1.

Introduction

2. Literature review
2.1. Operations management definition and paradigms
2.2. The Toyota Production System
2.2.1. Lean management’s origins in the Toyota Production System
2.2.2. 14 Lean management principles
2.2.3. The interconnectedness of lean practices
2.2.4. The diffusion of lean production
2.2.4.1. Discrete industries
2.2.4.2. Continuous industries
2.3. Operations management in the food & beverage industry
2.3.1. History of operations management in the F&B industry
2.3.2. Current state of OM in the European F&B industry
2.4. Research gap

3. Methodology
3.1. Research objectives, philosophy and approach
3.2. Introduction to systematic literature review methodology
3.3. Research framework
3.3.1. Planning the review
3.3.2. Literature preparation
3.3.3. Review execution and reporting & dissemination

4. Descriptive results
4.1. Generic study features
4.2. Dominant authors
4.3. Chronological distribution of papers
4.4. Classification of studies by industry sector

5. Findings and discussion

5.1. Drivers for lean implementation
5.2. Obstacles for lean implementation
5.2.1. F&B industry related obstacles
5.2.2. Organisational obstacles
5.2.3. Comparison of European F&B and automotive industry
5.3. Critical success factors for lean implementation
5.4. Lean practices used in the European F&B industry
5.5. Adaptions to lean methodology
5.6. Outcomes of lean implementation

6. Limitations & suggestions for further research

7. Conclusion

Reference list

Appendices

Appendix A – Systematic Literature Review Protocol

Appendix B – Definitions of lean practices

Appendix C – List of studies included in the SLR

FINAL WORD COUNT: 17,192 (Main text + footnotes)

List of Tables

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

List of Figures

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

List of Acronyms

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abstract

The thesis at hand describes the findings of a systematic literature

review that was undertaken to investigate if and how the Toyota
Production System is being used in the European food and beverage
industry. The research was conducted since the concerned industry is
suffering from low productivity, increasing customer requirements
and frequently occurring quality issues, although food safety is of
utmost importance. The Toyota Production System was found capable
to address all these issues both in its incumbent automotive sector and
subsequently also in other industries.

After identifying the dominant authors in the body of literature and

classifying the extant literature into epochs, the research objectives
for the study are addressed. These included an investigation of the
drivers for lean implementation, the obstructing and facilitating
factors, the performance outcomes of lean implementation and the
lean practices that are predominantly described. With regards to the
latter, also adaptions that were made to the lean methodology are
presented.

The most important findings include that lean methodology is already

being used in the European food and beverage industry, even though
only to a rather limited extent. Moreover, industry characteristics are
found to present obstacles to lean implementation. Especially volatile
demand patterns that are contrasted by production to forecast make it
difficult to avoid overproduction. Also, natural variation and
perishability of materials can make the adoption of lean principles
challenging. However, although the body of literature does not
provide a solution for all obstacles, some presented adaptions to the
lean methodology can address at least some of them.

In the end, the concluding assessment is made that the Toyota

Production System can be seen as applicable to the European food
and beverage industry. However, industry characteristics make it at
times necessary to adapt the lean methodology creatively.

Intellectual property statement

i. The author of this dissertation (including any appendices and/or

schedules to this dissertation) owns certain copyright or related rights
in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The University of
Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for
administrative purposes.
ii. Copies of this dissertation, either in full or in extracts and whether
in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and
regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with
licensing agreements which the University has entered into. This page
must form part of any such copies made.
iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks
and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any
reproductions of copyright works in the dissertation, for example
graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this
dissertation, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by
third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and
must not be made available for use without the prior written
permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or
Reproductions.
iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure,
publication and commercialisation of this dissertation, the Copyright
and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it
may take place is available in the University IP Policy, in any relevant
Dissertation restriction declarations deposited in the University
Library, and The University Library’s regulations.

The Author

The author of this dissertation is a student on the MSc Operations,

Project and Supply Chain Management programme. His/her previous
experience relevant to the study consists both of practical as well as
theoretical aspects. The practical experience is in the form of a six-
month internship in the supply chain management of a large food
manufacturing company. In addition to this, theoretical knowledge of
TPS and Lean methodology of the author was gained in basic form
during bachelor studies, but mainly through participation in the above
mentioned MSc programme.

1. Introduction
The European food and beverage (F&B) industry is unique in many
ways. Relevant data on the EU-based companies illustrate the scale.
With a turnover of approximately €1.1 trillion, the F&B industry is
the biggest manufacturing sector in the EU (FoodDrinkEurope, 2016).
This represents some 15.6% of the overall EU manufacturing
industry, more than the second ranked automotive industry with
12.4%. At the same time, the F&B industry is also the biggest sector
in terms of employment with about 4.25m employees.

Another factor that characterises the European F&B industry is the

importance of small and medium sized enterprises1 (SMEs) within it.
More than 99% of all enterprises are SMEs and account for some 2/3
of the employment in the industry. About 50% of total turnover is
being made within SMEs (FoodDrinkEurope, 2016). On the other
extreme, the ten biggest companies together account for almost 16%
of the total market, which contrasts the importance of SMEs.

Yet, the European F&B industry is suffering from low productivity,

increasing customer requirements and frequently occurring food
scandals (Rieger, et al., 2016). In addition to this, it is also bearing a
moral burden in light of massive food waste occurring in food supply
chains (Gustavsson, et al., 2011), which is in glaring contrast to a
rapidly growing world population. For this reason, the European
Commission set out a target to reduce food waste by 50% by the year
2050 (Amani, et al., 2015). Hence, these issues require advanced
operations management to improve productivity, decrease waste and
increase value.

The Toyota Production System laid the foundation for a new

operations management paradigm that can possibly address these
issues all at once. This paradigm became known as lean production
and its use spread out into many different industries after it was
brought to live in the automotive industry.

Therefore, this thesis presents the findings of a systematic literature

review that was undertaken to investigate the applicability of lean
production to the European F&B industry. This methodology was
chosen as it allows incorporating secondary data with a large scope,
which is necessary to be able to make informed statements about an
entire industry.

This dissertation comprises seven chapters, including this introduction

chapter. In the second chapter, necessary background information is
given on operations management theory, the Toyota Production
System and the European F&B industry, followed by a justification
and detailed description of the research methodology. Before going
into detailed synthesis, the papers included into the review are
presented descriptively in chapter four. Then in chapter five, the
thesis presents reasons why F&B organisations have implemented
lean production and what helped and hindered them in doing so.
Moreover, it is investigated what practices of the lean methodology
are being used and whether these had to be adapted to the F&B
industry context. Afterwards, the study discusses the effects of lean
implementation on the performance of European F&B companies.
Finally, limitations and suggestions for further research are outlined
in chapter six and a conclusion drawn in the final chapter whether or
not the Toyota Production System can be seen as applicable to the
European F&B industry.

2. Literature review

In order to better understand the findings and discussion presented in

the later chapters of this paper, necessary background information
shall be provided here. First, an introduction to operations
management (OM) will be given, followed by a more detailed
overview of the Toyota Production System. Thereafter, both the
history of OM in the F&B industry as well as current developments
and issues will be discussed. The last section of this chapter will then
outline the research gap to be filled by this study.

2.1. Operations management definition and paradigms

“Operations management is the activity of managing the resources

that create and deliver services and products.” (Slack, et al., 2013, p.
6)
The above quote gives an idea about how far-reaching the area of
operations management is. In fact, all goods and services produced in
an economy are the result of some form of OM. This is because OM
is concerned with organising the transformation process that turns
inputs into outputs (Slack, et al., 2013). Inputs, in this regard, are the
above mentioned resources and can be present in many forms
including machinery, raw materials, human labour and information
technology (Brown, et al., 2013). The role of OM is to arrange these
in a way that supports predefined operations performance objectives
when providing outputs to customers in the form of goods or services.
Slack, et al. (2013) describe the five objectives of cost, dependability,
flexibility, quality and speed. While all objectives should be pursued,
it is the hierarchy of their individual importance for a specific
organisation that sets the guidelines for the OM function.

Before the industrial revolution, the predominant OM paradigm was

craft production (Khanna, 2015). This was characterised by a heavy
reliance on comprehensive artisan skills of workers and small scale
output that could easily be individualised (Shambu & Meyer, 2008).
Later, Fredrick W. Taylor introduced the concept of scientific
management, which helped Henry Ford to establish the new OM
paradigm of mass production in the beginning of the 20th century
(Brown, et al., 2001). Unlike its predecessor, this was based on highly
specialised tasks and machinery, standardisation and strong cost focus
mainly pursued through economies of scale (Duguay, et al., 1997).

Since the first production of Ford’s Model T, the most often

mentioned early application of the mass production paradigm
(Khanna, 2015), much advancement in OM practices have been made
in the 20th century (Bayraktar, et al., 2007). Eventually, as markets in
developed economies matured, the previously highly celebrated mass
production paradigm slowly became insufficient to satisfy the
growing demands of customers. This concerned especially their desire
for higher quality products and greater customisation (Womack, et al.,
1990). A new OM paradigm, which had its roots in Japan and was
later labelled ‘lean manufacturing’, started to gain importance as it
could address these growing demands as well as bring about further
advantages. This new production system will now be discussed in
more detail in the following section.

2.2. The Toyota Production System

2.2.1. LEAN MANAGEMENT’S ORIGINS IN THE TOYOTA

PRODUCTION SYSTEM

The Toyota Production System (TPS), also known as lean

management, lean manufacturing or lean production, was brought to
life by the Japanese automobile manufacturer Toyota Motor
Corporation (Womack, et al., 1990; Monden, 2011; Parkes, 2015). In
the years following Second World War, the Japanese economy was
severely debilitated with much of the infrastructure destroyed.
Demand was only a small share of what it has been in the pre-war
time (Fujimoto, 1999). It was on the background of these settings that
the chief engineer and plant manager at Toyota, named Taiichi Ohno,
had to figure out a way how to produce more with less (Ohno, 1988).
This is because capital-intensive investments were not possible and
the small firm Toyota was far behind the productivity levels of the at
that time industry leading US-American Ford Motor Company (Liker,
2004). The solution found by Ohno and his team of engineers was a
focus on the reduction of waste, i.e. activities that do not add value
from the customers’ point of view (Earley, 2016). Seven types of
waste were identified (Ohno, 1988): Transportation, inventory,
motion, waiting, over-processing, over-production and defects.

This core principle of waste reduction was combined with an

unforgiving commitment to quality and the establishment of a culture
that continuously challenged established procedures to find an even
better solution (Clark, et al., 2013).

It was this new manufacturing paradigm that then later in the

nineteen-seventies and eighties helped Toyota conquer large market
shares in the North American car markets (Holweg, 2007). The
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) undertook a research
project to investigate how Toyota could compete so successfully
against the domestic North American automakers. The findings of this
were illustrated in the book “The Machine That Changed the World”
by Womack et al. (1990). In this very book the term ‘lean production’
got established for describing the Western interpretation of the Toyota
Production System. For the purpose of this study, however, these two
terminologies will be used interchangeably as synonyms.

2.2.2. 14 LEAN MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES

In his book “The Toyota Way”, Jeffrey K. Liker (2004) summarises

TPS in 14 management principles. These are grouped into the four
sections of philosophy, process, people & partners and problem
solving, which he calls the “4 Ps” of The Toyota Way (Liker, 2004,
p. 6). These principles are summarised below:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 2.1: 14 Lean management principles (Own table based on

Liker, 2004, pp. 37-41)

This interpretation of TPS is widely acknowledged in the literature

(Bhasin & Burcher, 2006; Pettersen, 2009; Womack & Jones, 2015).
However, there is a different interpretation and segmentation done by
the Toyota Motor Corporation itself. In their internal document
“Corporate philosophy – Toyota Way 2001” (Toyota Motor
Corporation, 2001), the company outlines the guiding principles of
the company to all of its employees. These are articulated in five core
values that are based around the two pillars of continuous
improvement and respect for people (Toyota Europe, 2017).
Continuous improvement is connected with Genchi Genbutsu, Kaizen
and Challenge, while respect for people builds on teamwork and
respect. Toyota Europe illustrates this using the image of a road:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2.1: Toyota’s understanding of TPS (Toyota Europe, 2017)

In awareness of this difference, Liker (2004) also included an

illustration bringing together his work of the “4 Ps” and Toyota’s
internal definition. In this, it is being shown where the five core
values defined by Toyota can be found in the model developed by
Liker.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2.2: Liker’s “4 Ps” and Toyota’s five core values brought
together (Reprinted from Liker, 2004, p. 6)

2.2.3. THE INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF LEAN PRACTICES

Since some of the above presented principles are rather abstract, it is

necessary to also consider different aspects of the lean methodology
to identify the level of lean implementation in an organisation. Often
the easiest way to assess if a company is using lean, whether
successfully or not, is to see if lean practices are being used to control
and manage the operations (Doolen & Hacker, 2005). Therefore, in
this section it shall be presented how different lean practices work in
connection with each other.

Within the lean methodology there is a multitude of practices (Feld,

2000). However, the application of individual tools outside a
comprehensive lean methodology and organisational culture is
unlikely to bring the anticipated benefits to a business (Voehl, et al.,
2014). Therefore, the TPS House is an often used diagram to show the
reliance of lean on multiple aspects rather than an isolated use of
individual practices (Liker, 2004). This can be seen in figure 2.3.
Herein, different facets of TPS are displayed as parts of a house.
These include the foundation (e.g. the long-term philosophy), two
pillars (Just-In-Time and Jidoka) and the roof (the desired outcomes
of lean implementation). The idea behind this is that the house can
only maintain the desired outcomes in the roof if all layers of the
foundation and both pillars are intact, i.e. if the corresponding lean
principles are being adhered to.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2.3: The TPS House (Liker, 2004, p. 33)

This interdependence can be exemplified by the foundation layer of
stable and standardised processes. It becomes especially clear when
assuming that such standardisation would not be in place. If tasks are
not stable and standardised, then Just-In-Time (JIT) scheduling is
likely to fail since different workers would need varying amounts of
time to perform a work item (Narusawa & Shook, 2009). Moreover,
continuous improvement can only happen if standards are in place
that can be adapted to prescribe a new mode of operation. Without
standardisation, operators would simply fall back into performing
tasks as they have done it before (Niederstadt, 2010).

Likewise important is that both JIT and Jidoka are being used, since
they are complimentary to each other. Similar to the above, JIT does
not only require that all workers need the same length of time to
perform a task, it must also be ensured that the resulting output of the
task will be of usable quality (Baudin, 2007). Jidoka is a principle
aiming to ensure that every work station produces good quality items
every single time, hence making the workers performing the task
responsible for quality (Liker, 2004). At the same time, JIT supports
Jidoka by guaranteeing a continuous flow of production in which
quality issues stand out immediately and can therefore be addressed
(Monden, 2011).

When talking about lean, another methodology worth mentioning is

six sigma. This is because it is often combined with lean to form a so-
called Lean Six Sigma (LSS) approach (Drohomeretski, et al., 2014).
Six sigma aims at creating stable processes by reducing variation as
far as possible. The statistical goal is to achieve a process that
produces only 3.4 defects over one million outputs (Truscott, 2003).
Dora et al. (2013a) describe lean as a horizontal approach that makes
improvements over the flow of activities. By contrast, six sigma is a
vertical approach aiming at improvements in individual processes or
organisations. Hence, they draw the conclusion that “the combination
of Lean and Six Sigma techniques addresses problems both
horizontally and vertically” (Dora, et al., 2013a, p. 610).

2.2.4. THE DIFFUSION OF LEAN PRODUCTION

Many reputable authors in the lean literature, such as Womack, et al.,
(1990), Liker (2004) and Monden (2011), advocate a general
applicability of the lean methodology to any organisation or industry.
However, this view is not undisputed. For example, Hines, et al.,
(2004, p. 1006) state that “when applied to sectors outside the high-
volume repetitive manufacturing environment, lean production has
reached its limitations”. Nonetheless, it is evident that lean is already
being used to a considerable scale in industries other than car
manufacturing. In this context, a difference needs to be made between
how it is being used in discrete (i.e. producing countable pieces) and
continuous industries (i.e. producing in measures such as tons or
hectolitres) (Hild, et al., 2001). This is because continuous industries
have some distinctly different characteristics than discrete industries,
in which TPS evolved, that influence the applicability of lean
management (Mahapatra & Mohanty, 2007; Abdulmalek & Rajgopal,
2007).

2.2.4.1. Discrete industries

The first companies following Toyota on the lean journey were still
from the automotive sector; in fact the very first ones were Toyota’s
key suppliers. After the first oil crises in 1973, which hit the Japanese
economy severely, the government recognised Toyota’s fast recovery
and started to promote other business in Japan to adopt lean (Liker,
2004). However, the success of this was rather limited, as the concept
of TPS was not yet fully understood. After Toyota had set off to
conquer the US car market, it was US automobile manufacturers that
first started imitating TPS outside of Japan. Indeed, it was Toyota
itself that started teaching their production system to the US auto-
maker General Motors (GM), by agreeing on a Joint-Venture that
turned around the worst-performing GM plant into the GM plant with
the highest quality (Holweg, 2007; Gomes-Casseres, 2009).

This was followed by the US aerospace industry, which is a discrete

industry rather comparably in its processes to the automotive one
(Crute, et al., 2003). The findings of a study by Mathaisel & Comm
(2000), that investigated the applicability of lean to this industry, were
transferred to other manufacturing industries and supported the claim
of general applicability of lean made by Womack, et al., (1990); at
least for the discrete industries.

While by 1990 companies outside the automotive sector also became

aware of lean management, it was really in the 1990s that the concept
started to spread into other industries. Especially high volume discrete
manufacturing businesses pioneered using the concept (Hines, et al.,
2004). The driving forces behind this spreading of lean were rather
similar to what made TPS so desirable in the automotive industry.
This included an increasing importance of quality, rising global
competitions that created cost pressure, the willingness to implement
a continuous improvement scheme and customer demand for
personalised products (Crute, et al., 2003; Norani, et al., 2010;
Salonitis & Tsinopoulos, 2016).

2.2.4.2. Continuous industries

As mentioned above, continuous industries produce quantities

measured in units other than countable items. Typical examples
include pharmaceuticals (Subramanian, 2015), chemicals (Cooke &
Rohleder, 2006) and steel production (Yin, 2011). With regard to the
focus of this research, large parts of the F&B industry also fall under
this definition (Clark, 2009). Examples for this are dough-based
bakery processes or the production of beverages.

In general, companies in continuous process industries have applied

the lean concept later and in a smaller scale than the ones from
discrete industries (Abdulmalek, et al., 2006). It is believed that this is
due to the characteristics that distinguish continuous industries from
discrete ones, such as: A frequent reliance on large, expensive and
inflexible equipment, a smaller number of workstations and often no
possibility to store more than a technically required amount of work
in progress (WIP) between those workstations (Mahapatra &
Mohanty, 2007). These characteristics can present obstacles to the
application of lean methodology (Pool, et al., 2011). For instance, if
companies rely on capital-intensive machinery, the benefit of a
learning workforce, as fostered by lean, might not weigh as heavily as
they do in discrete industries (Cooke & Rohleder, 2006).
Despite these cumbersome industry characteristics, there are
nonetheless companies that have used it successfully. Abdulmalek, et
al., (2006) mention that many continuous industries at some point also
produce countable units. Taken the example of bakery processes from
above, the processing of dough would be continuous, but once this is
segmented e.g. into loaves of bread, it becomes discrete units. At
minimum, lean methodology would be applicable downstream of this
point (Pool, et al., 2011). Another suggestion is that lean
implementation in continuous industries should start outside the
actual production process. An example for this is the establishment of
JIT-deliveries between a plant of Dow Chemicals and a customer firm
(Abdulmalek, et al., 2006). For wider application also in the
production process itself, the tools developed for discrete industries
would at times need to be adapted to fit the specific context of
continuous process companies.

In contrast to this view, Melton (2005) argues that the biggest

constraints to a more wide-spread use of lean in process industries
have less to do with a limited applicability of the methodology, but
rather with a lack of knowledge and willingness to change. He attests
an increasing use of lean in continuous industries and advocates the
claim of general applicability of lean to hold true also in these
industry settings.

2.3. Operations management in the food & beverage industry

After introducing the field of OM and the leading paradigms in the

first section and the concept of lean production in the second, this
section will now present details on operations management in the
F&B industry. First, an overview of the history of OM in this industry
will be given. Thereafter, current developments and issues will be
outlined. These will later be used in the last section of the literature
review chapter to explain the research gap this paper aims to fill.

2.3.1. HISTORY OF OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT IN THE

F&B INDUSTRY
Food processing can surely be regarded one of the earliest industries
in history (Higman, 2012). Some authors even link the development
of human societies with progress made in food processing techniques.
E.g. Thurmond (2006, p. 4) says that “food processing, in fact, is the
impetus for human civilization itself”. Food processing has its origins
in the need for preserving food for times of scarce supply. Hence,
earliest examples date back tens of thousands of years and mainly
concern the drying and fermentation of meat and fruits (Hui, et al.,
2004). With the advent of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent,
processing techniques also advanced (Higman, 2012). However,
manual processing remained the almost exclusively used method of
operation for many more centuries to come. Hence, in line with the
background information provided in chapter 2.1., the history of OM in
the F&B industry started under a craft production paradigm.

An early example of mass production of ground flour is provided by

the discovery of water-run mills on a hill slope in southern France
dating back at least to the 4th century (Higman, 2012). An idealised
illustration of how this early mass production looked like is given
overleaf in figure 2.4:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2.4: Water mills at Barbégal near modern Arles (Higman,

2012, p. 109)

Although it is hard to determine the exact capacity of the site, it has

been agreed that all 16 to 32 mills combined could process at least 9
tons and up to 28 tons of grain each day (Paavo, 1986). Even
compared to modern mills, this can surely be considered an example
of mass production. Yet, such early evidence of the mass production
paradigm vanished together with the decline of the Roman Empire at
least from the European landscape (Kiple & Ornelas, 2000)

An important step in the development of today’s food and beverage

industry was the development of packaging that could prolong the
edibility of its contents (Smith & Hui, 2004). Of outstanding
importance in this regard was the technique of canning, which was
first used in the late 18th century at the beginning of industrialisation
(Higman, 2012). This new long-life food made the centralisation of
food production possible, so that food could be produced in large
quantities in locations remote from the point of consumption. Thus,
organisations in the F&B industry started using characteristics of the
mass production paradigm.

Indeed, although Henry Ford is considered the inventor of the modern

mass production, he borrowed ideas for this from the food industry.
The best example for this is that Ford’s infamous moving assembly
line was actually the reversed application of a carcass disassembly
line, which he had seen in a Chicago slaughterhouse in 1913 (The
Henry Ford, 2017).

Following these developments, the breakthrough of freezing and

chilling in the early to midst 20th century (Higman, 2012) and later
vacuum and CO2-injected packaging (Mendes & Goncales, 2008)
further increased the possibilities of offering goods to customers. This
way, the highly diversified F&B industry as we know it today was
created.

2.3.2. CURRENT STATE OF OM IN THE EUROPEAN F&B

INDUSTRY

Slack, et al. (2013) define five process types for manufacturing

operations (see figure 2.5). Two product characteristics (volume and
variety) and two process characteristics (tasks and flow) determine the
most appropriate process type.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2.5: Different manufacturing process types (Slack, et al., 2013,

p. 102)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 2.2: Manufacturing process types examples in the F&B industry

(Own table)

However, the importance of these different process types in the F&B

industry is neither equal nor stable. In at least the last decade, the
industry is experiencing a trend towards demand for lower quantities,
a greater variety of products and shorter delivery lead times (Fiddy,
2008). This makes companies move towards smaller batch sizes;
hence the importance of batch processes is increasing. Moreover, the
shorter delivery lead times started a trend of re-localisation of food
production (Horst & Gaolach, 2014; Benedek & Balázs, 2016), after
food products had become commodities on global markets for many
years (Wilhelmina, et al., 2010; Rundgren, 2016). Even traditional
low cost and high volume products, such as the above mentioned non-
branded supermarket products, are expected to be delivered with
greater flexibility, while at the same time quality requirements of
retailers and customers are rising (Burch & Lawrence, 2005).

With regard to this issue of quality, food safety is of outstanding

importance in the F&B industry. Predominantly, this is trying to be
achieved through quality assurance (QA) techniques, especially
through certification such as ISO (International Organization for
Standardization) or HACCP (Hazard analysis and critical control
points) (Trienekens & Zuurbier, 2008; Manning, 2013). However,
even though these certifications have contributed to making food safer
for consumers, they are also not without their short-comings. For
instance, Trienekens & Zuurbier (2008) mention that raising
certification requirements make it harder or almost impossible for
companies in developing countries to offer their goods to the
European market. Moreover, QA does not encourage producers to
further improve the quality of their products and processes once they
meet the required level for a specific certification.

In addition to these developments, the European F&B industry is

suffering from a lower productivity than its most important trading
partners in the USA, Australia, Brazil and Canada (ECSIP
consortium, 2016). Despite its enormous size (see chapter 1), the
European F&B industry only makes marginal R&D investments of
€2.5bn (i.e. 0.23% of turnover). This contributes to the relatively low
labour productivity2 compared to other industries. E.g. employees in
the automotive industry are about 50% more productive than their
F&B counterparts. Workers in the chemical industry are even twice as
productive as the ones in the F&B industry.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2.6: Labour productivity in selected European industries
(Reprinted from Food Drink Europe, 2016, p. 4)

2.4. Research gap

The current developments and issues in the European F&B industry

described above create a pressure to change the OM conduct, which is
currently still dominated by the mass production paradigm. The
comparatively low productivity, both on a global scale with direct
competitors as well as with respect to other European industries,
highlights this. However, since further increasing output volume is
unlikely for a saturated food market, the F&B industry should rather
investigate how it can add more value to its products. In this context,
also the outstanding importance of quality should be addressed,
especially in light of frequently occurring food scandals (Rieger, et
al., 2016).

These drivers for change are similar to what has backed the
development of lean production and its subsequent diffusion. Lean is
known to have increased both productivity and quality in its
incumbent automotive industry as well as other manufacturing
industries (Al-Tahat & Jalham, 2015). Therefore, an investigation if
introducing the lean paradigm can address the above described issues
in the European F&B industry is worthwhile; even more so, taking
into account the crucial role the F&B industry takes in the European
economy.

Moreover, lean methodology could help to reduce food waste

occurring in the supply side of the market. Hence, lean can possibly
contribute to feeding the growing world population if it is found to be
applicable to the F&B industry.

Although much has been published in terms of case, survey-based and

other studies, no holistic assessment how TPS has been applied to the
F&B industry has been undertaken; at least not on a European scope.
This is in spite of all the above mentioned points in favour of such an
investigation. Therefore, this study will aim to fill this research gap.
This will be done by means of a systematic review of the extant
academic and practitioner literature, since this research methodology
is appropriate for considering a broad scope (Saunders, et al., 2012).

The findings will be interesting both for academics and practitioners

likewise. From an academic point of view, the findings of the study
will contribute to the discussion around the claim of general
applicability of lean to any industry or organisation. For practitioners,
the findings on how TPS is being used within the European F&B
industry can provide guidance when implementing lean.

3. Methodology

In this chapter, the methodology for the thesis at hand will be

outlined. First, the research objectives, the underlying philosophy and
the research approach will be clarified. Subsequently, the method of
systematic literature review (SLR) will be introduced, together with a
brief discussion of its benefits and shortcomings. In the last section,
the research framework used for the study will be presented and its
application explained in detail.

3.1. Research objectives, philosophy and approach

As aforementioned, the above outlined research gap shall be

addressed by conducting an SLR. The research objectives for this
undertaking are fourfold:

1. Determine the main drivers for lean implementation and the

accompanying obstructing and facilitating factors in the European
F&B industry
2. Identify which lean production practices are predominantly
described in the body of literature, their level of implementation as
well as any adaptions made
3. Investigate the impact of lean implementation on the performance
of firms in the European F&B industry
4. Through all of the above, assess whether the claim of general
applicability of TPS to any industry can be sustained for the F&B
industry
In terms of philosophic assumptions, this paper adopts a positivistic
stance (Saunders, et al., 2012). That means it assumes the world exists
externally (i.e. objectivism) and that the aim of the study is to collect
hard, observable facts. Hence, the methodology described in the later
sections of this chapter is focused on replicability, which is another
often mentioned characteristic of positivistic research (Gill &
Johnson, 2010). However, as mentioned by Saunders, et al. (2012), it
is not always the case that a research follows only one philosophy.
Therefore, positivism presents the dominant philosophy for this paper,
but is not necessarily the only one.

Further, as can be seen from the research objectives, the research

approach contains both deductive as well as inductive aspects
(Saunders, et al., 2012). For instance, verifying the claim of general
applicability of TPS to any industry represents deduction. By contrast,
the first objective is inductive as it would result in new theory about
why companies in the European F&B industry have chosen to
implement TPS and what has either helped or hindered them from
doing so.

In accordance with the positivism described above, the majority of

data was analysed in a quantitative manner (Saunders, et al., 2012).
For example, quantitative assessment was used to identify which lean
practices have been described most frequently. However, the research
also contained qualitative aspects such as exploring the possible
adaptions of lean practices in the context of the European F&B
industry.

3.2. Introduction to systematic literature review methodology

Although the methodology of systematic review originates from

medical science (Mulrow & Cook, 1998), it is increasingly used in
social sciences including operations management (OM) (Metthews &
Marzec, 2012; Tavares Thomé, et al., 2016). Here, it should be
pointed out that an SLR represents scientific research itself and is not
a mere listing or summary of existing studies. Thereunto, SLRs differ
from traditional narrative literature reviews by bringing a high level
of rigour into examining the existing body of knowledge (Cronin, et
al., 2008). This is done by using a scientific and transparent review
process to minimise bias and create replicable findings (Cook, et al.,
1997). An SLR should always aim to incorporate all existing studies
in an academic area that are relevant to answering a specific research
question or problem (ten Ham-Baloyi & Jordan, 2016).

Nowadays, SLRs play an important role in social sciences, since they

offer a range of benefits (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009). For instance,
they provide an opportunity to synthesise the findings of multiple
studies to establish what might be singular observations and what is
consensus in academia and practice. Another benefit of systematic
literature reviews is their ability to identify where further research is
needed and where sufficient research has been undertaken already for
the time being (Jesson, et al., 2011). Finally, from a practical point of
view, it can be said that SLRs offer their readers time savings, as they
collate the existing evidence and knowledge in an area of study
(Petticrew, 2001).

However, the method of systematic review in social sciences is not

without its criticism. For example, Denyer and Tranfield (2009)
mention that social sciences at times make different philosophical
assumptions compared to medical sciences. This can lead to
inconsistencies when the SLR models developed for medical sciences
are used unaltered. Therefore, they advocate the use of frameworks
which are more bespoke to social sciences. Furthermore, the quality
of the review will depend on the researcher having at least a working
knowledge of the field of study as well as access to sources of
published and unpublished literature (Jesson, et al., 2011). As a last
point, through the rigid planning and conduct of SLRs, these might
well gain in credibility through reduced bias and increased
replicability. Yet, these benefits are purchased with the price of a very
inflexible research methodology, which hardly allows for creative
adaptions in later stages.

[...]
1
The European Commission defines an SME as a company with less
than 250 employees and an annual turnover below €50m (European
Commission, 2003)
2
The OECD Statistics Directorate (2008) defines labour productivity
as the ratio between gross value added and the total number of hours
worked to achieve this. In the example at hand, this is translated into
value added per worker per year.

Excerpt out of 96 pages

Details

Title
The Toyota Way. A Systematic Literature Review On How
Companies In The European Food And Beverage Industry Have
Applied The Toyota Production System
College
University of Manchester (Alliance Manchester Business
School)
Grade
1,3
Author
Thomas Hillmann (Author)
Year
2017
Pages
96
Catalog Number
V455564
ISBN (eBook)
9783668866256
ISBN (Book)
 9783668866263
Language
English
Tags
Toyoto Production System, food industry, lean management,
operations management
Quote paper
Thomas Hillmann (Author), 2017, The Toyota Way. A
Systematic Literature Review On How Companies In The
European Food And Beverage Industry Have Applied The
Toyota Production System, Munich, GRIN Verlag,
https://www.grin.com/document/455564