Lost in translation: a case-study of the travel of lean thinking in a hospital

Abstract

BackgroundLean thinking as a quality improvement approach is introduced in hospitals worldwide, although evidence for its impact is scarce. Lean initiatives are social, complex and context-dependent. This calls for a shift from cause–effect to conditional attributions to understand how lean works. In this study, we bring attention to the transformative power of local translation, which creates different versions of lean in different contexts, and thereby affect the evidence for lean as well as the success of lean initiatives within and among hospitals.MethodsWe explored the travel of lean within a hospital in Norway by identifying local actors’ perceptions of lean through their images of enablers for successful interventions. These attributions describe the characteristics of lean in use, i.e. the prevailing version of lean. Local actors’ perceptions of enablers for lean interventions were collected through focus group interviews with three groups of stakeholders: managers, internal consultants and staff. A questionnaire was used to reveal the enablers relative importance.ResultsThe enablers known from the literature were retrieved at the case hospital. The only exception was that external expert change agents were not believed to promote lean. In addition, the stakeholders added a number of new and supplementary enablers. Two-thirds of the most important enablers for success were novel, local ones. Among these were a problem, not method focus, a bottom-up approach, the need of internal consultants, credibility, realism and patience. The local actors told different stories about local enablers and had different images of lean depending on their hierarchical level.DiscussionBy comparing and analyzing the findings from the literature review, the focus groups and the survey, we deduced that the travel of lean within the hospital was affected by three principles of translation: the practical, the pragmatic, and the sceptical. Further, three logics of translation were in play: translation as a funnel, a conscious sell-in, and a wash-out. This resulted in various local versions of lean.ConclusionsWe conclude that lean, introduced by the management, communicated by the internal consultants, and used by the staff, is transformed more than once within the hospital. Translation is part of the explanation for the lack of evidence for lean, and translation can be decisive for outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1081-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Continuous improvement, burnout and job engagement: a study in a Dutch nursing department

“…Every single implementation of CI has its own characteristics and takes place in a specific context (Andersen et al, 2014;Procter and Radnor, 2014;Wilson, 2014;Holden et al, 2015;Langstrand and Drotz, 2016), which bears on the effects. This considerable variety in content and context explains to a large extent why evaluation studies of applying lean in healthcare consistently find inconsistent results (Andersen and Røvik, 2015.;D'Andreamatteo et al, 2015). Considerable variety is subsumed under the generic label 'lean', which hampers the view on what worked when and what not.…”

Knowledge Transfer as Translation: Review and Elements of an Instrumental Theory

“…The examples provided herein are studies of translations of global ideas in various contexts, such as Total Quality Management (Erçek and Say ; Giroux and Taylor ; Özen and Berkman ), Balanced Scorecard (Ax and Bjørnenak ; Madsen ), diversity management (Boxenbaum ; Klarsfeld ), shareholder value (Meyer and Höllerer ), business process re‐engineering (Heusinkveld et al . ), reputation management (Wæraas and Sataøen ), lean (Andersen and Røvik ; Morris and Lancaster ) and international auditing standards (Mennicken ). Thus, while everything is everywhere, it is also different everywhere.…”

Construction of nursing knowledge in commodified contexts: A discussion paper

“…The outcomes appeared to be highly promising (Radnor, Holweg, & Waring, ). However, long after implementation, some authors noted high variability in the applications and outcomes, requiring further research (Andersen & Røvik, ; Andersen, Røvik, & Ingebrigtsen, ; D'Andreamatteo, Ianni, Lega, & Sargiacomo, ). Others have indicated the necessity to evaluate not only the waiting times and economic performance but also the patients' and workers' experiential perspectives (Holden, Eriksson, Andreasson, Williamsson, & Dellve, ; Moraros, Lemstra, & Nwankwo, ; Poksinska, Fialkowska‐Filipek, & Engström, ; Waring & Bishop, ).…”