Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 680

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Disentangling leanness and agility: An empirical investigation

Narasimhan, Ram, Swink, Morgan, Kim, Soo Wook·2006·Journal of Operations Management

Abstract

Manufacturing plant managers have sought performance improvements by adhering to the guiding principles of leanness and agility. Lean manufacturing and agile manufacturing paradigms have also received considerable attention in operations management literature. However, paradoxically, the extant literature is lacking in clarity and fails to delineate with sufficient precision how and why leanness and agility differ. Given the resource constraints within which most manufacturing firms have to operate today, it is useful, if not critical, to develop a good understanding of how these paradigms differ and what their constituent dimensions are. Such an understanding is also essential for developing and testing theories relating to leanness and agility. Through a literature review we discuss leanness and agility in two ways: (1) as manufacturing paradigms and (2) as performance capabilities. Our empirical study attempts to determine whether lean and agile forms occur with any degree of regularity in manufacturing plants. The results confirm the existence of homogeneous groups that resemble lean and agile performing plants, and they identify important differences pertaining to their constituent performance dimensions. The results indicate that while the pursuit of agility might presume leanness, pursuit of leanness might not presume agility. While the performance capability differences across the empirically derived groups accord well with expected differences across plants that excel in leanness and agility, the practice differences across the groups are not as clearly distinguished. We discuss the implications of our findings for further research and theory development.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jom.2005.11.011

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 680

Metadata

Authors
Narasimhan, R., Swink, M., & Kim, S. W.
Venue
Journal of Operations Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-01-19
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
440-457
ISSN
  • 0272-6963 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-1317
OpenAlex
W2116436394
Cited by
680
References
7
FWCI
30.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Disentangling leanness and agility: An empirical investigation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jom.2005.11.011
The paper
Narasimhan, R., Swink, M., & Kim, S. W. (2006). Disentangling leanness and agility: An empirical investigation. Journal of Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.11.011

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.