Introducing Lean to a horticultural setting:

Operational innovation of the New Zealand pipfruit

industry

Hans J.T. Doevendans (qmacs@xtra.co.nz)

QMAC Systems Ltd, Havelock North, New Zealand
qmacs@xtra.co.nz

Nigel P. Grigg
School of Engineering and Advanced Technology,
Manawatu Campus, Massey University, New Zealand

Jane Goodyer
School of Engineering and Advanced Technology,
Manawatu Campus, Massey University, New Zealand

Abstract
This paper presents findings from a primer research project that investigated the
suitability of Lean in a seasonal horticultural setting, specifically the New Zealand (NZ)
apple and pear (pipfruit) industry which comprises orchards, pack-houses, cool-stores
and export companies. An industry-wide survey established a low level of knowledge
and Lean implementation. Action research and case study were used to better
understand the value and applicability of Lean philosophy, methods and tools within the
industry. This paper presents findings from the action research component of the
research project. Early results show a diffident industry culture but encouraging results
for progressive organisations.

Keywords: Lean, horticulture, supply chain

Introduction
This paper investigates the concept of ‘Lean’ and its applicability in a horticultural
setting; specifically the New Zealand pipfruit industry. The NZ pipfruit industry is
seasonal, comprises apples and pears and produces an annual crop of perishable
product. Four elements make up the intra-industry supply chain and inter-company
value stream: The producer (or grower), the cool-store, the pack-house and the exporter.
The study’s focus is particularly on the theoretical ‘fit’ and practical implementation of
Lean into this seasonal horticultural setting.
With a world population estimated by the United Nations to rise from 7 billion today
to 9 billion in 2050, the New Zealand government and several of its primary industries
have set ambitious primary industry production goals (e.g. The Business Growth
1
Agenda, 2013; Growing a New Future, 2009) that stimulate re-thinking of ‘the way we
do things’.
One key action identified by the New Zealand government’s business development
agency (New Zealand Trade and Enterprise - NZTE) is to deploy Lean thinking to
improve performance and reduce waste. The ‘Better by Lean’ programme has supported
a number of sectors (Goodyer et al, 2011) over recent years. However the NZ pipfruit
industry has been reluctant to engage in this programme as there is little published
research about implementing Lean in horticultural settings. Therefore, in seeking to
understand the implementation of Lean in a horticultural setting, this study sought to
investigate:
 To what degree are Lean elements applicable to, and currently used as an
approach by growers, packhouse/coolstore organisations and exporters within the
NZ pipfruit industry supply chain?
 How can Lean be ‘made to fit’ these three core activities within the NZ pipfruit
industry supply chain?

Literature review
Lean and its wider applicability
‘Lean Production’ (Lean) has been identified by Womack et al (2007) as the driving
factor behind the growth of the Toyota Motor company to become the largest car
manufacturing company in the world in 2008. In their influential book ‘The machine
that changed the world’, the authors’ state:

“In this process we’ve become convinced that the principles of lean production
can be applied equally in every 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” (Womack et al, 2007, p6).

This indicates that common theoretical themes for the Lean philosophy, methods and
tools may not be industry- or contextually bound. Womack et al (2007) challenge
readers to consider that Lean is transferable to every industry; this includes the NZ
pipfruit industry. As an example of the fluidity of Lean, traditional Lean concepts such
as the seven wastes have in recent years been redefined (Ohno, 2013) or adapted to fit
new environments such as human behaviour (e.g. Emiliani and Stec, 2004), or the retail
environment (Powell and Childerhouse, 2010). New tools such as time-paced evolution
(Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997) have been developed and Lean has been combined with
Agile, to suit environments with level production and fluctuating demand (Naylor et al,
1999), and Six Sigma, to reduce variability (Nave, 2002).
While Lean was mostly restricted to the operational manufacturing area in the late
1900s, Lean has since extended to other disciplines such as economics, human
resources, product development, marketing and sales, service, accounting (Stone, 2012),
construction (e.g. Jørgensen and Emmitt, 2008), health (e.g. Joosten et al, 2009), IT
(e.g. Staats et al, 2012), government (e.g. Seddon and Brand, 2008) and supply chain
(e.g. Holweg and Pil, 2001). Lean has been implemented in the food industry but
commonly has a focus on the process industry (e.g. King, 2009). Research of Lean in
other disciplines has shown few texts on the implementation of Lean in a horticultural
setting. This lack of literature points at the existence of a knowledge gap.

Lean implementation models

2
Goodyer et al (2011) discuss five different Lean implementation models in the NZ
context and conclude that the approaches, although slightly dissimilar, have a common
theme that Lean is holistic and involves the embedding of a continuous improvement
culture, rather than the introduction of a set of tools. One of the five models involves the
20 Kobayashi keys (Kobayashi, 1995) that were utilised and adapted by most of the
firms that had joined the NZTE Lean initiative (Wilson et al, 2008).

Operations management and the New Zealand pipfruit industry

The distinct difference between a machine in a factory setting and a tree in an
orchard, is the level of season-dependant variation that the tree and thus its crop is
exposed to. Contemporary research has investigated how the variability in tree crop
production can be reduced by using different growing systems (e.g. Robinson et al,
2013). Other studies show that variability can be measured and reduced through orchard
management regardless of growing system (e.g. Brookes, 2013), or how its effects can
be mitigated through improved information flow between value stream partners
(Doevendans, 2010). These developments may well point towards a Lean direction in
horticulture, synchronising with the Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) approach
(e.g. McKone et al, 2001). This parallel should not be underestimated.
The available pipfruit industry literature focusses on technical innovation,
particularly variety development in which the industry has invested substantially. Other
research concerns itself with solutions to pest and disease problems, and yield and
quality improvements. Between 2008 and 2013, the industry R & D expenses averaged
approximately 51.8% of the industry body’s annual operational expenses (Pipfruit NZ
Inc. Annual Reports, 2009-2011-2013). Given that specific research on new varieties of
fruit, including commercialisation can take more than fifteen years (and cannot be
advanced using gene technology because of New Zealand’s principled position on gene
manipulation), responses to customer demand are delayed and building a pool of
potential varieties is the adopted strategy.
Simultaneously the field exhibits a distinct lack of process-relevant literature. Frater
(1999) e.g. observes that only 3.8% of articles in the national horticultural magazine
relate to management subjects (Frater, 1999). Doevendans (2010) asserts that in 2009,
the on-line Pipfruit NZ library contained over 600 publications addressing mostly
technical fruit-growing issues, with not a single paper addressing quality of
management or business management issues. This gap between literature concentrating
on technological innovation and management development is considered indicative of
the industry focus. The accumulated effect of gaps in Lean literature (i.e. minimal
horticultural focus) and NZ pipfruit literature (i.e. minimal management focus) is
approached as a knowledge void that needs urgent addressing.

Methodology
To develop a deeper comprehension of the principal business processes within
various elements of the pipfruit industry’s supply chain, several axiomatic decisions
were made: 1.) As there was limited published research, it was decided to carry out a
primary data collection phase to provide a general view of how widely Lean was both
understood and applied within the intra-industry supply chain; and 2.) The known lack
of mature Lean organisations prompted the use of action research as a methodology
that could assist non-Lean organisations with the implementation of Lean (thus being
appealing to potential sample companies). A mixed-method approach resulted,
involving both quantitative and qualitative methods to provide information relating to

3
the ‘leanness’ of the industry and probe deeper into organisations’ make-up to develop
understanding (Creswell, 2003).
For the quantitative section, a stakeholder survey was conducted using a
questionnaire to assess current levels of Lean within the pipfruit industry. The national
pipfruit body provided a list of stakeholders that allowed a unique survey approach in
which a single statement was emailed each working day to 150 randomly selected
stakeholders from a population of approximately 800. Each statement could be
responded to within less than a minute using a five point Likert scale, thus requiring
minimal attention from stakeholders. The survey focussed on:
1. Kobayashi keys: Twenty statements, each relating to one of twenty keys
(Kobayashi, 1995). The Kobayashi criteria were selected as they had been part
of earlier research into Lean in NZ (Goodyer et al, 2011).
2. Lean principles, methods and tools: Twenty broadly accepted Lean principles
methods and tools.
Reliability and validity for the survey approach were achieved using a questionnaire
with a 5 point Likert scale, sample selection through industry body collaboration, and
questionnaire design allowing convergence and discrimination, cross-referencing of
questions, validating consistency and differentiation between activity sub-samples.
Action research has a reputation for low rigour and being ‘messy’ (Cardno, 2003)
and presenting the double burden of affecting change and research. This potentially
causes a conflict between rigour of the research and relevance of the research (Argyris
& Schon, 1991). Action research however is appropriate as Coughlan and Coghlan
(2002) point out, whenever the research question relates to describing an unfolding
series of actions over time in an organisation. Validity and reliability can be addressed
using critical scrutiny when assessing outcomes (Checkland & Holwell, 1998).
Both action research and case study research provide rich data, although they are
different approaches. Voss et al (2002) believe that the case study approach has
consistently been one of the most powerful research methods and can be used for
different types of research including exploration, theory-building, theory-testing and
theory-extension/refinement. Important is the use of a protocol to guide the researcher
during field work (Yin, 2003). As such, action research is considered an appropriate and
alternative method to analyse the applicability of the Lean philosophy, methods and
tools for organisations within the NZ pipfruit industry that are engaging in Lean.
The action research approach was therefore proposed involving a grower, a pack-
house/cool-store and an exporter to:
 Involve all elements within the direct industry supply chain;
 Better understand issues around Lean implementation;
 Improve organisational practices during the course of the study.
A volunteer grower and a pack-house/cool-store readily joined the research project
but despite requests for volunteer exporters directed to thirteen of the top fifteen
exporters (based on export volume), no exporter could be found to volunteer for the
action research element. Exporters were consequently omitted from the investigation.
Reliability for the action research approach was addressed by using a semi-structured
protocol, using a single researcher for consistency, identification of themes and
participant verification. Validity was addressed by using multiple sources of evidence,
achieving ‘recoverability’ (Checkland and Holwell, 1998), within-case analysis, focus
group review and comparison with known theory and empirical evidence.

Findings
Stakeholder survey:
4
The response rate to the survey averaged 25.4%. This response rate is considered highly
satisfactory given the length of the questionnaire, the relevance of the subject and the
reportedly declining response rates to surveys over the years (Sheehan, 2001).
Respondents comprised a cross-section of industry stakeholders.
Kobayashi keys: Some respondents applied few or none of the 20 Kobayashi keys,
while a single company was implementing a level of Lean at level three or higher on the
5-level Kobayashi keys. 75% of all responses either did not, or only sometimes
implement Kobayashi keys, indicating a low level of Lean implementation within the
wider industry.

Figure 1: Kobayashi keys level of implementation - Industry versus research companies

The Lean position of the participating research companies was assessed after the first
year of Lean field work at the end of 2013, using the same questionnaire as was used for
the industry stakeholders in 2012. These showed a significantly improved position in
comparison with the wider industry (figure 1).
Lean principles, methods and tools: There was little knowledge of Lean principles,
methods and tools within the wider industry in 2012; more than half of all responses
indicated that respondents did not know the principles, methods and tools presented.
Only a small number of organisations indicated use of some of the tools or use with
some form of regularity.
The same questionnaire was used to assess the research companies at the end of
2013. The assessment showed that the level of knowledge and use of Lean principles,
methods and tools differed significantly. Figure 2 shows the positioning of the research
companies in relation to the general industry.

Action research: Grower orchard group

During 2013, the researcher visited the action research orchard group (ARO) 24 times.
The researcher was actively involved in the development of Lean ideas. One aspect of
action research is that the researcher can act as coach, while allowing the team to
develop their own ideas and systems. Visits included visits to the technical manager (the
Lean champion), orchard managers’ meetings and orchards themselves.
5
Figure 2: Lean tools knowledge and use: Industry versus research companies

A decision was made to look at the main groups of operational activities during the
year. These included pruning, thinning, spraying and harvesting. Discussions included
explanations concerning certain Lean philosophies, methods and tools and how these
could be used or might be made to ‘fit’ the orchard environment. The action research
cycle of issue identification, planning, acting and reflecting (Cardno, 2003) proved
challenging to establish but was used with some success. The orchard managers
exchanged information and agreed on best practices which were then standardised by
the technical manager. In addition, managers were challenged to implement 5-S,
identify waste and work on continuous improvements. Several managers involved their
staff and a number of simple improvements were generated, facilitating flow. Overall,
managers appeared to struggle with the concept of small improvements, almost as if
small improvements did not make a difference. Managers had been trained to always
think in dollar terms and it proved challenging to divert mind-sets from traditional cost
accounting to Lean thinking.
A breakthrough occurred when discussing pruning requirements. Pruning affects the
volume of fruit, the average fruit size and fruit colour. Usually, orchard managers
receive the exporter requirements (fruit size, colour) two months before harvest, at
which time none of the exporter requirements can be manipulated by pruning, which
takes place six to eight months before harvest. As a result of the action research
intervention, a meeting was organised with the exporter who -following the meeting-
provided specifications in July, thus allowing substantial pruning to requirement.
A further breakthrough was introduced at the start of 2014. The orchard managers
started meeting weekly with representatives of the pack-house, cool-store and exporter
to integrate their actions, providing improved flow through coolstore and packhouse.
Orchards provided harvest reports with fruit quality elements which would allow more
accurate decisions to be made by all three downstream organisations (cool-store, pack-
house and exporter), reducing variation and improving flow in downstream processes.

6
 Orchard managers did identify some organic Lean elements: Planting of different
varieties to satisfy the mostly unknown customer spreads the pruning, thinning and
harvesting period and so achieves reasonable load levelling despite the annual growing
cycle. Another example is the use of certain chemicals, which allow the grower to
advance or delay the harvest, thus further levelling the load during harvesting.
Reflecting on the action research intervention, certain common themes can be
identified, shown in table 1:

Table 1: Emerging themes in the action research orchard

No. Theme
1. Orchard managers had time for Lean during the off-season (e.g. standardisation), but
harvest pressures distracted focus away from Lean thinking.
2. Embedded focus on financial indicators rather than Lean indicators was a constraint.
3. There was a distinct disconnect between grower and downstream stakeholders, leading
to essential information communication deficiencies.
4. Some organically developed load-levelling was already taking place.
5. Visual management improvements were recognised as making the job easier.

Action research: Packhouse/coolstore

During more than 20 visits to the action research packhouse/coolstore (ARP) company,
a gradual understanding started to develop concerning the Lean fundamentals. The ARP
was relatively small, with shifts consisting of approximately 45 people of which most
were seasonally employed. The season generally started in February and finished in July
of each year. The permanent employee number was low, which means that the few
permanent staff members had all the knowledge and experience and were called upon to
resolve multiple issues that arose during the season. They were generally absorbed by
running the packhouse/coolstore and found little time to consider philosophical changes.
The researcher attended a number of operational meetings with the manager and his
supervisor team and educated the team on Lean elements. The team would then agree to
implement certain approaches, for example to look for any form of waste, and the
findings would be discussed the next week. On several occasions, staff had been too
busy and nothing had changed from the week before. Packing complexities and late
exporter packing instructions caused a concentrated effort to get things right. On one
occasion, the researcher arranged a visit for the company’s supervisors to a company
that had substantially implemented Lean, to observe the concept of stand-up meetings.
Within an hour, the supervisors had observed three stand-up meetings and implemented
stand-up meetings immediately on returning. The team did achieve a number of results,
mostly in the 5S area and in standardising procedures. The ‘off-season’ development of
simple standardised procedures that included visual images of each step, reduced the
number of questions and issues arising during the season.
Several themes were identified (table 2):

Table 2: Emerging themes in action research packhouse/coolstore organisation

No. Theme
1. It takes time to transform to Lean, specifically with a seasonal industry
2. Packing complexities in the industry are often underestimated
3. There is a certain disconnect between grower, packhouse and exporter that must be
fixed
4. Most fundamental Lean elements can be applied in a packhouse situation
7
 The Lean transformation for the research companies was measured using Tapping et
al (2002), who provide a Lean assessment tool comprising ten elements. A Lean
assessment was completed for participating organisations using this tool, once before
the implementation of Lean and once after one year of field work (at the end of 2013).
The difference between the two assessments exhibits significant progress (figure 3).

Figure 3: Lean assessment before starting lean and at the end of 2013 (Tapping et al, 2002)

Discussion
Survey results show that NZ pipfruit organisations are generally unaware of Lean
principles methods and tools and do not deliberately implement a Lean approach.
However, the industry has deployed some intuitively developed Lean methods such as
load levelling through stretching the harvest period forward and backward, which is
evidence of some Lean thinking. An appropriate explanation may be offered by the fact
that the industry has been assessed as innovative, but more through the introduction of
technology than through people and process management (Doevendans, 2010).
The results also show that significant progress can be made by organisations that
adopt Lean, particularly in the way they operate within themselves ‘on the shop floor’.
Implementation of basic tools such as visual management and 5S was rewarded with
quick results and assisted reduction of flow disruption. Both organisations however
were distracted from Lean implementation during ‘the season’, a three to five month
period of high activity with ten-fold staff increases. Importantly, Kobayashi et al (2008)
distinguish between 5S as a philosophy (in the Japanese context) and 5S as a tool (in a
Western context), and tools by themselves may not provide sustainable results.
Of concern is the fact that there is some traction within distinct parts of the value
stream, i.e. the producer (or grower), the cool-store and the pack-house, but that the
exporters have not engaged in the concept of Lean. This leads to the inference that
exporters have no interest in Lean or value stream management. When combined with
the fact that the orchard group would not have the necessary information from the
exporter to start the growing season, there can only be the supposition that there is
waste through ignorance in the inter-company value stream. In supply chains, customers
place orders for specific products. The current pipfruit industry modus operandi is that
no orders are placed. This approach is attributed to the traditional way of operating
under a single exporter before 2001 where the grower would simply grow the fruit,
expecting the exporter to sell whatever was grown (Doevendans, 2010). Similarly, time-

8
paced development of new varieties appears independent of exporter and thus customer
demand and makes for a disconnected customer value model.
Exporters have little incentive to consider implementing the Lean paradigm; they
have minimal capital investment and run low financial risk activities as they do not
purchase the crop, they merely handle the sales, organise shipping and documentation
and receive payments. The exponential increase in volume of exporters since de-
regulation from one to over ninety (Doevendans, 2010) has led to major disruptions in
the inter-company value streams. It appears that there is a certain extent of destructive
behaviour within the industry and that the industry has not yet matured enough to
address the intra-industry value streams cohesively. This current impasse within the
industry is having a detrimental effect on its ability to continuously remain
internationally competitive. Whilst its investment remains focussed on technical
solutions rather than broadening it to include operational innovation, it limits its
potential for gaining the maximum benefit.

Conclusion
The NZ pipfruit industry is technically innovative (World Apple review, 2013) but
stakeholders have little understanding of Lean philosophy, methods and tools. In an
industry dominated by manual labour (Doevendans, 2010), one could expect that more
attention would be placed on the creation of flow and reduction of waste in the inter-
company value stream processes. From the findings described, it appears that those
organisations engaging in Lean are making encouraging progress in creating better flow
and waste reduction within their companies and in the inter-company value stream.
The disconnect between the exporter and upstream elements, particularly the grower
is concerning. Long lead times mean that accurate information flowing upstream is
paramount. In a Lean supply chain, supply chain elements work together to remove
waste from the supply chain’s value stream. Supply chains compete, not individual
companies (Christopher & Towill, 2001). There are no indications that this dogma is
understood by the NZ pipfruit industry.
The action research companies involved in this study each made significant progress
during the course of the investigation. Importantly, the research companies displayed
internal qualitative improvements. This means that more progress can be made in the
future. However without involvement of all the direct supply chain stakeholders,
cohesive improvement of the intra-industry value stream will be problematic.

References
Argyris, C. and D. A. Schon (1991). ‘Participatory Action Research and Action Science Compared: A
Commentary’. In: W. F. Whyte (ed.), Participatory Action Research, pp. 85-96. Sage, London.
Brookes, J. (2013). Defining the cost of within orchard prosuction variability on the overall profitability
of a NZ apple orchard. Paper prepared for the Kellogg Rural Leaders Programme 2013.
Brown, S. L. and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory
and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 42, No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 1-34.
Cardno, C. (2003). Action Research. A developmental approach. Wellington: Printlink
Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Action research: its nature and validity. Systemic Practice and
Action Research, 11(1), 9-21.
Christopher, M., & Towill, D. (2001). An integrated model for the design of agile supply chains.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 31(4), 235-246.
Coughlan, P., & Coghlan, D. (2002). Action research for operations management. International journal of
operations & production management, 22(2), 220-240.

9
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed methods Approaches.
London: Sage Publications.
Doevendans, J.T. (2010). Total Quality Management in the New Zealand Pipfruit Industry; An
exploratory study. Palmerston North: Massey University
Emiliani, M. L., & Stec, D. J. (2004). Using value-stream maps to improve leadership. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 25(8), 622-645.
Frater, G. T. (1999). An investigation into innovation management in the New Zealand apple production
industry. (Unpublished masters dissertation). Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Goodyer, J., Grigg, N. and Murti, Y. (2011). Sustaining Lean Manufacturing in New Zealand
Organisations. Report prepared for NZTE. Massey University.
Growing a New Future, Horticulture Industry Strategy 2009-2020 (2009). Wellington: Horticulture NZ.
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.
Horticulture Growth Strategy June 2009: Growing a New Future (2009). Horticulture New Zealand.
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, No.5: pp. 341–347.
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.
King, P.L. (2009). Lean for the Process Industries. London: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Kobayashi, I. (1995). 20 keys to workplace improvement. Portland, Oregon: Productivity press.
Kobayashi, K., Fisher, R. and Gapp, R. (2008), “Business improvement strategy or useful tool? Analysis
of the application of the 5S concept in Japan, the UK and the US”, Total Quality Management, Vol.
19 No. 3, pp. 245-62.
McKone, K. E., Schroeder, R. G., & Cua, K. O. (2001). The impact of total productive maintenance
practices on manufacturing performance. Journal of operations management, 19(1), 39-58.
Nave, D. (2002). How to compare six sigma, lean and the theory of constraints. Quality Progress, 35(3),
73-80.
Naylor, J. B., Naim, M. M., Berry, D. (1999). Leagility: Integrating the lean and agile manufacturing
paradigms in the total supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 62, pp. 107 – 118.
Ohno, T. (2013). Taiichi Ohno’s Workplace Management, Special 100th Birthday Edition. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Pipfruit New Zealand Incorporated Annual Report 2009. Hastings: Pipfruit NZ.
Pipfruit New Zealand Incorporated Annual Report 2011. Hastings: Pipfruit NZ.
Pipfruit New Zealand Incorporated Annual Report 2013. Hastings: Pipfruit NZ.
Powell, M., & Childerhouse, P. (2010). Retail value stream management. International Journal of
Electronic Customer Relationship Management, 4(3), 209-227.
Robinson, T.L., Hoying, S.A., and Reginato, G.H. (2006). The Tall Spindle Apple Production System.
New York Fruit Quarterly, 14, 2, pp 21-28.
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
Shingo, S. (1992). The Shingo production management system: improving process functions (p. 215).
Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.
Staats, B. R., Brunner, D. J. and Upton, D. M. (2011). Lean principles, learning, and knowledge work:
Evidence from a software services provider. Journal of Operations Management 29 (2011) 376–390.
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
Tapping, D., Luyster, T., & Shuker, T. (2002). Value stream management: Eight steps to planning,
mapping, and sustaining lean improvements. Productivity Press.
The Business Growth Agenda: Progress Report, 2013. Wellington: New Zealand Government
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.
Wilson, M., Heyl, J. and Smallman. C. (2008). Supporting Lean Manufacturing Initiatives in New
Zealand. Final Report. Christchurch: Lincoln University
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. & Roos, D. (2007). The machine that changed the world. New York: Free
Press.
World Apple Review 2010 Edition (2010). Pullman, Washington: Belrose Incorporated.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

10