Int. J.

Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240

Applying the lessons learned from 27 lean manufacturers.

The relevance of relationships management
Roberto Panizzolo*
Dipartimento di Innovazione Meccanica e Gestionale, University of Padova, Via Venezia, 1 35131-Padova, Italy
Received 28 April 1997; accepted 25 March 1998

Abstract
This paper deals with the challenges posed by lean production principles for operations management. A multiple case
study approach was used to explore how the lean production model has been adopted by 27 excellent firms operating in
international markets and to recognize the areas characterized by major problems and difficulties. A research model, able
to accurately define and operationalize the lean production concept, was developed in order to carry out this empirical
study. The model represents a conceptualization of lean production as consisting of a number of improvement
programmes or best practices characterizing different areas of the company (i.e. process and equipment, manufacturing
planning and control, human resources, product design, supplier relationships, customer relationships). Results from this
study would suggest that for a full implementation of lean production principles, the most critical factor appears to be the
management of external relationships rather than internal operations. The challenge, today, is how to integrate the
different organizations into the value stream in order to ensure excellence in final products and services and, also, how to
integrate customers into the organization. This calls for a change in the perspective of analysis: the focus must move from
operations management to relationships management. In the light of this, suggestions for future research, indicated by
the empirical findings, are offered. ( 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: World class manufacturing; Just in time; Lean production; Relationships management; Operations manage-
ment; Empirical research

1. From scientific management to lean production:
overcoming the productivity—flexibility dilemma
It was probably with the advent of the scientific
movement headed by Frederick W. Taylor, around
the turn of the century, that the field of production
and operations management was opened up. For
* Corresponding author. Tel: #39-49-8276727; fax: #39-49-
8276716; e-mail: panizzolo@dimeg.unipd.it.
many years, the operations management discipline
was dominated by mathematical and statistical
studies which assumed that production systems
were governed by scientific laws and that the pro-
ductivity of labour and efficiency of equipment
were of paramount importance.
In the 1960s and 1970s studies began to appear
which emphasized the role of manufacturing as
a strategic competitive weapon [1]. Operations
were studied with a more systematic vision and
the link between operative variables and the firm’s

0925-5273/98/$19.00 Copyright ( 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

PII S 0 9 2 5 - 5 2 7 3 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 6 6 - 8
224 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240
performance was considered important. The
notion of factory focus was central to such studies
which emphasized the need for making trade-
offs among performance measures such as cost,
quality, and time in designing and managing facto-
ries [2,3].
In the 1980s, the rapid spread, and adoption,
of advanced production technologies and a
radical revolution in management philosophies
led to an equally radical change in the issues
that were examined and analysed. In particular,
the world-level success of Japanese producers
heightened interest, among scholars, in the Just-
in-Time (JIT) production system [4—6], and
in the Total Quality Control (TQC) movement
[7,8].
The spread of innovative manufacturing
methodologies and techniques marked an impor-
tant step forward in operations management stud-
ies. In these years there was a steady decline in the
number of studies of traditional industrial engin-
eering techniques and an increase, when compared
with the 1970s, in topics with more managerial
perspectives [9—14]. The diffusion of new produc-
tion models (whatever they are called, World Class
Manufacturing [15], Dynamic Manufacturing
[16], Lean Production [17]), requires that not only
should technical questions be fully understood, but
also other, existing, relationships between manufac-
turing and the other areas of the firm should be
examined in depth, as should other factors external
to the firm [18].
Moreover, the new production models question
the traditional assumption of trade-offs. Although
some authors do not agree that the idea of trade-off
has really been made redundant [19], various re-
searchers [20,21] have affirmed that the so-called
“world-class” manufacturers make a big point of
doing everything well, and argue that automated,
flexible technologies coupled with management in-
novations have made this possible. In this sense,
some authors have talked of the “triumph of the
lean production system”, a system which is able to
overcome the traditional productivity—flexibility
dilemma: “Plants with lean production policies are
able to manufacture a wide range of models but
maintain high degrees of quality and productivity”
[22].
2. The diffusion of the lean production system:
research needs for the operations management
discipline
The spread of the lean production system has
sparked off a broad debate in the Western world in
general, and in operations management literature
in particular, regarding aspects such as: the extent
to which this system can be applied (in relation to
the specific characteristics of different countries and
of different industries); the way in which the pas-
sage from traditional production systems to inno-
vative systems takes place (paths of improvement);
and the impact of the adoption of the lean produc-
tion model on the firm’s entire system.
More recently, changes in the world economic
scenario (i.e. a stagnation of demand and of techno-
logical evolution which has chararcterized the first
years of the 1990s) have led some authors to believe
that the lean production model will be forced to
undergo, perhaps major, transformations: “2 it has
now become apparent to many Japanese managers,
employees, policy makers, and industry observers
that the notion of “continuous improvement” —
continually pushing for gains in manufacturing and
engineering efficiency — has resulted in a new set of
problems and some practical limits. The Japanese
automakers are now exploring ways to modify or
moderate their approaches, even if they become less
efficient in manufacturing or less profuse in engin-
eering outputs. Japanese gains in manufacturing
productivity and their rapid expansion and replace-
ment of product lines may have indeed reached
a limit” [23].
From a general point of view, the debate around
the lean production model can be interpreted at
three different levels.
¹he first level is that of the individual firm. The
adoption of innovations in manufacturing in order
to obtain a perfectly synchronized production flow
requires interventions in many other areas as well
as in manufacturing itself. The lean production
system is fundamentally a fragile system, in which
slight perturbations or deviations from the working
conditions planned for can seriously affect system
performance, because of the considerable reduction
of resources the lean production approach
implies [24]. It is not difficult to imagine what the
 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240
implications of this are, in terms of stress, for all the
firm’s resources. Think, for example, of the way the
work force is involved, a work force which must be
both qualified and willing to collaborate. In more
general terms, at this first level, the relationships
between the interventions in the different functional
areas, the way in which actions are taken, the links
between adoption of best practices and the firm’s
performance all have to be studied in depth.
¹he second level concerns the impact of the Lean
Production model on the relationships between
firms and between firms and their customers. Lean
production systems are particularly vulnerable not
only to internal sources of variability, but also to
external sources [25]. In this perspective, the part-
nership relation has become the winning model of
the relationship between buyer and suppliers in the
1990s [26]. But, just how widespread is this type of
relation? What obstacles may inhibit the develop-
ment of partnership? Although the literature on
this subject agrees on many aspects, it does not
agree on all.
On the other hand, the relationship between
firms and their customers also plays a fundamental
role in the development of an innovative produc-
tion system. It is important to attain a perfect
match between market demand and production
flows. The spread of lean type relationships in dis-
tribution channels has been analysed in detail with-
in the automobile industry. But little research has
been carried out on other industries where organ-
izational and structural channels are different.
At a third level, the role played by external coun-
try-specific factors (political, legislative, cultural,
social, economic and industrial) regarding the diffu-
sion and the characteristics of the Lean Production
model should also be examined. For example,
according to some authors, the lean production
model is characterized by an “incremental” ap-
proach to innovation which, to some extent reflects
features of the Japanese culture which is, simulta-
neously, both progressive and conservative [27].
This contrasts, to some extent, with the way of
thinking that characterized Western firms which is
mainly based on radical innovations. Moreover,
the role of what Dore [28] calls “flexible rigidities”
in the success of the lean production model remains
also to be examined. These are the long-term
225
“implicit social contracts” which ensure that the
firm will operate in a receptive environment con-
ducive to lean production, but which simulta-
neously increase the degree of rigidity.
More generally, the presence of innovative indus-
trial relations, the creation or improvement of
logistic and communication networks, the develop-
ment of education and suitable professional train-
ing schemes all appear to be necessary prerequisites
for the development of this new manufacturing
model.
This paper offers some answers to the questions
posed by the spread of the lean production model
with reference to the first and second level as de-
fined above.
In particular, through the analysis of the process
of adoption and implementation of lean production
principles in a group of firms whose excellence is
widely recognised, this study aims:
f to examine how the lean production model has
been adopted, i.e. which are the most widespread
best practices,
f to recognize the areas characterized by major
problems and difficulties and to identify the criti-
cal factors in implementation management;
f to highlight the implications (both for the firm
and for its relationships with suppliers and cus-
tomers) of the operational and management
methods implicit in the lean production philos-
ophy.
3. The research model
In order to carry out this empirical study, a
research model able to accurately define and opera-
tionalize the lean production concept had to be
developed. Lean production, as a concept, was ori-
ginally developed by Toyota in Japan. Essentially,
the term “lean” was used by Womack and his
colleagues [17] to denote a system that uses less, in
terms of all inputs, to create outputs similar to
those of the traditional mass production system,
while offering increased choices for the final con-
sumer.
Many case studies have shown how those
firms which have succeeded in becoming highly
226 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240
competitive within their industry, have all made
synergic investments in a wide portfolio of manu-
facturing improvement programmes [29—31]. Hay-
es and Wheelwright state: “well-run factories
around the world share many similarities 2. They
are clean and orderly. They emphasize quality and
dependability. They are characterized by well-
trained workers and the kind of high morale that
comes from a combination of the workers’ sense of
their own competence and their confidence in the
competence of their managers” [2].
Several studies in the literature have tried to
identify the determinants of these innovative pro-
duction systems [32—37]. An examination of these
works shows, clearly, that this wide range of best
practices concerns:
f interventions in the manufacturing area;
f actions taken in other areas of the firm (design,
human resources, strategy, etc.);
f relationships with external actors (suppliers and
customers).
Early studies mainly focused on manufacturing
planning and control practices and on the charac-
teristics of production processes in lean firms [38].
In the area of manufacturing planning and control
the goals are to synchronize production and mar-
ket demand. These goals can be attained through
levelled production, the use of small lots, pull con-
trol of flows and visual control of the shop floor
and so on.
Whether it is possible to operate along these lines
depends on the availability of production processes
that are able to guarantee the regularity and uni-
formity, over time, of the mix. These conditions
require, for example, shortening of set up times, the
use of cellular lay outs and of mixed model lines,
process capability, availability and reliability of
machines, the use of “error proof ” equipment and
so on [4].
The perspective of analysis was only broadened
in later studies as it became clearer that setting up
a lean production system required the adoption of
best practices not only in manufacturing but also in
other areas of the firm. This broadening of the
range of analysis led some authors to introduce
such concepts as “core JIT” and “JIT infrastruc-
ture” [39].
From this point of view, JIT manufacturing
practices have had a profound impact on human
resources management insofar as they require in-
creased involvement and commitment on the part
of employees. Human resources have taken on
a strategic role in carrying out the continuous qual-
ity improvement plans which are the basis for suc-
cess in the lean production model [40].
A lot of attention has also been devoted to the
study of the relationships between product devel-
opment and manufacturing [41]. All practices
which seek to improve product manufacturability
and assembly (such as product simplification, parts
standardization, modular architecture of the prod-
uct and mushroom concept) play an important role
in adopting advanced production methods.
Alongside this research on the relations between
the adoption of best practices in manufacturing and
its implications for other areas of the firm, the first
studies began to appear, in the international litera-
ture, where operations were seen in a broader, more
integrated manner, upstream with suppliers and
downstream with customers.
The subject of supply chain management has
been taken up by many authors who have de-
scribed the practices and the innovative policies
adopted by lean manufacturers (see, for example,
[26]). Basically, these practices and policies high-
light the importance of establishing closer and
longer-term relations with suppliers not only at a
logistic level (i.e. lot size, regularity and timeliness
of deliveries, quality at the source) but also at the
technological/strategic level (i.e. joint design of new
products/technologies and sharing business risks
and opportunities).
Adopting a lean production logic also means
setting up innovative relationships with customers.
However, “the area of physical distribution and
channel management has been relatively neglected
in the literature as a source of competitive advant-
age” [42] and “the number of companies that
understand how to design and manage marketing
channels successfully is still small” [43]. Fuller et al.
[44] were among the first to argue that tailored
logistics is just an extension of lean production
techniques to distribution and to suggest that the
approach must be customer-focused, with the em-
phasis on the market rather than the company. In
 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240
recent years this theme has been taken up by other
authors who have underlined the need to develop
a “customer in” organization in which the impor-
tant topics are the capability and competence of the
sales network, the exchange of information with
customers, the ability to carry out frequent and
rapid deliveries and, customer involvement in
product planning and design [45,46].
This focus on suppliers and customers empha-
sizes a strategic vision of lean production, one
which focuses on the external networks of the firm.
Some authors have conceptualized this vision sug-
gesting the use of the term lean enterprise instead of
lean production: “We’ve seen numerous examples
of amazing improvements in a specific activity in
a single company. But these experiences have also
made us realize that applying lean techniques to
discrete activities is not the end of the road. If
individual breakthroughs can be linked up and
down the value chain to form a continuous value
stream that creates, sells, and services a family of
products, the performance of the whole can be
raised to a dramatically higher level. We think that
value-creating activities can be joined, but this
effort will require a new organizational model: the
lean enterprise” [18].
This new organizational model is similar to that
proposed by Karlsson and A_ hlström who de-
veloped a conceptual model which operationalizes
the determinants of a lean production system [47].
The authors define “lean enterprise” as a firm
which uses selected best practices in all functional
areas and in the management of external relation-
ships. They see lean enterprise as consisting of four
different parts: lean development, lean procure-
ment, lean manufacturing and lean distribution.
Starting from a review of the literature on lean
production, a research model was set up. The
model allows for the operationalization of a com-
plex and multidimensional concept such as that of
lean production. It summarizes the principles con-
tained within lean production and allows the
process of adoption and implementation of lean
production philosophy to be studied better. The
model, depicted in Table 1, represents a concep-
tualization of lean production which consists of
a number of improvement programmes or best
practices that characterize different areas of the
227
lean company. These areas are: Process and Equip-
ment, Manufacturing Planning and Control,
Human Resources, Product Design, Supplier
Relationships and Customer Relationships. The
principal improvement programmes are high-
lighted for each of the above areas.
4. The research methodology
The organizations involved in this study are all
firms whose excellence is widely recognized. Some
of these firms belong to the group of top 30 Euro-
pean companies most respected for their overall
management and performance excellence. This
group was identified by a survey which the Finan-
cial Times newspaper carried out in 1995 in con-
junction with the accountants of Price Waterhouse.
Others are included in the list “Europe’s 500”
drawn up by Ernst and Young in 1996 which regis-
ters the 500 fastest growing firms, with between 40
and 500 employees, in Europe. Other firms became
involved on the basis of both expert opinions and
the author’s direct knowledge.
The firms are all Italian, and produce finished
goods under their own trade-mark. Initial contacts
were made by telephone. After preliminary dis-
cussion with a representative of the company, con-
cerning the aims and objectives of the research
project, 27 firms agreed to participate in the
research. The unit of analysis was the single plant.
Table 2 offers a company profile of the firms exam-
ined.
The main data collection method adopted was
face-to-face structured interviews with high-level
managers from the various functional areas of each
organization. All interviews were conducted by
researchers with at least five years experience in
operations management. On average, the inter-
viewers spent two days in each firm and a total of
64 days in the 27 firms in the sample. This method
was considered the best for gathering effective data
on lean production which is a complex multidimen-
sional concept and relates to complex systems (i.e.
the whole of the operations).
Six interview guides were developed, one for each
area of the research model. These guides were used
in field interviews to ensure the constancy and
228 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240

Table 1
The research model

Areas of intervention Improvement programmes

Process and equipment PE1 set up reduction

PE2 flow lines
PE3 cellular manufacturing
PE4 rigorous preventive maintenance
PE5 “error proof ” equipment
PE6 progressive use of new process technologies
PE7 process capability
PE8 order and cleanliness in the plant
PE9 continuous reduction of cycle time
Manufacturing planning and control PPC1 levelled production
PPC2 synchronized scheduling
PPC3 mixed model scheduling
PPC4 under-capacity scheduling
PPC5 small lot sizing
PPC6 visual control of the shop floor
PPC7 overlapped production
PPC8 pull flow control
Human resources HR1 multifunctional workers
HR2 expansion of autonomy and responsibility
HR3 few levels of management
HR4 worker involvement in continuous quality improvement programmes
HR5 work time flexibility
HR6 team decision making
HR7 worker training
HR8 innovative performance appraisal and performance related pay systems
Product design PD1 parts standardization
PD2 product modularization
PD3 mushroom concept
PD4 design for manufacturability
PD5 phase overlapping
PD6 multifunctional design teams
Supplier relationships SR1 JIT deliveries
SR2 open orders
SR3 quality at the source
SR4 early information exchange on production plans
SR5 supplier involvement in quality improvement programmes
SR6 reduction of number of sources and distances
SR7 long-term contracts
SR8 total cost supplier evaluation
SR9 supplier involvement in product design and development
Customer relationships CR1 reliable and prompt deliveries
CR2 commercial actions to stabilize demand
CR3 capability and competence of sales network
CR4 early information on customer needs
CR5 flexibility on meeting customer requirements
CR6 service-enhanced product
CR7 customer involvement in product design
CR8 customer involvement in quality programmes
 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240 229

Table 2
Respondent profile (1996 data).

Company Sales Number of

profile (million $) employees

C1 Produces axles for industrial vehicles (tractors and trucks). The firm has won international 280 1200
prizes for the high quality of its products. Holds 20% of the world market
C2 Holds 20% of the European market for motorcycles and scooters below 50cc and about 340 1150
60% of that for 250cc motorcycles. Turnover has risen 226% over the last three years
C3 Produces clothing for young people sold through 10 000 retail outlets in 75 countries 330 1000
world-wide. Turnover has risen 11 000% in the past decade
C4 World leader in the production of chains and pinions 70 279
C5 Leading world producer (25% of world market) of multi-mandrel automatic lathes 135 430
C6 Leading world producer of heating elements for domestic and industrial applications 190 1940
(more than 690 million items sold per year)
C7 European leader, 2nd in the world, in the production of keys (for safes, houses, cars, etc.) 50 200
C8 Producer of equipment for amusement parks (the firm made 70% of the Eurodisney 120 450
park equipment in Paris). Currently involved in modernizing many of the most
advanced amusement parks world-wide
C9 Producer of synchronous motors. World leader in the production of motors for pump 75 250
aquariums (80% of the Canadian market, 50% of the US market), produces 70% of motors
for household appliances in Europe
C10 Italian leader in the production of baker’s confectionery 150 600
C11 World leader in the production of eyeglass frames in over 700 styles. About 100 new designs 590 1700
are added to the inventory each year and about 67 000 eyeglass frames are made each day
C12 Leading European producer of fibreglass panels for furniture and window manufacturers 235 880
C13 Produces 6 million items of clothing sold in 3500 retail outlets world-wide. Turnover has 190 450
risen 750% in the past five years
C14 Leading producer of automated machinery for packing, boxing and wrapping 230 830
C15 World leader in the construction of vacuum pumps using “gettering” technology 110 750
C16 Italian leader, and among the European leaders, in the production of brake parts for 210 900
automobiles
C17 European leader in the production of air conditioning systems for cars 200 420
C18 World leader in terracotta pot production 90 550
C19 European leader in the production of window and door frames, screens and room dividers 220 850
C20 World leader in the production of high quality and professional components for bicycles 20 100
C21 Leading producer of automated machines for ice-cream manufacturers (75% of Italian 280 1450
market). The firms has won various international prizes for the design of its products
C22 Leading producer of leather straps and metal bracelets for watches (40% of the Italian 45 450
market and 10% of the world market)
C23 Italian leader in the production of high quality, fitted kitchens 260 820
C24 Leading world producer of mouldings, mountboard, ready-made frames and equipment to 140 600
the framing and photographic trades
C25 Europe’s largest producer of chairs and seats, over 1 500 000 items sold per year 78 400
C26 World leader in the production of rolling mills for the iron and steel industry 925 2742
C27 World leader in the production of olive-oil extracting machinery (the firm controls about 100 450
75% of the world market)

reliability of inquiry procedures at all sites. All inter-
views were tape-recorded and all sessions were tran-
scribed before the data were analysed. To enhance
the validity of the answers, summaries of the major
findings of each interview were checked by the par-
ticipants after the end of each interview session.
The interviews were conducted in order to
measure the degree of diffusion of the best practices
in the research model. In order to do this, it was
necessary to operationalize them by means of both
objective and perceptive measurements. The
answers to perceptual questions were measured on
230 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240
a five point Likert scale. The constructs were
articulated in a sufficient number of items to cover
the domain of the content of each variable exam-
ined and to limit the influence of random errors in
measurements. The value for each plant, for each
practice, was obtained by working out the average
between the respondents to the same question and
subsequently the average between questions rela-
tive to the same variables.
Some measures were taken from the literature
whereas others were specifically developed.1 All the
measures were then tested for their reliability and
construct validity. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was
used as the reliability indicator. Nunnaly [48] sug-
gested a threshold value for alpha equal to 0.60 in
the case of exploratory research which involves the
use of newly developed scales. All those adopted in
the present study exceed that value. The construct
validity was proved by means of factor analysis.
The percentage of variance explained by the first
factor can be used as an indicator of the validity
level: high values indicate that the resulting factor
collects a large part of the information shared be-
tween the couples of items. The constructs which
did not pass the assessment tests were discarded.
Table 3 reports the results of the reliability and
construct validity analysis.
5. The empirical findings
The interviews were carried out with the aim of
understanding the extent to which the various im-
provement programmes or best practices of the
research model were applied in the company. As
previously stated, the degree of adoption for each
plant was calculated by working out the average of
the answers collected. This value was rated on
a five-point scale ranged from 0"not used, to
4"fully adopted.
The empirical results of the study are given in
Tables 4—9. To assess the degree of adoption of
each improvement programme in the six areas, the
percentage of plants who rated them as adopted or
fully adopted (i.e. 3 or 4 on the scale) was cal-
1 All measures are available, on request, from the author.
culated. A frequency measure was used here,
instead of conventional averaging, because we were
interested in discovering whether each programme
was pervasive and significant.
Two other measures were developed for each area:
the area average adoption factor and the area vari-
ance adoption factor. These two factors are cal-
culated on the basis of the percentages given above.
The first factor offers an immediate indication of the
intensity of the adoption of all improvement pro-
grammes in a particular area. The second factor
makes it possible to assess whether there are differ-
ences in the degree to which the various improvement
programmes in a single area have been adopted.
5.1. Process and equipment
The ranking for the Process and Equipment area
is given in Table 4. In general, firms have dedicated
a great deal of attention to all the improvement
programmes in this area (the area average adoption
factor is high and the area variance adoption factor
is low). In particular, great efforts have been made
in order to reduce set up times, which were per-
ceived as being one of the greatest obstacles to
obtaining continuous flow-type production. The
re-design of production process according to the
philosophy of cellular manufacturing and preven-
tive maintenance also appear to be widespread
practices. Furthermore, a variety of interventions
have been carried out on the production process
which aimed to ensure that quality standards were
being respected.
The final impression, borne out by interviews,
was that of an efficient situation, reliable produc-
tion processes with large cutbacks in lead times,
advanced machinery and innovative movement
systems.
5.2. Manufacturing planning and control
The ranking for the Manufacturing Planning
and Control area is given in Table 5. The same
comments could be made about this area as for
Process and Equipment above. This survey has
shown that many firms in the sample were adopting
 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240 231

Table 3
Reliability and construct validity analysis.

Variable Reliability Validity

assessment! assessment"

PE1 set up reduction 0.73 0.59

PE2 flow lines 0.64 0.62
PE3 cellular manufacturing 0.97 0.92
PE4 rigorous preventive maintenance 0.68 0.93
PE5 “error proof” equipment 0.74 0.66
PE6 progressive use of new process technologies 0.72 0.70
PE7 process capability 0.86 0.53
PE8 order and cleanliness in the plant 0.92 0.64
PE9 continuous reduction of cycle time 0.64 0.77
PPC1 levelled production 0.98 0.47
PPC2 synchronized scheduling 0.76 0.94
PPC3 mixed model scheduling 0.84 0.98
PPC4 under-capacity scheduling 0.82 0.58
PPC5 small lot sizing 0.97 0.84
PPC6 visual control of the shop floor 0.69 0.75
PPC7 overlapped production 0.76 0.71
PPC8 pull flow control 0.91 0.67
HR1 multifunctional workers 0.87 0.56
HR2 expansion of autonomy and responsibility 0.95 0.35
HR3 few levels of management 0.69 0.67
HR4 worker involvement in continuous quality improvement programmes 0.80 0.87
HR5 work time flexibility 0.95 0.95
HR6 team decision making 0.68 0.67
HR7 worker training 0.75 0.97
HR8 innovative performance appraisal and performance related pay systems 0.87 0.68
PD1 parts standardization 0.84 0.72
PD2 product modularization 0.73 0.86
PD3 mushroom concept 0.89 0.92
PD4 design for manufacturability 0.93 0.84
PD5 phase overlapping 0.97 0.82
PD6 multifunctional design teams 0.65 0.97
SR1 JIT deliveries 0.78 0.76
SR2 open orders 0.80 0.64
SR3 quality at the source 0.78 0.97
SR4 early information exchange on production plans 0.86 0.68
SR5 supplier involvement in quality improvement programmes 0.79 0.74
SR6 reduction of number of sources and distances 0.82 0.72
SR7 long-term contracts 8.90 0.67
SR8 total cost supplier evaluation 0.81 0.45
SR9 supplier involvement in product design and development 0.89 0.95
CR1 reliable and prompt deliveries 0.87 0.74
CR2 commercial actions to stabilize demand 0.95 0.76
CR3 capability and competence of sales network 0.72 0.86
CR4 early information on customer needs 0.76 0.92
CR5 flexibility on meeting customer requirements 0.85 0.84
CR6 service-enhanced product 0.68 0.82
CR7 customer involvement in product design 0.78 0.45
CR8 customer involvement in quality programmes 0.82 0.82

!Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.

"Percentage of variance explained by the first factor.
232 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240

innovative practices in this area. For example, pro- management, multilevel MPS with planning bills in
duction is synchronized and levelled, pull control is production planning and finite loading planning in
used on the shop floor so as to reduce the invento- order release and scheduling. To conclude, a great
ries and to be able to react swiftly to meet customer deal has already been done and the firms studied
needs. Advanced tools have been adopted in order would seem to be in the avant garde in this area.
to improve manufacturing planning and control,
for example, configuration control in order entry
5.3. Human resources
Table 4
Degree of adoption of improvement programmes in the Process The ranking for the Human Resources area is
and Equipment area given in Table 6. The empirical results confirm
Improvement program Score! xN " p#
what has already been stated in the literature, that
is, the importance of human resources in the imple-
PE1 set up reduction 100 mentation of a lean production principles. The area
PE2 flow lines 85.1 average adoption factor is the highest here and bears
PE3 cellular manufacturing 92.5 witness to the widespread diffusion of innovative
PE4 rigorous preventive
maintenance 100
practices in this area.
PE5 “error proof” equipment 81.4 In particular, involvement of workers in continu-
PF6 progressive use of new process ous quality improvement programmes, expansion
technologies 81.4 of their autonomy and responsibility, the presence
PE7 process capability 100 of multi-functional workers have all, in managers’
PE8 order and cleanliness in the
plant 92.5
opinions, been crucial for improvements in firms’
PE9 continuous reduction of cycle time 85.1 performances.
90.88 7.46 In order to promote employee contributions
and to increase employee empowerment and re-
!Score for a improvement programme represents the percentage sponsibility, the firms studied have adopted inno-
of respondents who rated the programme as either adopted (3)
or fully adopted (4).
vative practices in all the fundamental processes
"Area average adoption factor. which constitute human resources management (i.e.
#Area variance adoption factor. recruitment and selection, education and training
and evaluation and reward). For example, as re-
Table 5
gards evaluation and reward, practices have been
Degree of adoption of improvement programmes in the Manu- adopted that aim of reward and encourage behav-
facturing Planning and Control area iour based on personal initiative and on relation-
ships, rather than on hierarchy.
Improvement program Score! xN " p#

PPC1 levelled production 85.1

PPC2 synchronized scheduling 88.8 5.4. Product design
PPC3 mixed model scheduling 74.0
PPC4 under-capacity scheduling 81.4 The ranking for the Product Design area is given
PPC5 small lot sizing 100 in Table 7. The area of product design has received
PPC6 visual control of the shop floors 77.7
PPC7 overlapped production 81.4
less attention than those examined so far (the area
PPC8 pull flow control 92.5 average adoption factor is lower than the preceding
85.1 7.87 values) even though discussions with managers
have revealed that in recent years the firms in the
!Score for a improvement programme represents the percentage study have been devoting more energy to the prob-
of respondents who rated the programme as either adopted (3)
or fully adopted (4).
lems of product development.
"Area average adoption factor. This growing attention and awareness is linked
#Area variance adoption factor. to two important considerations. Firstly, the fact
 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240 233

Table 6
Degree of adoption of improvement programmes in the Human Resources area

Improvement program Score! xN " p#

HR1 multifunctional workers 100

HR2 expansion of autonomy and responsibility 92.5
HR3 few levels of management 88.8
HR4 worker involvement in continuous quality improvement programmes 92.5
HR5 work time flexibility 100
HR6 team decision making 92.5
HR7 worker training 100
HR8 innovative performance appraisal and performance related pay systems 96.2
95.3 4.07

!Score for a improvement programme represents the percentage of respondents who rated the programme as either adopted (3) or fully
adopted (4).
"Area average adoption factor.
#Area variance adoption factor.

that design is crucial when satisfying customers Table 7

needs and therefore crucial for achieving higher Degree of adoption of improvement programmes in the Product
levels of effectiveness. Secondly, choices regarding Design area
product structure, materials and technical solutions Improvement program Score! xN " p#
to be adopted greatly affect product cost, produc-
tion lead time and production methods. Conse- PD1 parts standardization 81.4
quently, if they wish to improve both customer PD2 product modularization 85.1
satisfaction and performances of the operating sys- PD3 mushroom concept 81.4
PD4 design for manufacturability 66.6
tem, firms are obliged to adopt innovative PD5 phase overlapping 62.9
programmes in design. PD6 multifunctional design teams 66.6
However, so far, extensive exploitation of inno- 74.0 8.80
vative practices in product design has not yet been
fully achieved. For instance, in practice, the !Score for a improvement programme represents the percentage
of respondents who rated the programme as either adopted (3)
adoption of advanced methodologies, such as or fully adopted (4).
QFD, design review, FMEA or VRP, is nearly "Area average adoption factor.
always limited. Analysis has also revealed that #Area variance adoption factor.
there are still constraints for the development of
innovative organizational practices, above all con-
straints of an organizational nature, connected to other areas which would suggest that within supply
the difficulty of fully understanding the impact of chain management innovative behaviour is still
these innovation programmes on all aspects of the adopted only to a limited extent.
organization. However, the results must be examined more
carefully. The area variance adoption factor is high,
which means that some improvement programmes
5.5. Supplier relationships have been adopted to a greater extent than others.
This is particularly true in the case of practices
The ranking for the Supplier Relationships area designed to increase the degree of “operational
is given in Table 8. The situation in this area is very integration” between buyer and suppliers, which
different from those described above. The area means that the buyer and the supplier are integ-
average adoption factor is markedly lower than in rated on aspects regarding the transfer of materials
234 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240

Table 8 Table 9
Degree of adoption of improvement programmes in the Supplier Degree of adoption of improvement programmes in the Cus-
Relationships area tomer Relationships area

Improvement program Score! xN " p# Improvement program Score! xN " p#

SR1 JIT deliveries 92.5 CR1 reliable and prompt deliveries 100
SR2 open orders 92.5 CR2 commercial actions to stabilize 96.2
SR3 quality at the source 100 demand
SR4 early information exchange on 85.1 CR3 capability and competence of 92.5
production plans sales network
SR5 supplier involvement in quality 88.8 CR4 early information on customer 74.0
improvement programmes needs
SR6 reduction of number of sources 62.9 CR5 flexibility on meeting customer 62.9
and distances requirements
SR7 long-term contracts 55.5 CR6 service-enchanced product 48.1
SR8 total cost supplier evaluation 55.5 CR7 customer involvement in 37.0
SR9 supplier involvement in product 44.4 product design
and development CR8 custmer involvement in quality 44.4
75.2 19.3 programmes
69.38 23.3
!Score for a improvement programme represents the percentage
of respondents who rated the programme as either adopted (3) !Score for a improvement programme represents the percentage
or fully adopted (4). of respondents who rated the programme as either adopted (3)
"Area average adoption factor. or fully adopted (4).
#Area variance adoption factor. "Area average adoption factor.
#Area variance adoption factor.
from the supplier to the buyer (i.e. a “logistic rela-
tion”). develop commercial and marketing techniques in
The situation is, however, very different as re- order to make demand both more predictable and
gards the integration on the technological/strategic more stable and, to improve both the professional-
level (i.e. a “partnership relation”). Here, the data ity and the competence of personnel directly in-
have shown that for many firms there is still a long volved in relations with customers.
way to go before they fully develop this partnership The situation is very different if one examines
relation. other aspects that would qualify relationships with
customers as innovative (i.e. the partnership rela-
tion). For example, very few firms have fully
5.6. Customer relationships adopted the practice of involving the customer in
the product design process. Even customer involve-
The ranking for the Customer Relationships area ment in quality programmes is, in most firms, lim-
is given in Table 9. Analysis of this table shows ited to merely gathering data about the degree of
a situation which has much in common with that in customer satisfaction by, for example, providing
the supplier relationships area: the area average a system for collecting complaints.
adoption factor is very low and the area variance
adoption factor is high. This indicates, on the one
hand, that innovative behaviour within the cus- 6. Discussion of results
tomer relationships area is still limited and, on the
other, that some improvement programmes have So far, this paper has identified the main factors
received more attention than others. that have characterized the adoption of lean pro-
Specifically, most effort has gone into developing duction principles by 27 excellent firms. The vari-
a logistic relation. In other words, efforts have been ous best practices adopted by the firms examined
made to ensure reliable and prompt deliveries, to have been highlighted and described, as has the
 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240 235

degree of diffusion of such practices. Given that
only firms well-known for their excellence at an
international level were analysed, these empirical
findings are, in part, not really surprising. However,
interestingly, the data have revealed that firms seem
to find it more difficult to fully adopt innovative
practices which concern the management of
external relationships with suppliers and cus-
tomers.
In order to investigate this topic in more detail, it
was decided to analyse the variety of firms’ behav-
iour when adopting lean production practices.
Cluster analysis was used to identify those factors
which most differentiate the firms. The final objec-
tive was to identify different groups of firms charac-
terized by distinct adoption profiles.
To carry out the statistical examination, a matrix
was set up containing the values assigned by the 27
firms to each improvement programme in the six
areas identified in the research model. Table 10
shows that 3 of 6 improvement programmes dis-
criminate significantly between clusters for the
Product Design area, 5 out of 9 for the Supplier
Relationships area, 5 out of 8 for the Customer
Relationships area, for a total of 13 practices out of
the initial 48. None of the improvement pro-
grammes of the Process and Equipment, Manufac-
turing Planning and Control and Human
Resources areas discriminated significantly be-
tween clusters.
The results of the cluster analysis allowed the
research sample to be broken down into three dif-
ferent groups. As shown in Fig. 1, the firms belong-
ing to each of these three groups are characterized
by different degrees of integration/co-operation
with suppliers and customers. As previously seen,
this co-operation may take place on two levels:
a logistic relation and a partnership relation.
The first group is composed of 12 organizations
which we could call flexible enterprises. These are
lean firms who have developed a high level of
“operational integration” both with suppliers and
with customers. Apart from price, the key aspects of
this relationship with suppliers are the quality and
reliability of the service, regularity and timeliness of
deliveries, small lots and quality at the source.
The influence of this logistic relation with suppliers
on product mix, flexibility and on the time required
to respond to customer orders from the buyer part-
ner is clear: high levels of operational integration

Table 10
Cluster analysis of research variables

Factors G1! G2 G3
(n"12) (n"8) (n"7)

Product design
PD2 product modularization 1.6" 3.2 3.3
PD3 mushroom concept 1.9 2.5 2.7
PD4 design for manufacturability 1.8 3.7 3.5
Supplier relationships
SR5 supplier involvement in quality improvement programmes 2.2 3.9 4.0
SR6 reduction of number of sources and distances 1.8 2.9 3.0
SR7 long-term contracts 2.0 3.1 3.2
SR8 total cost supplier evaluation 1.6 3.8 3.8
SR9 supplier involvement in product design and development 1.8 4.0 3.9
Customer relationships
CR4 early information on customer needs 2.7 2.6 3.4
CR5 flexibility on meeting customer requirements 2.5 3.0 3.5
CR6 service-enhanced product 1.1 1.8 3.8
CR7 customer involvement in product design 1.3 1.9 3.7
CR8 customer involvement in quality programmes 1.5 2.0 3.3

!G1, G2 and G3 are groups obtained from the cluster analysis. Variables discriminate significantly between groups at p(0.05.
"Mean score for each improvement programme on a scale of 0"“not adopted” to 4"“fully adopted”.
236 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240
Fig. 1. Three different classes of lean firms.
facilitate both regular and fast flows of materials
and reduce overall lead time.
When asked about the reason why they had set
up this relation with suppliers, flexible enterprises
answered that it had been done under the influence
of the new production philosophies (JIT) and the
new approaches to quality (TQM) that they had
adopted at the beginning of their renewal process.
Indeed, the JIT system does require a smooth pro-
duction approach, rigid adherence to production
programmes and the identification and removal of
any source of waste. This creates the need for a fas-
ter and more intense transmission of information
and a greater degree of co-ordination between all
units that make up the supply chain. The supplier
must not only be able to simply supply, but also to
produce JIT.
As regards the logistic relation with customer,
quick replenishment of stocks and quick replace-
ment of defective parts are especially important.
The aim is to minimize the amount of time that
intermediate customers (i.e. retailers and whole-
salers) are out-of-stock, and also to maximize the
product up-time of final customers. These goals are
met not by carrying out large inventories or dis-
patching a large proportion of orders, but by
creating more responsive manufacturing organiza-
tions. The key to becoming a responsive dispatcher
is customer information and this can be obtained
through tighter customer links, such as inter-organ-
izational systems, in order to link the customers
directly to the factory’s order entry and production
control system.
The exchange of information with customers is of
paramount importance in order to understand
order patterns, the assumptions behind forecasts
and special sales’ needs. This information makes it
possible to predict demand which, in turn, permits
order cycle management to be simplified and the
production system to be suitably adapted.
The second group of firms identified through the
cluster analysis, could be called network enterprises.
These are 8 firms which, like those of the first
group, have developed a high level of logistic integ-
ration with customers and suppliers but who have
also developed a partnership relation with their
suppliers. The main feature of this partnership rela-
tion is the changeover from a logic of product to
a logic of co-operation which goes beyond the logis-
tic aspects and extends to the technological/strategic
level. This means: joint design of new products/tech-
nologies, the continuous exchange of data and in-
formation regarding the evolution of products and
processes, common investment in research and de-
velopment of both product and process and, stra-
tegic coherence of management philosophies.
Thus, in the partnership relation, the buyer and
the supplier decide to put their mutual needs and
skills together in order to develop the most useful
product for the buyer, one which is also compatible
with the aims and the skills of the supplier. Here,
the traditional distinction between the supplier and
the user of a service begins to fade, and reciprocal
involvement is emphasised. This involvement re-
quires an integrated vision of the supply chain, and
a redistribution of the responsibility of the different
actors. The interchange of information about prod-
ucts, processes and technology allows innovative
choices regarding products and processes of pro-
duction to be made efficiently and it is clear that
this has considerable impact both on the ability of
the buyer to innovate and on reducing time to
market.
Many factors have pushed the network enter-
prises to strengthen integration with their
suppliers in order to involve them in both risks and
potential business opportunities with the specific
responsibilities of co-producers. Empirical research
has revealed that most of these factors are related
to:
f vastly increased costs of research and develop-
ment,
f increased risks relating to the use of new tech-
nologies,
 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240
f faster obsolescence of new products,
f growing systemic complexity of products and
processes and to the need to combine the innova-
tive content of the product with flexibility and
operating efficiency.
The third group of firms identified through the
cluster analysis, could be called customer-driven
enterprises. This group consists of 7 organizations
who have set up a partnership relation not only
with their suppliers but also with their customers.
These customer-driven enterprises are character-
ized by a radical change in the way they relate to
the market. According to Reichheld and Sasser
[49], these firms have realized the importance of
attaining zero customer defection rather than zero
product defects.
They seek to respond to the expectations and
demands of customers in a personalized, flexible
and more complete manner. They have overcome
the traditional supply concept of simply offering
a product, in order to adopt the logic of an integ-
rated supply of “bundles”. These bundles consist of
a combination of goods and services calibrated to
meet the needs of individual customers. This mix
has made it increasingly difficult to distinguish be-
tween a good and a service, indeed, some authors
have proposed the concept of a “service-enhanced
product” [50].
Clearly all the firms studied acknowledged the
importance of being customer-oriented. Only the
customer-driven enterprises, however, appear to
have recognized that their customers are often as
interested in the services that accompany products
as they are in the products themselves. In this
perspective, services are no longer simply an add-
on, secondary to the product being offered, but are
viewed as an integral part of operations design,
planning and execution.
In other words, all the firms in the sample are
seeking to become more competitive by improving
their performance with regard to the services
offered to customers, such as speed and reliability
of delivery, accuracy and completeness of order
fulfilment, breadth of product offerings, ability to
customize to meet specific needs and post-sales
service. But in most cases, the definition of service is
too narrow. The customer-driven enterprises have
237
gone further. They offer services that are tailored to
meet the needs/expectations of the customers and
to resolve their problems. These include all the
support services offered to help the customers to
resolve their individual problems by finding and
integrating any components they may need.
In the literature, this particular integration of
products and services, where service becomes
a multidimensional concept — it can refer to “doing
something for the customer” or, “to doing some-
thing with the customer” — has been termed the
“service factory” [51]. The service factory is able to
recognize the full range of services that a factory
can provide in addition to the traditional logistical
aspects and after-sales service.
The creation of a service factory implies a radical
change in the operational and organizational
characteristics of the firm. Simply adding extra
services is not enough. In the customer-driven enter-
prises the customer plays a fundamental role in
orienting and personalising the services. Instead of
focusing on product attributes, these firms have
focused on the benefits the product offers to the
customer. They have moved from an impersonal
market to a relational market [52] and operate
with an “open system”, which includes the cus-
tomer, who can intervene within a large part of the
operating system. Therefore, much attention has
been dedicated to how to organize customer par-
ticipation in design, manufacturing, delivery and
consumption.
7. New challenges for operations management: the
relevance of relationships management
The empirical results summarized in the preced-
ing sections would suggest that the most widely
adopted improvement programmes are all to be
found in the “internal” areas of the firm, areas
where the firm’s control over operating and man-
agement methods is more direct.
The situation is markedly different if one con-
siders the diffusion of improvement programmes in
the areas of supplier relationships and customer
relationships. In these cases firms appear to have
found it more difficult to adopt advanced practices
which are so highly praised in the literature.
238 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240
Hence, this empirical study has clearly illustrated
that the problem, when implementing lean produc-
tion principles, is the management of external rela-
tionships. The challenge, today, is how to integrate
the different value-adding organizations into the
value stream in order to ensure excellence in final
products and services and, also, how to integrate
customers into the organization too. This calls for
a change in the perspective of analysis; the focus
must move from operations management to relation-
ships management.
In order to provide some directions for research
on the question of relationships management,
the research implications of this empirical anal-
ysis are now outlined in the closing part of this
section.
As regards supplier relationships management,
as early as 1982 Peter Drucker [53] said: “Nowhere
in business is there greater potential for benefitting
from2 interdependence than between customer
firms and their suppliers. This is the largest
remaining frontier for gaining competitive advant-
age and nowhere has such a frontier been more
neglected”. Since then, there has been a plethora
of literature on the subject, describing the prin-
ciples, objectives and techniques of what is con-
sidered to be the winning paradigm of the
relationships between buyer and supplier for the
1990s. However, empirical analysis has revealed
that this paradigm has not yet been consolidated
and there are marked differences of opinion regard-
ing the real degree of applicability and diffusion of
the partnership relation.
In the light of our findings the most important
points which need to be investigated in greater
depth are:
f The partnership relation seems to involve mainly
medium-large size firms, likewise, industrial
structure appears to play a determining role.
f The adoption of the partnership relation appears
to be conditioned by product characteristics,
such as the technological complexity of the prod-
uct and product structure.
f According to the literature, the partnership rela-
tion requires a reduction in the overall number of
sources of supply. In some of the firms investi-
gated, however, this reduction in the number of
suppliers seems to be motivated not by the need
to impose programmes of more intense collab-
oration and reciprocal interaction but, rather, by
simple short-term cost minimization objectives.
f The partnership relation does not automatically
mean single sourcing. Some firms have revealed
that sole sourcing increases the risks of supply
disruption and, further, leaves the buyer open to
paying non-competitive prices. Moreover, the
single sourcing policy may be creating long-term
problems through loss of technological thrust,
loss of supplier identity and excess control. Some
firms have compromised and use a second
source, however, the policy of dual sourcing can
cause some supply problems if there are fluctu-
ations in the delivery schedule.
f The partnership relation emphasizes the creation
of more exclusive links. However, some firms
have indicated that they limit themselves to tak-
ing no more than 30—40% of a sub-contractor’s
business for fear that dependency would reduce
the efficiency of the relationship.
f The partnership relation is characterized by the
search for excellent suppliers on the world mar-
ket. Many firms have described a series of prob-
lems that may arise from such a choice. For
example, increasing difficulty in operating ac-
cording to the JIT principles.
Empirical findings suggest numerous directions
for future research also in the area of partnership
relation with customers. Indeed, the development
of innovative relations with customers, with in-
creased attention to customer service, seems to be
conditioned by many variables. The following are
the most important research proposals which need
additional in-depth analysis:
f Many firms have stressed that when operating in
mature markets, the technical dimensions of cus-
tomer service may be less important for attaining
competitive advantage than they are for manu-
facturing firms in emerging or growth markets.
In other words, market maturity, together with
increased customer sophistication about the
product, may limit the significance of the tech-
nical dimension of customer service but will
enhance the significance of the relational dimen-
sions of customer service.
 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240
f What is the appropriate path to follow to intro-
duce service capabilities into a manufacturing
organization? For example, Wheelwright and
Hayes [54] talk about making “the great leap”
to stage 4 manufacturing. Is the same analysis
they present appropriate when considering mov-
ing directly to a manufacturing-service organiza-
tion? For example, does a company have to be
world class in its manufacturing operations
before it can successfully compete through ser-
vice?
f Customer partnership seems conditioned by
product type. For example, the more technolo-
gically sophisticated the generic product, the
more dependent are its sales on the quality and
availability of its accompanying services. Fur-
thermore, extensive customer service seems to be
required when firms are initially entering a mar-
ket and are trying to overcome the first-mover
advantages held by established sellers.
f Customer partnership also seems to be condi-
tioned by product differentiation. It would be
interesting to analyse the conditions under which
customer service is a consequence of product
differentiation as opposed to a means by which
to differentiate the product. Moreover, some
firms stressed the notion that the importance of
customer service for firms may increase as pur-
chase frequency decreases.
Acknowledgements
This study was carried out as part of a research
programme “Gestione strategica della innovazione.
Approcci e metodi di produzione snella in Italia”
(Strategic Management of Innovation. Patterns of
Adoption of Lean Production in Italy) supported
by funds from the CNR (National Research Coun-
cil). The author would like to thank all the people,
who work in the firms involved, for their helpful-
ness during the interviews.
References
[1] W. Skinner, Manufacturing — missing link in corporate
strategy, Harvard Business Review 47 (3) (1969) 136—145.
239
[2] R.H. Hayes, S.C. Wheelwright, Restoring our Competitive
Edge: Competing Through Manufacturing, Wiley, New
York, 1984.
[3] W. Skinner, The focused factory, Harvard Business Review
52 (3) (1974) 113—121.
[4] Y. Monden, Toyota Production System, Institute of
Industrial Engineers, Atlanta, 1983.
[5] R.J. Schonberger, Japanese Manufacturing Techniques:
Nine Hidden Lessons in Simplicity, The Free Press, New
York, 1982.
[6] T. Ohno, Toyota Production System-Beyond Large
Scale Production, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA,
1988.
[7] K. Ishikawa, What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese
Way, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1985.
[8] J.M. Juran, F.M. Gryna Jr., Juran’s Quality Control
Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988.
[9] R.B. Chase, A classification and evaluation of research in
operations management, Journal of Operations Manage-
ment 1 (1) (1980) 9—14.
[10] R.B. Chase, E.L. Prentis, Operations management: a field
rediscovered, Journal of Management 13 (2) (1987) 351—366.
[11] K. Amoako-Gyaampah, J.R. Meredith, The operations
management research agenda: an update, Journal of
Operations Management 8 (3) (1989) 250—262.
[12] A. Neely, Production/operations management: research
process and content during the 1980s, International Jour-
nal of Operations and Production Management 13 (1)
(1993) 5—18.
[13] J.G. Miller, M.B.W. Graham, Production/operations
management: agenda for the ’80s, Decision Sciences 12 (4)
(1981) 547—571.
[14] R. Filippini, Operations management research: some re-
flections on evolution, models and empirical studies in
OM, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 17 (7) (1997) 656—670.
[15] R.J. Schonberger, World-Class Manufacturing-The
Lessons of Simplicity Applied, The Free Press, New York,
1986.
[16] R.H. Hayes, S.C. Wheelwright, K.B. Clark, Dynamic
Manufacturing. Creating the Learning Organization, Free
Press, New York, 1988.
[17] J.P. Womack, D.T. Jones, D. Ross, The Machine that
Changed the World, Rawson and Associates, New York,
1990.
[18] J.P. Womack, D.T. Jones, From Lean Production to the
Lean Enterprise, Harvard Business Review 72 (2) (1994)
93—103.
[19] C. New, World class manufacturing versus strategic trade
offs, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 11 (8) (1992) 6—22.
[20] K. Ferdows, A. De Meyer, Lasting improvement in manu-
facturing performance, Journal of Operations Manage-
ment 9 (2) (1990) 168—184.
[21] E.J. Flynn, B.B. Flynn, Achieving simultaneous cost
and differentiation competitive advantages through
continuous improvement: world class manufacturing as
240 R. Panizzolo/Int. J. Production Economics 55 (1998) 223—240
a competitive strategy, Journal of Managerial Issues 8 (3)
(1996) 360—379.
[22] J.F. Krafcik, Triumph of the lean production system, Sloan
Management Review 30 (1) (1988) 41—52.
[23] M.A. Cusumano, The limits of lean, Sloan Management
Review 35 (4) (1994) 27—32.
[24] V. Albino, A.C. Garavelli, A methodology for the vulner-
ability analysis of the just-in-time production systems,
International Journal of Production Economics 41 (1/3)
(1995) 71—80.
[25] T. Davis, Effective supply chain management, Sloan Man-
agement Review 34 (4) (1993) 35—45.
[26] R. Lamming, Beyond Partnership. Strategies for Innova-
tion and Lean Supply, Prentice-Hall, London, 1993.
[27] M. Aoki, Information, Incentives, and Bargaining in
the Japanese Economy, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1988.
[28] R. Dore, Flexible Rigidities: Industrial Policy and Struc-
tural Adjustment in the Japanese Economy, Athlone Press,
London, 1986.
[29] A. De Meyer, K. Ferdows, Influence of manufacturing
improvement programmes on performance, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management 10 (2)
(1990) 120—131.
[30] C. Giffi, A.V. Roth, G.M. Seal, Competing in World Class
Manufacturing: America’s 21st Century Challenge, Busi-
ness One Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1990.
[31] B.B. Flynn, R.G. Schroeder, E.J. Flynn, S. Sakakibara,
K.A. Bates, World class manufacturing project: overview
and selected results, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management 17 (7) (1997) 671—685.
[32] E. Bartezzaghi, F. Turco, The impact of just-in-time on
production system performance: an analytical framework,
International Journal of Operations and Production Man-
agement 9 (8) (1989) 40—62.
[33] J.S. Chan, D.A. Samson, A.S. Sohal, An integrative model
of japanese manufacturing techniques, International Jour-
nal of Operations and Production Management 10 (9)
(1990) 37—56.
[34] R.G. Moras, M.R. Jalali, R.A. Dudek, A categorised survey
of the JIT literature, Production Planning and Control
2 (4) (1991) 322—334.
[35] S.K. Goyal, S.G. Deshmukh, A critique of the literature on
just-in-time manufacturing, International Journal of Op-
erations and Production Management 12 (1) (1992) 18—28.
[36] S. Sakakibara, B.B. Flynn, R.S. Schroeder, A framework
and measurement instruments for just-in-time manufac-
turing, Production and Operations Management 2 (3)
(1993) 177—195.
[37] S. Mehra, R.A. Inman, Determining the critical elements of
just-in-time implementation, Decision Sciences 23 (1)
(1992) 3—11.
[38] R.W. Hall, Zero Inventories, Dow Jones Irwin, Home-
wood, IL, 1983.
[39] S. Sakakibara, B.B. Flynn, R.S. Schroeder, W.T. Morris,
1992. The impact of just-in-time manufacturing and its
infrastructure on manufacturing performance, Working
paper 92-8, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
[40] R. Blackburn, B. Rosen, Total quality and human re-
sources management: lessons learned from Baldrige
Award-winning companies, Academy of Management
Executive 7 (3) (1993) 49—66.
[41] K.B. Clark, T. Fujimoto, New Product Development Per-
formance, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge,
MA, 1990.
[42] S. Parkinson, Marketing: managing distribution systems
for competitive advantage, Manager Update 5 (1) (1993)
8—17.
[43] L.W. Stern, F.D. Sturdivant, G.A. Getz, Accomplishing
marketing channel change: paths and pitfalls, European
Management Journal 11 (1) (1993) 1—8.
[44] J.B. Fuller, O.J. Connor, R. Rawlinson, Tailored logistics:
the next advantage, Harvard Business Review 71 (3) (1993)
87—93.
[45] R. Westbrook, P.J. Williamson, Mass customization:
Japan’s new frontier, European Management Journal 11
(1) (1993) 38—45.
[46] U. Fincke, E. Goffard, Executive briefing: customizing
distribution, McKinsey Quarterly 1 (1993) 115—131.
[47] C. Karlsson, P. A_ hlström, Assessing changes towards lean
production, International Journal of Operations and Pro-
duction Management 16 (2) (1996) 24—62.
[48] J. Nunnaly, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1987.
[49] F.F. Reichheld, W.E. Sasser, Zero defections: quality com-
es to services, Harvard Business Review 68 (5) (1990)
27—42.
[50] R.B. Chase, D.A. Garvin, The service factory, Harvard
Business Review 67 (4) (1989) 61—69.
[51] R.B. Chase, W.J. Erikson, The Service Factory, The Acad-
emy of Management Executive 2 (3) (1988) 191—196.
[52] D.E. Bowen, C. Siehl, B. Schneider, A framework for
analyzing customer service orientations in manufacturing,
Academy of Management Review 14 (1) (1989) 75—95.
[53] P. Drucker, The Changing Face of The Executive,
Heinemann, London, 1982.
[54] S.C. Wheelwright, R.H. Hayes, Competing through manu-
facturing, Harvard Business Review 63 (1) (1985) 99—109.