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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0401.htm

Evaluation of lean practices in Lean practices

in Brazilian
warehouses: an analysis of warehouses

Brazilian reality
Caroline Morito Pereira and Rosley Anholon 1
School of Mechanical Engineering, State University of Campinas,
Campinas, Brazil Received 20 January 2019
Revised 30 November 2019
Izabela Simon Rampasso 7 January 2020
Accepted 18 January 2020
School of Mechanical Engineering, State University of Campinas,
Campinas, Brazil and
Laboratory of Technology, Business and Environment Management,
Federal Fluminense University, Niter
oi, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Osvaldo L.G. Quelhas
Laboratory of Technology, Business and Environment Management,
Federal Fluminense University, Niter
oi, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Walter Leal Filho
Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Germany, and
Luis Antonio Santa-Eulalia
Universite de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada

Abstract
Purpose – This article aims to investigate the most applied lean warehouse practices in Brazilian warehouses.
Design/methodology/approach – To perform this research, three phases were conducted: a literature
review, a multiple case study, and an analysis of lean warehouses practices implementation by an engineering
committee. Thus, both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used. Additionally, the study has an
applied nature, with an exploratory and descriptive character.
Findings – Results showed that regardless of the type of criterion used, the most implanted practices are those
that do not involve investments in technology. On the other hand, practices like RFID and Cross Docking
systems were not found in any of the operations, which shows numerous possibilities for improvement.
Originality/value – The main contribution of this article is to initiate a debate about the management and
productivity of Brazilian warehouses, a theme still little explored by the academic community despite the
importance that the logistic scenario represents for Brazil as an emerging country and leader in Latin America,
participating actively in several global supply chains.
Keywords Lean, Process management, Logistics industry
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Competitiveness among companies is continuously growing and it is reflected in supply
chains, which must operate in an increasingly leaner way without compromising the quality
of product distribution (Ballou, 2010; Liu and Lee, 2018; Ol
ah et al., 2018; Tortorella et al.,
2018). Directly related to this scenario are storage operations that, if properly managed, can
positively contribute to a better business performance (Dharmapriya and Kulatunga, 2011;
Laosirihongthong et al., 2018; Staudt et al., 2015). International Journal of
Productivity and Performance
Management
Vol. 70 No. 1, 2021
This work was supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient
ıfico e Tecnol
ogico pp. 1-20
(CNPq) under Grants 307536/2018-1 and 305442/2018-0; by Coordenaç~ao de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0401
de N
ıvel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001, under process 88887.464433/2019-00. DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-01-2019-0034
IJPPM For Bowersox et al. (2013), the reality reported above was not always present. For a long time,
70,1 topics such as the location strategy of warehouses in the supply chain and studies on more
efficient techniques of material handling were neglected by managers and by the literature, which
disregarded their potential contribution to business competitiveness. The same authors state,
however, that this was in the past and currently we know that the storage activities, if properly
managed, can add greater value to the customer. Ben Moussa et al. (2019) corroborate with this
affirmation, highlighting the importance of warehouses for supply chains competitiveness.
2 Phogat (2013) corroborates this thinking by stating that storage activities can be
characterized as strategic elements in the search for differentiation compared to other
competitors. By reducing existing waste in these activities, you can add value to the customer
and improve the whole supply chain (Baker and Canessa, 2009). In general, storage activities
represent a large percentage of logistics costs (Buonamico et al., 2017; Frazelle, 2002); thus
investigations in this sector may bring promising results.
A relevant issue to be addressed is the barriers faced by organizations to enhance
warehousing performance. Among these barriers are the difficulties related to technologies
advancements implementation, increase of activities efficiency, and requirements for
implementing methods to enable improvements in warehousing performance (Lim et al., 2013;
Luo et al., 2019; Ben Moussa et al., 2019).
Within this scenario of adding value and minimizing waste in storage activities, the
principles of lean production (free of waste) have begun to gain greater visibility within
supply chains in recent years. As in the original philosophy of lean production, it looks for
waste reductions and improved operational performance, adding greater customer value
(Alshahrani et al., 2018; Dehdari, 2013; Liu et al., 2017; Sharma and Shah, 2016; Sobanski, 2009;
Tortorella et al., 2018; Villarreal et al., 2017).
Garcia (2003) argues that lean storage can be characterized as a major differential for
warehouses, since the adoption of lean principles and tools optimizes the flow of storage and
improves the level of customer service (de Visser, 2014). These results, however, will only be
achieved with great commitment and dedication, since they require actions such as accurate
inventory control, shorter response times, and service to a greater variety of products to
customers, with more quality and fewer errors (Mustafa, 2015).
Despite the great importance and relevance of lean techniques for storage activities, few
papers have been published about this topic and there are several plausible research gaps to be
explored (Buonamico et al., 2017; Mustafa et al., 2013). For Bozer (2012), the use of lean in
warehouses does not present the same level of maturity of the application observed in the
factory environment, and there is ample possibility for researches that develop new tools,
models, etc. In this context, the evaluation of the degree of implementation of lean techniques in
storage centers becomes the first step in the construction of new scientific knowledge in the area.
The challenges of implementing lean in warehouses also need to be related to national
contexts. Developed and developing countries present different scenarios. In this sense, emerging
countries can present more challenges for companies to implement lean. Economic uncertainty,
for example, can be a reason for companies to do not reduce their inventory levels. Focusing on
the Brazilian scenario, the low education level of a considerable proportion of workers and the
reduced cost of workforce can prejudice lean practices implementation (Tortorella et al., 2018).
In order to contribute to reducing these research gaps, the present article investigates the
most applied lean warehouse practices in Brazilian warehouses. To do so, we performed a
literature review and identified 13 practices associated with lean warehousing. Subsequently,
10 Brazilian warehouses were evaluated by an engineering committee and data was analyzed
using TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) techniques
for different criteria.
In addition to this introduction, this article presents four more sections. Section 2 is
devoted to literature review. Section 3 presents the methodological procedures. Section 4
presents the results and associated debates and, finally, Section 5 outlines the conclusions Lean practices
and final considerations. in Brazilian
warehouses
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Lean thinking and its correlation in storage environments
Warehouses play a fundamental role in supply chains, defining to a large extent the
companies’ success in terms of competitiveness when evaluating costs and levels of customer
3
service (Frazelle, 2002). Despite their costs, warehouses act as a buffer between supply and
demand variability, making them necessary elements in contemporary supply chains (Gu
et al., 2007).
As a base activity, warehouses perform material reception, storage, order picking, and
shipping (de Koster et al., 2007). According to Baker and Halim (2007), the receipt process is
classified by the arrival of the Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) in the warehouse, updating of
inventory records, and inspection to verify quantity divergences and quality inconsistencies.
Then, the transfer of these SKUs to the storage areas occurs and there may be reserved areas
or areas dedicated to the collection of items, in which they are available in an accessible way
for the order separation processes.
These activities result in high warehouse expenses and create a challenge in cost
reductions and maintenance of high customer quality levels. Factors such as e-commerce,
supply chain collaboration, globalization, technologies, and new management techniques,
such as lean methodologies and practices, have led warehouses to success, driving them to
more accurate inventory controls, shorter customer response times, and greater variety of
products delivered (Franzke et al., 2017; Gu et al., 2007).
There is a contradiction between lean thinking within a storage environment, since the
lean principles in an ideal scenario govern a flow of value free of waste, without inventories in
process and with a production pulled in accordance with the needs of customers (Bozer, 2012;
Garza-Reyes et al., 2018; Ponte et al., 2018). For Swart (2015), storing is basically an activity
that does not add value, but it is extremely necessary to ensure that customer needs are
attended to at the correct time, as mentioned by Frazelle (2002).
In this context, there is a need to leverage warehousing operations that involve time and
cost, by eliminating waste as much as possible and optimizing activities that add value to the
customer (Sharma and Shah, 2016). Lean warehouse ensures deliveries with quality and
accuracy to customers due to increased efficiency and productivity gained from lean
practices and principles. And although there is no precise definition of a lean warehouse,
there are some concepts and practices that, when applied, power the functions of a warehouse
(Sharma and Shah, 2016). These concepts discuss all the organizational, operational, and
human characteristics related to lean storage.

2.2 Lean warehousing related models and roadmap

Some authors in the literature have sought to develop models based on these concepts and
practices that help warehouses to achieve competitive gains by adding value to activities and
eliminating waste in order to maintain a lean operation. In their work, Gunasekaran et al.
(1999) developed a conceptual model to improve the effectiveness of warehousing operations
and achieve cost reductions with high level of customer service. In this model, the authors
apply lean thinking concepts such as JIT, pulled flow, minimum lot, waste reduction, and
continuous improvement, aiming to reduce inventories in process, process times, and to
guarantee greater operational fluidity.
Another model found in the literature is presented in the study of Mustafa (2015), who
developed a theoretical model about lean storage based on a detailed literature review, lean
IJPPM production concepts, principles of lean thinking and the model of Gunasekaran et al. (1999)
70,1 presented previously. Mustafa (2015) performed a pre-selection of the most important lean
concepts in terms of applicability within warehouses, in order to reflect an organizational
system that covers all related aspects. Within each concept of the model, the author discusses
lean tools applicable to each stage of the storage process. This model is composed of five
constructs: Waste Control, Flow Management, Quality Assurance, Human Resources
Management, and Continuous Improvement.
4 Roadmap propositions are also presented in the literature regarding lean in warehouses.
After showing the impact of the seven wastes (Defects, Unnecessary-inventory,
Overproduction, Unnecessary-motion, Waiting, Transporting, and Inappropriate-processing)
on warehouse operational performance, Salhieh et al. (2019) developed a roadmap to guide
practices to reduce wastes in warehouses.

2.3 Lean warehousing evaluation

Sobanski (2009) developed a detailed evaluation model of lean concepts within storage
environments, aiming at measuring the application of each principle and corresponding
practice in different warehouses. This assessment was carried out in 25 warehouses, with
operations located in the United States, Canada, Germany, and Holland in the automotive,
consumer goods, and technology sectors.
In the same line of reasoning, Buonamico et al. (2017) proposed a fuzzy logic-based metric
to evaluate lean warehousing. For the proposed Warehouse’s Global Leanness, seven key
performance indicators were assessed: Just in Time; Waste elimination; Perfection, zero
defects and quality; Lean tools application; Cross-functional teams and empowerment;
Continuous improvement; Supplier management. A total of 18 sub-indicators were derived
from these indicators to compose the proposed tool.
Also focusing on lean warehousing, in Abushaikha et al. (2018), the authors conducted a
research to measure the impact of warehouse waste reduction practices on companies’
performance, with a sample of Middle Eastern companies. They verified that operational and
distribution performances improved with the mentioned practices, however, business
performance was not directly affected by the practices.

2.4 Lean warehousing practices

According to Van Den Berg (2007), Gu et al. (2007) and de Koster et al. (2007), it is important to
note that lean practices and concepts, if correctly applied in warehousing processes, offer
levels of services that are competitive in relation to lower costs and high quality, guaranteeing
competitive advantage for the warehouse or the whole supply chain.
In this context and observing the importance of providing a view of the lean practices
applied in warehouses, Table I summarizes the practices mentioned in the literature.

3. Methodological procedures
The main steps of this work are: systematic literature review about lean warehouse, case
studies performed in ten warehouses in order to detail storage operations, engineering
committee meeting to assess each of the 13 practices in warehouses, application of the
TOPSIS technique for three different criteria to order the practices according, analysis of the
results, and associated debates. Thus, both qualitative and quantitative approaches were
used. Additionally, the study has an applied nature, with an exploratory and descriptive
character (Gil, 2010; Hair et al., 2005). The data for all research phases (case studies, interviews
and survey) were collected from June 2017 to February 2018. These steps are described in
detail later.
Practices
P1 5 Optimization of flows and elimination of
operational waste through the application of value
stream mapping (VSM)
P2 5 Use of inventory management technologies (bar
code and WMS)
P3 5 Use of RFID technologies
P4 5 Warehouse organization and 5S culture
P5 5 Layout studies to optimize storage spaces
P6 5 Standardized methods for order picking
P7 5 Inventory management through the ABC curve
and other techniques for addressing
P8 5 Application of the cross docking technique
P9 5 Application of the concepts of total productive
maintenance (TPM)
P10 5 Degree of employee involvement and
satisfaction
P11 5 Structure, use of key performance indicators
(KPI) and visual management
P12 5 Culture of quality management and use of tools
for continuous improvement
P13 5 Adequacy and degree of automation of the
equipment used in the warehouse aiming at
productivity
Source: See table
Sources
Lean practices
in Brazilian
Dharmapriya and Kulatunga (2011), Dotoli et al. warehouses
(2015), Forno et al. (2014), Garcia (2003), Gopakumar
et al. (2008)
Costa and J
unior (2008), Dotoli et al. (2015), Faber
et al. (2002), Gu et al. (2007), Kilic et al. (2012), Malta
and Cunha (2011) 5
Brintrup et al. (2010), Chen et al. (2013), Lim et al.
(2013), Mills-Harris et al. (2007), Tajima (2007),
Wamba et al. (2008), Wang et al. (2010)
Falkowski and Kitowski (2013), Sobanski (2009),
Venkateswaran et al. (2013), de Visser (2014)
Duc and Koster (2005), Hassan (2002), Heragu et al.
(2005), Horta et al. (2016), Shah and Ward (2007),
Zhang et al. (2017)
Boysen et al. (2017), de Koster et al. (2007), Moura
(2005), Thomas and Meller (2015)
Gu et al. (2007), de Koster et al. (2007), Pereira et al.
(2016)
Frazelle (2002), Hanchuan et al. (2013), Mustafa
(2015), Panousopoulou et al. (2012), Sobanski (2009),
Villarreal et al. (2014)
Bozer (2012), Jadhav et al. (2014), Moayed and Shell
(2009)
Dehdari (2013), Doolen et al. (2008), Jadhav et al.
(2014), Sobanski (2009)
Buonamico et al. (2017), Melton (2005), Sobanski
(2009), Swart (2015), de Visser (2014)
Mustafa (2015), Sobanski (2009)
Table I.
Lean warehouse
Azanha et al. (2016), Baker and Halim (2007), Rowley practices presented in
(2000), Sobanski (2009), Swart (2015) the academic literature
and used as basis for
this study

The systematic review of the literature (Phase 1) was based mainly on papers published in
renowned scientific databases, including Science Direct, Springer, Emerald Insight, Scopus,
Scielo. Relevant doctorate thesis were also considered due to the previously mentioned lack of
research on this thematic. The publications were chosen using the keywords “lean
warehouse” associated with “distribution center,” “warehouses,” “lean manufacturing,” and
“lean warehouse”. A total of 47 articles were used to develop Table I. The practices were
identified and organized using the models presented by Gunasekaran et al. (1999), Mustafa
(2015) and Sobanski (2009). The practices P3, P5, and P10 were present in seven articles; P1,
P2, P4, P8, P11, and P13 were found in six articles; P6, P7, P9 were in four articles; and P12 was
present in three articles.
Next, case studies were performed in 10 warehouses (phase 2) to provide a basis for the
engineering committee analyses. The case studies were used as an overview of Brazilian
warehouse scenario for the mentioned committee. Although the case studies selection was
non-aleatory, the analysed companies are relevant in their sectors and are considered
benchmark. Thus, the analysis of them can provide an interesting overview of a sample of the
most advanced lean warehouses in Brazil. Additionally, it is important to highlight the fact
that the findings of this study are exploratory and provide a relevant contribution to
understand lean warehousing in Brazilian context.
IJPPM The storage operations and practices were detailed through visits, documents analysis
70,1 (meeting minutes, reports of operational improvements performed, and project schedules to
be developed), and interviews with the warehouses’ managers. The interview guide is
presented in Appendix 1.
The engineering committee comprised three lean warehouse engineers, with a large
experience with improvement projects. All the members of this committee are engineers and
work as consultants for the warehouses analysed. This committee was restricted since every
6 member need to be qualified to properly answer the items and need to know the warehouses
analysed.
Each engineer evaluated the operations of 10 warehouses considering the 13 practices
listed (phase 3). The practices were evaluated considering a scale of 1–5, where note 1 reflects
that the practice is not applied in the warehouses and the note 5 reflects that the practice is
fully applied. At the end, the average of the scores given for each practice in each center was
calculated.
Next, the engineering committee defined the three criteria used in TOPSIS analysis and
the weights used for them, through a consensus of the team. These criteria were: “access to
consulting services,” “warehouse manager experience time,” and “warehouse revenue”.
Table II shows the criteria used in each TOPSIS analysis and weights adopted.
After the tabulation considering criteria mentioned, TOPSIS analysis was performed in
order to rank the practices applied more frequently in warehouses (phase 4). The main idea
is to verify if the order of the practices changes when considering different criteria. For
this ordering, in this research, the engineering committee was asked to score the practices
in a scale from 1 (the practice is not applied) to 5 (the practice is totally applied) in each
warehouse.
According to Lima Junior and Carpinetti (2015), the TOPSIS technique stands out for its
simplicity and ability to evaluate an unlimited number of alternatives and criteria
simultaneously. The TOPSIS method was initially proposed by Hwang and Yoon (1981)
and is widely used to rank alternatives in order of preference. The TOPSIS technique chooses
an alternative that is as close as possible to the ideal positive solution and as far as possible
from the ideal negative solution (Araujo et al., 2018; Hwang and Yoon, 1981; Kasirian and
Yusuff, 2013; Li et al., 2018; Lima Junior and Carpinetti, 2015).
According to Kahraman (2008), the ideal solution is formed considering the best values
achieved in the alternatives considered during the criteria evaluations, and the ideal negative
solution taking the worst values. It is important to emphasize that no studies were found in
the academic literature that approaches TOPSIS as a technique to evaluate lean warehouse
practices in Brazilian storage centers.
The application of TOPSIS is performed through successive steps. Table III describes the
sequence of the steps used in this research. It should be noted that the sequence used and the
mathematical representations are the same used by Singh et al. (2016).

Weights adopted
Criteria used 50% 30% 20%

Access to consulting More than five years From 3–5 years Less than three years
services.
Warehouse manager More than 10 years From 5–10 years Less than five years
Table II. experience time
Criteria used in each Warehouse revenue More than US$ From US$ 90,000.00 to US$ Less than US$
TOPSIS analysis and 150,000.00 per month 150,000.00 per month 90,000.00 per month
weights adopted Source: Authors
 Consideration regarding this
Lean practices
Step Singh et al. (2016) method Mathematical representation research in Brazilian
2 3 warehouses
1 Structure a matrix D, as x11 x12    x1n In the specific case of this
elements xij, in which i 6 x21 x22    x2n 7 research, the alternatives are
represents an alternative and j D¼6 4     5
7
represented by the 13 lean
an analysis criterion. xm1 xm2    xmn warehouse practices presented
in Table I. Value of xij represents 7
the arithmetic mean for each
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi group.
2 Normalize matrix D and Pn 2 #
rij ¼ xij = i¼1 xij
calculate the rij coefficients
3 Using the assigned weights vij ¼ 2
wj rij 3 The weights used in each of the
(w) for each criterion and rij v11 v12  v1n TOPSIS analysis were defined
coefficients, calculate the 6 v21 v22  v2n 7 by the engineering committee.
V ¼4 6 7
value vij and define the matrix     5 See Table II.
Vi, as shown. vm1 vm2  vmn
4 Determine the ideal positive # For this research, the ideal
solution (vjþ) and the ideal solution (vjþ) will be
negative solution (vj-) characterized by the higher
values of the observed averages.
Likewise, the ideal negative
solution (vj-) will be
characterized by the lower
values of the averages observed.
5 Calculate the positive and The positive distance Si* will be In this research, the alternatives
negative Euclidean distance of given by: are lean warehouse practices.
each alternative " #1=2 For each of them, the positive Si
P  þ 2
si ¼ ðvij -vj Þ * and negative Si * distances
j
0
were calculated.
The negative distance Si will be
given by:
" #1=2
0 P 0 − 2
si ¼ ðvij -vj Þ
j

0
6 For each alternative, calculate si #
c*i ¼ ðs* þs 0
Þ
the indicator i i
Ci*. Higher values of Ci* The values of Ci* range from 0 to
indicate better results 1.0
7 Order the alternatives # #
according to the values of Ci* Table III.
obtained Steps for the
Source: adapted from Singh et al. (2016) application of TOPSIS

After all the steps have been performed, the hierarchy of the practices is obtained. It is
important to emphasize that the TOPSIS technique was performed three times to verify if
different criteria impact on ranking obtained. Finally, the analysis of the results and
associated debates were carried out, characterizing the fifth phase of this research, as
explained in the next section.

4. Results
In this section, a summary will be presented of the information about each warehouse studied
and the TOPSIS technique application, allowing us to obtain three different rankings
IJPPM according to the criteria mentioned in Table II. It is important to remember that, according to
70,1 the research objective, the case studies served to provide a better foundation for the
engineering committee, and they are not presented here in detail. Table IV illustrates the
activity of warehouses, the sector and information about criteria used in the TOPSIS.

4.1 Evaluation performed by the engineering committee

8 Table V presents the grades’ averages attributed by engineering committee members for
each practice.
To attribute grades, each engineer considered the case study performed and the principles
and practices of lean warehouse. The averages represented in Table V indicate the maturity
of each practice at each warehouse from the engineers’ point of view.

4.2 TOPSIS analyses according to the criteria used

The TOPSIS analyses were performed for the three criteria defined by the engineering
committee and based on the method used by Singh et al. (2016) (see Table III). In the following
paragraphs, we present details of the Ideal Positive Solution (vjþ), Ideal Negative Solution
(vj), Distance of the Positive Ideal Solution (Si*), Distance of the Ideal Negative Solution (Si0 ),
and the Ranking (Ci*) of the 13 lean warehouse practices.
4.2.1 Access to consulting services.. The first criteria used was access to consulting
services. Table VI shows the averages according to access to consulting services.
These averages lead to Positive Ideal Solution (vjþ) of 0.163082018; 0.112172829; and
0.079470395; for more than five years, 3–5 years, and less than three years, respectively. In

Warehouse
Brazilian Access to manager
region Activity consulting experience time Warehouse
Warehouses location sector services (years) (years) revenue (US$)

W1 South Automotive 3 3 Less than US$

90,000 per month
W2 South Automotive 1 27 More than US$
150,000 per month
W3 Northeast Automotive 2 16 From US$ 90,000
to US$ 150,000 per
month
W4 Southeast Consumer 5 15 More than US$
goods 150,000 per month
W5 Southeast Optical 4 15 From US$ 90,000
to US$ 150,000 per
month
W6 Southeast Printing 1 1 Less than US$
90,000 per month
W7 Southeast Pulp and 1 10 More than US$
paper 150,000 per month
W8 Southeast Consumer 6 8 More than US$
goods 150,000 per month
W9 Southeast Orthopedic 3 8 Less than US$
90,000 per month
W10 Southeast Printing 4 16 From US$ 90,000
Table IV. to US$ 150,000 per
Information about the month
warehouses studied Source: Author
 Average
Lean practices
Practices W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 W10 in Brazilian
P1 4.00 4.00 2.67 5.00 5.00 3.00 1.67 5.00 4.67 3.33
warehouses
P2 2.33 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 4.67 2.67 5.00 2.67 3.00
P3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
P4 4.67 4.67 3.67 4.67 4.67 3.33 3.33 5.00 5.00 4.33
P5 4.33 4.67 3.67 4.33 4.67 3.00 3.00 4.33 4.67 3.00 9
P6 2.00 4.33 3.67 4.67 5.00 3.33 3.00 5.00 4.00 1.67
P7 2.00 3.33 3.00 4.67 2.33 2.00 2.00 5.00 3.00 2.00
P8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
P9 1.33 2.33 1.00 2.33 2.67 1.00 1.33 3.67 1.00 3.33
P10 3.67 4.33 4.67 4.67 4.67 3.00 2.00 4.67 4.67 4.33
Table V.
P11 2.67 3.33 4.67 4.67 5.00 4.00 3.33 5.00 5.00 4.33 Average calculated
P12 3.00 3.00 2.33 5.00 4.67 2.67 2.00 5.00 5.00 3.67 from the notes
P13 1.67 4.33 3.00 1.67 3.67 2.67 1.67 2.00 1.00 2.00 attributed by the
Source: Authors engineering committee

Access to consulting services

50% 30% 20%
Practices More than five years For 3–5 years Less than three years

P1 5.00 4.40 2.83

P2 5.00 3.20 4.33
P3 1.00 1.00 1.00
P4 5.00 4.67 3.75
P5 4.33 4.20 3.58
P6 5.00 3.47 3.58
P7 5.00 2.80 2.58
P8 1.00 1.00 1.00
P9 3.67 2.13 1.42
P10 4.67 4.40 3.50
P11 5.00 4.33 3.83 Table VI.
P12 5.00 4.27 2.50 Average according to
P13 2.00 2.00 2.92 access to consulting
Source: Authors services

addition, the Negative Ideal Solutions (vj) are 0.032616404; 0.024037035; and 0.018339322;
for more than five years, from 3–5 years, and less than three years, respectively. Table VII
show the TOPSIS calculations for the distances of the Positive Ideal Solution, distances of the
Negative Ideal Solutions, and Coefficient Ci* and in Table VIII the ranking obtained by this
first criteria is presented.
4.2.2 Warehouse manager experience time. The second criteria used was “warehouse
manager experience time.” Table IX shows the averages according to warehouse manager
experience time.
These averages lead to Positive Ideal Solution (vjþ) of 00.17710976; 0.10980561; and
0.078688525; for more than five years, 3–5 years, and less than three years, respectively.
Additionally, the Negative Ideal Solutions (vj) are 0.039068329; 0.024706262; and
0.019672131; for more than five years, from 3–5 years, and less than three years,
respectively. Table X shows the TOPSIS calculations for the distances of the Positive Ideal
Solution, distances of the Negative Ideal Solutions and Coefficient Ci* and in Table XI the
ranking obtained by this second criteria is presented.
IJPPM Distance of the positive ideal solution Distance of the negative ideal solution Coefficient
70,1 Practices (Si*)
0
(Si ) (Ci*)

P1 0.028245896 0.157578067 0.847996483

P2 0.035254318 0.15347552 0.813202204
P3 0.168897019 0 0
P4 0.010697938 0.165326029 0.939224539
10 P5 0.028068251 0.141355328 0.834330906
P6 0.03195603 0.150934693 0.825272548
P7 0.055165676 0.140486452 0.718042033
P8 0.168897019 0 0
Table VII. P9 0.091980744 0.091463259 0.498589527
Distances of the
P10 0.019820515 0.151933516 0.884599418
positive ideal solution,
distances of the P11 0.012177042 0.161681885 0.929960214
negative ideal P12 0.034969838 0.154737084 0.815663879
solutions, and P13 0.119825357 0.053639138 0.309222576
coefficient Ci* Source: Authors

Coefficient
Practices (Ci*)

P4 Warehouse organization of and 5S culture 0.939224539

P11 Structure, use of key performance indicators (KPI) and visual management 0.929960214
P10 Degree of employee involvement and satisfaction 0.884599418
P1 Optimization of flows and elimination of operational waste through the application of 0.847996483
value stream mapping (VSM)
P5 Layout studies to optimize storage spaces 0.834330906
P6 Standardized methods for order picking 0.825272548
P12 Culture of quality management and use of tools for continuous improvement 0.815663879
P2 Use of inventory management technologies (bar code and WMS) 0.813202204
P7 Inventory management through the ABC curve and other techniques for addressing 0.718042033
P9 Application of the concepts of total productive maintenance (TPM) 0.498589527
Table VIII.
P13 Adequacy and degree of automation of the equipment used in the warehouse aiming 0.309222576
Ranking of the lean
warehouse practices at productivity
according to criteria P3 Use of RFID technologies 0
“access to consulting P8 Application of the cross docking technique 0
services” Source: Authors

4.2.3 Warehouse revenue. The third criteria used was “warehouse revenue”. Table XII
shows the averages according to warehouse manager experience time.
These averages lead to Positive Ideal Solution (vjþ) of 0.173017936; 0.115160974; and
0.07787938; for more than five years, 3–5 years, and less than three years, respectively. In
addition, the Negative Ideal Solutions (vj) are 0.039173872; 0.024677352; and 0.017972165;
for more than five years, from 3–5 years, and less than three years, respectively. Table XIII
shows the TOPSIS calculations for the distances of the Positive Ideal Solution, distances of
the Negative Ideal Solutions and Coefficient Ci*, and in Table XIV the ranking obtained by
this third criteria is presented.

5. Discussion
Through the results obtained in the previous section, it is possible to observe that,
independently of the criteria used in TOPSIS analysis, the practices allocated in the first and
last positions of the ranking vary little. Also, it is possible to highlight that practices that do
 Warehouse manager experience time
Lean practices
50% 30% 20% in Brazilian
Practices More than five years For 3–5 years Less than three years warehouses
P1 4.00 3.78 3.50
P2 4.20 3.44 3.50
P3 1.00 1.00 1.00
P4 4.40 4.44 4.00 11
P5 4.07 4.00 3.67
P6 3.87 4.00 2.67
P7 3.07 3.33 2.00
P8 1.00 1.00 1.00
P9 2.33 2.00 1.17
P10 4.53 3.78 3.33 Table IX.
P11 4.40 4.44 3.33 Average according to
P12 3.73 4.00 2.83 criteria warehouse
P13 2.93 1.56 2.17 manager
Source: Authors experience time

Distance of the positive ideal solution Distance of the negative

0
ideal solution Coefficient
Practices (Si*) (Si ) (Ci*)

P1 0.028323032 0.14444925 0.836067269

P2 0.029609801 0.14729458 0.83262257
P3 0.17256961 0 0
P4 0.005209111 0.168431763 0.970000666
P5 0.022270465 0.15033253 0.870972893
P6 0.03856074 0.138244895 0.781903219
P7 0.074731956 0.101140605 0.575078934
P8 0.17256961 0 0
P9 0.118917933 0.057746277 0.326870264 Table X.
Distances of the
P10 0.021054344 0.16084859 0.884255061
positive ideal solution,
P11 0.0141114 0.164296332 0.920903653 distances of the
P12 0.040300953 0.134898976 0.769971635 negative ideal
P13 0.101500438 0.08012636 0.441159349 solutions, and
Source: Authors coefficient Ci*

not involve investments in technologies and automation are in the first positions in terms of
application, independently of the criteria used.
Additionally, the most applied practices are related to the organization of warehouse and
5S culture, structure, use of key performance indicators (KPI), and visual management and
the degree of employee involvement and satisfaction.
Generally, these practices in manufacturing environment are considered the bases of lean
philosophy (Bellisario and Pavlov, 2018; Rampasso et al., 2019). In this sense, the higher
application of these practices in warehouses can be considered a promising result, but for a
lower maturity level of lean implementation. This finding corroborates with Bozer (2012).
According to this author, the use of lean in warehouses does not present the same level of
maturity of the application observed in the factory environment, and there is ample
possibility for researches that develop new tools, models, etc. The less applied practices are
related to RFID systems for inventory management, Cross Docking technique, and total
production maintenance (TPM) program. The international literature points to RFID
technologies as practice applied in distribution centers highlighting the gains in terms of
IJPPM Coefficient
70,1 Practices (Ci*)

P4 Warehouse organization of and 5S culture 0.970000666

P11 Structure, use of key performance indicators (KPI) and visual management 0.920903653
P10 Degree of employee involvement and satisfaction 0.884255061
P5 Layout studies to optimize storage spaces 0.870972893
12 P1 Optimization of flows and elimination of operational waste through the application of 0.836067269
value stream mapping (VSM)
P2 Use of inventory management technologies (bar code and WMS) 0.83262257
P6 Standardized methods for order picking 0.781903219
P12 Culture of quality management and use of tools for continuous improvement 0.769971635
P7 Inventory management through the ABC curve and other techniques for addressing 0.575078934
P13 Adequacy and degree of automation of the equipment used in the warehouse aiming 0.441159349
Table XI.
at productivity
Ranking of the lean
warehouse practices P9 Application of the concepts of total productive maintenance (TPM) 0.326870264
according to criteria P3 Use of RFID technologies 0
“warehouse manager P8 Application of the cross docking technique 0
experience time” Source: Authors

Warehouse revenue
50% 30% 20%
More than US$ 150,000 From US$ 90,000 to US$ 150,000 Less than US$
Practices per month per month 90,000

P1 3.92 3.67 3.89

P2 4.42 3.67 3.22
P3 1.00 1.00 1.00
P4 4.42 4.22 4.33
P5 4.08 3.78 4.00
P6 4.25 3.44 3.11
P7 3.75 2.44 2.33
P8 1.00 1.00 1.00
P9 2.42 2.33 1.11
P10 3.92 4.56 3.78
Table XII. P11 4.08 4.67 3.89
Average according to P12 3.75 3.56 3.56
criteria “warehouse P13 2.42 2.89 1.78
revenue” Source: Authors

operational efficiency and competitiveness; however, this practice is not observed in the
Brazilian reality.
None of the ten warehouses studied apply this technology. The same happens with Cross
Docking practice that is cited by the literature but is not used in Brazilian warehouses. In this
way, it highlights opportunities for development of the theme for the Brazilian scenario. The
results of practices pointed out as less applied can also be related to the literature, since the
improvement of warehousing performance presents several challenges. As highlighted by
Lim et al. (2013), Luo et al. (2019), and Ben Moussa et al. (2019), technologies advances,
enhancement of activities efficiency and methods implementation can be characterized as
relevant challenges for warehousing. In addition, although the costs related to RFID have
been falling in recent years (Moretti et al., 2019), for Brazilian warehouses reality, this
technology is still not being widely implemented.
 Distance of the positive ideal solution Distance of the negative ideal solution Coefficient
Lean practices
Practices (Si*)
0
(Si ) (Ci*) in Brazilian
warehouses
P1 0.032502645 0.141706739 0.813427701
P2 0.03174485 0.154401276 0.82946274
P3 0.172309007 0 0
P4 0.010967712 0.166810935 0.938306922
P5 0.0262214 0.148980292 0.850335921 13
P6 0.037879153 0.145902234 0.793890156
P7 0.070578349 0.115974758 0.621671543
P8 0.172309007 0 0
P9 0.113170161 0.064548008 0.363204328 Table XIII.
Distances of the
P10 0.022155297 0.15246498 0.873122998
positive ideal solution,
P11 0.015307268 0.159600166 0.912483603 distances of the
P12 0.040363996 0.133011 0.767186751 negative ideal
P13 0.100858718 0.073810477 0.42257295 solutions, and
Source: Authors coefficient Ci*

Coefficient
Practices (Ci*)

P4 Warehouse organization of and 5S culture 0.938306922

P11 Structure, use of key performance indicators (KPI) and visual management 0.912483603
P10 Degree of employee involvement and satisfaction 0.873122998
P5 Layout studies to optimize storage spaces 0.850335921
P2 Use of inventory management technologies (bar code and WMS) 0.82946274
P1 Optimization of flows and elimination of operational waste through the application of 0.813427701
value stream mapping (VSM))
P6 Standardized methods for order picking 0.793890156
P12 Culture of quality management and use of tools for continuous improvement 0.767186751
P7 Inventory management through the ABC curve and other techniques for addressing 0.621671543
P13 Adequacy and degree of automation of the equipment used in the warehouse aiming 0.42257295
at productivity
Table XIV.
P9 Application of the concepts of total productive maintenance (TPM) 0.363204328 Ranking of the lean
P3 Use of RFID technologies 0 warehouse practices
P8 Application of the cross docking technique 0 according to criteria
Source: Authors “warehouse revenue”

6. Conclusions
The literature present few studies on lean warehousing (Buonamico et al., 2017). Additionally,
emerging countries may present more difficulties to implement lean in warehousing. And this
reality is not different in the Brazilian context (Tortorella et al., 2018). In this context and
aiming to contribute to the literature regarding this thematic, this article evaluated
lean warehouse practices implementation in ten Brazilian warehouses employing TOPSIS
analysis and experts’ opinion (by an engineering committee) using three different criteria.
Regardless of the criteria used on TOPSIS technique, the results showed that the most
implanted practices are those that do not demand high technology and that RFID and Cross
Docking systems are not used in any operation. The practice of TPM, despite being
implemented in some operations, is still at an early stage. The conclusion is that there are still
ample possibilities for improvements in the management and operations of Brazilian
warehouses when compared to the international scenario.
IJPPM As a practical implication, this study can be used as a guide for future improvements in
70,1 Brazilian warehouses. This article also contributes to the literature, since it provides relevant
findings to the field, which is still underexplored. Besides contributing to lean warehousing
literature, this research also provides findings regarding Brazilian lean warehouses reality,
showing that, although it still needs to improve, practices of lean warehousing can be
observed in the country.
14
7. Limitations and future research
Although this study has evaluated the operations of 10 Brazilian warehouses and considered
different sectors and states of the country, the size of the sample is characterized as a
limitation of the research. The authors of this article emphasize, however, the exploratory
character of this article and aim to contribute with a theme little explored by the Brazilian
academic community.
As a proposition to future researches, we recommend studies that analyze the reasons
why Brazilian warehouses do not use RFID and Cross Docking techniques in their
operations. These practices were evaluated in a very current manner in the academic
scenario and returned satisfactory results in terms of productivity and quality of
warehouse operations.

References
Abushaikha, I., Salhieh, L. and Towers, N. (2018), “Improving distribution and business performance
through lean warehousing”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 46
No. 8, pp. 780-800.
Alshahrani, S., Rahman, S. and Chan, C. (2018), “Hospital-supplier integration and hospital
performance: evidence from Saudi Arabia”, The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 22-45.
Araujo, C.A.S., Wanke, P. and Siqueira, M.M. (2018), “A performance analysis of Brazilian public
health: TOPSIS and neural networks application”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 67 No. 9, pp. 1526-1549.
Azanha, A., Vivaldini, M., Pires, S.R.I., Junior, C. and de, J.B. (2016), “Voice picking: analysis of critical
factors through a case study in Brazil and the United States”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 723-739.
Baker, P. and Canessa, M. (2009), “Warehouse design: a structured approach”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 193 No. 2, pp. 425-436.
Baker, P. and Halim, Z. (2007), “An exploration of warehouse automation implementations: cost,
service and flexibility issues”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 129-138.
Ballou, R.H. (2010), Gerenciamento Da Cadeia de Suprimentos: Planejamento, Organizaç~ao e Log
ıstica
Empresarial, 3rd ed., Bookman, S~ao Paulo.
Bellisario, A. and Pavlov, A. (2018), “Performance management practices in lean manufacturing
organizations: a systematic review of research evidence”, Production Planning and Control,
Taylor & Francis, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 367-385.
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. and Cooper, M.B. (2013), Supply Chain Logistics Management, 4th ed.,
McGraw Hill, New York.
Boysen, N., Briskorn, D. and Emde, S. (2017), “Sequencing of picking orders in mobile rack warehouses”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 259 No. 1, pp. 293-307.
Bozer, Y.A. (2012), “Developing and adapting lean tools / techniques to build new curriculum /
training program in warehousing and logistics”, Report University of Michigan, July, pp. 1-37.
Brintrup, A., Ranasinghe, D. and McFarlane, D. (2010), “RFID opportunity analysis for leaner Lean practices
manufacturing”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 9, pp. 2745-2764.
in Brazilian
Buonamico, N., Muller, L. and Camargo, M. (2017), “A new fuzzy logic-based metric to measure lean
warehousing performance”, Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, Taylor & Francis,
warehouses
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 96-111.
Ben Moussa, F.Z., De Guio, R., Dubois, S., Rasovska, I. and Benmoussa, R. (2019), “Study of an
innovative method based on complementarity between ARIZ, lean management and discrete
event simulation for solving warehousing problems”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 15
Elsevier, Vol. 132, March, pp. 124-140.
Chen, J.C., Cheng, C.H., Huang, P.B., Wang, K.J., Huang, C.J. and Ting, T.C. (2013), “Warehouse
management with lean and RFID application: a case study”, International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 69 Nos 1–4, pp. 531-542.
unior, J.A.G. (2008), “Etapas de implementaç~ao de WMS: estudo de caso em um
Costa, W.A. da S. and J

varejista moveleiro”, GEPROS. Gest~ao Da Produç~ ao, Operaç~oes e Sistemas, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 101-121.
Dehdari, P. (2013), “Measuring the impact of lean techniques on performance indicators in logistics
operations”, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, available at: https://doi.org/10.5445/KSP/
1000036424.
de Koster, R., Le-Duc, T. and Roodbergen, K.J. (2007), “Design and control of warehouse order picking:
a literature review”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 182 No. 2, pp. 481-501.
de Visser, J. (2014), Lean in the Warehouse: Measuring Lean Maturity and Performance within a
Warehouse Environment, Rotterdam School of Management, Rotterdam.
Dharmapriya, U.S.S. and Kulatunga, A.K. (2011), “New strategy for warehouse optimization – lean
warehousing”, International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management,
September, pp. 513-519.
Doolen, T.L., Van Aken, E.M., Farris, J.A., Worley, J.M. and Huwe, J. (2008), “Kaizen events and
organizational performance: a field study”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 57 No. 8, pp. 637-658.
Dotoli, M., Epicoco, N., Falagario, M., Costantino, N. and Turchiano, B. (2015), “An integrated
approach for warehouse analysis and optimization: a case study”, Computers in Industry,
Elsevier B.V., Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 56-69.
Duc, T. Le and Koster, R. De. (2005), “Travel distance estimation in single-block ABC-storage strategy
warehouses”, in Fleischmann, B. and Klose, A. (Eds), Distribution Logistics: Advanced Solutions
to Practical Problems.
Faber, N., de Koster, R. (Marinus) B.M. and van de Velde, S.L. (2002), “Linking warehouse complexity
to warehouse planning and control structure”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 381-395.
Falkowski, P. and Kitowski, P. (2013), “The 5S methodology as a tool for improving organization of
production”, PhD Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 127-133.
Forno, A.J.D., Pereira, F.A., Forcellini, F.A. and Kipper, L.M. (2014), “Value stream mapping: a study
about the problems and challenges found in the literature from the past 15 years about
application of Lean tools”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 72 Nos 5–8, pp. 779-790.
Franzke, T., Grosse, E.H., Glock, C.H. and Elbert, R. (2017), “An investigation of the effects of storage
assignment and picker routing on the occurrence of picker blocking in manual picker-to-parts
warehouses”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 841-863.
Frazelle, E. (2002), Supply Chain Strategy: The Logistics of Supply Chain Management, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Garcia, F.C. (2003), “Applying lean concepts in a warehouse operation”, Iie Annual Conference and
Exhibition 2004, No. 1, pp. 2819-2859.
IJPPM Garza-Reyes, J.A., Villarreal, B., Kumar, V. and Diaz-Ramirez, J. (2018), “A lean-TOC approach for
improving Emergency Medical Services (EMS) transport and logistics operations”, International
70,1 Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 253-272.
Gil, A. (2010), How to Design Research Projects (Como Elaborar Projetos de Pesquisa), Editora Atlas,
S~ao Paulo.
Gopakumar, B., Sundamaram, S., Wang, S., Koli, S. and Srihari, K. (2008), “A simulation based
approach for dock allocation in a food distribution center”, Simulation Conference, 2008. WSC
16 2008. Winter, pp. 2750-2755.
Gu, J., Goetschalckx, M. and McGinnis, L.F. (2007), “Research on warehouse operation: a
comprehensive review”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 177 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Gunasekaran, A., Marri, H.B. and Menci, F. (1999), “Improving the effectiveness of warehousing
operations: a case study”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 99 No. 8,
pp. 328-339.
Hair, J., Babin, B., Money, A. and Samouel, P. (2005), Fundamentos de M
etodos de Pesquisa Em
Administraç~ao, Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Hanchuan, P., Ruifang, W., Hao, D. and Feng, Z. (2013), “The research of logistics cost and influencing
factors based on cross docking”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier B.V.,
Vol. 96, Cictp, pp. 1812-1817.
Hassan, M.M.D. (2002), “A framework for the design of warehouse layout”, Facilities, Vol. 20 Nos 13/
14, pp. 432-440.
Heragu, S.S., Du, L., Mantel, R.J. and Schuur, P.C. (2005), “Mathematical model for warehouse
design and product allocation”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 2,
pp. 327-338.
Horta, M., Coelho, F. and Relvas, S. (2016), “Layout design modelling for a real world just-in-time
warehouse”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Elsevier, Vol. 101, pp. 1-9.
Hwang, C.-L. and Yoon, K. (1981), Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
Berlin, Heidelberg, Vol. 186, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9.
Jadhav, J.R., Mantha, S.S. and Rane, S.B. (2014), “Exploring barriers in lean implementation”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 122-148.
Kahraman, C. (Ed.) (2008), Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Springer US, Boston, MA, doi: 10.
1007/978-0-387-76813-7.
Kasirian, M.N. and Yusuff, R.M. (2013), “An integration of a hybrid modified TOPSIS with a PGP
model for the supplier selection with interdependent criteria”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 1037-1054.
Kilic, H.S., Durmusoglu, M.B. and Baskak, M. (2012), “Classification and modeling for in-plant milk-
run distribution systems”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 62 Nos 9–12, pp. 1135-1146.
Laosirihongthong, T., Adebanjo, D., Samaranayake, P., Subramanian, N. and Boon-itt, S. (2018),
“Prioritizing warehouse performance measures in contemporary supply chains”, International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 67 No. 9, pp. 1703-1726.
Li, D., Zhao, L., Wang, C., Sun, W. and Xue, J. (2018), “Selection of China’s imported grain distribution
centers in the context of the Belt and Road initiative”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
and Transportation Review, Elsevier, Vol. 120, October, pp. 16-34.
Lim, M.K., Bahr, W. and Leung, S.C.H. (2013), “RFID in the warehouse: a literature analysis (1995-
2010) of its applications, benefits, challenges and future trends”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 145 No. 1, pp. 409-430.
Lima Junior, F.R. and Carpinetti, L.C.R. (2015), “Uma comparaç~ao entre os m
etodos TOPSIS e Fuzzy-
TOPSIS no apoio a tomada de decis~ao multicrit
erio para seleç~ao de fornecedores”, Gest~ao &
Produç~ao, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 17-34.
Liu, C.-L. and Lee, M.-Y. (2018), “Integration, supply chain resilience, and service performance in third- Lean practices
party logistics providers”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 5-21. in Brazilian
Liu, C.C, Niu, Z.W, Chang, P.C. and Zhang, B. (2017), “Assessment approach to stage of lean
warehouses
transformation cycle based on fuzzy nearness degree and TOPSIS”, International Journal of
Production Research, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 55 No. 23, pp. 7223-7235.
Luo, H., Yang, X. and Wang, K. (2019), “Synchronized scheduling of make to order plant and cross-
docking warehouse”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Elsevier, Vol. 138, October, 106108. 17
Malta, J. and Cunha, P.F. (2011), “A new approach for cost modelling and performance evaluation
within operations planning”, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 234-242.
Melton, T. (2005), “The benefits of lean manufacturing”, Chemical Engineering Research and Design,
Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 662-673.
Mills-Harris, M.D., Soylemezoglu, A. and Saygin, C. (2007), “Adaptive inventory management using
RFID data”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 32
Nos 9/10, p. 1052.
Moayed, F.A. and Shell, R.L. (2009), “Comparison and evaluation of maintenance operations in lean
versus non-lean production systems”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 285-296.
Moretti, E. de A., Anholon, R., Rampasso, I.S., Silva, D., Santa-Eulalia, L.A. and Ign
acio, P.S. de A.
(2019), “Main difficulties during RFID implementation: an exploratory factor analysis
approach”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 31 No. 8,
pp. 943-956.
Moura, R.A. (2005), Sistemas e T
ecnicas de Movimentaç~
ao e Armazenagem de Materiais (Materials
Handling), IMAM, S~ao Paulo.
Mustafa, M. (2015), A Theoretical Model of Lean Warehousing, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, doi: 10.
6092/polito/porto/2588573.
Mustafa, M.S., Cagliano, A.C. and Rafele, C. (2013), “A proposed framework for lean warehousing”,
Pioneering Solutions in Supply Chain Performance Management: Concepts, Technologies and
Applications, Hamburg.
Ol
ah, J., Karmazin, G., Pet}o, K. and Popp, J. (2018), “Information technology developments of logistics
service providers in Hungary”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications,
Taylor & Francis, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 332-344.
Panousopoulou, P., Papadopoulou, E.-M. and Manthou, V. (2012), “Cross – docking A successful
method in warehouses: a case study of a 3PL provider”, 2nd International Conference on Supply
Chains, Katerini.
Pereira, C.M., Anholon, R. and Batocchio, A. (2016), “Method proposition to set the pallet positions
designated to fractioned picking orders in a warehouse”, Revista Gest~ao Da Produç~ao Operaç~oes
e Sistemas, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 231-248.
Phogat, S. (2013), “An introduction to applicability of lean in warehousing”, International Journal of
Latest Research in Science and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 105-109.
Ponte, B., Costas, J., Puche, J., Pino, R. and de la Fuente, D. (2018), “The value of lead time reduction
and stabilization: a comparison between traditional and collaborative supply chains”,
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, Vol. 111,
pp. 165-185.
Rampasso, I.S., Anholon, R., da Silva, D., Ord
on ~ez, R.E.C. and Quelhas, O.L.G. (2019), “Maturity
analysis of manufacturing cells”, Production Planning & Control, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 30
No. 15, pp. 1250-1264.
Rowley, J. (2000), The Principles of Warehouse Design, The Institute of Logistics & Transport, Corby.
IJPPM Salhieh, L., Altarazi, S. and Abushaikha, I. (2019), “Quantifying and ranking the ‘7-Deadly’ Wastes in a
warehouse environment”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 94-115.
70,1
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007), “Defining and developing measures of lean production”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 785-805.
Sharma, S. and Shah, B. (2016), “Towards lean warehouse: transformation and assessment using RTD
and ANP”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 65 No. 4,
pp. 571-599.
18
Singh, R.K., Gupta, A., Kumar, A. and Khan, T.A. (2016), “Ranking of barriers for effective
maintenance by using TOPSIS approach”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 18-34.
Sobanski, E.B. (2009), Assessing Lean Warehousing: Development and Validation of Alean Assessment
Tool, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.
Staudt, F.H., Alpan, G., Di Mascolo, M. and Rodriguez, C.M.T. (2015), “Warehouse performance
measurement: a literature review”, International Journal of Production Research, Taylor &
Francis, Vol. 53 No. 18, pp. 5524-5544.
Swart, A.D. (2015), The Current Understanding of Lean Warehousing Principles in a Third Party
Logistics Provider in South Africa, University of the Witwatersrand.
Tajima, M. (2007), “Strategic value of RFID in supply chain management”, Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 261-273.
Thomas, L.M. and Meller, R.D. (2015), “Developing design guidelines for a case-picking warehouse”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 170, pp. 741-762.
Tortorella, G., Giglio, R., Fettermmann, D.C. and Tlapa, D. (2018), “Lean supply chain practices: an
exploratory study on their relationship”, The International Journal of Logistics Management,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 1049-1076.
Van Den Berg, J.P. (2007), “Integral Warehouse Management: the Next Generation in Transparency”,
Collaboration and Warehouse Management Systems, Management Outlook, Utrecht, Netherland.
Venkateswaran, S., Nahmens, I. and Ikuma, L. (2013), “Improving healthcare warehouse
operations through 5S”, IIE Transactions on Healthcare Systems Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 240-253.
Villarreal, B., Arriaga, J., Cardenas, C., Rivera, J.P. and Campos, H. (2014), “Improving agility in
distribution operations”, International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management, Bali.
Villarreal, B., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Kumar, V. and Lim, M.K. (2017), “Improving road transport operations
through lean thinking: a case study”, International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 163-180.
Wamba, S.F., Coltman, T.R. and Michael, K. (2008), “RFID-enabled warehouse optimization: lessons
from early adopters in the 3PL industry”, International Conference on Information Systems
ICIS2008, Paris, pp. 14-17.
Wang, H., Chen, S. and Xie, Y. (2010), “An RFID-based digital warehouse management system in the
tobacco industry: a case study”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 9,
pp. 2513-2548.
Zhang, G., Nishi, T., Turner, S.D.O., Oga, K. and Li, X. (2017), “An integrated strategy for a production
planning and warehouse layout problem: modeling and solution approaches”, Omega, Elsevier,
Vol. 68, pp. 85-94.
Appendix 1. Interview Guide Lean practices
Analysis of lean warehouse practices applied to distribution centers
in Brazilian
Questions should be answered, considering whether the practice is applied at your management’s warehouses
distribution center and the way it is performed, its inherent benefits and difficulties. The practices to be
evaluated are:
P1). Stream optimization and operational waste elimination via Value Stream Mapping (VSM)
application 19
P2). Use of inventory management technologies (Barcode, WMS and RFID);
P3). Warehouse organization and 5S culture
P4). Layout studies to optimize storage spaces
P5). Standardized picking methods
Q6). Inventory management using ABC curve and other addressing techniques
P7). Application of cross docking Technique
P8). Application of total productive maintenance (TPM) concepts
P9). Degree of employee involvement and satisfaction
P10). Structure, use of performance indicators (KPI) and visual management
P11). Quality culture and use of continuous improvement tools
P12). Suitability and degree of automation of warehouse equipment for productivity
1. Is operational waste analysis and mapping of non-value added activities performed using the
Value Stream Mapping (VSM) tool? What is your execution routine?
2. Is distribution center inventory management performed through any system? Are barcode or
RFID tags used for product tracking?
3. Is the 5S culture performed for the distribution center organization? Do employees practice all
“S” in their work?
4. Is the operational layout structured according to studies for route optimization, reduced travel
waste and employee safety?
5. Does picking activity have any criteria in its execution? Have there been any studies to set the
best standards for each order type?
6. Are distribution center items allocated to inventory according to any specific addressing
criteria aimed at increasing order picking productivity?
7. Does this distribution center have cross docking operations? Is this process performed for
specific order types?
8. Is equipment maintenance performed by applying the concepts of total productive
maintenance (TPM)?
9. How are employees involved in improving distribution center processes? Is there a
participation incentive program for improvement suggestions and recognition for
performance?
10. Are there operational indicators (KPI) monitored in visual management frameworks exposed
in the areas? How is this update routine and discussions about these indicators with the
operational leadership?
11. Are quality tools applied for operational problem solving? Who runs these tools and which are
the most applied tools?
IJPPM 12. Do you use technologies and / or equipment automation to increase productivity in this
70,1 distribution center? Which are?

About the authors

Caroline Morito Pereira holds a B.Sc. in Production Engineering at Federal University of S~ao Carlos and
M.Sc. in Mechanical Engineering at University of Campinas (UNICAMP). She has experience in Logistics
process, with emphasis on Lean Warehousing.
20 Rosley Anholon is currently Professor of the School of Mechanical Engineering, University of
Campinas, experienced in Quality Management, Production Systems and Entrepreneurship. He holds
B.Sc., M.Sc., and PhD in Mechanical Engineering at University of Campinas (UNICAMP).
Izabela Simon Rampasso holds a B.Sc. in Economic Sciences at Pontifical Catholic University of
Campinas (Brazil) and M.Sc. and PhD in Mechanical Engineering at University of Campinas (Brazil).
Currently, she is a postdoctoral researcher at Federal Fluminense University (Brazil) and researcher at
University of Campinas (Brazil). Izabela Simon Rampasso is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: izarampasso@gmail.com
Osvaldo L.G. Quelhas was the president of Production Engineering Brazilian Association
(ABEPRO). He is currently a coordinator at the Technology, Business Management and Environment
Laboratory (Latec), a coordinator at Doctorate Program in Sustainable Management Systems and
professor at Fluminense Federal University (Brazil). He has published many books, as an organizer and
author. He has experience as an editor and is a referee in many journals and reviews.
Walter Leal Filho (BSc, PhD, DSc, DL, DPhil, DLitt) is the head of the Research and Transfer Centre
“Sustainability and Climate Change Management” at the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences. He is
a professor at Hamburg University of Applied Sciences and at Manchester Metropolitan University
School of Science and the Environment. He has more than 300 publications, prominent among them,
books and articles. He has experience as an editor and is a referee in many journals and reviews.


Luis Antonio Santa-Eulalia is currently a Professor of the Universit
e de Sherbrooke, Ecole de gestion,
Canada and is experienced in Operations Management. He holds a B.Sc. from Federal University of S~ao
Carlos, M.Sc. from S~ao Paulo University and PhD from Universit
e Laval. He is the co-director of the
IntelliLab.org research group; researcher at the PRISME research center. He is also a researcher of the
Pan-Canadian VCO (NSERC Strategic Network on Value Chain Optimization).

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