Criticism

Lean has been criticized over time by different authors, but the target of criticism has changed through time as Lean has evolved (Hines et al. 2004). A major criticism towards Lean is the notion that there is no universally agreed meaning for it and it is difficult to create an all-encompassing definition (Pettersen 2009). Hines et al.

(2004) recognized lack of contingency and attention to human aspects, capability to manage variability and limited operational focus on the shop floor as the key drivers in Lean criticism. Many companies still have the shop floor in the center of their Lean implementations, while misunderstanding the “contingent nature” needed to employ Lean thinking and disregarding the need for more integrative approaches. Lean has also been criticized over the notion that the tools and techniques have played a leading role over strategic level thinking and the inability to manage variability.

Williams et al. (1992) argued that “the difference between lean production and mass production is not empirically sustainable” while pointing out the validity of Womack and Jones’ (1990) research. They note that Womack and Jones’ (1990) work is based on standard secondary sources, which had their own deficiencies (Williams et al. 1993), and not in original historical research. They similarly argued that Krafcik’s (1988) methodology was far from robust and the results were questionable due to failure in control. Lewis (2000) follows this by maintaining that in any complicated system it is difficult to prove causal linkages between inputs and outcomes, pointing out that the assumptions made of the superior productivity of the

Japanese vehicle assemblers in 1980s’ and 1990s’ are ambiguous and should be filtered carefully.

While Lewis’ (2000) study is limited to only one industry sector, it suggests that Lean does not necessarily lead to improved financial performance. A critical point seen to be the company’s ability to generate value through cost savings. In addition, Lean implementations seem to inevitably reduce innovative activity, forcing the company choose a balance between Lean production and innovation. Gall (2007) went as far as calling Lean a method of worker suppression, claiming that its goal is to make work simplistic, narrow and as cheap as possible. However, the unbiasedness of these claims should be taken with skepticism, considering that Gall’s (2007) whole work is aimed to help people “fight” against Lean.

While Gall’s (2007) work should be taken with skepticism, Pettersen (2009) established that one meaningful criticism towards Lean is that the approach does not consider usually employees’ perspective and the employees are not seen as creators of success, but rather as components in the production system. Pettersen (2009) notes that “the extensive discussion about jidoka and poka yoke in the Lean literature suggests that employees cannot be trusted to produce good quality, thus creating a necessity for removing the possibility of human error from the system.”

However, multiple authors have highlighted the importance of employees and managers in a Lean implementation (Emiliani 1999; Comm and Mathaisel 2005;

Lucey et al. 2005; Emiliani 2006; Puvanasvaran et al. 2008; Dombrowski et al. 2010, 2012; Dombrowski and Mielke 2013). The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Managers and employees could be considered as requirements for success, but also as components in the production system. Much like a component in a machine – if it is not working it should be replaced.

Lewchuk and Robertson’s (1996) survey in North America supports Pettersen’s (2009) conclusions to some extent. They concluded that workers in companies that used Lean production instead of the traditional “Ford-style” way of working reported their workload to be heavier and faster. The workers also did not feel that they could influence the things they disliked in their job. On the contrary, Seppälä and Klemola

(2004) concluded that workers perceived Lean activities mostly positive, since they felt like they had higher control over their work and more opportunities for participation. However, similarly to Lewchuk and Robertson (1996), the study identified the amount of work, mental load, and stress as negative Lean-related factors. Conti et al. (2004; 2006) continue that while Lean implementations might lead to more work-related stress, the stressful practices are not inherent in Lean nor are they a necessity or a requirement for a successful Lean implementation. Rather, management choices related to production practices and designing and operating Lean systems are the determining factors of success. Seppälä and Klemola (2004) similarly recognized bad management of change as a contributor in the success of Lean implementation.

The need of modifying Lean practices to fit an industry’s characteristics has been noted by multiple authors (e.g. James-Moore and Gibbons 1997; Lewis 2000;

Cooney 2002; Lee and Jo 2007; Seddon and Caulkin 2007) and sometimes a fundamentally different approach is required (James-Moore and Gibbons 1997).

Mehta and Shah (2005) noted that Lean production fits a production environment characterized by low technical uncertainty, where the tasks can be executed in a standardized manner. Consequently, Cooney’s (2002) study disputes Lean’s universal applicability. Buyer-supplier relations, general market conditions and the structure of institutions (social, political) all have an impact in Lean’s applicability, but are usually disregarded in the literature. In addition, while JIT flow is a fundamental practice in Lean and implementing JIT might lead to significant performance improvements (Nakamura et al. 1996), multiple conditions must be met for it to be suitable. Lee and Jo (2007) further contest TPS’s universal transferability by arguing that “the adoption of TPS involves a complex evolutionary process of organizational learning and interpretation”, emphasizing that TPS is not easily transferred and the strategic choices of a company and their complex interactions with internal and external factors might lead to a differentiated version of TPS that suits the company better. Lastly, Pettersen (2009) maintains that if the Lean principles were applicable to every industry, the Japanese should have distributed their knowledge across industries. This however does not seem to be the case as

the Japanese are performing in the same or worse level in other than the automobile industry compared to their western competitors.