Lean Implementation Barriers and Their Contextual Relationship in Contract Manufacturing Machining Company

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to identify critical lean implementation barriers within a Small and Medium Scale Enterprise (SME) and their contextual relationship. Identifying these will be the key success factor towards implementing green practices in a manufacturing environment. Through extensive literature review, 15 identified barriers are discussed and shortlisted. Using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) methodology, the underlying subtlety between the barriers are analysed and a model is generated. This model can be considered by the management as a guideline to tackle lean implementation barriers as part of the overall lean management strategy. To determine the driving barriers and dependence power which influence the implementation, the Impact Matrix Cross-Reference Multiplication Applied to a Classification (MICMAC) analysis is used. From the output of ISM and MICMAC analyses, a firm understanding of the barriers that effect lean implementation and their interrelationship within an SME Contract Manufacturing Machining Company is obtained. 15 barriers are classified into 10 levels to be tackled. Their driving and dependence power are analysed and classified. Barrier 15 which is "Roles and Responsibility is not defined in Lean Implementation" at level 1 has the highest dependence power. The most significant barriers are barrier 4 which is "Lack of Long-Term Commitment to Change and Innovation" and barrier 5 which is "Individual Attitude" at level 10. Typically, barriers 4 and 5 display weak dependence power and strong driving power. Thus, these 2 barriers are identified as "Independent Factors" of lean implementation barriers within the organisation.

Determinants Influencing the Application of Lean Accounting: The Case of Vietnamese Garment Firms

“…In 2021, Rehman et al, those factors include: technology gap, fear of unemployment in workers, current status of employees, fear of not knowing, change in reporting structure, skill gap, lack of appropriate communication, fear of people with machines, social disconnect, out-of-scope exposure, fear of managerial change, increasing factors of accountability, unhealthy behavior, the value of unknown technology, unknown ways to use technology, lack of uniformity in technology, technology related to too many paperwork, technology that creates too many jobs, technology abuse, high technology costs, technology that is a threat to personal freedom, technology that is different from work processes and procedures has been established, technology will have a negative impact on teamwork and collaboration, bad experience with technology in the past, lack of leadership/support for innovation, level of comfort -the effect of disruption, time to make changes and adjustments, understanding and ability to perform, budget priorities, difficulty/capacity/training time, resistance to learning new technology, stressful/overloaded work, cost, evidence of value, reliability, lack of clear scope, weak motivation to change, lack of money, skepticism in rank, high workforce turnover, little personal empowerment, use of relationships, insufficient knowledge of leanness and inadequate management skills. Sakataven et al (2021) reviewed the literature and found fifteen barriers to lean implementation and by using the outputs of Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) and Impact Matrix Cross-Referencing Multiplication (MICMAC) analyses, the study classified 15 barriers into 10 levels. Where, "Roles and Responsibilities not defined in Lean Implementation" at level 1 ( the lowest impact level).…”

How the Quality Management Systems Impacts the Organizational Effectiveness?: Application of PLS-SEM and fsQCA Approach

“…fsQCA was used for the asymmetrical modelling strategy. The fsQCA method, which is based on Boolean algebra, allows for the generation of seven possible combinations of causal conditions leading to an outcome (entrepreneurship intentions) 11) . Calibration of data variables measured by Likert scales, construction of the fuzzy truth, and counterfactual analyses are all performed in accordance with the recommendations in Fiss (2011) and Ragin (2008) when conducting fsQCA analyses of configuration models.…”

“…The study advances and cartelizes methodology by re-examining the connections between QM enablers, QM processes, and OE using a combination of symmetric and asymmetric analytic approaches, filling in the gaps in the existing literature 11) . Previous research has primarily concentrated on symmetrical correlational strategies that contain a single net effect model when it comes to the characteristics that distinguish QM processes 12) .…”

Evaluation of Efficiency in Logistics Company: An Analysis of Last-Mile Delivery

“…The data used shows the performance of each station. The performance variable of each station is seen from the delivery lead time 23) and the service performance 24) .…”