The Seven Value Stream Mapping Tools Peter Hinesand Nick Rich IJOPM1997

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/235309659
The seven value stream mapping tools
Article in International Journal of Operations & Production Management · January 1997

DOI: 10.1108/01443579710157989
CITATIONS READS
970 40,479
2 authors:
Peter Hines Nick Rich

South East Technological University Swansea University
98 PUBLICATIONS 5,810 CITATIONS 66 PUBLICATIONS 5,243 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Hines on 22 June 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Peter Hines Nick Rich
Article information:
To cite this document:
Peter Hines Nick Rich, (1997),"The seven value stream mapping tools", International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 17 Iss 1 pp. 46 - 64
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579710157989
Downloaded on: 25 February 2016, At: 04:20 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 27 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 21600 times since 2006*
Downloaded by WATERFORD INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY At 04:20 25 February 2016 (PT)
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Anand Gurumurthy, Rambabu Kodali, (2011),"Design of lean manufacturing systems using value stream mapping
with simulation: A case study", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 22 Iss 4 pp. 444-473 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410381111126409
Bhim Singh, S.K. Sharma, (2009),"Value stream mapping as a versatile tool for lean implementation: an
Indian case study of a manufacturing firm", Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 13 Iss 3 pp. 58-68 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13683040910984338
Daniel T. Jones, Peter Hines, Nick Rich, (1997),"Lean logistics", International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 27 Iss 3/4 pp. 153-173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600039710170557
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:401051 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

IJOPM
17,1 The seven value stream
mapping tools
Peter Hines and Nick Rich
46 Lean Enterprise Research Centre, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff, UK
Introduction
Work carried out in the first Supply Chain Development Programme (SCDP I),
together with early work in the second programme (SCDP II), has shown that in
order fully to understand the different value streams[1] in which the sponsors
operate, it is necessary to map these intercompany and intracompany value-
adding processes. These value-adding processes make the final product or
service more valuable to the end consumer than otherwise it would have been.
The difference between the traditional supply or value chain and the value
stream is that the former includes the complete activities of all the companies
involved, whereas the latter refers only to the specific parts of the firms that
actually add value to the specific product or service under consideration. As
such the value stream is a far more focused and contingent view of the value-
adding process.
At present, however, there is an ill-defined and ill-categorized toolkit with
which to understand the value stream, although several workers (e.g. [2-5]) have
developed individual tools. In general these authors have viewed their creations
as the answer, rather than as a part of the jigsaw. Moreover, these tools derive
from functional ghettos and so, on their own, do not fit well with the more cross-
functional toolbox required by today’s best companies. It is the purpose of this
paper to construct a typology or total jigsaw to allow for an effective
application of sub-sets of the complete suite of tools. The tools themselves can
then effectively be applied, singularly or in combination, contingently to the
requirements of the individual value stream.
Waste removal inside companies

The rationale underlying the collection and use of this suite of tools is to help
researchers or practitioners to identify waste in individual value streams and,
hence, find an appropriate route to removal, or at least reduction, of this waste.
The use of such waste removal to drive competitive advantage inside
organizations was pioneered by Toyota’s chief engineer, Taiichi Ohno, and
The supply-chain development programme (SCDP I and II) is an industry-focused programme of

research being carried out by researchers at the Cardiff Business School and the University of
Bath. The work is sponsored by 18 major UK-based manufacturing, distribution and service
International Journal of Operations organizations which wish to remain or become world-class in their supply chain management
& Production Management, Vol. 17
No. 1, 1997, pp. 46-64. © MCB activities. The authors wish to express their thanks to Dr M. Naim of the Logistics Systems
University Press, 0144-3577 Dynamics Group at the University of Wales for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
sensei Shigeo Shingo[6,7] and is oriented fundamentally to productivity rather The seven value
than to quality. The reason for this is that improved productivity leads to leaner stream mapping
operations which help to expose further waste and quality problems in the tools
system. Thus the systematic attack on waste is also a systematic assault on the
factors underlying poor quality and fundamental management problems[8].
In an internal manufacturing context, there are three types of operation that
are undertaken according to Monden[9]. These can be categorized into: 47
(1) non-value adding (NVA);
(2) necessary but non-value adding (NNVA); and

(3) value-adding (VA).
The first of these is pure waste and involves unnecessary actions which should
be eliminated completely. Examples would include waiting time, stacking
intermediate products and double handling.
Necessary but non-value adding operations may be wasteful but are
necessary under the current operating procedures. Examples would include:
walking long distances to pick up parts; unpacking deliveries; and transferring
a tool from one hand to another. In order to eliminate these types of operation it
would be necessary to make major changes to the operating system such as
creating a new layout or arranging for suppliers to deliver unpacked goods.
Such change may not be possible immediately.
Value-adding operations involve the conversion or processing of raw
materials or semi-finished products through the use of manual labour. This
would involve activities such as: sub-assembly of parts, forging raw materials
and painting body work.
The seven wastes

There are seven commonly accepted wastes in the Toyota production system
(TPS):
(1) overproduction;
(2) waiting;
(3) transport;
(4) inappropriate processing;
(5) unnecessary inventory;
(6) unnecessary motion;
(7) defects.
Overproduction is regarded as the most serious waste as it discourages a
smooth flow of goods or services and is likely to inhibit quality and
productivity. Such overproduction also tends to lead to excessive lead and
storage times. As a result defects may not be detected early, products may
deteriorate and artificial pressures on work rate may be generated. In addition,
overproduction leads to excessive work-in-progress stocks which result in the
IJOPM physical dislocation of operations with consequent poorer communication. This
17,1 state of affairs is often encouraged by bonus systems that encourage the push
of unwanted goods. The pull or kanban system was employed by Toyota as a
way of overcoming this problem.
When time is being used ineffectively, then the waste of waiting occurs. In a
factory setting, this waste occurs whenever goods are not moving or being
48 worked on. This waste affects both goods and workers, each spending time
waiting. The ideal state should be no waiting time with a consequent faster flow
of goods. Waiting time for workers may be used for training, maintenance or
kaizen activities and should not result in overproduction.

The third waste, transport, involves goods being moved about. Taken to an
extreme, any movement in the factory could be viewed as waste and so
transport minimization rather than total removal is usually sought. In addition,
double handling and excessive movements are likely to cause damage and
deterioration with the distance of communication between processes
proportional to the time it takes to feed back reports of poor quality and to take
corrective action.
Inappropriate processing occurs in situations where overly complex solutions
are found to simple procedures such as using a large inflexible machine instead
of several small flexible ones. The over-complexity generally discourages
ownership and encourages the employees to overproduce to recover the large
investment in the complex machines. Such an approach encourages poor layout,
leading to excessive transport and poor communication. The ideal, therefore, is
to have the smallest possible machine, capable of producing the required
quality, located next to preceding and subsequent operations. Inappropriate
processing occurs also when machines are used without sufficient safeguards,
such as poke-yoke or jidoka devices, so that poor quality goods are able to be
made.
Unnecessary inventory tends to increase lead time, preventing rapid
identification of problems and increasing space, thereby discouraging
communication. Thus, problems are hidden by inventory. To correct these
problems, they first have to be found. This can be achieved only by reducing
inventory. In addition, unnecessary inventories create significant storage costs
and, hence, lower the competitiveness of the organization or value stream
wherein they exist.
Unnecessary movements involve the ergonomics of production where
operators have to stretch, bend and pick up when these actions could be
avoided. Such waste is tiring for the employees and is likely to lead to poor
productivity and, often, to quality problems.
The bottom-line waste is that of defects as these are direct costs. The Toyota
philosophy is that defects should be regarded as opportunities to improve
rather than something to be traded off against what is ultimately poor
management. Thus defects are seized on for immediate kaizen activity.
In systems such as the Toyota production system, it is the continuous and
iterative analysis of system improvements using the seven wastes that results
in a kaizen-style system. As such, the majority of improvements are of a small The seven value
but incremental kind, as opposed to a radical or breakthrough type. stream mapping
tools
Waste removal inside value streams
As the focus of the value stream includes the complete value adding (and non-
value adding) process, from conception of requirement back through to raw
material source and back again to the consumer’s receipt of product, there is a 49
clear need to extend this internal waste removal to the complete supply chain.
However, there are difficulties in doing this. These include lack of visibility
along the value stream and lack of the tools appropriate to creating this
visibility. This paper aims to help researchers and practitioners remedy such
deficiencies. The waste terminology described above has been drawn from a
manufacturing environment, specifically from the automotive industry, and
from a Japanese perspective. As a result some translation of the general
terminology will be required to adapt it to a particular part of the value stream
and to particular industries in non-Japanese settings. Consequently, a
contingency approach is required to some extent.
Such an approach has been the subject of considerable previous work at the
Lean Enterprise Research Centre. This would include the application by
Hines[10] of the kyoryoku kai (supplier association) to a range of UK-based
industry sectors and the introduction by Jones[11] of the Toyota production
system philosophy to a warehouse environment. Jones has shown that the seven
wastes required rewording to fit an after-market distribution setting. He
therefore retitled the seven wastes as:
(1) faster-than-necessary pace;
(2) waiting;
(3) conveyance;
(4) processing;
(5) excess stock;
(6) unnecessary motion; and
(7) correction of mistakes.

The typology of the seven new tools is presented in terms of the seven wastes
already described. In addition the delineating of the overall combined value
stream structure will be useful and will also be combined as shown in the left-
hand column in Table I. Thus, in order to make improvements in the supply
chain it is suggested here that at least an outline understanding of the particular
wastes to be reduced must be gained before any mapping activity takes place.
At this point it should be stressed that several of the seven mapping tools
were already well-known before the writing of this paper. At least two can be
regarded as new, and others will be unfamiliar to a wide range of researchers
IJOPM Mapping tool
17,1 Supply Physical
Process chain Production Quality Demand Decision structure
activity response variety filter amplification point (a) volume
Wastes/structure mapping matrix funnel mapping mapping analysis (b) value
50 Overproduction L M L M M
Waiting H H L M M
Transport H L
Inappropriate
processing H M L L
Unnecessary
inventory M H M H M L
Unnecessary
motion H L
Defects L H
Overall
structure L L M L H M H
Table I. Notes: H =High correlation and usefulness
The seven stream M = Medium correlation and usefulness
mapping tools L = Low correlation and usefulness
and practitioners. Until now, however, there has been no decision support
mechanism to help choose the most appropriate tool or tools to use.
The tools themselves are drawn from a variety of origins as show in Table II.
These origins include engineering (tools 1 and 5), action research/logistics (tools
2 and 6) operations management (tool 3), and two that are new (tools 4 and 7).
As can be seen, they are generally from specific functional ghettos and so the
full range of tools will not be familiar to many researchers, although specific
tools may be well-known to individual readers. Each of these is reviewed in turn
before a discussion is undertaken of how they can be selected for use.
Mapping tool Origin of mapping tool
(1) Process activity mapping Industrial engineering

(2) Supply chain response matrix Time compression/logistics
(3) Production variety funnel Operations management
(4) Quality filter mapping New tool
Table II. (5) Demand amplification mapping Systems dynamics
Origins of the seven
value stream mapping (6) Decision point analysis Efficient consumer response/logistics
tools (7) Physical structure mapping New tool
The tools The seven value
Process activity mapping stream mapping
As noted above, process activity mapping has its origins in industrial tools
engineering. Industrial engineering comprises a group of techniques that can be
used to eliminate from the workplace waste, inconsistencies and irrationalities,
and provide high-quality goods and services easily, quickly and
inexpensively[12]. The technique is known by a number of names in this 51
context, although process analysis is the most common[13].
There are five stages to this general approach:
(1) the study of the flow of processes;

(2) the identification of waste;
(3) a consideration of whether the process can be rearranged in a more
efficient sequence;
(4) a consideration of a better flow pattern, involving different flow layout or
transport routeing; and
(5) a consideration of whether everything that is being done at each stage is
really necessary and what would happen if superfluous tasks were
removed.
Process activity mapping involves the following simple steps: first, a
preliminary analysis of the process is undertaken, followed by the detailed
recording of all the items required in each process. The result of this is a map of
the process under consideration (see Figure 1). As can be seen from this process
industry example, each step (one-23) has been categorized in terms of a variety
of activity types (operation, transport, inspection and storage). The machine or
area used for each of these activities is recorded, together with the distance
moved, time taken and number of people involved. A simple flow chart of the
types of activity being undertaken at any one time can then be made. These are
depicted by the darker shade boxes in Figure 1.
Next the total distance moved, time taken and people involved can be
calculated and recorded. The completed diagram (Figure 1) can then be used as
the basis for further analysis and subsequent improvement. Often this is
achieved through the use of techniques such as the 5W1H (asking: Why does an
activity occur? Who does it? On which machine? Where? When? and How?). The
basis of this approach is therefore to try to eliminate activities that are
unnecessary, simplify others, combine yet others and seek sequence changes
that will reduce waste. Various contingent improvement approaches can be
mapped similarly before the best approach is selected for implementation.
Supply chain response matrix

The origin of the second tool is the time compression and logistics movement
and goes under a variety of names. It was used by New[2] and by Forza et al.[3]
in a textile supply chain setting. In a more wide-ranging work, Beesley[4]
applied what he termed “time-based process mapping” to a range of industrial
IJOPM
17,1
52
Figure 1.
Users and non-users of
DFM
sectors including automotive, aerospace and construction. A similar, if slightly

refined, approach was adopted by Jessop and Jones[5] in the electronics, food,
clothing and automotive industries.
This mapping approach, as shown in Figure 2, seeks to portray in a simple
diagram the critical lead-time constraints for a particular process. In this case it
is the cumulative lead time in a distribution company, its suppliers and its
downstream retailer. In Figure 2 the horizontal measurements show the lead
time for the product both internally and externally. The vertical plot shows the
average amount of standing inventory (in days) at specific points in the supply
chain.
In this example the horizontal axis shows the cumulative lead time to be 42
working days. The vertical axis shows that a further 99 working days of
material are held in the system. Thus a total response time in this system of 141
working days can be seen to be typical. Once this is understood, each of the
individual lead times and inventory amounts can be targeted for improvement
activity, as was shown with the process activity mapping approach.
The seven value
stream mapping
tools
53
Main store
Figure 2.
Supply chain response
matrix – a distribution
example
Production variety funnel

The production variety funnel is shown in Figure 3. This approach originates in
the operations management area[14] and has been applied by New[2] in the
textiles industry. A similar method is IVAT analysis which views internal
operations in companies as consisting of activities that conform to I, V, A or T
shapes[15]:
• “I” plants consist of unidirectional, unvarying production of multiple
identical items such as a chemical plant.
• “V” plants consist of a limited number of raw materials processed into a
wide variety of finished products in a generally diverging pattern.
• “V” plants are typical in textiles and metal fabrication industries.
• “A” plants, in contrast, have many raw materials and a limited range of
finished products with different streams of raw materials using different
facilities; such plants are typical in the aerospace industry or in other
major assembly industries.
• “T” plants have a wide combination of products from a restricted number
of components made into semi-processed parts held ready for a wide
range of customer-demanded final versions; this type of site is typical in
the electronics and household appliance industries.
Such a delineation using the production variety funnel (Figure 3) allows the
mapper to understand how the firm or the supply chain operates and the
accompanying complexity that has to be managed. In addition, such a mapping
process helps potential research clients to understand the similarities and
differences between their industry and another that may have been more widely
researched. The approach can be useful in helping to decide where to target
IJOPM
17,1
54
Figure 3.
Production variety
funnel – a brewing
industry case
inventory reduction and making changes to the processing of products. It is also

useful in gaining an overview of the company or supply chain being studied.
Quality filter mapping

The quality filter mapping approach is a new tool designed to identify where
quality problems exist in the supply chain. The resulting map itself shows
where three different types of quality defect occur in the supply chain (see
Figure 4):
(1) The first of these is the product defect. Product defects are defined here
as defects in goods produced that are not caught by in-line or end-of-line
inspections and are therefore passed on to customers.
(2) The second type of quality defect is what may be termed the service
defect. Service defects are problems given to a customer that are not
directly related to the goods themselves, but rather are results of the
accompanying level of service. The most important of these service
defects are inappropriate delivery (late or early), together with incorrect
paper work or documentation. In other words, such defects include any
problems that customers experience which are not concerned with
production faults.
(3) The third type of defect is internal scrap. Internal scrap refers to defects
produced in a company that have been caught by in-line or end-of-line
inspection. The in-line inspection methods will vary and can consist of
traditional product inspection, statistical process control or through
poke-yoke devices.
The seven value
stream mapping
tools
55
Figure 4.
The quality filter
mapping approach – an
automotive example
Each of these three types of defect are then mapped latitudinally along the
supply chain. In the automotive example given (Figure 4), this supply chain is
seen to consist of distributor, assembler, first-tier supplier, second-tier supplier,
third-tier supplier and raw material source. This approach has clear advantages
in identifying where defects are occurring and hence in identifying problems,
inefficiencies and wasted effort. This information can then be used for
subsequent improvement activity.
Demand amplification mapping

Demand amplification mapping has its roots in the systems dynamics work of
Forrester[16] and Burbidge[17]. What is now known as the “Forrester effect”
was first described in a Harvard Business Review article in 1958 by
Forrester[16]. This effect is linked primarily to delays and poor decision making
concerning information and material flow. The Burbidge effect is linked to the
“law of industrial dynamics” which states:
if demand is transmitted along a series of inventories using stock control ordering, then the
amplification of demand variation will increase with each transfer[17].
As a result, in unmodified supply chains generally excess inventory,
production, labour and capacity are found. It is then quite likely that on many
day-to-day occasions manufacturers will be unable to satisfy retail demand
even though on average they are able to produce more goods than are being
sold. In a supply chain setting, manufacturers therefore have sought to hold – in
some cases sizeable – stocks to avoid such problems. Forrester[16] likens this to
IJOPM driving an automobile blindfolded with instructions being given by a
17,1 passenger.
The use of various mapping techniques loosely based on Forrester and
Burbidge’s pioneering work is now quite common (e.g. [18]) and in at least one
case the basic concept has even been developed into a game called The Beer
Game[19] which looks at the systems-dynamics within a retail brewing
56 situation[19]. The basis of the mapping tool in the supply chain setting is given
in Figure 5. In this instance an FMCG food product is being mapped along its
distribution through a leading UK supermarket retailer. In this simple example

two curves are plotted. The first, in the lighter shading, represents the actual
consumer sales as recorded by electronic point-of-sale data. The second, and
darker, curve represents the orders placed to the supplier to fulfil this demand.
As can be seen, the variability of consumer sales is far lower than it is for
supplier orders. It is also possible subsequently to map this product further
upstream. An example may be the manufacturing plant of the cleaning
products company or even the demand they place on their raw material
suppliers.
This simple analytic tool can be used to show how demand changes along
the supply chain in varying time buckets. This information then can be used as
the basis for decision making and further analysis to try to redesign the value
stream configuration, manage the fluctuations, reduce the fluctuation or to set
Pallets
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
28.8.93
25.9.93
23.10.93
20.11.93
18.12.93
15.1.94
12.2.94
12.3.94
09.4.94
07.5.94
04.6.94
02.7.94
30.7.94
27.8.94
24.9.94
22.10.94
19.11.94
17.12.94
Figure 5.
Weeks
Demand amplification Retail sales
mapping – an FMCG Orders on Suppliers
food product sample
Source: [11]
up dual-mode solutions where regular demand can be managed in one way and The seven value
exceptional or promotional demand can be managed in a separate way[20]. stream mapping
tools
Decision point analysis
Decision point analysis is of particular use for “T” plants or for supply chains
that exhibit similar features, although it may be used in other industries. The
decision point is the point in the supply chain where actual demand pull gives 57
way to forecast-driven push. In other words, it is the point at which products
stop being made according to actual demand and instead are made against
forecasts alone[21]. Thus, with reference to Figure 6 – an example from the

FMCG industry – the decision point can be at any point from regional
distribution centres to national distribution centres through to any point inside
the manufacturer or indeed, at any tier in the supply chain[22].
Stores
Factory
Suppliers National Regional
Distribution Distribution
Purchased Work in Finished Centre Centre
Goods progress Good
Make & Ship To Local Stock

THE PULL
Make & Ship To National Stock
THE PUSH Assemble To Order
Make To Order
Purchase & Make To Order
Key Supply Stream Forecast Customer

Decision Point Driven Driven Figure 6.
Decision point analysis
– an FMCG example
Source: [22]
Gaining an understanding of where this point lies is useful for two reasons:
(1) In terms of the present, with this knowledge it is possible to assess the
processes that operate both downstream and upstream from this point.
The purpose of this is to ensure that they are aligned with the relevant
pull or push philosophy.
(2) From the long-term perspective, it is possible to design various “what if”
scenarios to view the operation of the value stream if the decision point
is moved. This may allow for a better design of the value stream itself.
IJOPM Physical structure
17,1 Physical structure mapping is a new tool which has been found to be useful in
understanding what a particular supply chain looks like at an overview or
industry level. This knowledge is helpful in appreciating what the industry
looks like, understanding how it operates and, in particular, in directing
attention to areas that may not be receiving sufficient developmental attention.
58 The tool is illustrated in Figure 7 and can be seen to be split into two parts,
namely: volume structure and cost structure. The first diagram (Figure 7(a))
shows the structure of the industry according to the various tiers that exist in
both the supplier area and the distribution area, with the assembler located at
the middle point. In this simple example, there are three supplier tiers as well as
three mirrored distribution tiers. In addition, the supplier area is seen to include
raw material sources and other support suppliers (such as tooling, capital
equipment and consumable firms). These two sets of firms are not given a tier
level as they can be seen to interact with the assembler as well as with the other
supplier tiers.
Figure 7.
Physical structure
mapping – an
automotive industry
example
The distribution area in Figure 7 includes three tiers as well as a section

representing the after-market (in this case for spare parts), as well as various
other support organizations providing consumables and service items. This
complete industry map therefore captures all the firms involved, with the area
of each part of the diagram proportional to the number of firms in each set.
The second diagram maps the industry in a similar way with the same sets
of organizations. However, instead of linking the area of the diagram to the
number of firms involved, it is directly linked to the value-adding process (or,
more strictly to the cost-adding process). As can be noted in this automotive
case, the major cost adding occurs in the raw material firms, the first-tier
suppliers and the assembler, respectively. The distribution area is not seen to be
a major cost-adding area.
The basis for use of this second figure, however, is that it is then possible to
analyse the value adding required in the final product as it is sold to the
consumer. Thus value analysis or function analysis tools employed by The seven value
industrial engineers can be focused at the complete industry or supply chain stream mapping
structure[23,24]. Such an approach may result in a redesign of how the industry tools
itself functions. Thus, in a way similar to the application of the process activity
mapping tool discussed above, attempts can be made to try to eliminate
activities that are unnecessary, to simplify others, combine yet others and to
seek sequence changes that will reduce waste. 59
Using the toolkit
The use of this toolkit at this stage should not be confined to any particular
theoretical approach to ultimate implementation. Thus the options can be left
open at this stage over whether to adopt a kaizen or business process re-
engineering approach once the tools have been used[25,26]. It is the authors’
belief that the framework does not constrain this choice process.
Value stream mapping tools

The specific focusing of which tools to use in what circumstances is done using
a simplified version of the value stream analysis tool (VALSAT)[27]. The first
part of this process is to identify the specific value stream to be reviewed.
Second, through a series of preliminary interviews with managers in the value
stream, it is necessary to identify the various wastes that exist in the value
stream that managers believe can and should be removed (reference should be
made to the earlier discussion of the seven wastes). In addition, it is important
to gain the views of these managers on the importance of understanding the
complete industry structure, irrespective of which wastes are to be removed.
This selection of tools is achieved by giving the interviewees a written
overview of each of the wastes as well as an explanation of what is meant by the
industry structure. At this stage, if necessary, descriptions of the seven wastes
may be reworded in terms more appropriate to the industry under
consideration. For instance, in the health-care industry the concept of
overproduction may not have great value. However, to call this potential waste
“doing things too early” instead may be more useful in getting the interviewees
to relate the concept to their own situations.
Once this has been done, the reworded seven wastes and the account of the
overall structure are recorded as row eight in the VALSAT in Table I diagram,
or as eight rows in area A of Figure 8. Comparison of Table I and Figure 8 will
show that the former is a simplification of the latter but with sections A, B and
C already completed. Thus using this VALSAT method, the different
approaches to identifying how these eight variables can be mapped has already
been completed by the addition of the seven value stream mapping tools (B). In
addition, area C of Figure 8 has already been completed as the correlation
between tools and wastes was completed within the main body of Table I.
At this point it is informative to ask the firm or firms involved to identify for
each of the eight wastes/structure (D) the benchmark company in their sector.
In other words, by opening these discussions at this stage it forces the firm to
IJOPM
17,1
60
Figure 8.
Using the VALSAT
approach to select
effective value stream
mapping tools
think about which of their competitors is best at reducing particular wastes and
managing their complete supply/distribution chain. This knowledge may then
lead on to more formal benchmarking with these companies, if this is felt to be
appropriate, or at least a good focus for subsequent mapping activities.
The next stage (E), therefore, is to ascertain the individual importance
weighting of the seven wastes and the overall industry structure. This is
achieved most effectively by allocating a total of 40 points for the eight factors
and asking the interviewee to apportion these on the basis of an importance
rating between the factors, with the proviso that no one factor can attract more
than ten points. If there is more than one interviewee, then the different scores
may be aggregated and rebased to total 40 points.
The last arithmetical stage of this approach is to create total weights for each
tool. In effect, what is being done here is to give a rating to each tool in terms of
how useful it is in identifying the various wastes designated as of most
importance by the organization or organizations. This is achieved by giving
each of the different correlations given in Table I a score. Thus, high
correlations are equivalent to nine points; medium three points; and low, to a
single point. Then, for each correlation, a total importance score is calculated.
This is achieved by multiplying the weighting of each waste/structure by the
correlations. Thus, referring to the correlations in Table I, if the weighting for
overproduction is six points the usefulness of the tools in addressing
overproduction will be:
• six for process activity mapping (6 × 1); The seven value
• 18 for supply chain response matrix (6 × 3); stream mapping
• zero for production variety funnel (6 × 0); tools
• six for quality filter mapping (6 × 1);
• 18 for demand amplification mapping (6 × 3);
61
• 18 for decision point analysis (6 × 3); and
• zero for physical structure mapping (6 × 0).
This type of calculation is then applied to each of the other rows so that scores
are recorded for each individual correlation. Once this is complete the total
scores for each column are then summed and recorded in the total weight
section, or “F” in Figure 8. The columns which have the highest scores are those
that contain the most appropriate tools. As a rule of thumb it is useful to choose
more than one tool. Indeed, as a final check, the more important two or three
wastes/structure should have been addressed by tools with which they are
highly correlated or failing this by at least two tools with which they have a
medium correlation. This will ensure that each waste/structure is covered
adequately in the mapping process.
This section therefore will have assisted the reader to identify which tool or
tools to use. However, once the tools have been run it may be that some
unexpectedly high wastes have become apparent. For instance, the demand
amplification mapping tool may have been employed to identify unnecessary
inventory and waiting. However, as the tool also has a medium correlation with
overproduction, it will be useful in identifying such waste if it exists but was
not recognized at first by the managers involved. This backflushing may
therefore identify some unanticipated but potential improvement areas and,
hence, lead to some breakthroughs.
After this mapping process is complete, the researcher will be able to use
each individual tool with its associated benefits to undertake more detailed
analysis of the value stream with a view to its improvement. As stated above, it
is not the purpose of this paper to convert other researchers to a kaizen or
business process re-engineering approach in this subsequent work. However,
the various mapping tools described will help with whichever approach is
chosen. In general, the removal of non-value adding waste is best done using a
kaizen approach, whereas the removal of necessary but non-value adding waste
requires a more revolutionary strategy wherein the application of business
process re-engineering may be more appropriate.
Case example
For the reader to gain a better understanding of the approach, a brief case
example will be reviewed. The company involved is a highly profitable leading
industrial distributor with over 60,000 products and an enviable record for
customer service.
IJOPM After undertaking preliminary discussions it was decided to focus on the
17,1 upstream value stream to the point at which goods are available for distribution
by the firm. Nine products were chosen based on a Pareto analysis from one
particular value stream, namely: the lighting product range. Within this range,
interviews with key cross-functional staff showed that unnecessary inventory,
defects, inappropriate processing and transport were the most serious wastes in
62 the system. In order to understand this in more detail, and using the mapping
correlation matrix (Table I), it was decided to adopt five of the tools:
(1) process activity mapping;

(2) supply chain response matrix;
(3) quality filter mapping;
(4) demand amplification mapping; and
(5) decision point analysis.
The on-site mapping work was carried out over a three-day period and proved
that each of the tools was of value in analysing the selected value streams. An
example of the effective interplay of the tools was that the supply-chain
response matrix suggested, as the key priority for the firm, supplier lead-time
reduction. However, when the data from the quality filter mapping were added,
it was found that the real issue was on-time delivery rather than lead-time
reduction. Thus, if the supply-chain response matrix had been used on its own,
it might have resulted in shorter lead time, but would have exacerbated the true
problem of on-time delivery.
The work assisted the firm to conclude that, although it did not need to
change, there was plenty of room for improvement, particularly regarding the
relatively unresponsive suppliers. As a result, attention has been paid to the
setting-up of a cross-function-driven supplier association[10], with six key
suppliers in one product group area for the purpose of supplier co-ordination
and development. In this supplier association there is an awareness-raising
programme, involving ongoing benchmarking, of why change is required. In
addition, education and implementation are being carried out using methods
such as vendor-managed inventory, due date performance, milk rounds, self-
certification, stabilized scheduling and EDI.
The company has found the ongoing mapping work to be very useful, and
one senior executive noted that “the combination of mapping tools has provided
an effective means of mapping the [company’s] supply chain, concentrating
discussion/action on key issues”. Another described the work as “not rocket
science but down to earth common sense which has resulted in us setting up a
follow-up project which will be the most important thing we do between now
and the end of the century”. Indeed, a conservative estimate of the savings that
could be reaped is in excess of £10m per year as a result of this follow-on work.
Conclusion The seven value
This paper has outlined a new typology and decision-making process for the stream mapping
mapping of the value stream or supply chain. This general process is grounded tools
in a contingency approach as it allows the researcher to choose the most
appropriate methods for the particular industry, people and types of problem
that exist. The typology is based around the identification of the particular
wastes the researcher/company/value stream members wish to reduce or 63
eliminate. As such, it allows for an extension of the effective internal waste-
reduction philosophy pioneered by leading companies such as Toyota. In this
case, however, such an approach can be widened and so extended to a value

stream setting. This extension capability lies at the heart of creating lean
enterprises, with each of the value stream members working to reduce wasteful
activity both inside and between their organizations.
References
1. Womack, J. and Jones, D., “From lean production to the lean enterprise”, Harvard Business
Review, March-April 1994, pp. 93-103.
2. New, C., “The use of throughput efficiency as a key performance measure for the new
manufacturing era”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 4 No. 2,
1993, pp. 95-104.
3. Forza, C., Vinelli, A. and Filippini, R., “Telecommunication services for quick response in
the textile-apparel industry”, Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Logistics,
The University of Nottingham, 1993, pp. 119-26.
4. Beesley, A., “A need for time-based process mapping and its application in procurement”,
Proceedings of the 3rd Annual IPSERA Conference, University of Glamorgan, 1994,
pp. 41-56.
5. Jessop, D. and Jones, O., “Value stream process modelling: a methodology for creating
competitive advantage”, Proceedings of the 4th Annual IPSERA Conference, University of
Birmingham, 1995.
6. Japan Management Association, Kanban: Just-in-Time at Toyota, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1985.
7. Shingo, S., A Study of the Toyota Production System from an Industrial Engineering
Viewpoint, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989.
8. Bicheno, J., 34 for Quality, PICSIE Books, Buckingham, 1991.
9. Monden, Y., Toyota Production System: An Integrated Approach to Just-in-Time, 2nd ed.,
Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Norcross, GA, 1993.
10. Hines, P., Creating World Class Suppliers: Unlocking Mutual Competitive Advantage,
Pitman Publishing, London, 1994.
11. Jones, D., “Applying Toyota principles to distribution”, Supply Chain Development
Programme I, Workshop #8 Workbook, Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd, Lutterworth, 6-7 July 1995.
12. Ishiwata, J., Productivity through Process Analysis, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA,
1991.
13. Practical Management Research Group, Seven Tools for Industrial Engineering, PHP
Institute, Tokyo, 1993.
14. New, C., “The production funnel: a new tool for operations analysis”, Management
Decision, Vol. 12 No. 3, 1974, pp. 167-78.
15. Macbeth, D. and Ferguson, N., Partnership Sourcing: An Integrated Supply Chain
Approach, Pitman Publishing, London, 1994.
IJOPM 16. Forrester, J., “Industrial dynamics: a major breakthrough for decision makers”, Harvard
Business Review, July-August 1958, pp. 37-66.
17,1 17. Burbidge, J., “Automated production control with a simulation capability”, Proceedings
IFIP Conference Working Group 5-7, Copenhagen, 1984.
18. Wikner, J., Towill, D. and Naim, M., “Smoothing supply chain dynamics”, International
Journal of Production Economics,Vol. 22, 1991, pp. 231-48.
19. Senge, P., The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
64 Doubleday Currency, New York, NY, 1990.
20. James, R., “Promotions update”, Supply Chain Development Programme I, Workshop #8,
Britvic Soft Drinks Limited, Lutterworth, 6-7 July 1995.
21. Hoekstra, S. and Romme, S. (Eds), Towards Integral Logistics Structure – Developing
Customer-Oriented Goods Flows, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1992.
22. Rich, N., “Supply stream ‘responsiveness’ project”, Supply Chain Development Programme
I Workshop #6, Tesco Stores Limited, Hertford, 25-26 January 1995.
23. Miles, L., Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,
1961.
24. Akiyama, K., Function Analysis: Systematic Improvement of Quality and Performance,
Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989.
25. Imai, M., Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,
1986.
26. Hammer, M., “Re-engineering work: don’t automate, obliterate”, Harvard Business Review,
July-August 1990, pp. 104-12.
27. Hines, P., Rich, N. and Hittmeyer, M., “Competing against ignorance: advantage through
knowledge”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 1996.
This article has been cited by:
1. Ann Elizabeth Esain, James Aitken, Sharon Jayne Williams, Maneesh Kumar. 2016. Reverse exchange: classifications for
public service SCM. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 21:2. . [Abstract] [PDF]
2. Osama Alaskari, Mohammad Ahmad, Ruben Pinedo-Cuenca. 2016. Development of a methodology to assist manufacturing
SMEs in the selection of appropriate Lean tools. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 7:1. . [Abstract] [PDF]
3. Gareth R.T. White, Svetlana Cicmil. 2016. Knowledge acquisition through process mapping. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 65:3, 302-323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Graham C. Stevens, Mark Johnson. 2016. Integrating the Supply Chain … 25 years on. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 46:1, 19-42. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. John Darlington, Mark Francis, Pauline Found, Andrew Thomas. 2016. Targeting lean process improvement projects for
maximum financial impact. Production Planning & Control 27, 114-132. [CrossRef]
6. Shreeranga Bhat, E.V. Gijo, N. A. Jnanesh. 2016. Productivity and performance improvement in the medical records
department of a hospital. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 65:1, 98-125. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
7. Ilias Vlachos. 2015. Applying lean thinking in the food supply chains: a case study. Production Planning & Control 26,
1351-1367. [CrossRef]
8. Thomas R. Vetter, Keith A. Jones. 2015. Perioperative Surgical Home. Anesthesiology Clinics 33, 771-784. [CrossRef]
9. Samuel Jebaraj Benjamin, M. Srikamaladevi Marathamuthu, Uthiyakumar Murugaiah. 2015. The use of 5-WHYs technique
to eliminate OEE’s speed loss in a manufacturing firm. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 21:4, 419-435. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
10. Donna Samuel, Pauline Found, Sharon J. Williams. 2015. How did the publication of the book The Machine That Changed
The World change management thinking? Exploring 25 years of lean literature. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 35:10, 1386-1407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Anas M. Atieh, Hazem Kaylani, Ahmad Almuhtady, Omar Al-Tamimi. 2015. A value stream mapping and simulation hybrid
approach: application to glass industry. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology . [CrossRef]
12. Shuwei Jing, Zhanwen Niu, Pei-Chann Chang. 2015. The application of VIKOR for the tool selection in lean management.
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing . [CrossRef]
13. Protik Basu, Shovan Chowdhury, Parveen Ahmed Alam. 2015. A model-based approach of flexibility and its impact on
organization and employee welfare in lean environment. DECISION 42, 269-277. [CrossRef]
14. Ali Azadeh, Mansour Zarrin, Mohammad Abdollahi, Saeid Noury, Shabnam Farahmand. 2015. Leanness assessment and
optimization by fuzzy cognitive map and multivariate analysis. Expert Systems with Applications 42, 6050-6064. [CrossRef]
15. R. Mohanraj, M. Sakthivel, S Vinodh, K.E.K. Vimal. 2015. A framework for VSM integrated with Fuzzy QFD. The TQM
Journal 27:5, 616-632. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes. 2015. Green lean and the need for Six Sigma. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 6:3, 226-248.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Sanjay Sharma, Bhavin Shah. 2015. A proposed hybrid storage assignment framework: a case study. International Journal of
18. S. Vinodh, T. Selvaraj, Suresh Kumar Chintha, Vimal K E K. 2015. Development of value stream map for an Indian automotive
components manufacturing organization. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 13:3, 380-399. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
19. Klaudia Mund, Koot Pieterse, Sheila Cameron. 2015. Lean product engineering in the South African automotive industry.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 26:5, 703-724. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Mariagrazia Dotoli, Nicola Epicoco, Marco Falagario, Nicola Costantino, Biagio Turchiano. 2015. An integrated approach for
warehouse analysis and optimization: A case study. Computers in Industry 70, 56-69. [CrossRef]
21. Farshin Salehi, Ali Yaghtin. 2015. Action Research Innovation Cycle: Lean Thinking as a Transformational System. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences 181, 293-302. [CrossRef]
22. Tuuli Jylhä, Maila Elina Suvanto. 2015. Impacts of poor quality of information in the facility management field. Facilities
33:5/6, 302-319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Sui Pheng Low, Shang Gao, Kai Lin Tiong. 2015. Applying lean production principles to facilities design of ramp-up
factories. Facilities 33:5/6, 280-301. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Thomas Staeblein, Katsuki Aoki. 2015. Planning and scheduling in the automotive industry: A comparison of industrial
practice at German and Japanese makers. International Journal of Production Economics 162, 258-272. [CrossRef]
25. Nurulzulaiha Sa’udah @ Suhadak, Norani Amit, Mohammad Nazri Ali. 2015. Facility Layout for SME Food Industry via
Value Stream Mapping and Simulation. Procedia Economics and Finance 31, 797-802. [CrossRef]
26. Geert Letens. 2015. Lean Product Development&boxh;Faster, Better … Cleaner?. Frontiers of Engineering Management
2, 52. [CrossRef]
27. Sherif Mostafa, Jantanee Dumrak. 2015. Waste Elimination for Manufacturing Sustainability. Procedia Manufacturing 2,
11-16. [CrossRef]
28. Nithia Kumar Kasava, Noordin Mohd Yusof, Alireza Khademi, Muhammad Zameri Mat Saman. 2015. Sustainable Domain
Value Stream Mapping (SdVSM) Framework Application in Aircraft Maintenance: A Case Study. Procedia CIRP 26, 418-423.
[CrossRef]
29. K. R. Zuting, P. Mohapatra, Y. Daultani, M. K. Tiwari. 2014. A synchronized strategy to minimize vehicle dispatching time:
a real example of steel industry. Advances in Manufacturing 2, 333-343. [CrossRef]
30. Mahvish Khurum, Kai Petersen, Tony Gorschek. 2014. Extending value stream mapping through waste definition beyond
customer perspective. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 26:10.1002/smr.v26.12, 1074-1105. [CrossRef]
31. C. C. Chiou, T. W. Jhang, Y. X. Deng, J. T. Tsai, C. PerngApplying lean and TOC to improvement delivery performance
for machine tool manufacturers 953-957. [CrossRef]
32. Mark Francis, Ron Fisher, Andrew Thomas, Hefin Rowlands. 2014. The meaning of ‘value’ in purchasing, logistics and
operations management. International Journal of Production Research 52, 6576-6589. [CrossRef]

33. K. Agyapong-Kodua, Csaba Haraszkó, István Németh. 2014. Resource selection ontologies in support of a recipe-based
factory design methodology. International Journal of Production Research 52, 6235-6253. [CrossRef]
34. D. Schmidtke, U. Heiser, O. Hinrichsen. 2014. A simulation-enhanced value stream mapping approach for optimisation of
complex production environments. International Journal of Production Research 52, 6146-6160. [CrossRef]
35. Jordi Olivella, Ruben Gregorio. 2014. Organizational Practices Lean Enterprises Adopt to Focus on Value Streams. Journal
of Enterprise Transformation 4, 309-328. [CrossRef]
36. Andrew J. Thomas, Kath Ringwald, Scott Parfitt, Alan Davies, Elwyn John. 2014. An empirical analysis of Lean Six Sigma
implementation in SMEs – a migratory perspective. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 31:8, 888-905.
37. Gareth R.T. White, Peter James. 2014. Extension of process mapping to identify “green waste”. Benchmarking: An International
38. Protik Basu, Pranab K. Dan. 2014. Capacity augmentation with VSM methodology for lean manufacturing. International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma 5:3, 279-292. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Jaiprakash Bhamu, Kuldip Singh Sangwan. 2014. Lean manufacturing: literature review and research issues. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 34:7, 876-940. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Naga Vamsi Krishna Jasti, Aditya Sharma. 2014. Lean manufacturing implementation using value stream mapping as a tool.
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 5:1, 89-116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. Alireza Anvari, Norzima Zulkifli, Shahryar Sorooshian, Omid Boyerhassani. 2014. An integrated design methodology based
on the use of group AHP-DEA approach for measuring lean tools efficiency with undesirable output. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 70, 2169-2186. [CrossRef]
42. Mariagrazia Dotoli, Maria Pia Fanti, Giorgio Iacobellis, Giuliana Rotunno. 2014. An integrated technique for the
internal logistics analysis and management in discrete manufacturing systems. International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing 27, 165-180. [CrossRef]
43. Matthias Holweg, Petri Helo. 2014. Defining value chain architectures: Linking strategic value creation to operational supply
chain design. International Journal of Production Economics 147, 230-238. [CrossRef]
44. Zulfa Fitri Ikatrinasari, Erlana Ichsan Haryanto. 2014. Implementation of Lean Service with Value Stream Mapping at
Directorate Airworthiness and Aircraft Operation, Ministry of Transportation Republic of Indonesia. Journal of Service Science
and Management 07, 291-301. [CrossRef]
45. Anja Schulze, Philipp Schmitt, Mareike Heinzen, Philipp Mayrl, Daniel Heller, Roman Boutellier. 2013. Exploring the 4I
framework of organisational learning in product development: value stream mapping as a facilitator. International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing 26, 1136-1150. [CrossRef]
46. Benjamin Kemper, Jeroen de Mast. 2013. Measurement Plans for Process Flow Improvement in Services and Health Care.
Quality Engineering 25, 437-450. [CrossRef]
47. Chiarini Andrea. 2013. Waste savings in patient transportation inside large hospitals using lean thinking tools and logistic
solutions. Leadership in Health Services 26:4, 356-367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
48. S. Vinodh, M. Somanaathan, K.R. Arvind. 2013. Development of value stream map for achieving leanness in a manufacturing
organization. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 11:2, 129-141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
49. Ilias Vlachos, Aleksandra Bogdanovic. 2013. Lean thinking in the European hotel industry. Tourism Management 36, 354-363.
[CrossRef]
50. Bernardo Nicoletti. 2013. Lean Six Sigma and digitize procurement. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 4:2, 184-203.
51. Samuel Jebaraj Benjamin, Uthiyakumar Murugaiah, M. Srikamaladevi Marathamuthu. 2013. The use of SMED to eliminate
small stops in a manufacturing firm. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 24:5, 792-807. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
52. Harwinder Singh, Amandeep Singh. 2013. Application of lean manufacturing using value stream mapping in an auto‐parts
manufacturing unit. Journal of Advances in Management Research 10:1, 72-84. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. Alireza Anvari, Norzima Zulkifli, Rosnah Mohd Yusuff. 2013. A dynamic modeling to measure lean performance within lean
attributes. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 66, 663-677. [CrossRef]
54. R. Murat Tabanli, Tijen Ertay. 2013. Value stream mapping and benefit–cost analysis application for value visibility of a pilot
project on RFID investment integrated to a manual production control system—a case study. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 66, 987-1002. [CrossRef]
55. Md Al Amin, M.A. Karim. 2013. A time-based quantitative approach for selecting lean strategies for manufacturing
organisations. International Journal of Production Research 51, 1146-1167. [CrossRef]
56. Ben Marriott, Jose Arturo Garza‐Reyes, Horacio Soriano‐Meier, Jiju Antony. 2013. An integrated methodology to prioritise
improvement initiatives in low volume‐high integrity product manufacturing organisations. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management 24:2, 197-217. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Robert Gerth, Albert Boqvist, Marcus Bjelkemyr, Bengt Lindberg. 2013. Design for construction: utilizing production
experiences in development. Construction Management and Economics 31, 135-150. [CrossRef]
58. Ricardo Pires de Souza, Hélio Roberto Hékis, Lucas Ambrósio Bezerra Oliveira, Jamerson Viegas Queiroz, Fernanda Cristina
Barbosa Pereira Queiroz, Ricardo Alexsandro de Medeiros Valentim. 2013. Implementation of a Six Sigma project in a 3M
division of Brazil. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 30:2, 129-141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
59. Paul R. Drake, Dong Myung Lee, Matloub Hussain. 2013. The lean and agile purchasing portfolio model. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 18:1, 3-20. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. P. Lewis, G. Cooke. 2013. Developing a lean measurement system to enhance process improvement. International Journal of
Metrology and Quality Engineering 4, 145-151. [CrossRef]
61. T. J. Roosen, D. J. Pons. 2013. Environmentally Lean Production: The Development and Incorporation of an Environmental
Impact Index into Value Stream Mapping. Journal of Industrial Engineering 2013, 1-17. [CrossRef]
62. Antony Pearce, Dirk Pons. 2013. Implementing Lean Practices: Managing the Transformation Risks. Journal of Industrial
Engineering 2013, 1-19. [CrossRef]
63. Amelia Natasya Abdul Wahab, Muriati Mukhtar, Riza Sulaiman. 2013. A Conceptual Model of Lean Manufacturing
Dimensions. Procedia Technology 11, 1292-1298. [CrossRef]
64. Anoma Ariyawardana, Ray Collins. 2013. Value Chain Analysis Across Borders: The Case of Australian Red Lentils to Sri
Lanka. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business 14, 25-39. [CrossRef]
65. K. L. Jeyaraj, C. Muralidharan, R. Mahalingam, S. G. Deshmukh. 2013. Applying Value Stream Mapping Technique for
Production Improvement in a Manufacturing Company: A Case Study. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series
C 94, 43-52. [CrossRef]
66. Ibrahim A. Nugroho, Ustica H. Riastuti, Hardianto Iridiastadi. 2012. Performance Improvement Suggestions for Ground
Handling using Lean Solutions Approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 65, 462-467. [CrossRef]
67. Paul Martin Gibbons, Colin Kennedy, Stuart Burgess, Patrick Godfrey. 2012. The development of a value improvement model
for repetitive processes (VIM). International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 3:4, 315-338. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. K. Agyapong-Kodua, J.O. Ajaefobi, R.H. Weston, S. Ratchev. 2012. Development of a multi-product cost and value stream
modelling methodology. International Journal of Production Research 50, 6431-6456. [CrossRef]
69. K. E. K. Vimal, S. Vinodh. 2012. Leanness evaluation using IF–THEN rules. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 63, 407-413. [CrossRef]
70. C. F. Oduoza, P. G. SmithWeb based tool to sustain continuous improvement and productivity in manufacturing small and
medium size enterprises (SMEs) 143-148. [CrossRef]
71. Andrew Fearne, Marian Garcia Martinez, Benjamin Dent. 2012. Dimensions of sustainable value chains: implications for
value chain analysis. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17:6, 575-581. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
72. Umit Bititci, Patrizia Garengo, Viktor Dörfler, Sai Nudurupati. 2012. Performance Measurement: Challenges for Tomorrow*.
International Journal of Management Reviews 14:10.1111/ijmr.2012.14.issue-3, 305-327. [CrossRef]
73. Maximilian de Bucourt, Reinhard Busse, Felix Güttler, Thomas Reinhold, Bernd Vollnberg, Max Kentenich, Bernd Hamm,
Ulf K. Teichgräber. 2012. Process mapping of PTA and stent placement in a university hospital interventional radiology
department. Insights into Imaging 3, 329-336. [CrossRef]
74. Chairul Saleh, Fatma Hermining Astuti, M. Ridwan Andi Purnomo, Baba Md DerosFuzzy identification of value stream
analysis tools in lean manufacturing 74-77. [CrossRef]
75. Paul M. Gibbons, Colin Kennedy, Stuart C. Burgess, Patrick Godfrey. 2012. Developing an asset management value
improvement model (a‐VIM) approach for an airport operational engineering environment. International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management 29:7, 797-819. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
76. Abir Fathallah, Julie Stal- Le Cardinal, Jean-Louis Ermine, Jean-Claude Bocquet. 2012. Continuous Improvement Modeling
to Support Enterprise Transformation. Journal of Enterprise Transformation 2, 177-200. [CrossRef]
77. Andrea Chiarini. 2012. Lean production: mistakes and limitations of accounting systems inside the SME sector. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management 23:5, 681-700. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
78. Anni-Kaisa Kähkönen, Katrina Lintukangas. 2012. The underlying potential of supply management in value creation. Journal
of Purchasing and Supply Management 18, 68-75. [CrossRef]
79. S. Vinodh, K. E. K. Vimal. 2012. Thirty criteria based leanness assessment using fuzzy logic approach. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 60, 1185-1195. [CrossRef]
80. Anni‐Kaisa Kähkönen. 2012. Value net – a new business model for the food industry?. British Food Journal 114:5, 681-701.
81. Varun Ramesh, Rambabu Kodali. 2012. A decision framework for maximising lean manufacturing performance. International
Journal of Production Research 50, 2234-2251. [CrossRef]
82. Paul M. Gibbons, Colin Kennedy, Stuart C. Burgess, Patrick Godfrey. 2012. The development of a lean resource mapping
framework: introducing an 8th waste. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 3:1, 4-27. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
83. S. Vinodh, Dino Joy. 2012. Structural Equation Modelling of lean manufacturing practices. International Journal of Production
Research 50, 1598-1607. [CrossRef]
84. Pim M. A. Polesie. 2012. Reducing the use of resources in medium-sized Swedish construction enterprises: production
managers’ views. Construction Management and Economics 30, 193-202. [CrossRef]
85. Sainath Gopinath, Theodor I. Freiheit. 2012. A waste relationship model and center point tracking metric for lean
manufacturing systems. IIE Transactions 44, 136-154. [CrossRef]
86. L. Wang, X.G. Ming, F.B. Kong, D. Li, P.P. Wang. 2011. Focus on implementation: a framework for lean product
development. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 23:1, 4-24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
87. Christian Finnsgård, Carl Wänström, Lars Medbo, W. Patrick Neumann. 2011. Impact of materials exposure on assembly
workstation performance. International Journal of Production Research 49, 7253-7274. [CrossRef]
88. M. A. Sanda, J. Johansson, B. JohanssonMiners' tacit knowledge: A unique resource for developing human-oriented lean
mining culture in deep mines 399-404. [CrossRef]
89. Claudia Paciarotti, Valentina Ciatteo, Giancarlo Giacchetta. 2011. Value stream mapping implementation in the third sector.
Operations Management Research 4, 99-110. [CrossRef]
90. Francesco Zammori, Marcello Braglia, Marco Frosolini. 2011. Stochastic overall equipment effectiveness. International Journal
of Production Research 49, 6469-6490. [CrossRef]
91. Luis Maria Fraga Cabral Sacadura, Alexandra Maria Baptista Ramos TeneraIntegrating Value and Lean Management in
Manufacturing Processes 1-5. [CrossRef]
92. David Asamoah, Patience Abor, Martin Opare. 2011. An examination of pharmaceutical supply chain for artemisinin‐based
combination therapies in Ghana. Management Research Review 34:7, 790-809. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
93. S. Vinodh, K. R. Arvind, M. Somanaathan. 2011. Tools and techniques for enabling sustainability through lean initiatives.
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 13, 469-479. [CrossRef]
94. Anand Gurumurthy, Rambabu Kodali. 2011. Design of lean manufacturing systems using value stream mapping with
simulation. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 22:4, 444-473. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
95. Arnout Pool, Jacob Wijngaard, Durk-Jouke van der Zee. 2011. Lean planning in the semi-process industry, a case study.
International Journal of Production Economics 131, 194-203. [CrossRef]
96. Anni-Kaisa Kähkönen, Veli Matti Virolainen. 2011. Sources of structural power in the context of value nets. Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management 17, 109-120. [CrossRef]
97. Alessio Trentin, Fabrizio Salvador, Cipriano Forza, M. Johnny Rungtusanatham. 2011. Operationalising form postponement
from a decision-making perspective. International Journal of Production Research 49, 1977-1999. [CrossRef]
98. Andrew Thomas, Richard Barton. 2011. Using the Quick Scan Audit Methodology (QSAM) as a precursor towards successful
Lean Six Sigma implementation. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 2:1, 41-54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
99. Mark Johnson, Simon Templar. 2011. The relationships between supply chain and firm performance. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 41:2, 88-103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
100. Bhim Singh, Suresh K. Garg, Surrender K. Sharma. 2011. Value stream mapping: literature review and implications for Indian
industry. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 53, 799-809. [CrossRef]
101. Hilda C. Martínez León, Jennifer A. Farris. 2011. Lean Product Development Research: Current State and Future Directions.
Engineering Management Journal 23, 29-51. [CrossRef]
102. S. Vinodh, Suresh Kumar Chintha. 2011. Leanness assessment using multi-grade fuzzy approach. International Journal of
Production Research 49, 431-445. [CrossRef]
103. Andrea Bonaccorsi. 2011. Service Value Stream Management (SVSM): Developing Lean Thinking in the Service Industry.
Journal of Service Science and Management 04, 428-439. [CrossRef]
104. Rajat Roy, Mike James-MooreLean Product Introduction . [CrossRef]
105. Toke Koldborg Jensen, Jette Nielsen, Erling P. Larsen, Jens Clausen. 2010. The Fish Industry—Toward Supply Chain
Modeling. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology 19, 214-226. [CrossRef]
106. S. Vinodh, K.R. Arvind, M. Somanaathan. 2010. Application of value stream mapping in an Indian camshaft manufacturing
organisation. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 21:7, 888-900. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
107. James H. Ford II, Meg Wise, Jennifer P. Wisdom. 2010. A Peek Inside the Box: How Information Flows Through Substance
Abuse Treatment Agencies. Journal of Technology in Human Services 28, 121-143. [CrossRef]
108. Anni‐Kaisa Kähkönen, Mari Tenkanen. 2010. The impact of power on information sharing in the Finnish food industry.
British Food Journal 112:8, 821-835. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
109. Li Chen, Manuel Nunez. 2010. Business Process Integration of Multiple Customer Order Review Systems. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management 57, 502-512. [CrossRef]
110. G. Schuh, W. Boos, K. KuhlmannModelling Business Processes for Limited-Lot Producers with Aixperanto 1-4. [CrossRef]
111. Ayoegul Ozkavukcu, M. Bulent DurmusogluProduction smoothing decisions with seasonal variation through value stream
1-6. [CrossRef]
112. Bhim Singh, S.K. Garg, S.K. Sharma, Chandandeep Grewal. 2010. Lean implementation and its benefits to production
industry. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 1:2, 157-168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
113. Paul M. Gibbons, Stuart C. Burgess. 2010. Introducing OEE as a measure of lean Six Sigma capability. International Journal
of Lean Six Sigma 1:2, 134-156. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
114. K. ZokaeiValue chain analysis of the UK food sector 187-211. [CrossRef]
115. Bhim Singh, S.K. Sharma. 2009. Value stream mapping as a versatile tool for lean implementation: an Indian case study of
a manufacturing firm. Measuring Business Excellence 13:3, 58-68. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
116. David H. Taylor, Andrew Fearne. 2009. Demand management in fresh food value chains: a framework for analysis and
improvement. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14:5, 379-392. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
117. Aysegul Yalcinkaya, M. Bulent DurmusogluProduction smoothing decisions with seasonal variation through value stream
management 128-133. [CrossRef]
118. Tuangyot Supeekit, Kanokwan KingphadungService process redesign applying value stream analysis: The case of a patient
discharging process 7-12. [CrossRef]
119. C Martin, M Metcalfe, H Harris. 2009. Developing an implementation capacity: justifications from prior research. Journal
of the Operational Research Society 60, 859-868. [CrossRef]
120. K. Agyapong-Kodua, J. O. Ajaefobi, R. H. Weston. 2009. Modelling dynamic value streams in support of process design and
evaluation. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 22, 411-427. [CrossRef]
121. Catalina Perez, Rodolfo de Castro, Maria Font i Furnols. 2009. The pork industry: a supply chain perspective. British Food
122. Benjamin Kemper, Jeroen de Mast, Michel Mandjes. 2009. Modeling process flow using diagrams. Quality and Reliability
Engineering International n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
123. Hung-da Wan, F. Frank Chen. 2008. A leanness measure of manufacturing systems for quantifying impacts of lean initiatives.
International Journal of Production Research 46, 6567-6584. [CrossRef]
124. Joakim Wikner, Ou Tang. 2008. A structural framework for closed‐loop supply chains. The International Journal of Logistics
Management 19:3, 344-366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
125. Thomas Gregory Frater, Donald James Houston. 2008. Notes on progress in structuring a research project measuring energy
inputs into New Zealand apple production-combining hard and soft systems methods. Systems Research and Behavioral Science
25, 827-833. [CrossRef]
126. Ibon Serrano, Carlos Ochoa, Rodolfo De Castro. 2008. Evaluation of value stream mapping in manufacturing system redesign.
127. Colin Herron, Christian Hicks. 2008. The transfer of selected lean manufacturing techniques from Japanese automotive
manufacturing into general manufacturing (UK) through change agents. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing
24, 524-531. [CrossRef]
128. P. Childerhouse, S.M. Disney, D.R. Towill. 2008. On the impact of order volatility in the European automotive sector.
129. Jagjit Singh Srai, Mike Gregory. 2008. A supply network configuration perspective on international supply chain development.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 28:5, 386-411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
130. Ibon Serrano Lasa, Carlos Ochoa Laburu, Rodolfo de Castro Vila. 2008. An evaluation of the value stream mapping tool.
Business Process Management Journal 14:1, 39-52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
131. Mark Francis, David Simons, Michael Bourlakis. 2008. Value chain analysis in the UK beef foodservice sector. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 13:1, 83-91. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
132. E.D. Adamides, N. Karacapilidis, H. Pylarinou, D. Koumanakos. 2008. Supporting collaboration in the development and
management of lean supply networks. Production Planning & Control 19, 35-52. [CrossRef]
133. Andreas Reichhart, Matthias Holweg. 2007. Creating the customer‐responsive supply chain: a reconciliation of concepts.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27:11, 1144-1172. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
134. R. Darlington, S. Rahimifard. 2007. Hybrid two-stage planning for food industry overproduction waste minimization.
135. Andreas Reichhart, Matthias Holweg. 2007. L ean distribution: concepts, contributions, conflicts. International Journal of
Production Research 45, 3699-3722. [CrossRef]
136. B.J. Hicks. 2007. Lean information management: Understanding and eliminating waste. International Journal of Information
Management 27, 233-249. [CrossRef]
137. Rajesh Krishnamurthy, Charlene A. Yauch. 2007. Leagile manufacturing: a proposed corporate infrastructure. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 27:6, 588-604. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
138. Keivan Zokaei, Peter Hines. 2007. Achieving consumer focus in supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management 37:3, 223-247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
139. Andrew Potter, Chandra Lalwani. 2007. Developing a methodology to analyse despatch bay performance. International Journal
of Production Economics 106, 82-91. [CrossRef]
140. Abdulsalam A. Al‐Sudairi. 2007. Evaluating the effect of construction process characteristics to the applicability of lean
principles. Construction Innovation 7:1, 99-121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
141. R. Darlington, S. Rahimifard. 2006. A responsive demand management framework for the minimization of waste in
convenience food manufacture. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19, 751-761. [CrossRef]
142. Peter Hines, Mark Francis, Pauline Found. 2006. Towards lean product lifecycle management. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management 17:7, 866-887. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
143. M. Braglia, G. Carmignani, F. Zammori. 2006. A new value stream mapping approach for complex production systems.
144. Jagadeesh Raj. 2006. Exploration into the quality septet. The TQM Magazine 18:5, 433-439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
145. David H. Taylor, Andrew Fearne. 2006. Towards a framework for improvement in the management of demand in agri‐food
supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 11:5, 379-384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
146. S.C.L. Koh, K.H. Tan. 2006. Operational intelligence discovery and knowledge‐mapping approach in a supply network with
uncertainty. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 17:6, 687-699. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
147. Peter Hines, Mark Francis, Kate Bailey. 2006. Quality‐based pricing: a catalyst for collaboration and sustainable change in
the agrifood industry?. The International Journal of Logistics Management 17:2, 240-259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
148. David H. Taylor. 2006. Demand management in agri‐food supply chains. The International Journal of Logistics Management
17:2, 163-186. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
149. A. Keivan Zokaei, David W. Simons. 2006. Value chain analysis in consumer focus improvement. The International Journal
of Logistics Management 17:2, 141-162. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
150. R. K. Singh, S. Kumar, A. K. Choudhury, M. K. Tiwari. 2006. Lean tool selection in a die casting unit: a fuzzy-based decision
support heuristic. International Journal of Production Research 44, 1399-1429. [CrossRef]
151. Ann Esain, Lynn Massey. 2006. Value relationships and effectiveness – pilot study in health. International Journal of
152. R K Singh, A K Choudhury, M K Tiwari, R S Maull. 2006. An integrated fuzzy-based decision support system for the
selection of lean tools: a case study from the steel industry. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B:
Journal of Engineering Manufacture 220, 1735-1749. [CrossRef]
153. Ibrahim A. Rawabdeh. 2005. A model for the assessment of waste in job shop environments. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management 25:8, 800-822. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
154. Lawrence E. Whitman, Don E. Malzahn, Barbara S. Chaparro, Mark Russell, Rebecca Langrall, Beth A. Mohler. 2005.
A Comparison of Group Processes, Performance, and Satisfaction in Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Engineering
Student Design Teams. Journal of Engineering Education 94:10.1002/jee.2005.94.issue-3, 327-337. [CrossRef]
155. David Simons, Keivan Zokaei. 2005. Application of lean paradigm in red meat processing. British Food Journal 107:4, 192-211.
156. Dinesh Seth *, Vaibhav Gupta. 2005. Application of value stream mapping for lean operations and cycle time reduction: an
Indian case study. Production Planning & Control 16, 44-59. [CrossRef]
157. Peter Hines, Matthias Holweg, Nick Rich. 2004. Learning to evolve. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 24:10, 994-1011. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
158. Trevor Turner, Veronica Martinez, Umit Bititci. 2004. Managing the value delivery process. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 34:3/4, 302-318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
159. Badr Haque, Mike James-moore. 2004. Applying lean thinking to new product introduction. Journal of Engineering Design
15, 1-31. [CrossRef]
160. B Haque. 2003. Lean engineering in the aerospace industry. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B:
Journal of Engineering Manufacture 217, 1409-1420. [CrossRef]
161. Peter Hines, Riccardo Silvi, Monica Bartolini. 2002. Demand chain management: an integrative approach in automotive
retailing. Journal of Operations Management 20, 707-728. [CrossRef]
162. Jack G.A.J. van der Vorst, Adrie J.M. Beulens. 2002. Identifying sources of uncertainty to generate supply chain redesign
strategies. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 32:6, 409-430. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
163. Peter McCullen, Denis Towill. 2002. Diagnosis and reduction of bullwhip in supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 7:3, 164-179. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
164. Matthias Holweg, John Bicheno. 2002. Supply chain simulation – a tool for education, enhancement and endeavour.
165. M.M. Naim, P. Childerhouse, S.M. Disney, D.R. Towill. 2002. A supply chain diagnostic methodology: determining the
vector of change. Computers & Industrial Engineering 43, 135-157. [CrossRef]
166. William G. Sullivan, Thomas N. McDonald, Eileen M. Van Aken. 2002. Equipment replacement decisions and lean
manufacturing. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 18, 255-265. [CrossRef]
167. John Bicheno, Matthias Holweg, Jens Niessmann. 2001. Constraint batch sizing in a lean environment. International Journal
of Production Economics 73, 41-49. [CrossRef]
168. Christine Harland, Louise KnightSupply strategy: A corporate social capital perspective 151-183. [Citation] [Enhanced
Abstract] [PDF] [PDF]
169. Peter Hines, Matthias Holweg, James Sullivan. 2000. Waves, beaches, breakwaters and rip currents – A three‐dimensional view
of supply chain dynamics. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 30:10, 827-846. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
170. R. Barker, S. Hong-Minh, M.M. Naim. 2000. The terrain scanning methodology, Assessing and improving construction
supply chains. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 6, 179-193. [CrossRef]
171. Simon Croom, Pietro Romano, Mihalis Giannakis. 2000. Supply chain management: an analytical framework for critical
literature review. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 6, 67-83. [CrossRef]
172. Donna Samuel, Peter Hines. 1999. Designing a supply chain change process: a food distribution case. International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management 27:10, 409-420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
173. Peter Hines, Nick Rich, Ann Esain. 1999. Value stream mapping. Benchmarking: An International Journal 6:1, 60-77.
174. Peter Hines. 1998. Benchmarking Toyota's supply chain: Japan vs U.K. Long Range Planning 31, 911-918. [CrossRef]
175. Peter Hines, Nick Rich. 1998. Outsourcing competitive advantage: the use of supplier associations. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 28:7, 524-546. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
176. MARK FRANCIS. 1998. Lean Information and Supply Chain Effectiveness. International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications 1, 93-108. [CrossRef]
177. John S. Kiff. 1997. Supply and stocking systems in the UK car market. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 27:3/4, 226-243. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
178. Daniel T. Jones, Peter Hines, Nick Rich. 1997. Lean logistics. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 27:3/4, 153-173. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
View publication stats

The Seven Value Stream Mapping Tools Peter Hinesand Nick Rich IJOPM1997

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Seven Value Stream Mapping Tools Peter Hinesand Nick Rich IJOPM1997

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The seven value stream mapping tools

Article in International Journal of Operations & Production Management · January 1997

Peter Hines Nick Rich

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Waste removal inside companies

The supply-chain development programme (SCDP I and II) is an industry-focused programme of

(2) necessary but non-value adding (NNVA); and

The seven wastes

kaizen activities and should not result in overproduction.

The seven value stream mapping tools

Mapping tool Origin of mapping tool

(1) Process activity mapping Industrial engineering

(1) the study of the flow of processes;

Supply chain response matrix

sectors including automotive, aerospace and construction. A similar, if slightly

Production variety funnel

inventory reduction and making changes to the processing of products. It is also

Quality filter mapping

Demand amplification mapping

distribution through a leading UK supermarket retailer. In this simple example

forecasts alone[21]. Thus, with reference to Figure 6 – an example from the

Make & Ship To Local Stock

Purchase & Make To Order

Key Supply Stream Forecast Customer

The distribution area in Figure 7 includes three tiers as well as a section

Value stream mapping tools

(1) process activity mapping;

case, however, such an approach can be widened and so extended to a value

operations management. International Journal of Production Research 52, 6576-6589. [CrossRef]

View publication stats

You might also like