Investigating Lean implementation barriers : A Qualitative study on Internal Logistics in Discrete Manufacturing

Investigating

Lean

implementation

barriers

A Qualitative study on Internal Logistics in Discrete

Manufacturing

MASTER THESIS WITHIN: Business Administration NUMBER OF CREDITS: 30 credits

PROGRAMME OF STUDY: International Logistics and Supply Chain Management AUTHOR: Julius Roos and Marcus von Kiöhling

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank the case companies and more specifically the respondents that participated in this study and provided us with empirical data and valuable insights.

Furthermore, we would like to thank our tutor and our peers for reviewing and providing feedback to this thesis.

Lastly, a special thanks to our family and friends for the continuous support throughout the study.

i

Master Thesis in Business Administration

Title: Investigating Lean implementation barriers - A Qualitative study on Internal Logistics in Discrete Manufacturing

Authors: J. Roos and M. von Kiöhling

Tutor: Imoh Antai

Date: 2021-05-24

Key terms: Lean implementations, Lean barriers, Internal Logistics, Discrete Manufacturing

ii

Abstract

The concept of Lean is extensively utilized and is still being implemented widely in organizations in order to remain competitive and cost-efficient. Even though Lean has proven to increase performance, the expected benefits with using the Lean approach is often absent. Implementing Lean is accompanied by barriers that limits the success of the implementation and many organizations fails to overcome these barriers. Furthermore, the current literature on Lean barriers is dispersed and superficial, which indicates a need for further in-depth investigation on the barriers of Lean implementations.

Thus, the purpose of our study is to investigate and expand the contextual and detailed understanding of the barriers of Lean implementations. To help fulfil the purpose, two research questions were designed. The first research question examines how theoretical Lean implementation barriers are applicable at internal logistics in discrete manufacturing. The second research question explores how Lean implementation barriers translate to practical issues at internal logistics in discrete manufacturing. To answer the research questions, a multiple case study was conducted at three case companies, where the empirical data was analysed through thematic analysis. Furthermore, the outcomes from the thematic analysis were compared to the existing literature on Lean barriers to generate deeper insights. The result reveals that the theoretical Lean barriers are highly applicable in the context of internal logistics in discrete manufacturing. It was though found that the importance of the barriers varies when studying them in a specific context. After answering the first research question, manifestations of Lean barriers were explored in the context of internal logistics. Several practical issues were identified and presented as a result of answering the second research question.

The results of the study highlight the need for contextual perspectives when studying Lean barriers as the outcome seemingly differ depending on where it is being implemented. Through this study, a more detailed knowledge of Lean barriers has been provided in specific context of internal logistics, helping to understand Lean as a philosophy better. The study also serves to help practitioners increase their knowledge on Lean to decrease the high rate of unsuccessful Lean implementations. Practitioners can further use this study to gain insights of real issues caused by Lean implementations to support them in addressing root causes and delegating resources to handle issues brought by Lean.

iii

Table of Contents

1

Introduction ... 1

1.4 Scope and delimitations ... 5

1.5 Outline ... 5

2

Theoretical framework ... 7

2.1 The concept of Lean ... 7

2.2 Lean barriers ... 8

2.2.1 Understanding of Lean within organizations ... 9

2.2.2 Top management commitment to Lean implementations ... 10

2.2.3 Resistance to change during Lean implementations ... 11

2.2.4 Resources for Lean implementations ... 13

2.2.5 Additional barriers affecting Lean implementations ... 13

2.3 Lean barrier relationships ... 14

2.4 Contextual aspect of Lean implementations ... 15

2.5 Summary of the framework ... 15

3

Research Methodology ... 18

3.1 Research Philosophy ... 18

3.2 Research Approach ... 18

3.3 Research Design ... 19

3.3.1 Multiple Case Study ... 19

3.4 Literature search... 20

3.5 Data Collection ... 21

iv

3.5.2 Interviews ... 21

3.5.3 Observations ... 23

3.6 Data Analysis ... 24

3.6.1 Data analysis connection to Research Questions ... 25

3.7 Research Quality ... 26 3.7.1 Credibility ... 26 3.7.2 Transferability ... 26 3.7.3 Dependability ... 27 3.7.4 Confirmability ... 27 3.8 Research Ethics ... 28

4

Empirical findings ... 29

5

Analysis & Discussion ... 45

5.1 Analysis process... 45

5.2 Analysis Research Question 1 ... 45

5.2.1 Knowledge on Lean ... 46

5.2.2 Top management commitment ... 53

5.2.3 Resistance ... 57

5.2.4 Resources ... 59

5.2.5 Additional barriers... 61

5.3 Answering Research Question 1 ... 61

5.4 Analysis Research Question 2 ... 63

5.4.1 Practical issues in company A ... 63

v

5.4.3 Practical issues in company C ... 66

5.5 Answering Research Question 2 ... 67

6

Implications and Future research ... 69

6.1 Theoretical implications ... 69 6.2 Managerial implications ... 69 6.3 Limitations ... 70 6.4 Future research ... 70

7

Conclusion ... 72

8

Reference list ... 73

vi

List of figures

Figure 1 - Outline ... 6

Figure 2 - Data analysis connection to Research Questions ... 26

List of tables

Table 2 - Interviews ... 22

Appendix

Appendix B - Thematic analysis process ... 81

Appendix C - Thematic analysis table ... 82

1

1 Introduction

This chapter will introduce the topic of the study. A problem formulation will be given to set the direction of the study. After this, the purpose and research questions will be presented. Lastly, the delimitations and outline of the study will be displayed.

1.1 Background

In times where customer expectations are constantly increasing, organizations need to remain the preferred choice of their customers by providing them with the right products, at the right time, in the right quality, and at the right price (Jasti & Kodali, 2015). In order to achieve this and remain competitive, companies are often adopting the concept of Lean in their supply chains (Bortolotti et al., 2015). Over the last three decades Lean has been and is still being utilized and implemented widely in business (Sony, 2018; Muller, 2018). Furthermore, Lean is continuously highly relevant in research and is yet to be concluded as a mature research field, as it is evolving constantly and several contexts remain unexplored (Danese et al., 2018).

Lean originates from discrete manufacturing in the Toyota Production System and is now used across many types of industries in order to achieve more high-performing and cost-efficient operations and processes (Liker, 2021). Discrete manufacturing refers to the manufacturing of tangible items. In essence, Lean mainly revolves around the elimination of waste (Womack & Jones, 2003) and is often related to efforts of improving quality and as an approach to achieve improved efficiency (Sternberg, 2012). Additionally, Thürer et al. (2017) describes waste as all sorts of inputs in a system that is not transformed to an output from the system just-in-time, that is value adding from a customer perspective. A categorization of seven different types of wastes is commonly accepted as the presence of excess inventory, waiting, overproduction, unnecessary transport, incorrect processing, defects, and unnecessary movement (Sternberg, 2012; Liker, 2021; Buer et al., 2018). Lean consists of many concepts, tools, and methods and there is no defined standard to become Lean (Berger et al., 2018). These concepts, tools, and methods aim to minimize wastes, improve quality and enforce cross-functional teams. Other key aspects that should be addressed through Lean are the Just-In-Time concept (JIT), continuous improvements, and engaged employees (Wickramasinghe & Wickramasinghe, 2017). Specifically, the

2

concept of JIT is utilized extensively in companies that are striving to be Lean. This to help them produce the right quantities, at the right time with reduced inventory levels (García-Alcaraz & Maldonado-Macías, 2017). JIT builds on a philosophy that material is pulled on demand through the supply chain, rather than pushed through to an inventory (Pinto et al., 2018).

Research has shown how the adaptation of Lean principles in organizations has contributed to better-performing businesses (Berger et al., 2018) as well as have large impact on the organization’s competitive abilities (Leong, 2019; Bortolotti et al., 2015). It is on the other hand described by Bortolotti et al. (2015) how the expected benefits with using the Lean approach are often absent.

1.2 Problem formulation

Even though literature and theories point out the positive benefits and advantages of Lean, organizations tend to fail to improve their performance (Wickramasinghe & Wickramasinghe, 2017). Organizations have been found to not be satisfied with the results from their Lean implementations (Yadav et. al, 2010) and around 90% of the organizations that try to implement Lean are deemed unsuccessful (Ledbetter, 2019; Bhasin, 2012). It is not only a case where organizations fail in implementing Lean. Organizations do also choose to not pursue the potential benefits and advantages of Lean due to a lack of knowledge on the topic (Salaheldin, 2005). Pinto et al. (2018) further pointed out how companies that implemented JIT received varying outcomes due to the differences in the context in which it was applied.

Implementing Lean and components of Lean is accompanied by barriers, hinders, issues, etc. that restricts the success of the implementation (Jadhav et al., 2014; Salaheldin, 2005; Chaple et al. 2018a; Bhasin, 2012; Kumar & Kumar, 2015; Singh & Ahuja, 2012). Implement, here refers to the adoption of Lean practices and Lean as a philosophy, in order to improve business performance. Even though Lean is a highly researched topic, the research is superficial (Basu & Dan, 2020), and the implementation barriers of Lean have received low amount of attention in literature (Berger et al., 2018). There is, however, literature on such barriers but they present various results. Tortorella et al. (2021) investigated the lack of implementation sequence of Lean components which caused impediments of improvements. Wickramasinghe and Wickramasinghe (2017)

3

pointed out the short-term orientation of organizations, as Lean is a philosophy that improves performance over time. They also suggested that Lean components should be pursued concurrently for quicker success (Wickramasinghe & Wickramasinghe, 2017). Jadhav et al. (2014) add to this by highlighting the unsuccess in the western automotive industry due to their long-term inconsistency in their adaption of Lean, as well as a modular approach to Lean components, tools, concepts, etc. Other authors have indicated barriers of implementation such as the complexity of consistency and accuracy in the supply chain, and customer customization (Singh & Ahuja, 2012). Not to forget, there are also barriers connected to the humans in the organization, such as lack of commitment from managers and resistance to change (Jadhav et al., 2014).

Discrete manufacturing, such as continuous processes in the automotive industry (Mahmood, 2020) where Lean was founded, would be an interesting context to further study the barriers of Lean in since this is where most research on the topic has been made and can thus provide a sufficient theoretical foundation on Lean barriers. All organizations that are engaged in discrete manufacturing can be argued to be having some form of internal logistics operations. This department manages material flows and would therefore seemingly be affected by Lean barriers.

As presented, there is a variety of literature on barriers when adopting a Lean philosophy, even though scarce in comparison to benefits. Lean is, even though its extent use, still being researched and well sought by a constantly increasing number of organizations (Bortolotti et al., 2015). Additionally, few connections between the barriers, especially when comparing different authors' findings were found. The existing knowledge on barriers tends to have a wide approach and address the findings on a general level. Even though the literature covers many perspectives that can be problematic when implementing Lean, the general level leaves room for interpretations of the barriers. We thus believe that there are few suggestions of how the barriers are translated into real cases. The context of where Lean is implemented affects how Lean should or could be used. Hence, one cannot set a standard for how to implement it (Berger et al., 2018). The general level that the Lean barriers have been approached from also applies here. As the context affects Lean implementations, there could be substantial differences in the barriers as well, when comparing contexts.

4

1.3 Purpose

Thus, with the topic of Lean and its components still being researched academically and pursued by organizations, we identified that there are still knowledge gaps to be filled. The low success rate of Lean implementations and the superficial research on Lean barriers suggested that knowledge about the possible downsides and problems brought by Lean needs further investigation. Thereby, the purpose of this study was to:

“Investigate and expand the contextual and detailed understanding of the barriers of Lean implementations.”

To fulfill the purpose two research questions was used to guide this study. There was a need for more contextual research as it could help to explain how the barriers are translated into reality and what causes them. The addition of context can also help to deepen the knowledge of how the barriers manifest in specific parts of the supply chain. As Lean originates from discrete manufacturing, we further set this as the context, but with a focus on western attempts to implement it successfully. As the barriers of Lean have received less attention in the literature, we believed that this context would be the most researched of Lean contexts and could thus provide a sufficient theoretical foundation. A department that prominently shows the effect of Lean implementation due to its crucial role in the organization’s material flow is internal logistics. Thus, the context of this study became Internal Logistics in Discrete Manufacturing. To deepen the understanding of general barriers, we set the first research question based on this:

1. How are theoretical Lean implementation barriers applicable in internal logistics in discrete manufacturing?

Once an understanding of the barriers in this context has been investigated, a deeper analysis could be made to explore how these barriers are rendered to real case issues and what causes them. Thus, the second research question was:

2. How do Lean implementation barriers translate to practical issues in internal logistics in discrete manufacturing?

By answering these two research questions we fulfilled the purpose of the study and helped to increase the knowledge on this topic for both academics and practitioners.

5

Interviews and observations were utilized to gather qualitative data from real, operating organizations to obtain a detailed understanding of the topic. Academically, this contributed to specifying general Lean barriers and increased the knowledge on barriers in a context that many organizations operate within. For practitioners, this study can, through answering these questions, help to give concrete knowledge about the barriers and increase the success rate of Lean implementations in the future.

1.4 Scope and delimitations

As the context was described previously, the focus of this study will be on discrete manufacturing organizations and their internal logistics departments. Thus, external stakeholders, such as suppliers or customers will not receive the same consideration in the study. Suppliers and external stakeholders can though impact organizations, resulting in the manifestations of barriers in internal logistics. In this regard, suppliers will be considered in this study. The organizations that will be regarded in this study will further be well-established manufacturers that are currently undergoing a long-term Lean implementation as there are indications that Lean requires time to have an effect (Wickramasinghe & Wickramasinghe, 2017). The literature search made for the study’s theoretical framework encountered many inclusions of Lean Six Sigma. These are most often intertwined, and both are based on continuous improvements, and therefore, these will be regarded as synonymous and included in the study. Furthermore, the literature in the study’s focus is on Lean implementation barriers. However, to widen the literature search results, critical success factors were included. This since an absence of critical success factors is assumed to act as barriers for organizations.

1.5 Outline

This thesis follows the structure as presented in Figure 1 - Outline. Firstly, the reader is introduced to a theoretical framework where the existing theories of Lean barriers are presented to set a foundation for interpretations and comparisons in the analysis. The next chapter describe the research methodology where we explain our standpoints regarding research philosophy, our approach to fulfilling the purpose, and how we ensured research quality and ethics. Our empirical findings is outlined in the following chapter, and furthermore analyzed and discussed in the next chapter to answer the research questions in order to fulfill the purpose. After the research questions is answered, the implications

6

of the study are discussed, and future research is proposed. Lastly, we conclude the theoretical and managerial implications from the analysis and point to future research.

Figure 1 - Outline Introduction Theoretical Framework Research Methodology Empirical Findings Analysis & Discussion Implications & Future Research Conclusion

7

2 Theoretical framework

This chapter will outline the theoretical foundation regarding Lean, its barriers, the relationship between barriers. The existing relevant theories and literature on the subject are discussed to provide the framework for the research that is conducted in this study. 2.1 The concept of Lean

The concept of Lean is extensively recognized and utilized by companies seeking to enhance their performance and satisfy their customers. It originated from the automotive industry (Jadhav et al., 2014) but has continuously been proven to be applicable in numerous other industries as the concepts and methodology are transferable, where the only interference is that the Lean tools must be imposed based on their purpose (Abolhassani et al., 2016). Fundamentally, Lean revolves around continuous improvements and elimination of waste, with the aim to achieve lower costs, shorter lead times, and enhanced output (Abolhassani et al., 2016). For continuous improvements, standardization of tasks is crucial in order to achieve a greater state of leanness (Gelei et al., 2015; Jasti et al., 2020). More than half of the frameworks considered in Jasti et al. (2020) research regarded standardization as one of the most important elements of Lean. To work with continuous improvements, training, communication, the customer in focus, and involvement of employees is important (Sreedharan et al., 2018). The wastes that in research are most often accepted and referred to are the seven wastes regarding overproduction, over-processing, unnecessary transportation, waiting, inventory, unnecessary movement, and defects (Chaple et al., 2018a). Furthermore, a common set of Lean practices, methods, and tools include Kanban, JIT, Single Minute Exchange of Die (SMED), lot size reduction, 5s, and Kaizen (Chaple et al., 2018b; Chahal & Narwal 2017).

Despite Lean being utilized extensively in businesses, it also faces criticism due to its success rate being low with the reason often pointing to the specific methods that come with it (Abolhassani et al., 2016). However, it is important to bear in mind that in order to reap the full benefits of Lean, companies can not solely rely on picking the Lean methods that suit them. From Bhasin (2011) it is evident that Lean must be adopted more holistically as an ideology for the implementation to bring the full desired benefits, which also has the implication that it should be seen as a continuous journey and learning process

8

rather than something with an end goal or end state. Having this holistic approach and long-term perspective is supported by Basu and Dan (2020) who also stresses that current research on Lean is dispersed and superficial, which has led to an inaccurate understanding of Lean among practitioners. Marodin and Saurin (2015) share a similar view and describes how detailed knowledge is lacking within the research on Lean, the interrelationships between Lean barriers, and the influence of context has received insufficient attention. Even though Lean is said to be useful in many contexts, a Lean implementation is not simple and easy to undergo (Chahal & Narwal, 2017).

2.2 Lean barriers

To implement Lean, there is a need of overcoming barriers connected to the philosophy (Jadhav et al., 2014). Managers tend to accuse the components of Lean when failing to achieve desirable results (Abolhassani et al., 2016). Due to the unclarity of why Lean implementations fail to a high degree, we require some clarification and understanding of what Lean barriers can be.

There are several authors that have mapped and utilized Lean barriers in their research. The absence of knowledge about Lean implementation barriers is one of the main reasons for organizations failing to implement the philosophy (Lai et al., 2020). The Lean organizations that are among the best performing are those who have found ways to effectively address and handle the barriers of Lean implementations (Bhasin, 2013). Understanding and training of employees, top management commitment, and resistance to change are the most commonly encountered barriers (Singh et al., 2020). Jadhav et al. (2014) found that senior management involvement, resistance to change, and lack of resources were the most frequently mentioned barriers in literature. Thus, these will here set the main categorization of Lean barriers, Understanding of Lean within organizations, Top management commitment to Lean implementations, Resistance to change during Lean implementations, and Resources for Lean implementations. DeSanctis et al. (2018) state that larger organizations are aware of the barriers of top management commitment. Furthermore, top management commitment and understanding are influencing and causing other barriers to occur (Kumar & Vinodh, 2020). Nonetheless, these barriers are re-occurring in the literature. It should though be

9

noted that these are not the only barriers, but the categorization used in this study to help further explain the issues.

2.2.1 Understanding of Lean within organizations

Abolhassani et al. (2016) state how an understanding of the philosophy is needed for it to become successful. Other authors have also put emphasis on the need for understanding to implement Lean (Sindhwani et al., 2019). Insufficient understanding of how Lean can benefit organizations is also stated as a barrier by Bhasin (2013) and Singh and Singh (2020). The implementation process is proposed to most beneficially start with creating a mutual understanding and working bottom-up with the employees of organizations (Malik & Abdallah, 2020). Lean issues due to understanding might occur due to insufficient training, absence of knowledge about Lean’s benefits, management’s lack of implementation expertise, skills of supervisors and employees, and lack of proper planning (Zhang et al., 2017). Basu and Dan (2020) explain how employees may lack understanding of Lean benefits, awareness, and training acts as barriers during implementations. Ben Ruben et al. (2021) share this view of lacking awareness of the philosophy in their literature review, enhancing its importance during implementations. In a study in a discrete manufacturing setting, it was prominent that lack of knowledge was a key issue for implementing Lean (Abu et al., 2019). Zimmermann and Bollbach (2015) also state this as a barrier in their work. Implementing Lean forces organizations to change their organizational culture and adopt it as a continuous process without an end (Abolhassani et al., 2016). An absence of long-term thinking is a commonly encountered barrier by organizations during Lean implementations (Marodin & Saurin, 2015). Therefore, organizations can meet barriers in not having proper visions and being too short-term oriented (Basu & Dan, 2020; Jadhav et al., 2014). A lack of understanding in the organization is handled by communicating the benefits of the philosophy (Chaple et al., 2018a), and accordingly, disregarding information sharing is seen as a barrier (Takeda-Berger et al., 2021).

Previously, the necessity to utilize standardization to become Lean through continuous improvements was noted. Not putting emphasis on following standards is regarded as a barrier for Lean implementations (Zimmermann & Bollbach, 2015). Insufficient organizational learning and lack of continuous improvements are stated as barriers as well

10

by Kumar and Vinodh (2020), implying the barrier’s importance. To strive towards the continuous improvements that Lean builds upon, a constant dialogue between management and employees should be set as a foundation in the organizations to be able to adjust the processes (Salaheldin, 2005). Thus, if employees are not understanding the basics of Lean, standardization, and continuous improvements, barriers will be met. Ben Ruben et al. (2021) adds to this by proposing that lacking a thought-through model for communication acts as a barrier.

The skills of the employees are one of the three most frequent barriers during Lean implementations (Bhasin, 2011). The skills of employees will limit how well the implementation will progress. Therefore, proper training should be given prior to the implementation (Chaple et al., 2018a; Sreedharan et al., 2018; Singh & Singh 2020). Kumar and Vinodh (2020) describe how managers ought to disregard training as it is timely and costly, and thus causing barriers when initiating the implementation. In addition, cross-functional teams are useful to create a common understanding when adopting Lean and to mitigate problem-solving (Chaple et al., 2018a). Failing to address problems systematically is stated to act as a barrier in Lean implementation (Zimmermann & Bollbach, 2015). The turnover of employees could further prove to be a barrier (Zimmermann & Bollbach, 2015) which is likely to demand an increased effort in keeping the understanding and knowledge about Lean at an adequate level in the organization. Understanding is not only an issue for employees, but also for management. Managers can have a false interpretation of Lean and lack awareness or knowledge about the philosophy (Basu & Dan, 2020). In a study on JIT, it is proposed that the reason for not implementing the concept was a lack of managerial knowledge on the topic (Salaheldin, 2005). This implies the cruciality of this barrier during implementation. Takeda-Berger et al (2021) identified that lacking a team for development acted as a barrier. Communication between different cultures is regarded as a barrier additionally (Zimmermann & Bollbach, 2015).

2.2.2 Top management commitment to Lean implementations

A lack of top management commitment is commonly mentioned by authors when studying Lean implementation barriers (Abolhassani et al., 2016; Ben Ruben et al., 2021;

11

Chaple et al., 2018a; Gaspar & Leal, 2020; Ghobakhloo et al., 2018; Jadhav et al., 2014; Sindhwani et al., 2019; Sreedharan et al., 2018). It has been noted that ineffective organizational management and the lack of experience regarding technology adoption are considered the most essential barriers (Narkhede et al., 2020). One of the main success factors for Lean is the commitment from the top management (Abolhassani et al., 2016; Yadav et al., 2018; Sreedharan et al., 2018). This refers to the lack of sufficient resources and attention from the managements’ side when engaging in implementation (Kumar & Vinodh, 2020). The top management is supposed to drive the change and their participation and commitment can help and promote the motivation and understanding of employees (Ben Ruben et al., 2018). It has been found that top management commitment is one of the most deciding barriers in how successful an implementation is, as it has among the highest driving power compared to other barriers (Ghobakhloo et al., 2018). Gaspar and Leal (2020) as well as Ben Ruben et al. (2018) concluded the top management’s efforts as a crucial factor for bringing success to the project in their studies. The supervisory skills, management skills, and management time are all among the top five most occurring barriers in Bhasin’s (2011) study. Due to the cruciality of this barrier, it is important for managers to put in sufficient effort and time during Lean implementation processes (Chaple et al., 2018a). As managers often have parallel projects it could be useful to delegate responsibilities to experienced employees (Chaple et al., 2018a). A lack of support and insecurities among employees are re-occurring barriers accompanied by Lean implementations (Marodin & Saurin, 2015). However, it was not found by Ghobakhloo et al. (2018) that a supportive culture in organizations is considered as a main, driving success factor of Lean. Jadhav et al. (2014) did not only propose commitment as a barrier, but also added poor leadership as a separate barrier. Conflicts among different departments can further prove to become barriers when implementing Lean (Jadhav et al., 2014).

2.2.3 Resistance to change during Lean implementations

Organizations may face Lean implementation issues due to employees’ resistance to change (Abolhassani et al., 2016; Abu et al., 2019; Basu & Dan, 2020; Chaple et al., 2018a; Gaspar & Leal, 2020; Jadhav et al., 2014; Sindhwani et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2017). In a survey by Bhasin (2011), it was found that employee resistance acted as the second most common barrier. For instance, the employees might be reluctant to improve

12

their workplace’s efficiency as they believe it could eventually make them lose their jobs (Kumar & Vinodh, 2020; Zhang et al., 2017). To bear in mind is that Lean implementations are made in existing cultures (Chahal & Narwal, 2017) which will not stop their daily operations to make the implementation. To change existing cultures is highlighted as a critical barrier (Takeda-Berger et al., 2021). Lean requires a fitting and appropriate culture to become successful (Bhasin, 2011).

The reason why employees might be resistant to changing their organizational culture and philosophy is that management fails to communicate the reasons for change properly (Abolhassani et al., 2016). A success factor of Lean is to involve employees in the implementation process (Sreedharan et al., 2018) as it increases their job satisfaction (Minh et al., 2019). This is something that well-established organizations generally have knowledge about and should thus be prepared for (DeSanctis et al., 2018). With an assumption from employees that their work tasks will become regulated, proper communication could instead educate them about how they, through Lean, will be empowered to govern their work and themself solve the problems that they encounter (Abolhassani et al., 2016; Chaple et al., 2018a; Jadhav et al., 2014). Lean requires involvement from its users to become successful and a lack of empowerment for employees acts as a barrier (Ben Ruben et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2017). However, higher autonomy has been found to increase job satisfaction among employees. This contradicts Lean as it builds upon standardization and a high constant working pace. Thus, organizations should consider how standardization is perceived by its users as it can be thought of as restricting (Minh et al., 2019).

The employees are often denounced by management as the root cause of Lean implementation failures. However, a lack of accountability among managers could be the reason for these accusations (Abolhassani et al., 2016). Supporting this is how operators do not feel a responsibility for following the Lean philosophy and contribute accordingly (Marodin & Saurin, 2015). Additional to accountability, the absence of follow-up and evaluation can prove problematic during Lean implementations (Ben Ruben et al., 2021) as this lays the basis for continuous improvements. Kumar and Vinodh (2020) present a barrier of not controlling processes with statistics, which also is coherent to this.

13

In the literature review by Jadhav et al. (2014) it is noted as a separate barrier that managers might be resistant to change themself, even though they are supposedly driving the implementation. However, managers were found to not believe that they are resistant to change. This is supposedly the case of evaluating oneself that induces this belief (Abolhassani et al., 2016).

2.2.4 Resources for Lean implementations

Numerous authors present that the investment required by a Lean initiative is a barrier (Abolhassani et al., 2016; Abu et al., 2019; Chaple et al., 2018a; Jadhav et al., 2014; Sindhwani et al., 2019). Before engaging in implementation of Lean, proper resources should be prepared (Abolhassani et al., 2016). Availability to financial resources is concluded to be one of the most essential success factors of Lean (Ghobakhloo et al., 2018). Jadhav et al. (2015) even state it as the prime barrier during JIT implementation. They further state that the commitment from top management is dependent on financial resources. Hence, proper planning is essential to keep the costs of Lean implementations down (Singh & Singh, 2020).

When referring to resources, it is not only financial resources. Jadhav et al. (2014), as well as Zhang et al. (2017) mean that resources cover a wider range of aspects, such as experience, skills, knowledge, time, information, material, technologies, etc. Marodin and Saurin (2015) describe the intensity of this barrier as relatively high compared to other barriers. Ben Ruben et al. (2021) point out the special need for resources in material handling and how they require both time, finances, and expertise. For example, when implementing JIT, the operative work processes must be modified and that requires financial resources (Jadhav et al., 2015). Zhang et al. (2017) point out that if sufficient resources are not prepared and provided, the implementation process will be haltered. 2.2.5 Additional barriers affecting Lean implementations

In addition, Sindhwani et al. (2019) present barriers regarding technology, data collection, infrastructure, and trust. Jadhav et al. (2014) support these additional barriers by presenting logistics support, which could correspond to technology, and lack of trust as barriers. Technology is also mentioned by Ben Ruben et al. (2021) and Bayo‐Moriones et al. (2008) who found that it promotes the use of the Lean component JIT. Connecting

14

to technology is IT competence, which is described by Ghobakhloo et al. (2018) as one of the success factors with highest driving power during implementations. Trust on the other hand is important through the supply chain and a lack of it acts as a barrier (Takeda-Berger et al., 2021).

Ghobakhloo et al. (2018) further add external barriers connected to suppliers, such as lack of communication and influence, and quality from suppliers. Inconsistency in the deliveries from suppliers can further be problematic, as in the case of JIT implementations (Salaheldin, 2005). Zimmermann and Bollbach (2015) support this by stating that supplier performance could act as a barrier.

2.3 Lean barrier relationships

When addressing the barriers of Lean implementation, it is important to understand that they are dependent on each other (Jadhav et al., 2014). The commitment, time, and skills from management are described as crucial barriers when implementing Lean. The described dependency of the barriers varies though. Chaple et al. (2018a) describe top management commitment as independent of other barriers. Sindhwani et al. (2019) on the other hand states that it has weak driving power and a high dependency in their study on manufacturing systems, implying that there are significant differences when looking at different contexts of Lean.

Resistance to change from employees and the skills of them can be seen as having a medium driving power during Lean implementations. They are also dependent on the other barriers to a medium extent (Chaple, et al., 2018a). Barriers regarding investments as well as cultural changes have been found to have relatively weak driving power in determining the success of the implementation and are heavily influenced by other barriers (Chaple et al., 2018a). To overcome the barriers, organizations are advised to firstly handle barriers with high driving power and low dependency (Chaple et al., 2018a). Marodin and Saurin (2015) mapped relationships between different barriers. They differentiated the barriers into different levels. At the bottom line, affecting the other barriers, managerial support, resistance to change and managerial knowledge can be found. They, in turn, eventually result in dependent barriers such as maintaining Lean activities and sustaining Lean in the long term.

15

2.4 Contextual aspect of Lean implementations

Even though the context was introduced as deciding in the outcome of Lean (Marodin & Saurin, 2015), it has been found that age and size do not affect the success of the implementation of the Lean component JIT (Bayo‐Moriones et al., 2008). However, groups of employees within organizations may have different sub-cultures (Losonci et al., 2017), thus, we can expect different cultural contexts within the same organization. According to Marodin and Saurin (2015), barriers to Lean implementation can be defined by two distinct dimensions regarding the context. The first dimension embraces the contextual work setting where the barriers prevail. This setting should be regarded as socio-technical system that considers the social, technical, work organization, and external environment. The second dimension is considering the historical context, more specifically the previous Lean journey in the setting in which the barriers exist. No matter what the influence of context brings, contextual factors can both augment and decrease the impact of the barriers (Marodin & Saurin, 2015). Furthermore, awareness of how the context changes over time and its connection to the Lean barriers is important. For example, lack of knowledge about Lean as a barrier can originate from poor training, but can also remain as a barrier due to high employee turnover rates (Marodin & Saurin, 2015). Another way in which the context matters, revolves around the characteristics of the customer demand (DeSanctis et al., 2018) as repetitive contexts with low demand fluctuations seemingly are advantageous in comparison to the reversed scenario for Lean implementations.

2.5 Summary of the framework

While the concept of Lean with its tools and practices have contributed to increased efficiency and success by companies, many have not achieved the results that they aimed for in their Lean implementations. In order to have a successful Lean implementation, companies need to overcome the barriers in the Lean implementations. To overcome the barriers, they need to be understood in detail, and how the relations between the barriers and the context influences the outcome. Hence the barriers that are common and crucial in Lean implementations that have been identified need further investigation so that they easier can be handled. To conclude, the Lean barriers need to be viewed through a contextual lens where the interrelations between the barriers need to be considered.

16

What has been presented in this chapter will further act as fundamental knowledge on Lean to provide an understanding of the topic and act as the theoretical framework for the study. A summary with key takeaways from this chapter can be seen in Table 1 - Theoretical Framework takeaways. The table is divided into the categories: Understanding of Lean within organizations, Top management commitment to Lean implementations, Resistance to change during Lean implementation, Resources for Lean implementations, and Additional barriers affecting Lean implementations as presented in this chapter, with underlying barriers. Further Lean barriers and aspects will be integrated within these categories.

Table 1 - Theoretical Framework takeaways

Lean barrier categories Lean barriers

Understanding of Lean within organizations

• Insufficient training • Absence of knowledge • Lack of awareness

• Management’s lack of implementation expertise • Skills of supervisors and employees, and lack of

proper planning

• Short-term perspective.

• Faulty use or understanding of continuous improvements and standardization

• Communication within organization • Training of employees

• Employee turnover

• Lack of Cross-functional teams Top management

commitment to Lean implementations

• Experience and ineffective management

• Lack of effort

• Participation, motivation, and education • Lack of support for employees

• Scarcity of time and parallel projects • Conflicts among departments

Resistance to change during Lean

implementations

• Fear of losing jobs

• Change of culture

• Obstruction of daily operations

• Resistance due to lack of understanding

• Employee involvement • Regulate of processes • Accountability • Control of processes • Follow-up and evaluations

17

Resources for Lean implementations

• Financial

• Time

• Knowledge and skills • Technology

• Preparations before implementation Additional barriers

affecting Lean implementations

• Data collection

• Infrastructure

• Trust within the supply chain

• Suppliers through communication, consistency, quality, performance

Contextual aspect of Lean implementations

• Age and size

• Existing cultures affect the different barriers • Social, technical, work organization, and external

environment aspects • Historical aspect

18

3 Research Methodology

The following chapter will go through the study’s research philosophy, research approach, and research design. How the case study was conducted, and the literature search was made, will also be presented. This will be followed by an explanation of how the data was collected and analyzed, and lastly, assurance of the research quality will be argued for, as well as research ethics.

3.1 Research Philosophy

For this study, the purpose was to investigate and expand the contextual and detailed understanding of the barriers of Lean implementations. As there was a lack of contextual and more in-depth research within this research area, we were seeking to get detailed insights from organizations in the context of internal logistics in discrete manufacturing. As we believed that the investigated phenomenon regarding barriers of Lean implementations would be influenced and depend on the perspective we were taking, our ontological position can be described as following the position of relativism (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018).

Accordingly, the epistemological position tilt towards social constructionism as we aimed to increase general understanding of a phenomenon (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018), in this case, Lean implementations. We were assuming there are different realities which mean that we collect multiple perspectives from a varied set of individuals (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). This is also in line with the view on social constructionism from Saunders et al. (2019). This, as we were taking the standpoint that reality is constructed based on social interactions. Furthermore, we were including a contextual lens in our research where we were studying the situations in detail in order to increase understanding and get a sense of how reality is being experienced.

3.2 Research Approach

This study took a qualitative approach which is in line with the research philosophy of social constructionism (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). We were aiming to increase understanding by getting a more contextual and detailed understanding of the barriers of Lean implementations. The sought data was the perception of the topic from the respondents and thus a qualitative approach was suitable to this purpose most adequately

19

(Patel & Davidsson, 2011). An inductive approach implicates that the researchers look into the specifics to generalize. It also implies that a phenomenon is explored and from this, theories are generated (Saunders et al., 2019). This research was conducted in an inductive matter as we were collecting data for the investigation of a phenomenon, where we were in particular interested in exploring the topic within a specific context. We were also aiming to build theory derived from the data which goes in line with the inductive approach. With this approach taken, we were aware of a challenge that comes with this research approach. Preconceptions can have an impact, as we through our theoretical framework have acquired existing knowledge and understanding on the topic. However, this was crucial in order to gain knowledge of what barriers to further investigate for increased understanding on Lean implementation barriers. In addition, Patel and Davidsson (2011) propose the researchers to have some previous knowledge before engaging in data collection.

3.3 Research Design

Within the scope of Lean implementation barriers, contextual and detailed research is stated to be lacking (Marodin, & Saurin, 2015; Basu & Dan, 2020). With this being identified, we were, by fulfilling the purpose and answering the research questions, aiming to contribute to existing theory. This, by trying to provide deeper insights into how the identified barriers manifest in organizations in their Lean implementations. Furthermore, as the lack of detailed research implied that there are unexplored contextual areas within the subject, new possible discoveries are worth exploring (Stebbins, 2008). Hence it is suitable making a case study design for the study.

3.3.1 Multiple Case Study

This study took the form of a multiple case study as we were aiming to investigate the topic in-depth and in detail (Patel & Davidson, 2011; Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). Through the multiple case study, the data gathered further set the foundation for comparison and analysis (Bell, 2006). Case studies are suitable for studies of change (Patel & Davidson, 2011). In this study, such change is in the form of Lean implementations. Case studies are also useful when researching theories (Yin, 2018). In this regard, the literature presented in the theoretical framework was studied in a specific context and compared to the data gathered from the case organizations. The reason we

20

conducted a multiple case study was to achieve more reliable, richer, and comparable results and as an attempt to reach a more generalizable conclusion.

As large western manufacturers had been found as unsuccessful in implementing Lean (Jadhav et al., 2014) a criterion for European organizations was set for the organizations to be included in the study. Furthermore, criteria for the case companies in this study was that they needed to be adopting a Lean implementation, be involved in discrete manufacturing, and enable interviews at their internal logistics departments with suitable respondents. Further, they were required to have at least 300 employees currently, as well-established companies were sought.

Access to the data is highly important for conducting research (Saunders et al., 2019). Connections were established with case companies beforehand that have allegedly perceived and experienced Lean implementation barriers, and could therefore easily access data that is significant for the study. Three case companies participated in the multiple case study and will hereinafter be referred to as case company A, B, and C. These companies were accessed through personal contacts, as suggested by Easterby-Smith et al. (2018). Furthermore, the criteria were fulfilled by all case organizations.

3.4 Literature search

To set the foundation of this study and gather sufficient knowledge on the topic in the theoretical framework a literature search was conducted. Literature is obtainable through digital databases (Patel & Davidsson, 2011) and was the method for obtaining material for the theoretical framework in this study. Peer-reviewed journal articles were considered as the main source for the theoretical framework, due to their evaluated quality and credibility (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). Thus, only peer-reviewed articles set the first criterion for this study’s theoretical framework. To control that the articles were peer-reviewed, the database Ulrichsweb has been used to ensure quality. The databases used for the searches were Emerald, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Business source premier, Scopus, and Google Scholar as suggested by the faculty’s library advise for high-quality research on supply chain management. When making the search, pre-defined keywords were chosen to in combination make up the search terms. A criterion was also set to 200 hits per search to limit the time required for evaluation as well as for accuracy. Next, each title of the searches was assessed to only review relevant articles. If the title seemed

21

relevant, the abstracts were read through before the whole articles were chosen and reviewed. To keep the literature to the topic, each article was set to mention lean, barriers, success factors, and/or implementation in some way.

3.5 Data Collection

The following section presents the chosen data collection method for this study. In this study, data has mainly been obtained through interviews, but also through observations. 3.5.1 Sampling

The method for selecting the sample of respondents in this study is purposive sampling. Purposive sampling implies that the authors of a study have a vision of what type of respondents they are searching for and thus the respondents must fulfil the criteria to be included in the study (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). The respondents should work at the case organizations presented previously. Respondents were sought to cover the different organizational levels to gain different perspectives within the organizations as their perceptions and experiences may vary. Thus, shop-floor workers, managers, and white collars such as engineers or administrative personnel, was sought. The respondents should also have a close connection to their respective company’s Lean implementation efforts in internal logistics. This meaning that it affected them in their daily work. In addition, the respondents were required to have basic knowledge of Lean to be able to give valuable insights into the study’s topic. To access possible respondents, the personal contacts, used to access the case organizations, was used to search the companies for suitable respondents for interviews.

3.5.2 Interviews

For this study, seven interviews were conducted and approximately 12 hours of material was recorded as can be seen in Table 2 - Interviews. Interviews are commonly connected to qualitative and inductive studies, as well as case studies (Patel & Davidsson, 2011). At all interviews, the two authors were present together where one took the leading role as interviewer, while the other one noted, observed, and recorded. The interviews were semi-structured as it allows freedom for the respondents to approach the question as they desire and guide the direction of the answer (Patel & Davidson, 2011). The reason why unstructured interviews were not utilized was due to the desire to keep the conversation

22

to the topic if necessary. However, no pre-planned questions were prepared as they could inhibit the free flow of the conversation and thus tilt into quantitative “multiple choice answer” questions. Yin (2018) describes how less extensive case studies tend to have a low level of governance. This was also the approach taken in this study for the interviews. The interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams due to the current pandemic. In combination with semi-structured interviews, topic guides as proposed by Easterby-Smith et al. (2018) were used. A topic guide refers to a prepared list of topics that can direct the interview (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). The topic guide used for the interviews in this study can be found in Appendix A - Topic guide. Our topic guide firstly served to give us a clear picture of the case companies, the respondents, and their roles. Secondly, it directed the interviews towards covering the topic of Lean and Lean barriers based on the knowledge from our theoretical framework.

Table 2 - Interviews

At company A, an Operator, a Logistics engineer, and a Lean manager were interviewed, covering different organizational levels. At company B, a Logistics analyst and the Logistics director were interviewed. For company C, a Material planner and the Planning manager were interviewed. The respondent’s roles were in close connection to the organization’s respective Lean implementation’s daily operational work tasks and thus had knowledge and experience from a close distance to the researched topic. The respondents also possessed similar knowledge as the interviewers to avoid contrasts and discrepancies between the people during the interviews. Respondents from the shop-floor level were not included in this study from the bus producer and the battery manufacturer. At the bus producer, this choice was made due to observations being made in combination

23

with shop-floor workers. When questions arose during the observations, these were asked immediately, and thus, their perspective was included in the study. At the battery manufacturer, the Material planner had close connection with, and also working experience from the shop-floor level. Thus, the shop-floor level perspective was included at this case company as well.

The interviews were, as stated earlier, guided by our topic guide to be able to gather data to address the research questions of the study. During the interviews, open-ended questions were used to not restrict the respondents' answers. Each respondent was asked for permission to record the interview and these recordings were transcribed afterward. After the interviews, the respondents were asked if they wanted to take part of the transcribed material and if they wanted to change or remove some of their answers. They further had the option to withdraw their participation, during or after the interview, if they so desired. All respondents and the case organizations will remain confidential throughout this thesis for the integrity of the respondents.

3.5.3 Observations

Observations are useful as a complement to other data collection methods (Patel & Davidsson, 2011; Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). In this study, observations served that purpose as well. The observations took place at the internal logistics department of company B and was noted and transcribed, as the interviews, to be able to analyze the data by the same means. They were conducted by one of the authors and with the permission from both management and employees at the case organizations. The goal of the observations was to follow the processes to investigate possible manifestations of barriers there. The data sought to be obtained through this was regarding how the authors, as observers, perceived the barrier’s manifestations. This to gain another perspective in addition to the interviews with the respondents. The observation also included brief review of documented standards.

The observations were conducted on 1st-3rd December 2020. Two shop-floor employees, working with internal logistics, specifically supplying production lines with material, guided us through their processes and work tasks. In addition, as the observations were made, shorter interviews in the form of simple questions was asked to clarify their course

24

of action and to provide their perspective of Lean barriers. These observations were made for approximately three hours each. Due to the current situation globally as this study is being made, with regards to the pandemic, observations were only possible and allowed at one of the case companies which might lower the generalizability. However, the insights gained from the observations are still considered fruitful to help answer the research questions.

3.6 Data Analysis

To analyze the data retrieved from the interviews, they were first transcribed and put into text documents. This, to be able to look into and refer to specific parts of the interviews (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). Notes and observations from the interviews were also transcribed, as well as the observations made at the case organization.

The data analysis followed thematic analysis which is a widely used foundational method for qualitative analysis that enables a flexible approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The thematic analysis is compatible with the social-constructionist position (Braun & Clarke, 2006) that has been taken in this study. In line with the thematic analysis approach as described by Braun and Clarke (2006), we aimed to identify, analyze, and report patterns or more specifically, themes within our obtained data, where our data could be organized and described in detail. After firstly familiarizing ourselves with the data, we identified codes where we labelled phrases and sentences in the transcribed interviews. The codes were then categorized into initial candidate themes based on the patterns that we could identify between them. The themes were then revised and refined a second time as an attempt to elevate the accuracy. By this time, we had a satisfactory thematic map of our data as described by Braun and Clarke (2006) and could move to defining and naming the themes the way they will be addressed in the final step of the analysis. Lastly, and in line with Braun and Clarke, (2006), in the write-up of the thematic analysis we aimed to provide evidence of the themes within the data in combination with a narrative description beyond the data that makes up for arguments for answering our research questions. The identified themes and literature from the theoretical framework were then combined to further make sense of the data and answer the research questions of the study, as described by Easterby-Smith et al. (2018). This, also as it is important to make clear the theoretical position for the thematic analysis as the theoretical framework brings certain assumptions

25

of the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In this study, the theoretical Lean barriers are already identified and stated in the theoretical framework. This was done as according to Braun and Clarke (2006), a thematic analysis only brings interpretative power beyond pure description when the analytic claims are anchored within a theoretical framework. 3.6.1 Data analysis connection to Research Questions

The first research question “How are theoretical Lean barriers applicable in internal

logistics in discrete manufacturing?” was based on the comparison between the

theoretical barriers and issues of Lean implementations and the perception of the topic by the respondents. Figure 2 - Data analysis connection to Research Questions visualizes how the research questions was analyzed and answered. The observations were added to this part of the analysis as well. The theoretical barriers were thus challenged and revised in the specific context of internal logistics in discrete manufacturing in this study. The second research question “How do Lean barriers translate to practical issues in

internal logistics in discrete manufacturing?” was analyzed with the theoretical barriers

from the theoretical framework and the empirical findings. It built further upon the answer of the first research question. In addition, the observation received more emphasis for this research question as they provided data and examples of how barriers manifested. The barriers were for this question conceptualized into concrete examples of how they manifested in practice. Through answering both research questions, the purpose of the study was fulfilled.

26

Figure 2 - Data analysis connection to Research Questions

3.7 Research Quality

The quality of this study was achieved through the fulfilment of the four common criteria for trustworthiness that is provided by Lincoln and Guba (1985). These criteria include credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). 3.7.1 Credibility

Of the activities to achieve more credibility as explained by Lincoln and Guba (1985), we have used triangulation by using multiple sources of information, both by using multiple interview respondents, as well as also using observations. Further activity in line with credibility criteria from Lincoln and Guba (1985) that have been used includes peer debriefing, where our study has been evaluated by peers in the form of seminars. Lastly, member checks, as described by Lincoln and Guba (1985) was conducted in order to make sure that correct interpretation of the given information has been achieved. This, by verifying with the respondents that we interpreted their responses correctly.

3.7.2 Transferability

In essence, transferability regards if the study is transferable and generalizable (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). For this to be the case, we have in line with Lincoln and Guba (1985) provided rich and detailed information regarding the context of the study and the specific area of Lean namely Lean barriers. We chose a distinct context for this study which could argue to restrict the transferability. However, the context of internal logistics in discrete

27

manufacturing is still considered a wide focus. With the indication that context matters to such a high degree in this study’s topic, the transferability of previous research on Lean implementations is questioned and thus we wanted to make our theoretical contribution here.

We have also looked into three different case organizations to widen our perspective and not encountering data that can only be connected to a specific company. This is argued to help us reach a higher level of transferability in our final analysis and conclusion. 3.7.3 Dependability

According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), dependability corresponds to the level of clarity and logic in the research process which should make a replication of the study possible. If the dependability is sufficient, the study should be able to be replicated with the same results by other researchers (Lincoln & Guba, 2985). To achieve dependability, we have described our literature search in detail, and described our research process transparently and thoroughly along with our motivations for each step in the study. The analysis is also presented in detail and how our raw data is processed through our analysis method and help us answer the research questions.

3.7.4 Confirmability

When credibility, transferability, and dependability are established, confirmability can also be reached (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Confirmability regards the objectivity of the authors and the study. Furthermore, for confirmability, there needs to be clear that the research is performed objectively, which can be done by triangulation and by being reflective about the research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As we were two authors, the study was continuously seen by multiple perspectives which is a form of triangulation that in essence should enhance the confirmability. Furthermore, we avoid assumptions and let the respondents shape the answers without projecting our own potential biases. The use of peers through seminars further helped the study to keep an unbiased structure of thoughts.

28

3.8 Research Ethics

In this study, ethics was mainly a case of how the interview respondents were handled. The most applicable ethic principles in our case are taken from Easterby-Smith et al. (2018). These are: ensuring that we have permission from the respondents to interview them, protection of the anonymity and integrity of respondents, insurance of confidentiality, informing about the aim of the research they are participating in, and transparent, fair translation and interpretations of interviews.

Firstly, the respondents from each case company were asked both before and when starting the interview if they felt comfortable with participating in the study. Secondly, both the case companies’ and the respondents' names were kept confidential to protect the integrity of the respondents. This was to enable answers from the respondents which could be interpreted as critical to their organization and employer, but still not jeopardize their employment or work-related relationships. The case companies were also protected through the use of confidentiality in this study to not risk that sensitive information is spread to competitors or likewise. Thirdly, each respondent was briefly introduced to the topic of the study and what our research purpose was, to get an understanding of what they participated in. Lastly, the answers from the interviews was presented as quotes to keep the transparency of the respondents' participation. This also enabled the possibility for peers to interpret the interviews as well. Each respondent was also asked to be shared the recorded interview material and the study to ensure that they were interpreted correctly. Further, hey could always choose to withdraw their answers or participation if they after time felt uncomfortable with the interviews in any way.

29

4 Empirical findings

The interviews were conducted at three different case companies that met the criteria, which provided empirical findings for the study. Additionally, to get a wider perspective and further insights, observations were made at case company B. Firstly, essential information about the case companies and their basic characteristics will be presented. After this, key outtakes that give an adequate understanding of the cases will be presented. 4.1 Company A

Company A is a global car manufacturer with over 40.000 employees that strives to be fully Lean in their operations and supply chain. With several production units in the regions of Europe Middle East & Africa (EMEA), Americas, and Asia-Pacific (APAC), the company has a large and global supplier base. Additionally, due to the complexity of their products, this creates a highly complex supply chain. The company is producing many crucial components of its cars in-house at different production units. Here, it is a crucial need for them to remain competitive regarding cost-efficiencies and effectiveness. Three respondents from different hierarchical levels have been interviewed. The respondents include a Logistics engineer, a Lean manager, and an Operator. The company has been known for having efficient and effective processes that have been described to be aligned with Lean, but have not until relatively recently been stating clearly that they are adopting Lean in its full form. A shift in the top management has been described to be the main reason for this change. The company is trying to eliminate wastes and utilizes some of the common Lean tools such as 5S, JIT, and continuous improvements. The internal logistics at the production units consider processes such as goods reception, binning (movements of the goods to inventory), downsizing and kitting of the goods, frequent material deliveries to the production lines, and packaging returns.

Case company A was described by the Lean manager and Logistics engineer to be currently ongoing a long-term implementation process of Lean. For the Logistics engineer who worked primarily more at a strategic level, this meant many parallel Lean projects to improve efficiency, especially at a holistic level. For the Lean manager, who referred to this as their Lean transformation, this meant driving workshops where the aim was to transform the different departments in the factory more towards working aligned with the factory flow as a whole, and towards the Lean principles. The company was described to