The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Leanness: experiences from the journey to date
Abstract
Purpose: Although leanness is certainly not a new concept it is doubtless still relevant. Interestingly, newly developed manufacturing paradigms and systems are always examined in relation to leanness. In other words, leanness serves in most cases as the landmark paradigm with which comparisons are being drawn between the latter and recently pioneered approaches. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the evolutional orbit that leanness has followed over the years and serve as a herald of the current state of this evolution, which will be discussed further, in a separate paper. Design/methodology/approach: A great part of this paper is devoted to highlighting the misconceptions surrounding issues such as what leanness really constitutes and what are the key concepts and practices that leanness encompasses. Two successful lean transition stories are presented showing how these lean tools and techniques were implemented in the cases of two UK‐based manufacturing companies. Findings: Because of its inherently dynamic nature, leanness has undergone and still is undergoing a process of continuous and never‐ending evolution, the current state of which is expressed in the form of the lean enterprise model. Nevertheless, despite the undiminished attention and interest for leanness, the literature has failed to keep track of this evolution. For this reason a significant proportion of the literature relies on a rather antiquated vision of leanness. Originality/value: The paper reviews two major waves of literature criticising leanness with the first focusing on its social aspects and the second questioning its universality mainly with respect to its limited applicability in high variety‐low volume production systems.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance
Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. (2003) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/s0272-6963(02)00108-0 · Cited by 2,897
Cited by
Lean manufacturing: literature review and research issues
Bhamu, J., & Singh Sangwan, K. (2014) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/ijopm-08-2012-0315 · Cited by 983
The mass customization decade: An updated review of the literature
Fogliatto, F. S., da Silveira, G. J. C., & Borenstein, D. (2012) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.03.002 · Cited by 710
Lean production: literature review and trends
Jasti, N. V. K., & Kodali, R. (2015) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2014.937508 · Cited by 485
Engineer-to-order supply chain management: A literature review and research agenda
Gosling, J., & Naim, M. M. (2009) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.07.002 · Cited by 379
A literature review of empirical research methodology in lean manufacturing
Vamsi Krishna Jasti, N., & Kodali, R. (2014) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/ijopm-04-2012-0169 · Cited by 178
Metadata
- Authors
- Papadopoulou, T. C., & Özbayrak, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2005-10-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 784-807
- ISSN
- 1741-038X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2154682627
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.91
- 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: Leanness: experiences from the journey to date. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/17410380510626196
- The paper
- Papadopoulou, T. C., & Özbayrak, M. (2005). Leanness: experiences from the journey to date. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380510626196
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.