The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prominent obstacles to lean
Abstract
Purpose: This article aims to explore that despite the prominence of lean since 1990, there still exist ambiguous perceptions about the prominent obstacles preventing organisations either adopting lean or thwarting its wider implementation. Design/methodology/approach: A total of 68 UK manufacturing organisations operating lean were analysed in an effort to elucidate the factors contributing to the low numbers of successful lean conversions. Surveys were utilised as part of the research methodology supplemented with seven extensive case studies in a validating exercise. Findings: The prominent barriers are clearly identified in relation to the organisation's size, which should assist organisations about to embark upon their respective lean journeys. The preventative proposals should improve the implementation records. Research limitations/implications: The research focuses on manufacturing organisations in the UK, and should greatly benefit companies and managers in their respective lean endeavours. Practical implications: While the barriers were identified, their prominence and type varied amongst the sizes of the organisation. Equally, remedial strategies are proposed to improve the poor implementation record. Social implications: In the UK a successful implementation rate of less than 10 per cent is not beneficial for either employees or employers, and is accompanied by a poor use of the external and internal funding available to organisations embarking upon lean. Originality/value: The preventative strategies should greatly benefit lean managers and improve the poor implementation rates in the UK. Correlating the barriers encountered to the size of an organisation would aid this process.
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
Tools for Intuition about Sample Selection Bias and Its Correction
Stolzenberg, R. M., & Relles, D. A. (1997) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2657318 · Cited by 301
Cited by
Successful lean implementation: Organizational culture and soft lean practices
Bortolotti, T., Boscari, S., & Danese, P. (2015) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.10.013 · Cited by 678
Lean supply chain management: Empirical research on practices, contexts and performance
Tortorella, G. L., Miorando, R., & Marodin, G. (2017) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.07.006 · Cited by 166
Contextual factors and lean production implementation in the Brazilian automotive supply chain
Marodin, G. A., Frank, A. G., Tortorella, G. L., & Saurin, T. A. (2016) · Supply Chain Management: An International Journal · doi:10.1108/scm-05-2015-0170 · Cited by 159
Antony, J., Psomas, E., Garza-Reyes, J. A., & Hines, P. (2021) · Production Planning & Control · doi:10.1080/09537287.2020.1776410 · Cited by 116
Lean production and operational performance in the Brazilian automotive supply chain
Marodin, G. A., Frank, A. G., Tortorella, G. L., & Fetterman, D. C. (2019) · Total Quality Management & Business Excellence · doi:10.1080/14783363.2017.1308221 · Cited by 111
Metadata
- Authors
- Bhasin, S.
- Venue
- International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2012-04-20
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 403-425
- ISSN
- 0043-8022 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-0401
- OpenAlex
- W2077693924
- Cited by
- 240
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 26.87
- 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: Prominent obstacles to lean. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/17410401211212661
- The paper
- Bhasin, S. (2012). Prominent obstacles to lean. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401211212661
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.