216 lines
7.2 KiB
YAML
216 lines
7.2 KiB
YAML
abstract: 'Purpose The purpose of this paper is (1) to review, analyze and assess
|
|
|
|
the existing literature on lean tools selection studies published from
|
|
|
|
2005 to 2021; (2) to identify the limitations faced by previous studies;
|
|
|
|
and (3) to suggest future works that are necessary to facilitate the
|
|
|
|
selection of lean tools. Design/methodology/approach A systematic
|
|
|
|
approach was used in order to identify, collect and select the articles.
|
|
|
|
Several keywords related to the selection of lean tools were used to
|
|
|
|
collect articles from different Scopus indexed journals. Next, the study
|
|
|
|
systematically reviewed and analyzed the selected papers to identify the
|
|
|
|
lean tools'' selection method and discussed its features and limitations.
|
|
|
|
Findings An analysis of the results showed that previous studies have
|
|
|
|
adopted two types of methods for selecting lean tools. First, there are
|
|
|
|
various traditional methods being used. Second, multi-criteria
|
|
|
|
decision-making (MCDM) methods were commonly used in previous studies,
|
|
|
|
such as the multi-objective decision-making method (MODM), single
|
|
|
|
multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) methods and hybrid (MCDM).
|
|
|
|
Moreover, the study revealed that the lean tools'' selection methods in
|
|
|
|
previous studies were based on evaluating the relationship between
|
|
|
|
either lean tools and performance metrics or lean tools and waste, or
|
|
|
|
both. Research limitations/implications In terms of its theoretical
|
|
|
|
value, the study is considered as an extension of the previous
|
|
|
|
researches performed on this topic by determining and analyzing the
|
|
|
|
features of the most selection methods of lean tools. Unlike previous
|
|
|
|
review papers, this review had considered discussing and analyzing the
|
|
|
|
characteristics and limitations of these methods. Section 2.2 of this
|
|
|
|
paper reviewed some of the categories of MCDM methods as well as some of
|
|
|
|
the traditional methods used in the selected previous studies. Section
|
|
|
|
2.1 of this paper explained the concept of lean management and its
|
|
|
|
application benefits. Further, only three sectors were covered by the
|
|
|
|
previous studies in this review paper. This study also provided
|
|
|
|
recommendations for future research. Therefore, it provided researchers
|
|
|
|
with a good conception of how to conduct the studies on lean tools
|
|
|
|
selection. Besides, knowing the methods used in previous studies can
|
|
|
|
help researchers develop new methods to select the best set of lean
|
|
|
|
tools. That is, this study provided and advanced the existing knowledge
|
|
|
|
base for researchers concerning lean tools selection, especially there
|
|
|
|
is limited availability of review papers on this topic. Moreover, the
|
|
|
|
study showed researchers the importance of the relationship between lean
|
|
|
|
tools and indicators or/and performance indicators to determine the
|
|
|
|
appropriate set of lean tools so that the results of future studies will
|
|
|
|
be more realistic and acceptable. Practical implications Practically,
|
|
|
|
manufacturers face a significant challenge when selecting proper lean
|
|
|
|
tools. This study may enhance managers, manufacturers and company''s
|
|
|
|
knowledge to identify most of the methods used to choose the best set of
|
|
|
|
lean tools and what are the advantages, disadvantages and limitations of
|
|
|
|
these methods as well as the latest studies that have been adopted in
|
|
|
|
this topic. That means this study can direct companies to prioritize the
|
|
|
|
application of lean tools depending on either the manufacturing
|
|
|
|
performance metrics or/and manufacturing wastes so that they avoid
|
|
|
|
incorrect application of lean tools, which will add more non-value added
|
|
|
|
activities to operations.
|
|
|
|
Therefore companies can decrease the time and cost losses and enhancing
|
|
|
|
the quality and efficiency of the performance.
|
|
|
|
Correctly implementing the best set of lean tools in companies will lead
|
|
|
|
in general to correctly applying lean management in corporations.
|
|
|
|
Therefore, these lean tools can boost the economic aspect of companies
|
|
|
|
and society through reducing waste, improving performance indicators,
|
|
|
|
preserving time and cost, achieving quality, efficiency,
|
|
|
|
competitiveness, boosting employee income and improving the gross
|
|
|
|
domestic product. The correct lean tool selection reduces customer
|
|
|
|
complaints and employee stress and improves work conditions, health,
|
|
|
|
safety and labor wellbeing. Besides, the correct lean tools selection
|
|
|
|
improves materials usage, energy usage, water usage and decreases liquid
|
|
|
|
wastes, solid wastes and air emissions. As a result, the right selection
|
|
|
|
of lean tools will have positive effects on both the environment and
|
|
|
|
society. The study may also encourage manufacturers and researchers to
|
|
|
|
adopt studies on lean tools selection in small- and medium-sized
|
|
|
|
companies because the study referred to the importance and participation
|
|
|
|
of these kinds of companies in a large proportion of the economy of
|
|
|
|
developing countries. Further, the study may encourage some countries
|
|
|
|
that have not previously adopted this type of study, academically and
|
|
|
|
industrially to conduct lean tools selection studies. Social
|
|
|
|
implications As mentioned previously, the correct lean tool selection
|
|
|
|
reduces customer complaints and employee stress and improves work
|
|
|
|
conditions, health, safety and labor wellbeing. The proper lean tools
|
|
|
|
selection improves materials usage, energy usage, water usage and
|
|
|
|
decreases liquid wastes, solid wastes and air emissions. As a result,
|
|
|
|
the right choice of lean tools will positively affect both the
|
|
|
|
environment and society. Originality/value The study expanded the
|
|
|
|
efforts of previous studies concerning lean management features. It
|
|
|
|
provided an accurate review of most lean tools selection studies
|
|
|
|
published from 2005 to 2021 and was not limited to the manufacturing
|
|
|
|
sector. It further identified and briefly described the selection
|
|
|
|
methods concerning lean tools adopted in each paper.'
|
|
affiliation: 'Wong, KY (Corresponding Author), Univ Teknol Malaysia, Sch Mech Engn,
|
|
Dept Mfg \& Ind Engn, Skudai, Malaysia.
|
|
|
|
Naeemah, Ali Jaber; Wong, Kuan Yew, Univ Teknol Malaysia, Sch Mech Engn, Dept Mfg
|
|
\& Ind Engn, Skudai, Malaysia.'
|
|
author: Naeemah, Ali Jaber and Wong, Kuan Yew
|
|
author-email: 'j.naeemah@graduate.utm.my
|
|
|
|
m-wongky@utm.my'
|
|
author_list:
|
|
- family: Naeemah
|
|
given: Ali Jaber
|
|
- family: Wong
|
|
given: Kuan Yew
|
|
da: '2023-09-28'
|
|
doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-04-2021-0198
|
|
earlyaccessdate: OCT 2021
|
|
eissn: 1758-6658
|
|
files: []
|
|
issn: 1741-0401
|
|
journal: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTIVITY AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
|
|
keywords: 'Selection method; Tools selection; Lean management; Lean management
|
|
|
|
tools; Lean manufacturing'
|
|
keywords-plus: 'TOYOTA PRODUCTION SYSTEM; DECISION-MAKING METHOD; HIERARCHY PROCESS
|
|
AHP;
|
|
|
|
6 SIGMA; SUSTAINABILITY; PERFORMANCE; IMPACT; MODEL; SMES;
|
|
|
|
IMPLEMENTATION'
|
|
language: English
|
|
month: MAR 24
|
|
number: '4'
|
|
number-of-cited-references: '109'
|
|
pages: 1077-1110
|
|
papis_id: af7e7118219e27a63feedd1f2bf7bafb
|
|
ref: Naeemah2023selectionmethods
|
|
researcherid-numbers: Wong, Kuan Yew/D-1577-2010
|
|
tags:
|
|
- review
|
|
times-cited: '1'
|
|
title: 'Selection methods of lean management tools: a review'
|
|
type: article
|
|
unique-id: WOS:000713662400001
|
|
usage-count-last-180-days: '22'
|
|
usage-count-since-2013: '102'
|
|
volume: '72'
|
|
web-of-science-categories: Management
|
|
year: '2023'
|