Converging production models: the STS versus lean production debate revisited

Abstract

PurposeAgainst the background of the often politicized debate on the advantages and disadvantages of production models based on sociotechnical systems (STS) theory and lean production (LP), this paper develops a notion of a hybrid model consisting of elements of both STS and LP and tests its validity by empirical examination.Design/methodology/approachA representative sample of manufacturing plants in Sweden was surveyed. The questionnaire measured the hybrid model in three specific constructs: STS in terms of an integrated work organizational design featuring multifunctional teams, decentralized responsibilities and integrated functions; LP in terms of adoption of lean practices such as just‐in‐time; and plant performance in terms of productivity, quality, delivery and speed. The obtained data were subjected to multiple regression analysis to test our convergence argument while controlling for plant size, order fulfilment practice and production process type.FindingsA relationship between the elements of STS and LP is found. Implementing elements of both production models together leads to better plant performance than implementing either one in isolation. Furthermore, plants having an integrated work organization are possibly more successful in adopting the principles of LP, which in turn leads to improved plant performance.Originality/valueIn contrast to earlier research, the paper argues based on empirical findings that there is no inherent conflict between STS and LP. Rather, these production models have evolved over time and converged into a hybrid. The strong relationship between work organization design and LP practices suggests a need for a broad and parallel change effort for high performance impact.

Is lean service promising? A socio-technical perspective

“…Das and Jayaram, 2007). This knowledge can be very critical for helping service managers to make informed decisions about how to best utilise their scarce resources among lean service bundles in order to maximise performance outcomes (Dabhilkar and Åhlström, 2013).…”

“…In other words, emphasising the technical side of a system by investing more in its practices and neglecting the social system (by investing less in its practices), or vice-versa, will not lead to the optimal performance (Fox, 1995). This implies that the technical and social sides are likely to positively interact, leading to better performance (Dabhilkar and Åhlström, 2013). With this in mind, the STS perspective is gaining increasing attention in the operations management literature and has been used to understand and explain the performance impact of modern improvement systems.…”

“…However, a positive interaction was documented under high levels of HRM. Finally, Dabhilkar and Åhlström (2013) found a positive interaction between a composite measure of lean technical practices and a composite measure of HRM practices on operational performance of manufacturing firms. The overall paucity of research and inconclusive findings concerning the interaction between lean bundles highlights an important and immediate need for more research to clarify the full capability of the lean system to improve firm performance.…”

“…It is however commonly accepted that lean practices are interrelated and thus should be studied in the form of bundles (Shah and Ward, 2007;2003). With this in mind, some scholars have argued for extending the interaction analysis to the bundle level (Dabhilkar and Åhlström, 2013;Furlan et al, 2011). H3a: There is a positive interaction between lean technical practices (LTPs) and lean social practices (LSPs) in improving operational performance.…”

“…Secondly, previous studies have tended to investigate improvement capability at the operational level (e.g. Dabhilkar and Åhlström, 2013). However, given the importance of the financial dimension to for-profit organisations, understanding the impact of the lean system, including the interaction among its components, on financial performance is vital for managers (Arlbjørn and Freytag, 2013).…”