110 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 43 (2011) Marchwinski and Shook( 2004) , emphasized that lean production is a system for organizingand managing product development, operations, suppliers, and customer relations that requires lesshuman effort, less space, less capital, less material and less time to make products with fewer defects toprecise customer desires. Compared with the previous system of mass production, the success ofimplementation of any management practice mostly depends upon organizational characteristics, andnot all organizations can or should implement the same set of practices (Galbraith, 1977). In fact, Leanis a fluid system that causes the entire organization to constantly evolve in response to the market(Brown et al., 2006). Many researchers argue that a lean production system is an integratedmanufacturing system requiring implementation of a diverse set of manufacturing practices (e.g.Womack and Jones, 1996). Jones & Womack (2003) described the lean Organization as “the relentless scrutiny of everyactivity along the value stream—that is, asking whether a specific activity really creates any value forthe customer”. Davis and Standard (1999) recognized it as a production philosophy, a fundamentallydifferent way of thinking about manufacturing. It is an entirely different way of conceptualizing theentire production stream from raw material to finished goods and from product design to customerservice. Lean production is typically considered a fundamental program for any firm that works toimprove its manufacturing operations, by e.g. removing waste and creating a smooth production flow(Womack and Jones, 1996). This study aims at identifying the level of practice of internal lean production at the apparelmanufacturing companies in Jordan. As far as the researcher is concerned, no study was conductedconcerning this topic before, and this type of industry deals with products that have short life cycle andchanging customer demand. Therefore the researcher hopes that, the lean implementation can bemeasured in terms of the practice of five important aspects. Applying this schema may open the door tofuture researchers to work on measuring the impact of lean implementation on organizationalperformance2. Review of Related Literature and StudiesThe lean production can best be characterized as a system of measures and methods. If beingimplemented all together, they have the potential to bring about a lean and therefore particularlycompetitive state, not only in the manufacturing division, but throughout the entire company(Warnicke and Huser, 1995). Balle (2005) concluded that many companies are not able to transform themselves to a leanmanufacturing organization towards creating the world-class companies. Actually the transformationtowards Lean manufacturing is filled with formidable challenges, most particularly to understand thereal essence of Lean manufacturing concept and philosophy Anderson (2007) stated that, It is important to realize that Lean Production is not a successfultool that you can apply in a company and expect success straight away. Furthermore, it is a way ofthinking. It is important to understand the concept and go the whole way in the company whenimplementing it and also to work with the company’s suppliers and consumers". Thus it is evident thatLP exists at both strategic and operational levels (Hines et al, 2004). At the strategic level, the concepthelps one to understand customer value and identify the value stream. At the operational level, it is abundle of practices and tools that lead to the elimination of waste and force continuous improvement. Lean manufacturing focuses on the systematic elimination of wastes from an organization’soperations through a set of synergistic work practices to produce products and services at the rate ofdemand (Womack et al., 1990; Fullerton et al., 2003; Simpson and Power, 2005; Shah and Ward,2007). A list of bundles of lean practices includes JIT, total quality management, total preventativemaintenance, and human resource management, pull, flow, low setup, controlled processes, productivemaintenance and involved employees (McKone et al., 1999; Swink et al., 2005; Linderman et al.,2006; Shah and Ward, 2007).
111 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 43 (2011) Panizzolo, (1998) divided the lean practices into six areas which are process and equipment;Manufacturing, planning and control; human resources; product design; supplier relationships; andcustomer relationships. The first four areas are grouped as internal oriented lean practices, whereassupplier relationships and customer relationships are under external oriented lean practices. Lowe et al. (1997) differentiated between three bundles of practices: factory practices (relatedto the minimization of buffers), human resource management (HRM) practices (concerning theencouragement of high commitment and motivation among the workforce) and work systems (relatedto teamwork and the development and application of employee knowledge and skills on the shopfloor). Baudin (1999) defined Lean Production as the pursuit of concurrent improvement in allmeasures of Manufacturing performance by the elimination of waste through projects that change thephysical Organization of work on the shop floor, logistics and production control throughout thesupply Chain, and the way human effort is applied in both production and supply tasks. It must benoted That Baudins definition of Lean Production is as a pursuit, which is characterized withcontinuous Improvement efforts, rather than as an approach. Lean production enables an organization to quickly respond to changes by maximizing itsflexibility, and such flexibility can be achieved by promoting teamwork and participatory management.By designing processes around customized products, small lot production, quick-low cost turnaround,and to specification, the organization becomes more competitive and flexible. Flexibility requires leanproduction to integrate the organization’s decision-making process into one single system. Flexibilityalso requires organizations to respect and continuously train employees so that they are ready toassume greater responsibility and accountability (Klier, 1993)". The adoption of lean manufacturing can be characterized by a collective set of key factors.These key factors encompass a broad array of practices which are believed to be critical for itsimplementation. They are: scheduling, inventory, material handling, equipment, work processes,quality, employees, layout, suppliers, customers, safety and ergonomics, product design, managementand culture, and tools and techniques (Wong et al., 2009). Those who tried to implement the same techniques and tools used at Toyota. their attemptswere not successful (Baines, Lightfoot, Williams, and Greenough, 2006; Spear, 2004). They cited thedifferences in Japanese culture to US culture as a barrier to implementation in the United States. Othersargued that it was only effective in organizations that produced high volume, high demand productssimilar to those produced by Toyota. Shingo Prize (2009) implied that new and young organizationscannot be lean organizations since stability is not established in the organizational life cycle untilmaturity. Greenes (2002) study indicated a lower implementation rate for young organizations andtherefore, a prevalent perception of inappropriateness of lean in specific situations. Lean production as a system expands the workers’ span of control, reduces inventory,standardizes work, promotes teamwork, and efficiently utilizes the organization’s manufacturingfacility (Krafcik, 1988). JIT (lean production) concepts are a quality improvement tool, mainly becauseit cuts time delay between process setups so that the trail of causal evidence does not get cluttered andcold” (Schonberger, 1986). Lean as a technique can be applied to all aspects of the supply chain and should be if themaximum benefits within the organization are to be sustainably realized. The two biggest problemswith the application of lean to business processes are the perceived lack of tangible benefits and theview that many business processes are already efficient The challenge, if we decide we want to be lean,is whether we know enough about our ways of working, what customers of the business processes trulyvalue, and how our businesses operate and need to operate (Melton, 2005). The most popular type ofproduction among lean companies in the study of (Demeter and Matyusz, 2011), is dedicated lineproduct. Line production necessarily requires a smaller WIP inventory, as the product types and, thus,components are fewer and the flow is more continuous.
112 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 43 (2011) Doolen and Hacker(2005) on A Review of Lean Assessment in Organizations: An ExploratoryStudy of Lean Practices by Electronics Manufacturers, found that while electronic manufacturers haveimplemented a broad range of lean practices, the level of implementation does vary and may be relatedto economic, operational, or organizational factors. There are scholars such as, (Cooney 2002; Katayama and Bennett 1996) contend that othermanufacturing strategies may be superior to lean under certain market conditions In particular, Cooneyasserted that market characteristics of an industrial sector should influence the type of productionstrategy chosen. A push system utilizing batch production was found to be effective for automotivecomponent manufacturers given unstable customer demand and short-term customer relationships.Katayama and Bennett found that some Japanese manufacturers who adopted a lean manufacturingStrategy was faced with problems due to variations or reduction in product demand. Success associatedwith lean in the 1990s was attributed to favorable market conditions in Japan and the rest of the world. Lean production includes many practices and tools to minimize process time variability. Forexample, specifying work to its smallest detail enables line balancing and, thus, more predictableproduction quantities. A stringent quality assurance regimen reduces rework and results in lessvariability in process time. Cross-trained employees are able to step in for absent employees withoutdisrupting flow, quality, and quantity of work (Monden, 1983).3. Statement of the ProblemJordan’s apparel manufacturers confront very challenging environment in remaining globallycompetitive. Low wages are not enough to provide a competitive advantage. Speed-to-market, laboravailability and higher-value added products and services now play a far more crucial role indetermining international competitiveness. Despite of skilled labor shortages, Jordan’s most pressingchallenges relate to higher productivity costs. Such challenges if not addressed will greatly affect theability of manufacturers to compete in the long-term. Buyers are nowadays looking at new ways tomaintain or improve key items and this can create opportunities for stable current businesses or newbusinesses for Jordanian manufacturers. Manufacturers in Jordan should focus on these items and workto become the best option (Gonzales and Austin, 2008). Buyers are demanding more risk sharing, lower prices and fast fashion. Fast turn around orderstoday account for almost half of all orders and inventories have been reduced to a minimum, Thesetrends in apparel and retail business dynamics are expected to favor small countries that base theircompetitive advantage on a high quality, proximity and flexibility. Jordan is one of these smallcountries that must grab this opportunity by manipulating it to its own advantage (World Bank Report,2008). There are many managerial tools available that can help the apparel industry in Jordan inconfronting the stated above challenges. One of these tools is the lean manufacturing, which is knownto be a powerful strategic tool that can result in positive operating results for manufacturers of all sizes,by increasing their ability to confront their competitors (Claycomb, Germain, & Droge, 1999;Soderquist & Motwani, 1999). Therefore, this study seeks an answer to these two questions: 1. Do the apparel manufacturing companies in Jordan practice internal lean manufacturing in terms of their ability to keep a continuous flow production, short set up time, statistical process control, employee involvement and Total production maintenance? 2. Are there any significant differences among the answers of respondents pertain to some demographic profile?
113 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 43 (2011)4. Objective of the StudyAs far as the researcher is concerned, this study is the first of its kind to explore the topic of internallean manufacturing at the apparel sector in Jordan. Therefore, its main objective is to find if the apparelmanufacturing companies in Jordan practice internal lean production, and if it is being practiced, whatthe extent of that practice is. The researcher is also going to find out, if there is a relationship between the respondentsprofile and their answers on the construct of the study. The paper aims at introducing academicians and researchers in Jordan to a field of research thattackles issues related to their own business environment. Finally, the researcher hopes that this study will encourage local scholars to dig deeper inunexplored managerial problems, and lean manufacturing is believed to be one of them.5. Hypothesis of the StudyThe researcher is testing the following null hypothesis: H01: The apparel manufacturing Companies in Jordan practice internal lean manufacturing at avery low extent. From the main Hypothesis, the researcher derived the following sub- hypotheses; H0a: The Apparel Manufacturing Companies in Jordan do not have the ability to keep acontinuous flow production. H0b: The Apparel Manufacturing Companies in Jordan have a long set up time. H0c; the Apparel Manufacturing Companies in Jordan do not control their process through thestatistical methods. H0d; the Apparel Manufacturing Companies in Jordan do not involve their employees indecisions related to their work. H0e; the Apparel Manufacturing Companies in Jordan do not adopt the total productivemaintenance. H02: There is no difference among the answers of the respondents of the study pertains to theirdemographic profile.6. Research MethodologyDescriptive and analytical tools have been utilized in this study. Moreover, the importance and thesensitivity of the topic calls for tested, credible and timely construct. Thus, the study applied theconstruct, which was developed by (Shahna and Ward, 2007) to get answers of the respondents on theinternal lean production practices. Though the construct consists of ten dimensions through which Leanproduction can be measured, the researcher opted to use only five dimensions that are closely related tothe internal lean manufacturing. The researcher also consulted people from the Apparel industry and some academicians aboutthe suitability of the research instrument. They confirmed that, the instrument is fit for the apparelmanufacturing companies setting. Then it was translated to Arabic language and worded carefully so asto make it easy to be understood. The final version of the instrument consisted of two parts: The first part; covers thedemographic profile of the respondents and the second part; Includes the Internal lean manufacturingdimensions such as , Continuous flow production, Set up time, Statistical Process Control, EmployeesInvolvement and Total Productive Maintenance. Nominal scale was used to allow the respondents to answer the questions related to theirdemographic profile, while Likert scale was used to allow the respondents to rate their answers on thedifferent Internal lean manufacturing practices, which is ranging from strongly agree as the highestwhile strongly disagree as the lowest.
114 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 43 (2011)6.1. Population and Sample of the StudyA convenience sampling technique was utilized. The researcher distributed 140 questionnaires toGeneral Managers and other managers who belong to different levels in the production function in theapparel manufacturing companies in the northern & the national capital region of Jordan. One hundredand thirty two or (94.28%) of the questionnaires were recovered, 7 or (5%) of which were excluded fornot meeting the validation requirements, hence 125 or (about 89.3%) of the questionnaires were validfor analysis.6.2. Statistical TreatmentThe following statistical techniques were applied in this study: 1. Descriptive analysis such as mean and standard deviation of the answered items of the study. 2. One sample t- test to test the main hypothesis of the study. 3. Analysis of variance one way ANOVA was used to test the second main hypothesis, which is regarding the demographic profile of the respondents. In addition to that, Post Hoc Multiple comparisons Scheffe were also used. 4. Pearson correlation was used to measure the inter-correlation between the different lean supply practices.6.3. The reliability Test of VariablesTable 1: The Reliability test of the internal lean manufacturing environment practices FACTORS N of Cases N of Items Alpha Continuous flow production 125 5 72.74% Set up time 125 5 69.73% Statistical process control 125 5 81.79% Employee involvement 125 4 72.82% Total production maintenance 125 4 76.75% Reliability for all 74.17% In the case of reliability test, Cronbach’s alpha was applied to measure the internal consistencyof the research instrument as shown in the table no.1. According to (Sekaran, 2005) reliabilitymeasurement is an indication of the stability and consistency of the instrument. It shown in table no.1that, the value of coefficient of internal consistency of the internal lean Manufacturing practices is74.17% which is acceptable because it is generally agreed that, the value of the lower limit forCronbach’s alpha is 0.70, although it may be as low as 0.60 in exploratory research (Field,2006).7. Data Presentation and Analysis7.1. The Demographic Profile of the Respondents of the StudyTable 2: The distribution of the sample of the study Variable Category Frequency Percentage Male 73 58.4 Sex Female 52 41.6 Less than 30 49 39.2 Age 30- less than 40 40 32.0
115 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 43 (2011)Table 2: The distribution of the sample of the study - continued 40- less than 50 24 19.2 50 & above 12 9.6 10+2 and less 20 16.0 Diploma 28 22.4 Education Bachelor 69 55.2 Higher education 8 6.4 Executive/ general manager 12 9.6 Head of department 44 35.2 Position Production manager 32 25.6 Supervisor 8 6.4 Engineer 29 23.2 Less than 5 years 32 25.6 5- less than 10 years 57 45.6 Experience 10- less than 15 years 12 9.6 15 years & above 24 19.2 Less than 5 years 52 41.6 Number of experience 5- less than 10 years 37 29.9 years in the same position 10- less than 15 years 20 16.0 15 years & above 16 12.8 Less than 4 years 12 9.6 4- less than 8 years 32 25.6 Industrial company age 8- less than 12 years 61 48.8 12 years & above 20 16.0 Large 89 71.2 Size of Industry Medium 36 28.8 International 4 3.2 Market Orientation Local 93 74.4 Both local & international 28 22.4 Less than 60 4 3.2 60- less than 120 16 12.8 Number of employees 120- less than 240 24 19.2 240 employees & above 81 64.8 local 28 22.4 Foreigner 73 58.4 Ownership Structure Both local & Foreigner 24 19.2 Total 125 100% The results of data analysis as it is shown in (table2) confirm that most of the study respondentswere males with a percentage of (58.4%) which is considered fair enough in a culture that is considereda male oriented. It is also shown that the age bracket of the respondents is less than 30 years old whichis believed to be an ideal age for occupying managerial positions especially in the lower level ofmanagement. Most of the study respondents are bachelor degree holders with a percentage of (55.2%),which is not surprising since Jordanians pay special attention to education. aside from that, thepositions that are being occupied depend on the level of the managerial and technical knowledge theholders possess. Most of the respondents occupy the position of department head with a percentage of(35.2%) and most of the respondents possess an experience between5-10 year in the company with apercentage of (45.6%) which somehow indicates a low labor turnout due to appropriate workenvironment. The results also indicate that, most of the respondents have an experience in the same positionof less than 5 years and most of the apparel manufacturing companies that joined this study havebetween 10-15 years operational experience in Jordan with a percentage of 48.8%. Thus means that thebusiness environment in Jordan is attractive and stable. The analysis shows also most of the apparelmanufacturing companies are of large size with a percentage of 71.2%. Moreover, their marketorientation is international with 74.4% percentage. The reason is that the employees, therefore they can
116 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 43 (2011)play active role in solving the jobless problem among Jordanian youth, but when it comes to thestructure of ownership most of these companies are owned by foreigners with a percentage of 58.4%.7.2. Answering the Main Research ProblemDo the apparel manufacturing companies in Jordan practice internal lean manufacturing in terms oftheir ability to keep a continuous flow production, short set up time, statistical process control,employee involvement and Total productive maintenance?Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for The practices of internal Lean manufacturing FACTORS N Mean Std. Dev. Continuous flow production 125 4.31 .501 Set up time 125 4.10 .535 Statistical process control 125 3.90 .649 Employee involvement 125 3.61 .708 Total productive maintenance 125 3.64 .931 Total average 3.912 For the sake of making initial judgment based on the results shown in Table (3), it is obviousthat the apparel manufacturing companies in Jordan do practice internal lean production at a highextent scoring a total average of (3.912). However, the score is not very high but it is considered verygood taking into consideration the business environment in Jordan. This finding somehow supports thefinding of (Doolen and Hacker, 2005) that concluded; the level of implementation of lean productiondoes vary and may be related to economic, operational, or organizational factors. On the contrary, itcollides with the conclusion of (Greene, 2002) which indicates a lower implementation rate for youngorganizations. Going to more detailed analysis, table (3) shows that the highest average among these Practicesare: the Continuous flow production, which got a rating of (4.31), followed by Set up time got a ratingof (4.10) then Statistical process control rated (3.9) and the lowest were Employee involvement (3.61)and the Total production maintenance (3.64) which are according to our scale at the medium level.7.3. Testing the Research First Main HypothesisThe statistical analysis of the research hypothesis shows that the first, the second, the third, the fourthand the fifth sub-hypothesis were rejected .Their t- values ( 29.116, 23.013, 15.509, 9.725, 7.756)consecutively, are more than the tabulated value of 1.96, and under the significance level of (œ ≤.05) asshown in the placed tables at the end of the paper . Therefore, all the alternative sub hypotheses isaccepted, thus, the apparel manufacturing companies in Jordan do practice internal lean production. A closer eye- look at the results of the statistical analysis of the study shows that, the apparelmanufacturing companies in Jordan have a continuous flow production manifested by a high totalaverage of 4.31. Therefore, most of the answers of the respondents agreed on the fact that, the apparelmanufacturing companies classify products into groups according to their processing and routingrequirements. Families of products determine the factory layout, and pace of production directly linkedto customer demand as shown in table 4.Table 4: Sub-problem no.1 Q Continuous flow production N Mean Std. Deviation Rank Products are classified into groups with similar 1 125 4.50 .577 1 processing requirements Products are classified into groups with similar routing 2 125 4.21 .838 4 requirements
117 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 43 (2011)Table 4: Sub-problem no.1 - continued Equipment is grouped to produce a continuous flow of 3 125 4.28 .643 2 families of products 4 Families of products determine our factory layout 125 4.24 .767 3 Pace of production is directly linked with the rate of 5 125 4.28 .771 2 customer demand Total average 4.31Table 5: One-Sample Test for sub-hypothesis no.1 Internal Lean manufacturing Sig. (2- Mean 95%Confidence Interval of t do practice tailed) Difference the Difference Lower Upper Continuous flow production 29.116 124 0.00 1.3072 1.2183 1.3961≤.05 Test Value α = 3 Sub- problem no.2 questioned dealing with setup practice because proper set up time reflectspositively on cost. This aspect scored a high response rate with an average of (4.1). Most of themagreed that they work to lower setup times in their plants to gain more benefits. They even practicesetup time to reduce the time required for that. In spite of that, the respondents believe that short supplylead times help responding quickly to customer requests. Detailed findings are in table no. 6Table 6: Sub-problem no.2 No Set up time N Std. Deviation Mean Rank . 1 Our employees practice setups to reduce the time required 125 .773 4.15 2 2 We are working to lower setup times in our plant 125 .550 4.38 1 3 We have low set up times of equipment in our plant 125 .866 3.96 4 Short production cycle times facilitate responding quickly 4 125 .896 3.93 5 to customer requests Short supply lead times help responding quickly to 5 125 .849 4.08 3 customer requests Total average 4.102Table 7: One-Sample Test for sub hypothesis no.2 Internal Lean Mean 95%Confidence Interval t df Sig. (2-tailed) (upper) manufacturing practice Difference of the Difference(lower) Set up time 23.013 124 0.00 1.102 1.007 1.197Test Value 3 ≤0.05α As shown in Table (8), the statistical process control practice got an average of (3.9), but theitem "Large number of equipment / processes on shop floor is currently under extensive use ofstatistical techniques to reduce process variance" got the highest rating, which is normal in an industrythat serves huge markets that demand big production volume. The lowest was "We use fishbone typediagrams to identify causes of quality problems" with a rating of (3.7) .This shows that themanufacturers give moderate attention to cause and effect method of quality control.Table 8: Sub-problem no.3 Q Statistical process control N Mean Std. Deviation Rank Large number of equipment / processes on shop floor are 1 currently under Extensive use of statistical techniques to 125 4.01 .723 2 reduce process variance
118 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 43 (2011)Table 8: Sub-problem no.3 - continued Charts showing defect rates are used as tools on the shop- 2 125 3.88 .867 3 floor We use fishbone type diagrams to identify causes of quality 3 125 3.70 .813 5 problems 4 We conduct process capability studies before product launch 125 3.85 .814 4 Large number of equipment / processes on shop floor are 5 currently under Extensive use of statistical techniques to 125 4.06 1.02 1 reduce process variance Total average 3.90Table 9: One-Sample Test for the third sub hypothesis 95%Confidence Internal Lean Sig. Mean t df Interval of the (upper) manufacturing practice (2-tailed) Difference Difference (Lower) Statistical process control 15.509 124 0.00 .9008 .7858 1.0158≤.05 Test Value = 3α Moving sub-problem no.4 the analysis illustrates that the total average for employeeinvolvement practice is (3.61) representing a moderate response rate. The item "Shop-floor employeeslead product/process improvement efforts", scored the highest rating of 3.75, followed by," Shop-flooremployees are key to problem solving teams" with an average of (3.74). The lowest in rating was theitem "Shop-floor employees undergo cross functional training" which was about (3.25). This could beseen as pessimistic indicator since employee involvement in the decision making process is acompetitive strategy for any company that seeks survival and success. Table (12) shows that the overall average of all the items related to the fifth sub- problemconcerning the total productive maintenance, is (3.64), which is considered a slightly above averageresponse rate. The highest rating went to item number (3) which is; we maintain excellent records of allequipment maintenance related activities with a response rating of 4.18. The lowest average went to thequery related to" We post equipment maintenance records on shop floor for active sharing withemployees "with an average of (3). This finding is related to the practice of employee involvementsince the culture of sharing is not prevalent at high level in the apparel manufacturing companies.Table 10: Sub-problem no.4 Q Employee involvement N Mean Std. Dev. Rank . 1 Shop-floor employees are key to problem solving teams 125 3.74 .897 2 2 Shop-floor employees drive suggestion programs 125 3.72 .848 3 3 Shop-floor employees lead product/process improvement efforts 125 3.75 1.06 1 4 Shop-floor employees undergo cross functional training 125 3.25 .989 4 Total average 3.61Table 11: One-Sample Test Internal lean Sig. (2- Mean 95%Confidence Interval t df (upper) manufacturing practice tailed) Difference of the Difference (lower) D- Employee involvement 9.725 124 0. .000 .6160 .4906 .7414
119 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 43 (2011)Table 12: Sub-problem no.5 Q Std. Total production maintenance N Mean Rank . Deviation 1 We dedicate a portion of everyday to planned equipment 125 3.82 1.131 2 . maintenance related activities 2 We maintain all our equipment regularly 125 3.58 1.31 3 We maintain excellent records of all equipment maintenance 3 125 4.18 1.17 1 related activities We post equipment maintenance records on shop floor for active 4 125 3.00 1.23 4 sharing with employees Total average 3.64Table 13. One-Sample Test 95%Confidence Internal Lean manufacturing Sig. (2- Mean t df Interval of the (upper) practice tailed) Difference Difference (lower) Total production maintenance 7.756 124 0.000 .616 .4906 .8109≤.05 Test Value = 3α7.4. Testing the Second Main Null Hypothesis: there is No Significant Difference Among theAnswers of the Respondents Pertains to Their Demographic ProfileIn order to prove or reject this hypothesis one way ANOVA was used as shown in table (14). Thatshows there are differences among the answers of the respondents of the study pertain to theirdemographic profile, because the level of significance is less than 0 .05 (.000 <.05). Thus indicates ahigh difference among the answers of the of the respondents regarding the Internal lean manufacturingpractices. The F value is > 1.96 for all the practices, which implies that, workers have differentopinions regarding the internal lean practices in their respective manufacturing companies.Table 14: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 23.154 60 .386 3.423 .000 Sex Within Groups 7.214 64 .113 Total 30.368 124 Between Groups 87.337 60 1.456 2.768 .000 Age Within Groups 33.655 64 .526 Total 120.992 124 Between Groups 73.224 60 1.220 5.588 .000 Education Within Groups 13.976 64 .218 Total 87.200 124 Between Groups 93.252 60 1.554 2.457 .000 Experience Within Groups 40.476 64 .632 Total 133.728 124 Between Groups 170.480 60 2.841 3.998 .000 Position Within Groups 45.488 64 .711 Total 215.968 124 Between Groups 110.321 60 1.839 4.583 .000 Number of years in Within Groups 25.679 64 .401 the current position Total 136.000 124 Between Groups 67.953 60 1.133 3.344 .000 Number of years of Within Groups 21.679 64 .339 operation Total 89.632 124
120 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 43 (2011)Table 14: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) - continued Between Groups 20.392 60 .340 3.107 .000 Type of market Within Groups 7.000 64 .109 Total 27.392 124 Between Groups 22.799 60 .380 8.583 .000 Company size Within Groups 2.833 64 .044 Total 25.632 124 Between Groups 67.758 60 1.129 3.755 .003 Number of Within Groups 19.250 64 .301 employees Total 87.008 124 Between Groups 40.777 60 .680 3.920 .000 Type of ownership Within Groups 11.095 64 .173 Total 51.872 124≤.05 αTable 15: The correlation between the variables of the study Continuous Statistical Set up Employee Total production flow process time involvement maintenance production control Continuous Pearson Correlation 1 .295** -.034 -.298** -.139 flow of Sig. (2-tailed) ------ .001 .703 .001 .122 information Set up time Pearson Correlation 1 -.069 -.146 . 296** Sig. (2-tailed) ------ .445 .103 .001 Statistical Pearson Correlation 1 .206* .333** process Sig. (2-tailed) ------ .021 .000 control Employee Pearson Correlation 1 .333 involvement Sig. (2-tailed) ------ .000 Total Pearson Correlation .404** production Sig. (2-tailed) .000 maintenance8. Conclusion 1. The apparel manufacturing companies in Jordan follow the internal lean manufacturing practices at a very high extent, therefore the said companies are aware of the importance of the role that lean manufacturing practices can play in a achieving a high performance level. 2. To keep a smooth flow of production, the apparel manufacturing companies group equipment to produce a continuous flow of families of products. A way from that, production volume is directly linked with rate of target market demand, then the major determinant of the plant layout are the families of products, besides products are classified into groups with similar processing and routing requirements. 3. Working to lower setup times in their plants is a major task for the apparel manufacturing companies in Jordan. Believing that short production cycles and short supply lead times can ease the responsiveness to customer demand. However, now, many workers believe that they have low set up times of equipment through continuous practice. 4. Large number of equipment and processes on shop floor are currently under extensive use of statistical techniques to reduce process variance through the utilization of charts showing defect rates. They also conduct process capability studies before product launch to align process requirements with product requirements. 5. The employee involvement in terms of being part of problem solving teams, getting the proper cross functional training, leading the improvement efforts and driving the suggestion programs
121 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 43 (2011) is a slightly lower than what must be and expected but still within the statistically accepted level. 6. The total productive maintenance is applied in the apparel manufacturing companies because they maintain excellent records of all equipment maintenance related activities .They also dedicate a portion of everyday to planned equipment maintenance related activities, but maintaining their equipment regularly still away from being excellent. 7. There is some kind of difference among the answers of the respondents regarding the internal lean manufacturing practices pertains to their demographic profile. Which is normal thing to happen taking into consideration the characteristics of each respondent and their respective companies.9. Recommendations for Future ResearchThis study tried to find the level of the practice of the internal lean manufacturing in the apparelindustry in Jordan, which means future researches can also be conducted to examine the level ofpractice in an industrial sectors that also must be lean in order to gain access to the super performance,such as Pharmaceutical , Food, Electronics…etc. Researchers are advised also to examine the relationship between Lean production andcompetitive advantage and Lean production and organizational performance. Future researches can also take other lean practices other than those identified by Shah andWard.References1] Anderson F., (2007), Implement Lean Production in small companies, Dissertation, International Project Management, ,Northumbria University, Göteborg, Sweden.2] Baines, T., Lightfoot, H., Williams, G. M., & Greenough, R. (2006). State-of-the-art in lean design engineering: a literature review on white collar lean. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B, 220, 1539-1547.3] Balle, M., (2005), "Lean attitute - Lean application often fail to deliver the expected benefits but could the missing link for successful implementations be attitude?" Manufacturing Engineer, vol. 84, pp. 14-19.4] Baudin, M., (1999), Lean Production: the End of Management Whack-a-Mole.5] Claycomb, C., Germain, R., & Droge, C. (1999). Total system JIT outcomes: Inventory, organization and financial effects. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 29(10), 612-630.6] Cooney, R. (2002). "Is "lean" a universal production system?" International Journal of Operations & Production Mgmt. (v22, n 10), pp 1130-1147.7] Davis, D. & Standard, C. (1999). Running today’s factory. Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers, p55.8] Demeter, K., Matyusz, (2011), the impact of lean practices on inventory turnover, Int. J. Production Economics 133, 154–163.9] Field, A., (2006), discovering statistic-using SPSS, 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.10] Fullerton, R.R., McWatters, C.S., Fawson, C., (2003). An examination of the relation- ships between JIT and financial performance. Journal of Operations Manage- ment 21 (4), 383–404.11] Galbraith, J.R., (1977). Organization Design. Addison-Wesley, Philippines.12] Greene, B. M. (2002). Taxonomy of the adoption of lean production tools and techniques. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Tennessee, United States -- Tennessee.13] H.J. Warnecke a*, M. Hiiser b, (1995), Lean Production, Int. J. Production Economics 41 (1995) 37-43.
122 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 43 (2011)14] Hines, P., Holweg, M., Rich, N., (2004). Learning to evolve. A review of contemporary lean thinking. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 24 (10), 994–1011.15] James, T. (2005, February/March). Stepping back from lean. Manufacturing Engineer, 16-21.16] John Bodnar, Alan Harrison, (1991) "Manufacturing Strategy Development at Bibby Sterilin Ltd", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 11 Iss: 3, pp.43 – 51.17] Jones, D. & Womack, J. (2003). Lean thinking; Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. New York, NY: Free Press.18] Katayama, H. and Bennett, D. (1996). "Lean production in a changing competitive world: A Japanese perspective." International Journal of Operations and Production Mgmt. (vl6, n2), pp8-23.19] Klier, T. (1993). How lean manufacturing changes the way we understand the manufacturing sector. Economic Perspectives, May, 2-9.20] Krafcik, J. (1988). Triumph of the lean production system. Sloan Management Review, 30(1), 41-52.21] Liker, J. (1998). Becoming Lean. Portland, OR: Productivity Inc.22] Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Choo, A., (2006). Six sigma: the role of goals in improvement teams. Journal of Operations Management 24 (6), 779–790.23] Lowe, J., Delbridge, R., Oliver, N., (1997). High-performance manufacturing: evidence from the automotive components industry. Organization Studies 18 (5), 783–798.24] Marchwinski, C. & Shook, J. (2004). Lean Lexicon: A Graphical Glossary for Lean Thinkers. Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute.25] McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G., Cua, K.O., (1999). Total productive maintenance: a contextual view. Journal of Operations Management 17 (2), 123–144.26] Melton T., (2005), the benefits of lean manufacturing, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 83(A6): 662–673. doi: 10.1205/cherd.04351.27] Monden, Y., (1983), Toyota Production System: A practical approach to production management. Industrial Engineers and Management Press, Norcross, GA. Page3.28] Panizzolo, R., (1998), "Applying the lessons learned from 27 lean manufacturers. The relevance of relationships management," International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 55, pp. 223-240.29] Sekaran, U., Research Methods for Business: A skill building approach, Fourth ed. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2005.30] Sergio Gonzalez S., Austin J. E., (2008), Support to the Jordanian Garment Manufacturing Sector, Global Apparel Trends Final Report, USAID Jordan Economic Development Program.31] Shah, R., Ward, P.T., (2007). Defining and developing measures of lean production. Journal of Operations Management 25 (4), 785–805.32] Simpson, D.F., Power, D.J., (2005). Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green suppliers. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 10 (1), 60–68.33] Soderquist, K., & Motwani, J. (1999). Quality issues in lean production implementation: A case of a French automotive supplier. Total Quality Management, 10(8), 1107-1121.34] Spear, S. J. (2004). Learning to lead at Toyota. Harvard Business Review, May, 78-86.35] Spring Conference (IACSIT-SC 2009), Singapore, pp. 267-271.36] Swink, M., Narasimhan, R., Kim, S.W., (2005).Manufacturing practices and strategy integration: effects on cost efficiency, flexibility, and market-based performance. DecisionSciences36 (3), 427–457.37] The Shingo Prize Model http://www.shingoprize.org/Download/AwardInfo/BusinessPrize/ShingoPrizeModel.pdf.38] Toni L. Doolen T. L, 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
123 European Journal of Economics, Finance And Administrative Sciences - Issue 43 (2011)39] Walton, M. (1999). Strategies for lean product development. Cambridge, MA: Lean Aircraft Initiative, Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.40] Womack, J., Jones, D., Roos, D., (1990). The Machine That Changed the World. Macmillan, New York, NY.41] Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., (1996). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation. Simon & Schuster, New York.42] Wong, Y.C., Wong, K.Y. and Ali, A., (20090. “Key practice areas of lean manufacturing”,43] Proceedings of the International Association of Computer Science and Information Technology44] Spring Conference (IACSIT-SC 2009), Singapore, pp. 267-271.45] World Bank Report, (2008), Competitiveness and Corporate Social Responsibility in the Jordanian Apparel Industry, The Multi donor investment climate advisory service.