The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-4166.htm

Measuring
Measuring the Leanness Leanness
of an organisation
Sanjay Bhasin
NOMS College, Stretton-under-Fosse, UK 55
Abstract
Purpose – Existing audits fail to fully encapsulate the complexities of an organisation’s value chain
and the significance of culture and change to the success of Lean. The purpose of this paper is to
identify precisely what is meant by the term, “a genuine Lean organisation” through the application of
a comprehensive Lean audit focused at manufacturing firms in the UK.
Design/methodology/approach – An extensive audit was developed able to establish the juncture
of an organisation’s Lean journey. This was piloted within 20 manufacturing organisations in the UK.
A total of 104 separate indices are used, which are grouped within 12 distinctive categories.
Findings – The audit provides an organisation with a Lean vision. Lean requires a considerable
commitment and whilst successful implementations facilitate the improvement of numerous indices,
the audit acquaints an organisation of the multifaceted requirements for Lean. Its real value is in
identifying the juncture of Lean an organisation has accomplished.
Research limitations/implications – The audit has been tested in 20 manufacturing
organisations; a natural extension would be to replicate the exercise within the service sector.
Practical implications – The audit results demonstrate how it is possible to split an organisation’s
Lean journey into seven evident phases. The feedback would improve the implementation records
within the UK.
Originality/value – This paper tackles a void within the literature of a comprehensive Lean audit
specifically examining: whether an organisation had adopted Lean as a philosophy, and to
distinctively deduce the phase of a Lean journey the organisation had reached.
Keywords Auditing, Culture, Manufacturing systems, United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
By accepting the premise that Lean should always be considered as a journey (Ransom,
2008; Lee, 2007; Husby, 2007), it is imperative to be able to identify the voyage an
organisation is required to undertake in its quest to be regarded as a legitimate Lean
organisation. Whilst extensive preceding research attempts to reflect the condition of
Lean in organisations, there existed a void of a comprehensive Lean audit distinctively
examining two facets; first, whether Lean had been adopted by an organisation as a
philosophy as opposed to another process or strategy. This requires a clear clarification
by accurately undertaking an assessment to appraise whether the organisation had
embraced specific criteria viewed as imperative in order to construe that it has adopted
Lean as an ideology; second, to specifically deduce the juncture of the Lean journey an
organisation had reached at any particular phase of its overall Lean implementation.
International Journal of Lean Six
2. Literature review and evaluation of the existing assessment tools Sigma
Vol. 2 No. 1, 2011
The literature often mistakes the Lean measures as an audit assessment of Lean pp. 55-74
(Schonberger, 2008; Atkinson, 2010). The extant literature fails to provide a constructive q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-4166
method to measure the Leanness of a manufacturing firm. The purpose of this paper DOI 10.1108/20401461111119459
IJLSS is to discuss the concept of Leanness and to provide a functional technique for
2,1 measuring Leanness. In the last two decades, companies have implemented certain
tools/techniques/practices/procedures of Lean, while others have implemented a whole
spectrum of elements (Haskin, 2010; Liker, 2004; Singh et al., 2010). Under such
circumstances, it becomes very difficult to gauge which organisation has really Lean as
a philosophy and where it stands in comparison with other organisations (Wan and
56 Frank, 2008).
There are various proponents who have discussed the implementation of Lean at
great lengths but not managed to capture the total intricacies of the Lean journey
(Doolen and Hacker, 2005; Cousins et al., 2008; Baggaley, 2006). Whilst the barriers to an
effective implementation are discussed, there is a flawed explanation of the phases of
Lean coupled with an absence of any reliable parameters to judge whether the level of an
implementation is progressing. In a review of existing contributions, the quality, cost,
delivery, morale, management and safety measures (Bicheno, 2004) facilitate continuous
improvement but lack the versatility of assessing the status of an organisation’s overall
Lean journey. Goldratt (1990) heavily focuses on an organisation’s supply chain alone.
The DTI 7 measures along with Goodman (2002) and Shah and Ward (2007) neglect to
recognise the impact of change management and culture on an effective Lean
implementation. Likewise, Schonberger (1996), Iwao Kobayashi (1996), Goodman (2002),
Mann (2005), Henderson and Larco (2003) and Lee (2007) attempt to incorporate Lean
beyond the manufacturing divisions of an organisation and consider suppliers (Lee,
2007) and marketing (Goodman, 2002); however, they are still heavily focused on
performance and neglect to comprehend the need to view Lean as a philosophy as
conducted by Toyota. The whole concept of sustainability and culture are not paid
sufficient emphasis which consequently results in the concept of a conducive culture
coupled with the need to treat Lean as an ideology largely being neglected (Motley, 2004).
The EFQM business excellence model (2000) recognises the need to adopt a holistic view
in quality systems and remains a well-used general assessment framework; nonetheless,
it is not specific enough for Lean (Bou-Llusar et al., 2005).
There have been attempts to measure the current status of benchmarking in the field
of Lean (Gurumurthy and Kodali, 2010; Shahram, 2008; Singh et al., 2010). Their research
lists out the elements and performance measures of Lean rather than accentuating the
gaps in terms of performance and practices between organisations (Ritterbeck, 2007).
Equally, the emphasis is heavily based towards the manufacturing elements of an
organisation and needed to examine in more detail the implication that procurement and
logistics have on a successful Lean implementation (Samuel, 2010). Proposals forwarded
by Goodson (2002) and Shah and Ward (2007) are devoid of the necessary organisational
development requirements for Lean to flourish. Equally, Mann (2005), Henderson and
Larco (2003), Lee (2007) and Shah and Ward (2007) fail to appreciate the real impact of
culture on Lean. Henderson and Larco (2003) neglect to dissect sufficiently the role
sustainability and culture play in a successful Lean implementation; consequently, the
need to treat Lean as an ideology is not pursued within the investigation. The Shingo
Prize is very flexible and can be applied to all industries and individual sites, plants or
entire businesses. The assessment process is extremely protracted involving six stages
which increases the cost and time lag to secure a final decision (Bicheno and Holweg,
2009). Leanness should not be viewed in the narrow sense of tools, techniques and
practices, but rather as a holistic approach that transcends the boundaries of the shop
floor and consequently looking at the entire organisation along with the management of Measuring
the company (Cocolicchio, 2008; Husby, 2007). Leanness
Goodson’s Rapid Plant Assessment (RPA) process, allows a team to gauge a factory’s
Leanness accurately solely from visual cues and conversations with employees. At the
heart of the RPA process are two assessment tools; namely, the rating sheet and the
questionnaire. The main benefits are that overall 11 categories are utilised; each rated
from poor to best in class. However, Goodson’s RPA generally fails to encapsulate the 57
ideology of continuous improvement (Samuel, 2010). Moreover, the change process is not
directly examined by the model (Steward and O’Brien, 2005). Within many other models,
the indices do not fully recognise the need to measure performance levels to construe the
true impact Lean has had on the organisation (Wan and Frank, 2008; Shahram, 2008).
Equally, Mann (2005), Henderson and Larco (2003), Lee (2007) and Shah and Ward (2007)
are also guilty of not recognising the importance of organisational development needs of
Lean, such as an organisation’s culture (Campell, 2006), the Lean pay systems (Baggaley,
2006), performance reward systems (Cousins et al., 2008), the Lean measurement
systems (Harbour, 2001), impact on the workforce and the Change management process
(Mann, 2005; Shetty et al., 2010). To undertake a strategic approach, the information
systems too must be changed in order to reflect a long-term perspective and needs to be
aligned to the organisation’s culture (Samuel, 2010; Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005).
Occasionally, companies have tried to implement a Lean philosophy and culture
within their organisation (Cocolicchio, 2008; Steward and O’Brien, 2005; Sharma and
Bhagwat, 2007). The Lean philosophy and culture has been the core of numerous
continuous improvement initiatives (Shah and Ward, 2007); however, the effectiveness
and sustainability of these Lean principles has been highly variable (Lee, 2007; Motley,
2004). A prominent concern is the difficulty that organisations have in assessing the
level of a Lean within the organisation (Husby, 2007; Ritterbeck, 2007). Shetty et al.
(2010) describe the efforts to develop a new approach. A review of Lean principles and
tools is presented along with noted strengths and areas for potential improvement. The
development and the initial findings, such as attribute verification and construct
validation statistics of the proposed tool is also presented. Six Sigma principles were
added in this tool to derive a few conclusions regarding the philosophy of Lean
Six Sigma. Appropriately, whilst Lean is viewed as being process driven, the prevailing
culture, change management and the need to infuse sustainability is not suitably
encapsulated (Atkinson, 2010). Organisations stand little chance of implementing Lean
unless they have paid at least equal attention to creating the right culture, and the
conditions and circumstances which can become the foundation for implementing
change (Haskin, 2010; Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005).
The literature is also plagued with efforts to measure the effectiveness of Lean though
sets of indices (Baggaley, 2006; Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005); often these have an
overriding bias towards the financial benefits (Baggaley, 2006; Bou-Llusar et al., 2005;
Sharma and Bhagwat, 2007). Moreover, the holistic approach is often lacking and they
are either based on a particular industrial sector (Sharma and Bhagwat, 2007) or focus on
specific components of the value chain (Bou-Llusar et al., 2005; Campell, 2006). Often the
indices neglect to view Lean as a multi-dimensional approach that encompasses a wide
variety of management practices (Doolen and Hacker, 2005; Gurumurthy and Kodali,
2010). Many discuss the concept of Lean and its benefits (Sharma and Bhagwat, 2007;
Cousins et al., 2008) but few succeed at precisely defining Leanness in context
IJLSS to assessing the status of any manufacturing firm. Bayou and de Korvin (2008)
2,1 proceeded to suggest that Leanness is a matter of degree without exploring the Lean
transition as an on going journey.
Furthermore, Lean cannot just be judged against certain sets of indices since as a
concept it is wide-ranging encompassing product development, supplier selection,
product costing, employee training and development, collaboration with customers and
58 pipelining a process from suppliers to customers (Campell, 2006; Wan and Frank, 2008;
Haskin, 2010; Husby, 2007). Within operations, it concentrates on improving the mix
and arrangement of equipment, scheduling and flow of work, flexibility of human and
physical resources, designing in parts, products, and services, handling of materials and
processing of orders (Harbour, 2001; Gurumurthy and Kodali, 2010). Overall, it suggests
improve quality and safety and reduce variation and uncertainty (Bou-Llusar et al.,
2005). Consequently, we are not talking about a small change but a wholesale
advancement. In achieving this, we require a renewed commitment to continuous
process improvement (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2010).
On a practical perspective, the objective of an audit should be to analyze the current
Lean process followed by an identification of more opportunities to save costs and reduce
the lead time (Bayou and de Korvin, 2008). Consequently, Lean manufacturing audits
should be a review or inspection of the Lean manufacturing process that is scheduled
after regular intervals (Harbour, 2001; Samuel, 2010). A well-designed and developed
Lean manufacturing capability can yield tremendous business benefits (Lee, 2007).
Successful implementation of Lean may not require a significant monetary investment
up front, but it is likely to create the perception of costliness as inventory decreases lead
to higher cost of goods sold (Shetty et al., 2010). The benefits of smaller inventories,
higher product quality and improved customer satisfaction become obvious only over an
extended period of time (Ransom, 2008). A traditional absorption accounting system,
with its short-term emphasis, can easily mislead decision makers (Baggaley, 2006).
Reports from firms that have been successful in implementing Lean processes indicate
that a change from traditional standard cost accounting practices is crucial. Rather than
categorizing costs by department, successful companies organize them by value streams
(Singh et al., 2010). Equally, we need to consider whether deficiencies in commonly used
cost accounting systems have deterred or defeated attempts to adopt potentially
profitable production methods (Cousins et al., 2008). Lean accounting environments
provide for a different basis of information and reports supplied to a company’s decision
makers (Ransom, 2008). Within Lean the cost of the internal audit is generally viewed as
a sustaining cost. The costs of an internal audit should be allocated to value streams in a
Lean accounting environment (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2010).

3. Conception of the audit

Undeniably, any assessment needs to grasp the concept of quality when examining an
organisation’s Lean journey. The criteria have to assess whether Lean is viewed as a
sustainable journey. The framework was developed in order to assist organisations to
markedly identify the stage an organisation occupies on its Lean journey. Once the stage
is clarified, it is then practical to make recommendations in order to facilitate an
organisation’s progress to a level whereby it embraces Lean as a philosophy. Crucially,
all 12 categories with the accompanying set of indices for each cluster were used in the
assessment.
3.1 Rational for the indices utilised Measuring
Having implemented Lean in Royal Doulton Plc, the importance of culture, change and Leanness
sustainability became apparent and naturally formed areas to scrutinize in a Lean
appraisal. During the compilation process, it transpired that indices relating to culture had
a natural focus relating to either the organisation as a whole or focusing on the employees
as individuals. Consequently, the decision was made to utilise two distinct categories.
The importance of the Lean tools and the corresponding technical components was drilled 59
into the training the author received and assisted to formulate the flow, processes and
design of quality indices. The importance of safety and the general visual management are
perceived as complimentary factors and a decision was made to develop specific suites of
indices. Whilst it would have been possible to combine continuous improvement with
change, it was deemed vital to keep them separate since change and culture were
considered to play a prominent role in all Lean failures. Likewise, any organisation
deciding to implement Lean should consider its impact on the business performance which
accounted for these respective set of indices. Finally, whilst the notion of Lean philosophy
embraces all the aspects mentioned, there were certain specific criteria not logically
assimilating into another category and formed a separate group; consequently, the
12 categories were:
(1) overall safety, cLeanliness and order;
(2) production and operation flow;
(3) process and operations;
(4) visual management;
(5) quality designed into the product;
(6) continuous improvement;
(7) Lean change strategy;
(8) Lean sustainability;
(9) culture – employee oriented;
(10) organisational culture – organisational practices;
(11) Lean treated as a business; and
(12) Lean philosophy.

4. The proposed audit

The final audit was developed after a considerable degree of scrutiny to assess its
relevance and after gaining extensive feedback from organisations in which it was
appraised. In order to assess its viability, the meticulous audit was undertaken in
20 organisations who had clearly articulated that they were on the Lean journey. The
audit comprising of the 12 distinct sections and respective indices as depicted in Table I;
an indication is specified regards the indicative findings that would secure a one and
what would secure a ten against each criteria. Ultimately, the total score can deduce the
phase of the Lean journey the organisation occupies as is explored subsequently.
Consequently, the maximum score an organisation can attain over the 12 sections is
1,040 points since there are 104 individual indices. Accordingly, the scores were divided
amongst the seven phases and the scoring system is summarised in Table II.
 2,1

60
IJLSS

Table I.
Proposed Lean audit
Criteria Rating of one Rating of ten

(1) Overall safety, cLeanliness and orderliness

Health and safety Completely unsafe, many hazards and poorly Totally safe; no hazards with full adherence to
enforced procedures polices
CLeanliness Very dirty with no procedures for general Spotlessly cLean coupled with a structured
maintenance cLeaning program for administration areas too
Orderliness Absolutely cluttered; very disorganised and much Just necessary items readily available; clear
time is wasted trying to find tools markings for tools
Maximum points ¼ Divided by 3
Points scores ¼
Category score ¼
(2) Production and operational flow (JIT)
Continuous flow Very disjointed with large batches and groups of Sophisticated flow and very small batches
machines
Process definition Generally, only in print form and very often out of Expected performance of all processes defined
date and documented; documented processes match
actual processes
Pull No planning; production to forecasts with Robust Kanban system, MRP only for planning
substantial MRP use and is built to customer demand only
Line switches and machine setup Virtually hours Line switches within one TAKT time, batch
change in less than 10 minutes
Customer service and scheduling Totally separate function and is heavily MRP Total integration; 1 hour between order entry and
driven the order on the shop floor; scheduling takes place
at cell level
Maximum points ¼ Divided by 5
Points scores ¼
Category score ¼
(3) Processes and operations
Ability to accommodate fluctuations in short- Cannot easily adapt or finds it very difficult Can easily adapt up to 25 per cent
term customer demand
Responsiveness to changes in product mix Very difficult Poses no problems
Manufacturing steps organised in work cells or Less than 25 per cent 75 per cent or above
whereby there is zero WIP between them
(continued)
Criteria Rating of one Rating of ten

Manufacturing process Each operation has its own independent schedule Exclusively one-piece flow
Manufacturing process engineering Large size lot sizes which are mostly office based Machine designed for flow and not capacity;
equally there is full factory floor representation
Total productive maintenance Essentially not in existence A thorough TPM system
Percentage of maintenance spent on unplanned or More than 40 per cent 10 per cent or less
emergency repairs
Average OEE of production equipment Generally less than 0.60 Overall 0.85 or above
Quick changeover or SMED training of eight or Less than 15 per cent of workforce More than 50 per cent of the workforce
more hours is provided
Maximum points ¼ Divided by 9
Points scores ¼
Category score ¼
(4) Visual management
Visual pictorial presentation Not present Totally prominent; team performance stated in
the offices too
Warehouse inventory Random access locations and computer driven Totally fixed locations with clear minimum and
maximum inventories
Shop floor inventory Totally minimum control; mostly stacked in work FIFO adherence, fixed locations and Kanban
locations in random order squares utilised
Visual indicator update Hardly ever used Continuously in use
Visual controls to support production None in evidence Data tracked regularly for trends to spot
problems; used for root-cause solutions
Maximum points ¼ Divided by 5
Points scores ¼
Category score ¼
(5) Quality designed into the product
5s is integral in the design process None existent Totally integrated
Equipment designs identify defects and stop None existent Total stoppage when faults occur
production
Authority to operatives to stop production None existent Virtual individual authority is granted
Mistake proofing to avert defects None existent Total usage on all essential processes
(continued)
Leanness
Measuring

61

Table I.
 2,1

62
IJLSS

Table I.
Criteria Rating of one Rating of ten

FIFO inventory None existent Total adherence

Closed-loop quality problem solution None existent All problems have a detailed development plan
Root-cause problem solving Totally rare and when used it is by formal Routine methodological approach to root-cause
technical project teams solutions
Standardised working and maintained No work standards Fully standardised with monthly reviews and
updated as required
Goods-in quality No self-certified suppliers All key suppliers are self-certified and constantly
updated
Visual controls None in evidence Regularly analysed to identify top three
interrupters/problems; lead to root cause problem
solving
Percentage of production processes controlled Less than 15 per cent More than 70 per cent
by SPC
Product engineering Little contact with customers; new designs take Joint effort with new designs taking less than six
over one year months
Disciplined adherence to process Attention mainly on exception in results Pareto drives improvements; frequent reviews of
production and related processes
Maximum points ¼ Divided by 13
Points scores ¼
Category score ¼
(6) Continuous improvement
Process of change implementation None existent Whole organisation responds and requests for
support; response within two days
Change implementation Instigated by engineers and management Most personnel have authority and responsibility
approved to implement change
Impact of change is tracked Results are not communicated or seldom even Results are clearly communicated and measured
collated objectively
Operators and office personnel have regular Very occasionally, averages to less than one Everyday for about 10 and 30 minutes weekly
meetings per month meetings
Continuous improvement team Not existent Large numbers following established rules with
quantifiable results
(continued)
Criteria Rating of one Rating of ten

Process improvement Made by formal project teams or in response to Line leaders see this within their responsibility
disasters
Waste culture Not existent Total commitment
Tracking the results of Lean Totally ad hoc or at board meetings only At weekly process meetings
Use of advancing technology Manual line design, paper-based Kanban-support; Integrated solution; real-time scheduling and
no ERP solutions based on order mix; enterprise-level tracking and
score carding
Maximum points ¼ Divided by 9
Points scores ¼
Category score ¼
(7) Lean change strategy
Top management support Support viewed as lip service Total and active support from top management
Recognition of prevailing culture Simply imposing other organisation’s experiences Full effort to alter behaviour
Lean champion is evident Not clear who has overall Lean responsibility Clearly communicated strategy regards the Lean
champion
Linking culture to the organisation’s performance No effort exerted; felt no relationship between Total recognition of the association; every effort
the two to link the two
Consistent vision is needed No clear message Lean becomes the underlying vision
Roll out of Lean Little consistency and no evidence of continuous Possible to audit trail it from the pilot stage to the
improvement entire value chain
Future state maps exist No attempt to view the future Lean journey Systematic Lean journey clearly evident
Sensei and other experts used Occasional assistance from experts and not Working eventually towards internalising the
internalised expertise
Continuous improvement and compensation link No efforts made to explore this correlation Every effort made as it is recognised that these
is evident two are correlated
Promotion of positive culture Little evidence of sustaining or adapting a more Combining culture and strategy; viewing Lean as
conducive culture a never-ending journey
Genuine efforts to cascade a culture promoting No genuine efforts to maximise stability Every effort is made to maximise stability, i.e.
greater stability in a changing environment schedule changes, program restructures and
procurement quantities
Sub-cultures recognised No effort to deter or recognise sub-cultures Recognised but strenuous efforts made to ensure
that the aims/objectives stay the same
(continued)
Leanness
Measuring

63

Table I.
 2,1

64
IJLSS

Table I.
Criteria Rating of one Rating of ten

Maximum points ¼ Divided by 12

Points scores ¼
Category score ¼
(8) Lean sustainability
Application of the Lean tools Embraced few – generally two or less tools Simultaneous application of six or more timely
and relevant tools
Lean toolbox sustainability Two or less tools have been in operation for Simultaneous application of six or more
several years with little expansion appropriate and relevant tools for three or more
years
Areas of application Limited to the few manufacturing areas only Across the whole value chain and spread to
suppliers too
Lean departments Less than 10 per cent operating under Lean Over 70 per cent of the organisations cost centres
conditions operating under Lean conditions
New market development None and evidence of maturing markets New markets constantly being secured
Sales from new products – less than five years Less than 10 per cent 50 per cent or more
Not seen as a value stream Concentration on one product value stream only Recognised and viewed as combinations of value
streams
Maximum points ¼ Divided by 7
Points scores ¼
Category score ¼
(9) Culture – employee oriented
Levels of hierarchy Highly layered; generally four or above between Very flat structure
the general manager and the shop floor
Organised by customer families Little attention is paid to organising flow to the Total organisation is dictated by customer
product families families
Process-focused management Little ownership of the processes Total ownership and people recognise how they
are assisting customers
Organisational structure Divided by departments Fully integrated
Self-directed teams Essentially none Evidence of a high degree of team empowerment
in making decisions
Employees participated on improvement teams in Less than 15 per cent 80 per cent or more
the last six months
(continued)
Criteria Rating of one Rating of ten

Team empowerment Virtually none Full allocation of responsibility and authority

HRM training Not existent or very limited Quite extensive; can be in excess of 80 hours per
employee annually with quantifiable
achievements
Styles of leadership Totally autocratic Participative
Communication Bureaucratic Very open communication
Maximum points ¼ Divided by 10
Points scores ¼
Category score ¼
(10) Organisational culture – organisational
practices
Overall self-reliance Little control of outsourced products/services Total control though organisation retains its
internal capability
Finance and administration control Traditional standard costing and not integrated Lean accounting procedures clearly evident;
with the rest of the functions metrics in existence to help the shop floor
Purchasing approach Suppliers seen as adversaries and MRP driven Full involvement and is Kanban driven; “supplier
development teams”
Early involvement of suppliers Very rarely Company policy
Purchasing idealism Constant conflict with other departments Fully integrated
Human resources Seen as a traditional staff role Recognised that training and communication will
bring the culture in line
Lean leadership at all levels Not obvious and ad hoc system of distinguishing Clearly visible Lean leaders at all levels
Lean leaders supporting people
HRM evaluations Only the senior management Often, a 3608 approach with continuous support
for both personal and professional growth
Compensation Directly correlated to the seniority of Skills based
management positions
Lean transformation responsibilities are assigned Ad hoc communication and Lean responsibilities Fully communicated and the duties of Lean are
fully assigned
Marketing Marketing seen as a separate function and not Promotion, marketing and selling of every
part of the organisation improvement
(continued)
Leanness
Measuring

65

Table I.

Table I.
Criteria
Office layout
Daily accountability process
Maximum points ¼
Points scores ¼
Category score ¼
(11) Lean treated as a business
Formal strategic planning undertaken
Future state maps exist
Metrics include categories in financial, process,
customer satisfaction, quality, employee
satisfaction, future and supplier performance
Metrics linked to the key success factors and/or
strategic goals and objectives allowing us to
differentiate ourselves from competitors
Metrics are fully understood and impact of
individuals on the company performance
Link between value streams and competing
streams or support functions is clear
Lean not viewed tactically
Lean viewed as market supremacy
Lean not limited to operational improvements
Maximum points ¼
Points scores ¼
Category score ¼
Rating of one
Managers offices are not readily available to the Offices with transparent glass with easy access
shop floor
Plant and value meetings focus only on
production/shortage issues
Divided by 13
Ad hoc planning and Lean treated similarly
No attempt to view the future Lean journey
Two or less categories are covered and not
comprehensively
Measures are either too many/too few or no
alignment to the overall Lean journey
No ownership and little knowledge regards the
impact an individual’s performance would have
on the organisation
The two seen as totally different and not
impacting on each other
Lean seen to be limited to manufacturing alone
Lean simply seen as a cost-cutting exercise
Lean and operational improvements seen as the
same package
Divided by 9
2,1
66
IJLSS
Rating of ten
Accountability is routine; supervisors grasp
concepts; use basic project management skills
Detailed five-year plan whereby Lean plays
a key role
Lean journey clearly evident
All categories are covered comprehensively
Lean measures are fully aligned to the immediate
and long-term Lean journey
Employees understand the metrics and recognise
how their individual performances impact
company performance
Recognition that altering a value stream impacts
on a competing stream or the support functions
Lean seen as an overall strategy (not as
manufacturing alone or as one strategy)
View of Lean is that it will lead to market
supremacy
Broader view of Lean; higher profits and its
ability to compete
(continued)
Criteria Rating of one Rating of ten

(12) Philosophy
Definite clarity of vision Organisation has little idea of its Lean journey Lean journey fully mapped out
Way of thinking Lean seen as a process but with little commitment Lean is viewed as a way forward for the
organisation
Lean seen as an ideology Little or no commitment As an ideology (not religion), since statements are
challenged
Tools viewed as techniques Lean and tools seen in isolation Tools seen as techniques devised to solve
problems
Training culture Isolated with little overall strategy Training geared towards changing behaviour
Process-focused management Not in evidence at all Process-focused leadership geared totally
towards the customer
To build a successful and robust business Simply a cost conscious culture Profit remains the ultimate but through a
successful and robust business
Reflection becomes the norm; clear expectations Reflection is on a very ad hoc basis The implementation plan is regularly reviewed
from Lean
TPS not the Toyota way TPS is seen in a restricted fashion with emphasis TPS treated as an ideology but is adapted to local
on the tools solely conditions
Maximum points ¼ Divided by 9
Points scores ¼
Category score ¼
Leanness
Measuring

67

Table I.
IJLSS
Lean assessment scoring system
2,1 Lean stage Required points Percentage of the maximum score of 1,040

Ideological 936 .90

Innovative 780 .75
Holistic 624 .60
68 Enhanced 468 .45
Mechanical 312 .30
Table II. Developmental 156 .15
Audit scores Planning 0-155 #0-15

Correspondingly, an organisation securing a score of 550 points according to the table

places the respective organisation at the “enhanced stage”. Consequently, whilst still
pursuing this hypothetical example the fictitious organisation has three probable Lean
courses of direction:
(1) it may progress to the next stage by tackling the existing barriers;
(2) it could stay at this level but never reap the full benefits Lean offers; or
(3) it fades and either settles at a lower phase or its Lean journey begins to fizzle out.

The ideological stage is tantamount for an organisation viewing Lean as a philosophy

and the juncture that any organisation hoping to reap the full benefits Lean has to offer.

4.1 The proposed seven stages of the Lean audit

The audit assisted to develop a framework whereby Lean could be viewed as comprising
of a journey consisting of seven stages; Table III summarises the indicative
characteristics that an organisation should display at each stage. Organisations at the
final stage will have experienced every one of the preceding six stages. Most
organisations have failed to reach the summit stage and this is reinforced by the lack of
successful Lean implementations.

5. Relevance and contribution of the Lean audit

A total of 104 indices are used in the audit developed. Undoubtedly, every single
measurement is unlikely to be equally important to every manufacturing organisation
on all occasions. Nonetheless, through the rationale behind the audit’s development and
the pilot, it became evident that large components of the audit are totally flexible and can
be applied to any manufacturing organisation. In total, ten categories and their
respective indices could be applied to any organisation on the Lean journey; namely:
(1) overall, safety, cLeanliness and order;
(2) visual management;
(3) quality designed into the product;
(4) continuous improvement;
(5) Lean change strategy;
(6) Lean sustainability;
(7) culture – employee oriented;
 Measuring
Stages of a Lean journey
Seven stages Indicative organisational characteristics Leanness
Planning No implementation; benefits evident but no infrastructure and no organisational
decisions have been implemented
Developmental Implementation started; pilot area selected and work commenced; no roll out; few
tools with little subsequent commitment; may have been implemented in other areas; 69
importance of culture not recognised
Mechanical Pilot progressing well; few tools embedded within internal organisation but largely
within manufacturing only; tools are implemented in a piecemeal fashion with little
consideration of correlations; importance of culture not recognised
Enhanced Pilot proven successful; roll out programme progressing in other key areas within the
internal organisation; predominantly manufacturing based; recognition that culture
and the organisational practices need addressing but few tangible signs visible
towards accomplishing this
Holistic Roll-out programme on track; internal organisation nearly incorporated; suppliers
embraced and signs towards integration of the whole value chain; organisational and
cultural developments still in their infancy
Innovative Lean principles applied across the whole internal organisation; good progress
towards integrating across the whole value chain; some cultural and organisational
development issues fully implemented but further progress required; ingrained as a
strategy
Ideological Lean tools, culture and organisational practices alongside the ideology implemented
across every component of the value chain; recognised as a combination of value Table III.
streams, Lean viewed as the way of working with a quest for perfection apparent Lean stages clarified

(8) organisational culture – organisational practices;

(9) Lean treated as a business; and
(10) Lean philosophy.

Likewise, the two remaining categories and relevant indices; namely:

(1) production and operation flow; and
(2) process and operations.

may compel minor adjustments to some indices in certain circumstances. This is reliant
on the type of process and industry involved. Under “processes and operations”
component of the audit, for instance, one of the individual measurements with an
indicative rating of one or ten as depicted in Table IV looks at the overall equipment
effectiveness (OEE) of production equipment.
Undeniably, an OEE of 0.85 or above may not apply in every situation as a generic
guide. Nonetheless, by using appropriate benchmarking methodologies, a credible target
could be established to make a judgement regards the organisation in question.

Indicative scoring
Criteria Rating of one Rating of ten Comments
Table IV.
Average OEE of production equipment Generally less than 0.60 Overall 0.85 or above Audit measurement
IJLSS Likewise, certain other indices may require adapting since the market characteristics of
2,1 an industrial sector should influence the production strategy chosen. Table V summarises
the 20 organisations in which the audit was utilised; columns two and three provide the
audit score and the corresponding Lean stage awarded to each respective organisation.
The penultimate column states the range of scores awarded by the organisation on the
scores they had received on each of the 12 categories assessed in the audit. In the last
70 column and most intriguingly, the respondents were asked to award a mark of between
1 and10; a “1” if they totally disagreed and disputed the audit score they were awarded;
a “10” if they unequivocally agreed with the audit score given to their organisation.
The last column indicates that every organisation felt that there existed an 80 or
90 per cent consensus with the overall audit mark. This is despite the fact that certain
organisations when asked to comment on the audit, may have contested certain individual
category scores; Excel Electronics and Fletcher Moorland, for instance, on individual
categories had awarded a five. This specified that they may have not agreed with the audit
score awarded to one or more categories but still agreed with the overall audit.

5.1 Spearman’s rho correlations

Further statistical analysis was undertaken on the findings of the audit; the intention
was to decipher whether there were common characteristics between the organisations
that had performed well on the audit. The most significant correlations from the Lean
audit were discovered for the following strategies:
.
Lean sustainability (r ¼ 0.673; p # 0.001);
.
culture employee oriented (r ¼ 0.753; p # 0.0001);

Feedback from organisations on the Lean audit score

Lean Range of scores Overall score the
Organisation audit (%) Lean stage awarded on the audit organisation awarded

3M (UK) Plc 55 Enhanced 8-9 8

Blank Aero Industries 46 Enhanced 8-9 9
BMW Petrol Engines 52 Enhanced 6-10 8
Corus Colours Group 67 Holistic 8-10 9
Drayton Beaumont 33 Mechanical 8-10 9
Excel Electronics 61 Holistic 5-9 8
Fletcher Moorland Ltd 33 Mechanical 5-10 9
Ford-Bridgend Engine 60 Holistic 8-9 9
Plant
Ilford Imaging Limited 34 Mechanical 8-9 9
Ina Bearing Company Ltd 64 Holistic 7-9 9
Jaguar Cars 56 Enhanced 6-10 8
Leoni Plc 52 Enhanced 8-10 9
Perkins Engines 51 Enhanced 7-10 9
Ricardo 36 Mechanical 8-10 9
Royal Doulton Plc 29 Developmental 8-10 9
Scapa 46 Enhanced 8-10 9
Timkin Aerospace 60 Holistic 8-10 9
Trentex Engineering 34 Mechanical 8-10 9
Table V. Unilever 73 Holistic 6-9 8
Feedback on audit scores Vauxhall Motors Ltd 78 Innovative 8-10 9
 .
organisational culture – organisational practices (r ¼ 0.731; p # 0.0001); Measuring
.
Lean treated as a business (r ¼ 0.752; p # 0.0001); Leanness
.
philosophy (r ¼ 0.731; p # 0.0001); and
.
Lean change strategy (r ¼ 0.652; p ¼ # 0.002).
The above reflected significantly high correlations with the best performing group of
companies. Essentially, what this illustrates that the five best performing organisations
71
demonstrated high correlations with the predominant components deemed as pre-requisite
should an organisation have genuine aspirations of viewing Lean as a philosophy. These
are factors which would facilitate an authentic and wider adoption of Lean which
ultimately could suggest that the organisation is adopting Lean as a philosophy; namely:
.
sustainability;
.
culture;
.
needing to treat Lean as a profitable commercial initiative too;
.
Lean change strategy; and
.
the philosophy indices themselves.
Interestingly, whilst technical tools are vital for Lean success, the correlations were not
particularly significant for the following categories as depicted in Table VI.

6. Limitations of the research

Any potential issues surrounding validity, reliability and generalizability were never
relinquished. A superior extent of validity and reliability was secured than would have
been the case with a single methodological approach as the audits were piloted out in
20 quite disparate organisations. Equally, as has been explained, it is important to
undertake benchmark studies in order to deduce the expected results for individual
indices; however, by taking into consideration pertinent factors affecting the
organisation such as the prevailing market it would be possible to establish credible
targets for all indices.

7. Future research
A noticeable natural extension would be to replicate the investigation undertaken but in
a non-manufacturing environment. The principal emphasis throughout this enquiry
centred on the appropriate tools, processes, cultures and performance management
of Lean within the UK manufacturing companies. The application of Lean within
the health service, for instance, has witnessed a major intensification since 2004 and the
literature still depicts a sketchy implementation record. It would be particularly useful to
determine:

Category of indices Correlation coefficient

Production and operational flow 0.321

Processes and operations 0.391
Quality designed into the product 0.391 Table VI.
Continuous improvement 0.451 Correlation coefficient
IJLSS .
any similarity of the barriers which are encountered;
2,1 .
the level of significance of both change and cultural issues;
.
whether the Lean journey mirrors the stages depicted within this investigation;
.
the key issues in attempting to implement appropriate performance
measurement systems;
72 .
whether the time span towards high levels of sustainability are comparable to
the manufacturing sector; and
.
the relevance of the complexity of processes within an organisation in
endeavouring to secure a Lean system.

Correspondingly, to manufacturing, a huge investment is undertaken by organisations

embracing Lean and it is considered that the investigation identified would benefit
both organisations on the Lean journey and those considering adopting its philosophy.

8. Conclusions
Audits also help manufacturers sustain Lean, and in addition they provide an excellent
way of determining if past suggestions have been acted upon and improvements made,
or if they have been neglected, contributing to waste. Done well, audits are the ultimate
measuring stick. Done poorly, they are next to useless. Often, the tools require in-depth
knowledge of the organisation and significant resource commitment, including external
experts, in order to be used effectively. This method tackles this by providing a tool to
provide an assessment of an organisation’s transition to Lean. The transition to a Lean
operating environment is a difficult undertaking. Ensuring that the transition itself is
carried out in a Lean and value-added manner is an important first step in developing the
discipline and culture necessary to sustain the continuous improvement towards a Lean
environment. Whilst the feedback from the 20 organisations regards the aptness of the
audit was most encouraging it was necessary to identify that Lean may not be
appropriate in every situation. In respect to audits and awards, true Lean companies
such as Toyota and Danaher would consider their value from the customer’s perspective.
Lean practices do not provide a compelling competitive edge in all operational practices.
Undeniably, for many smaller organisations involved in contract manufacturing, some
Lean practices, such as cellular manufacturing, becomes much more challenging.
A small organisation with many different categories of customers and a schedule that
changes all the time, may struggle to guarantee the consistency required to set up cells.
Likewise, bearing in mind that the main reasons forwarded for the failure of most
Lean initiatives are culture and change, the audit provides an invaluable gauge to
deduce whether the prevailing culture is conducive for Lean to flourish. The journey
towards Lean is never ending and the audit enables an organisation to recognise the
juncture that it has accomplished. In summary, an organisation would only be deemed to
have incorporated Lean as a philosophy if the ultimate stage has been achieved and is
being sustained. However, the results would also aid to provide both a bespoke and
crucially assist to formulate a development strategy for an organisation embarking
upon or hoping to progress on its Lean journey. Furthermore, it is evident that in order
to reach a stage whereby Lean is viewed as a philosophy it takes both time and
considerable investment as was reflected in the results; even the organisations that
performed well had failed to reach this stage of Leanness. An audit should be considered
as another Lean tool. An audit keeps people aware of things they should address. Getting Measuring
your people involved in their portion of the process brings that spark you need to get Leanness
people fired up about the whole Lean effort; suddenly, there is a buy into the culture of
Lean. This entails a sharp shift from key performance indice numbers to numeric
process data. The audit develops a regular rhythm, engaging managers in predictable
ways with assigned responsibilities.
73
References
Arnheiter, E.D. and Maleyeff, J. (2005), “Research and concepts: the integration of Lean
management and Six Sigma”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17, pp. 5-17.
Atkinson, P. (2010), “Lean is a cultural issue”, Management Services, Vol. 54, pp. 35-44.
Baggaley, B. (2006), “Using strategic performance measures to accelerate Lean performance”,
Cost Management, Vol. 20, pp. 36-45.
Bayou, M. and deKorvin, A. (2008), “Measuring the Leanness of manufacturing systems – a case
study of Ford Motor Company and General Motors”, Journal of Engineering Technology
and Management, Vol. 25, pp. 287-304.
Bicheno, J. (2004), The New Lean Toolbox, Picsie, London.
Bicheno, J. and Holweg, M. (2009), The Lean Toolbox, Picsie, Buckingham.
Bou-Llusar, J., Escrig-Tena, A., Roca-puig, V. and Beltran-Martin, I. (2005), “To what extent do
enablers explain results in the EFQM excellence model”, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 22, pp. 337-53.
Campell, K. (2006), “The endless journey”, Plant Engineering, Vol. 60, pp. 51-6.
Cocolicchio, B. (2008), “Creating your Lean future state”, Quality Progress, Vol. 41, pp. 88-102.
Cousins, P., Lawson, B. and Squire, B. (2008), “Performance measurement in strategic
buyer-supplier relationships: the mediating role of socialization mechanisms”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 34, pp. 238-58.
Doolen, T. and Hacker, M. (2005), “A review of Lean assessment in organisations: an exploratory
study of Lean practices by electronics manufacturers”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems,
Vol. 24, pp. 55-67.
Eisenhardt, K. and Martin, J. (2010), “Dynamic capabilities”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 21, pp. 1105-22.
Goldratt, E. (1990), The Theory of Constraints, North River Press, New York, NY.
Goodman, R.G. (2002), “Read a plant – fast”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 5, pp. 105-13.
Goodson, R.G. (2002), “Read a plant fast”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 8, pp. 105-13.
Gurumurthy, A. and Kodali, R. (2010), “Application of benchmarking for assessing Lean
manufacturing implementation”, Benchmarking, Vol. 16, pp. 274-91.
Harbour, R. (2001), “It’s not easy being Lean”, Automotive Industries, Vol. 11, pp. 5-18.
Haskin, D. (2010), “Allocating internal audit costs in a Lean environment”, Internal Auditing,
Vol. 25, pp. 25-32.
Henderson, B. and Larco, J. (2003), Lean Transformation, Oaklea Press, New York, NY.
Husby, P. (2007), “Becoming Lean”, Material Handling Management, Vol. 62, pp. 42-51.
Kobayashi (1996), 20 Keys to Workplace Improvement, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Lee, Q. (2007), “Implementing Lean manufacturing”, Institute of Management Services Journal,
Vol. 51, pp. 14-19.
IJLSS Liker, J.K. (2004), The Toyota Way – 14 Management Principles from the Worlds Greatest
Manufacturer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
2,1 Mann, D. (2005), Creating a Lean Culture, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Motley, W.T. (2004), “Lean Thinking”, Power, Vol. 148, pp. 72-6.
Ransom, C. (2008), “Wall street view of Lean transformation”, available at: www.Lean.org/events
(accessed 14 March).
74 Ritterbeck, R. (2007), “The impact of the audit score”, Quality, Vol. 46, pp. 3-15.
Samuel, K. (2010), “Integrated Lean TQM model for sustainable development”, TQM Journal,
Vol. 22, pp. 583-99.
Schonberger, R. (1996), World Class Manufacturing, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Schonberger, R. (2008), “Lean performance management”, Cost Accountant, Vol. 22, pp. 5-18.
Shah, R. and Ward, P. (2007), “Defining and developing measures of Lean production”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25, pp. 785-811.
Shahram, T. (2008), “Lean manufacturing performance in China”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 19, pp. 217-31.
Sharma, M. and Bhagwat, R. (2007), “An integrated BSC-AHP approach for supply chain
management evaluation”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 11, pp. 57-69.
Shetty, S., Componation, P., Glolston, S. and Utley, D. (2010), “Assessing the extent of Lean
implementation in an organisation”, IIE Annual Conference Proceedings, Norcross, GA, pp. 1-6.
Singh, B., Garg, S. and Sharma, S. (2010), “Development of index for measuring Leanness”,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 14, pp. 46-59.
Steward, T.A. and O’Brien, L. (2005), “Transforming an industrial giant”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 83, pp. 14-28.
Wan, H.-D. and Frank, C.F. (2008), “A leanness measure of manufacturing systems for quantifying
impacts of Lean initiatives”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46, pp. 6567-84.

Further reading
Koenigsaecker, G. (2000), “Lean manufacturing in practice”, Industry Week, Vol. 9, pp. 11-18.
Parks, C. (2002), “Instil Lean thinking”, Industrial Management, Vol. 44, pp. 14-18.
Womack, J. and Jones, D. (2005), Lean Solutions, Simon and Schuster, London.

About the author

Sanjay Bhasin was Senior Project Manager at Royal Doulton plc (1988-2000) and was responsible
for providing the costs, schedules and budgets for both the labour and capital requirements;
equally for the retention of the “ISO” and “IiP” accreditation. The last five years were spent as the
organisation’s “Lean Manager” having been trained by the sensei from Lean Enterprise
Implementing Group. From 2000 to 2005, Dr Sanjay Bhasin was Management Lecturer and
Advanced Skills Trainer at Staffordshire University Regional Federation, and from 2005 to the
present, Dr Sanjay Bhasin has been a Quality Manager for the Prison Service. In this role,
Dr Sanjay Bhasin principally audits the quality assurance systems utilising the Ofsted criteria.
Sanjay Bhasin can be contacted at: sanjay.bhasin@noms.gsi.gov.uk

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

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