LeanimplementationinIndianprocessindustries Someempiricalevidencepublished

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/273313152
Lean implementation in Indian process industries - Some empirical evidence
Article in Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management · February 2015

DOI: 10.1108/JMTM-05-2013-0049
CITATIONS READS
30 1,070
3 authors, including:
Avinash Panwar
Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur
12 PUBLICATIONS 146 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Lean implementation in Small and Medium Enterprises View project
to develop a lean framework for process sector of India View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Avinash Panwar on 29 August 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
Lean implementation in Indian process industries – some empirical evidence
Avinash Panwar Rakesh Jain A.P.S. Rathore
Article information:
To cite this document:
Avinash Panwar Rakesh Jain A.P.S. Rathore , (2015),"Lean implementation in Indian process
industries – some empirical evidence", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26 Iss
1 pp. 131 - 160
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-05-2013-0049
Downloaded on: 20 January 2015, At: 08:40 (PT)
Downloaded by Doctor avinash panwar At 08:40 20 January 2015 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 77 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 29 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Dimitrios Kafetzopoulos, Evangelos Psomas, (2015),"The impact of innovation capability on the
performance of manufacturing companies: The Greek case", Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 26 Iss 1 pp. 104-130 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-12-2012-0117
Xiangmeng Huang, Boon Leing Tan, Xiaoming Ding, (2015),"An exploratory survey of green supply
chain management in Chinese manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises: Pressures
and drivers", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26 Iss 1 pp. 80-103 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-05-2012-0053
Giuliano Almeida Marodin, Tarcísio Abreu Saurin, (2015),"Classification and relationships between
risks that affect lean production implementation: A study in southern Brazil", Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 26 Iss 1 pp. 57-79 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-12-2012-0113
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

Token:JournalAuthor:D6BE6661-03C6-4CDA-81E4-09BB3DCC40C5:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of
download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm
Lean implementation in Indian Lean

implementation
process industries – some
empirical evidence
Avinash Panwar 131
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Received 2 May 2013
Government R C Khaitan Polytechnic College, Jaipur, India Revised 20 November 2013
30 December 2013
Rakesh Jain Accepted 9 January 2014
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Malviya National Institute of Technology (MNIT), Jaipur, India, and
A.P.S. Rathore
Department of Management Studies,
Malviya National Institute of Technology (MNIT), Jaipur, India
Abstract
Purpose – In the present era of intense competition, industries are adopting lean manufacturing for
successful survival. The concept of lean manufacturing is new for Indian process industries. The
purpose of this paper is to investigate the status of lean manufacturing in Indian process industries in
terms of lean practices, reasons and challenges of implementing lean manufacturing.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey was carried out to assess the level of lean
implementation in Indian process industries. Statistical tests were conducted to assess the significant
lean practices, reasons and challenges of implementing lean in Indian process industries.
Findings – It is observed that the level of implementation of lean manufacturing in Indian process
industries is still low. Results indicate that Indian process industries those who have implemented lean
found lean to be very useful to reduce wastes and to increase quality. Major lean practices being
implemented by Indian process industries are primarily those which are related to waste elimination or
improvement in quality. Indian process industries found that important challenges to implement lean
are to produce in small batches, to arrange for lean experts and to impart training to employees.
Research limitations/implications – In the present study, the sample size is small and hence, the
findings should be generalized cautiously. Although the study indicates that lean can be very useful if
implemented in Indian process industries but further empirical studies are required to quantify
performance improvements through adoption of lean.
Originality/value – The paper explores status of lean adoption in Indian process industries.
Considering the unique characteristics of process industries, the present research would be helpful for
making strategies to implement lean in process industry setups.
Keywords India, Lean manufacturing, Performance improvement, Process industry
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In the present era of fierce competition, manufacturing organizations relentlessly make
efforts to improve their performance for successful survival (Hokoma et al., 2008).
According to Ghosh (2013), Indian manufacturing companies are also feeling the heat
of competition after the introduction of open market policies and industrial
Journal of Manufacturing
liberalization. Competition has intensified in all sectors whether it is service sector, Technology Management
discrete manufacturing or process manufacturing. Upadhye et al. (2010) underline Vol. 26 No. 1, 2015
pp. 131-160
that intense competition has motivated Indian manufacturing organizations to search © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-038X
methods to reduce cost and to deliver on time with high customer satisfaction. DOI 10.1108/JMTM-05-2013-0049
JMTM Dangayach and Deshmukh (2003) measured the competitiveness of manufacturing
26,1 industries of India and found that the process sector showed least competitiveness on
competitive priorities such as quality, cost, delivery, innovation and flexibility.
As a result, it seems to be imperative for process sector of India to search for new
business strategies, not only to outperform their competitors but also to combat
other market challenges. One possible solution is to adopt a suitable world class
132 manufacturing methodology such as “lean,” which is considered to be immensely
successful to improve overall performance of an organization (Upadhye et al., 2010).
Adoption of “lean” in discrete manufacturing is widespread. In-fact, its success in
discrete manufacturing has motivated other industries too to endeavor lean
(Garza-Reyes et al., 2012). However, in process industries lean methodology is not
common (Gebauer et al., 2009). Barely any literature is available about lean
implementation in process industries (Abdulmalek and Rajgopal, 2007). Moreover,
managers still feel scepticism about the validity of lean manufacturing in process
industry environment (Melton, 2005).

According to King (2009), the implementation of lean manufacturing is not straight
forward in process industries due to typical operational characteristics. For example,
process industries have continuous flow of material, very large, inflexible and fixed
capacity equipments, process dependence on time and temperature, and high volumes
with less variety of products (Crama et al., 2001). With such constraints it is a big
challenge to implement numerous lean practices in process industries such as “pull
production,” kanban, “setup reduction” and “cellular manufacturing,” which were
originally devised for discrete industries. Therefore, it is interesting to investigate
that a philosophy which was evolved and developed in discrete manufacturing, up-to
what extent it is applicable in process industries.
Moreover, according to Ghosh (2013), adoption of lean manufacturing in India has
been started very recently. Hence, the status of lean implementation in India is
still ambiguous (Garza-Reyes et al., 2012). Therefore, it is uncertain whether
process industries in India are enthusiastic about implementation of lean, or not.
Comprehensive literature search confirms that till now no attempt has been made to
investigate the status of lean manufacturing in Indian process industries. This study is
the first attempt to fill this gap in research and will examine various aspects of
implementation of lean manufacturing in process sector of India.
Primary concern of the present study is to investigate whether Indian process
industries think lean is useful. It will also be discovered if Indian process industries
actually have started implementing lean. Subsequently, we will try to find out reasons
of adoption of lean in Indian process industries. It will not only help to guide the use of
lean tools but will also help to decide the target values of benefits perceived by process
industries. In conjunction with reasons of adoption, it is also important to identify the
challenges to implement lean. Otherwise, the implementation exercises may go in vain.
Lean implementation can be highly successful if the challenges to implement lean are
dealt carefully. Finally, it is important to analyze that while lean is proved to be
powerful tool to eliminate wastes and to improve performance, why process industries
hesitate to adopt it?
In the present paper we carried out a survey to address the above mentioned issues
related to lean manufacturing implementation in Indian process industries. The paper
is organized as follows. Section 2 deals with literature review. Studies focussed around
lean implementation issues, and characteristics of process industries are discussed in
this section. Research methodology and the observations of the study are presented
in Sections 3 and 4, respectively. Section 5 presents results of the study and important Lean
insights. Lastly, in Section 6, conclusions drawn and directions for future research implementation
are discussed.
2. Literature review in context to lean implementation in process industries

2.1 Lean manufacturing
Lean is a production philosophy, which considers that any activity which consumes 133
resources but not create value for the end customer is wasteful, and therefore
should be eliminated (Womack et al., 1990; Shah and Ward, 2007; Antony, 2011).
According to Sohal (1996), lean production eliminates unnecessary processes,
align processes in continuous flow and solve problems through continuous
improvements. At operational level lean manufacturing is carried out through a set
of lean practices. By implementing these tools and techniques lean manufacturing
targets to identify and eliminate numerous wastes exist inside the factory or along
the supply chain.
2.2 Why adoption of lean manufacturing is vital for process industries?

Fundamentally, lean focusses on value to customer irrespective of the type of
business (Womack and Jones, 1996). Hence, lean manufacturing is applicable in process
industries too (Melton, 2005; Upadhye et al., 2010). However, it is important to
investigate whether adoption of lean is significantly beneficial for process industries
or not.
According to Dennis and Meredith (2000) process industries are those industries
which have processes such as mixing, separating, forming and chemical reactions.
These processes are usually used to produce non discrete materials, for instance
liquids, pulps, gases, powders and slurries, which cannot be held without
containerization. Fransoo and Rutten (1994) suggest that batch process industries
have high “work in process (WIP)” whereas continuous flow process industries have
long setups with large batch sizes. They are less flexible to change and have
single routing and simple scheduling. Therefore, Shah (2005) suggests that process
industries have high levels of inventories in whole supply chain, very low material
efficiencies (1-10 percent) and several non value adding operations (up-to 95 percent).
Mady (1991) also found that process industries possess 24 percent inventory, and,
techniques such as just-in-time (JIT) can be very helpful to control inventory. For
example, Roy and Guin (1999), in their study of a steel manufacturing industry, suggest
that JIT purchasing can save a huge cost of carrying inventory.
Melton (2005) describes several other wastes in a process industry which can be
controlled through adoption of lean manufacturing. For example, process industries
have seasonal availability of raw material and huge processing equipments. Hence,
many process industries work on “make to stock” strategy. Therefore, raw materials,
finished product and auxiliary materials generally occupy huge spaces. Lean helps
to achieve better utilization of space and equipments (Billesbach, 1994; Cox and
Chicksand, 2005). It uncovers and resolves the bottlenecks resulting in less reworks and
eliminating non value added activities (NVAA) in process industries. In process
industries a major consideration is on cost reduction and return on assets due to
expensive specialized equipments, strict environmental considerations and high degree
of automation (Ashayeri et al., 1996). Hence, process industries are required to run
continuously without hindrances. The processing cannot be stopped in between
JMTM because it can result in severe loss of productivity. However, process industries have
26,1 equipments such as compressors, pumps, evaporators and heat exchangers and the
breakdowns are frequent (Billesbach, 1994). Lean manufacturing practices such as
“total productive maintenance” (TPM) and 5S are the most effective way to keep them
working all the time without breakdown (Sharma et al., 2005).
Moreover, setup time is generally very large in process industries because it
134 comprise of cleaning and washing of processing equipments (Billesbach, 1994). Lean
manufacturing techniques such as setup time reduction and quick changeover
techniques can be very effective to reduce setup times in process industries.
In addition to above reasons, Cook and Rogowski (1996) reported that
application of lean results in reduction in lead time, lead time variability and
accuracy in demand forecasting, saving a huge amount of working capital in
process industries. Finally, according to Zanoni and Zavanella (2005), in process
industries key processes depend on time and temperature, for example, cooling
in steel manufacturing, drying in paper and maturing in food industry. These

processes are generally carried out in warehouses and are very important from the
customer needs point of view because any delay can cause severe effect on quality.
Lean tools such as JIT and “pull production” can be very vital to carry out these
processes timely. Dov (1992) proved that JIT techniques such as “JIT deliveries,”
kanban and “pull production” are very effective to maintain the quality of product
in process industries.
Surprisingly, Gunasekaran (1998) found that despite high levels of inefficiencies
and wastes, only a limited application of world class manufacturing methods is found
in process industries.
2.3 Empirical analysis regarding lean implementation in process industries

In order to investigate the relevant issues, it was considered important to summarize
the outcomes of key empirical research focussed upon lean implementation in process
industries. These findings are presented in Table I.
Based on findings of Table I, we identified following key issues discussed in
research which lead to the questionnaire formation:
2.3.1 Effect of size and type. The survey of 95 pharmaceutical organizations from
20 European countries, undertaken by Gebauer et al. (2009), revealed that contextual
factors such as plant size and company type have an influence on the degree of
implementation of lean practices. Conversely, in a survey of 1748 US firms, including
discrete and process industries both, Shah and Ward (2003) identified that lean
practices are widespread in all industries regardless of its type. In a similar survey of 51
Australian industries including 69 percent industries from process sector, Sohal and
Egglestone (1994) also found that substantial benefits can be achieved through
implementation of lean manufacturing despite of type or size of industry. Bonavia and
Marin (2006) and Moriones et al. (2008) also claim that lean can be applied in any
production setup regardless of its type, size or age.
2.3.2 Performance improvement through lean implementation. White (1993), in a
survey of 494 US manufacturing firms including large proportion of process industries,
found that JIT is helpful in reducing lead time, decreasing throughput time, improving
production quality, increasing productivity and enhancing customer responsiveness.
Fullerton (2003) surveyed 253 US firms including 58 process industries and found that
only 14 out of 58 process industries were using JIT techniques, however, lean industries
Type of industry and

Literature reference geographical area Focus of investigation Key findings
Mady (1991) 44 manufacturing Effect of type of industry on Inventory represents 24 percent of total assets in process
enterprises in Egypt inventory control industries. Techniques such as MRP, JIT, Kanban, and zero
including textile, food and inventory are useful for inventory management
chemical companies
White (1993) 494 US manufacturing firms Benefits of JIT 90 percent gained benefits from implementing JIT. JIT is helpful in
including large portion of implementation reducing lead time, decreasing throughput time, improving
process industries production quality, increasing productivity and enhancing
customer responsiveness
Sohal and Egglestone 51 Australian industries Status of lean 82 percent industries were practicing lean manufacturing.
(1994) including 69 percent implementation Substantial benefits can be achieved through implementation of
industries from process lean manufacturing despite of type or size of industry
sector
Besson and Haddadj 50 US chemical firms Effect of employees’ skill on Successful implementation of lean manufacturing needs elevation
(1999) lean adoption in employees’ skills
Gyampah and Gargeya 48 manufacturing firms in Status of JIT Same fundamental understanding of JIT as in developed countries.
(2001) Ghana (most of the firms are implementation JIT manufacturing firms give emphasis on employees’ training,
from process sector) cellular manufacturing, setup time reduction, continuous quality
improvement and supplier relationship
Soriano-Meier and Survey of 30 UK ceramics Factors affecting JIT Lean production’s effects can only be seen in long term. There
Forrester (2002) industries implementation exists strong relationship between managerial commitment and JIT
implementation
White and Prybutok 494 US manufacturing firms Comparison of JIT practices Repetitive process industries have higher utilization of JIT
(2001) (including continuous flow implementation practices in comparison with non repetitive industries like job or
industries) batch production
Shah and Ward (2003) 1748 US manufacturing Investigation of lean Lean implementation depends on plant age and size but not on
firms practices implementation type. JIT practices are more common in discrete industries and
TPM practices are more likely to be implemented in process
industries
(continued )
process industries
Survey studies
Table I.
implementation in
regarding lean
Lean
135
implementation
26,1
136
Table I.
JMTM

Fullerton (2003) 253 US firms including 58 Benefits of implementing Only 14 out of 58 process industries were using JIT. JIT firms are
process industries JIT more profit earning than non JIT firms
Salaheldin (2005) 94 Manufacturing firms in Status of JIT 16.08 percent food industries and 25 percent chemical industries
Egypt (including 34 process implementation had implemented JIT philosophy. Implementing JIT can
industries) significantly improve the performance. It can be successfully
implemented just like in USA or Japan
Bonavia and Marin 76 ceramic tile industries in Investigation of lean Most lean practices are still not widespread. Quality control and
(2006) Spain practices implementation TPM are common whereas other practices are absent. Lean
practices generally do not depend on plant size
Taj (2008) 65 Chinese industries Areas of lean assessment The major areas of lean assessment are inventory, team approach,
including textile, chemical, process, maintenance, layout and handling, suppliers, setup,
petroleum and food quality, and scheduling/control. Petroleum industry has shown
industries highest level of performance on these assessment areas
Koumanakos (2008) 1,358 Greek process Benefits of lean Higher the inventory level, lower the rate of return. Lean
industries including food, implementation manufacturing makes an industry more efficient in terms of
chemical and textile profitability
Hokoma et al. (2008) 36 cement industries in Reasons of non Only 14 percent were implementing JIT. Prominent reasons were
Libya implementation of JIT lack of top management support and unfamiliarity with JIT
practices. Although JIT implementation is perceived as a useful
methodology
Moriones et al. (2008) 203 industries in Spain Factors affecting JIT JIT can be applied in any production setup and does not depend on
including major part from implementation size or age of plant. JIT implementation is low in paper and textile
food and drink, chemical, industries. Advanced manufacturing technology, quality
paper, rubber and plastic, management, collaboration with suppliers and customers and,
primary metal and textile work organization positively affect JIT implementation
Chen and Shang (2008) Survey of 246 Chinese Status of JIT and MRP JIT has been widely accepted in China. 84 process industries
industries including 107 implementation included in survey were using only JIT or a combined MRP/ JIT
process industries system. Most notable JIT components are “setup reduction”, 5S,
(continued )

kaizen, “cross training” and “multi functional team.” Kanban and
“pull production” are rarely used
Scott et al. (2009) 46 respondents from Investigation of continuous 23.1 percent food processing units have implemented lean
Canadian food improvement programme manufacturing as structured continuous improvement programme
manufacturing industry
Hokoma et al. (2010) 32 iron and steel industries Investigation of status of Only 17 percent industries were using JIT/MRPII. Managerial
in Libya JIT and MRPII commitment is must to incorporate JIT
Gebauer et al. (2009) 95 pharmaceutical Investigation of lean Plant size and company type have positive effect lean
organizations from 20 manufacturing adoption implementation. Lean manufacturing helps to enhance operational
European countries performance. The adoption rate of lean manufacturing in
pharmaceutical sector is still low
Rahman et al. (2010) 187 manufacturing firms in Comparison of large and Large industries emphasize more on JIT whereas small industries
Thailand including process small industries in regards emphasize more on waste minimization. Adoption of lean
industries such as food and to lean practices manufacturing significantly affects operational performance
textile implementation
Small et al. (2011) 64 USA firms including 37 Assessing the In low or moderate level of technology firms, kaizen, benchmarking
process industries implementation of process and TQM were more popular initiatives in comparison with lean
management initiatives manufacturing
Bhasin (2012) 68 UK manufacturing firms Obstacles to adopt lean Major obstacles to implement lean are “insufficient supervisory
including process industries skills to implement lean,” “insufficient workforce skills to
implement lean,” “resistance to change” and “insufficient senior
management skills to implement lean”
Lyons et al. (2013) 62 UK process industries Implementation of lean Only those lean practices are extensively used in process industries
practices which are associated with elimination of wastes. Use of 5S, TPM,
quality management, visual control and SPC is widespread,
whereas use of cellular manufacturing, JIT production and pull
production is rare
Lean
Table I.
137
implementation
JMTM which employ JIT manufacturing practices are more profit earning then non JIT firms.
26,1 In a study of 65 Chinese industries including textile, chemical, petroleum and food
industries, Taj (2008) revealed that the major areas of performance improvement
through lean as perceived by the practitioners are inventory, team approach, process,
maintenance, layout and handling, suppliers, setup, quality and scheduling/control.
According to Singh et al. (2010a), with the application of lean manufacturing,
138 wastes related to human efforts, inventory, time to market, and manufacturing space
can be reduced.
2.3.3 Application of lean practices in process industries. Shah and Ward (2003)
investigated the adoption of 22 lean practices in discrete and process industries and
found that lean practices related to TPM prevailed more in process industries and lean
practices related to JIT production were less implemented in process industries.
In a study of 246 Chinese firms, Chen and Shang (2008) found that most notable
JIT components used by Chinese firms are “setup reduction,” 5S, kaizen, “cross
training” and “multi functional team.” Authors found that Kanban and “pull
production” are rarely used in Chinese firms.
Lyons et al. (2013) undertook a survey of 62 process industries in UK and explored
that only those lean practices are extensively used in process industries which are
associated with elimination of wastes. Authors found that use of 5S, TPM, “quality
management,” “visual control” and “statistical process control” (SPC) is widespread in
process industries, whereas use of “cellular manufacturing”, “JIT production” and “pull
production” is rare. In context to textile industries, Hodge et al. (2011) observed that
those who have implemented lean showed significant use of lean tools such as 5S,
kaizen, “value stream mapping” (VSM), and “visual control.” Whereas, lean tools
such as “cellular manufacturing,” kanban, “mistake proofing,” “policy deployment” and
“rapid improvements” were rarely used.
All these studies portray that 5S, TPM, “quality management,” “visual control,” SPC
and “work standardization” are in general applicable in process industries. These
studies also suggest that lean tools which are primarily related to JIT production
such as ‘pull production, kanban and “cellular manufacturing” are rarely used in
process industries.
2.3.4 Challenges to implement lean. Process industry environment imposes
certain challenges while implementing lean. In process industries batch sizes are
constrained by the fixed capacity of the processing equipment. If the batch quantity is
changed to a smaller quantity to implement JIT principles, this can result in poor
mixing and access waste (Ezingeard and Race, 1995). It can also need to expand
facilities, in order to have various sized mixing vessels to different batch sizes. Second,
large batch runs are essential for process industries due to large and inflexible
machines with long setup and changeover times which in turn demands maximum
utilization of resources (Powell et al., 2010). Houghton and Portougal (1995) warn that it
is difficult to achieve batch size reduction in process industries because it is associated
with setup reduction which is challenging with large fixed capacity equipments. Short
required lead times also limit the application of lean strategy in supply chains in
process industries (van der Vorst et al., 2001). Sewig (2008) and Melton (2005) describe
that resistance to change and confusion on validity are to be surmounted while
implementation of lean in process industries. Lack of training and unawareness about
lean concepts are also the major challenges which need proper attention while
implementing lean concepts in process industries. Another challenge to implement lean
in process industries is the difficulty to find expert personnel who leads the change Lean
(Kamakura, 2006). implementation
In a recent study of 68 UK manufacturing firms, Bhasin (2012) revealed following
obstacles to implement lean:
• insufficient supervisory skills to implement lean – 66 percent;
• employee attitudes/resistance to change – 60 percent; 139
• insufficient workforce skills to implement lean – 59 percent;
• insufficient senior management skills to implement lean – 58 percent;
• insufficient management time – 54 percent;
• cultural issues – 51 percent;
• cost of the investment – 50 percent;
• insufficient understanding of the potential benefits – 47 percent;

• insufficient internal funding – 46 percent;
• insufficient external funding – 39 percent; and
• a need to convince shareholders/owners – 22 percent.
2.3.5 Reasons of not implementing lean in process industries. In a study of 36 cement
industries in Libya, Hokoma et al. (2008) found that only 14 percent were implementing
JIT. Authors investigated major reasons as lack of top management support and
unfamiliarity with JIT practices, for low level of lean implementation. In another study
of iron and steel industries of Libya, Hokoma et al. (2010) listed following reasons of non
implementation of TQM/JIT techniques:
• lack of senior management support – 11.1 percent;
• lack of interest within the companies – 11.1 percent;
• the implementation requires formal approval – 0.0 percent;
• TQM/JIT/MRPII does not fit well with the company – 0.0 percent;
• the company is not familiar with TQM/JIT/MRPII – 77.8 percent;
• TQM/JIT/MRPII is too expensive to implement – 0.0 percent; and
• TQM/JIT/MRPII is too complex to implement – 0.0 percent.
It is evident from Table I that process industries have significant scope for
improvements regarding inventory control, waste elimination, quality management,
continuous improvements and customer satisfaction (Mady, 1991; Koumanakos, 2008;
Gebauer et al., 2009). However, process industries are far behind to the discrete
industries as far as lean adoption is concerned. Also, lean manufacturing is less popular
in process industries than in discrete manufacturing as a performance improvement
tool (Small et al., 2011). Hence, most lean manufacturing practices are still not
widespread in process industries (Bonavia and Marin, 2006).
Table I also revealed that “lean” adoption rate is higher in countries such
as USA, Australia and China, whereas in developing countries the implementation
of lean manufacturing is still not extensive (Hokoma et al., 2008; Hokoma
et al., 2010).
JMTM 2.4 Literature regarding lean implementation in Indian industries
26,1 Table II lists previous studies carried out in context to lean implementation in
manufacturing industries in India. Mukhopadhyay et al. (1998), Roy and Guin (1999),
Dhandapani et al. (2004), Upadhye et al. (2010) and recently, Gupta et al. (2013) have
attempted to study the implementation of lean manufacturing in certain process
industries in India and illustrated that “lean” can result in numerous benefits.
140 Upadhye et al. (2010) applied VSM in a biscuit manufacturing plant and found that
application of lean manufacturing resulted in increase in quality, decrease in inventory,
increase in timely deliveries, better utilization of space and equipments and reduction in
lead time. Gupta et al. (2013) studied the application of lean manufacturing in a radial
tyre manufacturing firm and found that organizational culture and human resource
management play a vital role to manage the change. Authors also found that major
causes of high manufacturing cost were over-processing and excessive defects.
Case studies discussed in Table II confirm that efforts to implement lean in process
industries are being carried out in India for quite a time. Although, these studies
provide some important insights about implementation of lean in Indian process
industries but their scope is confined to a particular firm or a particular type of process
industry. Hence, their results cannot be generalized, as stated by Gupta et al. (2013).
Second, Table II confirms that considerable empirical research has been carried out
in Indian manufacturing industries regarding lean implementation issues (Singh et al.,
2010b; Garza-Reyes et al., 2012; Ghosh, 2013), but there is barely any exploratory
research focussed upon process sector of India. Present empirical study will bridge this
gap in research by addressing the prominent issues regarding lean implementation in
Indian process industries and will furnish important outcomes for general application
and upcoming research.
3. Research methodology
3.1 Development of survey instrument
Comprehensive literature review lead to the establishment of four issues, namely,
“reasons of lean implementation,” “reasons of not implementing lean,” “lean tools” and
“challenges while implementing lean” to fully explore the status of lean implementation
in Indian process industries. Accordingly, the survey questionnaire was developed.
Subsequently, the draft of survey questionnaire was discussed with academicians,
practitioners and other experts to maintain the quality of questionnaire in the form of
appropriateness and focus on relevant issues. Finally, a structured questionnaire
was designed.
The questionnaire was split in three parts. First part contained five questions
about general information of the company. The second part of questionnaire had
three questions related to awareness about lean manufacturing. Last part of the
questionnaire was related to lean manufacturing issues. There were four questions in
the last part to identify “reasons of not implementing lean,” “reasons of implementing
lean,” “lean practices” and “challenges while implementing lean,” respectively.
Table III summarizes the lean implementation issues and their corresponding items
identified along with the literature sources.
A five point Likert scale which ranged from 1 ¼ “not use at all” to 5 ¼ “always use,”
was used for the measures of “lean practices.” For the rest of the issues same scale was
used for all items, ranged from 1 ¼ “not important” to 5 ¼ “most important.” A copy of
the survey questionnaire is furnished in Appendix.
Literature Type of process industry Type of study Major findings
Mukhopadhyay et al. (1998) Pharmaceutical Case study Integrated production planning system was helpful to implement lean
concepts in pharmaceutical firm
Roy and Guin (1999) Steel Case study Application of JIT in purchasing resulted in considerable cost savings
Dhandapani et al. (2004) Steel Case study Applying JIT production resulted in release of working capital and
decrease in inventory
Mahapatra and Mohanty 29 continuous Survey Most important lean tools are TPM, “automatic line stoppage,” VSM,
(2007) manufacturing industries “workplace organization” and “visual control.” Least important lean
in India practices are “work standardization,” “multipurpose handling” and takt
time. Continuous process industries perceive higher benefits than
discrete industries from lean manufacturing. Lack of management
support is most prevailing problem in implementing lean
Seth et al. (2008) Comprising 37 respondents Survey Used value stream mapping and proved that there exist several non
from edible oil industry value added activities in the supply chain of edible oil industry
Upadhye et al. (2010) Biscuit Case study Used value stream mapping and identified several wastes in the
manufacturing of biscuits
Singh et al. (2010b) 127 manufacturing Survey Major reasons of lean implementation in Indian manufacturing
industries industries included reduction of delivery time, reduction in cost,
enhancing range of products and due to stiff competition
Upasani (2012) 47 process industries Survey Indian process industries lag far behind the other industries in
implementation of supply chain management practices such as lean
manufacturing
Garza-Reyes et al. (2012) 46 manufacturing Survey Most important reason of lean implementation in Indian industries is
industries customer satisfaction. Kaizen is perceived as an important lean tool by
Indian industries
Ghosh (2013) 79 manufacturing Survey Although, the concept of lean is new for Indian industries, still several
industries Indian companies are at advanced level of lean implementation, and by
implementing lean they have achieved better operational performance
(continued )
Indian industries
Lean
Previous studies
141
implementation in
regarding lean
Table II.
implementation
26,1
142
JMTM
Table II.
Literature Type of process industry Type of study Major findings
Khadse et al. (2013) 31 large manufacturing Survey TPM, continuous improvements and inventory reduction are primarily
industries used lean practices in Indian manufacturing industries. Reduction in
cost and wastes are the major benefits of lean implementation, while
“lack of understanding,” lack of top management support’ and
“financial benefits not recognized” are the major obstacles while
implementing lean
Gupta et al. (2013) Tyre Case study The important enablers for successful lean implementation are
organizational culture and human resource management. Over-
processing and excessive defects are the most important wastes in
radial tyre manufacturing. Lean practices are still in the nascent stage
in the industry
Lean Implementation issue No. of items Items Literature source Cronbach’s α
Reasons of implementing 8 Elimination of wastes White (1993), Taj (2008), Singh 0.657
lean To decrease production costs et al. (2010b)
To improve quality
To facilitate JIT production
To increase demand management efficiency
To increase customer satisfaction
To increase supply chain efficiency
To increase utilization of space
Lean practices 20 Value stream mapping (VSM) Shah and Ward (2003), Lyons 0.800
5S et al. (2013)
Quick changeover techniques (SMED)
Setup reduction
Lot-size reduction
Total productive maintenance (TPM)
Visual control
Work standardization
Statistical process control (SPC)
Quality management programme
Takt time
Pull production
production levelling
mistake proofing
Kanban
Cellular manufacturing
Flexible and cross functional teams
Continuous improvement programmes
Supplier integration and partnership
Long-term relationship with suppliers
(continued )
internal consistency
Literature summary
of lean issues and
Table III.
Lean
test of reliability for

143
implementation
26,1
144
JMTM
Table III.
Lean Implementation issue No. of items Items Literature source Cronbach’s α
Challenges to implement 11 To facilitate small batch production Bhasin (2012), Ezingeard and 0.603
lean To identify techniques for setup time reduction Race (1995), Houghton and
To deal with typical process characteristics (time and Portougal (1995), Powell et al.,
temperature, etc.) (2010), van der Vorst
To arrange lean implementation experts et al. (2001)
Scepticism/ cultural barriers
Lack of training
Short lead times
Perishable nature of products
Improper information exchange across supply chain
To facilitate JIT production
To facilitate JIT purchasing
Reasons of not 9 Large batch production is necessary for capacity Ezingeard and Race (1995), 0.721
implementing lean utilization Hokoma et al. (2008),
Process industries already have continuous Hokoma et al. (2010)
production
Lack of education and expertise on lean
Lack of financial resources
Lack of time
Cultural barriers (resistance to change)
Specific characteristics of process industries (time,
temperature and process dependence)
Lack of senior management’s interest and support
Lean is complex to implement
3.2 Survey administration Lean
A sample of 500 companies was taken from directory of ISO: 9001 certified process implementation
industries in India. Primarily, postal survey method was used to administer the
questionnaire. It was observed that initially the response rate was low in-spite of
repeated reminders. Hence, it was decided to search other means to increase response
rate. A few responses were collected through conducting face to face interviews. In
some instances, responses were collected through third party channels. These efforts 145
helped, and the response rate increased. To increase the response rate further,
emails were sent, followed by a telephonic request for reply. The questionnaire was
addressed to higher executives who were responsible for production. Finally, 126
responses received.
3.3 Reliability of instrument for internal consistency

A measuring instrument should provide consistent results, and for it, test of reliability
is carried out. Cronbach’s α was calculated for all the responses for all constructs.
Variables having value of α more than 0.60 were considered to be highly reliable.
4. Observations of survey
Out of contacted 500 Indian process industries, 126 responded. In all, six responses
were incomplete which were excluded from further analysis. Hence, the number of valid
responses was 120. Therefore, the response rate achieved was 24 percent. It is worth
mentioning that response rate achieved in present study is similar to other such studies
carried out in Indian context. Ghosh (2013) in a study of lean manufacturing
implementation in Indian manufacturing companies received the response rate of 20
percent. In similar studies, Upasani (2012) and Pandey et al. (2010) could achieve the
response rate of 17.5 and 18.02 percent, respectively. Nonetheless, according to
Malhotra and Grover (1998) and Sahay et al. (2006) this response rate is adequate in
India for this type of surveys.
Respondents were asked if they are familiar with concept of lean manufacturing.
Surprisingly, 85 (70.8 percent) respondents replied that they were familiar with lean
manufacturing. For the reply to the question that if they think lean is useful for process
industries, 86 (71.7 percent) respondents replied in a “yes.” Therefore, the study
suggests that most of the organizations from Indian process sector are aware of the
concept of lean manufacturing and also think that lean is useful for process industries.
Not surprisingly, only 45 (37.5 percent) respondents have implemented lean
manufacturing (see Table IV).
Our study explored that out of 105 respondents from large process industries 45
(42.9 percent) have implemented lean whereas, 60 (57.1 percent) have not implemented
lean manufacturing. Surprisingly, all the respondents from small process industries
denied the adoption of lean manufacturing.
Number of Familiar with Think lean is useful for Implemented lean

Industry respondents lean manufacturing process industries manufacturing
Size n(%) Yes No Yes No Yes No
Table IV.
Awareness about
Large 105 (87.5%) 81 (77.1%) 24 (22.9%) 80 (76.2%) 25 (23.8%) 45 (42.9%) 60 (57.1%) lean implementation
Small 15 (12.5%) 4 (26.7%) 11 (73.3%) 6 (40%) 9 (60%) 0 (0%) 15 (100%) in Indian process
Total 120 (100%) 85 (70.8%) 36 (29.2%) 86 (71.7%) 23 (28.3%) 45 (37.5%) 75 (62.5%) industries
JMTM 4.1 Test of reliability for internal consistency
26,1 Test of reliability was done for all the factors of the various issues as asked in
questionnaire. Results are shown in Table III. The high values of coefficient of
Cronbach’s α confirm that there is internal consistency of all factors of the relevant
issues. For “reasons of not implementing lean” there were ten subscales initially
including item “unfamiliarity with lean.” The value of α significantly increased when
146 item “unfamiliarity with lean” was deleted. It seems to be quite obvious because most of
the respondents have answered that they are familiar with lean manufacturing. Hence,
item “unfamiliarity with lean” was omitted from further analysis. For the rest of the
issues, all items which were extracted from literature were carried for further analysis.
4.2 Reasons of not implementing lean

Out of surveyed 120 Indian process industries, 75 industries have not implemented
lean. One sample t-test (for test value of 3) was carried out to find out the significant
reasons of not implementing lean. Table V shows the mean scores of reasons and their
ranks (based on mean scores) of not implementing lean in Indian process industries.
The one sample t-statistics are also shown in Table V. Interestingly, the significant
reasons of not implementing lean are “large batch production is necessary for capacity
utilization” (9.640, 0.000) and “lack of education and expertise” (5.542, 0.000).
However, the other important reason to not opt for implementing lean is the belief
that process industries already have continuous production. On the other hand, Indian
process industries do not perceive that the typical process characteristic of process
industries “dependence of process on time and temperature” is a significant reason of
not adopting lean. Surprisingly, lack of resources such as time and finance, cultural
barriers and top management’s support are also not considered as important reasons of
not adopting “lean.”
4.3 Reasons of implementing lean

One sample t-test (for test value of 3) was carried out to find out the significant reasons
of implementing lean in Indian process industries. Table VI shows the ranks of reasons
of implementing lean in Indian process industries based on the mean and also the
Sig. Mean
Reasons of not implementing lean Mean Rank t (two-tailed) difference
Large batch production is necessary for capacity

utilization 4.20 1 9.640 0.000 1.200
Process industries already have continuous
production 3.29 3 1.811 0.074 0.293
Lack of education and expertise on lean 3.88 2 5.542 0.000 0.880
Lack of financial resources 2.15 8 −5.770 0.000 −0.853
Lack of time 2.00 9 −6.977 0.000 −1.000
Cultural barriers (resistance to change) 2.67 6 −2.475 0.016 −0.333
Specific characteristics of process industries
(time, temperature and process dependence) 2.60 7 −2.341 0.022 −0.400
Table V. Lack of senior management’s interest and
One sample t-test for support 2.85 4 −0.631 0.268 −0.147
reasons of not Lean is complex to implement 2.76 5 −0.867 0.434 −0.240
implementing lean Note: t values are based on 1 sample t-test with test value 3
Sig. Mean
Lean
Reasons of implementing lean Mean Rank t (two-tailed) difference implementation
Elimination of wastes 3.87 3 3.532 0.001 0.867
To decrease production costs 3.73 4 3.188 0.003 0.773
To improve quality 3.93 2 6.205 0.000 0.933
To facilitate JIT production 2.00 8 −5.477 0.000 −1.000 147
To increase demand management efficiency 3.20 5 0.964 0.034 0.200
To increase customer satisfaction 4.33 1 10.175 0.000 1.333 Table VI.
To increase supply chain efficiency 3.07 6 0.290 0.773 0.067 One sample t-test
To increase utilization of space 2.47 7 −2.939 0.050 0.533 for reasons of
Note: t values are based on 1 sample t-test with test value 3 implementing lean
t-statistics. The most significant reason of implementing lean in Indian process

industries is “to increase customer satisfaction” (10.175, 0.000). Other significant
reasons of implementing lean are “elimination of wastes” (3.532, 0.001), “to decrease
production cost” (3.188, 0.003), “to improve quality” (6.205, 0.000) and “to increase
demand management efficiency” (0.964, 0.034).
However, the present study revealed that in Indian process industries “to increase
utilization of space” and “to increase supply chain efficiency” are not significant
reasons of implementing lean.
4.4 Lean tools implemented in Indian process industries

Table VII shows the results of one sample t-test (test value 3) to find the significantly
used lean tools in Indian process industries. According to Table VII, significantly
Sig. Mean
Lean tools Mean Rank t (two-tailed) difference
Value stream mapping (VSM) 1.53 16 −9.679 0.000 −1.469

5S 4.39 2 11.966 0.000 1.388
Quick changeover techniques (SMED) 2.12 13 −4.505 0.000 −0.878
Setup reduction 2.31 12 −3.358 0.020 −0.694
Lot-size reduction 2.61 11 −2.134 0.083 −0.388
Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) 4.49 1 12.724 0.000 1.490
Visual control 3.84 7 5.125 0.000 0.837
Work standardization 4.06 6 5.872 0.000 1.061
Statistical process control (SPC) 4.10 5 6.193 0.000 1.102
Quality management programme 4.20 3 6.226 0.000 1.204
Takt time 1.27 18 −14.028 0.000 −1.735
Pull production 1.61 15 −9.752 0.000 −1.388
Production levelling 1.53 17 −10.718 0.000 −1.470
Mistake proofing 1.84 14 −5.860 0.000 −1.163
Kanban 1.18 19 −20.111 0.000 −1.816
Cellular manufacturing 1.14 20 −22.355 0.000 −1.857
Flexible and cross functional teams 3.41 8 2.137 0.038 0.408
Continuous improvement programmes 4.14 4 6.443 0.000 1.143
Supplier integration and partnership 3.08 10 0.409 0.684 0.082 Table VII.
Long-term relationship with suppliers 3.37 9 1.679 0.283 0.367 One sample t-test for
Note: t values are based on 1 sample t-test with test value 3 use of lean tools
JMTM higher used lean tools are 5S (11.966, 0.000), TPM (12.724, 0.000), “visual control” (5.125,
26,1 0.000), “work standardization” (5.872, 0.000), SPC (6.193, 0.000), “quality management
programme” (6.226, 0.000), “flexible and cross functional teams” (2.137, 0.038) and
“continuous improvement programmes” (6.443, 0.000).
Lean manufacturing practices which are not used or seldom used in Indian process
industries are VSM, takt time, “pull production,” kanban, “cellular manufacturing” and
148 “quick changeover techniques.”
4.5 Challenges while implementing lean in process industries

Table VIII shows the results of one sample t-test (test value 3) to find significantly
important challenges to implement lean in Indian process industries. Our study
revealed that “to facilitate small batch production” (14.899, 0.000) is the major challenge
while implementing lean in Indian process industries.
Other significant challenges are “to arrange lean implementation experts” (2.891,
0.006), “lack of training” (4.081, 0.000) and “to facilitate JIT production” (2.699, 0.010).
Surprisingly, Indian process industries do not perceive “scepticism” or “cultural
barriers” as significant challenge to implement lean.
“Perishable nature of product” and “improper information sharing in supply chain,”
are also not significant challenges while implementing lean in Indian process
industries.
5. Discussion and insights of results

Ghosh (2013) found in a survey of 79 Indian manufacturing industries that 80 percent
had implemented lean to a significant level. Author included a small proportion of
process industries in his study along with discrete industries. We carried out present
study exclusively for Indian process industries. Our results show that out of surveyed
process industries 37.5 percent have adopted lean manufacturing. By comparing the
findings of present study with the research carried out by Ghosh (2013), it is observed
that Indian process sector is still behind the other manufacturing sectors of India as far
as lean adoption is concerned. It also supports the claim of Gebauer et al. (2009), Jain
and Lyons (2009) and Abdulmalek and Rajgopal (2007) that lean implementation is low
Sig. Mean
Challenges while implementing lean Mean Rank t (two-tailed) difference
To facilitate small batch production 4.16 1 14.899 0.000 1.156

To identify techniques for setup time reduction 2.80 7 −1.220 0.229 −0.200
To deal with typical process characteristics (time and
temperature, etc.) 3.27 5 1.320 0.194 0.267
To arrange lean implementation experts 3.56 3 2.891 0.006 0.556
Skepticism/ cultural barriers 2.60 8 −2.231 0.100 −0.400
Lack of training 3.60 2 4.081 0.000 0.600
Short lead times 2.53 9 −3.235 0.002 −0.467
Perishable nature of products 1.67 11 −8.748 0.000 −1.333
Table VIII. Improper information exchange across supply chain 2.27 10 −3.630 0.001 −0.733
One sample t-test for To facilitate JIT production 3.27 6 2.699 0.010 0.467
challenges while To facilitate JIT purchasing 3.47 4 1.497 0.141 0.267
implementing lean Note: t values are based on 1 sample t-test with test value 3
in process industries. The level of lean adoption in process industries in India is lower Lean
in comparison to process industries of China and European countries (Chen and Shang, implementation
2008; Gebauer et al., 2009), although, it is encouraging that it is comparatively higher
than other developing countries (Hokoma et al., 2008; Hokoma et al., 2010; Salaheldin,
2005; Gyampah and Gargeya, 2001).
Survey results suggest that for Indian process industries foremost reason of not
implementing lean is “necessity of large batch production for capacity utilization.” 149
Generally process industries comprise of major equipments of very high capacity
(Dunstan et al., 2006). For economics of scales, it is often advantageous to run these
equipments near full capacity. Moreover, process industries should run at near full
capacity due to competitive conditions too (Lehtonen and Holmstrom, 1998). Reducing
batch size below full capacity can also decrease the outcome and increase cost of
resources (Ahmad et al., 2005). Therefore, it is obvious that with fixed capacity large
equipments, it is very difficult to find ways to produce in small batches.
Lack of education and expertise are another reasons of not adopting lean. Khadse
et al. (2013) also observed that lack of understanding of lean concepts is a major
obstacle to implement lean in Indian industries. The concept of lean for Indian
industries is new (Ghosh, 2013). Hence, it will take considerable time for people in
process industries to understand this concept and to develop skills required to
implement lean manufacturing. Besson and Haddadj (1999) also found that developing
skills regarding lean implementation is essential to implement lean manufacturing.
Interestingly, Hokoma et al. (2008, 2010) reported that “unfamiliarity with JIT/TQM”
was the major reason of not adopting lean concepts, whereas, in our study we found
that familiarity with these concepts is fairly good in Indian process industries and
hence, it is not a significant reason of low adoption of “lean.”
Indian process industries who have adopted “lean,” perceive “customer satisfaction”
as the foremost reason for implementing “lean.” Garza-Reyes et al. (2012) also assert
that most important reason of adopting lean by Indian manufacturing industries was
“customer satisfaction.” We believe that the cut throat competition and ever demanding
customer has forced the Indian process industries to give emphasis to customer
satisfaction. Another major reason of implementing lean in Indian process industries is
“elimination of wastes.” As mentioned earlier, process industries generally have high
stock levels in the supply chain, huge cycle times of which only 0.3-5 percent involve
value adding operations and low material efficiencies, as low as 1-10 percent.
Hence, it seems rational for Indian process Industries to implement lean manufacturing
primarily to eliminate wastes. Our results are also in line to the findings of
Jain and Lyons (2009) and Lyons et al. (2013). In both studies from UK process
industries the authors found that lean was adopted primarily for elimination
of wastes.
We found that other major reasons of adopting lean in Indian process industries are
“to decrease production cost” and “to increase quality.” Process industries are subjected
to variable quality of raw materials and variable yield. It results in significantly
variable output quality. Also, due to the increased competition, superior quality is an
important market winning criteria. It seems that these factors are the driving forces to
adopt lean to increase quality.
Our results support the findings of Khadse et al. (2013) that Indian industries
perceive “reduction in cost” and elimination of wastes’ as the major reasons of lean
implementation. Moreover, our findings support the results of studies carried out by
Singh et al. (2010b) and Ghosh (2013) that Indian manufacturing industries perceive
JMTM lean implementation to be helpful in reduction of delivery time, reduction in cost,
26,1 enhancing range of products and to survive in stiff competition. Hence, it is worth
stressing that driving forces to adopt lean in discrete as well as in process sector are
almost identical in India scenario.
In the Indian process industries where lean manufacturing has been implemented,
primarily used lean tools are 5S, TPM, “visual control,” “work standardization,” SPC,
150 “continuous improvement programme” and “quality management programme.” Jain
and Lyons (2009) also found that 5S is a highly used lean practice in process industries.
Similar results were produced by Billesbach (1994), Jeanes (1995) and Mukhopadhyay
and Shanker (2005). 5S is very effective to make working environment suitable for lean
manufacturing (Melton, 2005). We believe that 5S is also effective to reduce NVAA at
primary stages of lean implementation. 5S also helps to efficiently implement TPM.
Indian process industries practice TPM as a major lean tool. Shah and Ward (2003)
and Bonavia and Marin (2006) also found TPM practices to be very important for
process industries.
Results of present study show that “visual control” is a highly used lean tool in
Indian process industries. “Visual control” is helpful to communicate the information to
the shop floor in a very effective manner. Probably because of this, visual control is
used by majority of Indian process industries who have adopted lean. Simons and
Zokaei (2005) found “work standardization” to be very effective in cost saving in UK
food industries. Our results also show that “work standardization” is a highly
implemented lean tool in Indian process industries. The present study included
only ISO 9000 firms. May be this is the reason that the process industries who have
adopted lean follow “work standardization” as a major practice. Surprisingly,
we found that Indian process industries perceive SPC as an important lean tool.
Extensive use of “work standardization” and SPC by Indian process industries
confirms the claim that after globalization Indian companies give high priority to
quality improvement (Dangayach and Deshmukh, 2003). The use of these lean tools
indicates to some important insights about lean implementation in Indian process
industries:
• Lean tools such as 5S, TPM, “visual control,” “work standardization,” “quality
management” and “continuous improvement” are not specifically related to lean.
They are very common and highly used management techniques for shop floor
management, quality management and to articulate world class manufacturing
environment. Hence, it is not surprising if they are widely used in Indian process
industries. In-fact, Indian process industries might be using some of these
practices before adopting lean formally. In contrast, typical lean tools such as JIT
production, kanban and “pull production” are still not popular in Indian process
industries.
• Only those lean tools are highly used by Indian process industries which can be
adopted without significant changes in production strategies or setups, such as
5S, TPM and “continuous improvement.” Adoption of these tools does not
demand high investments of resources such as finance or time.
• The experts for implementing these lean tools are comparatively easy to arrange
because they are not industry specific.
• Use of these lean tools does not necessarily demand production in small batches
and, hence, these are more common in Indian process industries.
• These tools not only help to control the quality but also greatly help to reduce Lean
various wastes. implementation
• Considering the nascent stage of lean manufacturing in Indian process industries,
those lean tools which do not depend directly on process characteristics are
implemented primarily, for example, 5S, TPM and visual control.
Surprisingly, previous literature exemplifies VSM as a primary activity while adopting 151
lean manufacturing (Seth et al., 2008; Upadhye et al., 2010) in Indian process
industries. However, our study revealed that use of VSM is not common in Indian
process industries.
Present study also revealed that the Indian process industries who have adopted
lean perceive “customer satisfaction,” “elimination of wastes” and “improvement in
quality” as the foremost goals of adopting lean.
According to the results of the current study the most prominent challenge while
implementing lean is “to produce in small batches.” Ezingeard and Race (1995) also
found that in process industries batch sizes are governed by the fixed capacity of the
processing equipment. Poor mixing or access waste can result if the batch quantity is
changed to a smaller quantity. Authors further add that to facilitate small batch
production, process industries sometimes need to expand facilities in order to have
various sized mixing vessels to different batch sizes. In such an environment it is
difficult to realize “production levelling” and “pull system.” May be this is a major
reason why Indian process industries have not implemented lean tools such as “pull
production,” Kanban and “production levelling.” Powell et al. (2010) also found that in
process industries it is a prominent difficulty to produce in small batches due to fixed
capacity of equipments. Large batch runs are also essential for process industries due
to large and inflexible machines with long setup and changeover times which in turn
demands maximum utilization of resources (Houghton and Portougal, 1995). To
arrange for lean experts and to provide training and education are other major
challenges to implement lean. Kamakura (2006) also found that while implementing
lean in process industries, the major challenge is the difficulty to find expert who leads
the change. It seems to be obvious because lean manufacturing is in nascent stage in
India. Second, the lean tools and techniques devised in discrete manufacturing Hence,
to get experts who can apply these practices with modifications, according to the
requirements of process industry setup is always difficult. In a recent study of UK
firms, Bhasin (2012) also found that “lack of supervisory skills to implement lean” is a
prominent obstacle to implement lean.
Surprisingly, Indian process industries do not think that scepticism and cultural
barriers are significant challenges to implement lean. These findings do not support the
earlier findings (Melton, 2005; Sewig, 2008; Garza-Reyes et al., 2012; Bhasin, 2012).
Dangayach and Deshmukh (2003) also reported that most of the companies in India are
enthusiastic about adopting performance improvement methods. Secondly, intense
competition, local as well as global, may have also motivated Indian process industries
to accept new strategies.
The important insights of the present study are summarized below, which can be
used while designing the lean adoption strategy in context to process industry in India:
• Although, concept of lean is relatively new for India, still Indian process
industries are aware of lean manufacturing and perceive lean to be useful for
performance improvement.
•
JMTM Driving forces to implement lean are very much identical in process and discrete
26,1 manufacturing industries in India, however, Indian process industries are far
behind than other manufacturing industries in India as far as lean
implementation is concerned. Hence, there is ample scope for adoption of lean
concepts in Indian process industries.
• Indian process industries those who have implemented lean found lean to be very
152 useful to reduce wastes and to increase quality.
• Major lean practices being implemented by Indian process industries are
primarily those which are related to waste elimination or improvement in quality.
Lean practices which are related to JIT production are still not widespread in
Indian process industries.
• Indian process industries found that biggest challenge while implementing lean
is to produce in small batches. To arrange for lean experts and to impart training
to employees are also big challenges while implementing lean. In-fact, managers
in Indian process industries believe that “to produce in large batches for proper
utilization of capacity and equipments” is a major reason of not choosing lean
manufacturing for performance improvement.
• “Cultural barrier” is no more an important reason of not implementing lean in
process industries. This finding is very important in Indian context. This
outcome suggests that acceptance for any change has been gradually increased,
thus, it is much easier now to implement new methodologies such as lean, in
Indian process industries.
6. Conclusion and way forward

This study attempts to find the status of lean implementation in process industries
in India. Based on the literature reviewed, the issues to explore lean implementation in
Indian process industries were split into four heads, namely, “reasons of not
implementing lean,” “reasons of implementing lean,” “lean tools” and “challenges to
implement lean.” The study suggests that adoption of lean manufacturing in Indian
process industries is still modest. It is observed that “infeasibility to produce in small
batches for efficient utilization of capacity” is the foremost reason of not adopting lean.
“Lack of expertise,” “lack of education” and “inadequate training” are other important
reasons of low implementation of lean in Indian process industries. It is also observed
that lean practices such as 5S, TPM, “work standardization,” “quality management”
and “visual control” are widespread in Indian process industries. “Customer
satisfaction” and “waste elimination” are the most important reasons to adopt lean.
However, while implementing lean, the findings of the study suggest that “to facilitate
small batch production” and “to arrange experts to implement lean” are the most
significant impediments.
In the present study, the sample size is not very large and hence, the findings should
be generalized carefully. Although our study indicates that lean can be very useful if
implemented in Indian process industries but we propose further empirical studies to
quantify performance improvements through adoption of lean. It will encourage Indian
process industries to opt for lean implementation. Subsequently, considering the fact
that concept of lean is new for Indian process industries, further research is required to
explore areas where lean can be more beneficial for process industries. Chowdary and
George (2012) also commented that it is difficult for the practitioners to identify the Lean
functional areas for waste elimination. Research is also required to find ways to implementation
implement lean tools which are related to “JIT production” such as “pull production”
and Kanban in process sector.
We did not find any evidences of lean implementation in small process industries.
Hence, further research is required to explore possibilities to implement lean in small
process industries by analyzing their specific issues separately. Finally, more empirical 153
studies, highlighting the methods and benefits of implementing lean manufacturing,
are required from different sectors with in process industries such as cement,
pharmaceutical, steel and textile. It will not only encourage the process industries to
implement lean but will also provide guidelines to implement lean. Proliferation of
such studies will increase the understanding of the lean concepts and will help to break
the chaos about lean implementation in process sector. We believe that lean can be
more useful and effective for Indian process industries if following efforts are made:
• attempts should be made to increase awareness, education and training about

lean manufacturing;
• implementation of VSM can help to identify areas of significant NVAA where
large benefits can be recognized (Lasa et al., 2008);
• starting with implementation of lean tools which do not involve high expenses
and major alterations in equipments such as 5S, TPM, visual control, kaizen and
“work standardization”;
• exploring possibilities for implementation of lean tools such as Kanban, “pull
production,” “JIT production” and “production levelling” when product becomes
discrete;
• carrying out benchmarking studies especially functional benchmarking and
generic benchmarking to adopt lean manufacturing; and
• collaboration with multinational process industries which have implemented lean
successfully.
Through the endeavor of these efforts Indian process industries can focus on
ameliorating their operational strategies through successful implementation of “lean,”
to reduce prominent wastes and to simultaneously increase performance.
References
Abdulmalek, F.A. and Rajgopal, J. (2007), “Analyzing the benefits of lean manufacturing and
value stream mapping via simulation: a process sector case study”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 223-236.
Ahmad, M., Dhafr, N., Benson, R. and Burgess, B. (2005), “Model for establishing theoretical
targets at the shop floor level in specialty chemicals manufacturing organizations”,
Robotics & Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 21 Nos 4/5, pp. 291-400.
Antony, J. (2011), “Six sigma vs lean: some perspectives from leading academics and
practitioners”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 60
No. 2, pp. 185-190.
Ashayeri, J., Teelen, A. and Selen, W. (1996), “A production and maintenance planning model for
the process industry”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 34 No. 12,
pp. 3311-3326.
JMTM Besson, D. and Haddadj, S. (1999), “Strategies developed by US chemical firms to resolve their
skill shortages”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 353-362.
26,1
Bhasin, S. (2012), “Prominent obstacles to lean”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 403-425.
Billesbach, J.T. (1994), “Applying lean production principles to a process facility”, Production &
Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 40-44.
154 Bonavia, T. and Marin, J.A. (2006), “An empirical study of lean production in the ceramic tile
industry in Spain”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26
No. 5, pp. 505-631.
Chen, Z. and Shang, J.S. (2008), “Manufacturing planning and control technology versus
operational performance: an empirical study of MRP and JIT in China”, International
Journal of Manufacturing Technology & Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 4-29.
Chowdary, B.V. and George, D. (2012), “Improvement of manufacturing operations at
a pharmaceutical company”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 23

No. 1, pp. 56-75.
Cook, R.C. and Rogowski, R.A. (1996), “Applying JIT principles to continuous process
manufacturing supply chains”, Production & Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 12-16.
Cox, A. and Chicksand, D. (2005), “The limits of lean management thinking: multiple retailers
and food and farming supply chains”, European Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 6,
pp. 648-662.
Crama, Y., Pochet, Y. and Wera, Y. (2001), “A discussion of production planning approaches in
the process industry”, CORE Discussion Paper Nos 01/42, UCL, University of Liege.
Dangayach, G.S. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2003), “Evidence of manufacturing strategies in Indian
industry: a survey”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 83 No. 3,
pp. 279-298.
Dennis, D. and Meredith, J. (2000), “An analysis of process industry production and inventory
management systems”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 683-699.
Dhandapani, V., Potter, A. and Naim, M. (2004), “Applying lean thinking: a case study of an
Indian steel plant”, International Journal of Logistics Research & Applications, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 239-250.
Dov, M. (1992), “A manufacturing process with a different flavour: JIT and the ice cream
industry”, Industrial Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 10-13.
Dunstan, K., Lavin, B. and Sanford, R. (2006), “The application of lean manufacturing in a mining
environment”, Proceedings of the International Mine Management Conference in
Melbourne, pp. 145-157.
Ezingeard, J.N. and Race, P. (1995), “Spreadsheet simulation to aid capacity management of batch
chemical processing using JIT pull control”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 10, pp. 82-88.
Fransoo, J.C. and Rutten, W.G.M.M. (1994), “A typology of production control situations in
process industries”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14
No. 12, pp. 47-57.
Fullerton, R.R. (2003), “Performance measurement and reward systems in JIT and non-JIT firms”,
Journal of Cost Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 40-48.
Garza-Reyes, A.J., Parkar, H.S., Oraifige, I., Soriano-Meier, H. and Harmanto, D. (2012), “An
empirical-exploratory study of the status of lean manufacturing in India”, International
Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 395-412.
Gebauer, H., Kickuth, M. and Friedli, F. (2009), “Lean management practices in the Lean
pharmaceutical industry”, International Journal of Services & Operations Management,
Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 463-481.
implementation
Ghosh, M. (2013), “Lean manufacturing performance in Indian manufacturing plants”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 113-122.
Gunasekaran, A. (1998), “Agile manufacturing: enablers and an implementation framework”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 1223-1247. 155
Gupta, V., Acharya, P. and Patwardhan, M. (2013), “A strategic and operational approach to
assess the lean performance in radial tyre manufacturing in India – a case based study”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 62 No. 6,
pp. 634-651.
Gyampah, K. and Gargeya, V. (2001), “Just-in-time manufacturing in Ghana”, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 101 No. 3, pp. 106-113.
Hodge, G.L., Goforth, K.R., Joines, J.A. and Thoney, K. (2011), “Adapting lean manufacturing
principles to the textile industry”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 237-247.
Hokoma, R.A., Khan, M.K. and Hussain, K. (2008), “Investigation into the implementation
stages of manufacturing and quality techniques and philosophies within the Libyan
cement industry”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 19 No. 7,
pp. 893-907.
Hokoma, R.A., Khan, M.K. and Hussain, K. (2010), “The present status of quality and
manufacturing management techniques and philosophies within the Libyan iron and steel
industry”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 209-221.
Houghton, E. and Portougal, V. (1995), “A planning model for just-in-time batch manufacturing”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 9, pp. 9-25.
Jain, R. and Lyons, A.C. (2009), “The implementation of lean manufacturing in the UK food and
drink industry”, International Journal of Services & Operations Management, Vol. 5 No. 4,
pp. 548-573.
Jeanes, C.F. (1995), “Achieving and exceeding customer satisfaction at Milliken”, Managing
Service Quality, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 6-11.
Kamakura, Y. (2006), Corporate Structural Change and Social Dialogue in the Chemical Industry,
International Labour Organization Publication, International Labour Office, Geneva.
Khadse, P.B., Sarode, A.D. and Wasu, R. (2013), “Lean manufacturing in Indian industries:
a review”, International Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology”, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 175-181.
King, P.L. (2009), Lean for the Process Industries: Dealing with Complexities, Productivity Press,
New York, NY.
Koumanakos, D.P. (2008), “The effect of inventory management on firm performance”,
International Journal of Productivity & Performance Management, Vol. 57 No. 5,
pp. 355-369.
Lasa, I.S., Laburu, C.O. and Lila, R.d.C. (2008), “An evaluation of the value stream mapping tool”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 39-52.
Lehtonen, J.M. and Holmstrom, J. (1998), “Is just-in-time applicable in paper industry logistics?”,
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 21-32.
Lyons, A.C., Vidamour, K., Jain, R. and Sutherland, M. (2013), “Developing an understanding of
lean thinking in process industries”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 24 No. 6,
pp. 475-494.
JMTM Mady, M.T. (1991), “The effect of type of industry on inventory investments and structure: the
Egyptian case”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 11
26,1 No. 6, pp. 55-65.
Mahapatra, S.S. and Mohanty, S.R. (2007), “Lean manufacturing in continuous process industry:
an empirical study”, Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 19-27.
Malhotra, M.K. and Grover, V. (1998), “An assessment of survey research in POM: from
156 constraints to theory”, Journal of Operation Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 407-425.
Melton, T. (2005), “The benefits of lean manufacturing: what lean thinking has to offer the
process industries”, Chemical Engineering Research & Design, Vol. 83 No. A6, pp. 662-673.
Moriones, A.B., Pintado, A.B. and Cerio, J.M. (2008),“The role of organizational context and
infrastructure practices in JIT implementation”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 11, pp. 1042-1066.
Mukhopadhyay, S.K. and Shanker, S. (2005), “Kanban implementation at a tyre manufacturing
plant: a case study”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 488-499.
Mukhopadhyay, S.K., Dwivedy, J. and Kumar, A. (1998), “Design and implementation of an
integrated production planning system for a pharmaceutical manufacturing concern in
India”, Production Planning and Control: The Management of Operations, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 391-402.
Pandey, V.C., Garg, S.K. and Shankar, R. (2010), “Impact of information sharing on competitive
strength of Indian manufacturing enterprises – an empirical study”, Business Process
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 226-243.
Powell, D., Alfnes, E. and Semini, M. (2010), “The application of lean production control methods
within a process-type industry: the case of hydro automotive structures”, Proceedings of
the International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems in Bordeaux,
pp. 243-250.
Rahman, S., Laosirihongthong, T. and Sohal, A. (2010), “Impact of lean strategy on operational
performance: a study of Thai manufacturing companies”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 839‐852.
Roy, R.N. and Guin, K.K. (1999), “A proposed model of JIT purchasing in an integrated steel
plant”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 59 Nos 1/3, pp. 179-187.
Sahay, B.S., Gupta, N.D. and Mohan, R. (2006), “Managing supply chains for competitiveness:
the Indian scenario”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 15-24.
Salaheldin, S.I. (2005), “JIT implementation in Egyptian manufacturing firms: some empirical
evidence”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 354-370.
Scott, B.S., Wilcock, A.E., Kanetkar, V. (2009), “A survey of structured continuous improvement
programs in the Canadian food sector”, Food Control, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 209-217.
Seth, D., Seth, N. and Goel, D. (2008), “Application of value stream mapping (VSM) for
minimization of wastes in the processing side of supply chain of cottonseed oil industry
in Indian context”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 529-550.
Sewig, A. (2008), “Evolution in thinking and processes?”, Drug Discovery Today Technologies,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. e9-e14.
Shah, N. (2005), “Process industry supply chains: advances and challenges”, Computers &
Chemical Engineering, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 1225-1235.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2003), “Lean manufacturing: context, practices bundles, and
performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 129-149.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007), “Defining and developing measures of lean production”, Journal Lean
of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 785-805.
implementation
Sharma, R.K., Kumar, D. and Kumar, P. (2005), “FLM to select suitable maintenance strategy in
process industries using MISO model”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 359-374.
Simons, D. and Zokaei, K. (2005), “Application of lean paradigm in red meat processing”, British
Food Journal, Vol. 107 No. 4, pp. 192-211. 157
Singh, B., Garg, S.K. and Sharma, S.K. (2010b), “Scope for lean implementation: a survey
of 127 Indian industries”, International Journal of Rapid Manufacturing, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 323-333.
Singh, B., Garg, S.K., Sharma, S.K. and Grewal, C. (2010a), “Lean implementation and its benefits
to production industry”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 157-168.
Small, M.H., Yasin, M.M. and Alvi, J. (2011), “Assessing the implementation and effectiveness of
process management initiatives at technologically consistent firms”, Business Process

Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 6-20.
Sohal, A.S. (1996), “Developing a lean production organization: an Australian case study”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 91-102.
Sohal, A.S. and Egglestone, A. (1994), “Lean production: experience among Australian organizations”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 11, pp. 35-51.
Soriano-Meier, H. and Forrester, P.L. (2002), “A model for evaluating the degree of leanness of
manufacturing firms”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 104-109.
Taj, S. (2008), “Lean manufacturing performance in China: assessment of 65 manufacturing
plants”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 217-234.
Upadhye, N., Deshmukh, S.G. and Garg, S. (2010), “Lean manufacturing in biscuit manufacturing
plant: a case”, International Journal of Advanced Operations Management, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 108-139.
Upasani, S. (2012), “Emerging supply chain management practices in Indian manufacturing
industries”, International Journal of Research in IT & Management, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 1237-1248.
van der Vorst, J.G.A.J., van Dijk, S.J. and Beulens, A.J.M. (2001), “Supply chain design in the food
industry”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 73-85.
White, R.E. (1993), “An empirical assessment of JIT in US manufacturers”, Production &
Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 38-42.
White, R.E. and Prybutok, V. (2001), “The relationship between JIT practices and type of
production system”, Omega, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 113-124.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your
Corporation, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine That Changed the World, Harper
Perennial, New York, NY.
Zanoni, S. and Zavanella, L. (2005), “Model and analysis of integrated production-inventory
system: the case of steel production”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vols 93/94, pp. 197-205.
Further reading
Jonsson, P. and Mattsson, S. (2006), “A longitudinal study of material planning applications in
manufacturing companies”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 971-995.
26,1
158
JMTM
Appendix. Lean Assessment Questionnaire
Lean
159
implementation
JMTM
26,1
160
About the authors

Avinash Panwar is a Senior Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering Department at Government
R.C. Khaitan Polytechnic College, Jaipur, India. His research areas include, benchmarking
automation and lean manufacturing. He is pursuing his doctoral work regarding lean
implementation in process industries. He has authored five research articles. He is member of IIIE
and Joint Secretary of Jaipur chapter of IIIE. Avinash Panwar is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: avinashpanwar07@gmail.com
Dr Rakesh Jain, PhD, is a Professor and the Head of Department in Mechanical Engineering
Department at the Malviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, India. His research areas
include supply chain management, lean manufacturing, new product development, strategic
management and total quality management. He has authored over 25 research articles in these areas.
He is a life member of ISTE. He is a member of IIIE and the Chairman of Jaipur chapter of IIIE.
Dr A.P.S. Rathore, PhD, is a Professor and the Head of Department in Management Studies,
Malviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, India. His research areas include supply chain
management, lean manufacturing, new product development, benchmarking and total quality
management. He has authored over 60 research articles in these areas. He is a member of ISTE and IIIE.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
View publication stats

LeanimplementationinIndianprocessindustries Someempiricalevidencepublished

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

LeanimplementationinIndianprocessindustries Someempiricalevidencepublished

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Lean implementation in Indian process industries - Some empirical evidence

Article in Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management · February 2015

Lean implementation in Small and Medium Enterprises View project

to develop a lean framework for process sector of India View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

References: this document contains references to 77 other documents.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

Lean implementation in Indian Lean

industry environment (Melton, 2005).

2. Literature review in context to lean implementation in process industries

2.2 Why adoption of lean manufacturing is vital for process industries?

in steel manufacturing, drying in paper and maturing in food industry. These

2.3 Empirical analysis regarding lean implementation in process industries

Type of industry and

Type of industry and

Type of industry and

• insufficient understanding of the potential benefits – 47 percent;

Literature Type of process industry Type of study Major findings

Lean Implementation issue No. of items Items Literature source Cronbach’s α

test of reliability for

3.3 Reliability of instrument for internal consistency

Number of Familiar with Think lean is useful for Implemented lean

4.2 Reasons of not implementing lean

4.3 Reasons of implementing lean

Large batch production is necessary for capacity

t-statistics. The most significant reason of implementing lean in Indian process

4.4 Lean tools implemented in Indian process industries

Value stream mapping (VSM) 1.53 16 −9.679 0.000 −1.469

4.5 Challenges while implementing lean in process industries

5. Discussion and insights of results

To facilitate small batch production 4.16 1 14.899 0.000 1.156

6. Conclusion and way forward

• attempts should be made to increase awareness, education and training about

a pharmaceutical company”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 23

process management initiatives at technologically consistent firms”, Business Process

About the authors

View publication stats

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi