Journal of Modelling in Management

Modeling Lean implementation for manufacturing sector

Vikram Sharma Amit Rai Dixit Mohd. Asim Qadri
Article information:
To cite this document:
Vikram Sharma Amit Rai Dixit Mohd. Asim Qadri , (2016),"Modeling Lean implementation for
manufacturing sector", Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 11 Iss 2 pp. 405 - 426
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JM2-05-2014-0040
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

Downloaded on: 03 September 2016, At: 21:40 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 70 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 379 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2014),"Lean manufacturing: literature review and research issues", International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 34 Iss 7 pp. 876-940 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJOPM-08-2012-0315
(2016),"An empirical study for implementation of lean principles in Indian manufacturing industry",
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 23 Iss 1 pp. 183-207 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
BIJ-11-2013-0101
(2013),"A methodology for effective implementation of lean strategies and its performance evaluation
in manufacturing organizations", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19 Iss 1 pp. 169-196
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637151311294912

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:216788 []
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.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5664.htm

Modeling Lean implementation Modeling

Lean
for manufacturing sector implementation
Vikram Sharma
The LNM Institute of Information Technology, Jaipur, India
405
Amit Rai Dixit
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, Received 28 May 2014
Revised 10 September 2014
India, and Accepted 23 October 2014
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

Mohd. Asim Qadri

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Galgotia’s College of Engineering and Technology, Greater Noida, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research paper is to identify the enablers for Lean implementation in the
manufacturing sector, to establish a relationship among them using interpretive structural modeling
(ISM) and to rank them using interpretive ranking process (IRP).
Design/methodology/approach – The research paper presents a blend of theoretical framework
and practical applications. In the paper, eight enablers of Lean production are identified from literature
survey and experts’ opinion. These include 5S, value stream mapping (VSM), just in time, single minute
exchange of die, computer-integrated manufacturing, concurrent engineering, training and enterprise
resource planning. ISM is used to obtain a structural relationship among these enablers of Lean.
MICMAC analysis is used to identify the driving power and dependence of the variables. Further, IRP
is used to rank the lean enablers with respect to key performance areas.
Findings – The ISM- and IRP-based models indicate that “training” is the most significant factor for
the Lean implementation process in manufacturing sector. The MICMAC analysis also shows that
“training” has the maximum driving power and the least dependence and hence has strong managerial
significance. The management should place high priority on tackling this criterion. VSM occupies the
top level in the ISM hierarchy, indicating that all other Lean enablers should act in unison to make VSM
implementation a success.
Originality/value – Enablers are the building blocks for deployment of the Lean concept. To know
the key enablers and relationship among them can help many organizations to develop Lean
competencies. This study is perhaps among the first few that focuses on two modeling procedures
based on interpretive logic, i.e. ISM and IRP. The paper provides useful insights to the Lean production
implementers, consultants and researchers.
Keywords India, Lean manufacturing, Manufacturing sector, Interpretive ranking process,
Interpretive structural modeling
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In today’s global economy, the survival of firms depends on their ability to rapidly
innovate and improve. As a result, a continuous search is on for techniques and Journal of Modelling in
Management
Vol. 11 No. 2, 2016
pp. 405-426
The authors express gratitude to the experts whose valuable inputs helped in understanding the © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1746-5664
contextual relationship between the Lean criteria used in this study. DOI 10.1108/JM2-05-2014-0040
 JM2 technologies that can drive improvements in cost, quality, productivity and operational
11,2 performance. Lean manufacturing is one of the most widely accepted performance
improvement strategies worldwide. According to the Lean enterprise institute, founded
by James P. Womack in 1997, Lean means creating more value for customers with fewer
resources. Lean practices aim at waste removal both inside and between companies
(Hines and Taylor, 2000). Lean production is a hybrid of both mass and craft production
406 systems (Genaidy and Karwowski, 2003). The goal of the Lean manufacturing system is
doing more with less time, space, human effort while giving the customer what they
want in a highly economical manner (Paranitharan et al., 2011). A Lean manufacturing
philosophy requires respect for people, continuous improvement, a long-term view, a
level of patience, a focus on process and an ability to understand where the individual is
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

in his or her development (Ahmad and Azuan, 2013).

Lean tools and techniques have been adopted across diverse industrial sectors, be it
aerospace, automobile, machine tools, consumer goods and services, etc. Academicians
and researchers have promulgated various theories, models, tools, techniques and
performance evaluation parameters for Lean implementation. Several benefits have
been associated with Lean manufacturing implementation. Sánchez and Pérez (2001)
indicate that the primary goal to introduce any Lean production program in a shop,
factory or company is to increase productivity, reduce lead time and costs and improve
quality. Experts believe that Lean implementation can lead to improvement in
flexibility, waste elimination, optimization, process control and people utilization. These
advantages have been the result of Toyota Motors’ efforts to adapt to the changing
market requirements, that is, a change from rigid mass production system to a flexible
and optimal production system. There are some significant points of difference between
the Lean production and the conventional mass production. The mass production
system originated at Ford Motors, USA, and is designed to manufacture a high volume
of customized products. It requires highly skilled human resources for operating the
expensive special-purpose machines. On the other hand, the Lean production system
originated at Toyota Motors, Japan, and makes use of automated and flexible
manufacturing systems that can produce high-volume and high-variety products. Thus,
unlike mass production system, operating a Lean production system requires
multi-skilled workers at all levels in the organization. Table I gives an indicative list of
industries in which researchers have analyzed Lean implementation.
Various types of models for implementing performance improvement techniques
have been proposed by the researchers and academicians that can help managers and
practitioners understand how to implement the technique successfully. Most of the
models are based on theories of multi-criteria decision-making such as analytical
hierarchal process (AHP), analytical network process, failure mode and effect analysis,
game theory, fuzzy logic and genetic algorithm. Table II shows some of the models made
by researchers for aiding Lean implementation.
Review of available literature indicates that there is paucity of models for
implementing Lean principles in the manufacturing sector. Interpretive structural
modeling (ISM) can be used for identifying and summarizing relationships among
specific variables that define a problem or an issue (Warfield, 1974, and Sage, 1977). The
methodology provides us with a means of imposing order on the complexity of such
variables (Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994; Jharkharia and Shankar, 2005). Interpretive
ranking process (IRP) can be used to develop a knowledge base and rank the Lean
 Industry type Researchers Conclusion
Modeling
Lean
Aerospace Oppenheim et al. (2011) Answers to the fundamental questions of how the implementation
competitiveness of the aerospace and other industrial
sectors can be strengthened using Lean enablers
McManus et al. (2007) Lean engineering framework for aeronautical works
Crute et al. (2003) Understanding the challenges to implementing Lean
in aerospace industry
407
Michaels (1999) Study a Lean aerospace supply chain
Slack (1998) Study the application of Lean principles to the military
aerospace product development process
Haque and Moore (2004) Measuring performance for Lean product introduction
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

in the aerospace industry

James-Moore and Study extent of Lean implementation in civil
Gibbons (1997) aerospace companies
Mathaisel (2005) Present a Lean architecture for transforming the
aerospace maintenance, repair and overhaul enterprise
Hallam and Keating A self-assessment of Lean enterprise maturity
(2014)
Winter et al. (2013) The application of a Lean philosophy during
manufacture of advanced airframe structures in a new
product introduction (NPI) environment
Martínez-Jurado and Key determinants of Lean production adoption
Moyano-Fuentes (2014)
Wang et al. (2012) Implementation of a Lean model for carrying out VSM
in the aerospace engine case production
Construction Fearne and Fowler Challenge conventional thinking with respect to the
(2006) application of Lean principles to the construction
industry and calls for greater awareness of the project-
centric nature of the construction industry and the
application of Lean thinking therein
Johansen and Walter Survey German construction companies to discover
(2007) the current understanding of Lean principles,
perceptions of Lean and trends in Lean development
Jorgensen and Emmitt Explore the transfer of Lean
(2008) manufacturing/production from the Japanese
manufacturing industry to the construction sector in
the West with focus on design, planning and
management and implementation
Green and May (2005) Semi-structured interviews with construction-sector
policymakers provide empirical support for the view
that Lean construction is a multifaceted concept that
defies universal definition
Dave (2013) Developing a construction management system based Table I.
on Lean construction and building information Summary of
modeling industries in which
Sarhan and Fox (2013) Barriers to implementing Lean construction in the UK Lean manufacturing
construction industry practices have been
(continued) studied
 JM2 Industry type Researchers Conclusion
11,2
Software Middleton (2001) Present two case studies on Lean software
development
Boes and Kämpf (2014) Agile and Lean methods in software development
Staats et al. (2011) Investigate the implementation of a Lean production
408 system at an Indian software services firm
Maglyas et al. (2012) Provide Lean solutions to software product
management problems
Petersen (2012) Develop Lean indicators to detect waste in software
maintenance
Rodríguez et al. (2012) Analyzing the drivers of the combination of Lean and
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

agile in software development companies

Automobile Liang and Wang (2013) Study the development strategy of Lean logistics for
automobile enterprises
Imam and Sudipto Lean Sigma a road to success: a perspective of the
Sarkar (2012) Indian automobile industry. Global Journal of
Researches In Engineering, 12(1-A)
Hasle (2014) Evaluation the possibilities for an employee-
supportive Lean practices
Mohanty et al. (2007) Describe some learning from the literature and actual
Lean practices in the USA, the UK and India
Herron and Hicks (2008) Study the transfer of selected Lean manufacturing
techniques from Japanese automotive manufacturing
into general manufacturing (UK)
Bayou and De Korvin Measure the Leanness of manufacturing systems at
(2008) Ford motor company and general motors
Vinodh et al. (2011a, Study the implementation of Lean Sigma framework
2011b) in an Indian automotive valves manufacturing
organization
Belokar et al. (2012) Study application of VSM in automobile industry
using a case study
Electronics Doolen and Hacker Assess the implementation of Lean practices within an
(2005) organization using a survey
Wong and Wong (2011) Study the approaches and practices of Lean
manufacturing in electrical and electronics companies
Jeyaraman and Teo Present a conceptual framework for critical success
(2010) factors of Lean Six Sigma
Bogdanski et al. (2013) Study value stream approach applied on the
electronics industry to optimize energy consumption
Process Melton (2005) Analyze benefits of Lean manufacturing to the process
industry industries
Machine tools Eswaramoorthi et al. Present results of a survey on Lean practices in the
Table I. (2011) Indian machine tool industries

criterion based on their impact on certain performance criteria. Therefore, we propose

the use of ISM and IRP methodology for analyzing various Lean implementation
practices related to the manufacturing sector. The literature review on Lean practices in
the manufacturing industry, together with the opinion of experts, is used to identify the
critical Lean implementation criteria. An inter-criterion relationship matrix is
 Model Researcher
AHP Chauhan and Singh (2012)
Vinodh et al. (2011, 2011b)
Vinodh et al. (2011, 2011b)
Venkatamuni and Rao
(2010)
Badurdeen et al. (2011)
Kesavan et al. (2009)
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)
Work
Modeling
Lean
Presents a framework to assess the status of Lean implementation
manufacturing in manufacturing sector
Examine the Lean concept selection using AHP approach
in a single manufacturing organization
Lean concept selection in a manufacturing organization
Evaluating customer preferences in Lean product design
409
environment
An AHP based tool to evaluate value systems for Lean
transformations
A decision making model for optimizing assembly

system through Lean manufacturing

Nawawi et al. (2008)
Fuzzy AHP Nobakht and Roghanian
(2013)
Susilawati et al. (2012)
Agarwal et al. (2006)
FMEA Sawhney et al. (2010)
Dynamic Disney et al. (2000)
simulation
Knowledge-based collaborative Lean manufacturing
management system
Use Fuzzy-AHP-QFD characterized by utilization of QFD
for improvement of Leanness in the organization was
discussed
A multiple criteria decision making based performance
measurement and improvement model for Lean
manufacturing activities
Modeling the metrics of Lean, agile and leagile supply
chain
A modified failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) is
presented that allows the organization to highlight the
actual business conditions that deviate from the ideal Table II.
conditions Summary of various
Modeling for Lean logistics models of Lean as
reported in literature

established on the basis of the nature of mutual influence the Lean practices leave on
each other. The matrix so formulated is then used to develop an ISM model to
understand the linkages between criteria of Lean implementation in the manufacturing
industry.
The main objectives of this paper are to identify and rank the major criteria for Lean
implementation in the manufacturing sector and to find out the outcome of interaction
among identified criteria through ISM and IRP methodologies. The remainder of this
paper is structured as follows: the next section gives an overview of the Indian
manufacturing sector. This is followed by discussion on the ISM methodology and
model development. Subsequently, the MICMAC analysis is carried out. The
penultimate section covers the IRP. The managerial implications are discussed in the
concluding section.

Overview of the Indian manufacturing sector

The performance of the manufacturing sector in developing countries like India is an
indicator of the health of its economy. The manufacturing industry in India has gone
through various phases of development over the period of time. Since independence in
1947, the Indian manufacturing sector has traveled from the initial phase of building the
industrial foundation in 1950s and early 1960s, to the license–permit Raj in the period of
 JM2 1965-1980, to a phase of liberalization of 1990s, emerging into the current phase of global
11,2 competitiveness (CII, n.d.). Today, the manufacturing sector contributes about 15 per
cent of India’s gross domestic product (GDP) and 50 per cent to the country’s exports.
Thus, India’s manufacturing sector is vital for its economic progress.
But, the sluggish growth rate of US and European economies over past few years has
negatively affected the Indian manufacturing sector. A survey conducted by the
410 Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) indicates that the
share of manufacturing in GDP has declined consistently from 2009-2010 (16.2 per cent)
to 2012-2013 (15.2 per cent) (Indian manufacturing barometer, 2013). The stagnation in
the manufacturing sector’s contribution to the GDP has raised questions about India’s
developmental model, including its sustainability, especially for generating adequate
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

employment (Planningcommission, n.d.).

Industrial production in India as reported by the Ministry of Statistics and Program
Implementation has been at an all-time low of ⫺7.2 per cent in February 2009
(Tradeineconomics, n.d.). High interest rates, lack of domestic demand, oil energy prices
and pressure of increased wages, decreasing profitability and high price of raw
materials have been sighted among the major barriers to business growth in the
manufacturing sector. While the manufacturing industry in India relies heavily on
domestic demand, the demand for industrial products has been sluggish over the past
few years (Das, 2014). For this reason, 50 per cent of the manufacturers are not planning
any major new investments (Indian manufacturing barometer, 2013). The peculiar
structure of labor laws too has resulted in failure of increase in manufacturing growth
(Desai, 2014).
According to the Planning Commission of India, the lackluster growth of
manufacturing can be traced to the low technological depth of the Indian manufacturing
sector. In India, R&D has not been adequately exploited and needs a revamp in terms of
its focus and its organization. Poor implementation is the root cause for India’s poor
performance in manufacturing. In China, Japan and Germany – countries that have
developed very competitive manufacturing sectors – things get done. In contrast, things
do not get done as certainly in India. Even well-conceived policies are often not
implemented. In turn, two root causes for poor implementation are: inadequate
consensus amongst stakeholders for policy changes and very poor coordination among
agencies in execution (Planningcommission, n.d.).
Experts are hopeful of a quick recovery of the manufacturing sector due to two
reasons, one, the rise in demand in the country and, second, the penchant of establishing
low-cost manufacturing plants in India by multinational companies (IBEF, 2014).

Research methodology
Extensive review of extant literature was conducted to identify the criteria for Lean
implementation in the manufacturing sector. A brainstorming session was carried out
with five experts, three from the automobile sector and two from the machine tool sector
to finalize the criteria for Lean production implementation suitable for the Indian
manufacturing scenario. The experts have at least eight years of experience and work in
management positions in well-known Indian ISO-certified manufacturing firms. They
were informed about the objectives of the research. In the brainstorming sessions,
managers were provided a comprehensive list of Lean criteria, out of which they were
asked to select the most relevant criteria for the Indian manufacturing industry. After
 obtaining the eight criteria for Lean implementation from the brainstorming session, a Modeling
questionnaire was designed. A group of qualified experts reviewed and tested the Lean
designed questionnaire to assure the content validity of the questionnaire. The group of
qualified experts consisted of two professionals from academic institutions and one
implementation
from the industrial sector. After interviewing, the questionnaire was revised based on
the experts’ opinions. Now, the five experts from the automobile and machine tool sector
were asked to complete the questionnaire. After obtaining the completed questionnaires 411
from the experts, ISM and IRP analytical techniques were used to determine the nature
of the contextual relationship and to rank the Lean criteria. The eight Lean criteria for
the manufacturing sector and the results of ISM and IRP analyses are given in the
following sections.
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

Criteria for Lean implementation in the manufacturing sector

The eight criteria for Lean production implementation obtained from brainstorming
session are enumerated here:
(1) 5S: The 5S program focuses on systematically achieving total organization,
visual order, cleanliness and standardization. A well-organized workplace
results in a safer and more productive operation. The experts believe that 5S
advocates eliminating delays by maintaining good housekeeping facility, as it
helps in choosing the right tool without delay.
(2) Value stream mapping (VSM): A value stream is all the actions, both
value-added and non-value-added, currently required to complete a product or
service from beginning to end. It helps in representing visually what is going on
in the value stream to improve the flow of material and information in the value
chain by eliminating over-production, unnecessary inventory or any other
non-value-adding activity (Devadasan et al., 2012).
(3) Just in time (JIT): This is a system where the production or movement of
inventory items is initiated as required by the using department or the customer.
The basic feature is that production and distribution are demand-driven, zero
inventory or minimum inventory is maintained and response is made to specific
orders. Thus, it eliminates over-production and unnecessary inventory. But it is
difficult to implement, as strong coordination is required with supply chain
partners (Kalpakjian and Schmid, 2009).
(4) Single minute exchange of die (SMED): This method was developed by Shigeo
Shingo in Japan to reduce setup time on machine tools. The setup time can
become a big problem in manufacturing when a cutting tool, jig-fixture or a press
need to be set up for the production of another part. This means that a machine
stop of about 24 h. It also avoids delay in loading the work-piece on the machine
or any other facilities (Devadasan et al., 2012).
(5) Computer-integrated manufacturing (CIM): This is the manufacturing approach
of using computers to automate and control the entire production process. This
integration allows individual processes to exchange information with each other
and initiate actions. Computer systems communicate or “inter-operate” over a
network. Typically, CIM systems link management functions with engineering,
manufacturing and support operations. It combines separate applications, such
as computer-aided design (CAD), computer-aided engineering, computer-aided
 JM2 manufacturing (CAM), robotics and manufacturing resource planning
11,2 (Kalpakjian and Schmid, 2009). CIM has potential to improve responsiveness to
rapid changes in market demand and product modification.
(6) Concurrent engineering: This is a product and process design methodology that
includes simultaneous participation by engineering, operations, accounting,
planning, customers, vendors and other functions, so that the input of all
412 concerned parties are heard from during a project’s conception. Suggestion of
various parties should be incorporated in the design stage itself to prevent
problems at later stages. Concurrent engineering has potential to reduce costs,
improve processes and cut waste (Pullan et al., 2011).
(7) Training: Utilization of resources can be improved by imparting training to the
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

employees. This is especially true in case new and advanced processes, tools or
techniques are being adopted for improvement. Employees should be further
encouraged to use skills and knowledge acquired during the training program
(Devadasan et al., 2012).
(8) Enterprise resource planning (ERP): The purpose of ERP is to facilitate the flow
of information between all business functions inside the boundaries of the
organization and manage the connections to outside stakeholders. ERP systems
automate and integrate internal and external management information across
an entire organization – including finance/accounting, manufacturing, sales and
service and customer relationship management.

During the brainstorming session, the experts agreed that the numerous types of wastes
can be removed by adopting the Lean production practices discussed. For instance, 5S,
SMED and concurrent engineering can overcome delay in production; VSM and JIT can
eliminate overproduction and unnecessary inventory, while CIM can eliminate
production delays and transportation.

Interpretive structural modeling

ISM is a well-established methodology for identifying contextual relationships among
specific items which defines a problem or an issue. ISM is used to develop a Lean
implementation model using the eight Lean criterion identified from the brainstorming
session.

Step 1 – Structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM)

The ISM methodology suggests use of the expert opinions in developing the contextual
relationship among the variables. In this case, five experts, three from the automobile
industry and two from machine tool industry, were asked to identify the nature of
contextual relationship among the variables. To analyze the various Lean criteria, a
contextual relationship of “influences” type was chosen. This means that one factor
influences another factor.
On the basis of this, a contextual relationship between the identified factors is
developed. Keeping in mind the contextual relationship for each factor and the existence
of a relationship between any two factors (i and j), the associated direction of the
relationship is questioned. The following four notations are used to denote the direction
of relationship between any two factors (i and j):
 (1) V for the relation from factor i to factor j (i.e. factor i will influence factor j). Modeling
(2) A for the relation from factor j to factor i (i.e. factor i will be influenced by Lean
factor j). implementation
(3) X for both direction relations (i.e. factors i and j will influence each other).
(4) O for absence of any kind of relation between the factors (i.e. factors i and j
are unrelated) (Table III).
413
Step 2 – Development of reachability matrix
The SSIM established in the previous step is converted into the initial reachability
matrix (Table IV) by substituting the four notations (i.e. V, A, X or O) of SSIM by 1’s or
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

0’s as per the following rules.

(1) If the (i,j) entry in the SSIM is V, then the (i,j) entry in the reachability matrix
becomes 1 and the (j, i) entry becomes 0.
(2) If the (i,j) entry in the SSIM is A, then the (i,j) entry in the reachability matrix
becomes 0 and the (j, i) entry becomes 1.
(3) If the (i,j) entry in the SSIM is X, then the (i,j) entry in the reachability matrix
becomes 1 and the (j, i) entry also becomes 1.
(4) If the (i,j) entry in the SSIM is O, then the (i,j) entry in the reachability matrix
becomes 0 and the (j, i) entry also becomes 0.

The final reachability matrix is obtained after incorporating the transitivity, for Lean
criteria. The final reachability matrix along with driving power and dependence is
shown in Table V.

Lean manufacturing criteria Elements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

5S 1 V O O V O A A
VSM 2 A A A A A A
Just in time 3 A A A A A
Single minute exchange of die 4 O O A O
Computer integrated manufacturing 5 O A X
Concurrent engineering 6 O O
Training 7 O Table III.
ERP 8 SSIM

Element 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
5 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1
6 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 Table IV.
7 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 Initial reachability
8 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 matrix
 JM2 Step 3 – Level partitioning
11,2 From the final reachability matrix, for each factor, reachability set and antecedent
sets are derived. The reachability set consists of the factor itself and the other factor
or factors that it may impact, whereas the antecedent set consists of the factor itself
and the other factor or factors that may impact it. Thereafter, the intersection of
these sets is derived for all the factors and levels of different factor are determined.
414 The factors for which the reachability and the intersection sets are the same
occupy the top level in the ISM hierarchy. From Table VI, it is comprehended that
Criteria 2, that is VSM, is found at Level I. Hence, it would be positioned at the top
level in the ISM model. The top-level factors are those factors that will not lead the
other factors above their own level in the hierarchy. Once the top-level factor is
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

identified, it is removed from consideration. Then, the same process is repeated to

find out the factors in the next level. This process is continued until the level of each
factor is found. These levels help in building the diagraph and the ISM model. The
Lean criterion along with their reachability set, antecedent set, intersection set and
the levels are shown in Tables VI-XII.

Step 4 – Formation of ISM

From the final reachability matrix, the structural model is generated. If a
relationship exists between two Lean criteria i and j, an arrow pointing from i to j
shows this. The resulting graph is called a direct graph or a digraph. It is generated
by nodes and lines of edges. After removing the indirect links, a final digraph is
developed. A digraph is used to represent the elements and their interdependencies

Element 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Driving power

1 1 1 1* 0 1 0 0 1* 5
2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
4 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3
Table V. 5 1* 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 5
Final reachability 6 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 3
matrix with driving 7 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1* 7
power and 8 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 5
dependence Dependence 4 8 7 2 4 1 1 4 Total⫽31

Elements Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection Level

1 1,2,3,5,8 1,5,7,8 1,5

2 2 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 2 I
3 2,3 1,3,4,5,6,7,8 3
4 2,3,4 4,7 4
5 1,2,3,5,8 1,5,7,8 1,5,8
Table VI. 6 2,3,6 6 6
Level 7 1,2,3,4,5,7,8 7 7
partition–iteration 1 8 1,2,3,5,8 1,5,7,8 1,5,8
 in terms of nodes and edges. In this development, the top-level factor is positioned at Modeling
the top of the digraph and the second-level factor is placed at second position and so Lean
on, until the bottom level is placed at the lowest position in the digraph. The digraph
is finally converted into an ISM as shown in Figure 1.
implementation
The ISM model shown in Figure 1 and the driver power-dependence diagram shown
in Figure 2 provide valuable insights into the Lean implementation criteria for
manufacturing industry, and their relative importance and interdependencies. The ISM 415
model shows that training is the most significant factor for the Lean implementation
process, as it forms the base of the hierarchy. Then comes 5S which lies at the second
level of the hierarchy. 5S influences CIM and ERP which lie at Level 3. CIM and ERP
show bi-directional influence. Both CIM and ERP act as enablers for concurrent
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

engineering and SMED which lie at Level 4 of the ISM model. Concurrent engineering
and SMED significantly contributed to the success of JIT at Level 5. VSM occupies the

Elements Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection Level

1 1,3,5,8 1,5,7,8 1,5

3 3 1,3,4,5,6,7,8 3 II
4 3,4 4,7 4
5 1,3,5,8 1,5,7,8 1,5,8
6 3,6 6 6 Table VII.
7 1,3,4,5,7,8 7 7 Level
8 1,3,5,8 1,5,7,8 1,5,8 partition–iteration 2

Elements Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection Level

1 1,5,8 1,5,7,8 1,5

4 4 4,7 4 III
5 1,5,8 1,5,7,8 1,5,8
6 6 6 6 III Table VIII.
7 1,4,5,7,8 7 7 Level
8 1,5,8 1,5,7,8 1,5,8 partition–iteration 3

Elements Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection Level

1 1,5,8 1,5,7,8 1,5

5 1,5,8 1,5,7,8 1,5,8 IV Table IX.
7 1,5,7,8 7 7 Level
8 1,5,8 1,5,7,8 1,5,8 IV partition–iteration 4

Elements Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection Level

Table X.
1 1 1,7 1 V Level
7 1,7 7 7 partition–iteration 5
 JM2 top level in the ISM hierarchy. It clearly indicates that all other Lean criteria should act
11,2 in unison to make VSM implementation a success.

MICMAC analysis
Figure 2 shows that there are two autonomous criteria seen in the driver-dependence
diagram. These are concurrent engineering and SMED. They have less driving power
416 and dependence as compared to other factors for Lean implementation in the
manufacturing sector. The next is the independent cluster that includes four criteria,
namely, 5S, CIM, Training and ERP. In the independent category, the criteria “training”
has the maximum driving power and the least dependence and comes at the lowest level
in the ISM hierarchy. Therefore, it needs to be treated cautiously and has strong
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

managerial significance. The management should place a high priority in tackling the
criteria, which have a high-driving power, and thereby, possess the capability to
influence other criteria of the ISM. It can be inferred that training (Criteria 7) is a strong
driver and may be treated as the root cause of the remaining criteria. To develop this
criterion, a comprehensive strategic plan should to be initiated to achieve successful
Lean implementation.
No Lean criteria fall under the third cluster of linkage criteria which have strong
driving power and strong dependence. The criteria in this group can be relatively
unstable as any action on these criteria will have an impact on others and also a feedback
influence on itself.
The last cluster is that of dependence and includes two criteria, namely, VSM and the
JIT. These criteria have a weak driving power but strong dependence. These criteria
also play a key role in the implementation of Lean. VSM has the least driving power and
the highest dependence and comes at the top-most level in the ISM hierarchy. Its strong
dependence shows that all the other criteria need to come together for effective
implementation of VSM.

Interpretive ranking process

IRP is a ranking tool and can be applied to rank relevant factors in light of their
performance outcomes as against ISM which limits itself to considering those factors

Table XI. Elements Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection Level

Level partition –
iteration 6 7 7 7 7 VI

Elements Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection Level

1 1,2,3,5,8 1,5,7,8 1,5 VI

2 2 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 2 I
3 2,3 1,3,4,5,6,7,8 3 II
Table XII. 4 2,3,4 4,7 4 III
Summary of levels 5 1,2,3,5,8 1,5,7,8 1,5,8 IV
assigned to Lean 6 2,3,6 6 6 III
manufacturing 7 1,2,3,4,5,7,8 7 7 VI
practices 8 1,2,3,5,8 1,5,7,8 1,5,8 IV
 Value stream mapping (2) Modeling
Lean
implementation
JIT(3)

417
Concurrent Engineering (6) Single minute exchange

of die(4)
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

Computer integrated Enterprise resource planning (8)

manufacturing (5)

5S (1)

Figure 1.
ISM-based Lean
Training (7)
implementation
model

8 2 IV III
7 3
6
Dependence 5
4 1,5,8
3
2 4
1 6 I 7 II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Figure 2.
Driving power and
dependence diagram
for LM practices
Driving power

only. Thus, if both ISM and IRP are used for the same industry, IRP calls for more
information and yields qualitatively better and realistic results than ISM (Haleem et al.,
2012).
IRP, a technique developed by Sushil (2009), is a novel ranking method that combines
the analytical logic of the rational choice process with the strengths of the intuitive
process at the elemental level. The methodology builds on the strengths of the paired
comparison approach (Warfield, 1974) which minimizes the cognitive overload. It uses
 JM2 interpretative matrix as a basic tool and paired comparison of interpretation in the
11,2 matrix (Sushil 2009). The traditional AHP’s drawback that the interpretation of
judgments of the experts remains opaque to the implementer is overcome in this method,
as the experts here are supposed to spell out the interpretive logic for dominance of one
element over the other for each paired comparison. Further, IRP does not require the
information about the extent of dominance. It also makes an internal validity check via
418 the vector logic of the dominance relationships in the form of a dominance system graph.
The strong point of IRP is that it does not require the information about the extent of
dominance, which is difficult to be interpreted and generally remains questionable in
terms of validity. Also, it is easier to measure and compare the impact of interactions
rather than variables in an abstract sense (Haleem et al., 2012).
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

The steps of IRP (Sushil, 2009) are enumerated as follows:

• Step 1: Identify two sets of variables – one to be ranked with reference to the other,
e.g. actions and performance, actors and processes, etc. The eight Lean
manufacturing practices used in the ISM model were taken as actions. Four
performance parameters as suggested by experts were taken into consideration,
namely, quality improvement (P1), improvement in employee satisfaction (P2),
waste reduction (P3) and supply chain performance improvement (P4). Clarify the
contextual relationship between the two sets of variables and develop a
cross-interaction matrix (binary matrix) between the two sets of variables
(Table XIII).
• Step 2: Convert the cross-interaction matrix into an interpretive matrix (Sushil,
2005). The binary matrix is converted to an interpretive matrix as shown in
Table XIV.
• Step 3: Convert the interpretive matrix into an interpretive logic of pair-wise
comparisons and dominating interaction matrix by interpreting the dominance of
one interaction over the other as shown in Table XV.
• Step 4: Develop ranking and interpret the ranks in terms of dominance of the
number of interactions as shown in Table XVI.
• Step 5: Represent the obtained ranking diagrammatically in the form of an
interpretive ranking model as shown in Figure 3. Finally, interpret the ranking
order and use it as the base for recommending action.

The IRP model for the Lean implementation in the manufacturing sector is shown in
Figure 3. It illustrates the ranks of various Lean implementation criteria with reference

P1 P2 P3 P4

1 0 1 1 0
2 0 0 1 1
3 1 0 0 1
4 0 0 1 0
5 1 1 1 1
6 1 0 1 1
Table XIII. 7 1 1 1 1
Binary matrix 8 1 1 0 1
 Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

P1 P2 P3 P4

1 Cleanliness, orderliness, standardization, Sorting and standardization reduces

2 Visual mapping using current state map
3 JIT can expose quality defects as problems
get exposed
4 Reduces production lead time
5 Use of integrated CAD and CAM systems
improves quality of design and
conformance
6 Discussing various design aspects with all
stake holders improves quality of design
7 Training in quality tools such as SQC, six
sigma can have a positive impact on
quality performance
8 Sharing designs and quality related
information with component suppliers can
have positive impact on quality of overall
assembly
sorting of tools and equipment makes
work hassle free and improves employee
satisfaction level
Setting of tool w.r.t work-piece becomes
convenient
Training improves knowledge base
Timely, brief and accurate information
flow makes employees aware of what
work needs to be completed in how
much time
waste
and future state map aids in identifying
and eliminating several types of
wastes and reduce total cycle time
significantly
Material removal can be optimized
using CNC programming features
Waste reduction can be minimized and
green performance can be improved by
considering it aggressively at design
stage itself
Training on improvement techniques
such as Lean, 5S, TQM etc can help
reduce or eliminate waste
Improving work flow by synchronizing takt
time improves SC performance
JIT can improve SC performance by
reducing inventory
Computerized working environment makes
information flow in SC more accurate and
reliable
Solving all the anticipated problems at
design stage in concurrent engineering
environment improves SC efficiency
Training suppliers, distributors and
customers can help optimize the overall SC
Timely information sharing with SC
partners improves operational performance

Table XIV.
419
Lean
Modeling

Interpretive matrix
implementation
 JM2 to their roles in positively affecting different performance areas. The arrows in the
11,2 diagram signify the reference criteria in the cases where a particular ranking criterion is
dominating the other ranking criteria. Training receives the highest rank by IRP. This
outcome bolsters the ISM and MICMAC analysis of Lean practices that demonstrate
training as the most important criteria for Lean implementation. This outcome clearly
demonstrates that any company who wants to successfully implement Lean practices
420 must provide adequate training to its employees. Other criteria in the descending order
of ranking are: CIM, ERP, VSM, CE, JIT and 5 S followed by SMED at the lowest level.
This outcome indicates that SMED still assumes relatively diminutive significance in
Indian automobile and machine tool firms.
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

Conclusion
The Indian economy has shown little growth over the past decade, and firms face stiff
competition from multinational companies. Periodic economic recessions and the
government’s apathy in providing any boost have added to the vows of the Indian
manufacturing sector. Under such conditions, eliminating all kinds of wastes assumes high
significance, making Lean implementation a natural choice for the manufacturing sector. In
this research study, an attempt has been made to identify the major criteria for successful
implementation of Lean practices in the manufacturing sector. The study gives a
comprehensive perspective regarding Lean criteria that can be used by consultants and
practitioners.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 – 2,3 2 2 1 – – –
Table XV. 2 4 – 1 4 4 3,4 – –
Dominating 3 4 – – 1 – – – –
interactions matrix- 4 4 – – – – – – –
ranking of actions 5 2,3,4 – 3 1,3,4 – 4 – –
with respect to 6 1 2 – 2 – – – –
performance 7 1,2,4 1,2,3 1,2,4 1,2,3 – – – 2
parameters 8 4 – 2 4 – 2 – –

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 D* D-B Rank dominating

1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 ⫺6 VII
2 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 6 0 IV
3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 ⫺5 VI
4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ⫺10 VIII
5 3 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 8 6 II
6 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 ⫺1 V
7 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 1 13 13 I
8 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 4 3 III
B* 11 6 7 11 2 4 0 1 Total ⫽ 42
Table XVI.
Dominance matrix Notes: D: Number of cases dominating; B: Number of cases being dominated
 Training Modeling
Lean
implementation
CIM

ERP 421

VSM
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

CE

JIT
Figure 3.
Interpretive ranking
5S model of criteria to
Lean implementation
in the manufacturing
SMED sector

For Lean implementation in the Indian manufacturing sector, there arises an important
issue of identifying the set of suitable Lean criteria and understanding the conceptual
relationship among the criteria to effectively facilitate Lean implementation.
Additionally, to handle this issue, it is also necessary to solve the matter of integrating
group decisions. Hence, we proposed the ISM and IRP method to achieve a structural
model of required Lean criteria. The methodology can prove quite useful in integrating
the perceptions and perspectives of various company experts. We arrived at a series of
results, and the methodology provided some strategic scenarios of the relationships of
the Lean criteria. Through the ISM and IRP frameworks, the complexity of a Lean
production implementation is easier to capture, whereby profound decisions can be
made.
Through extensive literature review and discussions with industry practitioners, this
research identified eight criteria for Lean implementation at a brainstorming session of
experts from automobile and machine tool sector. These include 5S, VSM, JIT, SMED, CIM,
CE, training and ERP. The ISM methodology is used to develop the structural model by
creating SSIM, reachability matrix, level partitioning and finally formulation of the model.
The MICMAC analysis is used to establish the driving power and dependence powers of the
eight identified Lean implementation criteria. Based on the driving and dependence power,
the criteria are assigned autonomous, dependent, linkages and independent categories.
From the MICMAC analysis, “training” emerges as the criteria with the highest driving
power for the manufacturing sector. Tackling this criterion on priority basis can have a
salutary effect in managing other criteria too. The IRP methodology is used by developing
binary matrix, interpretive matrix, dominating interaction matrix, the dominance matrix
 JM2 and finally the IRP model. This study is perhaps among the first few that focus on two
11,2 modeling procedures based on interpretive logic.
As concerns our empirical study, the proposed ISM and IRP methods worked
smoothly in tackling the issue of identifying the hierarchical relations among the eight
Lean criteria and classified them into meaningful portions. According to the MICMAC
analysis results, four Lean criteria lie in the cause group with high driving power, so the
422 management must pay greater attention and commit resources for their development.
These include 5S, CIM, training and ERP.
Both, in the ISM and IRP models, the Lean criterion “training” of employees has emerged
as the vital driver for success in Lean implementation. Identification of the criteria for Lean
implementation and development of ISM and IRP models holds significant practical
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

relevance and managerial implications. The research provides the manufacturing firms with
critical models that can help them systematically implement Lean. The proposed ISM and
IRP models can aid the manufacturing firms in resetting their priorities so as to improve the
Lean performance. The ISM and IRP models proposed in this case for identification of key
criteria for Lean implementation can provide the decision-makers a more pragmatic
representation of the course to be taken for Lean implementation. A major contribution of
this work lies in the development of linkages among various criteria of Lean implementation
through a systemic framework. The utility of the proposed ISM and IRP methodologies in
imposing order and direction on the complexity of relationships among elements of a system
assumes tremendous value to the decision-makers. In addition, the study reveals that rather
than relying on a single tool, two or more modeling techniques can be combined and made
use of for ranking purposes.

References
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M.K. (2006), “Modeling the metrics of lean, agile and leagile
supply chain: an ANP-based approach”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 173 No. 1, pp. 211-225.
Ahmad, S. and Azuan, S. (2013), “Culture and lean manufacturing: towards a holistic framework”
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 1.
Bayou, M.E. and De Korvin, A. (2008), “Measuring the leanness of manufacturing systems – a case
study of Ford motor company and general motors”, Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 287-304.
Belokar, R.M., Kharb, S.S. and Kumar, V. (2012), “An application of value stream mapping in
automobile industry: a case study”, International Journal of Innovative Technology and
Exploring Engineering (IJITEE), Vol. 1 No. 1.
Boes, A. and Kämpf, T. (2014), “Agile methods, lean development and the change of work in
software development”, Future Business Software, Springer International Publishing, New
York, NY, pp. 83-92.
Chauhan, G. and Singh, T.P. (2012), “Measuring parameters of lean manufacturing realization”,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 57-71.
Crute, V., Ward, Y., Brown, S. and Graves, A. (2003), “Implementing Lean in aerospace –
challenging the assumptions and understanding the challenges” Technovation, Vol. 23
No. 12, pp. 917-928.
Das, G. (2014), available at: http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/manufacturing-sector-is-
dragging-down-india-economic-growth/1/203616.html (accessed 21 May 2014).
 Dave, B.A. (2013), “Developing a construction management system based on lean construction Modeling
and building information modeling”, Doctoral dissertation, University of Salford, Salford.
Lean
Desai, M. (2014), Available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/I
ndian-manufacturing-stagnates-due-to-peculiar-labour-laws-Meghnad-Desai/articleshow/
implementation
32424439.cms (accessed 21 May 2014).
Devadasan, S.R., Sivakumar, M.V., Murugesh, R. and Shalij, P.R. (2012), Lean and Agile
Manufacturing Theoretical, Practical and Research Futurities, PHI Learning, New Delhi. 423
Doolen, T.L. and Hacker, M.E. (2005), “A review of lean assessment in organizations: an
exploratory study of lean practices by electronics manufacturers”, Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 55-67.
Eswaramoorthi, M., Kathiresan, G.R., Prasad, P.S.S. and Mohanram, P.V. (2011), “A survey on
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

lean practices in Indian machine tool industries”, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 52 Nos 9/12, pp. 1091-1101.
Fearne, A. and Fowler, N. (2006), “Efficiency versus effectiveness in construction supply chains:
the dangers of ‘lean’ thinking in isolation”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 283-287.
Genaidy, A.M. and Karwowski, W. (2003), “Human performance in lean production environment:
critical assessment and research framework” Human Factors and Ergonomics in
Manufacturing and Service Industries, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 317-330.
Green, S.D. and May, S.C. (2005), “Lean construction: arenas of enactment, models of diffusion and
the meaning of leanness”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 498-511.
Haleem, A., Sushil, Qadri, M.A. and Kumar, S. (2012), “Analysis of critical success factors of
world-class manufacturing practices: an application of interpretative structural modelling
and interpretative ranking process” Production Planning and Control, Vol. 23 Nos 10/11,
pp. 722-734.
Hallam, C.R. and Keating, J. (2014), “Company self-assessment of lean enterprise maturity in the
aerospace industry”, Journal of Enterprise Transformation, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 51-71.
Haque, B. and Moore, M.J. (2004), “Measures of performance for lean product introduction in the
aerospace industry”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B:
Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 218 No. 10, pp. 1387-1398.
Hasle, P. (2014), “Lean production – an evaluation of the possibilities for an employee supportive
lean practice”, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 40-53.
Herron, C. and Hicks, C. (2008), “The transfer of selected lean manufacturing techniques from
Japanese automotive manufacturing into general manufacturing (UK) through change
agents”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 524-531.
Hines, P. and Taylor, D. (2000), Going Lean, Lean Enterprise Research Centre Cardiff Business
School, Cardiff.
IBEF (2014), Available at: www.ibef.org/industry/manufacturing-sector-india.aspx (accessed 21
May 2014).
Imam, A.T. and Sudipto Sarkar, S. (2012), “Lean sigma a road to success: a perspective of the
indian automobile industry”, Global Journal of Researches In Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 1-A.
Indian Manufacturing Barometer (2013), Available at: www.pwc.in/en_IN/in/assets/pdfs/
publications/2013/india-manufacturing-barometer.pdf (accessed 21 May 2014).
James-Moore, S.M. and Gibbons, A. (1997), “Is lean manufacture universally relevant? An
investigative methodology”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 899-911.
 JM2 Jeyaraman, K. and Teo, L.K. (2010), “A conceptual framework for critical success factors of lean
six sigma: implementation on the performance of electronic manufacturing service
11,2 industry”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 191-215.
Jharkharia, S. and Shankar, R. (2005), “IT-enablement of supply chains: understanding the
barriers”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 11-27.
Johansen, E. and Walter, L. (2007), “Lean construction: prospects for the German construction
424 industry”, Lean Construction Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 19-32.
Jørgensen, B. and Emmitt, S. (2008), “Lost in transition: the transfer of lean manufacturing to
construction”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 383-398.
Kalpakjian, S. and Schmid, S.R. (2009), Manufacturing Processes for Engineering Materials,
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

Pearson Education, New Delhi.

Kesavan, R., Suresh, P. and Madheswaran, M. (2009), “A group decision making AHP model for
optimizing assembly system through lean manufacturing”, International Journal of
Management Research and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 239-250.
Liang, D. and Wang, H. (2013), “Study on the development strategy of lean logistics for automobile
enterprises under green supply chain environment”, Applied Mechanics and Materials,
Vol. 397 No. 1, pp. 2677-2680.
McManus, H.L., Haggerty, A. and Murman, E. (2007), “Lean engineering: a framework for doing
the right thing right”, Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 111 No. 1116, pp. 105-114.
Mandal, A. and Deshmukh, S.G. (1994), “Vendor selection using interpretive structural modeling
(ISM)”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 6,
pp. 52-59.
Martínez-Jurado, P.J. and Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2014), “Key determinants of lean production
adoption: evidence from the aerospace sector”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 332-345.
Mathaisel, D.F. (2005), “A lean architecture for transforming the aerospace maintenance, repair
and overhaul (MRO) enterprise”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 54 No. 8, pp. 623-644.
Melton, T. (2005), “The benefits of lean manufacturing: what lean thinking has to offer the process
industries?”, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 662-673.
Michaels, L.M.J. (1999), “The making of a lean aerospace supply chain”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 135-145.
Middleton, P. (2001), “Lean software development: two case studies”, Software Quality Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 241-252.
Mohanty, R.P., Yadav, O.P. and Jain, R. (2007), “Implementation of lean manufacturing principles
in auto industry”, Vilakshan–XIMB Journal of Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-32.
Nawawi, M.K.M., Khan, M.K. and Hussain, K. (2008), “Knowledge-based collaborative lean
manufacturing management (KBCLMM) system”, Journal of KONBiN, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 145-156.
Nobakht, N. and Roghanian, E. (2013), “A Fuzzy-AHP-QFD approach for achieving lean attributes
for competitive advantages development, Case study: the StaamSanat Company”,
Management Science Letters, Vol. 3 No. 1.
Oppenheim, B.W., Murman, E.M. and Secor, D.A. (2011), “Lean enablers for systems engineering”,
Systems Engineering, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 29-55.
 Paranitharan, K.P., Begam, M.S., Abuthakeer, S.S. and Subha, M.V. (2011), “Redesigning an Modeling
automotive assembly line through lean strategy”, International Journal of Lean Thinking,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-14.
Lean
Petersen, K. (2012), “A palette of lean indicators to detect waste in software maintenance: a case
implementation
study”, Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming, Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 108-122.
Planningcommission (n.d.), “The manufacturing plan”, available at: http://planningcommission. 425
gov.in/aboutus/committee/strgrp12/str_manu0304.pdf (accessed 21 May 2014).
Pullan, T.T., Bhasi, M. and Madhu, G. (2011), “Decision support tool for lean product and process
development”, Production Planning and Control: The Management of Operations, Vol. 24
No. 6. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2011.633374.
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

Rodríguez, P., Markkula, J., Oivo, M. and Garbajosa, J. (2012), “Analyzing the drivers of the
combination of lean and agile in software development companies”, Product-Focused
Software Process Improvement, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 145-159.
Sage, A.P. (1977), Interpretive Structural Modeling: Methodology for Large-Scale Systems,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Sánchez, A.M. and Pérez, M.P. (2001), “Lean indicators and manufacturing strategies”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 11,
pp. 1433-1452.
Sarhan, S. and Fox, A. (2013), “Barriers to implementing lean construction in the UK construction
industry” The Built and Human Environment Review, Vol. 6 No. 1.
Sawhney, R., Subburaman, K., Sonntag, C., Rao, P.R.V. and Capizzi, C. (2010), “A modified FMEA
approach to enhance reliability of lean systems”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 832-855.
Slack, R.A. (1998), “The application of lean principles to the military aerospace product
development process”, Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Technology, MA.
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,
Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 376-390.
Sushil (2005), “Interpretive matrix: a tool to aid interpretation of management and social
research”, Global Journal of Flexible System Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 11-20.
Sushil (2009), “Interpretive ranking process”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Susilawati, A., Tan, J., Bell, D. and Sarwar, M. (2012), “A multiple criteria decision making based
performance measurement and improvement model for lean manufacturing activities”,
International Conference on Mechanical, Automobile and Robotics Engineering
(ICMAR’2012), Penang, pp. 14-15.
Tradeineconomics (n.d.), Available at: www.tradingeconomics.com/india/industrial-production
Venkatamuni, T. and Rao, A.R. (2010), “Evaluating customer preferences in lean product
design-an AHP approach”, International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology,
Vol. 2 No. 7, pp. 3255-3266.
Vinodh, S., Gautham, S.G. and Ramiya, R.A. (2011a), “Implementing lean sigma framework in an
Indian automotive valves manufacturing organisation: a case study”, Production Planning
and Control, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 708-722.
Vinodh, S., Shivraman, K.R. and Viswesh, S. (2011b), “AHP-based lean concept selection in a
manufacturing organization”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 124-136.
 JM2 Wang, C.H., Kao, J.H. and Hsu, M.T. (2012), “Implementation of lean model for carrying out value
stream mapping in the aerospace engine case production”, Advanced Science Letters,
11,2 Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 697-701.
Warfield, J.W. (1974), “Developing interconnected matrices in structural modeling”, IEEE
Transactions on Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 51-81.
Winter, D., Jones, C., Ward, C., Gibbons, P., McMahon, C. and Potter, K. (2013), “The application of
426 a Lean philosophy during manufacture of advanced airframe structures in a new product
introduction (NPI) environment”, Advances in Sustainable and Competitive Manufacturing
Systems, Springer International Publishing, New York, NY, pp. 1503-1513.
Wong, Y.C. and Wong, K.Y. (2011), “Approaches and practices of lean manufacturing: the case of
electrical and electronics companies”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5
Downloaded by University of Sri Jayewardenepura At 21:40 03 September 2016 (PT)

No. 6, pp. 2164-2174.

Further reading
Bhamu, J., Kumar, J.S. and Sangwan, K.S. (2012), “Productivity and quality improvement through
value stream mapping: a case study of Indian automotive industry”, International Journal
of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 288-306.
Brintrup, A., Ranasinghe, D. and McFarlane, D. (2010), “RFID opportunity analysis for leaner
manufacturing”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 9, pp. 2745-2764.
CII (n.d.), Available at: www.cii.in/Sectors.aspx?enc⫽prvePUj2bdMtgTmvPwvisYH⫹5EnGjyG
XO9hLECvTuNsfVm32⫹poFSr33jmZ/rN⫹5 (accessed 21 May 2014).
Disney, S.M., Naim, M.M. and Towill, D.R. (1997), “Dynamic simulation modelling for lean
logistics”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 27
Nos 3/4, pp. 174-196.

About the authors

Vikram Sharma is currently serving as Associate Professor of mechanical engineering at
Galgotia’s College of Engineering and Technology, Greater Noida, India. He has over 12 years of
teaching and research experience. He holds a BE degree in Mechanical Engineering, and an ME
degree in CAD/CAM. He has presented several papers in international conferences and journals.
His current research interests include supply chain modeling and Lean manufacturing.
Amit Rai Dixit is serving as an Associate Professor of mechanical engineering at the Indian
School of Mines, Dhanbad, India. He has over 10 years of teaching and research experience. He
holds a BTech degree in Mechanical Engineering, and an ME degree in Production and PhD in the
field of cellular manufacturing systems. He has presented several papers in international
conferences and journals. His current research interest includes advanced production systems.
Mohd. Asim Qadri is a Professor in Mechanical Engineering Department of Galgotia’s College
of Engineering and Technology, Greater Noida, India. He did his BSc in Mechanical Engineering
and MSc in Mechanical Engineering from Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, and Aligarh Muslim
University, Aligarh, respectively. He obtained his PhD from Jamia Millia Islamia in the area of
green supply chain management. His research interests include green supply chain management,
optimization techniques and operations management, among others.

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