Beyond Read a plant fast (for lean): read an enterprise for

mass customization?
Mica Comstock and Staffan Brte

Authors contacts:
Mica Comstock, Licentiate of Engineering, M.B.A. (Contact Author)
Linkping University, Institute of Technology, Sweden
Produktionssystem, IKP
Linkpings Tekniska Hgskola
58183 Linkping, Sweden
Tel: +46 (0) 13 282795
Fax: +46 (0) 13 282798
micco@ikp.liu.se
Staffan Brte, Ph.D.
Jnkping University, School of Engineering, Sweden

Abstract: In this paper, a preliminary tool is presented for use in the analysis of the
mass customization situation at an enterprise. The new tool is a modification and
expansion of an existing lean manufacturing tool called the Rapid Plant Assessment
(RPA). To do so, the relationship between lean manufacturing and mass
customization is first discussed in terms of the similarities and differences between
the two manufacturing strategies. Next, a review of existing tools for lean production
and mass customization is made, with a focus on a popular RPA lean manufacturing
tool, which is described in detail in Read a Plant Fast (Goodson, 2002). Following
this, the requirements for a modified and expanded tool are suggested, leading to the
initial development of what the authors call Read an Enterprise for Mass
Customization (REMC). The REMC is then applied to a number of cases in Swedish
industry, and the results of this application are presented. The ensuing discussion
includes the applicability of the tool in practice and the benefits of such a tool for
industry. Finally, suggestions are made for the further development of the tool and its
continued utilization in industrial settings.

The Lean Manufacturing Mass Customization Relationship

Lean manufacturing and mass customization are two of the most popular
manufacturing strategy buzzwords heard today, and given their close relationship,
they are often spoken of together. For example, in their review of the customization
literature, Da Silveira et al. (2001) grouped what they called the enabling processes
and methodologies for mass customization into the areas of agile manufacturing,
supply chain management, customer-driven design and manufacturing, and lean
manufacturing. According to the same authors, lean manufacturing represents an
efficient way to satisfy customer needs while giving producers a competitive edge.
Mass Customization, they continue, addresses four elements of lean production:
product development, the chain of supply, shop floor management and after-sales
services. Sahin (2000) also showed the relationship of mass customization and lean
manufacturing based on her review of the literature. In figure 1, the similarities and
differences between several currently implemented manufacturing initiatives
Focused Factories, Lean Manufacturing, Mass Customization, and Agile
Manufacturing are shown.

- Manageable set of
products and volumes
- High work standardization

- Higher degree of learning curve

- Cross-functional communication
- Plant-within-a plant (PWP)

- Continuous Improvement (CI)

- Simple, reliable, flexible equipment
- Employee involvement & empowerment
- Reduced setup and changeover
times
- Flexibility to planned
change
- Low cost, high quality,
customized products
- High product variety
- Use of modules
- Economies of scale S

products and volumes

- High work standardization

- Continuous Improvement (CI)

- Simple, reliable, flexible equipment
- Employee involvement & empowerment
- Reduced setup and changeover
times

MA
SS
CU
ST
OM
IZA
TIO
N

- Relatively stable
environment
- Machine cells

- Automation
minimized

- Concurrent design
- Produce-to-order
- Teamwork
- Quality measured by
customer satisfaction
- Use of IT and BPR
- Changing environment
- Dynamic structure
- All levels of production
- Economies of scope
- Integration of the value chain

- Virtual
organizations
- Flexibility to
unplanned
change

M
A
N
U
FA
C
TU
R
IN
G

- Flexibility to planned
change
- Low cost, high quality,
customized products
- High product variety
- Use of modules
- Economies of scale

FA
CT
UR
IN
G

A
G
IL
E

- Higher degree of learning curve

- Cross-functional communication
- Plant-within-a plant (PWP)

- Virtual
organizations
L-EFlexibility to
AN
unplanned
MA
NU
change

CU
ST
OM
IZA
TIO
N

- Automation
minimized

A
G
IL

MA
SS

- Concurrent design
- Produce-to-order
- Quality measured by
customer satisfaction
- Use of IT and BPR
- Changing environment
- Dynamic structure
CU
- All levels of production
O
YF
R
- Economies of scope
TO
C
Integration of the value
chain
- Simplicity, repetition,- experience
- Manageable
set of
FA

- Relatively stable
environment
- Machine cells

FA
C
TU
R
IN
G

OR
CT
- Simplicity, repetition, experience
FA

LE
AN
MA
NU
FA
CT
UR
ING

M
A
N
U

US
OC
YF

Figure 1. Current manufacturing initiatives and their features (Sahin, 2000).

Others authors view lean manufacturing as part of the evolution of manufacturing

leading up to mass customization. Oleson (1998) calls his concurrent evolutionary
model, shown in Figure 2, Stages of Development.

Mass Customization
Lean Manufacturing
Mass Production
Crafts Workers
Planter/Reaper
Hunter/Gatherer
Yesterday

Today

Tomorrow

Time

Figure 2. Stages of development (Oleson, 1998).

In Figure 2, Olesons Stages of Development focus on the major shifts in technology

throughout history, and include the innovation of new manufacturing methods and
technologies. For example, Olesons model shows the transition of the
Hunter/Gatherer to Planter/Reaper, as well as the transition from Mass Production to
Lean Manufacturing, which he seems to view as equally significant. According to
Oleson, we are now in the midst of a transition towards a new stage of development,
namely Mass Customization, which will be enabled by yet the next wave of
manufacturing innovations.
Taking a similar but yet different view, Pine (in Anderson and Pine, 1997) also notes
the evolutionary shift from continuous improvement to mass customization (see figure
3), but sees this as an ongoing, repetitive process.
Renew
Dynamic

Product
Change

Stable

Mass
Customization

Invention

Develop

Modularize

Continuous
Improvement

Mass Production

Link
Stable

Dynamic

Process Change

Figure 3: The new competitive reality (Anderson and Pine, 1997)

In Figure 3, Pine defines four different business models, beginning with the Invention
Model. Invention includes craft producers, entrepreneurs, units of large companies,
and others that compete on high differentiation. In this model, both product and
process change are dynamic. Inventors are linked to the model of Mass Production,
as they are the research and development organizations that develop products for
Mass Production. Mass Production, in turn, is typified by stability in both product and
process change. Continuous improvement then takes the stable processes of Mass
Production and makes them dynamic. In the next shift, Modularization of both
products and processes enables the realization of customized production with the
low cost and high quality typical of Continuous Improvement. The loop is completed
when the input for mass customization is renewed with a return to the invention
model. This could be, for example, when there are requirements for a new product.
Pine et al. (1993) are emphatic, however, that Mass Customization not be viewed as
"continuous improvement plus" - i.e. an extension of continuous improvement.
Rather, these authors are of the opinion that the two concepts are in fact distinct
paradigms, with different organizational structures, values, management roles and
systems, learning methods, and ways of relating to their customers (Pine, Victor, and
Boyton, 1993).
Support Tools for Lean Manufacturing and Mass Customization
Lean manufacturing has been a popular manufacturing concept for a longer period of
time than mass customization, given its rapid development at the Toyota Motor
Company in the aftermath of Post World War Two Japan and its eventual
implementation throughout much of the industrial world following Womack and Jones
(1990) The machine that changed the world. Mass customization, on the other hand,
is a relatively new concept. Despite its prediction by future-oriented thinkers such as
Toffler (1970) and Davis (1987), mass customization did not begin to gain
mainstream popularity before Pines (1993) landmark Mass Customization The
New Frontier in Business Competition was published.
Not surprisingly, there are a large number of tools that have been developed to
measure the leanness of a company, but far fewer exist which can determine a
companys level of mass customization. One of the support tools for mass
customization include Pines (1993) Market Turbulence Map, which can help a
company to determine if it should consider a mass customization strategy based on
its competitive situation. Another such supporting tool is a recent checklist by
Berman (2002). Bermans checklist builds upon Zipkin (2001), who describes three
main elements for mass customization realization: (customer) elicitation, process
flexibility and logistics. There are also several mass customization frameworks that
can be further developed into checklists to use in determining the status of the
strategy at a company. For example, Comstock (2001) developed an extensive
questionnaire based on the Key Decision Factors for Mass Customization
framework by Hart (1995) to guide his analysis of a case in the Swedish mobile
telephone industry.
The Rapid Plant Assessment (RPA)
A representative example of a tool that can be used to rapidly determine if a factory
is lean or not is called the Rapid Plant Assessment (RPA). The RPA, which is

described in detail in Goodsons (2002) Read a Plant Fast, was developed to train
managers to approach a plant tour with an educated eye, one that could discern a
plants strengths and weaknesses in the area of lean manufacturing. The RPA is
also a tool that has been used in more than 400 tours of over 150 operations since
1998, not to mention its current application in Swedish industrial studies. The RPA
consists of a yes or no checklist of 20 questions addressing various lean
manufacturing areas. The total number of yeses that a company achieves on the
questionnaire, according to Goodson (2002), is an indicator of a plants leanness, i.e.
the more yeses, the leaner the plant. These questions, in turn, are considered in a
rating sheet that addresses 11 categories ranging from customer satisfaction to
commitment to quality. Each category in the rating sheet, which is linked to two or
more of the checklist questions, receives a rating and associated point value ranging
from poor (1 point) to best in class (11 points). The RPA tool is designed for
simplicity, and can be used by the trained eye, according to Goodson (2002), to tell
if a factory is truly lean - in as little as 30 minutes.
Given the existence of tools like the RPA, and the previously mentioned suggestion
of lean manufacturing as a prerequisite for mass customization, an obvious question
begs to be answered: are there any similar tools for the determination of the level of
mass customization in a company, and if so, how suitable are these tools for their
purpose? Also, if such a tool were lacking, what would be its requirements? One
fairly simple approach would be to take a popular existing tool for lean
manufacturing, such as the RPA, for example, and modify or expand it for the
purpose of investigating the level of mass customization at a company. That is, in
short, what this research attempts to accomplish.
Requirements for an RPA-type tool for mass customization
In the development of the new tool, with the tentative name of Read an Enterprise for
Mass Customization (REMC), the basic assumption taken is that lean production is a
prerequisite for mass customization, and therefore what is mass customized must be
lean (see figure 4). However, the previous statement by Pine et al. (1993) that mass
customization should not be viewed as continuous improvement plus will be further
considered here.

Given the
success of
tools like...

... and the assumption that Lean

is a prerequisite
for Mass Customization

Why not ...

Renew

Read
a Plant
for Lean

Dynamic

Product
Change

Stable

M ass
Customization

Invention

Develop

Modularize

Mass
Production

Continuous
Improvement

Read
an
Enterprise
For MC!

Link
Stable

Dynamic

Process Change

Figure 4. Towards Read an Enterprise for Mass Customization.

The requirements for the new tool will be determined by a thorough review of the
RPA tool in order to determine what should be modified or added to make the new
tool applicable for the investigation of a mass customization strategy. Thus far,
preliminary requirements for such a tool include:

one that is not limited to a plant but rather considers an entire company or
even enterprise;
a tool with a focus expanded to include the three main elements of mass
customization (Zipkin, 2001) Customer Elicitation, Process Flexibility and
Logistics and the associated technological, methodological and conceptual
enablers that these three elements require; and
simplistic design and, as in the case of the RPA, relatively fast to administer.

The contributions and shortcomings of current tools for mass customization will also
be taken into account. For example, the previously mentioned Market Turbulence
Map of Pine (1993) is limited in that it has a limited focus of answering the question
of does my company need to mass customize given the current market situation?
Taking the example of Bermans checklist (2002), a shortcoming could lie in the
checklists simplicity, which only superficially touches on lean manufacturing.
Initial application of the tool: cases from Swedish industry
The modified and expanded tool, or REMC, will be applied to several ongoing cases
in Swedish industry to determine its practicality and value in actual industrial
situations. The results from the industrial cases will be presented in the paper.
Conclusions
Conclusions will include a summary of the applicability of the tool in practice and the
benefits of such a tool for industry. Any difficulties encountered during the application

of the REMC will also be summarized. Finally, suggestions will be made for the
further development of the REMC its continued utilization in industrial settings.
References

Anderson, D.M. / Pine, B.J. (1997): Agile Product Development for Mass
Customization, JIT, Build-to-Order, and Flexible Manufacturing, Chicago: Irwin.
Berman, B. (2002): Should your firm adopt a mass customization strategy? Business
Horizons, Vol 45, No. 4, pp. 51-60.
Comstock, M. (2001): Mass Customization: Perspectives, Applications and
Implications for a New Manufacturing Paradigm, Licentiate thesis No. 913,
Linkping Institute of Technology, Sweden.
Da Silveira, G. / Borenstein, D. / Fogliatto, F. (2001): Mass customization: Literature
review and research directions, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol
72, No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Davis, S. (1987): Future Perfect, Addison -Wesley, New York, NY.
Goodson, E. (2002): Read a plant fast, Harvard Business Review, Vol 80, No. 5, pp.
3-11.
Hart, C. (1995): Mass Customization: Conceptual Underpinnings, Opportunities and
Limits, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol 6, No. 2, pp. 3645.
Oleson, J. (1998): Pathways to Agility Mass Customization in Action, New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Pine, B.J. II (1993): Mass Customization: the New Frontier in Business Competition,
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Pine, J. / Victor, B. / Boyton, A. (1993): Making mass customization work, Harvard
Business Review, Vol 71, No. 5, pp. 108-116.
Sahin, F. (2000): Manufacturing competitiveness: different systems to achieve the
same results, Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol 41, No. 1, pp. 5665.
Toffler, A. (1970): Future Shock, Bantam.
Womack, J. / Jones, D. (1991): The Machine that Changed the World: How Japans
Secret Weapon In The Global Auto Wars Will Revolutionize Western Industry,
Zipkin, P. (2001): The limits of mass customization, MIT Sloan Management Review,
Spring.