Problems and countermeasures in lean transfer projects of international multi-plant organizations: Master thesis

(1)

Master thesis

Problems and countermeasures in lean transfer projects

of international multi-plant organizations:

A comparison between manufacturing and service settings

by Mariska Rottiné

S3126099

m.rottine.2@student.rug.nl

MSc Supply Chain Management University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

January 28, 2019 Groningen

Supervisor: dr. ir. S. Boscari

University of Groningen, faculty of Economics and Business Co-assessor: dr. O.A. Kilic

(2)

2

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this study is to identify and compare human related problems in lean transfer projects in services and manufacturing multinational corporations (MNCs). Thereby possible countermeasures to overcome these problems in lean transfer projects will be analyzed for both settings.

Methodology – This exploratory study uses a multiple case study to investigate the transfer of lean practices by a logistics MNC and an automotive MNC. The analysis is based on primary and secondary data, in order to make a comparison between the manufacturing MNC and service MNC.

Findings – The analysis shows that various human related problems occur in lean transfer projects at CEVA Logistics and Scania. The findings show that in both companies, the most frequently human related problems were resistance and not following the standard way of working. Analysis shows that different countermeasures are used to avoid and overcome these human related problems in lean transfer projects at CEVA Logistics and Scania. There were three countermeasures found, which could be applied to overcome human related problems in lean transfer projects in both service and manufacturing MNCs:

Contributions – This research contributes to literature on lean transfer projects in MNCs by providing an overview of human related problems and countermeasures to overcome these problems in service and manufacturing MNCs. This research provides managerial insights on how a different setting influences the human related problems and countermeasures in lean transfer projects and should therefore be taken into account when implementing and transferring best practices.

(3)

3

Preface

This thesis is my final project for the Master Supply Chain Management at the University of Groningen. I would like to thank all the interviewees of CEVA Logistics for their contribution to this research and their willingness to share information on their work environment. In addition, I would like to thank Thijs Kluiving for sharing his gathered data at Scania, which I used as the secondary data to make the comparison between the service and manufacturing MNC. Additionally, I would like to thank my family and friends for supporting me during my thesis project, in special my aunt Hannie, niece Marjolein, nephew Martijn and my study friends Lieke, Marieke, David, Inger, Marin and Marten. Finally, I would specially thank dr. ir. Stefania Boscari for the support and feedback during the past half year.

Mariska Rottiné

(5)

5

1. Introduction

Due to increase of globalization in the past two decades, many organizations have grown internationally by establishing locations all over the world, resulting in multinational corporations (MNCs) (Bortolotti & Boscari, 2016; Boscari, Danese, & Romano, 2016; Netland & Aspelund, 2014). This development resulted in many MNCs experiencing challenges in managing this network of locations (Netland & Aspelund, 2014). With more complexity and more locations, an attractive strategy for MNCs is to rely on standardized best practices (Jensen & Szulanski, 2004) with the aim to continuously develop and share these best practices in their network of locations (Kostova, 1999; Netland & Aspelund, 2014). Therefore, many manufacturing MNCs are developing multi-plant improvement programs (Netland, 2013).

This research focuses on the commonly used multi-plan improvement program, the multi-plant lean program, which is in general based on the principles and best practices of lean manufacturing (Netland & Aspelund, 2014) If the lean program is successfully implemented, it stimulates the innovativeness of the employees (Fugate, Stank, & Mentzer, 2009; He, & Wong, 2004; Silva, Gomes, Lages, & Pereira, 2014), increases the performance of the multiple receiving locations and could provide competitive advantages for MNCs (Netland, 2013). However, the transfer and implementation of the lean practices to multiple locations is not always successful (Maritan & Brush, 2003; Szulanski, 1996). Many MNCs are facing problems these days with the transfer and implementation of lean in their network of locations (Netland & Aspelund, 2014). The majority of these problems in lean transfer projects are related to employees (e.g. resistance and misunderstandings) (Losonci, Demeter, & Jenei, 2011), because the implementation of lean is higly dependent on these employees and their mindset (Drew, McCullum & Roggenhofer, 2004; Liker, 2004). These human related problems are mainly caused by the complexity of implementing and transferring lean practices, due to different routines across locations (Maritan & Brush, 2003; Szulanski, 1996; Netland & Aspelund 2014) and the different contextual conditions of the countries where the locations are established (Kostova, 1999).

(6)

6

prior research plead for more research on multi-plant improvements at MNCs in general (Netland & Aspelund, 2014).

The focus of this research is to identify and compare human related problems in lean transfer projects in service and manufacturing MNCs. Besides, countermeasures (e.g. empowering employees and training) to overcome these problems are compared for both settings. This results in the following research questions: What are the human related problems

in lean transfer projects in service MNCs compared to manufacturing MNCs? And what countermeasures can help to solve these problems?

A multiple case study is conducted with an exploratory focus. To make a comparison between the problems and possible countermeasures, a manufacturing and service MNCs are selected which are both experienced in transferring lean practices to their locations worldwide.

This research expands literature on a relatively new phenomenon, namely the multi-plant improvement programs and especially the multi-multi-plant lean program. Despite the fact that lean transfer projects are common used in both manufacturing and service MNCs, existing literature on lean transfer projects in MNCs is scarce (Netland & Aspelund, 2014; Boscari et al., 2016). Therefore the aim of this research is to contribute to existing literature on lean transfer projects in MNCs (Netland, 2013; Netland & Aspelund, 2014; Netland & Ferdows, 2014) by providing an overview of the human related problems and countermeasures to overcome these problems in service and manufacturing MNCs. This study expands previous research by including human related problems and countermeasures in lean transfer projects in services MNCs. Additionally, this research provides insights for managers of MNCs on how different settings influences human related problems and countermeasures in lean transfer projects and should therefore be taken into account when implementing and transferring best practices.

This study is organized as follows. First, a literature review has been conducted on the problems and countermeasures in lean transfer projects in service and manufacturing MNCs. Thereafter, the method explains how the data is gathered and analyzed. Then, the findings of this research are presented. The paper concludes with a discussion of the results, which includes theoretical contributions, managerial implications, limitations and recommendations for future research.

2. Theoretical Framework

(7)

7

both MNCs. Finally, in section 2.3 countermeasures to overcome the human related problems in lean transfer projects of both MNCs are described. Figure 1 presents the conceptual model of this study.

Figure 1. – Conceptual model

2.1 Lean transfer projects in MNCs

In order to define lean transfer projects in MNCs, first lean and the critical role of employees need to be specified. In section 2.1.1 lean manufacturing and lean service are described and compared. Followed by section 2.1.2, where the critical role of people in lean for both settings is provided. Finally, in section 2.1.3 lean transfer projects in manufacturing and service MNCs are defined.

2.1.1 Defining lean

Lean manufacturing is originally introduced by automobile manufacturer Toyota (Womack, Jones & Roos, 1990), and short after the introduction it was embraced by manufacturing (Bhamu & Sangwan, 2014). Lean manufacturing is defined by Gupta et al., (2016; p. 1026) as “an integrated multidimensional approach encompassing wide variety of management practices based on philosophy of eliminating waste through continuous improvement”. In lean the practices are complex due to the hard (e.g. reduction of the setup time) and soft practices (e.g. training of employees) it contains (Shah & Ward, 2007). Besides lean literature divides explicit (e.g. documented knowledge) and tacit knowledge (e.g. knowledge based on experience) (Herron & Hicks, 2008).

(8)

8

mentioned the term lean service for the first time, subsequently lean service developed rapidly and covered a variety of services (Hadid & Mansouri, 2014). Despite the increasing interest in lean service of academics and services companies (Abdi, Shavarini, & Hoseini, 2006; Kosuge, Modig, & Ahlstrom, 2010) it must be recognized that the applicability of lean service is still in a nascent phase (Gupta et al., 2016). Lean service is used as a method to reduce waste, resulting in a more efficient process to create value for the customer (Delgado, Ferreira, & Branco, 2010; Lisiecka & Burka, 2016). Despite the lack of guidelines on how to apply lean in services, extensive financial effects can be achieved along with an improvement of the performance of employees when lean is applied to services (Leite & Vieira, 2015).

Lean in services differs from lean in manufacturing because of the unique characteristics of services (Gupta et al., 2016) like intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity, simultaneity and perishability (Bowen & Younghdalh, 1998; Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004). Even though the way of reasoning behind the lean principles stays the same by the transfer of lean principles in both settings, the lean practices need to be adjusted for the services industries (Gupta et al., 2016; Hadid & Mansouri, 2014). Table 1 shows a comparison between lean manufacturing and lean service.

Lean Manufacturing Lean Service

Introduction in literature

Womack, Jones & Roos (1990) Bowen & Younghdalh (1998) Development

and maturity of literature

Raise in interest in academic from 1990 and still is, there were 19 publications in 2011 and 18 in 2012. 200 references were identified as lean manufacturing (Bhamu & Sangwan, 2014).

Research is still at nascent stage (Gupta et al., 2016), but there is an increasing interest in academic with 30 publications in both 2011 and 2012 (Hadid & Mansouri, 2014). 122 references were identified as lean services. (Gupta et al., 2016)

Development in practice

The implementation of lean

manufacturing started in the production of cars and other industries followed quickly. The applicability of lean manufacturing is widely recognized (Bhamu & Sangwan, 2014).

Lean is expanding to service companies (Hasle et al., 2012; Staats et al., 2011; Gupta et al., 2016). Literature shows the applicability of lean practices to an extensive variety of services (Hadid & Mansouri, 2014).

Content Shah & Ward (2003) distinguished four bundles of lean practices, just-in-time, total quality management, human resources management and total preventive maintenance.

Lean tools (Kaizen, eliminating waste, value stream mapping, 5S, standardization and HR management) can be applied in adjustable way in services (Gupta et al., 2016).

(9)

9

2.1.2 Critical role of people in lean

According to Womack et al., (1990) employees of lean organizations have a critical role in lean. This is confirmed by MIT (2000) which define lean as fundamentally changing the way of reasoning of employees and the valuation of this. The role of employees should be taken into account because employees are critical in handling problems (Sharp, Irani, & Desai, 1999) and maintain the success of the operations, due to lean, over a long period of time (Hines et al., 2004). Multiple researchers have emphasized the importance of human aspects when implementing lean in both manufacturing (e.g. Abdi, Shavarini, & Hoseini, 2006; Bowen & Younghdalh, 1998; May, 2005; Spear & Bowen, 1999; Sarkar, 2012) and services (Gupta et al., 2016). Lean implementation is highly dependent on the employees of the organization and their mindset (Drew et al., 2004; Liker, 2004), therefore the majority of the problems in lean transfer projects can be charged to employees (e.g. resistance and misunderstandings) (Losonci et al., 2011).

2.1.3 Lean transfer projects in MNCs

(10)

10

continuously develop and share these best practices in their network of locations (Kostova, 1999; Netland & Aspelund, 2014). Despite the fact that lean transfer projects are common used in both manufacturing and service MNCs, existing literature on lean transfer projects in MNCs is scarce (Netland & Aspelund, 2014; Boscari et al., 2016). The literature mentioned above on lean transfer projects in MNCs is based on manufacturing settings, since literature on lean transfer project in service MNCs is not yet developed.

2.2 Human related problems in lean transfer projects in MNCs

A literature review is conducted on human related problems in lean transfer projects in MNCs. Due to the complexity of lean, the critical role of employees and the unique service characteristics, different human related problems are expected between service and manufacturing MNCs. Table 2 provides an overview of the main human related problems in lean transfer projects in both manufacturing and service settings. Literature on problems in the manufacturing MNCs is complemented by general lean transfer literature, due to scarcity of literature on lean transfer projects in MNCs (Danese et al., 2017; Netland & Aspelund, 2014; Boscari et al., 2016). The literature on services is based on human related problems seen in single-plant research. The focus is on single-plant research, since it is more mature than multi-plant literature and almost all this research is applicable for multi-multi-plant improvement programs (Netland & Aspelund, 2014). The human related problems discussed in the literature will be explained and enumerated for both settings.

Problem Sources manufacturing Sources services

Resistance of employees to change

e.g. Aoki, (2008), Wallace, (2004), Boscari et al., (2015), Danese et al., (2017), Lozeau, Langley, & Denis, (2002), Netland & Aspelund, (2014)

e.g. Allway & Corbett, (2002), Lisiecka & Burka, (2016), Radnor & Boaden, (2008), Suárez-Barraza & Ramis-Pujol, (2010), Pardo Del Val & Martínez Fuentes, (2003) Unable to gain or

transfer new knowledge on lean practices

Hislop, (2013), Szulanski, (1996) Arlbjørn, Freytag, & de Haas, (2011), Barraza et al., (2009), Poksinska, (2010)

Misunderstanding of the concept of lean

Anand & Kodali (2010a), Bamber & Dale, (2000), Bonavia & Marin, (2006), Crute, Ward, Brown, & Graves, (2003), Lee-Mortimer, (2008). Szulanski, (1996)

Barraza et al., (2009)

Wrong focus Bhasin (2011), Bhamu & Sangwan,

(11)

11

Lack of

communication

Bamber & Dale, (2000), Hancock & Zayko, (1998), Scherrer-Rathje et al., (2009), Szulanski, (1996), Worley & Doolen, (2006),

Lack of management support

Boyer & Sovilla, (2003), Scherrer-Rathje et al., (2009), Stamm, (2004), Worley & Doolen, (2006),

Table 2. – Human related problems in lean transfer projects

Resistance is explained in general literature as intentionally defiance and the willingness

to mislead authorities (Ashforth & Mael, 1998). Resistance to change is extensively addressed in existing literature on lean manufacturing (Aoki, 2008; Boscari et al., 2015; Danese et al., 2017; Wallace, 2004). Both Aoki (2008) and Wallace (2004) state that resistance to lean arises from resistance to change and is shown by little participation of the employees. This could lead to difficulties during the transfer of lean practices and even failure of implementation of lean (Lozeau, Langley, & Denis, 2002; Netland & Aspelund, 2014). Also in services, the problem of resistance of employees occurs and there is underlined by various studies that resistance is an inhibitor when adopting and implementing lean (Allway & Corbett, 2002; Radnor & Boaden, 2008; Suárez-Barraza & Ramis-Pujol, 2010). When employees obstruct the change to lean, this may result in failure of the implementation of lean in the services (Pardo Del Val & Martínez Fuentes, 2003). Resistance in services is shown by little participation of the employees and by ignoring the rules of lean (Lisiecka & Burka, 2016; Radnor & Boaden, 2008).

In addition, problems arise in lean transfer projects when employees are unable to gain

new knowledge on lean practices (Szulanski, 1996) or when employees are unable to transfer

their gained knowledge on lean practices (Hislop, 2013). Also in services the problem is seen (Arlbjørn et al., 2011; Barraza et al., 2009; Poksinska, 2010), where employees are not able to send and receive the lean practices due to a lack of knowledge regarding these practices (Suárez-Barraza & Ramis-Pujol, 2010).

According to Anand & Kodali (2010a), an additional problem in manufacturing is employees misunderstanding the concept of lean, which reduces the transfer and adoption of lean practices (James, 2006). Also in services misunderstandings occur, these may lead to disappointments between employees and could lead to obstruction of the implementation process of lean (Barraza et al., 2009).

The following problems are only seen in manufacturing literature, wrong focus, lack of

communication and a lack of management support. The problem of a wrong focus, expresses

(12)

12

of communication causes problems between the receiving and sending locations (Szulanski,

1996), which could lead to decreased quality of the operations and hostile employees (Hancock & Zayko, 1998). Finally, a lack of management support, which reveals when management does not participate in the lean initiative (Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009; Worley & Doolen, 2006), which could lead to obstructing of the implementation of lean (Boyer & Sovilla, 2003; Stamm, 2004).

2.3 Countermeasures on human related problems in lean transfer projects in MNCs A literature review is conducted on the countermeasures of human related problems in lean transfer projects in manufacturing and service MNCs. This research defines countermeasures as all activities taken to avoid, resolve and reciprocate problems. Table 3 summarizes the countermeasures found in the existing literature, to overcome human related problems in lean transfer projects. Also here a lack of literature on the countermeasures in lean transfer projects in MNCs is noticed, therefore the same method is followed as by the scarcity in literature on human related problems. The countermeasures addressed in manufacturing MNCs literature, are complemented by general lean transfer literature. The countermeasures in services MNCs literature are based on countermeasures seen in single-plant research. The countermeasures to overcome human related problems discussed in literature will be explained and enumerated for both settings.

Problem Counter- measures Sources Manufacturing Counter- measures Sources Service Resistance of employees Empowering employees, learning by doing Aoki, (2008), Bhamu & Sangwan, (2014), Boscari et al., (2016), Hines et al., (2004) Empowering employees, communication system, reward system

Abdi et al., (2006), Comm & Mathaisel, Dennis, (2005), Hadid &

Mansouri, (2014), Liker & Morgan, (2006), Piercy & Rich, (2009), Radnor & Walley, (2008), Sarkar, (2012) Lack of knowledge on lean practices Training, change structure Bhasin (2008), Kostova, (1999) (Bhasin, 2008)

Training Liker & Morgan, (2006),

Staats et al., (2011) Misunderstan ding of the concept of lean Standardized documents, training, empowering employees, location visit Kostova, (1999), Mefford & Bruun, (1998), Schmidt, (2011), Womack et al., (1990)

Visual management

(13)

13

Wrong focus Feedback

sessions, empowering employees De Treville & Antonakis, (2006), Martínez-Jurado & Moyano-Fuentes, (2014) Lack of communicati on Central lean team Ferdows, (2006), Gupta & Govindarjan, (2000), Netland & Ferdows (2014) Lack of management support Commitment and leadership management Alavi, (2003), Boyer & Sovilla, (2003), Emiliani, (2001)

Table 3. - Countermeasures to human related problems in lean transfer projects

A solution to overcome resistance in manufacturing is to empower employees to be more independent and creative to their own initiatives, which results in higher commitment and limited resistance (Aoki, 2008; Bhamu & Sangwan, 2014). In addition, the empowerment of employees could lead to continuity of the MNC in the future (Hines et al., 2004). Besides,

learning by doing could be a suitable approach to overcome resistance, performed by employees

who are more experienced in the transfer of lean (Boscari et al., 2016). In services empowering

employees is also seen as a solution to overcome resistance (Radnor & Walley, 2008). Since

lean in service is human-oriented, employees should participate in the decision-making process (Abdi et al., 2006; Liker & Morgan, 2006; Sarkar, 2012). This participation results in rejecting the negative effects of resistance and failures that appear during the implementation (Hadid & Mansouri, 2014). However, in service literature other solutions are found to overcome

resistance. First, the development of a communication system to make every employee more

aware of the urgency to embrace lean, this results in more commitment and less resistance (Comm & Mathaisel, Dennis, 2005). Second, in order to support team work, a reward system should be implemented, where rewards are connected to team goals (Piercy & Rich, 2009). This likely results in an improvement of the coordination between employees in different functions, which enhance the embracement of the lean practices (Piercy & Rich, 2009).

(14)

14

practices. Employees should be trained to develop skills to perform the service by making use of the lean practices and principles (Liker & Morgan, 2006; Staats et al., 2011).

In manufacturing literature standardized documents is found to overcome

misunderstanding in lean transfer projects. These documents should contain all the information

to facilitate collective learning (Mefford & Bruun, 1998). Besides, training can help to overcome misunderstandings of the employees, especially when these misunderstanding are caused by a lack of knowledge about the practices (Kostova, 1999). An additional solution is

empowering employees, which can contribute to the development of the knowledge on lean

practices of the employees (Schmidt, 2011). Finally, location visits could help to overcome misunderstanding, by seeing how other locations implemented best practices (Womack et al., 1990). In services a different solution is seen on misunderstanding by employees. Visual

management can be used to decrease human errors and could lead to an improved problem

solving process (Liker & Morgan, 2006; Radnor, 2010; Staats et al., 2011).

Only in manufacturing literature, multiple countermeasures are described to overcome a wrong focus. The first solution to a wrong focus of employees is by working with frequent

feedback sessions, which contributes to the share of solutions (Martínez-Jurado &

Moyano-Fuentes, 2014). An additional solution is to empower employees with a wrong focus because employees who are involved in the organization could have meaningful opinions of the practices (De Treville & Antonakis, 2006).

Creating a central lean team is used to overcome a lack of communication and is only found in manufacturing literature. This team consists of lean experts, which encourage the implementation of lean by communication among the receiving and sending locations (Ferdows, 2006; Netland & Ferdows, 2014). In this team they teach each other and the employees of original location (Ferdows, 2006; Netland & Ferdows, 2014). These teaching moments result in stronger relationships between lean experts of the locations and can contribute to better a communication between different locations on the long-term (Gupta & Govindarjan, 2000).

Only in manufacturing literature, commitment and leadership are used to overcome a

lack of management support. Management must develop an interest regarding lean, should

(15)

15

3. Research methodology

To answer the research questions: What are the human related problems in lean transfer

projects in service MNCs compared to manufacturing MNCs? And what countermeasures can help to solve these problems? a multiple case study is conducted since it is a suitable way to

answer what questions (Benbasat, Goldstein, & Mead, 1987). Previous research on the operations of MNCs (Doz, 2011; Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, 2011) recommended to use a case study research, since lean transfer literature is still immature (Danese et al., 2017; Netland & Aspelund, 2014). A comparison on lean transfer projects between manufacturing and service MNCs is new and according to Yin, (1994) a case study is a suitable approach for developing theory. In this way, the phenomenon under examination can be thoroughly described (Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002; Yin, 1994) while taking human related problems and countermeasures in consideration (Dyer & Wilkins, 1991; Voss et al., 2002). The unit of analysis of this research are the locations who receive the lean practices. 3.1 Research setting

The research process of this study is based on the theoretical sampling approach of Strauss & Corbin (1998). To start this research, a list of criteria was compiled in order to find suitable organizations. The organizations had to be a MNC with headquarters and locations in Europe and had to perform lean transfer projects. An additional criteria was that the MNCs should have at least one location in the Netherlands to make observations. Finally, the MNCs should perform services in order to make the comparison between lean transfer projects in manufacturing and service MNCs. After an additional list was compiled of service MNCs, which perform lean transfer projects with locations in the Netherlands. Followed by gathering information on the internet and reaching out to contacts to see if these companies were interested in participation in this research.

(16)

16

Sites Headquarters Service Size $ and

employees Service Lean 1000 sites in 160 countries Baar, Switzerland Logistics and freight management solution provider $ 7.0 bn Revenue 56.000(temporarily) employees Operational excellence: Business Process Excellence (BPE) Table 4. – Company overview

In order to make the comparison between the service and manufacturing MNC, secondary data is used. The used data is gathered by a previous thesis last year at Scania, a Swedish manufacturing MNC which produces trucks and leading in their lean transfer program (see section 3.3.4).

3.2 Case selection

The organization of CEVA consists of a worldwide network of 1000 locations in 160 countries. For the case selection there is examined which regions would be interesting to include in this research. This resulted in the selection of eight cases, where receiving locations and supportive functions were included (Table 5). The cases of receiving locations included multiple regional Operations Excellence Managers, who are responsible for the lean program in the regions. Besides, Business Process Excellence functions of different clusters were included, which have a supporting and auditing role in the transfer of lean in the clusters. 3.3 Data collection

A research protocol was composed as a guideline for the case study research in order to improve the reliability and validity (Yin, 2014). This research was based on retrospective data collection (Karlsson, 2016). To deal with the possible limitation of the retrospective data and to improve the reliability of the research, a triangulation approach was used by gathering data from multiple sources: semi-structured interviews, company documents, observations and secondary data (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 1994). The gathered data was treated confidential during the research project.

3.3.1 Semi-structured interviews

(17)

17

problems in these projects. The last part focused on countermeasures to overcome these problems in lean transfer projects.

The semi-structured interviews were held with key-informers, who were selected based on their knowledge of lean transfer projects and their experiences with human related problems and countermeasures in these projects (Table 5). The interviews were preferable performed face-to-face but when this was not possible, due to distance and time difficulties, Skype was used. The interviews were performed in November and December 2018 and took 45-60 minutes. Each semi-structured interview was recorded and notes were made. Each interview was transcribed as soon as possible.

3.3.2 Company documents

In addition to the interviews, internal documents of CEVA were analyzed regarding lean transfer projects. CEVA provided access to protocols such as 5S, Kaizen and the SCA. These documents were helpful to get an in-depth understanding of the lean transfer projects at CEVA. Each separate document is examined and coded. Besides, the company website was used to gather general information of CEVA.

3.3.3 Observations

The observations of the lean transfer projects were made at the Dutch sites of CEVA in Roosendaal and Eindhoven. These observations were made during a guided tour to get an impression of the lean practices at the locations of CEVA (Voss et al., 2002). Besides, the observations were used to compare the given answers during the interviews with real implementations at the locations.

3.3.4 Secondary data

(18)

18

Case Characteristics of the

cluster/locations Function interviewees R ec ipi ent of lean p rac tic es

Case 1: Region the Netherlands, West

Local sites in The Hague, Schiphol, Aalsmeer, Maarsen with multi- and dedicated facilities.

Operations excellence manager (OEMN1), responsible for a local team of lean agents and in charge of the lean transfer projects in the region.

Case 2: Region the Netherlands, Southwest

Three local sites in

Roosendaal with multi- and dedicated facilities.

Operations excellence manager (OEMN2), responsible for a local team of lean agents, and in charge of the lean transfer projects in the region.

Case 3: Region the Netherlands, South

Local sites in Eindhoven, Born 1 and 2 and Heerlen with multi- and dedicated facilities.

Operations excellence manager (OEMN3), responsible for a local team of lean agents, and in charge of the lean transfer projects in the region.

Case 4: Region

Belgium, North

Two local sites in

Grobbedonk and Willebroek with multi- and dedicated facilities.

Business support manager (BSMB1), responsible for a local team of lean agents, and in charge of the lean transfer projects in the region.

Case 5: Region

Belgium, South

Two local sites in Courcelles and La Louviere with multi- and dedicated facilities.

Operations excellence manager (OEMB1), responsible for a local team of lean supervisors and in charge of the lean transfer projects in the region. L ean suppor t f un ct ions Case 6: Cluster Benelux

Business Process Excellence team: support function for all the fifteen local locations in the cluster Benelux.

Lean program manager Benelux (LPMBNL1), responsible for the continuous improvement of the lean program in the cluster and assessing the program in the regions;

Lean engineer Benelux (LEBNL1), responsible for support by different projects of the lean program in the regions.

Case 7: Germany, part of cluster East and Central Europa

Business Process Excellence team: support function for all the fifteen local locations in Germany with only dedicated facilities.

Operations improvement manager (OIMG1), responsible for the continuous improvement of the lean program and the sending and assessing the program to the regions.

Case 8: United

Kingdom, part of cluster UKIN

Business Process Excellence team: support function for all the 70-80 local locations in the United Kingdom with

multi- and dedicated

facilities.

(19)

19

Plants Headquarters Service Size in € and

employees

Manufacturing lean

20 plants in Europe, South America and Asia

Sweden Heavy Vehicles

(trucks, buses and engines) 46,000 Employees €10,863 Million Scania Production System (SPS) Table 6. – Company overview secondary data

The main method of the previous thesis to gather data was by performing semi-structured interviews, which were held with key-informers of Scania. These were selected based on their knowledge on lean transfer projects and their experiences with human related problems and countermeasures in these projects. Besides, internal company documents and observations were used. Appendix B provides an overview of the case selection and interviewees of the secondary data.

3.4 Data reduction and analysis

The gathered data was coded and analyzed by using the software Atlas.ti. This process was done according to the coding method of Strauss & Corbin (1998). To start the data analysis, the original concepts were identified and grouped into first order categories. To search for relationships between these categories second order categorization were used. Finally, the coding was completed by grouping these second order categorization into overarching third order categories. The coding process was done in a cyclical way, resulting in a clear overview of the data and the patterns (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler 2008; Karlsson, 2016). This way of analyzing the data preserved the level of sensitivity to the situation and specific facts, as well as the accuracy (Blumberg, et al., 2008), and gave a complete and adequate understanding of the human related problems and possible countermeasures in lean transfer projects. Table 7 gives an example of the coding process, Appendix C provides the full coding tree.

First order Second order Third order

When issues of the day occur then the lean program is the first thing that drops out

Wrong focus Human related problems in

lean transfer projects There is low alignment on the management level

Lean is seen as a must Table 7. – Example coding process

(20)

20

(Table 8). First a within-case analysis was performed, to understand the structure of lean transfer projects, the human related problems and countermeasures at CEVA and Scania separately. These within-case analyses provided input for the cross-case analysis, where a comparison between the human related problems and countermeasures of CEVA and Scania was made.

Variable Description Rang

Human related problems Different human related problems in lean transfer projects

General: Problem seen in both companies and all locations. Multiple: Problem occurring in both companies, but not in

every location.

Single: Problem only seen in one company.

Countermeasures Different countermeasures used in lean transfer projects

General: Countermeasures used in both companies, to

overcome the same problem.

Multiple: Countermeasures used in only one company, to

overcome the multiple problems.

Single: Countermeasure used in only one company, to

overcome a single problem. Table 8. – Operationalization of the variables cross-case analysis

4. Analysis and results

In section 4.1 and 4.2 an overview is given of the structure of the lean program at CEVA and Scania, this supports the understanding of how CEVA and Scania both use their program and what these programs cover. Section 4.3 provides an overview of the human related problems occurring in lean transfer projects at CEVA and Scania. Finally, in section 4.4 the countermeasures to overcome the human related problems in lean transfer projects at CEVA and Scania are discussed.

4.1 Overview lean program at CEVA and Scania

The Business Process Excellence (BPE) was initiated at CEVA in 2004 and has the aim to continuous improve the operations by sharing best practices across the clusters worldwide in order to develop the customer relationship. It is seen as a standard governance at CEVA: “which ensures a common approach to their businesses worldwide, while maintaining their flexibility to adjust to local markets, requirements and potentials” (CEVA, 2018; p.10).

(21)

21

eliminate waste, improve resource efficiency and optimize production flow” (Scania AB, 2017; p. 15).

As described by Danese et al., (2017) both programs of CEVA and Scania can be seen as global and shared lean programs. The programs are in both companies extensive communicated and is seen as the main improvement approach. Another similarity is that all employees of both companies are trained on the lean practices and principles, containing both hard and soft practices (Shah & Ward, 2007), in order to create the same mindset worldwide. 4.2 Structure lean program at CEVA and Scania

At CEVA the global BPE team is responsible for the development of the lean program and the transfer of the guidelines to the cluster BPE teams. These teams support the locations in their cluster by the implementation and development of the lean program, by providing documents and trainings. These team are also responsible for auditing the lean program through the site classification assessment (SCA). The structure of the cluster BPE team is the same for all clusters, however the size of these BPE teams could differ. Every region of a cluster has an Operations excellence manager, who is responsible for the continuous development and management of the lean program in the region. In these regions there are (multiple)

lean agents responsible for the correct performance of the lean practices in the local operations. It is important to mention that the role of the cluster BPE team is only supportive and advisory. The structure is shown in Figure 2. Appendix E gives an extensive structure.

When new best practices are developed at locations, these are shared in the three monthly Operations excellence managers meetings, where the cluster BPE team and the Operations excellence managers are present. In these meetings the situation of the lean program and SCA are discussed and best practices are exchanged. This exchange is mostly cluster driven, there is less exchange of best practices across the clusters, which could explain the

(22)

22

differences of the level of BPE worldwide (OIMG1, OIMUK1, LPMBNL1, LEBNL1). This level is measured by the SCA on fourteen subjects of the BPE (Appendix F). There is stated about the SCA: “Every site can fill it in its own way, so a framework is provided by the SCA and we are quite free in the way we fill it in.” (OEMN2, supported by LPMBNL1, OEMN2). The SCA is especially top-down driven, the global BPE team develops it with less input of the clusters, and therefore the influence of the clusters is low (OIMG1, OEMN2, LPMBNL1). However, the clusters need to regularly update the global BPE team by sending reports regarding the level of the SCA at that moment (e.g. the number of Kaizen per location).

The structure of transferring lean practices at Scania is different compared to CEVA. Scania had introduced SPS offices, to share lean practices between the different locations. The global SPS office is located in headquarters in Sodertalje, where twelve managers are responsible for the transfer and development of lean practices among the different locations. In every Scania plant there is a local SPS office, which receive the lean practices of the global SPS office. Besides, the global SPS office gives training to the local SPS offices managers. Each plant has a local SPS office where SPS officers are active to explain new lean practices, support the implementation process of these practices in the plant and observe the outcomes. The structure of the SPS is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. – Structure of SPS Scania

(23)

23

CEVA Scania

Program name Business Process Excellence Scania Production System

Year of introduction 2004 1990

Philosophy The program “ensures a common

approach to their businesses worldwide, while sustaining their flexibility to adjust to local markets,

requirements and potentials”

(CEVA, 2018; p.10)

The program has “a strong focus on continuous improvement, SPS helps eliminate waste, improve resource efficiency and optimize production flow” (Scania AB, 2017; p. 15)

Structure Cluster driven by the BPE cluster

teams

Central driven by the global SPS office with local SPS offices

Role global head office

The Global BPE team develops the program and transfers guidelines to the cluster BPE teams. The SCA is developed by the global BPE team and is strict for all the locations

The Global SPS office is in charge for the transfer and development of the lean practices and knowledge among the different locations

Top-down/bottom-up The lean program is top-down, the best practices development are bottom-up

The transfer of best practices is top-down, the best practices are bottom-up

Role of the cluster BPE/SPS office

Supportive and advisory function Supportive and advisory function Table 9. – Comparison structure CEVA and Scania.

At CEVA the program is developed global, but the share of the lean practices is mostly cluster driven. The locations in the clusters are supported by the cluster BPE teams when implementing the best practices. Where at Scania it is central driven by the global SPS office and every location has a local SPS office. The different locations worldwide are developing best practices, which are transferred by the global lean office to the local lean offices. Important to mention is that the role of the cluster BPE team and local SPS office is both supportive, they cannot impose the locations to use the best practices.

However, within both companies the global head office is responsible for the development of the lean program. This responsibility expresses itself differently in both companies, at CEVA the global BPE team develops the SCA, transfers this to the clusters and monitors the outcomes. The clusters are developing the practices. At Scania the global SPS office is responsible for the development and transfer of the lean practices to the locations.

(24)

24

4.3 Human related problems in lean transfer projects

In this section an overview is given of the human related problems in lean transfer projects at CEVA and Scania. In order to make the comparison between the human related problems at CEVA and Scania, first a within-case analysis for both companies was performed (Appendix D – tables 17 and 18). These analyses served as input for the cross-case analysis between CEVA and Scania. The results of the cross-case analysis shows that various problems occur in lean transfer projects of CEVA and Scania (Table 10). There are no problems seen in all the locations of both companies. However, resistance and not following the standard way of

working are human related problems occurring most frequently in both companies and are seen

in almost all locations. Lack of communication, unclear/misunderstanding and no follow up are problems occurring in both companies, however they are seen less frequently in the locations.

Miscommunication and wrong focus are human related problems seen only at CEVA. The

mentioned human related problems will be explained and enumerated.

Problems CEVA Scania

Resistance Benelux, the Netherlands (South

& West), Belgium (North & South), Germany, United Kingdom

The Netherlands (Zwolle), the Netherlands (Meppel), Sweden (Södertälje), Sweden

(Oskarshamn) Not following the standard

way of working

Benelux, United Kingdom, Belgium (North & South), the Netherlands (South)

Brazil, the Netherlands (Zwolle), the Netherlands (Meppel), Brazil, India, Sweden (Oskarshamn)

Lack of communication United Kingdom, Germany,

Belgium (South)

Finland, Sweden (Oskarshamn)

Unclear/misunderstanding United Kingdom The Netherlands (Meppel),

Finland, France, Sweden (Oskarshamn)

No follow up Belgium (North), Benelux The Netherlands (Zwolle)

Miscommunication The Netherlands (South)

Wrong focus Benelux, the Netherlands

(South, West and Southwest), Belgium (North)

Table 10. – Overview problems CEVA and Scania

4.3.1 Human related problems in both companies, but not on every location.

The first problem seen in both companies is resistance, this is together with not

following the standard way of working described as the most frequency occurring problem in

(25)

25

about the changes and the consequences”. (LPMBNL1, supported by OEMN1, OEMN2, OIMG1, BSMB1, OEMB1, LEBNL1, OEIMUK1). Within Scania, resistance is only seen in the Northern European countries as they state: “There is always resistance, still now with something new” (LLONZ1, supported by LLOS2, LLONZ2, LLONM1). This is also noticed by the global SPS office: “In general people like to be the owner of their own department and processes. And if you create something and you just roll it out then you will have resistance” (GLO1). Within both companies different reasons are given why employees show resistance towards change: “People cannot foresee the impact of the change” (LPMBNL1), “They do not want any new methods anymore” (LLONZ2), “Employees are afraid to lose their job” (LEBNL1) and “The historical mindset, employees have the attendance to go back to what they have been using for a long time” (OEMB1). In both companies the resistance is just seen during the implementation, however there is stated: “I think that the resistance is already present before the implementation, it only manifests itself during the implementation” (OEMN3, supported by LEBNL1, OEMN2, LPMBNL1, LLOS2, LLONZ2).

Also not following the way of working is the most frequently seen problem in both companies and occurs in almost all the locations. At Scania a local lean officer mentioned: “A method thought about in Sweden, may be a little bit different here in Zwolle. The basic will be the same, but we have other tools, other equipment, other people, so we have to make it our own. And we adapt 90 percent of all the methods, 10 percent will maybe be a little bit different” (LLONZ2, supported by LLONM1, LLOS1, LLONZ1, LLONZ3, LLOBR2, LLOI1, LLONM1). This is complemented with the following: “In some cases, not everyone is in line with the structure of lean that is supposed to be the best one to follow” (LLOS2). An example is seen at the lean office in Brazil: “In different workshops we have some specific process like painting, welding, assembling. In our chassis we are only assembling, so some tools […] are not applicable for us” (LLOBR1, supported by LLOBR2). At Scania there is room provided to adjust lean practices to the needs of the different locations as: “this helps in preventing potential problems” (LLOS1, supported by LLONZ1, LLONZ3, LLOBR2, LLOI1). Also at CEVA not

following the standard way of working is a problem, which is seen by the support functions of

(26)

26

they have impact our operations” (OEMB1, supported by BSMB1, LEBNL1, OIMUK1, OEMN3). In the development of the lean program standards are created, however: “Within these standards there is some space and you need this space in order to deliver unique services to different customers” (LEBNL1). The level of standardization of the lean program is mentioned as a challenge: “Having practices that are generic enough to be able to transfer to all the sites but specific to deliver value to the location” (OIMUK1, supported by OEMN3, OEMN2). Despite the fact that not following the standard way of working occurs, most of the interviewees are positive about the applicability of lean at CEVA: “Lean is excellent applicable to logistics because there are a lot of repetition and standardization in the operations, which supports the continuous improvement” (OEMN1, supported by LPMBNL1, OEMN2, OEMN3).

Another problem seen in both companies is a lack of communication. At CEVA this problem is seen by the support function of Germany and United Kingdom and occurs in Belgium (South). At Scania this problem is visible at the locations in Finland and Sweden (Oskarsham). In both companies the lack of communication was visible in a similar way: “The operations excellence team need to share and provide more information on the lean program and practices” (OIMG1, supported by OIMUK1, LLOS2, LLOFIN1). However, at the locations of CEVA Germany and Belgium (South) an additional problem is seen because the information provided is in a different language than spoken by the shop floor employees: “All the materials, trainings materials are developed in Dutch which makes it more difficult to bring it to our employees” (OEMB1). This results in a less effective transfer of the lean practices to the employees: “Employees were not able to understand it, we had to translate every training, every sheet, every check list into German […] that was a huge task for us” (OIMG1).

Another problem in both companies is unclear/misunderstanding, this problem is seen by four locations of Scania and at CEVA only in the United Kingdom. At Scania, a Lean Officer states: “We get the implementation from Sodertalje and the documentation is not clear to us” (LLOFR1, supported by LLOS2, LLONM1). At CEVA in the United Kingdom the: “Misunderstandings are occurring on sites because they receive different messages and documentations from different central functions” (OIMUK1).

No follow up is a problem by CEVA seen by the support function of the Benelux and

(27)

27

stated: “We put a lot of energy and money in it, but we did not secure it […] we did not have a follow up in it […] we need a structure to have a culture.” (LLONZ1, supported by LLONZ2).

The following propositions summarize the results from the cross-case analysis:

P1a. In lean transfer projects by manufacturing MNCs, room for adjustment of the

practices is necessary as it helps to prevent potential problems.

P1b. In lean transfer projects by services MNCs, room for adjustments of the practices

is necessary as it helps to deliver value to the customer.

P1c. In lean transfer projects of both manufacturing and services MNCs, resistance

and not following the standard way of working are the main human related problems occurring.

4.3.2 Human related problems seen in one company

Miscommunication is a problem seen in one region of CEVA. When there is a fast in

and out flow of employees the Operation Excellence Manager states about the lean program: “On every level of the organization you need to propagate the same message, […] and that is difficult […] resulting in miscommunications” (OEMN3).

Only at CEVA, a wrong focus is seen. In logistics an important aspect is the fast and on time delivery of the contract (LEBNL1), when issues of the day occur the lean program is the first thing that drops out: “There is mainly focus on volumes, the orders have to go out on time […] on a high quality level, as agreed with the customer. The lean program is affected by this and will be the first thing that is dropped (LEBNL1, supported by OEMN1, BSMB1). Other interviewees state that lean is seen as a must in the operations, instead of an improvement method: “If lean is seen as a must, then it cannot become a success” (OEMN3, supported by OEMN1). The problem of a wrong focus is also seen on the management level, where there is low alignment regarding the lean program. The entire management team of the region needs to facilitate and support the implementation and development of lean: “We need alignment on the management level, otherwise we are not able to change” (BSMB1). This is complemented with the following: “On the management level, lean as seen as a load and not as part of the daily operations” (OEMN2). When there is no alignment on the management level and the importance of the lean program is underestimated, the development of lean could stagnate in the organization: “The management team should not see the lean program as something separate, they should see it as part of the operation” (OEMN2).

(28)

28

P2a. In lean transfer projects by service MNCs, a wrong focus occurs due to the issues

of the day caused by pressure of complying to the agreements with the customer.

P2b. In lean transfer project by service MNCs, a wrong focus occurs due to the lean

program is seen as a must on the operations and management level.

4.3 Countermeasures to overcome human related problems in lean transfer projects In this section an overview is given of the countermeasures to overcome human related problems in lean transfer projects at CEVA and Scania. In order to make the comparison between the countermeasures at CEVA and Scania, first a within-case analysis for both companies was performed (Appendix D – Table 19 and 20). These analyses served as input for the cross-case analysis between CEVA and Scania. The results of this cross-case analysis show that different countermeasures are used to avoid and overcome problems in lean transfer projects in CEVA and Scania (Table 11). This research focusses on three kinds of countermeasures. First, general countermeasures used in both companies to overcome the same problem. Second, countermeasures that are used only by one company, which overcome multiple problems. Third, countermeasures used by one company which overcome one problem. The countermeasures found at CEVA and Scania will be explained and enumerated their frequency.

Countermeasures Problems CEVA Problems Scania

Training Misunderstanding, resistance,

wrong focus

Misunderstanding

Empowering employees Resistance Resistance, Misunderstanding

Location visits Misunderstanding Misunderstanding

Kaizen structure Misunderstanding, resistance

Standardize documents Not following the standard way of working, lack of communication, misunderstanding

Site Classification Assessment

Not following the standard way of working

Managerial involvement Not following the standard way

of working

Building a business case Resistance

Changing plant layout Lack of communication

(29)

29

4.3.1 General countermeasures

At all the locations of both MNCs training is used as a countermeasures to overcome

misunderstandings in lean transfer projects. To overcome misunderstanding every employee of

CEVA receives training in lean and Kaizen: “In these trainings we explain the basic principles of lean by making use of a game, you need to apply the principles and the effects of your actions are direct visible” (LPMBNL1). At Scania employees who misunderstand the lean practices or the implementation are trained again: “This repetition can go on until everyone understands the new implementation and is able to work accordingly” (GLO1). The structure of training again, when employees misunderstand it, is also seen at CEVA: “When employees indicate that they need training […] training is given” (OEMN3). Moreover, when the cluster BPE teams see that support is necessary, they will give it (LPMBNL1).

Another general countermeasure used in both companies to overcome resistance of employees is by empowering employees. As stated by the Lean Program Manager of CEVA: “Employees should be involved in the improvement process and should be able to contribute to solutions” (LPMBNL1, supported by LEBNL1, OEMN1, OIMUK1, OEMB1, OEMN2, OIMG1, OEMN3, BSMB1). However, the responsibilities should be taken into account as stated: “Empowerment is a good thing, but everybody needs to take their responsibilities to perform the tasks they are allowed to in a good manner” (LEBNL1, supported by OEMN3). Also at Scania empowering the employees is seen as a countermeasure to overcome resistance:

“Step by step make people familiar with your development and also make them, if possible,

part of the development so that in the end it is easier to implement the new way of working” (GLO1).

The last general countermeasure in both companies used to overcome

misunderstandings are location visits. At Scania and CEVA this method is used to see how a

(30)

30

excellence managers meetings where: “Every time we have a meeting, we visit a different location to see how best practices are implemented and to exchange information on these” (BSMB1, supported by OEMN3).

The following propositions summarize the results from the cross-case analysis:

P3a. In lean transfer projects by service and manufacturing MNCs, training is used to

overcome misunderstandings.

P3b. In lean transfer projects by service and manufacturing MNCs, empowering

employees is used to overcome resistance.

P3c. In lean transfer projects by service and manufacturing MNCs, location visits are

used to overcome misunderstandings.

4.3.2 Single countermeasures for multiple human related problems by one company

Only at CEVA training is seen as countermeasures to overcome resistance of employees and a wrong focus of employees. The training focus on continuous improvement and has the following aim: “Where can I find problems at the location, and how can I solve this. We give as support team the tools to overcome the problems” (LEBNL1). This is complemented with the following: “Multiple trainings are offered to employees so they can locate problems and we [Operations Excellence Managers] try to stimulate this, so that employees have a good feeling about their work environment” (BSMB1). When problems are noticed, the cluster BPE team supports the location (LPMBNL1).

Additionally, managerial involvement is used at CEVA to overcome wrong focus and

no follow up. The management must carry out lean as part of the daily operations, as stated:

“By the implementation of the program the involvement of the management is essential, everyone needs to be triggered to think about what can I do better the next time. […] In regional meetings there must always be attention for safety, quality and continuous improvement. […] we as CEVA can think that it is important that we continuous improve. […] But you [Location Management] have to show it, must be present on the shop floor, have to reward and appreciate your employees for their good ideas and Kaizen” (OEMN3). In order to secure of maintain the change of lean, there is stated: “You have to listen to the needs of your team and have the discipline to maintain the change” (OEMN2, supported by OEMB1), the Lean Engineer adds: “and ask for support when this necessary” (LEBNL1).

The kaizen structure is used at CEVA to overcome misunderstandings and resistance.

(31)

31

that contributes to your working environment” (LEBNL1, supported by OEMN3). The kaizen structure could be divided into three projects: quick kaizen, kaizen and engineers projects. uick kaizen is an improvement idea of a shop floor employee where in two days without an extensive analysis a perceived problem is solved. Kaizen is performed by supervisors and has a lead time of five till eight weeks, the extensive lead time is necessary to measure if there is an improvement. The engineer’s projects are carried out by engineers and includes comprehensive data, these projects have a lead time of two till three months.

Finally, only at CEVA the standardized documents are used to overcome not following

the way of working, lack of communication and misunderstandings. The focus of global BPE

team is more on standardization of the logistics processes, therefore this team has developed the CEVAWAY: “We are now implementing CEVAWAY in our cluster” (LEBNL1). By making use of the CEVAWAY one standard way of working is adopted, this will enhance the standard way of working, reduce misunderstandings and increases the communication (LEBNL1, OIMUK1).

4.3.3 Single countermeasures for one single human related problem

At CEVA the SCA helps to overcome not following the standard way of working. The SCA provides a framework of lean and other continuous improvement practices: “80% is standard within in the SCA, and yes I accept there is a 20% specialty factor in it, because everyone thinks that their customer is special” (OIMUK1, supported by BSMB1, LEBNL1). This is complemented with the following: “The audit program is a way to measure, where are we now and what do we need to get better, […] it gives a structure for a clean, safe and structured environment” (BSMB1).

Managerial involvement is a countermeasure at Scania to overcome not following the standard way of working. In order to overcome the problem of making too little use of the

global SPS office: “We are supported by the global SPS office […] they are guiding us” (LLOFIN1).

Only at Scania empowering employees is used as a countermeasure to overcome

misunderstanding. The possibility of misunderstandings of employees is less, when employees

are involved and well-known with the operations process (GLO1).

Building a business case is a countermeasure to overcome resistance and is only seen

(32)

32

employees a good understanding of the needs and benefits of the lean practices and is done to convince employees of the importance of the lean practices (LLOS2, supported by LLOS1).

Finally, changing the plant layout to overcome the lack of communication is used as countermeasure at Scania. The layout of the Finnish plant was redesign to improve the communication between the departments, this resulted to more face-to-face communication and less emails. Due to the new plant layout: “It is more open […], so the communication is easier” (LLOF1).

5. Discussion

5.1 Human related problems in lean transfer projects

This research contributes to literature on lean transfer projects in MNCs by providing an overview of human related problems seen service and manufacturing MNCs (Ferdows, 2006; Netland, 2013; Netland & Aspelund, 2014). This research expands previous research by including the human related problems occurring in lean transfer projects in services MNCs. It is interesting to notice that for a major part the same human related problems are occurring in the service and manufacturing MNC. This research found that resistance and not following the standard way of working are the two most frequently occurring human related problems in both services and manufacturing MNC.

Existing literature states that resistance is a typical problem by the transfer of lean practices (Aoki, 2008; Wallace, 2004). The appearance of resistance is seen in both MNCs, which results in difficulties by the transfer and implementation of lean practices at the locations. These findings on resistance are in line with literature on human related problems found in single plant research in services (Pardo Del Val & Martínez Fuentes, 2003) and lean transfer projects in manufacturing MNCs (Lozeau et al., 2002; Netland & Aspelund, 2014). This research adds to literature that resistance of employees is also seen in a service MNC.

(33)

33

customer is able to view the service process and plays a crucial role in the performance of the service (Murdick, 1990; Johnston, Clark & Shulver, 2012; Grönroos, 2007). Where in manufacturing the customer does not see the process and is in general not involved in it (Johnston et al., 2012). However, it must be emphasized that value creation for the customer is an important principle of lean manufacturing (Womack et al., 1990), but this is not seen in the data of the manufacturing MNC regarding the need for the adjustability of the lean program.

In addition, this research contributes to existing literature on the problem of having a wrong focus, by showing that a wrong focus of employees and management also occurs in lean transfer projects of service MNCs. Thus far, literature only investigated a wrong focus in manufacturing settings. Literature on manufacturing MNCs suggests that for a successful implementation of lean practices the culture and mindset of employees are important and that dedicated management is necessary (Netland & Aspelund, 2014; Drew, et al., 2004). At CEVA the lean program is not carried by everyone on both operations and management level, this expresses itself through a lack of interest and commitment regarding the lean program. Manufacturing literature suggests that on a management level this may result in restricted access to resources, endless decision-making procedures and communication disruptions (Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009). However, these problems are not noticed in data of the service MNC.

Additionally, in data of CEVA there has been found that the customer has influence on the use of the best practices. Having this wrong focus occurs at CEVA due to the issues of the day, which is caused by pressure of complying to the agreements with the customer. This problem could be related to the active role of the customer in services (Andrés-López, González-Requena, & Sanz-Lobera, 2015). In services, value is defined by the customer, however the measurement of this (e.g. customer satisfaction and expectations) is more difficult compared to a manufacturing setting (Arfmann & Topolansky, 2014). The influence of the customer might be a problem for other service MNCs as well, therefore these service MNCs should take this into account by the transfer of best practices.

5.2 Countermeasures on the human related problems in lean transfer projects

Problems and countermeasures in lean transfer projects of international multi-plant organizations: Master thesis

Master thesis