The importance of the right transfer mechanism.

Transfer mechanisms for transferring lean practices within multinational corporations.

The importance of the right transfer mechanism.

Master Thesis, MSc Supply Chain Management University of Groningen, Department of Operations

29 January 2018

Student: Jurjen de Jong Student number: 2230380

Supervisor: dr. ir. Stefania Boscari Co-assessor: dr. Kirstin Scholten

Pages (word count): 50 (11965)

Transfer mechanisms for transferring lean practices within multinational corporations.

The importance of the right transfer mechanism.

ABSTRACT

Purpose – The purpose of this thesis is to give insight in transfer mechanisms for lean practice transfers. It investigates what transfer mechanisms can be used for lean practice transfers and how contextual conditions – national culture, organisational culture and intra-firm relationship – influence these transfer mechanisms.

Design/methodology/approach – This thesis uses a case study to investigate lean practice transfers between the headquarters and eight different subsidiaries of a large Swedish-based MNC in the automotive industry.

Findings – This research provides a comprehensive overview of transfer mechanisms which can be used for lean practice transfers and provides a set of propositions that explain how the three contextual conditions influence these transfer mechanisms.

Originality/value – Literature on corporate lean programmes (XPSs) is relatively new, this research contributes to this topic by investigating transfer mechanisms, which can help in the implementation and development of XPSs.

Keywords Case study, Lean manufacturing, Multi-plant improvement programme, Corporate lean

programme, ‘Company-specific’ production system (XPS), Lean transfer, Transfer mechanisms

CONTENTS

PREFACE 4

1. INTRODUCTION 5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Corporate lean programmes (XPSs) 7

2.2 Lean practice transfers in multi-plant improvement programmes 9

2.3 Transfer mechanisms 10

2.4 Contextual conditions 12

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 15

3.1 The research process 15

3.2 Case selection 16

3.3 Data collection 17

3.4 Data analysis 21

4. RESULTS 21

4.1 Overview of the corporate lean programme 21

4.2 Set up of lean network 22

4.3 Transfer mechanisms used for lean practices 23

4.4 Influence of contextual conditions on transfer mechanisms 29

5. DISCUSSION 38

5.1 Transfer mechanisms used for lean practices 38

5.2 Influence of contextual conditions on transfer mechanisms 39

5.3 Managerial implications 40

6. CONCLUSIONS 41

6.1 Limitations and future research 41

7. REFERENCES 43

Appendix A. Interview protocol 48

Appendix B. Example of coding process 50

PREFACE

This thesis is the final work of my master in Supply Chain Management at the University of Groningen. Several people have contributed to writing this thesis and deserved to be acknowledged.

Foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Stefania Boscari for sharing knowledge, giving feedback and guidance throughout the process. I also want to thank my colleague student, Thijs Kluiving, who has worked on the same topic and with whom it was a pleasure to collaborate. Our frequent meetings with Stefania Boscari and Thijs helped me to stay motivated and dedicated during the entire project.

I am especially grateful for all people from Scania who agreed to contribute and share their experience and valuable knowledge, especially the people from the subsidiary in Zwolle who helped in providing contacts and information. Without their help and input this thesis would not have been possible in a way it is presented.

Finally, I want to sincerely thank my family and friends for being extremely supportive and providing continuous encouragements throughout the creation of this thesis.

Jurjen de Jong,

University of Groningen, 29 January 2018

1. INTRODUCTION

In the last two decades the business environment has changed radically, due to emerging technologies and globalisation. Many organisations have strategically used this globalisation to grow internationally by establishing subsidiaries worldwide, resulting in multinational corporations (MNCs). The consequence of this growth is that many of those MNCs now face the challenge of managing a dispersed, heterogeneous and low-performing network of plants (Netland and Aspelund, 2014). A commonly used strategy for MNCs to handle this challenge is by relying more on a standardised set of best practices for operating production (Jensen and Szulanski, 2004).

This standardised set of best practices should continuously be developed and shared within the intra-firm network of the MNC (Kostova, 1999). Therefore, many manufacturing MNCs are developing firm-wide process improvement programmes or multi-plant improvement programmes (Netland, 2013).

This dissertation focuses on a well-known multi-plant improvement programme, the corporate lean programme, also known as ‘company-specific’ production system (XPS, where X is replaced by the company name), which is mostly based on the principles and best practices of the production philosophy called lean manufacturing (LM) and inspired by the successful Toyota Production System (TPS) (Netland, 2013; Shah and Ward, 2007). By carefully selecting principles and best practices from LM and other similar production philosophies, such as TQM and Six Sigma, and adapting them to the organisation’s unique characteristics, XPS is tailored to the specific company (Netland and Sanchez, 2014). If XPS is implemented successfully, it can increase the performance of multiple plants simultaneously and can provide a competitive advantage (Netland, 2013).

However, the implementation of such programmes is quite complicated and several of these programmes run into significant problems, such as resistance or misunderstandings, or fail (Netland and Aspelund, 2014). In general, these problems are due to the complexity of transferring and implementing lean practices ¹ as well as the different context of subsidiaries, as subsidiaries of MNCs have developed under different historical conditions and are situated in different national

1 In this research the term lean practices is used to refer to best practices derived from lean manufacturing.

This is done to avoid any misunderstanding regarding the concept of best practices derived from lean manufacturing

and other best practices found in literature.

cultures (Ghoshal and Nohria, 1989; Lander and Liker, 2007; Maritan and Brush, 2003). Next to that, if these multi-plant improvement programmes are implemented successfully, a new challenge emerges: to continuously improve these lean practices and share these improvements within the intra-firm networks of MNCs (Netland and Aspelund, 2014; Voss, 1995). These challenges in transferring lean practices are in line with what Ferdows stated (2006, p. 2) “somehow, in spite of all the books and articles on knowledge management, transfer of skills and best practices from one factory to another seems to remain elusive and intractable”.

The key aspect in a successful lean practice transfer is transfer mechanisms (Ferdows, 2006). To transfer lean practices, transfer mechanisms are used, such as social mechanisms (e.g., training or moving people from one plant to another) or codified mechanisms (e.g., manuals and systems) (Ferdows, 2006). Nonetheless, the effectiveness of these mechanisms varies depending on the type of knowledge and the specific environment of subsidiaries (Ferdows, 2006; Inkpen, 2008). The right transfer mechanism improves the success of a lean practice transfer (Ferdows, 2006). Therefore, prior research called for more investigation on the type of transfer mechanisms used for lean practices, and the influence of contextual conditions on these transfer mechanisms (Boscari et al., 2016; Dinur et al., 2009). To answer this call, this dissertation uses a case study to address the following two questions:

- What transfer mechanisms can be used for lean practice transfers within the intra-firm network of an MNC?

- How do contextual conditions affect the transfer mechanisms for lean practice transfers within the intra-firm network of an MNC?

This research adds to the literature stream of a relatively new phenomenon in the literature, that is multi-plant improvement programmes and in particular a corporate lean programme (XPS).

Even though there is enormous interest from the industry in these programmes, there is limited

literature available on these firm-specific improvement programmes (Netland, 2013; Netland and

Aspelund, 2014). Therefore, this dissertation investigated this phenomenon in practice and how

transfer mechanisms can help in the implementation of such a programme. Specifically, this study

contributes to knowledge on lean practice transfers in two ways. First, it provides an overview of

which mechanisms can be used to transfer practices in the intra-firm network of MNCs. In the last

decades several papers emerged on lean practice transfers in the intra-firm network and the

mechanisms used (e.g., Boscari et al., 2016; Demeter and Losonci, 2016; Inkpen, 2008), however

none of these studies investigated transfer mechanisms both for new lean transfer projects as well as transfer mechanisms to transfer improved lean practices. Second, it investigates three contextual conditions, national culture, organisational culture and intra-firm relationship, which affect the transfer mechanisms for lean practice transfers. This provides insight to managers which different contextual conditions affect lean transfer mechanisms and should be taken into account.

This dissertation is organised as follows. First, a review of the relevant literature is presented and the main concepts and their relationships are introduced. Subsequently, the research methodology is outlined in section 3. In Section 4 the results are presented, followed by a discussion in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 summarises the limitations of this research and suggests future directions for research.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Section 2.1 explains the concept of a corporate lean programme and how it might help MNCs to improve multiple plants simultaneously and be competitive. Section 2.2 explains why the transfer of best practices, and thus lean practice transfers, is important for MNCs. Section 2.3 identifies in the literature which transfer mechanisms can be used to transfer best practices. Finally, Section 2.4 reviews previous literature on lean transfers to depict an initial set of contextual conditions which might be influencing the transfer mechanisms for lean practices. These contextual conditions are shown in figure 1 and will be further explained in Section 2.4.

2.1 Corporate lean programmes (XPSs)

Lean manufacturing (LM) originated in Japan from the Toyota Production System (TPS), which became popular among many companies inspired by the success of Toyota and was even called the “standard manufacturing mode of the 21 ^st century” (Rinehart et al., 1997, p. 2). LM is widely recognised as an improvement programme, which provides a competitive advantage to

Figure 1. The conceptual model

manufacturing firms by offering improved quality, productivity and reducing costs (Bhamu and Sangwan, 2014).

According to Hines et al. (2004) and Shah and Ward (2007) LM exists on two (closely related) levels, a strategic/philosophical level and an operational/practical level. The strategic/philosophical level relates to guiding principles and goals, and can be applied in all organisations. The operational/practical level consists of a set of principles and best practices (e.g., management practices, tools, or techniques), or lean practices, and can only be applied to operational processes (Hines et al, 2004; Shah and Ward, 2007). These principles and lean practices have as objective to increase operational performance by standardising production, eliminating waste, reducing variability and continuous improvement of operational processes (Shah and Ward, 2003, 2007; Womack and Jones, 1996). Shah and Ward (2003) divided these lean practices in four inter-related bundles of lean practices: just-in-time (JIT), total quality management (TQM), human resource management (HRM) and total preventive maintenance (TPM). These bundles consist of soft and hard practices, where hard practices are associated with lean technical and analytical tools (e.g., setup time reduction or Kanban) and soft practices involve people and relationships (e.g., employee training, small group problem solving) (Bortolotti et al., 2015; Shah and Ward, 2007).

In the last decades, organisations started to realize that to achieve and sustain benefits of improvement efforts, it demands more than just implementing lean practices. To achieve and sustain the benefits of improvement efforts, organisations should adapt these lean practices to the company’s own unique characteristics and environment (Netland, 2013; Sousa and Voss, 2008).

This resulted in the development of corporate lean programmes, often referred to as ‘company- specific’ production systems or XPS (where X indicates the name of the company).

XPSs are mostly based on the principles and lean practices of lean manufacturing (LM) and inspired by the Toyota Production System (TPS), however companies select and adapt these principles and lean practices to the unique and company-specific characteristics (Netland, 2013;

Netland and Sanchez, 2014). Therefore, none of the XPSs is exactly alike, although they share

most of the same principles and lean practices (Netland, 2013). These company-specific

characteristics might facilitate a successful implementation of lean practices, which in turn can

increase the performance of multiple plants simultaneously and can provide a competitive

advantage (Netland, 2013).

2.2 Lean practice transfers in multi-plant improvement programmes

Central to the implementation of multi-plant improvement programmes, like XPS, is the ability to share knowledge and best practices within the intra-firm network (Netland and Aspelund, 2014). Netland and Aspelund (2014, p. 392) define a multi-plant improvement programme as “the systematic process of creating, formalising and diffusing better operational practices in the intra- firm production network with the aim of increasing competitiveness”. This definition emphasizes the importance of transferring lean practices within the intra-firm network. This is strengthened by prior research in the field of international business, which suggested that the ability to share knowledge within the firm is the prime reason for the existence of MNCs (Kogut and Zander, 1992; Buckley and Casson, 1998). In this way, the MNC can create a competitive advantage by making use of its superior knowledge in all subsidiaries globally (Bartlett & Goshal, 1997; Kogut, 1991 in Kostova, 1999).

The transfer of several bundles of lean practices differing from JIT, TPM, TQM and HRM is required when implementing XPS (Danese et al., 2017). In addition, if this programme is implemented successfully, then there is the challenge to update and continuously share these lean practices within the intra-firm networks of MNCs to gain advantage of the improvement programme globally (Netland and Aspelund, 2014; Voss, 1995). Therefore, successful lean practice transfer is essential to multi-plant improvement programmes like XPS (Netland and Aspelund, 2014).

These lean practice transfers take place within the context of an inter-organisational network of differentiated subsidiaries. Hence, lean practice transfers can happen on three levels, on a nodal level, a dyadic level or on a network level (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Szulanski, 1996; Tsai, 2001). On a nodal level this transfer can be seen as the transfer of lean practices within a single subsidiary (e.g., from the lean office to another department) (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000). On a dyadic level this can be seen as a dyadic exchange between a source and recipient (Szulanski, 1996), hence the transfer process happens between two plants of MNCs (e.g., from the headquarters to a subsidiary, from a subsidiary to the headquarters or between two subsidiaries).

On a network level this transfer happens within a network of inter-unit links, where multiple units

(e.g., more than two subsidiaries) are connected and share and transfer lean practices to each other

(Tsai, 2001).

For the transfer of lean practices it is important to take into mind that there are two dimensions of knowledge, tacit- versus explicit-knowledge (Polanyi, 1966). Explicit or codified knowledge is transmittable in a formal, systematic language, while tacit knowledge on the other hand, contains a personal quality, making it difficult to formalize and communicate (Nonaka, 2004). This is hard as “tacit knowledge is deeply rooted in action, commitment and involvement in a specific context” (Nonaka, 2004, p. 16). As lean practices often contain both tacit and explicit components, it is a complex knowledge to transfer (Kostova, 1999). Therefore the transfer is not always successful and can be challenging and complex to do so (Argote and Ingram, 2000; Maritan and Brush, 2003; Szulanski, 1996). To successfully transfer lean practices, the key aspect is the use of the right transfer mechanisms (Ferdows, 2006).

2.3 Transfer mechanisms

Prior research regarding lean transfer projects in MNCs described several transfer mechanisms for lean practices (table I). In general, literature proposes two different types of mechanisms to transfer lean practices: social mechanisms and codified mechanisms (Ferdows, 2006; Jasimuddin, 2007). Social mechanisms (e.g., sharing people) are mostly used to transfer the tacit know-how and codified mechanisms (e.g., sharing codified manuals) are used for transferring explicit know-how (Ferdows, 2006). The effectiveness of these mechanisms is depending on whether the knowledge is explicit or tacit (Ferdows, 2006; Kogut and Zander, 1992). Table I provides an overview of such mechanisms and categorises them by the associated type of knowledge transferred by the mechanism.

Codification of knowledge is an important mechanism to transfer lean practices. Several studies (e.g., Ferdows, 2006; Inkpen, 2008; Netland, 2013; Netland and Ferdows 2014) highlight standards as crucial mechanisms for lean practice transfers, especially for explicit knowledge.

Moreover, the codification of lean practices is needed to provide easier diffusion across the organisation (Kostova, 1999). Other forms of codification mechanisms are manuals, handbooks or ICT systems, such as E-learning or intranet (Boscari et al., 2016; Bruun and Mefford, 2004).

Inkpen (2008, p. 447) suggested that explicit and in particular tacit knowledge can be

transferred by social mechanisms, “by moving people, specific tools and technologies, and

networks that combine people, tools, and routines”. This social mechanism is critical to

communicate “the meaning and value of the knowledge” (Inkpen, 2008, p. 449). The use of social

Table I. Transfer mechanisms found in literature

Transfer mechanism Short description Source

C o d if ied m ec h an is m s to tr an sf er ex p licit k n o wled g e

Standards Lean standards, includes the specific steps to do a task

Boscari et al., 2016; Danese et al., 2017; Ferdows, 2006 Manuals A manual describing the task (more detailed

than standards)

Boscari et al., 2016; Dinur et al., 2009; Ferdows, 2006 Emails To describe practices or principles and to ask

questions and/or feedback

Boscari et al., 2016

E-learning (Short) training provided online, teaching the basics of certain skills or principles

Dinur et al., 2009

So cial m ec h an is m s to tr an sf er tacit k n o wled g e

Phone calls To describe practices or principles and to ask direct questions and/or feedback

Boscari et al., 2016

Video meetings To describe practices or principles and to ask direct questions and/or feedback

Demeter and Losonsci (2016)

Plant tours To quickly show practices or principles in practice by showing the way of work

Boscari et al., 2016

Short-term visits (days)

To show practices or principles in practice by showing the way of work

Boscari et al., 2016; Dinur et al., 2009

Short-term residence (weeks)

To extensively show practices or principles in practice by showing

and/or participating in the way of work

Boscari et al., 2016

International teamwork

International team that leads the transfer of practices and principles

Boscari et al., 2016

Best practice transfer teams

A team that guides the transfer of best practices (in general a team from the HQ)

Boscari et al., 2016; Danese et al., 2017; Ferdows, 2006;

Inkpen, 2008 Training Training in which the practices or principles are

described and explained in detail

Dinur et al., 2009

Best practice assessment

Audit the way of work to see which practices can be improved or can be shared

Netland and Ferdows, 2014

Long-term residence (months)

To extensively show practices or principles in practice by participating in the way of work

Dinur et al., 2009

Junior management programme

As part of a traineeship working with the practices and principles to learn and understand them

Demeter and Losonsci, 2016

mechanisms to transfer lean practices is also emphasized by other studies on knowledge management (e.g., Ferdows, 2006; Jasimuddin, 2007). There are several social mechanisms such as international teamwork, training or long-term residence, which can help in transferring the tacit part of lean practices (Boscari et al., 2016; Dinur et al., 2009).

Even though there is already prior research regarding transfer mechanisms used for transferring lean practices, there is still a call for additional research (Dinur et al., 2009). Therefore, a main aim of this research is to investigate what transfer mechanisms can be used for lean practice transfers and to provide a comprehensive overview of these transfer mechanisms.

In addition, Dinur et al. (2009) propose that there is a relation between transfer mechanisms and contextual conditions and the success of lean practice transfers within MNCs. This is also highlighted by Inkpen (2008) and Boscari (2016), who suggest that contextual conditions affect the choice of transfer mechanisms. In line with these studies, this research investigates the relation between transfer mechanisms and contextual conditions.

2.4 Contextual conditions

The research on the relation between transfer mechanisms and contextual conditions is still at an early stage. Therefore, I took a broader view and reviewed knowledge transfer literature on the contextual conditions that affect lean and best practice transfers, to identify an initial set of specific contextual conditions which might influence transfer mechanisms. As a starting point the

‘Model of Success of the Transnational Transfer of Organisational Practices’ of Kostova (1999) was used. The model of Kostova (1999) considers three types of context: social, organisational

Table II. Variables influencing lean practice transfers

Model of Kostova (1999) Knowledge transfer literature Section

C o n tex tu al co n d itio n s

Social context National culture (Aoki, 2008; Bhagat et al., 2002;

Boscari et al., 2016; Dinur et al., 2009; Danese et al., 2017; Lee and Jo, 2007; Wallace, 2004)

2.4.1

Organisational context Organisational culture (Dinur et al., 2009;

Ferdows, 2006; Kostova, 1999)

2.4.2

Relational context Intra-firm relationship (Boscari et al., 2016;

Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Hanssen, 1999;

Kostova, 1999; Van Wijk et al., 2008)

2.4.3

and relational. The model proposes that these three contexts influence the success of transfers. This model served as a basis for deriving the initial contextual conditions that affect the transfer mechanisms of lean practice transfers, which further in this research are investigated. Table II provides an overview of the model of Kostova (1999) and the related contextual conditions identified from the knowledge transfer literature: national culture, organisational culture and the intra-firm relationship.

2.4.1 National culture

It is widely acknowledged that lean practices can be successfully transferred and implemented worldwide (Aoki, 2008), however, national culture can play a major role in lean practice transfers (Wallace, 2004; Lee and Jo, 2007; Boscari, 2016; Danese et al., 2017). The local culture of each subsidiary of an MNC can be different from the headquarters or the transmitting subsidiary (Dinur et al., 2009). According to Hofstede (1983), national culture differs on four dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism and masculinity. For example, Swedish culture is characterised by a low power distant and feminine culture, employees expect to be involved in decision making and a supportive managerial style (Hofstede, 2018). This is in contrast to the high power distant and more masculine culture in Brazil and India, where decision making is directive and top-down, and managers count on the obedience of their employees (Hofstede, 2018). These differences in local or national culture need to be recognized, so lean practice transfers will not be frustrated by cultural conflicts (Bhagat et al., 2002).

Therefore, I expected that there are differences in the transfer mechanisms used within the different countries based on the differences in culture. Thereby, for a successful lean practice transfer, the transfer mechanism should fit the recipients’ culture.

2.4.2 Organisational culture

Organisational culture can be defined as “as a complex set of values, beliefs, assumptions, and symbols that define the way in which a firm conducts its business” (Barney, 1986, p. 657). An organisation can invest time and resources to build an organisational culture, for instance a culture supportive regarding learning, change and innovation (Martins & Terblanche, 2003).

Organisational culture is an important contextual condition that affects the success of lean

practice transfers (Dinur et al., 2009; Kostova, 1999). The success of lean practice transfer is

improved if the subsidiaries culture is supportive regarding learning, change and innovation

(Kostova, 1999). This is in line with Ferdows (2006, p. 8) who stated that “the ultimate aim is to

create a powerful mind-set in every production unit: (…) encourage and empower everyone, especially those on the production floor, to change it (lean practices) continuously, aggressively, and systematically”. Secondly, if the receiving plant’s values are complementary with the values of the lean practice it favours the success of lean practice transfer (Kostova, 1999). According to Dinur et al. (2009) the consequence of a shared organisational culture within the intra-firm network is that the common perceptions, mutual expectations and exchanges act as a bonding mechanism and therefore improves the sharing and transferring of lean practices.

If an organisation has a shared organisational culture of improvement, it is expected that there is a high use of social mechanisms, such as plant visits, and codified mechanisms, such as e- mails, as the different subsidiaries share the same set of values and want to learn from each other.

2.4.3 Intra-firm relationship

Intra-firm relationship can be defined “as a series of complex interactions that evolve over time between MNC subunits, which have the primary aim of pursuing an activity and/or exchanging or transforming a resource” (Michailova and Paul, 2014, p. 382). As intra-firm relationship can be seen as an evolving process, organisations can invest time and resources to improve these relationships (Michailova and Paul, 2014).

Lean practice transfers are influenced by the intra-firm relationship between the sending and receiving plants. Most literature agrees that when the intra-firm relations are strong this improves the success of lean practice transfers (Kostova, 1999; Van Wijk et al., 2008). Also, the amount of knowledge shared is favoured by strong relations, interactions and communication (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). While, according to Hansen (1999), complex or tacit knowledge sharing is frustrated by weak ties between plants. Boscari et al. (2016) suggested that the level of collaboration can affect the choice of the transfer mechanisms used in intra-firm lean projects. For instance, there is a certain collaboration needed between different subsidiaries and headquarters before transfer mechanisms such as the intranet are effective for communicating lean practices (Boscari et al., 2016).

Therefore, I expect that if subsidiaries have a strong intra-firm relationship they make more

use of transfer mechanisms that need a certain level of collaboration, such as plant visits, video

meetings and the intranet.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The present study investigates which transfer mechanisms can be used for lean practice transfers and how contextual condition variables can influence the choice of transfer mechanisms for lean practice transfers within MNCs. As the extant literature has scarcely investigated which contextual conditions do affect the transfer mechanisms, a main aim of this study is to clarify which contextual conditions are more critical in influencing the choice of transfer mechanisms and their effect.

As a research method to investigate this topic and achieve the research aim, a case study is chosen. Case research is seen as one of the most powerful research methods, especially for developing new theories (Voss et al., 2002). The use of a case study is also recommended by scholars when inadequate prior research has been conducted (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Yin, 1994). As the research regarding XPS is relatively new to academic literature and there has not been a clear literature stream established yet (Netland, 2014), a case study is seen as an appropriate method to study this phenomena. Moreover, a case study can bring new and creative insights, and has high validity with practitioners (Voss et al., 2002). A case study is also recommended for research that addresses a how question (Voss et al., 2002) and to discover linkages between variables (Stuart et al. 2002).

The unit of analysis researched in this case study is lean practice transfers. These transfers are analysed on three levels: on a nodal level (within the plant), on a dyadic level (between two plants) and on a network level (between more than two plants).

3.1 The research process

The research process is based on the Gioia methodology, this method is used within qualitative inductive research for new concept development or new theory development (Corley and Gioia, 2004; Gioia et al., 2013). The research process of this case-study is cyclic, as is typical for case-study-based research (Danese et al., 2017). The research was started by a literature review in which the phenomenon of interest was described, relevant variables were defined and operationalised, and the research questions were stated. Together with a colleague researcher an MNC was chosen, after we selected relevant subsidiaries and gathered data from these subsidiaries.

The data was analysed by within-case analyses and cross-case analyses of the subsidiaries. Finally,

propositions were formulated based on the results of these analyses.

3.2 Case selection

A theoretical sampling approach was used in selecting cases, as recommended by Eisenhardt (1989) and Meredith (1998). This approach involved two steps.

First, the procedure started by compiling a list of criteria, which possible organisations should meet. The organisations should be multinational corporations with headquarters in Europe and subsidiaries in Europe, Asia and/or South America, which would enable to identify differences in transfer mechanisms due to national culture. Next, the organisations should have a successful implementation of XPS (implementing the lean bundles as described in section 2.1 of Shah and Ward, 2003), as we are interested in identifying successful transfer mechanisms for lean practices.

Due to time and budget restrictions another criterion was added, the organisations should have at least one plant (preferably headquarters) in the Netherlands to enable plant visits. After establishing the selection criteria, another list was compiled of organisations that applied lean manufacturing with plants in the Netherlands. This was followed by gathering information on the internet and website of these companies to check whether they might be interesting for this research and if they meet the list of criteria. This information consisted of general characteristics (e.g., number and locations of plants, kind of products), but also on the implementation of their XPS (e.g., phase of lean implementation, lean bundles implemented).

The result was the selection of a Swedish-based leading manufacturer in the automotive industry, Scania AB (table III). Scania is a suitable organisations, as it is a ‘best-in-class’ example of the implementation of XPS within the Netherlands, and globally. Scania has been previously used in academic research regarding the implementation of lean and their XPS, the Scania Production System (SPS), (e.g., Kurdve et al., 2014; Netland, 2013; Robinson and Schroeder, 2009) and has been the benchmark for other XPSs (e.g., The Volvo Production System (VPS)).

Table III. Overview of Scania AB

Plants Headquarters Products Size

18 manufacturing plants in Europe, South America and Asia

Sweden Heavy Vehicles (trucks, buses and engines)

46.000 people

1.040 million euros

The second step included the selection of relevant subsidiaries of Scania. The organisation of Scania consists of a global network of subsidiaries, an overview of all different plants is provided in table IV. For the case selection we identified which different subsidiaries would be interesting for our research by taking into account the different contextual conditions. This resulted in the selection of eight different subsidiaries plus the headquarters (table V). For the national culture we included plants in six different countries, Sweden, Netherlands, Finland, France, Brazil and India. From initial interviews with the Zwolle plant we found out that the type of product and the geographical location influences the intra-firm relationship. Therefore, we tried to include plants that produced the same type of product or were relatively close located. We selected plants from subnetworks regarding the type of product: truck assembly (Södertälje, Zwolle, Angers and São Paulo) and bus assembly (Lahti, Bangalore). Next, we selected plants that were closely located, Sweden (Södertälje and Oskarshamn), and Netherlands (Zwolle and Meppel). We tried to include several Brazilian plants as well, but due to time restrictions this was not possible. However, we investigated the intra-firm relationship within Brazil from the perspective of the single Brazilian plant. Lastly, we selected mature (Södertälje, Oskarshamn, Zwolle, Angers, São Paulo) and recently new plants (Meppel, Lahti, Bangalore). This way we could investigate any differences in organisational culture and if there were any differences in transfer mechanisms regarding rolling out developments or implementing a completely new lean transfer project.

3.3 Data collection

All data was gathered together with a colleague student. We mainly relied on retrospective data collection, but also included real-time data of current transfers. In order to overcome potential limitations of retrospective data and to ensure research reliability, triangulation was used by obtaining data from three sources: semi-structured interviews, documents and observations during plant visits (Eisenhardt, 1989). Next to the interviews during plants visits, Skype interviews were held with key-informants from the headquarters and foreign plants.

3.3.1 Semi-structured interviews

An interview protocol was developed to inquire information about the organisation (see

Appendix A) as recommended by Yin (1994). This protocol consists of two sections. The first

sections – General information – provides an overview of the organisation, how the XPS is

developed and how this is managed. The second section – Transfer mechanisms for lean practices

– researches what transfer mechanisms for lean practice transfers are used and how these transfer mechanisms are influenced by the contextual conditions.

In each subsidiary, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key-informants (heads or managers of lean offices or lean managers/coordinators) regarding the implementation of the XPS (see table V). If possible, more than one interview was conducted at each plant to ensure data triangulation, but unfortunately due to time restrictions this was not always possible. The

Table IV. Manufacturing plants of Scania

Country Plant Part of Scania since Phase of lean ²

Sweden Headquarters, Södertälje 1891 -

Chassis Assembly, Trucks and Buses, Södertälje 1891 Mature Engine Production, Machining and Foundry, Södertälje 1914 Mature

Engine Production, Assembly, Södertälje 1914 Mature

Cab Body Production and Assembly, Oskarshamn 1966 Mature

Chassis Production, Luleå 1968 Mature

Axle and Gearbox Machining, Södertälje 2006 Mature

Axle and Gearbox Assembly, Södertälje 2006 Mature

Netherlands Chassis Assembly Trucks, Zwolle 1964 Mature

Parts Painting, Meppel 2006 Integration

Finland Scania Bus Production, Lahti 2014 Implementation

/ Ramp-up

France Chassis Assembly Trucks, Angers 1992 Mature

Poland Scania Bus Production, Slupsk 1993 Mature

Brazil Chassis Assembly Trucks and Buses, São Paulo 1957 Mature

Engine Production, São Paulo 1961 Mature

Transmission Production, São Paulo 1961 Mature

Cab Body Production and Assembly, São Paulo 1961 Mature

Argentina Transmission Production, Tucumán 1976 Mature

India Scania Commercial Vehicles, Bangalore 2014 Integration

2 Adapted from Danese et al. (2017). They divide the lean transfer process into three phases: initiation,

implementation/ramp-up and integration, similar to the phases identified by Szulanski (1996). The initiation phase

refers to the period of initiating the lean transfer project until the recipient agrees to implement lean. The

implementation / ramp-up phase includes training activities and implementation. In the integration phase the recipient

receives the responsibility to maintain and progressively extend lean implementation. Plants classified as mature were

autonomously implementing lean in accordance with Shah and Ward (2007).

Table V. Case selection and interviewees

Plant Lean office Interviewees

Headquarters (Sweden)

Corporate unit, called “global lean office”

(GLO), reporting to headquarters, in charge of developing the XPS, supporting the local offices and spreading out new lean practices to all subsidiaries.

Head of the global lean office (GLO_H), leading a team of lean managers in charge of the several lean transfer projects.

Södertälje (Sweden)

Local lean office (LOS) of the chassis assembly plant located in Södertälje (Swe) with about 1200 employees, assembling trucks and buses for the Northern European market.

Head of the local lean office (LOS_H), in charge of a team of lean coordinators and responsible for all lean transfer projects within the plant.

Oskarshamn (Sweden)

Local lean office (LOO) of the cab body production and assembly plant located in Oskarshamn (Swe) with about 3000 employees, producing cabs for all European truck assembly plants.

Head of the local lean office in (LOO_H), charge of a local team of lean coordinators and responsible for all lean transfer projects within the plant.

Zwolle (Netherlands)

Local lean office (LOZ) of the chassis assembly plant located in Zwolle (NL) with about 1600 employees, assembling trucks for the Western-European and global market.

Head of the local lean office (LOZ_H), in charge of a local team of lean coordinators and responsible for all lean transfer projects within the plant; lean manager (LOZ_M), in charge of training all new lean coordinators;

lean coordinator (LOZ_C), in charge of leading Kaizens and training of lean practices.

Meppel (Netherlands)

Local lean office (LOM) of the parts painting plant located in Meppel (NL) with about 650 employees, painting component parts for the European truck assembly plants.

HR & lean manager (LOM_M), in charge of a local team of lean coordinators and

responsible for all lean transfer projects within the plant.

Angers (France)

Local lean office (LOA) of the chassis assembly plant located in Angers (Fra) with about 800 employees, assembling trucks for the Southern-European market.

Head of the local lean office (LOA_H), in charge of a local team of lean coordinators and responsible for all lean transfer projects within the plant.

Lahti (Finland)

Local lean office (LOF) of the bus production plant located in Lahti (Fin) with about 270 employees, assembling buses for the European market.

Lean & quality manager (LOF_M), in charge of a local team of lean coordinators and responsible for the lean transfer project within the plant.

São Paulo (Brazil)

Local lean office (LOB) of the chassis assembly plant located in São Paulo (Bra) with about 120 employees, assembling trucks for the South-American market.

Head of the local lean office (LOB_H1), in charge of a local team of lean coordinators and responsible for all lean transfer projects within the plant; former head of the local lean office (LOB_H2).

Bangalore (India)

Local lean office (LOI) of the bus production plant located in Bangalore (Ind) with about 250 employees, assembling buses for the Asian market.

Lean manager of the local lean office

(LOI_M), in charge of a local team of lean

coordinators and responsible for all lean

transfer projects within the plant.

interviews were conducted in the period between October 2017 and January 2018. Each interview was conducted by two researchers to avoid researcher bias and each interviewee was asked the same main questions to ensure data triangulation. The interview protocol was send in advance, but the researchers were responsible to confirm that all questions of the protocol were asked, interviews ranged from 60-90 minutes. When no more new information was forthcoming – the data-saturation point as referred to by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Eisenhardt (1989) – the interviews were stopped. Each semi-structured interview was recorded and transcribed.

3.3.2 Documents

Scania provided full access to the company’s intranet and all documents related to the XPS on the internal company drive. These documents consisted of general information related to production processes and organisational structures, but also documents related to lean standards from different plants and lean implementation. For instance, Scania provided documents such as lean standards, which described certain lean practices and how they should be used, documents regarding the way Scania is managed, and a booklet regarding their XPS, SPS, and what this meant for every employee. These documents helped to give insight in the XPS and the lean practice transfers. In addition, information from the company website and prior research at Scania gave useful information about the company and its XPS.

3.3.3 Observation data

At Scania we had guided tours in the two different Dutch plants which enabled us to observe the implementation of the XPS. The purpose of these tours was to verify the information gathered by the semi-structured interviews and the documents provided. Next to that, in the Zwolle plant I have done an internship of nine months in which I participated in lean practices such as Real Time Management (RTM) meetings, Change Point Management (CPM) meetings ³ , a kaizen week and 5S audits, and I participated in meetings of the management team where improvement projects were discussed. This provided good insight in the way of working in the Zwolle subsidiary.

3 Real Time Management (RTM) and Change Point Management (CPM) are two lean practices developed

by Scania. RTM is a method where they look back every two hours what deviations and problems occurred in these

past two hours and how they could avoid these deviations and problems in the future. CPM is a method where they

look ahead every two hours to see what problems and deviations might occur in these two hours and check what they

can do to solve or handle these deviations and problems.

3.4 Data analysis

The gathered data was coded and analysed with the help of the software package ATLAS.ti.

The procedure described by Gioia et al. (2013) was used for the coding process. At the start of the data analysis, initial concepts were identified in the data and grouped into categories. Conceptual coding used first order codes. Next, axial coding was used to search for relationships between and among these categories. This facilitated to group them in higher order themes. The coding was finalised by grouping these higher order themes into overarching dimensions. The whole process was cyclic and was continued until there was a clear understanding of the data and its relationships.

Table VII gives an overview of the result of data reduction and an example of the result of the coding process can be found in appendix B.

The data was used for both within- and cross-case analyses of the different subsidiaries as suggested by McCutcheon and Meredith (1993). The procedure was started by conducting the within-case analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1984), which helped understanding the structure and transfer process within and between subsidiaries. After the within-case analyses were finished, a cross-case analysis was conducted to compare the different subsidiaries. This eventually led to propositions regarding the transfer mechanisms for lean practices and the influence of contextual conditions on these mechanisms.

4. RESULTS

Section 4.1 and 4.2 of the results section provide an overview of the way Scania set up their lean organisation, which helps in understanding how Scania is working and what their XPS covers. Section 4.3 gives an overview of the different transfer mechanisms used within Scania and gives insight into the different functions these mechanisms are used for. Finally, Section 4.4 discusses the three contextual conditions and how each of these contextual conditions influences the transfer mechanisms.

4.1 Overview of the corporate lean programme

The XPS of Scania, the Scania Production System (SPS) was developed in the 1990s in

cooperation with Toyota and aims at increasing efficiency and reducing waste by continuous

improvement. It is seen within the company as a powerful instrument “with a strong focus on

continuous improvement, SPS helps eliminate waste, improve resource efficiency and optimise

production flow” (Scania AB, 2017, p. 15). The XPS can be characterised as a global and shared lean programme as identified by Danese et al. (2017). Lean practices are developed at different subsidiaries worldwide and transferred by a global lean office to the different local lean offices.

Within Scania the XPS is widely communicated, it is perceived as the main improvement programme and every other improvement programme is adhered to this. Finally, all employees and managers are trained on the principles and lean practices of the Scania Production System to create a shared and homogeneous lean mind-set. The transfer of these lean practices require the transfer of a complex set of hard and soft practices ranging from JIT, TPM and TQM to HRM (Shah and Ward, 2007).

4.2 Set up of lean network

Scania created a global network of lean offices in each production plant, which are supported by a global lean office in charge of the XPS (table V). This global lean office is managed directly under the board of the Production and Logistics department of Scania. The global lean office is responsible for developing the XPS, rolling out new lean tools and practices to the different subsidiaries and supporting the different local lean offices by providing training material and global lean standards, and creating a framework for knowledge sharing. This global lean office consists of twelve persons of which most are lean managers, guided by the head of the global lean office. The majority of these lean managers have managerial experience in one of the subsidiaries of Scania and stay for approximately two years in the global lean office and in that period work on assignments to develop the lean organisation of Scania. After these two years these lean managers return to a key position in the organisation, which is in general a function in the management teams of local organisations.

The role of the local lean offices is to adapt and roll out the tools and practices provided by

the global lean office in the local organisation, support the local organisation, develop the lean

tools and practices, and audit the use of these tools in the local organisation. The set-up of these

local lean offices differs per subsidiary, but in general consist of several lean coordinators, guided

by the head of the local lean office. These lean coordinators can be temporarily, staying for half a

year to two years to develop the organisation and their own lean skills, after which they return to

a middle-management function in the local organisation, or they can have fixed positions in the

local lean office.

What is important to note, is that none of the lean offices, either local or global, are responsible for the result of the implementation of lean practices and can never force any department to use lean practices, they solely have a supporting function. This is done this way because Scania believes in creating ownership of processes in every area of the organisation.

Therefore, the lean offices only provide a framework for the organisation to work according a lean way of working that will help the different organisations and departments to develop themselves.

However, the board of the Production and Logistics department of Scania or the management team of the local organisation can oblige implementation and use of lean practices or intervene as they are responsible for the results of the Production and Logistics department or local organisation respectively.

4.3 Transfer mechanisms used for lean practices

To spread out lean practices across the organisation several mechanisms were used, table VI lists an overview of the different transfer mechanisms and provides a brief description of each transfer mechanism. These mechanisms were used for different functions. In general, mechanisms for three different functions could be found. First of all, mechanisms used to implement new or improved lean practices. Secondly, mechanisms which were used in creating a platform to share and transfer existent and new lean practices between the different subsidiaries. And finally mechanisms which helped to share and transfer lean practices by interchange of people. In the next sections each of these functions and the transfer mechanisms used are explained in more detail.

4.3.1 Implementing new or improved lean practices

For implementing new or improved lean practices coming from the global lean office, Scania uses a standardised, top-down approach, the 123 planning model for roll outs (figure 2).

The global lean office is responsible for the roll out of new or improved lean practices to the different subsidiaries and they do this by the concept of train the trainer. The model consists of two different parts: lean practice transfer from the global lean office to the management team and local lean office of a subsidiary (level three), and the transfer and implementation of the lean practice in the local organisation (level two and level one).

The first part can be seen as a dyadic exchange between a source (the global lean office)

and recipient (the local lean office). The global lean office starts the roll out on level three by

Table VI. Transfer mechanisms found at Scania

Transfer mechanism Description

C o d if ied m ec h an is m s

Standards Standards describing how lean practices work and should be performed.

These standards are standardised within the whole organisation, which enables easier sharing and transfer.

Manuals A manual describing how lean practices work and should be performed (more detailed than standards).

Training package A manual describing in detail how to give a training to implement a certain lean practice, including training materials such as lean practice standards.

E-mails To describe lean practices and to ask questions and/or feedback.

Intranet Internal company website to share documents, such as lean standards and manuals, and information regarding the XPS.

Newssheet Company newssheet to announce news and information, also used to show successes and to highlight the importance of the XPS.

Shared drive Internal company drive, shared by all subsidiaries, to share documents, such as lean standards and manuals, and other files such as videos, photos which show how to perform lean practices.

Photos/videos Photos or videos to show how certain lean practices are performed.

Presentations Presentations which provide information about lean practices or the XPS.

Internet forum An online forum on the internal company website where discussions could take place, experiences could be shared and new lean developments could be shared.

E-Learning An online, theoretical training to provide information about lean practices and how they should be used or work.

So cial m ec h an is m s

Phone calls A phone call to describe lean practices and to ask direct questions and/or feedback.

Skype meetings Online meetings to share and transfer lean practices and to ask direct questions and/or feedback.

Physical meetings Physical meetings to share and transfer lean practices and to ask direct questions and/or feedback.

Go-and-see / Gemba walks

Go to the gemba (shop floor) to see lean practices in action.

Plant visits To show lean practices in practice by showing the way of work.

(continued)

Pilots An initial test environment where a lean practice could be tested in practice, before rolling it out to the rest of the (local) organisation. This pilot can also be used to show to other departments or plants how a lean practice should be performed and the benefits of this lean practice.

Training Training in which the lean practice is described and explained in detail. In general this consists of a theoretical part and a practical part. The theoretical part describes the lean practices and explains the ‘why’. The practical part is more showing-by-doing, the trainees have to actually perform the lean practice, either in a test environment or on the shop floor. This helps in both learning how to do the lean practice as well as showing the benefits of it.

Internships of

managers in lean office

Temporary function in the lean office, either in a local or the global office, this way (middle-)managers learn about all lean practices and the XPS in detail.

Interchange of managers

Interchange of managers between the management teams of the different subsidiaries. These managers bring knowledge and experiences regarding lean practices and the XPS from other plants.

giving a training in Sweden, Södertälje, in one of the production plants there (table IV). During this training the local project leaders from all subsidiaries, which are in general the heads of the local lean offices, are together trained extensively, to fully understand the lean practice and prepares them to train their local organisation. Next, the global lean office provides a workshop in each subsidiary to the management team (MT) and the project leader. The difference between the training for the project leaders and the workshop is explained by the head of the global lean office (GLO_H): “a project leader has to get familiar

with the details and really has to understand the concept on a deep level and for the management team it is more general, there is a stronger focus on if the necessary conditions are in place in the local organisation or that things have to be changed or created”. After this workshop and training it is up to the project leader and the management team to roll it out to the rest of the organisation. The

global lean office provides a training package Figure 2. 123 planning model for roll outs

for the training, which describes in detail how the training should be conducted, and a global standard, which describes the lean practice. The global lean office also support the local lean office in case there are any misunderstandings or problems. This support can be done by phone calls, e- mails, Skype meetings or more time consuming mechanisms such as plant visits or extra training by one of the lean managers from the global lean office.

The second step is the roll out in the local organisation, which happens on a nodal level.

Before the roll out starts, the local lean office adapts the training and global standard provided by the global lean office to the specific contextual conditions of the local organisation. These are in general minor changes in the global training or adjusting the global lean practices to the specific processes or level of lean of the organisation, as explained by the manager HR and lean of Meppel (LOM_M), “you always have slight adjustments, some lean practices we adjusted to the process, but most practices we just use as we are doing in Zwolle or different plants. It’s not that you change the lean practices, it’s mainly sometimes you change the background in the presentations or you adjust it to your own process of learning, where you are.”

The local lean office then starts the roll out by training the level 1 trainers. These trainers are in general the lean coordinators of the local lean office, but this can also be the middle- management. This training is identical to the training provided by the global lean office, except for the possible adaptations to the contextual conditions of the subsidiary. Next, each layer of the middle management receives a workshop on the lean practice, supported by their responsible manager from the management team or leader to show commitment from the management. This is followed by the training of all existing and new employees by giving them the same workshop as the middle-management. Again this workshop is done by the project leader and the trainers, and they are supported by the responsible middle-manager of the team of employees.

The most important transfer mechanism Scania uses for rolling out lean practices is

training. Both the training of trainers and the workshop for employees could be characterised as a

training, although there are some differences between the two. The workshop is mostly focused

on explaining the lean practice and why this is important to use. This workshop consists of a part

theoretical training and a part practical training, where the practical training can be done in a

simulated test environment or directly at the production line. At all levels the workshop has a high

focus on involving employees, from management level to the work shop level. The training of the

project leader and the level one trainers is similar to the workshop, however there is also a focus on how to give this training to others.

The 123 planning model for roll outs was used both for new lean transfer projects to the relatively new subsidiaries as well as for new or improved lean practices to the mature subsidiaries.

For example, this model was used to transfer lean practices to the new Finnish subsidiary, but was also used to transfer improved lean practices to mature plants such as Södertälje, Zwolle, Angers and São Paulo. The head of the global lean office (GLO_H) explains why Scania chooses this approach: “we focus on training the management team, focus on training the local lean office and help them to build up lean competence in their own organisation, so that they are able to train and develop their own organisation”. The lean office and the management team of the subsidiary receive the responsibility for the result of the roll out the lean practice, in line with the aim of the global lean office: “we try to create a culture where people take ownership and also feel responsible for the results of the processes and everything that is been done in their department. (…) We create ownership and really invest in training so that people understand the why. If you don't create ownership and you don't make them understand the why, but you just tell them to do what, then they will not be motivated to make that kind of change, why should they?” (GLO_H).

4.3.2 Platform for knowledge sharing

At Scania the global lean office provides a framework for sharing lean knowledge and practices within the global network of lean offices, which can be seen as lean practice transfers on a network level. This framework is created in two ways. First, the global lean office organises meetings for all subsidiaries, where the subsidiaries can share experiences and lean practices with each other. Second, the global lean office created an (online) platform for sharing lean knowledge between the different lean offices.

Once a year they organise a global training week in Södertälje, Sweden, which can be used

for the 123 planning model for roll outs as mentioned in the section before, but this is also used

for sharing knowledge such as experiences, developments or problems between the different lean

offices. Next to this, they organise a monthly, global Skype meeting for all lean offices. During

this meeting some of the lean offices have to present their developments, these could be

improvement projects such as results from Kaizens or lean practices they improved. However,

there is also room for discussion or asking questions to each other.

Next, the global lean office created a platform on the company’s intranet where the local lean offices can find global standards for lean practices, information booklets about the XPS and other presentation materials about the XPS, and also a forum for all lean offices. On this forum the different lean offices can share knowledge with each other regarding problems they encounter or new developments of lean practices. Next to the intranet, a shared drive on the internal company drive is accessible for all lean offices where standards, manuals, photos and videos describing lean practices can be found.

4.3.3 Interchange of people

Scania uses the interchange of people to share and transfer lean practices and knowledge.

This is done in two ways. First, interchange of managers between the different subsidiaries and second, internships of (middle-)managers in the local or global lean offices.

For instance, between the different subsidiaries of Scania there is an interchange of managers between the management teams of the subsidiaries. These managers come from other subsidiaries and bring knowledge with them regarding the way of working on lean or developments in that specific subsidiary. They give assignments to their new local lean office to acquire this knowledge from their old subsidiary. The local lean office then in turn acquires this knowledge via mechanisms such as Skype meetings, e-mails, phone calls or by plant visits to the specific subsidiary. An example is given by the head of the lean office in Oskarshamn (LOO_H),

“my manager has been working here in Zwolle and he really likes the way they are performing the lean work. So he gave me the assignment that I should come here and see how they do it here”.

Next, there is the internship of (middle-)managers in the global and local lean offices. As

mentioned in section 4.1.1, both the global and local lean offices consist partly of temporary lean

managers or coordinators. This interchange of lean office employees shares and transfers lean

practices directly to production, where the (middle-)manager acts as a lean chairman, who knows

both the importance of the XPS as well as supports the implementation of new lean practices. This

support is highlighted by the head of the lean office in Brazil (LOB_H1): “most of our managers

have been working in the lean offices in Europe or South America, so they know the benefits and

they give us very good support to introduce new lean practices here”.

4.4 Influence of contextual conditions on transfer mechanisms

The three contextual conditions found in the literature review were investigated at Scania.

Table VII provides an overview of the data gathered. The contextual conditions and the transfer mechanisms are characterised based on cross-case comparison. The next sections explain the three contextual conditions and how they influenced the transfer mechanisms for lean practice transfers.

Table VII. Data reduction

Variable Characterisation Rating

Context Intra-firm relationship Weak: No contact to few contact between subsidiaries, except for the meetings organised by the global lean office.

Medium: Occasional meetings between subsidiaries, sharing knowledge and developments.

Strong: Regular meetings between subsidiaries, using each other’s knowledge and working together to implement and develop lean practices.

National culture of recipient Sweden, Netherlands, and Finland: Employees want to be involved in the development and implementation of lean practices. They need a business case to understand the why and see the benefits, before they accept the lean practices. There is a high focus on involvement and discussion. These findings are in line with Hofstede (2018).

Brazil and India: Employees are used to do what they are told to do. They need a clear and directive message what to do, to have a good understanding how to perform the lean practice. If they do not understand how to do the lean practice, problems may arise as (especially Indian) employees are afraid to say they do not understand the lean practice. These findings are in line with Hofstede (2018)

Organisational culture Shared organisational culture: In every subsidiary the organisational culture could be described as a culture of continuous improvement, every subsidiary had the same goal to continuously improve the processes, learn from each other and see problems as a starting point for improvement.

(continued)