Theme: Process management and improvement: Six sigma, quality

control, quality assurance, and quality management, safety

How Lean is the New Zealand pipfruit industry?

Hans (JT) Doevendans
PhD Student
School of Engineering and Advanced technology
Massey University,
C/O 244 Crystall Road, RD 2
Hastings 4172
New Zealand
Email: johand@xtra.co.nz

Nigel P. Grigg
Associate professor
School of Engineering and Advanced Technology
Massey University
Palmerston North 5013
New Zealand

Jane E. Goodyer
Associate professor
School of Engineering and Advanced Technology
Massey University
Palmerston North 5013
New Zealand

Abstract
This paper explores how Lean1 the New Zealand (NZ) pipfruit (apples, pears) industry is and
how Lean consultants see the value of Lean for the industry. In this paper, a mixed method
approach is used to combine qualitative and quantitative data in the assessment of a base-line –
Where is the industry at today, in terms of Lean thinking? Results indicate that there is some
understanding of Lean principles and tools and methodologies within the industry, but that
organisations typically have not embedded Lean thinking in their strategy. The study may have
implications for the wider horticultural industries but is restricted to the NZ pipfruit industry. There
is a void in available literature about Lean thinking in the NZ pipfruit industry specifically and in
the wider horticultural industry generally. This exploratory study forms the precursor in a three year
study into the introduction and implementation of Lean thinking into the NZ pipfruit industry that
will adopt action research as methodology. The aim of this further research is to assist the industry
in finding ways to improve its competitive position by adopting a different fundamental thinking.

1
‘Lean’ is written with a capital throughout the paper as it represents a name of a specific paradigm
1
Authors’ Biographies
Hans (JT) Doevendans is a retired operational RNLAF squadron commander. He is working as
independent quality systems and market access systems practitioner in the NZ pipfruit industry and
is a PhD student at Massey University. He completed his Masters in Quality Systems in 2010,
researching total quality management (TQM) in the NZ pipfruit industry. His current study is
designed to assist the NZ pipfruit industry to become more competitive by looking at Lean
implementation opportunities and models. Hans Doevendans will be speaking at the congress.

Nigel Grigg is Associate Professor in Quality Systems at Massey University, and leads Massey’s
Graduate Diploma, Post Graduate Diploma and Master of Quality Systems programmes. He has
undertaken research projects, consultancy, and supervision of Masters and doctoral student projects
in areas such as Customer Relationship Management, Business Excellence model validation, Lean,
Six Sigma, Quality Function Deployment, Design or Experiments, Knowledge Management and
Statistical Quality Control within a range of industry and economic sectors. Nigel has been a
Director of the New Zealand Organisation for Quality since 2008, also serving previously as Vice
President, National President and Chairman of the Board. He is a Chartered Quality Professional, a
certified six sigma master black belt, and a member of the Chartered Quality Institute, the Institute
of Directors and senior member of the American Society for Quality.

Jane Goodyer is an Associate Professor in the School of Engineering and Advanced Technology at
Massey University. Her research is in Lean and its ability to sustain productivity improvement;
with recent studies of the effectiveness of NZTE’s Lean Business Programme. Jane is a strong
advocate for manufacturers to improve and has created a national web based hub that showcases NZ
Universities’ capabilities so that manufacturers can tap into expertise that can help build their
international competitiveness (www.mkhere.org.nz). Before entering academia she was a practicing
manufacturing engineer in the UK’s automotive industry and is a chartered engineer.

Presentation experience
Hans wrote and presented papers on quality management issues within the NZ pipfruit industry at
the EUROMA conference in Cambridge, UK in July 2011 and at the ANZAM conference in
Wellington, New Zealand in December 2011.

How Lean is the New Zealand pipfruit industry?

Introduction

For the purpose of this paper, it is assumed that the essence of the historical development of the
Toyota Production System (TPS) is widely known and can be captured as follows: When Toyota
started building cars from Ford and GM components in the late 1930’s, it decided that it needed
more flexible production systems than Ford used in the US in order to satisfy its relatively small
base of demanding Japanese customers (Holweg, 2007). In order for Toyota to create small batches,
it focussed on quick change-overs (Single Minute Exchange of Die – ‘SMED’) to reduce equipment
down-time and Just-In-Time supply systems (JIT) to reduce inventory. Flow and Pull became
driving factors and when International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP) researcher John Krafcik
researched Toyota at the NUMMI plant in the US, he suggested to his colleagues Womack, Jones
and Roos to name the system ‘Lean’ because ‘it uses less of everything and creates less waste’
compared with mass production batch and queue systems.

2
For some time the question was asked if Lean was restricted to the Japanese industry or if it was
transferable. The NUMMI plant in California, a partnership between Toyota and General Motors,
answered that question to a large degree. The NUMMI plant produced vastly more efficient than
comparable US plants, with better quality and only a seventh of the inventory (Womack et al,
1990). Lean was not restricted to country or indigenous culture; it was transferable.

While Lean was mostly restricted to the operational manufacturing area in early 2000, Lean
expanded to other disciplines such as economics (Stone, 2012), human resources (Holton 2003),
product development (Womack et al, 1990, Holweg, 2007), marketing and sales (Stone, 2012),
service (Arbos, 2002), construction (Jørgensen and Emmitt 2008), health (Joosten et al 2009,
Aronsson et al 2011), IT, government (Seddon and Brand, 2008, and Krings et al, 2006), supply
chain (Holweg and Pil 2001, Aronsson et al 2011), aerospace (Financial Post, 1999) and accounting
(Hines et al, 2004). Lean combines philosophy, principles and tools with learning and improvement
processes into one paradigm; and the paradigm is at times complex to understand.

If Lean is largely based on car manufacturing or manufacturing in general, how is it then that other
industries have developed their own Lean? Hines et al (2004) point out that there are a range of
complementary approaches such as Six Sigma and Theory of Constraints, that have been used in
conjunction with Lean to achieve customer value. There may be no single best practice for all
organisations as Child points out, posting the contingency approach (Child, 1977).

Some researchers urge to look at how Lean value systems can be created in under-researched
industries (Hines et al, (2004). This contrasts with existing industries that use Lean approaches to
rectify the errors made by earlier managements. Since Womack, Jones and Roos described the
Toyota Production System (TPS) and named it ‘Lean’ (Womack et al, 1990), the world has seen
numerous studies on Lean thinking and Lean implementation. In the updated version of their first
book, the authors present their conclusion at the end of a five year study and daily contact with
industry leaders and outsiders with a broad perspective, that Lean could be applied to any industry
(Womack et al, 2007). As they say,

“In this process we’ve become convinced that the principles of Lean production can be
applied equally in any industry across the globe and that the conversion to Lean production
will have a profound effect on human society – it will truly change the world.” (P6)

The New Zealand pipfruit industry started to develop around 1910 (Monigatti, 1966, Benzies,
1968). Exporting of fruit was explored several years later and the government set up a New Zealand
Fruit Export Control Board in 1925 with the power to control all export fruit (Monigatti, 1966,
Benzies, 1968). In 1948, the Apple and Pear Marketing Act was passed, leading to the creation of
‘the Apple and Pear Marketing Board’ (APMB) with sole right to acquire and market all apples and
pears grown in New Zealand (The Orchardist, 1948). The APMB dominated the industry for the
next five decades. McKenna and Campbell (1999) report that exclusive control of the crop by the
APMB was reasonably well accepted until a new levy system was introduced in 1983 and created
much controversy. The ‘bitter years’ (McKenna and Campbell, 1999) were followed by years of
economic re-structure after the election of a labour government in 1984. The neo-liberal economic
principles (Kelsey, 1997) put pressure on the single desk marketing monopoly from the APMB and
eventually led to de-regulation of the industry in May 2011.

Since its de-regulation in 2001, the industry has undergone significant changes:
• The number of growers reduced from 1488 in 2000 (FreshFacts 2001) to 431 in 2010, a 71.0
% reduction since 2000 (FreshFacts 2011);
• Planted area reduced from 14,114 hectares (ha) in 2000 (FreshFacts 2001) to 8,630 ha in
2010 (FreshFacts 2011), a 38.85 % reduction since 2000; Export production remained
3
 relatively stable, totalling 356,400 tonnes in 2000 (Pipfruit NZ Statistical Annual 2005) and
304,271 tonnes in 2011 (Pipfruit NZ Statistical Annual 2011)2.
• The number of packhouses/coolstores reduced from some 130 in 2000 (FreshFacts 2001) to
66 in 2010 (FreshFacts 2011, Pipfruit Industry Statistical Annual 2010)3;
• In 1998, New Zealand was still a single desk seller (Mannering, 1999) with one dedicated
exporter; in 2010 there were 99 exporters (FreshFacts 2011).

Currently, the NZ pipfruit industry is a considerable export industry, contributing 24.94% to the
total New Zealand fresh fruit export and 10.51% of total horticultural export income in 2010
(FreshFacts 2011). Data released by Statistics New Zealand show that fruit exports make up 3.71%
of the total New Zealand exports (Statistics NZ, 2011). New Zealand produces about 0.39 % of the
world’s apples but is largely export driven and captures 3.86 % of the global export trade (World
Apple Review 2012).

The World Apple Review (2012) compares 32 apple producing countries on 22 criteria to arrive at
an overall competitiveness rating. Where NZ was the leader between 1996 and 2002, the period
since 2002 has turned into a roller coaster ride with NZ dropping to second in 2003, dropping to
third in 2009, to fifth in 2010, back to fourth in 2011 and to second again in 2012. Nonetheless, data
released by MPI NZ (Farm monitoring pipfruit 2010) show an average orchard deficit for re-
investment between 2006 and 2010 of approximately $54,000 for the combined Nelson and
Hawke’s Bay areas. A continuation of re-investment deficit is not sustainable for the organisations
involved. This raises the question how the industry can become more competitive and thus
sustainable.

The NZ pipfruit industry is seasonal, produces a single volume of products at a fixed time of the
year, generates product with limited life span and is ‘push’, rather than ‘pull’. During the past
fifteen years, it has been exposed to volatile socio-economic changes, including de-regulation in
2001. Considering that ‘Lean’ was derived from car manufacturing, the question must be asked how
applicable its principles are to such horticultural industries, i.e. not all Lean principles, methods and
tools may automatically and equally apply. There is minimal literature about Lean thinking,
specifically in the NZ pipfruit industry and in the wider horticultural industry generally. Commented [GJ1]: I would mention that the industry is
currently considering Lean to help them improve, with support from
NZTE.
The purpose of this study is to establish an understanding of Lean and how it can be usefully
implemented in a horticultural context like the pipfruit industry. Phase one of the study is discussed
in this paper and involves a literature review, a stakeholders survey and a Lean consultants survey
and interviews. Results indicate that industry stakeholders have a relatively poor knowledge of
Lean. Consultants indicate that there is no question that Lean will add value to organisations within
the pipfruit industry. Phase two of this study intends to use action research and work with pipfruit
organisations on implementing Lean over a period of two years to arrive at a blueprint for other
pipfruit organisations to use when implementing Lean. This blueprint may have applicability for
wider horticultural industries.

Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to contribute to the body of knowledge that exists in relation to ‘Lean’
and horticulture in New Zealand, specifically the NZ pipfruit industry. The pipfruit industry is
considered a case-study within the wider horticultural context. The study aims to find answers to the
following research questions:

4
1. Are organisations within the NZ pipfruit industry aware of Lean and using Lean, and to
what extend?
2. Can Lean be expected to contribute to a more competitive position for organisations within
the NZ pipfruit industry?
3. How is Lean implementation potentially affected by this ‘push’ industry that has perishable
products and is subject to strong seasonal influences?
4. Are there Lean philosophies, principles, methodologies or tools which work better or not so
good within each of the sub-sectors (i.e. growing, packing, cool-storing and exporting) of
the NZ pipfruit industry?
5. Can practical Lean models or templates be created for each of the different sub-sectors
within the industry?

Research Methodology
The overall research project is designed in two phases, of which phase one is reported in this paper:
• Phase 1: Establish how Lean the NZ pipfruit industry is (Research questions 1, and 2).
• Phase 2: Establish which Lean principles, methodologies and tools work well for each of the
different principal activities and create a model (Research questions 3, 4 and 5).

Figure 1: Research design including phase 1 and phase 2

Two different target groups were involved in the initial research:

Lean consultants: The first group consisted of 26 Lean consultants operating in NZ. A list of Lean
consultants was compiled by the researcher using a number of mixed resources and all consultants
were approached with a set of basic questions about Lean in NZ, and Lean in a horticultural
context. Structured, open-ended interviews -allowing further free elaboration - provide the typical
source of information in case studies. The interview structure allowed channelling answers given to
broad, open-ended questions into more specific views and details (Voss et al, 2002).

5
Industry stakeholders: The second group consisted of 150 randomly selected industry
stakeholders. Considering that response rates to surveys have been dropping over the years, and that
surveys with more questions and survey topics of undetermined relevance return lower response
rates (Sheehan, 2006), a different electronic media survey method was used. Each randomly
selected stakeholder was approached with a single question each working day. This method had
been tested by the researcher during earlier research and had proven to be quite effective
(Doevendans and Wilson, 2011). Questions were grouped in four groups:
Group 1: Basic demographic information about the stakeholder company.
Group 2: Ten questions relating to general views on Lean knowledge interest and management
philosophy, using a five point Likert scale. The options on the Likert scale were specific
to each question.
Group 3: Twenty questions, each relating to one of the twenty Kobayashi keys that were also used
in the NZTE Aichi programme (Kobayashi, 1995). Level of knowledge and use of the
twenty keys was assessed using a five point Likert scale.
Group 4: Twenty broadly accepted Lean tools, identifying level of knowledge and use of these
tools using a five point Likert scale.

Validity and reliability: The selection of a large group of practicing consultants and the
development of a protocol to maximise reliability in the data collection provides for theoretical and
practical replication, ensuring internal and external validity (Eisenhardt, 1989).
The use of established ‘Lean’ fundamental principles and tools in the survey of randomly selected
industry stakeholders, as outlined above, provides construct validity in the empirical research.

Results and analysis

Consultants: Twenty consultants out of the group of twenty-six were prepared to answer questions,
a response rate of 76.92%. Generally, all respondents assisted customers with Lean implementation.
Several assisted companies in the primary industry but further questioning established that most of
these were active in the food processing section.

Emerging themes were closely associated with the main subject headings of the interviews:
• Consultants varied in their views on the push factor of horticultural products such as
pipfruit. Two consultants diverted the subject to the removal of waste; one stated that
upstream activities still ‘pulled’; a third one stated that Lean principles still apply while
several argued that one could not be truly Lean and operate a push system. There was no
clarity amongst consultants about the implications of Lean ‘Push’.
• Consultants had varying responses to the element of seasonal workers. One consultant
simply stated that the principles still applied, while another placed emphasis on planning.
Good process, robust systems and standard procedures were mentioned, as well as training.
Consultants appeared generally unaware of the sharpness of this seasonal work.
• The perishable nature of the product (apples and pears) led to responses such as ‘it doesn’t
make a difference’, ‘It puts more emphasis on flexibility and agility within the processes’
and ‘it is also about supply chain as there is no manufacturing’. There was no uniformity in
the answers to this problem.
• Consultants’ responses had some consistency when asked what was more important,
philosophy or tools. 60% Replied that one could not work without the other, that philosophy
and tools had to be integrated, that both were essential. 35% replied that philosophy was
more important, that tools would break down if the philosophy was not understood, that
leaders should have vision and philosophy. Only one consultant (5%) replied that tools were
easily the most important.
• Consultants were unanimous in their view that Lean could add value to horticultural
industries. Responses ranged from ‘yes, absolutely’ to ‘without a doubt’, ‘yes, there is

6
 significant opportunity, ‘very easily’, ‘there is no doubt in my mind’ and ‘yes as process
improvement’ and ‘I can’t imagine why not’.

An interesting theme, not associated with the main subject headings within the interviews was that
consultants diverted awkward questions to basic Lean philosophy or showed wide variability in
their answers. This may indicate that there is no standard response to these questions within the
Lean literature. Another uninvited response was the background of the Lean consultants. A
substantial proportion appeared to have worked for Toyota at one stage or another. This may also
explain the difficulty with responses when stepping outside of the manufacturing scene.

Stakeholders: The initial overall response rate was 23.88% average. The response rate was
considered satisfactory given the length of the questionnaire, the relevance of the subject and the
declining response rates to surveys over the years (Sheehan, 2001).

Organisations were generally aware that their level of Lean knowledge was low. A single question
was used as pre- and post-survey question. Responses to the pre-survey question indicated that
respondents estimated their Lean knowledge much higher at the start of the survey than at the end
of the survey.

Figure 2: Pre- and Post-survey self-assessed Lean knowledge

An important question was asking what would be the most effective persuasion in order to achieve a
fundamental management philosophy change. Several options were offered. Respondents found that
success-stories would be most persuasive (63%), substantially more than the next best option (solid
theory, widely used in other industries at 18%). This confirms that action research may be the most
effective way to persuade organisations to adopt Lean thinking. Commented [GJ2]: Does it?

Kobayashi keys: Most organisations applied little or none of the Kobayashi keys, while some
organisations responded that they were implementing a level of Lean that was somewhere near level
three or higher of the Kobayashi keys. Important to understand is that these were self-assessments,
and that the five levels of each key were represented by a single statement, introducing a level of
variation into the accuracy of responses. Despite this limitation, some 75% of all responses did not
or sometimes implement the keys, indicating a low level of Leanness.

Lean tools: There was little knowledge of Lean tools in general; more than half of all responses
indicated that respondents did not know the tools presented. Only a small number of organisations
indicated use of some of the tools or use with some form of regularity.

7
 Figure 3: Self-assessment responses to knowledge and use of 20 Lean tools (all 20 tools)

Conclusion
In phase one of the research project, the following can be established:
1. The NZ pipfruit industry, although globally considered competitive, is not in a favourable
financial position.
2. Lean is widely used in the manufacturing industries.
3. Lean is now considered and used in a range of other industries but no academic work
appears available that has studied implementation of Lean in any horticultural production
context, specifically the NZ pipfruit industry.
4. Lean can and should be adapted to its environment, making use of other theoretical
concepts.
5. NZ Lean consultants are unanimous that Lean will work in the NZ pipfruit industry.
6. A random sample of NZ pipfruit industry stakeholders demonstrated that there is little
knowledge of Lean, and that any implementation is minimal.
7. The same sample clearly acknowledges that the most compelling reason for them to
consider Lean is the success stories of other organisations.

All of this establishes the need for an in-depth study of Lean implementation in a horticultural
context such as the NZ pipfruit industry.

Future research
Phase 2: Future research: It is proposed to complement phase one of this study with a two year
follow-on (phase two), using action research as methodology. Action research offers the advantage
that the researcher finds himself in the middle of the research, not observing from the outside. It is
participative, grounded in experience and action oriented (Bjorn and Boulus, 2011). It places
emphasis on the researchers intent to improve a situation; to make a difference on a current setting
(McNiff and Whitehead, 2006). Pipfruit organisations have indicated that success stories are
necessary to convince the industry stakeholders that Lean is a paradigm to consider. Action research
offers the opportunity to work with selected companies and achieve change, test new concepts,
learn, validate and document Lean thinking, methodologies and tools that can work in the pipfruit
context, but also those that work only partly or not at all and should be discarded.

8
References Commented [GJ3]: Put in alphabetical order
Arbos, L.C. (2002). Design of a rapid response and high efficiency service by Lean
production principles: Methodology and evaluation of variability of performance
Production Economics 80 (2002) 169–183.
Aronsson, H., Abrahamsson, M. and Spens, K (2011),"Developing Lean and agile health care
supply chains", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 Iss: 3 pp. 176 – 183.
Bjorn, P. and Boulus, N. (2011). “Dissenting in reflective conversations: Critical components of
action research”. Action Research 2011, 9:282.
Child, J. (1977). Organizational Design and Performance: Contingency Theory and Beyond.
Organization and Administrative Sciences, 8, 2&3, 169-83, Sum/F 77
Benzies, B. (1968). Partners in Production. Wellington: Ferguson and Osborn Ltd.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed methods Approaches.
London: Sage Publications.
Doevendans, J.T., and Wilson, R. (2011). The NZ pipfruit supply and value chain. Embargoed
report providing comparative country and supply chain data. Hastings: Pipfruit NZ
Donaldson, L. (1996), “The normal science of structural contingency theory”, in Clegg, S.R. and
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). "Building Theories from Case Study Research." The Academy of
Management Review 14(4): 532-550.
Financial Post Canada (1999), “Aerospace industry mimics Toyota”, Financial Post, 10 March.
FreshFacts 2000, (2001). Auckland: Plant & Food Research.
FreshFacts 2010, (2011). Auckland: Plant & Food Research.
Goodyer, J., Griig, N. and Murti, Y. (2011). Sustaining Lean Manufacturing in New Zealand
Organisations. Report prepared for NZTE. Massey University.
Hardy, C. (Eds), Studying Organisation: Theory and Method, Sage Publications, London.
Hines, P., Holweg, M., Rich, N. (2004),"Learning to evolve: A review of contemporary Lean
thinking", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 Iss: 10 pp. 994 –
1011.
Holton, E. (2003). Cycle Time: A Missing Dimension in HRD Research and Theory. Human
Resource Development Review 2003 2 (4): 335-336.
Holweg, M. (2007). The genealogy of Lean production, Journal of Operations Management 25
(2007) 420–437.
Holweg, M. and Pil, F.K. (2001). Successful Build-to-Order Strategies Start With the Customer.
MIT Sloan management review, ISSN 1532-9194, Vol. 43, Nº 1, 2001 , pages 74-83
Jørgensen, B. and Emmitt, S (2008)."Lost in transition: the transfer of Lean manufacturing to
construction", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 15 Iss: 4 pp. 383 –
398.
Joosten, T., Bongers, I. and Janssen, R. (2009). Application of Lean thinking to health care: issues
and observations. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2009; Volume 21, Number 5: pp.
341–347
Kelsey, J. (1997). The New Zealand Experiment: A world Model for Structural Adjustment?
Auckland University Press.
Kobayashi, I. (1995). 20 Keys to Workplace Improvements. New York, Productivity Press.
Krings, D., Levine, D. and Wall, T (2006). The use of “Lean” in local government. ICMA Public
Management Magazine, 88 8
Maleyeff, J. (2006),"Exploration of internal service systems using Lean principles", Management
Decision, Vol. 44 Iss: 5 pp. 674 - 689
Mannering, R (1999). 100 Harvests: a history of fruitgrowing in Hawkes Bay. Wellington: PSL
Press.
McKenna, M. Roche, M. Mansvelt, J. Berg, L (1999): Core Issues in New Zealand’s Apple
Industry: Global-Local Challenges. Geography Department Massey University.
McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2006). All you need to know about action research. London: Sage.
Monigatti, R. (1966). Fruitful Years. Wellington: Ferguson and Osborn Ltd.
9
MPI (2012) Farm monitoring report pipfruit 2010
Pipfruit NZ Industry Statistical Annual 2005 (2005), Pipfruit New Zealand Incorporated, Hastings
Pipfruit Industry Statistical Annual 2010 (2010), Pipfruit New Zealand Incorporated, Hastings
Pipfruit Industry Statistical Annual 2011 (2011), Pipfruit New Zealand Incorporated, Hastings
Seddon, J. and Brand, C. (2008). Debate: Systems thinking and Public Sector Performance. Public
Money & management, 28:1, 7-9.
Sheehan, K. B. (2001) E-mail Survey Response Rates: A Review. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, Vol 6, Issue 2, pp0
Stone, K. B. (2012),"Four decades of Lean: a systematic literature review", International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3 Iss: 2 pp. 112 – 132
The Orchardist, 5th October 1948
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. & Frohlich, M. (2002). Case research in operations management.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Volume 22, no. 2. Pp 195-219.
Womack, J.P. & Jones, D.T. (2003). Lean Thinking. London: Simon & Schuster.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York:
Rawson Associates.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. & Roos, D. (2007). The machine that changed the world. New York:
Free Press.
World Apple Review 2012 Edition (2012). Pullman, Washington: Belrose Incorporated Industry
annual conference 2011

Websites
Statistics New Zealand (2011), “Gross Domestic Product: December 2010 Quarter”,
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/GDP/ [accessed June 2011]

10