The American workforce's resistance to lean manufacturing implementation

Human Side of Change, The American Workforce's Journey Through Lean Manufacturing

The modern day American workforce is one of the most globally developed and empowered workforces. The employees become organized in unions that protect and promote their rights. The individual staff members are able to select from several employment opportunities those that best serve their needs. Once on the job, they are subjected to training programs which improve their career paths and they are protected by the constantly developing employment legislations.

However, the American workforce has not always been this developed and protected. Its basis was set starting with the Industrial Revolution, as the innovations of the time such as the steam engine, textile production or the iron processing operations allowed entrepreneurs to emerge and open factories. With the massive need for workforce, millions of American citizens fled from the county side to the cities. The period represented not only the commencement of the modern workforce's path to evolution, but also the largest process of urbanization in the history of the United States.

As the people moved to cities in search of jobs to improve their lives, what they were faced with instead was different from what they had expected. Nevertheless, the workers of the day had limited ability and knowledge to compare their experiences and they had little power to negotiate better employment conditions. Under the circumstances, they were subjected to abusive treatments. Men were forced to long hours in unsafe and unsanitary conditions. Women were forced to work alongside the men, performing jobs for which they were barely capable. Children were also employed to work in tough conditions and they were paid less than the adults. The direct result of the abuses has materialized in the creation of employment legislations, aimed at protecting the individuals. Children were as such banned from employment; lower standards for physical efforts were imposed on women; maximum working hours were set and minimum wage was created.

Starting from those days, the American workforce followed a continually evolutionary process, with several noteworthy moments. One important aspect in the evolution of the American workforce is constituted by implementation of lean manufacturing within the United States. The workforce and the industry initially rejected the process, but came to learn a tough lesson and eventually comprehended the need for efficient operations and continuous evolutions. The underlying idea behind lean manufacturing is that of completing the operational processes in a more efficient manner. The theoretical definitions of the concept differ and the efficiency is revealed through elements such as added customer value, decreased costs or lower inventory.

Despite the evolutions it had undergone before the creation of the lean manufacturing system, the American workforce was unable to embrace the method. It was nevertheless welcomed in Japan. Given this context, the current research strives to understand the reasons as to why lean manufacturing initially failed within the United States. The first step to be taken in answering the research questions is that of summarizing the findings in the available literature. As this step is completed, the paper moves on to presenting the research methodology to be used. This methodology is called onion ring and it is composed of a series of underlying elements, such as research approach, methodology or strategy. The process of data collection and analysis will then be presented and the paper comes to an end with a section on concluding remarks which will restate the most important findings of the research. The final section will also discuss the dual significance of the study.

2. Research Objectives and Research Questions

The aim of this research endeavor is that of assessing the characteristics of the American workforce and its rationale and motivation for rejecting the lean manufacturing production system. In order to construct a relevant and meaningful discussion, the first sub-objective is that of ensuring an easy and clear understanding of the concept of lean manufacturing. This would be completed through the presentation of several definitions of the concept, as they are presented in the specialized literature.

As the first objective is accomplished, the research endeavor moves on to completing the remaining sub-objectives. These are revealed in the form of the following research questions:

a) Why did it take so long for the American workforce to embrace the lean manufacturing production system?

b) What are the cultural differences between Japan and the United States and what role did they play in the different adoption of the lean manufacturing production system?

c) Why did William Edward Deming take his principles of lean manufacturing to Japan?

d) Why didn't the American industrial society embrace Deming's principles?

e) What role did the ego of the American workforce play in the rejection of the system?

It will be the role of the following pages to conduct the adequate research in order to create a context in which these questions can be answered.

4. Methodology

The research methodology used in finding answers to the posed questions was that of the onion ring. The analogy to the vegetable is given by the layered construction of the two elements. Like the vegetable, the research methodology is composed from a series of layers and in order to get to the next layer, it is necessary to peel -- or complete -- the current one.

Mark Saunders, Philip Lewis and Adrian Thornhill (2006) identify six distinctive layers of the research onion as follows:

a) Research philosophies

b) Approach to research

c) The research strategies

d) The research choices

e) The time horizons, and f) The research techniques and procedures

The structure of the research onion is best revealed in the diagram below:

a) Research philosophies

The research philosophies are generally divided into two large categories -- positivist philosophies and phenomenological philosophies. The positivist philosophies assess the topic under analysis through objective lenses and without the direct involvement of the researcher. More specifically, they focus on all the components of the problem in consideration and they strive to identify relations and connections among them. The final scope is that of constructing a relevant and studied result to explain the mechanisms behind the assessed phenomenon.

The phenomenological approaches on the other hand integrate the elements of subjectivity. While the researchers themselves do not interfere with the study and its findings, their philosophies state that the very phenomena they study are too complex to be explained through a generalized theory (Oriesek, 2004). From the standpoint of the phenomenological research philosophy then, the components of the topic would too complex and too different from the economic, political, social and otherwise standpoints for a clear answer to be offered.

The interpretativism philosophy for instance leaves room for the researcher to interpret the study findings through his own personal experiences, introducing as such the elements of bias and generating objectivity loses. The radical humanist research approach then places the human individual at the core of the study and states that the element under research is directly influenced by the decisions of the individuals, as well as by the mechanisms through which the individuals interact and construct relationships within the society. The functionalist philosophy strives to identify the working mechanisms behind the components of the topic and to explain them in a rigid and logic manner. It however focuses on limited elements and interrelationships.

The phenomenological approaches are useful in the context of niche studies, whereas the positivist philosophy is more useful in the case of broader research topics. The decision of which philosophy to adopt however depends on the researcher and no one can state whether one philosophy is better than the other. The selection of the philosophy -- as well as the selection of the future research elements -- is subjected directly to the desires of the researcher as well as to the characteristics of the research endeavor. In the case of the current study, the research is constructed on the combination of the two philosophies. Their combination maximizes the benefits of the two while reducing their limitations. More specifically, the study relies on factual and empirical data to construct findings, but in its process, it also considers the importance of the human component.

b) Approach to research

There are two types of research approaches -- deductive approach and inductive approach. The deductive approach commences at a given theory and strives to identify elements that test the respective hypothesis in order to prove or disprove it. The inductive approach on the other hand commences at the phenomenon and analyses it in order to state a thesis. Due to the nature of the current research endeavor, the selected approach is the inductive approach, which relies on the collection of qualitative information. "Researchers adopting an inductive approach often work with qualitative data and apply a variety of methods to gather this information for establishing different views of an identified phenomenon" (Oriesek, 2004).

c) The research strategies

The selection of the research strategy depends directly on the previous choices made in respect to the research philosophies and the approach to the research. In the case of a strictly positivist philosophy combined with a deductive approach, the suitable strategy to use in testing the hypothesis would be the survey or the experiment. In the case of the combination of the two philosophies and the selection of the inductive approach, as well as in the context of the current research topics and questions, the adequate strategy would be that of the case study.

At a general level, the usage of the case study as a research tool is subjected to six gradual stages, all of which have been completed throughout the endeavor. They refer to the following: (1) identification of the research question; (2) identification of the situations to be analyzed (the cases) and the identification of the data collection and analysis techniques; (3) preparation for data gathering; (4) collection of data; (5) evaluation and analysis of the data; and finally, (6) preparation of the final report. The main advantage of this research strategy is that it integrates "detailed contextual analysis of a limited number of events or conditions and their relationships" (Soy, 1997).

d) The research choices

The research choices refer to the decision of the researcher of whether to use a single method in constructing the case or whether to use a combination of two or more methods in the construction of his research endeavor. In the case of current research, the choice falls in favor of using a single method. This has the benefit of simplified workloads and the creation of solid and clear findings. Additionally, given the nature of the topic and the data to be collected, a combination of several methods would lose relevance.

e) The time horizons

The time horizons of a research project refer to the periods through which the project would be completed. On the one hand, there are the longitudinal studies and on the other hand, there are the cross sectional studies. The longitudinal studies spread out through a long time frame, during which the studied phenomenon is assessed in various stages of evolution. The cross sectional research takes place during a limited time frame and it revolves around the study of several elements of the phenomenon during the same time period. In light of the research topic forwarded, the cross sectional time horizon is to be used as the various elements of lean manufacturing implementation would be assessed at the same time.

f) The research techniques and procedures

The collection and analysis of the data can be completed either through qualitative tools and techniques, either through quantitative tools and techniques. The qualitative approach revolves around the analysis of the phenomenon in light of the relationships between various problem components. The findings are only relevant in the context of the assessed phenomenon and they cannot be generalized to explain the behavior of an entire community or a totality of phenomena. The findings retrieved through quantitative analysis on the other hand can be extrapolated. They are nevertheless obtained through more tedious processes which often involve statistically processed evidence. Given the nature of the topic and the data to be collected, the most adequate set of techniques and procedures belongs to the qualitative category.

Overall, since the study is an empirical one, the research methodology has been adapted to meet the needs of the specific endeavor. In this order of ideas, the study focuses on people, rather than facts, and it strives to explain their evolution. It does not use statistics, but it observes the people. The current study will as such gather knowledge about the American workforce and its response to the lean manufacturing production system in order to explain and describe the phenomenon. It does not intent to improve or modify any processes. "The target is to find out how things are, or how they have been. The project may also include gathering opinions about the desirability of the present state of things, but it does not include planning any improvements" (University of Art and Design Helsinki, 2007).

5. Data Collection and Findings

The literature review previously conducted has focused on the general concept of lean manufacturing as well as on its history and evolution. The general sources reveal the basic idea of the concept's emergence from the Japanese Toyota Production System and its American genesis in Henry Ford's assembly line. Nevertheless, the collected pieces of information do not manage to answer the initially posed research questions. This situation is encountered as the topic raised is a niche one and not highly present in the general literary discussion of lean manufacturing. This state of events materializes in the necessity to construct a more detailed and better documented case study. This case study would be structured onto five sections, each corresponding to the five research questions posed at the beginning of the research endeavor.

a) Why did it take so long for the American workforce to embrace the lean manufacturing production system?

As World War Two came to an end, the United States of America embraced its internationally powerful role. Not only that the country was important from a military and politic standpoint, it was also powerful from an economic standpoint as it became a central exporter. The exporting operations were possible due to the recent developments in batch production and they materialized in increased chances of financial gains. Given this context, the American manufacturers and workforce placed a decreased emphasis on product quality. What was important at those times was to produce large amounts of commodities which could be quickly shipped abroad. The quality of the products was not taken into consideration as emphasis was placed on quantity.

Henry Ford developed and implemented several tools of efficient manufacturing, but these revolved primarily around increases in quantity. He also paid attention to some quality aspects, although these were generally less intense. At the general level of the entire American workforce, the trend was that of ignoring quality. Japan on the other hand was perfecting the lean manufacturing production system. By the 1980s decade, when the concept came to return to the United States, Henry Ford's efforts had become institutionalized and rigid and a new approach was necessary. "Japanese manufacturers, Toyota in particular, adopted Lean in its manufacturing process and spent several decades refining it while Americans ignored it. By the time it started to come back to the United States, much of what Henry Ford had learned, used and published was forgotten. The methods he had used became somewhat rigid and institutionalized, and in doing so became less adaptable to different manufacturing models. When Lean manufacturing returned to the United States in the 1980s, many viewed it as a one-size-fits-all tool. That tool happens to have great value in the right environment but is not readily adaptable to others - for example, job shops, custom manufacturers and short-run manufacturers)" (Nilson, 2010).

b) What are the cultural differences between Japan and the United States and what role did they play in the different adoption of the lean manufacturing production system?

An important difference is given by the status of each country at the end of WWII. On the one hand, the United States was a winning country, and their approach to business was that of a confident winner. Japan on the other hand was a losing country and they looked up to the United States in order to learn from their experience. While the United States was a strong nation, they neglected the need for continuous development and adaptation. Japan on the other hand did not.

In terms of other cultural differences, the Japanese workforce is more disciplined and less dynamic than the American one. This virtually makes it easier to manage and also makes processes of organizational change easier to implement. Politeness is one of the major characteristics of the Japanese culture, while in America, emphasis is placed on practicality. This too makes it easier for change to be implemented. Finally, since Japan is a desirable location for outsourcing operations, the domestic workforce is used to working by various standards and it is as such more adaptable than the American one.

Other cultural difference would refer to the necessity to take shoes off in Japanese residences while in the American shoes are kept on the feet; the tea drinking art; the consumption of fish products and healthy, minimally cooked food in Japan as opposed to the consumption of highly processed foods and fast food products in the United States. Honking the horn in Japan is illegal, while in the United States is popular. Additionally, talking in public about the Emperor and his family is considered a taboo subject and frowned upon, while in the United States, discussing the life of the President and his family is common (White, 2007). The sense of tradition, respect and discipline are more embedded in the Japanese culture than in the American one and while the above mentioned differences might not seem able to directly influence the introduction of lean manufacturing, their existence might have materialized in increased respect for authority and better support in the implementation of lean manufacturing.

c) Why did Edward Deming take his principles of lean manufacturing to Japan?

Edward Deming is most widely recognized for his efforts in supporting the manufacturing processes in Japan. At a time in which the American society was not ready to evolve from the manufacturing quality standpoint, Deming selected Japan due to its immense workforce, technological capabilities as well as willingness to develop. Not only that the Japanese manufacturers looked at the American firms in order to learn their manufacturing and operational models, they were also willing to develop these models in order to better suit their own needs. In other words, the Japanese market was more welcoming of innovation and developments. This was the context in which Deming's principles were welcome and implemented in the Asian country, but it has to be noted that the arrival of Deming in the country was incidental. In 1947, William Edwards Deming was asked to join the American delegation in Tokyo as adviser in sampling techniques to the Supreme Command of the Allied Powers. Three years into his mission, he was welcomed by the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers, where he taught engineers of the importance of quality. His mission in Japan ended in 1965, by which time, Japan had emerged as a strong industry and a reputable international competitor (The W. Edwards Deming Institute, 2010).

In Japan, Deming found the adequate context for the implementation of his 14 principles:

Constancy of purpose

New philosophy

Reduced dependence on inspection to test quality

Minimization of total costs

Constant improvement of organizational processes

Offering of on-the-job training

Adoption and implementation of leadership

Elimination of fear

Elimination of barriers between staff members and organizational departments

Elimination of slogans, targets and exhortations

Removal of numerical quotas for the employees and numerical objectives for the managerial team, referring specifically to the elimination of management by objectives and the elimination of standards

Elimination of barriers which reduce employee sense of reward and pride

Implementation of educational and self-improvement programs for the employees

Engaging all company members in the transformation (Deming, 2000)

With the implementation of Deming's principles, Japan entered a new era of manufacturing. They became better specialized and more efficient, with the result of their emergence as an internationally powerful player in the global market. In honor of his efforts, Edward Deming was awarded the Second Order Medal of the Sacred Treasure by the Emperor of Japan in 1960. The country's Union of Japanese Science and Engineering (JUSE) also instated the annual Deming Prizes for "achievements in quality and dependability of product" (TPM Online, 2010).

d) Why didn't the American industrial society embrace Deming's principles?

William Edwards Deming dedicated his professional life to the study and improvement of quality. He researched manufacturing and other organizational processes in vast industries and in several firms and he proposed improvements. Today, the implementation of his principles makes the United States better able to compete at the international scale. "The impact of Dr. Deming's teachings on American manufacturing and service organizations has been profound. He led a sweeping quality revolution that is improving the competitive position of the United States" (TPM Online, 2010). Nevertheless, the American workforce was not initially ready to embrace his concepts and this was mainly due to the newly discovered means of increasing production. In a context in which the country was presented with the possibility of increasing its output to generate more revenues, its emphasis on production efficiency and product quality was lost in the detriment of immediate gains.

e) What role did the ego of the American workforce play in the rejection of the system?

As it has been mentioned throughout the answer to the first question, the United States of America played an important role in the economic recovery of the WWII affected nations. One specific means in which this role was played referred to the bulk production and export of various commodities. The American workforce perceived itself as the largest and most powerful workforce on the globe and overestimated its capabilities. While they were producing large amounts of similar products, the Japanese were learning how to produce the same amounts of items, but in a less costly manner and with results of better quality. The ego of the American workforce relied in their underestimation of the competition or even in their failure of understating the threat of competition. Since they were the largest producers, they did not consider the possibility of being overthrown by foreign players. Their ego eventually led them to realize that the American consumers were often buying products made in Japan in the detriment of products made in the United States. The result was the eventual implementation of the quality principles issued by Deming.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Summary of Findings

The American workforce commenced its path to evolution during the Industrial Revolution. As the people moving from the country side into the urban context in search for a better life were however more exploited than benefited, legislations were developed to safeguard the rights of workers. Today, the laws are created to ensure the mental and physical well-being of the staff members.

The evolution of the American workforce has undergone a series of challenges, one of the most notable of them being the initial rejection of the lean manufacturing system. Lean manufacturing is generically understood as a manufacturing process by which the output is being maximized while the input is being minimized. The first step in answering the research question was as such constituted by the better understanding of the concept. The literature review constructed has detailed on the various definitions and characteristics of lean manufacturing. Dan Blacharski (2010) has for instance emphasized on the role of small inventories in the process of manufacturing, as well as on the empowerment of the employees and the necessity for a strong partnership with the purveyors. He also stressed on the similarity between lean manufacturing and Total Quality Management.

Other sources take different approaches of lean manufacturing, such as its history, evolution or its role.

As the literature review was completed, the following step was that of identifying the methodology to be implemented throughout the project. The current research endeavor is a descriptive one in the meaning that it strives to collect and process data and knowledge on the topic of the American workforce's reaction towards lean manufacturing. It does not however propose to add improvements or modifications. Given the descriptive nature of the project, the following selections have been made in the research onion:

A combination of positivist and phenomenological research philosophies

An inductive research approach striving to gather qualitative data

A case study research strategy

A research choice in favor a single method

A cross sectional time horizon, and finally

Qualitative research techniques and procedures.

The following step of the research process was constituted by the gradual offering of answers to the initially posed questions. This was accomplished through the construction of a case study based on information retrieval from a series of sources. The findings indicate the following:

The American workforce took so long to implement the lean manufacturing production system as its emphasis was placed on quantity of production, rather than efficiency and quality

There are several cultural differences between Japan and the United States and they might have played a part in the differentiated adoption of the lean manufacturing ideology. Specifically, the Japanese workforce is more disciplined and the sense of respect and authority is better embedded. This might have contributed to a more efficient implementation of organizational change.

William Edward Deming arrived in Japan incidentally, but once there, he was welcomed into the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers, where he taught on the importance of quality. The Japanese workforce was more willing to implement his principles.

The American industrial society was enjoining the development of mass production and traded quality for quantity.

The ego of the American workforce was a determinant of its rejection of lean manufacturing and this is best exemplified by the fact that the United States had exited the war as a winner and their industry and economy was flourishing. They underestimated the competition.

6.2. Relevance of the Research

The relevance of the research project is a dual one, given by the theoretical significance on the one hand, and also by the practical significance on the other hand. The practical significance is constituted by the information it offers to American and other entrepreneurs in understanding the complexities of the workforce. The study as such offers a glimpse into the mechanisms of workforce thinking and acceptance -- or rejection -- of change. It not only constitutes an interesting piece of reading for practitioners, but it is also useful due to the numerous lessons it reveals. Two of the most relevant of the lessons refer to the focus on organizational efficiency and the importance of understanding cultural differences.

a) Continued need for organizational efficiency

Organizational efficiency has from early times constituted a primary scope of entrepreneurs. Today, some managers tend to neglect efficiency in the detriment of other business elements, and this often materializes in profitability losses. A relevant example in this sense is constituted by the recent financial results of American automobile maker Ford Motors Corporation, which has for years been running of loses. The company has focused on the manufacture of its large size and luxurious vehicles, which were costly for the firm, and no longer as popular among consumers. Their neglect of the efficiency has cost them billions of dollars.

Other modern day managers focus on the implementation of various strategic approaches to improve their corporate image. These strategies -- such as environmental stability, social responsibility, community support and so on -- are necessary in the context of increasing competition, but they do tend to reduce the levels of organizational efficiency -- and as such profitability. The lesson learnt then is that of continually setting and following goals of organizational efficiency. While the rest of the competitive strategies are also useful and necessary, organizational efficiency is imperative for survival.

b) Importance of cultural differences

As the study has shown, there are several cultural differences between the United States and Japan. The cultural differences led to different responses to lean manufacturing and they can as such lead to different responses in various other instances. In the context of globalization and the ever increasing outsourcing trend, firms need to carefully study and understand the cultural differences. It is as such imperative for the entrepreneurs sustaining international business relations to thoroughly study and comprehend the cultural differences between them and their partners, as well as to implement them in their daily interactions. Economic agents who overlook cultural differences face the risk of failure.

c) Constant development

When the principles of William Edwards Deming were not implemented in the United States industry, they were implemented in the Japanese one. The lesson to be drawn from this experience is represented by the fact that, however sometimes underlying, the competition is always present and should never be underestimated. The primary element of remaining ahead is that of continually developing the firm. And this development integrates elements such as operational efficiency, marketing endeavors, employee motivation and empowerment and so on.

The second relevance of the study is given by the theoretical meaning. From this angle, the project centralizes vast information in the available literature and integrates it in a new form and in a construction which is most relevant for the analysis of the American workforce's reaction towards the lean manufacturing production system. Secondly, it constructs an empirical study and it leads to solid findings which can be used in future researches. The findings are not only relevant in the meaning that they help organizational leaders better understand employee complexities, but they also help form future managers, future change strategies and so on. The final theoretical application of the study is constituted by its ability to raise additional research questions to sit at the basis of future research endeavors.

Throughout the research process, several sub-topics linked to the American workforce and the lean manufacturing production system were identified. However, it was neither the scope nor the possibility of the current research to answer all the presented questions. It can however raise them as starting points in future research projects. In this order of ideas, the following are of importance:

a) The American and Japanese cultures differ significantly and, as it has been shown in the current study, their workforces also differ. What are the complex and complete elements which differentiate the two workforces? Which cultural, geographic, social and otherwise factors determine the differences? How has globalization manifested in this field? Is the Japanese workforce becoming Americanized or is the American workforce becoming Japanized? Where does the European workforce stand and is it more similar to the American or to the Japanese one?

b) In the United States, lean manufacturing emerged with Henry Ford's assembly line. In Japan, it coincided with the Toyota Production System. Is lean manufacturing more common within the automobile industry than in other industries? Why does it have its geneses in car making? How has lean manufacturing come to exist in other global regions? How does it manifest in Europe and which was its history in the Old Continent?

c) The current study revealed some of the elements which contributed to the evolution of production, such as the technological advent or the Industrial Revolution. What are other variables which impacted production and how have they managed to influence the manufacturing industry? What are the main characteristics of 21st century manufacturing in light of globalization and the internationalized economic crisis?

References:

Blacharski, D., 2010, What is lean manufacturing, Wise Geek, http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-lean-manufacturing.htm last accessed on September 29, 2010

Deming, W.E., 2000, Out of the crisis, MIT Press, ISBN 0262541157

Hoobs, D.P., 2004, Lean manufacturing implementation: a complete execution manual for any size manufacturer, J. Ross Publishing, ISBN 1932159142

Nilson, K., 2010, Lean manufacturing: adapting as important as adopting, Six Sigma, http://www.isixsigma.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=241:lean-manufacturing-adapting-as-important-as-adopting&Itemid=156 last accessed on September 29, 2010

Oriesek, D.F., 2004, Maximizing corporate reputation through effective governance: a study of structures and behaviors, Universal Publishers, ISBN 1581122292

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., 2009, Research methods for business students, 5th edition, Pearson Education, ISBN 0273716867

Soy, S.K., 1997, The case study as a research method, University of Texas at Austin, http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~ssoy/usesusers/l391d1b.htm last accessed on September 29, 2010

White, A., 2007, Everyday differences between Japan and the United States, Associated Content, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/133634/everyday_differences_between_japan.html?cat=16 last accessed on September 29, 2010

2007, Planning an empirical study, University of Art and Design Helsinki, http://www2.uiah.fi/projects/metodi/144.htm last accessed on September 29, 2010

2009, Lean manufacturing, Lean Manufacture, http://www.leanmanufacture.net / last accessed on September 29, 2010

2010, Total quality management, Answers, http://www.answers.com/topic/tqm last accessed on September 29, 2010

2010, W. Edwards Deming, His "14 recommendations" changes the history of Japan and the world, TPM Online, http://www.tpmonline.com/articles_on_total_productive_maintenance/management/deming14steps.htm last accessed on September 29, 2010

2010, W. Edwards Deming, W. Edwards Deming Institute, http://deming.org/?content=61 last accessed on September 29, 2010

What is lean manufacturing, Lean Manufacturing Guide, http://www.leanmanufacturingguide.com / last accessed on September 29, 2010