing on their own
KPI rather than working toward overall goals
Lack of co-location of operations makes
collaboration more difficult

Increased alternation between work tasks

Increased use of visual communication
systems as team boards and A3
Management uses alternation for
participation in different team meetings
Table IV. The management spends increased time
Company B among operators

in which 70 employees were involved. The purpose of this meeting was to prepare
the organization for the lean implementation process and reduce negative response.
Additionally, one-to-one meetings were held with selected employees, and all
employee representatives and managers attended. Throughout the entire process,
once a month there were also meetings with employee representatives, who were
experienced as very supportive of the process. The main intention during this
process was to gain increased customer focus, operational integration and
accomplishment capacity.

Operational integration
The lean implementation process started at the bottom of the organization, and later
percolated upward in the system. Prior to the lean implementation process, the
employees often experienced departments operating as functional silos when serving
customer. Cross-functional customer challenges were difficult to handle when
employees sought to protect their own departments at the cost of serving the customer.
One of the main elements in a lean process is “adding value to the customer” (Womack
and Jones, 1996b.) Additionally, it is important that all value-creating activities work
together to achieve a well-managed value chain, which means an integrated value chain,
and achieve the best value for the customer (Stock et al., 1999). To meet this demand, the
company focused on the use of tools to encourage cross-functional integration. For
example, cross-functional workshops and exchange programs were used to improve the
process in and between operations. Today’s work environment encompasses more
sharing of knowledge and competence. The employees have fewer barriers in contacting
each other. There is reason to believe, as “working in silos” is a typical hindrance to
achieving integration (Pagell, 2004), that this cross-functional exchange program
contributed to a more operational integration.
 Visualization Operational
At company A, one of the most important new elements was the team boards; it was
found that this is the area where lean is has the strongest foundation. Today, there are a
integration
total of 250-270 team boards in the company, and the structure of the meetings differs in
accordance with what tasks are being taken care of. Some teams have daily meetings,
others more infrequent. The lean department is continuously doing follow-ups on how
well the department managers perform the team board meetings. A green, yellow or red 119
score is given depending on how well these meetings are performed. All reviews are
summarized in an Excel spreadsheet and reported to the management. A list with nine
items provides a basis for the different scores. Additionally, a questionnaire is sent to
everyone involved in these meetings, to evaluate the participants’ perception of the
meetings. This has given the management valuable feedback for improvements, and
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 06:19 13 November 2018 (PT)

according to one of the managers: “Well-performed board meetings contribute to

improved and faster response if something occurs”. This is also in accordance with
research from Eppler and Burkhard (2007), who have found visual planning to
contribute to increased speed and quality of knowledge transfer. The manager further
stated:
[…] but there is always a question whether the level of ambition is high enough. There are also
some communities that haven’t adopted team boards, and as they say: “we’re so special” – so
implementation is not 100 per cent.
In many cases, visual planning is a useful tool, but it is important to note that there exists
a need for regular coordination of activities and deliverables, to make such a system
work (Lindlof and Soderberg, 2011).
One of the informants said she associates lean primarily with daily improvements,
and that this concept has gained increased focus in the departments;
Everyone wants to contribute, and they have opened up and shared their knowledge.
Nevertheless, not all improvements are well communicated to everyone who should have been
involved, and some information stops on its way.
To explain, she says: “It is difficult to maintain the focus”.

Managerial support
The use of team boards is a new way of working, and in the beginning, it was difficult to
make everyone interested in participating. But after the managing director chose to
attend each meeting, there was an increased focus on the importance of the meeting,
which affected the participation.
Company B has made extensive use of lean elements over several years. In 2009, the
Company was sold to a German company which had a self-composed system based on
lean. This system was implemented in the Norwegian company, with few employees
involved and minimal possibilities to make adjustments to the system. The old and the
new systems emphasized different elements of lean. The old system had its main focus
on total productive maintenance (TPM), 5S and single-minute exchange of dies (SMED),
while the new system attached importance to productivity, improvement activities,
visual planning and key performance indicators and their linkage to strategies.
 IJQSS Operational integration
The team leaders emphasized using job alternation to achieve operational integration,
6,2/3 and as one of them claimed:
Alternation of work tasks contributes to integration in this way: The more you understand, the
more you are able to affect the process. Then you start thinking of ways to improve the process,
and learn how to cooperate. You begin to think: When the worker in the process-step prior to
120 mine delivers services of poor quality, then I will not do the same to the next process-step. I will
make sure that I deliver what’s best for the next worker. And in this way the operators are both
an internal customer and supplier.
Job rotation is one of the mechanisms that Pagell (2004) mentions that can contribute in
achieving integration. Additionally, to create an optimal value for the customer, it is
importance to have a balanced internal customer–supplier relationship throughout the
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 06:19 13 November 2018 (PT)

value chain (Morash and Clinton, 1998). The team management also stressed the
importance of utilizing the workers’ competence, and through alternation of employees,
they “gain experience from other areas, get used to handling new challenges, and their
qualifications becomes more visual”. They stated further that the focus on flow has now
increased, and this has contributed to better dialogue between the operators. However,
it was sometimes found that leaving the operation to get components could sometimes
become an excuse to take a break and talk to other operators.
As a result of the new lean implementation process, there have been more
standardized and, to some extent, more frequent meetings. Once a week, there is a shift
manager meeting. At the shop floor, there are daily morning meetings and shift overlap
meetings. According to one of the interviewees, the morning meetings could be more
disciplined, and they tend to last too long.
According to Kahn and Mentzer (1996), meetings are arenas for verbal information
flow and, therefore, for elements that could stimulate operational integration; however,
it is important to keep the meetings short to achieve their objectives (Lindlof and
Soderberg, 2011).
The employees perceived it as easier to achieve operational integration for the value
chain within the company borders than when there was distance between operations,
and especially when these operations were separated by country borders. This is also in
accordance with findings from the research performed by (Pagell, 2004).

Visualization
Since the new implementation process, there has been a change in the use of visual
communication systems such as team boards and A3. The company had previously had
team boards, but they had had different framing and content. Today, there exist several
team boards, on which the contents and designs are standardized by the parent
company. The new versions have different content and symbols than the old ones, and
a change in colors indicates whether the processes are going well. Each day there is a
morning meeting whose participants are as follows: team leader, process-leader,
shift-leader, maintenance-responsible, tool-responsible, toolmaker, quality responsible
and sometimes an operator. The team leaders are responsible for leading the meetings,
and according to one of them: “Focus on up-time and number of products produced
makes it difficult to involve the operators in continuous improvements”. A reason for
this could be differentiating focus from the management. To succeed in lean initiatives,
 it is important that the management is supportive of the process (Worley and Doolen, Operational
2006).
Most of the key performance indicators are derived from the strategy, and reports
integration
based on these figures are sent weekly to the management level, and monthly to the
parent company. There were earlier also team meetings for the project group, but these
have not been followed-up since the new system was implemented.
The lean implementation contributed to increased focus on a new tool for visual 121
management: the walk– observe– communicate. This is a routine in which a manager,
together with a representative from the production team, walks around in the
production area, makes observations based on a checklist and communicates the
findings with those who are affected by the findings. The participation in this routine
alternates, both on the management side and on the operators’ side. The checklists focus
primarily on quality issues, but elements from health, environment and safety (HES) are
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 06:19 13 November 2018 (PT)

also involved. Because several managers seem to consider this routine as only of minor
importance, the follow-up is inconsistent. On one hand, this routine is an important tool
for contributing to increased interaction between management and operators, whereas
on the other hand, one might argue that this could be experienced as unnatural and as a
monitoring of the employees if the intention of the procedure is not communicated well
enough. Visual planning could contribute to making possible weaknesses more visible,
which could make the employees reluctant to use these kind of tools (Lindlof and
Soderberg, 2011).

Conclusion
This article presents empirical findings from an initial mapping of companies’
experiences with operational integration through a lean implementation process,
including both success factors and obstacles. Even though this has been an exploratory
study of just two case studies, the findings do support the importance of management
commitment and presence, the use of visualization tools for information exchange, the
use of formal meeting arenas in addition to cross-functional work as contributing factors
to achieve operational integration. When comparing these two companies, we see a
difference especially in the way lean is being implemented. Company A has a special
focus on employee involvement and management participation. Because a lot of the
decisions are controlled by the parent company, Company B has only limited
possibilities to control the process, but the systems could, to some extent, contribute to
ensuring integration. Both companies have extended use of visualization tools, and both
report that this contributes to enhanced operational integration, an observation which is
also supported in the literature. However, how these tools are implemented seems to be
of essential importance, and this study indicates that the degree of involvement and
empowerment affects the success of the implementation and, further, the degree of
operational integration. In both companies, it was seen that the involvement of
management is a driving force.
This study provides knowledge experiences from how a lean implementation
processes influence operational integration in two different Norwegian case companies
within two different sectors. The contribution of this article to existing research is to
create new insights on how a lean implementation process can contribute or hinder
operational integration in the specific Norwegian context. This knowledge may also
provide operational guidance to companies who are in the process of implementing lean
 IJQSS practices. Based on the results of this exploratory research, further work should include
more cases in different industrial sectors. The goal of such studies will be to develop
6,2/3 knowledge which may improve companies’ abilities of achieving operational
integration.

References
122 Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R. and Nelder, G. (2006), “Critical success factors for lean
implementation within SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 460-471.
Bhasin, S. (2012), “An appropriate change strategy for lean success”, Management Decision,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 439-458.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Grebner, M.E. (2007), “Theory building from cases: opportunities and
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 06:19 13 November 2018 (PT)

challenges”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32.

Eppler, M.J. and Burkhard, R.A. (2007), “Visual representations in knowledge management:
framework and cases”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 112-122.
Hines, P., Francis, M. and Found, P. (2006), “Towards lean product lifecycle management: a
framework for new product development”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 866-887.
Horvath, L. (2001), “Collaboration: the key to value creation in supply chain management”, Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 205-207.
Kahn, K.B. and Mentzer, J.T. (1996), “Logistics and interdepartmental integration”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 6-14.
Karlsson, C. (2009), Researching Operations Management, Taylor and Francis, Routledge, New
York.
Kvale, S. (1997), Det kvalitative forskningsintervju, Gyldendal akademisk, Oslo.
Liker, J.K. (2003), The 14 Principles of Toyota Way: an Executive Summary of Culture Behind
TPS, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Liker, J.K. (2006), “The Toyota way in services: the case of lean product development”, Academy
of Managemnt Perpectives, Vol. 20 No. 2, p. 5.
Lindlof, L. and Soderberg, B. (2011), “Pros and cons of lean visual planning: experiences from four
product development organizations”, International Journal of Technology Intelligence and
Planning, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 269-279.
Malone, T.W. and Crowston, K. (1994), “The interdisciplinary study of coordination”, ACM
Comput. Surv., Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 87-119.
Morash, E.A. and Clinton, S.R. (1998), “Supply chain integration: customer value through
collaborative closeness versus operational excellence”, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 104-120.
Morgan, J.M. and Liker, J.K. (2006), The Toyota Product Development System, Productivity Press,
New York.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
New York.
Olausson, D. and Berggren, C. (2010), “Managing uncertain, complex product development in
high-tech firms: in search of controlled flexibility”, R & d Management, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 383-399.
Pagell, M. (2004), “Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration of operations,
purchasing and logistics”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 459-487.
 Parry, G.C. and Turner, C.E. (2006), “Application of lean visual process management tools”, Operational
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 77-86.
Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, SAGE Publications, Newsbury
integration
Park, London.
Stank, T.P., Keller, S.B. and Daugherty, P.J. (2001), “Supply chain collaboration and logistical
service performance”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 29-48.
Stevens, G.C. (1990), “Successful supply-chain management”, Management Decision, Vol. 28 No. 8, 123
p. 25
stock, G.N., Greis, N.P. and Kasarda, J.D. (1999), “Logistics, strategy and structure: a conceptual
framework”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 224-239.
Tjora, A. (2011), Kvalitative Forskningsmetoder i Praksis, Gyldendal Akademisk, Oslo.
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 06:19 13 November 2018 (PT)

Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996b), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth for Your
Corporation, Simon and Schuster, New York.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Harper
Perennial, New York.
Worley, J. and Doolen, T. (2006), “The role of communication and management support in a lean
manufacturing implementation”, Management Decision, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 228-245.
Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
California.

About the authors

Inger Gamme is a PhD candidate at Gjøvik University College in the department of “Technology,
Economy and Management”. Additionally, she holds a position as a Project Manager and
researcher within sustainable product development, open innovation and lean production in
SINTEF, Norway’s leading research institution. She holds a master’s degree within process
technology from Telemark University College (TUC, 1994). She has worked with quality
management in Norway for over 18 years in different industry sectors, and mainly production of
products for automotive industry. Inger Gamme is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: inger.gamme@hig.no
Silje H. Aschehoug holds a position as a Project Manager and Researcher in SINTEF,
Norway’s leading research institution. Research areas include sustainable product development
and open innovation and lean production. She has a PhD in sustainable product development at
the Department of Engineering design and Materials, Faculty of Engineering Science and
Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) from 2012, and holds a
master’s degree in environmental engineering and occupational safety (NTNU, 1996). She has
worked with environmental and risk management in Norway for over 16 years in different
industry sectors such as offshore, aviation and manufacturing industry.

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

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Siaudzionis FilhoFelipe Alberto Bastos, Felipe Alberto Bastos Siaudzionis Filho, PontesHeráclito Lopes
Jaguaribe, Heráclito Lopes Jaguaribe Pontes, AlbertinMarcos Ronaldo, Marcos Ronaldo Albertin, de
LimaRaphael Luiz Maia, Raphael Luiz Maia de Lima, MoraesThais de Castro, Thais de Castro Moraes.
2018. Application of visual management panel on an airplane assembly station. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 67:6, 1045-1062. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. NiranjanSuman, Suman Niranjan, SpulickStephen R., Stephen R. Spulick, SavitskieKatrina, Katrina
Savitskie. 2018. Mediating and moderating influencers of firm performance. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management 31:1, 38-63. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Shingai A. Maunzagona, Arnesh Telukdarie. 2017. The Impact of Lean on the mining industry: A
simulation evaluation approach. INCOSE International Symposium 27:1, 965-981. [Crossref]
4. Hilal Hurriyet, Dilupa Nakandala. Lean Thinking and the Innovation Process 39-58. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 06:19 13 November 2018 (PT)