what can we learn from the evolution of research on lean management assessment?

This article was downloaded by: [University of California, San Diego]On: 19 June 2013, At: 03:06Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Production ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

What can we learn from the evolution of research onlean management assessment?María-del-Mar Camacho-Miñano a , José Moyano-Fuentes b & Macarena Sacristán-Díaz ca Department of Financial Economics and Accounting II, Complutense University of Madrid,Madrid, Spainb Department of Business Organization, Marketing and Sociology, University of Jaen, Jaen,Spainc Department of Financial Economics and Operations Management, University of Seville,Seville, SpainPublished online: 08 May 2012.

To cite this article: María-del-Mar Camacho-Miñano , José Moyano-Fuentes & Macarena Sacristán-Díaz (2013): What can welearn from the evolution of research on lean management assessment?, International Journal of Production Research, 51:4,1098-1116

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.677550

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.677550

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Production ResearchVol. 51, No. 4, 15 February 2013, 1098–1116

What can we learn from the evolution of research on lean management assessment?

Marıa-del-Mar Camacho-Minanoa*, Jose Moyano-Fuentesb and Macarena Sacristan-Dıazc

aDepartment of Financial Economics and Accounting II, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain; bDepartment ofBusiness Organization, Marketing and Sociology, University of Jaen, Jaen, Spain; cDepartment of Financial Economics and

Operations Management, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

(Received 17 February 2011; final version received 13 March 2012)

Empirical evidence shows that profitability does not always rise when lean management (LM) is implemented.This paper reviews the literature that has empirically analysed how LM impacts financial performance inorder to identify the most used assessment model and the direction and significance of the findings. We havefound that the most comprehensive models, those considering financial and operational indicators andcontextual factors, find a positive and significant impact of LM on financial performance. These findings canbenefit managers requiring an assessment of LM and the building of an evaluation system and can serve as aguideline for monitoring LM implementation.

Keywords: lean management; assessment; JIT; TQM; TPM; ABM; HPWS; financial performance; literaturereview

1. Introduction

Lean management (LM) is an integrated socio–technical system whose main objective is to eliminate waste byconcurrently reducing or minimising supplier, customer and internal variability (Shah and Ward 2007). LM can besummarised as a series of individual management practices. A high level of consensus has identified the followingfive as the most characteristic practices associated with its adoption: (1) total quality management (TQM); (2) just-in-time production (JIT); (3) activity-based management (ABM); (4) high performance work system (HPWS); and(5) total productive maintenance (TPM) (Shah and Ward 2003, Narasimhan et al. 2006). These practices areimplemented in manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors and, at the company level, provide an opportunityfor sustaining or increasing results and involve all levels of the organisation. LM improves product design,productivity and quality in a drive for global competitiveness (Mefford 2009).

Over the last two decades, there have been increasing numbers of lean implementations and transformations allover the world (Bruun and Mefford 2004). In fact, LM implementation has led to better bottom-line performanceincluding total cycle time reductions, better customer service levels and higher profit margins (Towill 2007).Consequently, company profitability should rise when LM is implemented. However, empirical evidence has shownthat the expected outcomes never materialised (Ahlstrom and Karlsson 1996, Jayaram et al. 2008, Yang et al. 2011).Nonetheless, decisions that might not result in any initial improvement in performance might also lead tosubstantial improvements in the bottom line over time (Baggaley 2006). Findings have therefore been contradictoryregarding LM implementation and more research is needed in the area (Thun et al. 2011).

In fact, although the concept of LM has been clearly defined with the passing of time, the way to assess it has not(Pilkington and Fitzgerald 2006). Whereas some firms achieve short-term benefits, others, despite investing intraining and adapting their incentive schemes, only achieve improvements in profits in the long term. At the sametime, many lean manufacturing programmes fail in their early stages due to their profit-based evaluation (Meadeet al. 2010). Consequently, LM implementation is really an ongoing and arduous process that can yield advantagesand disadvantages (Benders and Slomp 2009). There has therefore been a long-standing underlying question aboutwhether applying LM generates the expected profits for firms even when it affects their market value (Al-Khadashand Feridun 2006).

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0020–7543 print/ISSN 1366–588X online

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.677550

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

On the other hand, managers need to know the outcomes of LM implementation as not all so-called bestmanufacturing practices produce significant effects on performance (Laugen et al. 2005). Also, increased interest isprecisely currently being shown towards research into management system assessment (Cannon 2008, Gong et al.2009, Mackelprang and Nair 2010, Reimann et al. 2010). Likewise, there are many different ways of assessing theoutcomes of a system’s implementation, and there is exploratory empirical evidence that more mature performancemeasurement systems report better results in terms of customer, financial and market performance (Evans 2004).

Bearing all this in mind, the aim of this study is to gain a full and comprehensive understanding of the empiricalfindings on LM implementation in the literature with special attention paid to the way that the outcomes of thismanagement system are assessed. With more than 20 years of experience in LM implementation, it would now seemto be time to investigate its impact on financial performance and, more specifically, how this impact has beenmeasured. We use a literature review to identify the assessment type or mode that has been most frequently used inthe literature. In other words, the combination of indicators, grouped by type, that has acquired a degree ofacceptance in the literature for observing LM’s influence on performance. The bibliographical review will also helpto determine whether a relationship exists between the type of assessment done and the impact observed on financialperformance. In short, the research question that we pose is: Can anything be learned from an analysis of the wayresearch on lean management assessment has evolved?

This study is conducted in order to shed some light on the said research question. The paper has been structuredas follows: Section 2 introduces LM assessment; Section 3 describes the research approach followed by abibliographical review and subsequent analysis; the results of the analysis are shown in Section 4; and Sections 5and 6 end the article with the conclusions, managerial implications and future research directions.

2. Assessing lean management

Rather than a set goal, LM has always been considered more as a process, and one that to a great extent depends ona company’s environment. This has enabled it to be implemented flexibly and to be regarded as a strategic resourcefor supporting the strategic advantage in companies where it is implemented in a sustained way over time (Lewis2000). Nevertheless, many authors have tried to put a limit on the reach of LM ever since it first emerged.Simultaneously, the tools and practices associated with LM have been defined with the passage of time, contributingto its definition as an integrated socio–technical management system (Brown et al. 2006, Shah and Ward 2007).

Various empirical studies have focused on the practices adopted in LM implementation (Karlsson and Ahlstrom1996, Martınez-Sanchez and Perez-Perez 2001, Soriano-Meier and Forrester 2002, Shah and Ward 2003, Bonaviaand Marin 2006, Narasimhan et al. 2006, Salem et al. 2006, Shah and Ward 2007, Wan and Chen 2008). Themethodology that all these studies use is a theoretical checklist of lean practices that are subsequently testedempirically. The conclusions coincide in the use of TQM, JIT, ABM, HPWS and TPM as integrated LMmanagement practices.

LM must therefore be considered from a multidimensional focus covering a variety of individual managementpractices in an integrated system, none of which are on their own equivalent to LM, but which together comprise thesystem (Shah and Ward 2003, 2007). This is logical if it is borne in mind that, as stated by Cooper and Maskell(2008), the pillars of the LM system within the company are founded on continual improvement, productivity andcost reduction. In order to achieve continual improvement, practices derived from TQM, JIT and TPM are used(Powell 1995, Cua et al. 2001). To reduce costs and improve productivity, LM tries to eliminate all activities that donot provide added value (Cuatrecasas-Arbos 2002); its application therefore involves the indirect adoption ofactivity-based costing/management (ABC/ABM) to complement its implementation (Cooper 1996, Boyd et al. 2006,Silvi et al. 2008). In fact, any activity which does not add value in the eyes of the customer has to be eliminated usingABM programmes. TPM programmes also contribute to reducing costs by maximising overall equipmenteffectiveness through the elimination of unexpected machine breakdowns (Thun et al. 2011). Another keystone ofLM is the involvement and commitment of people to the company, for which high performance work practices areimplemented (Way 2002, Colombo et al. 2007).

Broadly speaking, business results should improve when any strategic management system is implemented, asthis is the fundamental goal: when changes in the company turn a red bottom line to black or improve the bottom-line numbers, it means that the implementation has been successful. A company only invests when it expects toimprove its financial performance. Therefore, ‘financial performance is the ultimate measure of firm performanceand strategic success’ (Becker and Huselid 1998, pp. 95–96). However, research on the outcome of LM

International Journal of Production Research 1099

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

implementation, as a whole, or its management practices, separately and individually, is not conclusive. In fact, it

has been found that the impact of LM on financial performance not only differs depending on the geographical area

where companies are located (Majek 2005) or the nationality of the companies in which it is implemented (Lowe

et al. 1997), but also that it does not remain stable over time (Ahlstrom and Karlsson 1996).As far as empirical studies on LM are specifically concerned, we have detected that the outcomes of the system’s

implementation have not been assessed in sufficient detail (Cuatrecasas-Arbos 2002, Shah and Ward 2003,

Narasimhan et al. 2006). Fullerton and Wempe (2009) concluded in their recent research that this subject needs

further investigation. In general terms, the final impact of management system implementation on bottom-line

results is not conclusive. In other words, some empirical research shows significantly positive impacts while other

research does not. What is more, case research has shown that improvements introduced by lean practices are not

properly considered in traditional accounting systems (Young 1992, Maskell and Baggaley 2006, Hutchinson 2007).

‘Lean accounting’ is a term that has been employed in the consultancy area in recent times in an attempt to provide

companies that implement LM with better information for decision-making.

3. Research approach

Our research question has led us to conduct a literature-review-based exploratory study of the relationship between

financial performance and the previously stated five management practices combined in LM. The researchers have

studied both the impact of each of the management practices on financial performance in isolation, and the impact

of LM as an integrated system. A number of variables or indicators have been used to measure this impact and these

have resulted in a similar number of discrepancies in the findings regarding the direction and significance of the

isolated management practice or integrated LM system’s impact on financial performance.This paper aims to review the literature with the object of identifying whether any reference model exists for

evaluating the management practices that are part of LM and LM itself as an integrated system. We also aim to

determine whether there is any relationship between the type of assessment and the impact observed on financial

performance.Consequently, the first task that had to be done was to identify any articles that analysed the impact on financial

performance of the individual management practices included in LM and of LM itself. The empirical articles

reviewed were taken from relevant scientific journals in several areas – production/operations management,

management and accounting – and were identified in the main management journal databases for the period

between the Womack et al. (1990) book to the present day using key words and terms frequently used in the

literature to describe LM or the management practices included in LM. To be precise, these were: lean

manufacturing; lean production; lean management; Toyota production system/TPS; just in time/JIT; activity-based

cost/ABC; activity-based management/ABM; total quality management/TQM; high performance work system/

HPWS; total productive maintenance/TPM; and financial performance. We also wanted to ensure that all the

articles related to the topic had been published in the five most relevant journals in the area of operations

management. For this reason, all electronic editions of International Journal of Operations and Production

Management (IJOPM), Journal of Operations Management (JOM), International Journal of Production Research

(IJPR), Production and Operations Management (POM) and International Journal of Production Economics(IJPE) were reviewed. The same criterion was used to include journals related to the areas of management and

accounting, such as International Journal of Management Research (IJMR), Journal of Management and

Accounting Research (JMAR), Accounting and Management Journal (AMJ), Management and Accounting

Review (MAR), Management Science (MS), Journal of Accounting Research (JAR), Accounting, Organization and

Society (AOS), Journal of Cost Management (JCM), Harvard Business Review (HBR) and The International

Journal of Management Science (OMEGA). Similar methodology has been used successfully in recent studies to

assess research on other models, such as total quality management (Sila and Ebrahimpour 2002), supply chain

management (Gunasekaran and Ngai 2005) and new product development (Krishnan and Loch 2005), and is

appropriate for the objectives of this article.The articles that were identified were then examined one by one to ensure that what was being evaluated was the

influence on financial performance of the management practices that comprise LM or LM as a whole. The articles

that complied with this condition were then grouped together on the basis of whether it was the individual

management practice (TQM-results, JIT-results and so on) or LM as whole that was being evaluated.

1100 M.M. Camacho-Mi ~nano et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

When different ways to assess the impact of management systems on financial performance were found, it was

decided to group bibliographical references together according to the specific nature of the indicator or aspect

considered in the assessment.To be precise, three different types of indicators and factors were found:

. Financial indicators. These are indicators taken from economic–financial information included in both

internal and external accounting documents as well as market information. These indicators include, for

example: economic performance, financial performance, sales ratios, profits, costs, market value and so on.. Operational indicators. These are indicators of a non-financial nature, namely data relating to how the

company works and the activity that the company performs. These include delivery times, inventory level,

product defect rates, unproductive space, production hours and so on. They are taken from the internal

management systems in all cases.. Contextual factors. Aspects or elements that mean that a management system’s performance is conditioned

by the specific characteristics of a company or its environment, such as number of employees, sales

volumes, sector, time when a management system is implemented and so on. These factors are becoming

vitally important in operations management research (Demeter and Matyusz 2011).

Given the scope of our research, which includes an analysis of the relationship between financial performance

and the different management practices that make up LM on the one hand, and LM as an integrated system on the

other, articles were ignored that only considered operational indicators or only contextual factors, or that provided

no empirical evidence for financial indicators. The remaining articles were classified according to two criteria.

Firstly, the combination of performance indicators considered: only financial; financial together with non-financial

or operational; and whether or not the contextual factors of the company itself or its environment were taken into

account. The second criterion was how implementation affected the company’s profitability (financial performance):

positively or negatively. If no significant influence was observed, the article was classified as not significant. If the

management practice affected some positive and some negative financial indicators at the same time, the article was

classified as mixed.

Table 1. Evolution over time of the number of papers on the assessment of lean practices and lean management as an integratedsystem*.

Year

TQM JIT ABM HPWS TPM LM

Abs. Cum. Abs. Cum. Abs. Cum. Abs. Cum. Abs. Cum. Abs. Cum.

92 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 093 3 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 094 2 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 095 2 8 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 096 2 10 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 197 7 17 1 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 198 2 19 2 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 199 1 20 2 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 10 30 2 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 301 6 36 2 15 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 302 4 40 3 18 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 303 2 42 4 22 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 304 2 44 1 23 0 7 1 1 1 1 0 305 4 48 5 28 0 7 0 1 0 1 0 306 5 53 1 29 2 9 2 3 0 1 3 607 2 55 0 29 1 10 1 4 0 1 0 608 1 56 1 30 0 10 0 4 0 1 2 809 0 56 2 32 0 10 0 4 0 1 1 910 1 57 0 32 0 10 1 5 0 1 1 1011 0 57 1 33 0 10 0 5 0 1 3 13Totals 47.9% 27.7% 8.4% 4.2% 0.8% 11%

*Abs.: absolute; Cum.: cumulative


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

4. Results and discussion

Table 1 groups by year of publication the articles that were identified according to the lean management practice orthe full LM system whose impact on financial performance is being assessed. Cumulative numbers of articles havealso been included for each year in order to provide an overview of the attention paid in the literature to theassessment of each of the practices or LM as a whole.

An assessment of the outcomes of adopting the management practices analysed reveals a temporal mode forthe type of assessment used. Indeed, it can be deduced from the greatest number of studies published during the2000–2006 period (68 out of 119, 57.1%, over half the total) that during this time researchers mostly focused onanalysing the impact of these management practices on financial performance. Temporal modes in assessment canalso be observed for the management practice being assessed; whereas up to 2002 researchers concerned themselvesmore with assessing TQM, from 2002 on their interest focused on assessing JIT and LM as an integrated system.Nowadays, most of the empirical studies on LM assessment focus on LM as an integrated system. The first studyto assess HPWS, meanwhile, dates from 2006 and the sole study assessing TPM dates from 2004. As expected, theolder management practices are also those that have been most widely assessed in the literature.

A second table has been prepared to complement Table 1. This table shows how the complexity of managementsystem assessment has evolved, that is to say it shows whether financial indicators alone were used or whether thesewere complemented by operational indicators, and also whether or not the contextual features of the company itselfwere taken into account. Table 2 summarises the number of articles found that focus explicitly on each practice oron LM.

As can be seen in Table 2, more than 80% of the 119 articles analysed complement the use of financial indicatorswith the use of operational indicators when evaluating the impact of lean practices or LM as an integrated system.

Almost half the empirical studies include contextual factors but the other half does not. However this trend isnot the same for all management practices considered. The newest systems, such as ABM, HPWS, TPM and LM,are those for which contextual factors are most used. This would indicate how complex the assessment system isdirectly related to the newness of the management practice being assessed.

Table 3 examines these results in detail and shows how management practice assessment has evolved over time.It can be deduced from this table that management practices have been assessed more fully and comprehensively

from 1995 onwards. Also from this year on different types of indicators (financial and operational) and contextualfactors are used to assess the impact of LM-related management systems. During this period, 2006 stands out for thejoint use of financial and operational indicators plus the features of the company’s context also being taken intoconsideration to assess the impact on financial performance. Whereas contextual factors were not normally includedinitially, it should be highlighted that all articles currently envisage their use when assessing management practiceoutcomes.

We now analyse published research on each of the various management practices individually included in LM inorder to further examine the nature of the indicators used to assess management systems’ impacts on financialperformance and to ascertain whether there is any relationship between assessment type and impact observed.

4.1 Total quality management assessment

Table 4 summarises in chronological order published articles that consider TQM assessment according to the typesof indicators used and the type of impact on financial performance (positive, mixed or not significant).

Table 2. Number of papers according to mode of assessment of lean practices and lean management as an integrated system.

TQM JIT ABM HPWS TPM LM Total

Number of papers 57 47.9% 33 27.7% 10 8.4% 5 4.2% 1 0.8% 13 11% 119 100%

Type of indicators Only financial 11 19.3% 6 18.1% 2 20.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 7.7% 20 16.4%Financial & operational 46 80.7% 27 81.9% 8 80.0% 5 100% 1 100% 12 92.3% 99 83.6%

Contextual factors Yes 22 38.6% 16 48.5% 8 80.0% 5 100% 1 100% 8 61.5% 59 50.8%No 35 61.4% 17 51.5% 2 20.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 38.5% 60 49.2%


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

Table 4. Papers on TQM according to indicators and factors considered in the assessment and their relation to financialperformance.

References in bold are those thattake contextual factors intoaccount

Indicators

Only financial Financial and operational

Relation tofinancialperformance

Positive33 articles(57.9%)

Fitzgerald and Erdmann(1992), Seymour (1993),Hendricks and Singhal (1997),Lemak et al. (1997), Eastonand Jarrell (1998), Agus andHassan (2000), Hansson andEricsson (2002), Corbett et al.(2005)

Shetty (1993a, 1993b), Adam (1994), Forker et al.(1997), Adam et al. (1997), Chenhall (1997),Chang and Chen (1998), Anderson and Sohal(1999), Agus et al. (2000), Brah et al. (2000), Daset al. (2000), Wilson and Collier (2000), Zhang(2000), Agus and Sagir (2001), Allen and Kilmann(2001), Douglas and Judge (2001), Escrig-Tena

et al. (2001), Raju and Lonial (2002), Evans andJack (2003), Kaynak (2003), Sila andEbrahimpour (2005), Al-Khadash and Feridun(2006), Barker and Emery (2006), Maiga and

Jacobs (2006), Pakdil (2010)

Mixed17 articles(29.8%)

Hendricks and Singhal (2001) Mohrman et al. (1995), Powell (1995), Madu et al.(1996), Grandzol and Gershon (1997), Ittner and

Larcker (1997), Khan (2000), Martinez-Llorenteet al. (2000), Nilsson et al. (2001), Gurd et al.(2002), Rust et al. (2002), Fuentes-Fuentes et al.(2004), Kankan and Tan (2005), Lakhal et al.(2006), Yeung et al. (2006), Sila (2007), Benner andVeloso (2008)

Not signifi-cant 7 arti-cles (12.3%)

Curkovic et al. (2000),York and Miree (2004)

Maani et al. (1994), Chapman et al. (1997), Stawand Epstein (2000), Agus (2005), Han et al. (2007)

Table 3. Evolution over time of the number of papers according to indicators and factors consideredin the assessment.

Year

Type of indicators used Contextual factors used?

Only financial Financial and operational (jointly) Yes No

92 1 0 0 193 0 4 0 494 0 3 0 395 0 5 2 396 0 4 3 197 3 6 3 698 1 3 2 299 0 3 1 200 5 9 5 901 1 9 7 302 2 9 5 603 2 4 1 504 1 4 3 205 1 8 2 706 2 11 11 207 0 4 3 108 0 4 3 109 1 2 3 010 0 3 2 111 0 4 3 1Total 20 99 59 60


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

As can be seen, the majority (57.9%) of the 57 studies that analyse the relationship between TQM and financialperformance find that TQM has a positive bearing on performance although, in keeping with the contingencytheory, the most recent of these papers (Barker and Emery 2006) states that this principle depends upon a firm’sintrinsic characteristics. On other occasions it is not intrinsic or extrinsic characteristics that determine TQM’simpact on financial performance but the influence of other variables in play. Quality improvement alone may not beenough to change a firm’s financial performance (Han et al. 2007). As can be seen in Table 4, almost 30% of thestudies show that TQM has mixed impacts on financial performance. This could be due to customer-oriented orcontinual improvement practices having a positive impact on performance, while teamwork seems to have anegative effect (Fuentes-Fuentes et al. 2004). Another possible explanation could be that the implementation ofTQM produces a positive impact on financial results when the strategy affords a competitive advantage to the firstcompanies to implement it, but once time has passed and the remaining competitors assimilate the improvements,the positive impact disappears for later adopters (Benner and Veloso 2008). It is also possible that improvements inresults are initially reflected in increased implementation costs and improvements in results are only achieved with alonger-term view (Wayhan and Balderson 2007b).

Finally, when considering the contextual factors that influence TQM, a distinction can be made betweenstructural, external and internal factors (Merino-Diaz de Cerio 2003). Despite this, the latest empirical researchstudies show that proper implementation of quality improvement practices outweighs all other factors (Sila 2007).

TQM implementation in organisations is a complex issue due to the wide range of practices and people that itaffects (Westphal et al. 1997, Wayhan and Balderson 2007a, 2007b). Success depends on how far the envisagedquality programme is implemented in practice (Douglas and Judge 2001). Another problem is that many companiesstate that they have implemented TQM without having made any essential changes to their organisation or theirprocesses and this can lead to judgment calls being made on its impact on financial performance (Easton and Jarrell1998). This is what justifies the use of public financial data to analyse the impact of management systems on businessresults even though initial investments offset any benefits, and it is the precise moment that they are implementedthat conditions the way that improvement indicators are reflected in business results (Samson and Terziovski 1999,Gurd et al. 2002). Savings in costs will be recognised over time because wastage will be cut down, satisfaction andcompany reputation will go up for customers and indemnities on guarantees and costs for external errors will fall(Grant et al. 1994).

The table also shows that using financial indicators to evaluate TQM produces a skew in the analysis due to thelimitations that accounting information has for evaluating customer-orientation, for example (Van Schalkwyk1998). Indeed, the most recent empirical studies in the table follow the line of using financial and operationalindicators and contextual factors, in other words, a more comprehensive assessment model.

All this would indicate that a fuller TQM evaluation model is able to find results that are more consistent withtheoretical predictions about the impact of TQM on financial performance, since the reason why firms implementthis management system is precisely to achieve positive results. This can be seen in the fact that a higher percentageof articles (57.9%) using a combination of financial, operational and contextual factors finds that TQM has apositive and significant impact on financial performance.

4.2 Just in time assessment

Table 5 shows published articles that consider JIT assessment according to the types of indicators used and the typeof impact on financial performance (positive, mixed or not significant).

The first paper that relates the adoption of JIT to performance finds that performance improves when thismanagement practice is adopted (Inman and Mehra 1993). This outcome is not clear, however, as although 69.8%of these articles confirm this positive relationship, 15.1% find no relationship between JIT and financialperformance. The findings in five of the articles were inconsistent: while some indicators improve, others worsen.

In other respects it can be seen that while JIT implementation improved financial performance in the firststudies, no improvement in return on assets (ROA) is cited in the most recent studies.

In keeping with the contingency theory, contextual factors are used to explain the influence of JIT in recentyears. More than half the articles use company size, the time that JIT is implemented and the use of other additionalmanagement practices (such as TQM). The findings differ greatly. Germain and Droge (1997), for example, findthat size impacts negatively JIT adoption and Chen et al. (2005) determine that the effects of JIT implementation areconditioned by macroeconomic variables, such as interest rates and inflation.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

As was the case for TQM, when all these results are combined, a more comprehensive JIT evaluation can be seen

to enable results to be found that are consistent with the theoretical predictions about the system’s impact on

financial performance. In fact, over two-thirds of the studies using financial, operational and contextual factors to

evaluate the impact of JIT find that it has a positive and significant influence on financial performance.

4.3 ABM assessment

Table 6 summarises articles that consider ABM assessment according to the same criteria as the two preceding

sections.The first thing that needs to be highlighted in this table is that, although ABM was a highly fashionable strategic

management system during the last decade of the twentieth century and many studies on it are still conducted today,

few actually analyse its assessment. Moreover, the studies that relate ABM to performance are not all unanimous

when assessing the management system, although 70% of the empirical articles find a positive relationship with

financial performance. Only one presents a not significant impact on financial performance and two show different

results depending on the indicator type. Over 70% complement financial indicators with operational indicators and,

of these, the time effect and costs stand out. Only half the studies use contextual factors as performance

determinants for the implementation of this system. These determinants vary depending on how far the system has

been implemented, that is to say in companies where ABC/ABM has already been implemented, its use is

conditioned by management support and the associated reward system. However, in companies which are in the first

stages of the ABC/ABM implementation process, its use is conditioned by the team by whom it is being

implemented (Anderson and Young 1999). Some studies set out a series of variables that condition improvements in

return on investment (ROI), such as the joint use of ABC and other strategic initiatives, how diversified the

company is, the costs level or the number of transactions occurring within the company (Cagwin and Bouwman

2002).According to Anderson and Young (1999), if management anticipate that ABC/ABM implementation will

improve financial performance, they will not hesitate to go ahead with it. Nevertheless, to be effective it must be

adapted to the company’s accounting system and environment (Al-Omiri and Drury 2007). Traditional methods of

recording and assessing costs are of no use in current times (Dickinson and Lere 2003), which is why financial

indicators are also inconclusive when assessing performance.

Table 5. Papers on JIT according to indicators and factors considered in the assessment and their relation to financialperformance.

References in bold are those that takecontextual factors into account

Indicators


Relation to finan-cial performance

Positive23 articles(69.8%)

Mia (2000), Kinney and Wempe(2002), Fullerton et al. (2003),Al-Khadash and Feridun (2006),

Capkun et al. (2009)

Inman and Mehra (1993), Billesbach and Hayen(1994), Huson and Nanda (1995), Pandya andBoyd (1995), Balakrishnan et al. (1996), Germain

and Droge (1997), Germain and Droge (1998),Claycomb et al. (1999), Lieberman and Demeester(1999), Callen et al. (2000), Fullerton andMcWatters (2001), White and Prybutok (2001),Callen et al. (2003), Nahm et al. (2003), Mistry(2005), Vastag and Whybark (2005), Gaur and

Kesavan (2009), Eroglu and Hofer (2011)

Mixed5 articles(15.1%)

Demeter (2003) Chang and Lee (1995), Biggart and Gargeya(2002), Boyd et al. (2002), Kannan and Tan (2005)

Not significant5 articles (15.1%)

Nakamura et al. (1998), Ahmad et al. (2004), Chenet al. (2005), Gaur et al. (2005), Cannon (2008)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

Be that as it may, as was seen for other management practices, the findings show that a more comprehensiveABM evaluation model combining different types of indicators also results in a positive impact on financialperformance. Of the papers which find a positive and significant impact on financial performance (seven in total),more than 70% consider both financial and operational indicators together.

4.4 TPM assessment

There are studies that demonstrate that the synergy effects produced between TQM, TPM and JIT lead to betterresults for firms (Cua et al. 2006, Seth and Tripathi 2006). In these cases, a positive and significant link can be seenwith cost reductions, high quality levels and improvements in performance, time and service (McKone et al. 2001).There are also studies that analyse the contextual factors that condition the right implementation of a TPMprogramme, such as the application of JIT, TQM, worker involvement, the environment and the influence of thesetting (country, sector) (McKone et al. 1999). However, as Table 7 shows, only one study was found that seeks toanalyse the direct relationship between TPM and financial performance, with the relationship with profit being bothpositive and significant. This research uses a comprehensive assessment model that includes financial andoperational indicators as well as contextual factors.

4.5 HPWS assessment

Table 8 shows published articles that consider HPWS assessment according to types of indicators used and the typeof impact observed on financial performance.

The little empirical evidence to date indicates that adoption of these practices does not necessarily produceresults that cover the costs of using these systems (Way 2002). HPWS practices will have one effect or anotherdepending on the company’s intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics, although empirical research considers that ifthere is no shift towards centralised company organisation, there will be no positive effects on performance

Table 6. Papers on ABM according to indicators and factors considered in the assessment and their relation to financialperformance.

References in bold are those that takeinto account contextual factors

Indicators


Relation to finan-cial performance

Positive7 articles(70%)

Al-Khadash and Feridun (2006),Cagwin and Barker (2006)

Ittner et al. (1997), Gupta (2001), Kennedyand Affleck-Graves (2001), Laitinen (2002),Lea and Fredendall (2002)

Mixed2 articles(20%)

Cagwin and Bowman (2002), Maiga and

Jacobs (2007)

Not significant 1article (10%)

Ittner et al. (2002)

Table 7. Papers on TPM according to indicators and factors considered in the assessment and their relation to financialperformance.

References in bold are those that take contextual factors into account

Indicators


Relation to financial performance Positive 1 article (100%) Brah and Chong (2004)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

(Colombo et al. 2007). Indeed, the impact that HPWS has on financial performance by necessity is contingent uponthe intermediate step of improvements being made in human resources depending on the sector and company size(Beltran-Martın et al. 2008).

It can also be seen that, in this case, a more comprehensive HPWS assessment model enables a positive andsignificant impact on financial performance to be seen. Although in this instance no papers considering onlyfinancial indicators were found, 60% of those considering financial and operational indicators together find apositive and significant impact on financial performance.

4.6 LM assessment

Initial reviews of evidence of the relationship between lean practices and performance reported no link betweenpractices and performance (Menezes et al. 2010). Following the same criteria as in the previous sections, Table 9 setsout articles that consider the assessment of LM as an integrated management system according to types of indicatorsused and type of impact on financial performance.

Firstly, it must be highlighted that there are 13 articles that address the assessment of LM as an integratedmanagement system. Also, there is no clear empirical evidence regarding the impact of LM on financialperformance: fewer than 40% of articles show a positive link.

According to Wu (2003), LM implementation affects not only internal results (cost reductions, improvements inquality and productivity and so on) but, more importantly, impacts the suppliers and the entire supply chain. Inother words, any assessment of its outcome has to be very wide-ranging. For this reason, our LM assessment focuswill be based on the use of the two types of indicators (financial and operational) used to assess the othermanagement practices associated with LM and complemented with the use of company environmental factors. Thesynergy effect between individual LM practices, which is not always positive, must also be taken into account. Forexample, when a firm implements LM, the efforts required for inventory reduction have negative effects on profitsuntil levels stabilise and then the impact on profits turns to positive (Meade et al. 2006).

Table 9. Papers on LM according to indicators and factors considered in the assessment and their relation to financialperformance.

References in bold are thosethat take contextual factors into account

Indicators


Relation tofinancialperformance

Positive 5 articles (38.4%) Biscontri and Park (2000) Boyd et al. (2006), Fullerton and Wempe

(2009), Perera and Kulasooriya (2011),Eroglu and Hofer (2011)

Mixed 6 articles (46.2%) Lewis (2000), Maskell and Baggaley (2006),Meade et al. (2006), Koumanakos (2008),Meade et al. (2010), Yang et al. (2011)

Not significant 2 articles (15.4%) Oliver et al. (1996), Jayaram et al. (2008)

Table 8. Papers on HPWS according to indicators and factors considered in the assessment and their relation to financialperformance.

References in bold are those that take contextualfactors into account

Indicators


Relation to financial performance Positive 3 articles (60%) Shih et al. (2006),Tsai (2006),

Messersmith and Guthrie (2010)

Mixed 1 article (20%) Colombo et al. (2007)

Not significant 1 article (20%) Den Hartog and Verburg (2004)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

The studies in Table 9 provide widely differing findings. Specifically, while 38.4% of the articles find that LM

implementation has a positive influence on financial performance, the remainder present results that are mixed

(46.2%) or not significant (15.4%).Table 10 has been included to explore these non-conclusive findings in greater detail and provides information

on the most-used individual indicators grouped together according to type and impact observed on financial

performance.According to Table 10, most of the 101 indicators used in the 13 empirical articles on LM evaluation analysed

are financial (44.6%); the majority of these indicators also show a positive impact on financial performance (25 out

of 45). The same is not true for the impact seen when operational indicators are used, as mixed results are most often

found in these cases (21 out of 37). In fact, when the frequency of the impact is observed considering all the

indicators and factors (financial, operational and contextual), the direction of the impact is mostly mixed (47.5%),

12 percentage points higher than for a positive impact (35.7%). In other words, positive results are more frequent

when financial indicators are used, whereas mixed results are more frequent when operational indicators and

contextual factors are used and, jointly, almost all the indicators and factors used in empirical research on LM

assessment lead to a positive or mixed impact on financial performance, although mixed results are more common.

In other respects, it must be stated that there is a great disparity in the operational indicators used, which means that

the impact of LM might be felt in multiple operational aspects of the company.It can be said that the results in the table show that that assessing individual indicators/factors does not provide

a holistic view that suitably reflects the impact of LM on financial performance.

Table 10. Distribution of individual indicators and factors used to assess LM impact on financial performance.

Individual indicator/factor

Impact on financial performance

TotalsPositive Mixed Not significant

Financial

indicators

Sales 4 4 1 9

Profits 4 3 7

ROS 3 2 1 6Inventory turnover 1 2 1 4

Costs 2 2 4

ROA 4 1 5

Total assets 2 2Othera 5 2 1 8

Subtotal 25 15 5 45 (44.6%)

Operational

indicators

Inventory level 3 3 1 7

Commitment to JIT 1 1 1 3

Percentage of on-time deliveries 1 2 3Setup reduction 2 1 3

Defective units in parts per million 1 1 2

Workers commitment (no. suggestions) 1 1 2

Otherb 11 6 17Subtotal 5 21 11 37 (36.6%)

Contextualfactors

Size (Number of employees) 2 5 7Years of implementation 2 2

Sector 3 3

Otherc 2 4 1 7Subtotal 6 12 1 19 (18.8%)

Total 36 (35.7%) 48 (47.5%) 17 (16.8%) 101

aOther financial indicators found in the literature with a lower frequency are, for example: ROI, liquidity ratio, assets turnoverand current ratio.bOther operational indicators found only once in the literature are, for example, physical productivity, in-process inventory(hours), finished goods inventory (hours), new product development lead time (months), total productive floor space (m2),number and percentage of tasks performed by the teams and the company’s production information system.cThere are other less frequent contextual factors such as age, capacity, company context and national context.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

5. Conclusions

Although the assessment of the impact of LM on financial performance is a research question that has arousedmuch interest among researchers in recent times, the issue is still not clear (Cooper and Maskell 2008, Terpend et al.2008, Fullerton and Wempe 2009). In this study we have sought to advance this line of research on two fronts: onthe one hand, by analysing what has been assessed and, on the other, by analysing how it has been assessed. In orderto do this, a literature review was done that addressed the impact of LM as an integrated management system onfinancial performance whilst the assessment of each of the individual practices included in LM was also examined.

Focusing on what has been assessed, the first conclusion that can be drawn is that, considering the large numberof articles published on these management systems to date, little importance has been given to assessing the impactof implementing LM or the individual management practices analysed on financial performance.

Still with regard to the ‘what’, a temporal trend has been found in the assessment of the outcomes of LM and theindividual management practices included in LM. A greater emphasis on assessing the outcomes can be observedduring the 2000–2005 period. However, it can be seen that, with the passage of time, the focus has shifted to anassessment of more over-arching management systems targeting company efficiency and flexibility. In fact, while in2002 most articles focused on the impact of TQM, derived from an improvement in quality, from that year on andup to the present day, a greater number of articles have focused firstly on the impact of JIT, and then, on the impactof LM as an overall management system that affects all areas of the company. On a general level, this also justifiesthe trend in the importance of systems away from a partial focus to an all-encompassing focus.

With regard to the ‘how’, the aim was to identify whether a model exists regarding the way evaluation is done,and to determine when the assessment model used has an impact on financial performance consistent with thetheoretical outcomes predicted for the management system.

So, it should also be noted that the assessment mode has become more complex over time and that, from 1995on, the use of indicators has been complemented with the consideration of contextual factors. In fact, in turbulentenvironments like today’s, information systems need to be complemented with non-accounting measures (Haldmaand Laats 2002).

With respect to the relationship between the assessment model and the results obtained with the managementsystem, it can be seen that, with some differences, there is a link between the use of financial and operationalindicators together with contextual factors and the observation of a significant and positive impact on financialperformance. In fact, the use of a more comprehensive assessment model to evaluate TQM, JIT, ABM and HPWSusually goes hand-in-hand with positive and significant accounting results. In other words, the empirical evidence isconsistent with theoretical predictions on the impact of these management systems on financial performance, as wellwith the results of other exploratory research (Evans 2004).

With regard to LM assessment, it can be seen that a more comprehensive assessment model enables a significantimpact on financial performance to be seen. However, among the studies in which a significant impact on thefinancial performance is seen, more articles are found that do not observe a clear influence of this type ofmanagement system on financial results than those that do detect a positive impact. One interesting conclusion to beborne in mind with respect to this is that the impact that LM has on financial performance seems to be conditionedby the nature of the indicators used to evaluate it.

6. Managerial implications and future research

As has been stated, for its impact to be assessed, LM as an integrated socio–technical system (Shah and Ward 2007)requires other cultural and technological aspects to be taken into consideration. In fact, successful LMimplementation is a complex task (Scherrer-Rathje et al. 2009), and more so its assessment. This means that whileassessing any management system is difficult, it is more difficult to assess a pool of management systems like LM.Organising performance measures into four groups related to the balanced scorecard might be a way to properlyassess management systems, but managers prefer financial measures (Sousa and Voss 2008).

Consequently, managers have to be mindful that LM implementation is a question of time and that outcomesshould be considered in the long term. All empirical studies analysed show benefits for firms. There is no empiricalstudy which demonstrates that implementing LM or any of the individual LM practices that comprise it leads tonegative financial results, even when start-up costs are taken into account. In other regards, only a marginal use hasbeen made of the internal aspects of the firm or of environmental conditions when assessing management systems.These aspects would define the minimal conditions that have to exist for positive results to be achieved through the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

implementation of any management system, and a solution could be found through theoretical arguments fromcontingency theory (Lee and Jo 2007).

This study’s findings have helped identify some challenges that will have to be addressed in future research. Awider-ranging overall assessment must be made of management systems which themselves are also more over-arching. In this respect, LM assessment must consider aspects related to company culture and companies’identifying traits (such as their ownership structure) and how it interrelates with other management practicesimplemented in the company. A proposal must also be made for the most appropriate indicators for observing thelong-term sustainability of the outcomes of LM implementation.

Researchers and top management must also be mindful of the fact that the main indicators and factors set out inthe findings must be taken into account for the assessment of LM. This is the way to ensure that a proper evaluationis done of its impact on a company. In fact, the LM assessment model should consider jointly financial indicators(such as sales, profits and return on sales (ROS)) and operational indicators (such as inventory level, percentage ofon-time deliveries and commitment to JIT). Similarly, researchers and top management should consider that LM’simpact on financial performance is affected by the firm’s contextual factors, such as its size, the sector that itoperates in and how many years prior experience of implementation it has. Our findings show that rather than theuse of isolated factors and indicators, it is the combination of a range of indicators and contextual factors thatenables the significant impact of LM on financial performance to be captured.

That is, managers implementing LM practices should be aware that this management system should be analysedfrom a holistic point of view, taking into account financial, non-financial and contextual factors, and always in thelong term. Managers have to consider many variables when the decision is taken to implement an LM system whichis, nonetheless, absolutely essential for addressing the challenges presented by the current market. It is no longerenough to produce in great quantities or to produce quality products. The customer has to appreciate the productand this requires an integrated management focus from inside and outside the company. Assessing this holisticmanagement system requires not only financial and operational indicators to be considered, but also environmentalfactors.

With regard to the limitations of this study, it must be pointed out that although the review of articles in topjournals has been extensive, its design has meant that some studies on the topic in other publications might havebeen overlooked. Assertions on findings are therefore only based on the journals analysed. Furthermore, leannessassessment in the different empirical studies analysed is not considered because few researchers have contributedcertain approaches for leanness assessment (Martınez-Sanchez and Perez-Perez 2001, Soriano-Meier and Forrester2002, Bayou and Korvin 2008, Vinodh and Chintha 2011). When greater consensus exists on how to assess leanness,new research will have to be done to link the impact on financial performance with the degree to which lean isimplemented in the company.

In other respects, the theoretical nature of this article has not enabled non-conclusive results on the impact ofLM on financial performance to be explored in greater detail and it might occur that any positive operational resultsachieved with LM could involve negative financial results. Further investigation will therefore have to be conductedin the future with new empirical studies to see whether these situations really occur in companies with a relativetrack record in LM implementation.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the research projects P08-SEJ3607 and ECO2010-22105-C03-02 of the Andalusian RegionalGovernment and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation.

References

Adam Jr, E.E., 1994. Alternative quality improvement practices and organization performance. Journal of Operations

Management, 12 (1), 27–44.Adam Jr, E.E., et al., 1997. An international study of quality improvement approach and firm performance. International Journal

of Operations and Production Management, 17 (9), 842–873.Agus, A., 2005. The structural linkages between TQM, product quality performance, and business performance: Preliminary

empirical study in electronics companies. Singapore Management Review, 27 (1), 87–105.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

Agus, A. and Hassan, Z., 2000. Exploring the relationship between the length of total quality management adoption and

financial performance: An empirical study in Malaysia. International Journal of Management, 17 (3), 323–333.Agus, A., Krishnan, S.K., and Kadir, S.L., 2000. The structural impact of total quality management on financial performance

relative to competitors through customer satisfaction: A study of Malaysian manufacturing companies. Total Quality

Management, 11 (4–6), 808–819.

Agus, A. and Sagir, R.S., 2001. The structural relationships between total quality management, competitive advantage and

bottom line financial performance: An empirical study of Malaysian manufacturing companies. Total Quality

Management, 12 (7/8), 1018–1024.Ahlstrom, P. and Karlsson, C., 1996. Change processes towards lean production: The role of the management accounting system.

International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 16 (11), 42–56.Ahmad, A., Mehra, S., and Pletcher, M., 2004. The perceived impact of JIT implementation on firms’ financial/growth

performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 15 (2), 118–130.Al-Khadash, H.A. and Feridun, M., 2006. Impact of strategic initiatives in management accounting on corporate financial

performance: Evidence from Amman Stock Exchange. Managing Global Transitions, 4 (4), 299–312.Allen, R.S. and Kilmann, R.H., 2001. The role of the reward system for a total quality management based strategy. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 14 (2), 110–131.Al-Omiri, M. and Drury, C., 2007. A survey of factors influencing the choice of product costing systems in UK organizations.

Management Accounting Research, 18 (4), 339–424.Anderson, M. and Sohal, A.S., 1999. A study of the relationship between quality management practices and performance in

small business. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 16 (9), 859–877.Anderson, S.W. and Young, S.M., 1999. The impact of contextual and process factors on the evaluation of activity-based costing

systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24 (7), 525–559.Baggaley, B., 2006. Using strategic performance measurements to accelerate lean performance. Cost Management, 20 (1), 36–44.

Balakrishnan, R., Linsmeier, T.J., and Venkatachalam, M., 1996. Financial benefits from JIT adoption: Effects of customer

concentration and cost structure. The Accounting Review, 71 (2), 183–205.

Barker, K.J. and Emery, C.R., 2006. The effect of TQM factors on financial and strategic performance: An empirical test using

manufacturing firms. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 5, 39–59.

Bayou, M.E. and Korvin, A., 2008. Measuring the leanness of manufacturing systems – A case study of Ford Motor Company

and General Motors. Journal of Engineering Technology Management, 25 (4), 287–304.

Becker, B.E. and Huselid, M.A., 1998. High performance work system and firm performance: A synthesis of research and

managerial implications. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 16 (3), 53–101.

Beltran-Martın, I., 2008. Human resource flexibility as a mediating variable between high performance work system and

performance. Journal of Management, 34 (5), 1009–1044.

Benders, J. and Slomp, J., 2009. Struggling with solutions: A case study of using organization concepts. International Journal of

Production Research, 47 (18), 5237–5243.

Benner, M.J. and Veloso, F.M., 2008. ISO 9000 practices and financial performance: A technology coherence perspective.

Journal of Operations Management, 26 (5), 611–629.

Biggart, T.B. and Gargeya, V.B., 2002. Impact of JIT on inventory to sales ratios. Industrial Management and Data Systems,

102 (4), 197–202.

Billesbach, T.J. and Hayen, R., 1994. Long-term impact of just-in-time on inventory performance measures. Production and

Inventory Management Journal, 35 (1), 62–67.

Biscontri, R. and Park, K., 2000. An empirical evidence of the financial performance of lean production adoption: A self-

organizing neural networks approach, In Neural Networks, 2000. IJCNN, Proceedings of the IEEE-INNS-ENNS

international joint conference, 5, 297–302.Bonavia, T. and Marin, J.A., 2006. An empirical study of lean production in the ceramic tile industry in Spain. International

Journal of Operations and Production Management, 26 (5), 505–531.Boyd, D.T., Kronk, L., and Boyd, S.C., 2006. Measuring the effects of lean manufacturing systems on financial accounting

metrics using data development analysis. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 3 (4), 40–54.Boyd, D.T., Kronk, L., and Skinner, R., 2002. The effects of just-in-time systems on financial accounting metrics. Industrial

Management and Data Systems, 102 (3), 153–164.Brah, S.A. and Chong, W.K., 2004. Relationship between total productive maintenance and performance. International Journal

of Production Research, 42 (12), 2383–2401.Brah, S.A., Wong, J.L., and Rao, B.M., 2000. TQM and business performance in the service sector: A Singapore study.

International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20 (11), 1293–1312.Brown, C.B., Collins, T.R., and McCombs, E.D., 2006. Transformation from batch to lean manufacturing: The performance

issues. Engineering Management Journal, 18 (2), 3–13.Bruun, P. and Mefford, R.N., 2004. Lean production and the Internet. International Journal of Production Economics, 89 (3),

247–260.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

Cagwin, D. and Barker, K.J., 2006. Activity-based costing, total quality management and business process reengineering: Their

separate and concurrent association with improvement in financial performance. Journal of the Academy of Accounting and

Financial Studies, 10 (1), 49–77.

Cagwin, D. and Bouwman, M.J., 2002. The association between activity-based costing and improvement in financial

performance. Management Accounting Research, 13 (1), 1–39.

Callen, J.L., Fader, C., and Krinsky, I., 2000. Just-in-time: A cross-sectional plant analysis. International Journal of Production

Economics, 63 (3), 277–301.

Callen, J.L., Morel, M., and Fader, C., 2003. The profitability-risk tradeoff of just-in-time manufacturing technologies.

Managerial and Decision Economics, 24 (5), 393–402.

Cannon, A.R., 2008. Inventory improvement and financial performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 115 (2),

581–593.

Capkun, V., Hameri, A.P., and Weiss, L.A., 2009. On the relationship between inventory and financial performance in

manufacturing companies. International Journal of Operation and Production Management, 29 (8), 789–806.

Chang, D. and Chen, S.J., 1998. Market orientation, service quality and business profitability. A conceptual model and empirical

evidence. The Journal of Services Marketing, 12 (4), 246–264.

Chang, D. and Lee, S.M., 1995. Impact of JIT on organizational performance of US firms. International Journal of Production

Research, 33 (11), 3053–3068.

Chapman, R.L., Murray, P.C., and Mellor, R., 1997. Strategic quality management and financial performance indicators.

International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 14 (4), 432–448.

Chen, H., Frank, M.Z., and Wu, O.Q., 2005. What actually happened to the inventories of American companies between 1981

and 2000? Management Science, 51 (7), 1015–1031.

Chenhall, R.H., 1997. Reliance on manufacturing performance measures, total quality management and organizational

performance. Management Accounting Research, 8 (2), 187–206.

Claycomb, C., Germain, R., and Droge, C., 1999. Total system JIT outcomes: Inventory, organization and financial effects.

Industrial Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 29 (10), 612–630.

Colombo, M.G., Delmastro, M., and Rabbiosi, L., 2007. ‘‘High performance’’ work practices, decentralization and profitability:

Evidence from panel data. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16 (6), 1037–1067.

Cooper, R., 1996. Activity-based costing and the lean enterprise. Journal of Cost Management, 9 (4), 6–14.Cooper, R. and Maskell, B., 2008. How to manage through worse-before-better. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49 (4), 57–65.Corbett, C.J., Montes-Sancho, M.J., and Kirsch, D.A., 2005. The financial impact of ISO 9000 certification in the United States:

An empirical analysis. Management Science, 51 (7), 1046–1059.Cua, K.O., McKone, K.E., and Schroeder, R.G., 2001. Relationships between implementation of TQM, JIT and TPM and

manufacturing performance. Journal of Operations Management, 19 (6), 675–694.Cua, K.O., McKone, K.E., and Schroeder, R.G., 2006. Improving performance through and integrated manufacturing program.

The Quality Management Journal, 13 (3), 45–60.Cuatrecasas-Arbos, L., 2002. Design of a rapid response and high efficiency service by lean production principles: Methodology

and evaluation of variability of performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 80 (2), 169–183.Curkovic, S., Vickery, S., and Droge, C., 2000. Quality-related action programs: Their impact on quality performance and firm

performance. Decision Science, 31 (4), 885–905.Das, A., et al., 2000. A contingent view of quality management – The impact of international competition on quality. Decision

Sciences, 31 (3), 649–690.Demeter, K., 2003. Manufacturing strategy and competitiveness. International Journal of Production Economics, 81/82, 205–213.

Demeter, K. and Matyusz, Z., 2011. The impact of lean practices on inventory turnover. International Journal of Production

Economics, 133 (1), 154–163.

Den Hartog, D.N. and Verburg, R.M., 2004. High performance work systems, organisational culture and firm effectiveness.

Human Resource Management Journal, 14 (1), 55–78.

Dickinson, V. and Lere, J.C., 2003. Problems evaluating sales representative performance? Try activity-based costing. Industrial

Marketing Management, 32 (4), 301–307.

Douglas, T.J. and Judge, W.Q., 2001. Total quality management implementation and competitive advantage: The role of

structural control. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (1), 158–169.

Easton, G.S. and Jarrell, S.L., 1998. The effects of total quality management on corporate performance: An empirical

investigation. Journal of Business, 71 (2), 253–307.

Eroglu, C. and Hofer, C., 2011. Lean, leaner, too lean? The inventory–performance link revised. Journal of Operations

Management, 29 (4), 356–369.

Escrig-Tena, A.B., Bou-Llusar, J.C., and Roca-Puig, V., 2001. Measuring the relationship between total quality management and

sustainable competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Total Quality Management, 12 (7/8), 932–938.

Evans, J.R., 2004. An exploratory study of performance measurement systems and relationships with performance results.

Journal of Operations Management, 22 (3), 219–232.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

Evans, J.R. and Jack, E.P., 2003. Validating key results linkages in the Baldrige Performance Excellence Model. The Quality

Management Journal, 10 (2), 7–23.Fitzgerald, C. and Erdmann, T., 1992. Action line. Newsletter for the Automotive Industry Action Group October, 45–56.Forker, L.B., Mendez, D., and Hershauer, J.C., 1997. Total quality management in the supply chain what is its impact on

performance. International Journal of Production Research, 35 (6), 1681–1701.Fuentes-Fuentes, M.M., Albacete-Saez, C.A., and Llorens-Montes, F.J., 2004. The impact of environmental characteristics on

TQM principles and organizational performance. OMEGA, 32 (6), 425–442.Fullerton, R. and McWatters, C.S., 2001. The production performance benefits from JIT implementation. Journal of Operations

Management, 19 (1), 81–96.Fullerton, R., McWatters, C.S., and Fawson, C., 2003. An examination of the relationships between JIT and Financial

Performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21 (4), 383–404.Fullerton, R. and Wempe, W.F., 2009. Lean manufacturing, non-financial performance measures, and financial performance.

International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 29 (3), 214–240.Gaur, V., Fisher, M.L., and Raman, A., 2005. An econometric analysis of inventory turnover performance in retail services.

Management Science, 51 (2), 181–194.Gaur, V. and Kesavan, S., 2009. The effects of firm size and sales growth rate on inventory turnover performance in the U.S.

retail sector. International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, 112, 1–28.Germain, F.A. and Droge, C., 1997. Effect of just-in-time purchasing relationships on organizational design, purchasing

department configuration and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 26 (2), 15–125.Germain, F.A. and Droge, C., 1998. The context, organizational design, and performance of JIT buying versus non-JIT buying

firms. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 34 (2), 12–18.Gong, Y., et al., 2009. Human resources management and firm performance: The differential role of managerial affective and

continuance commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (1), 263–275.Grandzol, J.R. and Gershon, M., 1997. Which TQM practices really matter: An empirical investigation. Quality Management

Journal, 4 (4), 43–59.Grant, R.M., Shan, R., and Krishnan, R., 1994. TQM’s challenge to management theory and practice. Sloan Management

Review, 35 (2), 584–602.Gunasekaran, A. and Ngai, E.W.T., 2005. Build-to-order SCM: A literature review and framework for development. Journal of

Operations Management, 23 (5), 423–451.Gupta, M., 2001. Activity-based throughput management in a manufacturing company. International Journal of Production

Research, 39 (6), 1163–1182.Gurd, B., Smith, M., and Swaffer, A., 2002. Factors impacting on accounting lag: An exploratory study of responding to TQM.

The British Accounting Review, 34 (3), 205–221.Haldma, T. and Laats, K., 2002. Contingences influencing the management accounting practices of Estonian manufacturing

companies. Management Accounting Research, 13 (4), 379–400.Han, S.B., Chen, S.K., and Ebrahimpour, M., 2007. The impact of ISO 9000 on TQM and business performance. Journal of

Business and Economic Studies, 13 (2), 1–23.Hansson, J. and Ericsson, H., 2002. The impact of TQM on financial performance. Measuring Business Excellence, 6 (4),

44–54.Hendricks, K.B. and Singhal, V.R., 1997. Does implementing an effective TQM program actually improve operating

performance? Empirical evidence from firms that have won quality awards. Management Science, 43 (9), 1258–1274.Hendricks, K.B. and Singhal, V.R., 2001. Firm characteristics, total quality management, and financial performance. Journal of

Operations Management, 19 (3), 269–285.Huson, M. and Nanda, D., 1995. The impact of just-in-time manufacturing on firm performance in the US. Journal of Operations

Management, 12 (3/4), 297–310.Hutchinson, R., 2007. The impact of time-based accounting on manufacturing performance. Dissertation (PhD). University of

Toledo. Available from: http.//etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Hutchinson%20Robert.pdf?acc_num=toledo1194477479

(accessed 10 April 2011).Inman, R.A. and Mehra, S., 1993. Financial justification of JIT implementation. International Journal of Operations and

Production Management, 13 (4), 32–39.Ittner, C.D., Lanen, W.N., and Larcker, D.F., 2002. The association between activity-based costing and manufacturing

performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 40 (3), 711–726.Ittner, C.D. and Larcker, D.F., 1997. The performance effects of process management techniques. Management Sciences, 43 (4),

522–534.Ittner, C.D., Larcker, D.F., and Randall, T., 1997. The activity-based cost hierarchy, production policies and firm profitability.

Journal of Management Accounting Research, 9, 144–162.Jayaram, J., Vickery, S., and Droge, C., 2008. Relationship building, lean strategy and firm performance: An exploratory study

in the automotive supplier industry. International Journal of Production Research, 46 (20), 5633–5649.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

Kannan, V.R. and Tan, K.C., 2005. Just in time, total quality management, and supply chain management: Understanding their

linkages and impact on business performance. OMEGA, 33 (2), 153–162.Karlsson, C.H. and Ahlstrom, P., 1996. Assessing changes towards lean production. International Journal of Operations and

Production Management, 16 (2), 24–41.Kaynak, H., 2003. The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of

Operations Management, 21 (4), 405–435.Kennedy, T. and Affleck-Graves, J., 2001. The impact of activity-based costing techniques on firm performance. Journal of

Management Accounting Research, 13 (1), 19–45.Khan, M.R., 2000. Impact of total quality management on organizational performance: A comparative industry analysis.

International Journal of Management, 17 (2), 257–265.Kinney, M.R. and Wempe, W.F., 2002. Further evidence on the extent and origins of JIT’s profitability effects. The Accounting

Review, 77 (1), 203–225.Koumanakos, D.P., 2008. The effect of inventory management on firm performance. International Journal of Productivity and

Performance Management, 57 (5), 355–369.Krishnan, V. and Loch, C.H., 2005. A retrospective look at production and operations management articles on new product

development. Production and Operations Management, 14 (4), 433–441.Laitinen, E.K., 2002. A dynamic performance measurement system: Evidence from small Finnish technology companies.

Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18 (1), 65–99.Lakhal, L., Pasin, F., and Liman, M., 2006. Quality management practices and their impact on performance. International

Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 23 (6), 625–646.Laugen, B.T., et al., 2005. Best manufacturing practices. What do the best-performing companies do? International Journal of

Operations and Production Management, 25 (2), 131–150.Lea, B.R. and Fredendall, L.D., 2002. The impact of management accounting, product structure, product mix algorithm and

planning horizon on manufacturing performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 79 (3), 279–299.Lee, B.H. and Jo, H.J., 2007. The mutation of the Toyota production system: Adapting the TPS at Hyundai Motor Company.

International Journal of Production Research, 45 (16), 3665–3679.Lemak, D.J., Reed, R., and Satish, P.K., 1997. Commitment to total quality management: Is there a relationship with firm

performance. Journal of Quality Management, 2 (1), 67–86.Lewis, M.A., 2000. Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage. International Journal of Operations and Production

Management, 20 (8), 959–978.Lieberman, M.B. and Demeester, L., 1999. Inventory reduction and productivity growth: Linkages in the Japanese automotive

industry. Management Science, 45 (4), 466–485.Lowe, J., Delbridge, R., and Oliver, N., 1997. High-performance manufacturing: Evidence from the automotive components

industry. Organizations Studies, 18 (5), 783–798.Maani, D.E., Putterill, M.S., and Sluti, D.G., 1994. Empirical analysis of quality improvement in manufacturing. Asia Pacific

Journal of Quality Management, 3 (1), 5–23.Mackelprang, A.W. and Nair, A., 2010. Relationship between just-in-time manufacturing practices and performance: A meta-

analytic investigation. Journal of Operations Management, 28 (4), 283–302.Madu, C.N., Kuei, C.H., and Jacob, R.A., 1996. An empirical assessment of the influence of quality dimensions on

organizational performance. International Journal of Production Research, 34 (7), 1943–1962.Maiga, A.S. and Jacobs, F.A., 2006. Assessing the impact of benchmarking antecedents on quality improvement and its financial

consequences. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 18 (1), 97–123.Maiga, A.S. and Jacobs, F.A., 2007. Activity-based cost management and manufacturing, operational and

financial performance: A structural equation modelling approach. Advances in Management Accounting, 16,

217–260.

Majek, T., 2005. The hybridization of lean production: The case of Japanese subsidiaries in the Polish auto manufacturing industry.

Thesis (MA). Simon Fraser University.

Martınez-Lorente, A.R., Dewhurst, F.W., and Gallego-Rodrıguez, A., 2000. Relating TQM, marketing and business

performance: An exploratory study. International Journal of Production Research, 38 (14), 3227–3246.

Martınez-Sanchez, A. and Perez-Perez, M., 2001. Lean indicators and manufacturing strategies. International Journal of

Operations and Production Management, 21 (11), 1433–1451.

Maskell, B.H. and Baggaley, B.L., 2006. Lean accounting: What’s it all about? Target Magazine, 22 (1), 35–43.McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G., and Cua, K.O., 1999. Total productive maintenance: A contextual view. Journal of Operations

Management, 17 (2), 123–144.McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G., and Cua, K.O., 2001. The impact of total productive maintenance practices on manufacturing

performance. Journal of Operations Management, 19 (1), 39–58.Meade, D.J., Kumar, S., and Houshyar, A., 2006. Financial analysis of a theoretical lean manufacturing implementation using

hybrid simulation modelling. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 25 (2), 137–152.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

Meade, D.J., Kumar, S., and White, B., 2010. Analysing the impact of the implementation of lean manufacturing strategies on

profitability. Journal of the Operation Research Society, 61 (5), 858–871.Mefford, R.N., 2009. Increasing productivity in global firms: The CEO challenge. Journal of International Management, 15 (3),

262–272.Menezes, L.M. de, Wood, S., and Gelade, G., 2010. The integration of human resource and operation management practices and

its link with performance: A longitudinal latent class study. Journal of Operations Management, 28 (6), 455–471.Merino-Dıaz de Cerio, J., 2003. Factors relating to the adoption of quality management practices: An analysis for Spanish

manufacturing firms. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 14 (1), 25–44.Messersmith, J.G. and Guthrie, J.P., 2010. High performance work systems in emergent organizations, implications for firm

performance. Human Resource Management, 49 (2), 241–264.Mia, L., 2000. Just-in-time manufacturing, management accounting systems and profitability. Accounting and Business Research,

30 (2), 137–151.Mistry, J.J., 2005. Origins of profitability through JIT processes in the supply chain. Industrial Management and Data Systems,

105 (5/6), 752–768.Mohrman, S.A., et al., 1995. Total quality management: Practice and outcomes in the largest US firms. Employee Relations,

17 (3), 26–41.Nahm, A., Vonderembse, M.A., and Koufteros, X., 2003. The impact of organizational structure on time-based manufacturing

and performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21 (3), 281–306.Nakamura, M., Sakakibara, S., and Schroeder, R., 1998. Adoption of Just-in-time manufacturing methods at US- and Japanese-

owned plants: some empirical evidence. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45 (3), 230–240.Narasimhan, R., Swink, M., and Kim, S.W., 2006. Disentangling leanness and agility: An empirical investigation. Journal of

Operations Management, 24 (5), 440–457.Nilsson, L., Johnson, M.D., and Gustafsson, A., 2001. The impact of quality practices on customer satisfaction and business

results: Product versus service organizations. Journal of Quality Management, 6 (1), 5–27.Oliver, N., Delbridge, R., and Lowe, J., 1996. Lean production practices: International comparisons in the auto components

industry. British Journal of Management, 7 (1), S29–S44.Pakdil, F., 2010. The effects of TQM on corporate performance. The Business Review, 15 (1), 242–248.Pandya, K.V. and Boyd, J., 1995. Appraisal of JIT using financial measures. International Journal of Operations and Production

Management, 15 (9), 200–209.Perera, H.S.C. and Kulasooriya, D.M.A., 2011. Lean manufacturing: A case study of a Sri Lankan manufacturing organization.

South Asian Journal of Management, 18 (1), 149–158.Pilkington, A. and Fitzgerald, R., 2006. Operations management themes, concepts and relationships: A forward retrospective of

IJOPM. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 26 (11), 1255–1275.Powell, T.C., 1995. Total quality management as competitive advantage. A review and empirical study. Strategic Management

Journal, 16 (1), 15–27.Raju, P.S. and Lonial, S.C., 2002. The impact of service quality and marketing on financial performance in the hospital industry:

An empirical examination. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 9 (6), 335–348.Reimann, M., Schilke, O., and Thomas, J.S., 2010. Customer relationship management and firm performance: The mediating

role of business strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38 (3), 326–346.Rust, R.T., Moorman, C., and Dickson, P.R., 2002. Getting return on quality: Revenue expansion, cost reduction, or both?

Journal of Marketing, 66 (4), 7–24.Salem, O., et al., 2006. Lean construction: From theory to implementation. Journal of Management in Engineering, 22 (4),

168–175.Samson, D. and Terziovski, M., 1999. The relationship between total quality management practices and operational

performance. Journal of Operations Management, 17 (4), 393–409.Scherrer-Rathjet, M., Boyle, T.A., and Deflorin, P., 2009. Lean, take two! Reflections from the second attempt at lean

implementation. Business Horizons, 52 (1), 79–88.Seth, D. and Tripathi, D., 2006. A critical study of TQM and TPM approaches on business performance of Indian

manufacturing industry. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 17 (7), 811–822.Seymour, D., 1993. Quality on campus. Change, 25 (3), 14–27.

Shah, R. and Ward, P.T., 2003. Lean manufacturing: Context, practice bundles and performance. Journal of Operations

Management, 21 (2), 129–149.

Shah, R. and Ward, P.T., 2007. Defining and developing measures of lean production. Journal of Operations Management, 25 (4),

785–805.

Shetty, Y.K., 1993a. Aiming high: Competitive benchmarking for superior performance. Long Range Planning, 26 (1),

39–44.

Shetty, Y.K., 1993b. The quest for quality excellence: Lessons from the Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award. SAM Advanced

Management Journal, 58 (2), 34–40.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

Shih, H.A., Chiang, Y.H., and Hsu, C.C., 2006. Can high performance work systems really lead to better performance?International Journal of Manpower, 27 (8), 741–763.

Sila, I., 2007. Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens of organizational theories:An empirical study. Journal of Operations Management, 25 (1), 83–109.

Sila, I. and Ebrahimpour, M., 2002. An investigation of the total quality management survey based research published between1989–2000: A literature review. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 19 (7), 902–970.

Sila, I. and Ebrahimpour, M., 2005. Critical linkages among TQM factors and business results. International Journal ofOperations and Production Management, 25 (11), 1123–1155.

Silvi, R., Bartolini, M., and Hines, P., 2008. SCM and lean thinking: A framework for management accounting. Cost

Management, 22 (1), 11–20.Soriano-Meier, H. and Forrester, P.L., 2002. A model for evaluating the degree of leanness of manufacturing firms. Integrated

Manufacturing Systems, 13 (2), 104–109.

Sousa, R. and Voss, C.A., 2008. Contingency research in operations management practices. Journal of Operations Management,26 (6), 697–713.

Staw, B.M. and Epstein, L.D., 2000. What bandwagons bring: Effects of popular management techniques on corporateperformance, reputation and CEO pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45 (3), 523–556.

Terpend, R., et al., 2008. Buyer-supplier relationships: Derived value over two decades. Journal of Supply Chain Management,44 (2), 28–45.

Thun, J., Druke, M., and Grubner, A., 2011. Empowering kanban through TPS principles – An empirical analysis of the Toyota

production system. International Journal of Production Research, 48 (23), 7089–7106.Towill, D.R., 2007. Exploiting the DNA of the Toyota production system. International Journal of Production Research, 45 (16),

3619–3637.

Tsai, C.J., 2006. High performance work system and organizational performance: An empirical study of Taiwan’s semiconductordesign firms. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17 (9), 1512–1530.

Van Schalkwyk, J.C., 1998. Total quality management and the performance measurement barrier. The TQM Magazine, 10 (2),

124–131.Vastag, G. and Whybark, D., 2005. Inventory management: Is there a knock-on effect? International Journal of Production

Economics, 93–94, 129–138.Vinodh, S. and Chintha, S.K., 2011. Leanness assessment using multi-grade fuzzy approach. International Journal of Production

Research, 49 (2), 431–445.Wan, H.D. and Chen, F., 2008. A leanness measure of manufacturing systems for quantifying impacts of lean initiatives.

International Journal of Production Research, 46 (23), 6567–6584.

Way, S.A., 2002. High performance work systems and intermediate indicators of firm performance within the US small businesssector. Journal of Management, 28 (6), 765–785.

Wayhan, V.D. and Balderson, E.L., 2007a. TQM and financial performance: A research standard. Total Quality Management

and Business Excellence, 18 (4), 393–401.Wayhan, V.D. and Balderson, E.L., 2007b. TQM and financial performance: What has empirical research discovered? Total

Quality Management and Business Excellence, 18 (4), 403–412.

Westphal, J., Gulati, R., and Shortell, S., 1997. Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on thecontext and consequences of TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (2), 366–394.

White, R.E. and Prybutok, V., 2001. The relationship between JIT practices and type of production system. OMEGA.International Journal of Management Science, 29 (2), 113–124.

Wilson, D.D. and Collier, D.A., 2000. An empirical investigation of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award causalmodel. Decision Sciences, 32 (2), 361–390.

Womack, J., Jones, D., and Roos, J., 1990. The machine that changed the world. New York: MacMillan/Rawson Associates.

Wu, Y.C., 2003. Lean manufacturing: A perspective of lean suppliers. International Journal of Operations and ProductionManagement, 23 (11/12), 1349–1376.

Yang, M.G., Hong, P., and Modi, S.B., 2011. Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental management on business

performance: An empirical study of manufacturing firms. International Journal Production Research, 129 (2), 251–261.Yeung, A.C.L., Cheng, T.C.E., and Lai, K.H., 2006. An operational and institutional perspective on total quality management.

Production and Operations Management, 15 (1), 156–170.York, K.M. and Miree, C.E., 2004. Causation or covariation: An empirical re-examination of the link between TQM and

financial performance. Journal of Operations Management, 22 (3), 291–311.Young, S.M., 1992. A framework for successful adoption and performance of Japanese manufacturing practices in the United

States. Academy of Management Review, 17 (4), 677–700.

Zhang, J., 2000. Developing a model of quality management methods and evaluating their effects on business performance. TotalQuality Management, 11 (1), 129–137.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, S

an D

iego

] at

03:

06 1

9 Ju

ne 2

013

what can we learn from the evolution of research on lean management assessment?

Documents