The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Leveraging Lean in the Office: Lean Office Needs a Novel and Differentiated Approach
Open accessAbstract
Lean Six Sigma tools have been increasingly employed also in the service industry, however with different success as field studies have shown. The reason not only has to be attributed to a poor Change Management, but can also be attributed to the intrinsic characteristics of the Lean techniques, which have been tailored to sustain a stable customer-takted pull-manufacturing principle. An office workplace shows significant differences to a procedural shop floor environment, as it comprises both, procedural and relational processes. The office environment, therefore, cannot be described by a purely transactional shop floor model—it necessitates a separate model, with a differenciated approach, which covers the procedural as well as the relational aspects of office tasks. Also the different characteristics of the transaction object as well as the operation transformation and process governance do not allow an un-adapted application of Toyota’s comprehensive Lean toolset. The approach of Lean for the office environment needs a reinterpretation of the Lean logic and TPS Lean tools for the procedural part as well. Therefore, different and adapted approaches and tools are clearly necessary. The paper shows the objectives and principles of Lean and why Lean manufacturing is also interesting to be applied in the office environment. The differences between office and production jobs are detailed and introduce the problem of lean application in the office. The particular characteristics of the office environment are discussed and enable to enter into the Relational Office Model. Furthermore, we explain the paradigm shift which is necessary to take full benefit of the Lean approach in the office environment, however without presenting the reinterpreted office Lean toolset due to space reasons. This will be the topic of a next paper.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“reducing change-over time may even become a different meaning in transactional environment [5].”
From Going beyond Triviality: The Toyota Production System—Lean Manufacturing beyond Muda and Kaizen (2016) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“Although, certain manufacturing processes are more suitable for the TPS than other processes, especially with regard to the service industry [5]”
From Going beyond Triviality: The Toyota Production System—Lean Manufacturing beyond Muda and Kaizen (2016) · cites this paper as [5]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Ohno, T. (1988) Toyota Production System—Beyond Large Scale Production. Productivity Press, New York.
- Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990) The Machine That Changed the World. Free Press, New York.
- George, M.L. (2003) Lean Six Sigma for Service. McGraw-Hill, New York.
- Association for Manufacturing Excellence (2007) Lean Administration—Case Studies in Leadership and Improvement. Productivity Press, New York.
- Ruttimann, B.G., Fischer, U.P. and Stockli, M.T. (2011) Aufstieg und Fall von Six Sigma... oder warum heute Lean wichtiger ist. iO new Management, Springer, Axel Springer Schweiz, Zurich.
- Chen, J.C. and Cox, R.A. (2012) Value Stream Management for Lean Office—A Case Study. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 2, 17-19. · DOI
- Bonaccorsi, A., Carmignani, G. and Zammori, F. (2011) Service Value Stream Mapping (SVSM): Developing Lean Thinking in the Service Industry. Journal of Service Science and Management, 4, 428-439. · DOI
- Kahneman, D. (2012) Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin Books, London.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Going beyond Triviality: The Toyota Production System—Lean Manufacturing beyond Muda and Kaizen
Rüttimann, B. G., & Stöckli, M. T. (2016) · Journal of Service Science and Management · doi:10.4236/jssm.2016.92018 · Cited by 57
“Having done that, the application of TPS needs to be accordingly however, differentiated and with an adapted interpretation of the whole TPS [5].”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Rüttimann, B. G., Fischer, U. P., & Stöckli, M. T.
- Affiliations
- ETH Zurich (CH)
- Venue
- Journal of Service Science and Management
- Publisher
- Scientific Research Publishing, Inc.
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 07
- Issue
- 05
- Pages
- 352-360
- ISSN
- 1940-9893 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-9907
- OpenAlex
- W2123911934
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 5.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Service Science and Management (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- ETH Zürich Research Collection (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Quality and Supply Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Management and Optimization Techniques
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Management Systems and Quality Improvement
- Keywords
- Lean Six Sigma, office workplaces, Toyota Production System, change management, process governance
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