Ijm 06 09_002

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 6 editor@iaeme.com
International Journal of Management (IJM)
Volume 6, Issue 9, Sep 2015, pp. 06-15, Article ID: IJM_06_09_002
Available online at
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JTypeIJM&VType=6&IType=9
ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510
© IAEME Publication
___________________________________________________________________________
A MODEL OF LEAN OPERATIONS
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: THE RESPONSE
TO THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN LEAN
TOOLBOX AND A SUSTAINABLE
CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVING
ORGANIZATION
Youssef Larteb, Abdellah Haddout, Mariam Benhadou and Lahcen Safraoui
Team Rheology and industrial plastics processing, ENSEM, Casablanca, Morocco,
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to develop a shop floor management model
for processes and operations management that controls and enhances day-to-
day facilities performance from following five axes: customer satisfaction,
internal processes performance, problems solving and learning, continuous
improvement, and Genshi Genbutsu. The model has been developed based on
extensive review of literature on Lean Manufacturing, Lean Leadership, and
operations management. The shop floor management model developed in this
paper provides a useful daily agenda for the practical managers in monitoring
and measuring of operations performance and enhances the Lean Leadership
culture supposed as the critical factor in the success or failure of any Lean
Manufacturing program.
Key words: Model, Lean Manufacturing, Operations Management,
Performance Management, Shop floor control, Continuous improvement,
Kaizen, San Gen Shugi, Genchi Genbutsu, Morocco.
Cite this Article: Youssef Larteb, Abdellah Haddout, Mariam Benhadou and
Lahcen Safraoui. 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), 2015, pp. 06-15.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JTypeIJM&VType=6&IType=9
1. INTRODUCTION
The introduction of new management practices is an important issue for firms as they
seek to upgrade their productivity, improve the quality of customer offerings and
retain competitiveness [34]. Among these practices, Lean Manufacturing (LM) is

A Model of Lean Operations Management System: The Response To The Missing Link
Between Lean Toolbox and A Sustainable Continuously Improving Organization
often regarded as the most important strategy for manufacturing firms desiring to
achieve world-class performance [9], [20], [37]. However, while the advantages of
LM are recognized how to go about achieving it has received less attention in the
operations management (OM) literature. Especially, as a fully integrated management
and manufacturing philosophy and approach [4], the LM adoption entails significant
organizational change which requires companies to properly manage the key factors
that might influence on the success of the adoption process [1], [25], [27], [28], [31].
As research among organizations achieving world-class performance shows that LM
effectiveness requires an OM system based on measuring performance [6], daily
direct shop floor contact, integration of employees in problem solving teams, and
support for continuous improvement, then the need for a supportive processes and
OM system coherent with LM requirements is forced and imposed.
Thus, the purpose of this paper is to contribute towards the clarifying vision of
LM as an ultimate daily OM system. Especially, this contribution aims to define an
OM system LOMS (Lean Operations Management System) to be adapted as a daily
shop floor animation system.
In the following section, LM literature and related theory are briefly reviewed;
then a review of OM systems related to LM and their analysis by structural typology
is performed; this is then followed by the presentation of the model. The practical
nature of the model is then showed, followed by an examination of each model
element. Finally, the first applications of the model are showed in the conclusions that
complete the article.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Lean Manufacturing
LM is an integrated and interdependent system involving many elements: the tools,
the philosophy and management [29]. The LM system consists of multiple bundles of
routines in production, quality management, and human resource management [33].
Referring to the Toyota production system (TPS), LM encourages processes and
operations’ control, predictability, planning, and risk minimization through both
symbolic leadership and a global OM system that emphasizes standardized global
operating procedures and control systems [38]. However, despite a wide consensus
that LM success implies a radical change in how the company manages its operations,
few studies have focused on modeling LM as an ultimate OM system. Unfortunately,
the non-development of specific OM system in line with LM tools deployment is one
reason why [27] estimates that 90% of companies failed to recognize measurable
improvement in performance except Toyota and his little group of suppliers.
Inevitably, LM adoption implies integration in the use of operations and human
resource management practices [12]. Thus, if many firms failed to achieve expected
benefits from their LM implementation because of the associated OM system is not
well adapted and most often its importance is overlooked [35].
2.2. Operations and performance management
Building flexibility to respond quickly to changing market needs has been regarded as
one of the major challenges in OM over recent years [3], [11], [21], [36]. In fact,
competitive pressures and advances in product and processes technologies are forcing
enterprises to revise their strategies and redesign their OM systems [13], [14]. More
explicitly, it is to revolutionize their managerial approaches [29]. This is why experts

from academic circles, industry and consulting in both LM and OM presented results
that emphasized moving away from what were described as the failures of classic
management towards new attitudes and management techniques coherent with LM
philosophy [8], [25], [26], [27], [28], [32], [40].
Actually, LM and quality approaches require a fundamentally different OM
system than the traditional mass production approaches. As clarified by Fujio CHO,
former Toyota Motor Corporation president, “even if the companies respect people
and practice Kaizen as other LM tools, the important thing is to gather all elements in
one system, which must be put into practice every day with great regularity - not in
spurts – and concretely in the shop floor” [29]. Likewise, [23] emphasizes that the
essence of the LM philosophy is that all business processes and functions integrate
into a unified, coherent and dynamic management system whose single purpose is to
continue to provide better value to customers. According to [12], LM should be based
on an OM system that promotes cooperation and learning for facilitating process
management, resulting in the constant improvement of processes, products and
services, as well as employee fulfillment and customer satisfaction. For [29], LM
must be accompanied by an explicit managerial conception whose fundamental
principles are: Genchi Genbutsu, Challenge, Kaizen, and respect and team work. Still,
trying to describe the LM organizational and operational requirements, [15], define
the Lean Leadership model based on five pillars: 1) Improvement culture, 2) self-
development, 3) Employees qualification, 4) Genba), and 5) Hoshin Kanri. Too, [24]
present the SFM hexagon process model for shop floor management implementation.
The six processes of the model are: 1) Visual management, 2) Standards and
abnormality control, 3) Problem solving, 4) Change point management (CPM), 5)
Communication and 6) Efficiency improvement. Further, Yamashina present the
World Classe Manufacturing (WCM) developed by Fiat and partnering firms in 2005.
It is an integrated management system inspired from LM principals and made up of
ten technical- and ten managerial pillars, illustrated as a temple. The ten managerial
pillars are: 1) Management Commitment, 2) Clarity of Objectives, 3) Route map to
WCM, 4) Allocation of Highly Qualified People to Model Areas, 5) Commitment of
the Organization, 6) Competence of Organization towards Improvement, 7) Time and
Budget, 8) Level of Detail, 9) Level of Expansion, and 10) Motivation of Operators
[17].
Thus, the common goal of these different management and leadership models is to
break the link with traditional management methods and promote an exemplary and
effective leadership. So, implementing LM requires a comprehensive view of the
phenomenon, which should be based on a holistic model comprising the various
dimensions of LM, Lean Leadership, and performance management [5]. Finally, it is
important to believe that there will be a positive impact on overall organizational
performance if the OM systems are designed, or redesigned, appropriately to the LM
specifications.
3. LEAN OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MODEL -
LOMS
The model elaboration is based both 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.
Starting with a detailed analysis of a various multinationals’ operations
management systems, a draft version of the model was developed. After conducting

literature review, semi-structured interviews with several academic researchers
involved in lean projects were conducted. The final version of the model was refined
using semi structured interviews with a number of experts working in various
multinationals based in Morocco whose production processes related to automotive
and aeronautic manufacturing, and which are involved in lean and continuous
improvement projects. The consistency of proposed model was examined through his
response to seven criteria considered common and fundamental in LM and OM
literature reviews that are:
 Accelerating the decision-making process
 Boosting the quality of products and activities
 Customer needs consideration and satisfaction
 Enhancing productivity and efficiency improvement
 Realization of the strategic and operative targets
 Quick response and proactive management
 Creating improvement needs.
Figure 1 Lean Operations Management System model
The model consists of five levels as presented in Fig.1. The framework presented
here regroups the main dimensions of LM and shares many common characteristics
with previous LM and OM taxonomies and frameworks. Although the schematization
differs from other models, the underlying constructs are all quite similar. The main
similarity is the “customer satisfaction” which is the rationale of LM and the essence
of total quality management. Likewise, what the proposed model terms as “internal
processes performance” is a special feature in the various LM taxonomies as well as
in the contemporary performance management literature based on internal processes
performance and non-financial indicators [2], [13], [14], [15], [18], [19], [29], [31],
[32]. In particular, “problem solving” is a dominant characteristic and the fourth “P”
in Liker’s pyramid (Philosophy, People, Process, Problem solving) [29], [30].
Finally, “Genchi Genbutsu” is at the heart of Lean Leadership philosophy for [16] and
[29].
Nevertheless, the model differs from previous taxonomies and frameworks in
several important ways. In fact, besides consolidation and recognition of different
organizational dimensions of LM, operations and performance management, the
proposed model uses accessible and easily concepts more likely to resonate with
practicing managers. Likewise, the proposed model levels are configured to control
the sequential order of their execution and provide a daily agenda for practitioners in
exercise (Fig.2.). In fact, since customer always comes first, the proposed model
compels first to review customer performance as customer complaints and alerts.
Next, internal processes performance review (production, quality, logistics,
maintenance…) is the following step, and productivity, efficiency and effectiveness

should be key objectives. Since a fall in performance at the customer or internally
shall automatically trigger a problem-solving process, that process is the third step in
the model. Once major customer and internal processes issues are identified and
addressed, selection of proposals and the monitoring of Kaizen actions is the fourth
step in the model. Finally, the “Genchi Genbutsu" provided the most effective tool for
monitoring and quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of past solutions decided
in step 3 "Problem Solving", and actions proposed under step 4 "Continuous
Improvement".
The proposed model also differs from previous taxonomies and frameworks in
another important way. The main five steps of the proposal follow one another in an
iterative process and each step is shown to be providing the ultimate solution for the
next step. Too, the relationship between the five steps of the proposal is dynamic
since there is a continual feedback loop between them that leads to constant reflection
and analysis of results and, if needed, to enable one to return to previous steps to
refine prior decisions. More explicitly, to reach the "Customer Satisfaction", "Process
performance" must be performed. To do, “Problem solving process” related to
troubleshooting at the customer and in all internal processes and “kaizen activities”
must be boosted. To get there, exemplary leadership based on a spirit of “Genchi
Genbutsu” must take place among all leaders and managers.
Customer
performance
review
•Non-satisfaction review
•Customer claims review
•Customer alertes review
•Customer audits results review
Internal
processes
performance
review
•Production (Productivity, Efficiency, …)
•Quality (Scrap, Customer ppm, Line rejects, …)
•Maintenance ( OEE, Setup times, Maintenance cost, MTBF, MTTR, …)
•Logistics (OTD On time delivery, Inventory turns, …), Etc…
Problem
solving
•QRQC, DANTOTSU
•PDCA-FTA / 8D
•FICS, QQQCCP, ISHIKAWA, 5M, 5Why, LLC, Etc...
Continuos
improvement
- Kaizen
•PDCA
•Quality circle
•Hoshin activities
•Quality task force, Etc…
Genchi-
Genbutsu
•Customer protection’s genba in the case of customer complaints
•Solutions and actions monitoring’s genba in the case of problems solving process
•Actions validation’s genba in the case of kaizen activities, Etc…
Figure 2 LOMS as a daily management agenda

4. LOMS MAIN ELEMENTS DESCRIPTION
4.1. Customer satisfaction
Lean thinking is more than an additional organizational approach: it conveys a
particular attitude towards customers [32]. This is to create a system in which each
non-customer satisfaction must be considered immediately be resolved at source,
without delay, one providing a reliable answer on the root causes and actions kept to
avoid recurrence in the future. For this, the company must define for each process a
set of customer satisfaction related key performance indicators. A daily review of
these indicators enhances reactivity and increase customer satisfaction in the hope that
in the long term, the satisfaction will translate into loyalty.
4.2. Internal processes performance
LM is a methodology used to transform complex processes to a smooth continuous
production flow, which delivers customer value more rapidly, improves workflow,
standardizes processes and eliminates waste [39]. Management focus should be on
eliminating these non-value-added activities, which do not enhance the customer's
image of the product or service and do not support the business process. For this
purpose, internal processes performance review is required to encourage managers
and shop floor employees to focus on the critical elements of efficient operations and
to provide effective links across the value chain [8]. This review must take place for
every process and every day (Quality, Production, Logistics, Purchasing ...). It should
help to focus on the five main critical inputs data for each process (Methods;
Materials; Machines; Mans and environment) to determine the causes of non
performance and propose appropriate solutions. More, the establishment of processes
performance animation system integrating the three organizational levels of the
company (strategic, tactical and operational), will lead to a logical overview of the
overall performance of the company and improve synergy between the various
processes.
4.3. Problem solving and learning
LM entails company must learn from its mistakes, identifies the root cause of
problems, defines effective countermeasures and gives people tools to implement
them [29], [30]. This approach also include the provision of timely information for
identifying and eliminating activities that add no value, and identifying causal factors
that may lead to manufacturing improvements. Thus, the presence of a problem
solving system linking the three companies’ levels may significantly improve the
predictive performance of processes, improves responsiveness in respect of one claim
or complaint, reduces employee stressors and will increase their level and amount of
involvement. Adoption of some problem solving tools like 8D, PDCA-FTA, and
DANTOTSU may provide all employees with methodology and the steps for
elaborating action plans and drawing upon the lessons learned from each problem.
4.4. Continuous improvement
Continuous improvements or Kaizen refers to the continual search for improvement
and is recognized as one of the key principles of LM as developed by Toyota [22]. It’s
to continually improve company performances through focused and structured
improvement action, using a dedicated cross-functional team to improve a targeted
work area, with specific goals, in an accelerated time frame [7], [22]. Thus, a

structured and integrated continuous improvement program should provide
opportunities for both incremental continuous improvement and radical process
redesign [10], [39]. For this purpose, the LOMS’s goal is to create a culture of
continuous improvement and innovation. Especially, as a daily operations
management system, LOMS’s model was created with the intention to allow facilities
to identify and proactively address opportunities for improvement before they
escalated to large-scale problems. Nevertheless, the proposed model must be
underpinned by an unshakeable top management commitment to continuous
improvement by more focusing on individual improvement projects and capacity
building, creating a stronger foundation for a continuous improvement culture to be
developed over time. Similarly, implementing structured continuous improvement
programs requires that organizations invest both monetary and human resources in
training, leadership alignment, focus on the customer, reward and recognition of team
members, and communication of success and failures [7], [39].
4.5. Genchi Genbutsu
The reality on the shop floor does not necessarily become evident during a
performance review meeting.Whatever reports, measures and ideas are transmitted to
management are only an abstraction of what is actually going on in the shop floor to
create value [16]. The only way to report on the status of a process, project or problem
is to get down there and find out yourself [29], [30]. Monitoring the achievement of
actions and solutions embodied in problem solving process (level 3) or kaizen
activities (level 4) and validate their effectiveness and impacts constitute distinctive
features of Lean Leadership. That is why the LOMS’s model as a daily management
system was based on a well-defined and pragmatic methodology that begins with
going and seeing in the shop floor. In order to properly treat a problem or a kaizen
activity, the discussion has to take place in the real place “Genba”, in front of the real
parts “Genbotsu”, and with the real data “Genjitsu” retrieved from persons directly
involved in the shop floor. This obligation concerns, first and foremost, managers
who have to go see themselves what is happening rather than looking at information
regarding process issues from their office [29], [30]. For this purpose, Genchi
Genbutsu is a key approach in problem solving and monitoring kaizen activities and
his principle must remain at the heart of the LOMS model deployment.
5. CONCLUSION
LM as a way to achieve process excellence implies a radical change in how company
drives its operations. Improving existing management systems and operational
processes in consistence with LM requirements is a critical task and an emerging
research topic in operations management literature.
The paper provided a conceptual model of operations management system
consistent with the LM philosophy. The proposed model provides a powerful and
sustainable means to rapidly get an overview and operations performance
appreciation. The model combines the most important points that need to be
addressed on a day-to-day basis from response to customers’ requirements to the
continuous improvement of internal processes. Especially, the LOMS’ model should
enable informed decisions to be made and actions to be taken because it allows
supervising and quantifying the efficiency and effectiveness of all processes each and
every day. For the company, the model can be used not only as a performance
management support but also as methodological way to improve LM maturity level

and Lean Leadership practices. As a matter of fact, if LM literature advocates that
several behavioral adjustments and managerial interventions may be necessary in each
LM adoption, the LOMS’ model will be necessarily able to contribute to these
adjustments by improving leadership styles, individual routines, and organizational
cultures.
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, pp.36–55.
[2] Adler, R.W., 2011.Performance management and organizational strategy: How to
design systems that meet the needs of confrontation strategy firms. The British
Accounting Review 43, pp.251-263.
[3] Ahlstrom, P., Westbrook, R., 1999. Implications of mass customization for
operations management: an exploratory survey. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management 19 (3), pp.262–274.
[4] Ahrens, T., 2006. Lean production: Successful implementation of organizational
change in operations instead of short term cost reduction efforts. Lean Alliance,
1-87.
[5] Bortolotti, T., Boscari, S., Danese, P., 2014. Successful Lean implementation:
Organizational culture and soft lean practices. International Journal of
Economics, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.10.013i.
[6] Bourne, M., Melnyk, S.A., Bititci, U., Platts, K., Andersen, B., 2014. Editorial /
Emerging issues in performance measurement. Management Accounting
Research 25, pp.117-118.
[7] Bradley S. Scott, B.S., Wilcock, A.E., Kanetkar, V., 2009. A survey of structured
continuous improvement programs in the Canadian food sector. Food Control 20,
pp.209-217.
[8] Chenhall, R., Langfield-smith, K., 2007. Multiple Perspectives of Performance
Measures. European Management Journal 25 (4), pp.266–282.
[9] Cua, K.O., McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G., 2001. Relationships between
implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance. Journal
of Operations Management 19 (6), pp.675-694.
[10] Cudny, E.A., 2009. Using Hoshin Kanri to improve the value stream. CRC Press,
Taylor & Francis Group.
[11] Da Silveira, G.J.C., 2006. Effects of simplicity and discipline on operational
flexibility: An empirical reexamination of the rigid flexibility model. Journal of
Operations Management 24, 932–947.
[12] De Menezes, M.L, Wood, S., Gelade, G., 2010. The integration of human
resource and operation management practices and its link with performance: A
longitudinal latent class study. Journal of Operations Management 28, pp.455-
471.
[13] De Lima, E.P., Da Costa, G.S.E., De Faria, A.R., 2009. Taking operations
strategy into practice: Developing a process for defining priorities and
performance measures. International Journal of Production Economics 122,
pp.403-418.
[14] De Lima, E.P., Da Costa, G.S.E., Angelis, J.J., Munik, J., 2013. Performance
measurement systems: A consensual analysis of their roles. International Journal
of Production Economics 146, pp.524-542.

[15] Dombrowski, U., Mielke, T., 2013. Lean Leadership – fundamental principles
and their application. Procedia CIRP 7, 569 -574.
[16] Dombrowski, U., Mielke, T., 2014. Lean Leadership - 15 Rules for a sustainable
Lean Implementation. Procedia CIRP 17, 565 -570.
[17] Felice, F.D., Petrillo, A., Monfreda, S., 2013. Improving Operations Performance
with World Class Manufacturing Technique: A Case in Automotive Industry.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54450.
[18] Folan, P., Browne, J., 2005. A review of performance measurement: Towards
performance management. Computers in Industry 56, pp.663-680.
[19] Fullerton, R.R., McWatters, C.S., 2002. The role of performance measures and
incentive systems in relation to the degree of JIT implementation. Accounting,
Organizations and Society 27, 711–735.
[20] Fullerton, R.R, Kennedy, F.A, Widener, S.K, 2013. Management accounting and
control practices in a lean manufacturing environment. Accounting,
Organizations and Society 38, pp.50-71.
[21] Giovani J.C. da Silveira, G.J.C., 2006. Effects of simplicity and discipline on
operational flexibility: An empirical reexamination of the rigid flexibility model.
Journal of Operations Management 24, pp.932–947.
[22] 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, pp.197–
213.
[23] Grasso, L. P., 2005. Are ABC and RCA accounting systems compatible with lean
management? Management Accounting Quarterly 7(1), pp.12–27.
[24] Hanenkamp, N., 2013. The Process Model for Shop Floor Management
Implementation. Advances in Industrial Engineering and Management 2 (1),
pp.40-46.
[25] Handel, J.M., 2014. Theories of lean management: An empirical evaluation.
Social science research 44, pp.86-102.
[26] Jaeger, A., Matyas, K., Sihn, W., 2014.Development of an assessment framework
for Operations Excellence (OsE), based on the paradigm change in Operational
Excellence (OE). Procedia CIRP 17, pp.487- 492.
[27] 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 04
(02), pp.542-547.
[28] 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),
pp.1258-1270.
[29] Liker, J., 2004. Le modèle Toyota 14 principes qui feront la réussite de votre
entreprise. Pearson France, Paris.
[30] Liker, J., Ogden, T., 2011. Toyota, un modèle de gestion de crise. Pearson
Education France, Paris.
[31] Martinez-Jurado, J.P., Moyano-Fuentesa, J., Jerez-Gômezb, P., 2014. Human
resource management in Lean Production adoption and implementation
processes: Success factors in the aeronautics industry. BRQ Business Research
Quarterly 17, pp.47-68.
[32] Melnyk, S.A., Stewart, D.M., Swink, M., 2004. Metrics and performance
measurement in operations management: dealing with the metrics maze. Journal
of Operations Management 22, pp.209-217.

[33] Micheli, P., Mari, L., 2014. The theory and practice of performance
measurement. Management Accounting Research 25, pp.147-156.
[34] Mol, M.J., Birkinshaw, J., 2009. The sources of management innovation: When
firms introduce new management practices. Journal of Business Research 62,pp.
1269-1280.
[35] Nik-Mata, N.E.M., Kamaruzzaman, S.N., Pitt, M., 2011. Assessing the
Maintenance Aspect of Facilities Management through a performance
Measurement System: A Malaysian Case Study. Procedia Engineering 20,
pp.329-338.
[36] Pagell, M., Krause, D.R., 1999. A multiple-method study of environmental
uncertainty and manufacturing flexibility. Journal of Operations Management 17
(3), pp.307-325.
[37] Schonberger, R. J., 1982. Some observations on the advantages and
implementation issues of just-in-time production systems. Journal of Operations
Management 3(1), pp.1-11.
[38] Steers, R.M., Won Shul Shim, W.S., 2013. Strong leaders, strong cultures: Global
management lessons from Toyota and Hyundai. Organizational Dynamics 42,
217-227.
[39] Scott, B.S., Wilcock, A.E., Kanetkar, V., 2009. A survey of structured
continuous improvement programs in the Canadian food sector. Food Control 20,
pp.209-217.
[40] Susilawati, A., Tan,J., Bell, D., Sarwar, M., 2013. Develop a framework of
performance measurement and improvement system for lean manufacturing
activity. 3rd International Conference on Trends in Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering (ICTMIE'2013) January 8-9, Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia).
[41] Ukko, J., Tenhunen, J., Rantanen, H., 2007. Performance measurement impacts
on management and leadership: Perspectives of management and employees
International Journal of Production Economics 110, pp.39-51.
[42] Womack, J., Jones, D., 2006. Le système Lean : Penser à l’entreprise au plus
juste. Pearson France, Paris.

Ijm 06 09_002

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Ijm 06 09_002

Similar to Ijm 06 09_002 (20)

More from IAEME Publication

More from IAEME Publication (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ijm 06 09_002