THE KEY TO LEAN PERF ORMANCE: IMPLEMENTING A DAIL Y SHOP - FLOOR CONTROL SYSTEM USING STANDARDIZATION AND VISUAL MANAGEMENT

http://www.iaeme.com/ijarm/index.asp 34 editor@iaeme.com
International Journal of Advanced Research in Management (IJARM)
Volume 7, Issue 1, Jan-April (2016), pp. 34-43, Article ID: 10220160701005
Available online at
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARM/issues.asp?JType=IJARM&VType=7&IType=1
Journal Impact Factor (2016): 6.9172 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com
ISSN Print: 0976 - 6324 and ISSN Online: 0976 - 6332
© IAEME Publication
___________________________________________________________________________
THE KEY TO LEAN PERFORMANCE:
IMPLEMENTING A DAILY SHOP-FLOOR
CONTROL SYSTEM USING
STANDARDIZATION AND VISUAL
MANAGEMENT
Youssef Larteb, Mariam Benhadou, Abdellah Haddout and Hamid Nahla
Laboratory of '' industrial management and energy and technology of plastic and
composite materials''
ENSEM- Hassan II University of Casablanca
ABSTRACT
Proposed this paper is a standardized shop floor control (SFC) model
which has been developed to control and enhance processes improvement in
both Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and multinationals based in
Morocco. The key contribution of this paper is a framework, “Lean Shop
Floor Control System” (LSFCS), which responds efficiently to many common
Lean Manufacturing (LM), Lean Leadership and SFC requirements by
regrouping four main dimensions that are standardization, visual
management, daily audits, and kaizen. The LSFCS framework is principally
constructed by considering the outcomes achieved during researches
submitted by the same authors in connection with LM deployment in Morocco
and national culture impact on Lean Leadership and LM maturity. The
practical aspects of the LSFCS model provide a useful daily agenda for the
practical managers, and which it designed to monitor and control processes
effectiveness and enhance the Lean Leadership culture supposed as the
critical factor in the success or failure of any LM program. Keywords:
Reliability, Spiritual Intelligence, Validity, Work performance
Keywords: Model, Process Excellence, Lean Manufacturing, Standardization,
Visual Management, Shop Floor Control, Audits, Continuous Improvement,
Kaizen, Morocco.

The Key To Lean Performance: Implementing A Daily Shop-Floor Control System Using
Standardization and Visual Management
Cite this Article: Youssef Larteb, Mariam Benhadou, Abdellah Haddout and
Hamid Nahla. The Key to Lean Performance: Implementing A Daily Shop-
Floor Control System Using Standardization and Visual Management.
International Journal of Advanced Research in Management, 7(1), 2016, pp.
34-43.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARM/issues.asp?JType=IJARM&VType=7&IType=1
1. INTRODUCTION
Increased globalization and competition greatly influence the way manufacturing
companies in different parts of the world respond to pressures for improved quality
and efficiency and reduced costs and lead times. LM, inspired from the Toyota
Production System (TPS), is for many companies worldwide the benchmark (Ringen
et al., 2014, p.242). For today, most manufacturing companies build and develop their
production system on LM. It is claimed that lean is not an option, it is mandatory for
both SMEs and manufacturing firms operating in global markets (Saurin and Ferreira,
2009, p.403).
However, LM as a way to achieve process excellence implies a radical change in
how company control and improve its shop floor operations. A major component of
any lean program is a SFC process using lean-thinking tools such as San Gen Shugi,
routines, standardization, problem solving, visual management, and knowledge
management (Valero, 2006, p.2). Similarly, in order for companies to succeed his lean
program, daily contact with the shop floor and daily audits capabilities are at least two
of the important components that companies must integrate on its SFC systems. So, a
sustainable effectiveness in daily operations cannot be achieved until LM attitudes
and tools are integrated into a unified, coherent and dynamic SFC system whose
single purpose is to continue to provide better value to customers.
Unfortunately, improving existing SFC systems in consistence with LM
requirements is a critical task and an emerging research topic in LM and management
systems literatures. In the same way, despite the growing number of publications on
LM tools, standardization is one of the most powerful but least used lean tools in
SFC. Thus, in order to develop an understanding and a practical basis for the
application of LM within the context of SFC this paper discusses the development of
a model of SFC based on standardization’s effectiveness who is entitled “Lean Shop
Floor Control System “ (LSFCS) and with the intention of application in a systematic
and process-oriented industrial approach. Especially, the objective of LSFCS
described here is to develop the key principles for a smart SFC and therefore to close,
as much as possible, the gap between lean toolbox and the outcome to sustainable
continuously improving organization.
The paper is divided into three further sections followed by a reflective
conclusion. The following (second) section explores current thinking on LM within
the context of SFC, with a concentration on standardization. The third section extends
and suggests the LSFCS conceptual model with an examination of the practical nature
of each model element. Finally, the reflective conclusion will draw the analysis
together, providing pointers to the way the conceptual model can be used to guide the
empirical study of SFC in any organization.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RELATED RESEARCH
2.1. Lean Manufacturing
Attempting to define LM is like shooting at a moving target. LM is a generic process
management philosophy derived originally from the Toyota Production System (TPS)
(Anvari et al., 2011, p.1585). LM takes on many forms, often dictated by each
company's size and goals. Some of LM programs are modeled after the lean operating
system made famous by Toyota, where the objective is to reduce cycle time and
improve output (Valero, 2006, p.1). LM as a prominent quality management practice
utilizes fewer inputs to create the same outputs, eliminating waste to provide more
value to producer and consumer (Dora and Gellynck, 2015, p.272). LM has been
proven to significantly improve companies’ operational performance with respect to
cost, quality and delivery.
Nevertheless, by considering the outcomes achieved during researches submitted
by the same authors in connection with LM deployment in Morocco, most LM
implementations still fall short of the expectations (Larteb et al., 2015; Larteb et al.,
2015). Equally, and more broadly, although many companies have applied lean
concepts across their operations, more than 90% of them failed to recognize
measurable improvement in performance except Toyota and his little group of
suppliers (Liker, 2004; Elnadi and Shehab, 2014).
In fact, many companies focus on the visible elements of LM like methods and
tools and tend to change the layouts and processes of their production. However, the
critical factors for the sustainable success of LM are generally rather organization-
related than technology-related (Dombrowski et al., 2012, p.436). More specifically,
many enterprises fail to implement their LM sustainably because they don’t have a
good, reliable control system to monitor and supervise their shop floor (Liker, 2004;
Womack, 2008). LM implementation necessarily means and implicates the control of
operations and thereby the identification, analysis, proposition, formulation,
validation, application and respect of best practices and standards in the shop floor.
As a matter of fact, in order to implement successfully a LM-based production
system, a SFC system has to be provided and a sustainable performance in daily
operations can only be achieved, when all shop floor activities are fully under control
and deeply audited in all relevant areas.
2.2. Standardization-based Shop Floor Control
LM’ success implies a radical change in how companies control their shop floor. It’s a
precondition for the implementation of LM. For Dombroswki (2012), the
implementation of a SFC system coherent with LM requirements marks a
fundamental transition of the enterprise’s principles, methods and tools (Dombrowski
et al., 2012, p.436). According to Hanenkamp (2013), LM defines an organizational
framework with standardized processes and activities which must take place on the
shop floor (Hanenkamp, 2013, p.41). As a set of leadership practices, tools, and
behaviors, LM creates a closed loop system for focusing on process and driving
process improvement. This system is, in effect, a behavioral recipe for disciplined
adherence to process. For Mann (2009), LM is a pure SFC system of three core
elements: 1) visual controls, consisting of frequently updated process performance
charts, 2) standard accountability processes, and 3) standard work for leaders (Mann,
2009, p.22). Likewise, Asif (2010) emphasizes that integration of SFC systems
creates an enabling context for the institutionalization of lean practices due to: 1)

standardization - a requirement that reduces process variations, 2) development of
structures (such as integrated procedures and work instructions) that remove
variations from a process, 3) development of routines which allow the execution of
similar practices over time, and 4) development of social structures (teamwork,
behavioral alignment, and regular management reviews to facilitate integration) (Asif
et al., 2010, p.157). Yet, in order to develop an understanding and a practical basis for
the application of LM within the context of SFC, Hanenkamp (2013) present the SFM
hexagon process model for shop floor management implementation based on six step
process that are: 1) Visual management, 2) Standards and abnormality control, 3)
Problem solving, 4) Change point management (CPM), 5) Communication, and 6)
Efficiency improvement (Hanenkamp, 2013, p.41). Still, trying to describe the LM
organizational and operational requirements, Wardle (2014) define five elements of
SFC requirements that are : 1) Objectives: Measurable targets bases on KPIs on shop
floor level, 2) Standards, 3) Visualization: Visualization of standards, current
situation, targets and transparent documentation of problems and measures, 4)
Communication: Regular and prompt communication with standard contends, routes
and times, and 5) Qualification: All methods are qualified, trained and established and
can be passed on by the management (Wardle, 2014, p.6). Finally, for Johansson
(2013), there are four pillars to put into practices a standardized work process: 1)
Standardized work instructions, 2) Audits, 3) Assembly worker involvement, and 4)
Training (Johansson et al., 2013, p.154).
So, LM refers to an evolving dynamic SFC process covering the total enterprise
which must be governed by a systemic set of principles, methods and practices
(Anvari et al., 2011, p.1586). Unfortunately, simply imitating another firm’s plan or
organizational structure does not guarantee improved operational performance that
depends on a well-designed company-specific SFC system, and the framework
provides a means to build that system.
3. LEAN SHOP FLOOR CONTROL SYSTEM MODEL - LSFCS
In order to design a smart SFC system framework that fully addresses the needs of
companies, the proposal has been especially developed up on the basis of the
outcomes achieved during researches submitted by the same authors in connection
with LM deployment in Morocco and national leadership impact on Lean Leadership
and LM maturity. In fact, thus researches have pointed out some weaknesses related
to the setting and maintaining quality and safety standards in the shop floor. Actually,
despite the appropriateness and relevance of standards are crucial in LM
implementation, most operations management systems surveyed lack a systematic
standardization process. More, thus researches have outlined that companies come up
against obstacles trying to develop standardized rules for middle management to
control shop floor and apply such tools reliably, once they are adapted to the
specificities of their organization. In the light of all that, the need for a standardized
SFC system based on setting and maintaining standards, daily direct shop floor
contact, and support for continuous improvement is forced and imposed.
To do this, a list of existing LM frameworks focusing on operations and shop
floor management has been identified and analyzed. Their limitations have been
identified and, with the help of our research findings from a various multinationals‟
operations management systems studied in the last ten years, a standardized SFC
framework was proposed. The proposed framework was then discussed, modified,
and validated through a panel discussion comprised of number of experts working in
different multinationals based in Morocco, and which are involved in lean and

continuous improvement projects, and with working experience ranged from 20 years
to 30 years.
Figure 1 Lean Shop Floor Control System Model (LSFCS)
The system proposed, as reported in Figure.1, is concentrated at four steps which seek
to optimize the use and implementation of the model and which are of greatest
importance to enable high control levels to be reached across the shop floor. These
steps are: (1) standardization of any process, operation or lay-out, (2) visualization of
standards in concerned places while simultaneously devoting attention to specific
ergonomic and visualization requirements, (3) carrying out compliance audits and
routines, and (4) incorporation into a kaizen approach based on daily continuous
improvement with the aim of achieving a very high level of control in operations and
processes.
The model is principally designed to impact the SFC on three areas. First, to
define the relevant standards and the best way of visualizing them; second, to target
immediate operation out of control or standard deviation, and third to enhance process
excellence and facilitate capitalization of best practices in the shop floor.
Furthermore, the model is created to be innovative through its standardization-
based continuous improvement engine (SBCIE) described below and depicted in
figure.2 above. In fact, for each step, a needs analysis process is associated. The four
processes grouped form the driving force behind the continuous improvement of
processes and operations in the model. Thus, the LSFCS across the SBCIE will be
more ready to provide additional greater opportunities for shop floor environmental
scanning and making solutions accordingly. In this vision, the LSFCS will allow more
chance to lock human error and promote learning with agility, thus providing
necessary responsiveness to quality risks and envisaged productivity.

Figure 2 Standardization-based Continuous Improvement Engine
4. LSFCS MAIN ELEMENTS DESCRIPTION
4.1. Standardization
Despite the growing number of publications on LM tools, standardization is one
of the most powerful but least used lean tools in SFC. In fact, standardization,
standardized work or even standard operation procedures is a cornerstone of the
Toyota Production System (TPS) (Chowdhury, 2014, p.131). As clarified by Ohno,
symbol of Toyota and Japan's manufacturing resurgence after the Second World War,
“Standardized work and uninterrupted process flows are the key foundation stones of
the Toyota Production System” (Anvari et al., 2011, p.1586). Similarly as Liker
(2004) cite Masaki Imai: there can be no Kaizen without standardization and where
probed provides substantial differences of meaning (Liker, 2004, p.234).
Standardization can be used in the context of SFC systems and in relation to
controlling individual (employee) behavior. In fact, standardization can have a large
influence on SFC since it reduces processes deviation that leads to an emergent
process of deterioration in quality, infrastructure and productivity. In this case, the
process deviation reduction must begin with standardization and documentation of
processes, along with the requirement that workers perform processes according to the
documents. For this and according to De Treville and Antonakis (2006), LM call for
the involvement of workers (usually operating in teams) in the development of
standards for two reasons: (a) only the people actually running the process have
access to many key types of knowledge concerning how the process operates in
practice, and (b) it is generally believed that participation in development of standards
will give workers a sense of ownership, increasing their willingness to run the process
as documented (de Treville and Antonakis, 2006, p.103).
Generally, there are three categories of standardization: design standardization,
process standardization, and leader work standardization (Pernstal et al., 2013,

p.2808). Standardization benefits are work place structure according to cleanliness,
orderliness and safety (minimum waste) and clear definition of the most efficient way
to manufacture and to safeguard quality. Likewise, standardization facilitates root-
cause analyses and the sharing of lessons learned across replications of common
processes. In addition, standardized processes provide relevant and common
experiences to employees that are the basis of process improvement (Anand et al.,
2009, p.454). Finally, standardized processes increase communication and exchange
efficiency in daily operations context enabling mutual trusted and low costs (Kung et
al., 2014, p.13).
4.2. Visualization
The terms visualization or visual management are applied in manufacturing as a
holistic system supporting visualization information to help teams and individuals to
gain a better understanding of their role and contribution within the larger frame of
shop floor efficiency (Tjell and Sijtsema, 2015, p.195). Through visualization the
employees are more enables to better understand their role and contribution in relation
to both their own organizational values and costumer needs (Liker, 2004, p.157). In
fact, visualization can be exploited in different SFC activities and for diverse
animation tasks, ranging from alerts on customers complaints, production rate,
machinery down, planning to knowledge sharing and learning (Eppler and Bresciani,
2013, p.147). More, the power of visualization to enable effective and seam less
collaboration (especially across disciplinary boundaries) even exceeds its potential to
improve communication. In fact, limiting the use of visualization to the mere
presentation aspect would not do it justice for the realm of management (Eppler and
Bresciani, 2013, p.146). That is why the LSFCS’s model as a daily SFC system was
based on a different understanding which considers the visualization as a powerful
tool to reveal process deviation and show positive or negative performance tendency
in the shop floor. In fact, the LSFCS’s model imposes that every process, operation or
implantation being standardized must be visualized and audited on a day to day basis.
Through this obligation, each manager or supervisor, even outside his perimeter can
use visualization to quickly detect any departure from the normal standard and then
undertaking the required action to remedy to the situation in conformity with the
standard. That way, visualization appears like an obvious strategy to cope with
delayed responses to performance degradation and processes deviation and his
principle must remain at the heart of the LSFCS model deployment.
4.3. Brigades & Audits
LM is more than just a kit of tools to improve flow and quality. It is a business
philosophy, and to be effective over the long run, discipline is essential (Mann, 2009,
p.22). LM imposes that every leader must spend some of his or her time focusing on
compliance to the standards, and noting the improvement opportunities such focus
reveals. In fact, standards compliance is one of the key stones in LM and to be able to
perform shop floor efficiency, audits need to be performed throughout all processes to
be able to detect potential dysfunctions and therefore improvement areas. These audits
should be performed by all management levels including top management on daily
basics and per shift to follow up that standards are followed. To do, different attitudes
from conventional leadership practices is called for. In this respect, the LSFCS’s goal
is to emphasize visibly observable discipline and control who cannot be delegated.
Especially, the LSFCS’s model was created with the intention to create a culture
based on daily contact with the shop floor and allows managers to proactively identify

and proactively addresses new provisions for locking processes and minimizing
human weaknesses before they escalated to large-scale problems. In conclusion,
without good standards and processes of auditing daily work, we cannot know if we
are doing the right things with the right way and unless managers in the company
ignore about the potential of daily audits, improvement initiatives are less likely to be
initiated and the miraculous gains in performance through standards compliance are
less likely to be reached (Larteb et al., 2015, p.544).
4.4. Kaizen & Continuous improvement
Successful managers have long since recognized that they cannot simply maintain
their standards, but they must constantly seek to improve what they are doing (Mellor
et al., 2012, p.12). In fact, continuous improvement is one of the most important parts
of SFC systems and is recognized as one of the key principles of LM as developed by
Toyota (Glover et al., 2011, p.198). It is through the continuous improvement of
standards that organizations can systematically drive out waste and reduce costs
(Ringen et al., 2014, p.243). For this, one of the most important parts of the LSFCS’s
model is doing continuous improvements (step 4) and audits (step 3) are used as a tool
to detect potential improvements. Actually, as a daily SFC system, the LSFCS’s
model was created with the intention to allow manager and supervisor to identify and
proactively address opportunities for improvement before they escalated to large-scale
problems. More, the SBCIE will incur the top and middle management in a daily
kaizen activities to continuously prevent quality and safety risks and improve process
flow. This will entail creating a culture of continuous improvement and learning and
positioning continuous improvement as a proactive task of management, not just a
reaction to difficulties and competitors.
5. CONCLUSION
LM’ success implies a radical change in how companies control their shop floor.
It’s a precondition for the implementation of LM. However, improving existing SFC
systems in consistence with LM requirements is a critical task and an emerging
research topic in LM and management systems literatures.
The SFC system proposed here was developed based on perceived gaps in the
process of implementing LM in multinationals based in Morocco, on an extensive
review of literature on LM, and on the findings from a various multinationals’
operations management systems studied in the last ten years. The guiding objective
was to combine characteristics inherent to SFC and LM, such as standardization,
audits, dynamism and its direct relationship with organizational continuous
improvement.
The proposed model steps were configured to control the sequential order of their
execution and provide a guiding principle for practitioners in exercise. The essence of
this management framework was to engage the top and middle management in daily
SFC and preventives actions to continuously prevent quality and safety risks and
improve process flow.
The framework will help companies build a sustainable and comprehensive
culture of disciplinary and quality rigor based on strong leadership, prevention-based
decision making, and standards compliance focus. Finally, it is important to
understand this proposal as a global system rather than a catalogue of tools to be
implemented. Following this approach, organizations will benefit from more stable
processes and full control of operation rather than reactive problem solving.

REFERENCES
[1] Abdel-Maksoud, A., Cerbioni, F., Ricceri, F., Velayutham, S., 2014. Employee morale,
non-financial performance measures, deployment of innovative managerial practices
and shop-floor involvement in Italian manufacturing firms. The British Accounting
Review 42, 36-55.
[2] Anand, G., Ward, P.T., Tatikonda, M.V., Schilling, D.A., 2009. Dynamic capabilities
through continuous improvement infrastructure 27, 444-461.
[3] Anvari, A., Ismail, Y., Hojjati, S.M.H., 2011.A Study on Total Quality Management
and Lean Manufacturing: Through Lean Thinking Approach. World Applied Sciences
Journal 12 (9), 1585-1596.
[4] Asif, M., Fisscher, O.A.M., de Bruijn, J.E., Pagell, M., 2010. Integration of
management systems: A methodology for operational excellence and strategic
flexibility. Operation Management Researches 3, 146-160.
[5] Bedry, P., 2009. Les basiques du Lean Manufacturing dans les PMI et ateliers
technologiques. Editions d’Organisation. Paris.
[6] Brusoni, S., Rosenkranz, N.A., 2014. Reading between the lines: Learning as a process
between organizational context and individuals’ proclivities. European Management
Journal 32, 147-154.
[7] Chowdhury, S.D., 2014. Strategic roads that diverge or converge: GM and Toyota in
the battle for the top. Business Horizons 57, 127-136.
[8] de Treville, S., Antonakis, J., 2006. Could lean production job design be intrinsically
motivating? Contextual, configurational, and levels-of-analysis issues. Journal of
Operations Management 24, 99-123.
[9] Dombrowski, D., Mielke, T., Engela, C., 2012. Knowledge Management in Lean
Production Systems. Procedia CIRP 3, 436 – 441.
[10] Dora, M., Gellynck, X., 2015. House of lean for food processing SMEs. Trends in
Food Science & Technology 44, 272-281.
[11] Elnadi, M., Shehab, E., 2014. A Conceptual Model for Evaluating Product-Service
Systems Leanness in UK Manufacturing Companies. Procedia CIRP 22, 281-286.
[12] Eppler, M.J., Bresciani, S., 2013. Visualization in management: From communication
to collaboration. A response to Zhang. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 24,
146-149.
[13] Fullerton, R.R., Kennedy, A.F., Widener, K.S., 2014. Lean manufacturing and firm
performance: The incremental contribution of lean management accounting practices.
Journal of Operations Management 32, 414-428.
[14] Glover, W.J., Farris, J.A., VanAken, E.M., Doolen, T.D., 2011. Critical success factors
for the sustainability of Kaizen event human resource outcomes: An empirical study.
International Journal of Production Economics 132, 197–213.
[15] Hanenkamp, H., 2013. The Process Model for Shop Floor Management
Implementation. Advances in Industrial Engineering and Management 2 (1), 40-46
[16] Kung, K.H., Ho, C.F., Hung, W.H., Wu, C.C., 2014. Organizational adaptation for
using PLM systems: Group dynamism and management involvement. Industrial
Marketing Management, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.04.018.
[17] Larteb, Y., Haddout, A., Benhadou, M., 2015. A Model of Lean Operations
Management System: The Response to the Missing Link between Lean Toolbox and a
Sustainable Continuously Improving Organization. International Journal of
Management 6 (9), 06-15

[18] Larteb, Y., Haddout, A., Benhadou, M., 2015. National culture impact on lean
leadership and lean manufacturing maturity - Case study of multinationals based in
morocco. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology 4 (2), 542-
547.
[19] Larteb, Y., Haddout, A., Benhadou, M., 2015. Successful lean implementation: the
systematic and simultaneous consideration of soft and hard lean practices. International
Journal of Engineering Research and General Science 3 (2), 1258-1270.
[20] Liker, J., 2004. Le modèle Toyota 14 principes qui feront la réussite de votre entreprise.
Pearson France, Paris.
[21] Mann, D., 2009. The missing link: Lean Leadership. Frontiers of health services
management 26 (1), 15-26.
[22] Mellor, R., Hyland, P., Karayan, J., 2012. Continuous Improvement Tools and Support
Mechanisms in Australian Manufacturing. Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering
226 (1), 12-28.
[23] Pernstål, J., Feldt, R., Gorschek, T., 2013. The lean gap: A review of lean approaches
to large-scale soft ware systems development. The Journal of Systems and Software
86, 2797– 2821.
[24] Ringen, G., Aschehoug, S., Holtskog, H., Ingvaldsen, J., 2014. Integrating Quality and
Lean into a Holistic Production System. Procedia CIRP 17, 242-247.
[25] Saurin, T.A., Ferreira, C.F., 2009. The impacts of lean production on working
conditions: A case study of a harvester assembly line in Brazil. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics 39, 403-412.
[26] Steers, R.M., Shim, W.S., 2013. Strong leaders, strong cultures: Global management
lessons from Toyota and Hyundai. Organizational Dynamics 42, 217-227.
[27] Sundara, R., Balajib,A.N., SatheeshKumar, R.M., 2014. A Review on Lean
Manufacturing Implementation Techniques. Procedia Engineering 97, 1875-1885.
[28] Tjella, J., Bosch-Sijtsemaa, P.M., 2015. Visual management in mid-sized construction
design projects. Procedia Economics and Finance 21, 193 – 200.
[29] Valero, G., 2006. Trimming the Fat from Your Operations. www.metalfinishing.com
[30] Wardle, R., 2014. Shop Floor Management. ROI Management consulting, 1-13.
[31] Womack.J., Jones.D., 2008. Le système Lean : Penser à l’entreprise au plus juste.
Pearson France, Paris.

THE KEY TO LEAN PERF ORMANCE: IMPLEMENTING A DAIL Y SHOP - FLOOR CONTROL SYSTEM USING STANDARDIZATION AND VISUAL MANAGEMENT

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to THE KEY TO LEAN PERF ORMANCE: IMPLEMENTING A DAIL Y SHOP - FLOOR CONTROL SYSTEM USING STANDARDIZATION AND VISUAL MANAGEMENT

Similar to THE KEY TO LEAN PERF ORMANCE: IMPLEMENTING A DAIL Y SHOP - FLOOR CONTROL SYSTEM USING STANDARDIZATION AND VISUAL MANAGEMENT (20)

More from IAEME Publication

More from IAEME Publication (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

THE KEY TO LEAN PERF ORMANCE: IMPLEMENTING A DAIL Y SHOP - FLOOR CONTROL SYSTEM USING STANDARDIZATION AND VISUAL MANAGEMENT