MANUSCRIPT / WORKING PAPER - 2016
The adoption of lean thinking by public procurement practitioners throughout the United States and Canada
Joseph J. Schiele, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Production Operations ManagementOakland University, School of Business Administration
Rochester, Michigan, USA, 48326 - Phone: 248 370 2821 or Email: [email protected]
AbstractPurpose - The purpose of this research was to assess the current state of lean thinking adoption by public procurement practitioners within the United States and Canada and gain insights into any factors that may be affecting their ability to benefit from lean thinking principles.Design/methodology/approach - The authors report the findings of a survey of lean thinking practices within a sample of 1735 procurement practitioners from federal, state, provincial, and local government agencies located throughout the United States and Canada. Findings - These findings suggest that there are opportunities for increasing the contributions made by public procurement when involved in acquisition processes, and provide the basis for increasing the application of lean thinking principles.Research limitations/implications - Because survey respondents were primarily procurement practitioners, the findings discussed herein may suffer from what is known as single source bias. However, the authors felt that these respondents were still able to provide valuable insights into the extent to which they were adopting lean thinking principles.Practical implications - The authors provide a type of actionable information that could be used to improve the extent to which procurement’s knowledge and expertise is being utilized in all aspects of any acquisition process that they may be involved in, including the decision making process, leading to the best buy decision, with the objective of satisfying the immediate needs of the individual agencies involved and the longer-term needs and objectives of the public that they serve.Originality/value - Not only does this research help to address some serious gaps in the literature, it is the most complete study of its kind completed to date.Keywords - Lean thinking, public procurementPaper type - Research paper
The adoption of lean thinking by public procurement practitioners throughout the United States and Canada
1.0 IntroductionFaced with continued fiscal pressures that have increased considerably over the last half of this
decade (Holzer, Charbonneau & Kim, 2009), state and local governments are attempting to
control costs with hiring freezes, work-force reductions, and widespread cutbacks across their
respective organizations (Kim, Bae & Eger, 2009). While these approaches may create the
illusion of efficiency, operations and processes remain fundamentally unchanged. This in turn
can lead to resources that are poorly allocated, and an increase in quality related problems
(Lamothe, Lamothe & Feiock, 2008; Lamothe & Lamothe, 2009; Stone, 2009; Zafra, Lopez, &
Hernandez, 2009). Real programmatic efficiency is driven by improvement initiatives that focus
on the way that work is designed and managed, with the intention of streamlining processes,
eliminating waste, and improving upon the general effectiveness of the various tasks that are
completed as per the customer’s perspective (Womack & Jones, 1996; Liker, 2004).
When public managers are looking to effect positive change, they may want to focus their
attention on their public procurement systems. These systems in particular are an area where a
significant amount of operational costs are incurred and opportunities exist for both fiscal and
process improvement (Basheka, 2009; Miller, 2009). Unfortunately, those responsible for
making improvements within these systems face some unique challenges that can affect their
ability to take advantage of such opportunities (Thai, 2007).
Purchasers in the public sector face political scrutiny of their activities through external
audits and in-house reviews, ongoing review by the public for any indication of mismanagement
of public funds, and sudden policy changes that characterize government decision making
(Gordon, Zemansky & Sekwat, 2000; Mechling, 1995; Pettijohn & Qiao, 2000). Schiele (2007)
found that it is the very nature of these environments that can make those involved more focused
on procedural compliance rather than value for money spent. In addition, the required rules and
procedures that must be followed, which are associated with legal constraints and administrative
regulations, can also affect “efficiency” in terms of the complexities associated with selection
processes (Thai, 2007). Indeed, some of the earliest literature acknowledged how difficult it is to
manage, and make improvements to, public procurement systems (Forbes, 1929 & 1941; Liuzzo,
1967). Nonetheless, the public procurement function plays a critical role in the way that public
organizations provide services to the public that are served, and every effort should be made to
ensure that taxpayer funds are spent in the most efficient and effective manner (Thai, 2007).
Any effort aimed at increasing system efficiency and general effectiveness will need to
address concurrently issues related to accountability, transparency, and fairness (Lamothe &
Lamothe, 2009). In addition, the particularly complex nature of the public procurement process
will make coordination among those stakeholders involved critical to the successful
implementation of strategies that might promote improvement. The challenge will be to balance
the interests of the various stakeholders including politicians, government administrators,
procurement, other public departments, and the public at large. While the common goal should
be to better serve the public through the way that taxpayer funds are spent, the various
stakeholders may have very different ideas about how this should be achieved.
Indeed, the latter describes what has been called a “wicked problem.” A wicked problem
is one that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete and or contradictory
information, and changes in conditions that are not easy to recognize. Moreover because of
complex interdependencies, the effort to solve one part of a wicked problem can reveal or create
other problems (Churchman, 1967; Rittel & Webber, 1973). Churchman (1967) did suggest that
a moral responsibility exists to better understand and work at addressing such problems, and
Rittel (1972) hinted at a collaborative approach to resolving such problems; one which would
attempt to actively involve those affected in the problem-solving process. More recent work
acknowledges similar challenges but suggests that adaptable approaches to change, involving
collaboration, risk taking, experimentation, incremental change, and creative problem-solving
techniques can be used to find the best possible solution for such problems. These approaches
tend to help create more understanding of a given problem’s underlying causes, and buy-in and
cooperation among key stakeholders who can affect or will be affected by the problem- solving
process and or the solutions ultimately implemented (Roberts, 2000; Camillus, 2008; Stolterman,
2008; Conklin, 2006, 2009).
One such approach, known as lean thinking, may have potential as a means to help
improve the way that public procurement systems are designed and managed, and the way that
wicked problems are addressed. Lean thinking as a collaborative approach to process
improvement is focused on improving the way that goods and services are provided while
balancing the needs of the varying stakeholders involved. In addition, while lean thinking
includes a set of lean tools and techniques aimed at the elimination of waste through root-cause
problem-solving approaches, a series of goals and related process measures used to monitor and
control results, and standardized yet flexible processes that set the stage for process improvement
efforts, lean thinking is more importantly a thinking and belief system that is focused on
improving processes solely from a customer’s perspective (Flinchbaugh, Carlino & Pawley,
2006; Womack & Jones, 1996). Research has identified several improvements that have been
achieved through lean thinking initiatives including reduced processing and service delivery
times, improved work routines, increased teamwork and collaboration, quality improvements,
and lower costs, just to name a few (Hines, Lodge & Bamford, 2008; Kollberg, Dahlgaard &
Brehmer, 2007; McPherson & Mitchell, 2005; Motwani, 2003; Swank, 2003, Womack & Jones,
1996; Zayko & Broughman, 1997). Many of these improvements were achieved by both private
and public organizations, and within a wide variety of operating environments, and under
varying conditions. Why, therefore, would lean thinking, as an adaptable approach to process
improvement, not be applicable to public procurement systems as well? Can lean thinking offer
an effective way to minimize the challenges that public purchasers face when making
improvements to their processes? These are important questions that require further study and
are included as part of a research agendum that is proposed within this paper.
While a significant amount of research has focused on lean thinking as it applies to
private sector organizations and especially those in the manufacturing industries, it is only
recently that research has begun to look at the general concept as it applies to the public sector
specifically. For public procurement research in particular, the concept remains largely
unexamined (Piercy & Rich, 2009). Loader (2009) stated further that while many public
procurement officers are aware of the lean thinking concept and are willing to embrace the idea,
there is a need for more research that examines the practical implications of lean thinking and its
application to public procurement activities.
With the intention of addressing some of the gaps that have been identified within the
literature, this paper begins by discussing in practical terms, how lean thinking, both as a
philosophy and a collaborative approach to system design and improvement, can be used to
overcome some of the aforementioned concerns that face many government purchasing agencies
as they attempt to reduce operating costs and improve service quality levels. This paper then uses
the extant literature concerning lean thinking to identify a number of preconditions that are
required to successfully deploy lean principles, tools, and techniques. Salient preconditions are
organized into categories that provide the basis for a framework that can be used to assess public
procurement’s ability to adopt lean thinking and aid in its implementation within these public
sector environments. The paper concludes with a number of questions suggested to guide future
research and an approach that can be used to facilitate this work.
2.0 Literature review2.1 Lean production versus lean thinking
The concept of lean is not necessarily a new way of looking at the optimal production of goods
and or services by removing waste and improving the flow of activities through the entire value-
stream. Lean production as it is now formally known can trace some of its roots to the
automotive pioneer Henry Ford when in the early 1900s he developed a production system that
focused on high output, continual, optimized work flow, and the elimination of waste (Liker,
2004). Following the conclusion of World War II, Toyota engineers Taiichi Ohno and Shigeo
Shingo built upon Henry Ford’s earlier work by developing what is now known as the Toyota
Production System (Ohno, 1978).
Although the Toyota Production System evolved from Henry Ford’s production system,
it involves a fundamentally different approach to process management. While Ford focused on
producing millions of Model T cars at dozens of assembly plants around the world in exactly the
same fashion, Ohno and Shingo created a series of production processes that were flexible, right-
sized, and capable of quick changeovers. These newly developed production processes were
capable of efficiently producing small batches of a variety of different automobile models just in
time, as needed, without the overproduction (waste) associated with the Ford production system.
So the early Toyota Production System can be seen as the birthplace of what has now become
known as the lean production system (Womack, Jones & Roos, 1990). The core principles of
lean production include (a) specifying the value defined by the ultimate customers; (b)
identifying the value stream which comprise all actions required to produce a specific product or
service; (c) having the product or service flow continuously; (d) introducing pull between the
steps where continuous flow is not available; and (e) managing towards perfection as there is no
end to reducing effort, time, space, cost, and mistakes while offering customers the products or
services they really want (Womack, Jones & Roos, 1990). Lean thinking on the other hand is
generally considered a different way to view the management approach first introduced as the
Toyota Production System. Womack and Jones (1996) posited that while very similar in the way
that both approaches seek out and banish waste, lean thinking involves a central mindset held by
those within a system that is focused on creating more value as seen by the customer through the
waste elimination process. Lean thinkers are big picture thinkers at heart, focused on doing more
with less (less human time, less equipment, fewer activities, and fewer materials), while moving
closer and closer to providing the customer with exactly what they want, when they want it.
Further, the resources that are freed up through this waste elimination process are typically
redeployed to value-adding activities as far as the customer is concerned. This has the effect of
improving both process efficiency and effectiveness as seen in the eyes of the customer
(Womack, 2002). Lean thinking should therefore be seen as a core philosophy that functions as a
guide to cost savings and quality improvement, not as a quick fix to any ongoing problems that
may occur (Bhasin & Burcher, 2006). Flinchbaugh, Carlino and Pawley (2006), conceptualized
this idea in a model where “lean thinking and beliefs” are at the center and support all aspects of
the lean thinking approach. These researchers note that, in order for lean thinking to be properly
applied and sustainable over time, it must start with and be held together by a lean thinking belief
system focused on the customer. In doing so, people within this system do nothing without
thinking about how their work affects the customer and how they can improve the general
effectiveness and efficiency of the processes they use to meet customer needs. This is much
different from more project-based, fad like improvement efforts. Lean thinking, when applied in
this way, under-pins an organization's culture and its employees’ way of viewing the work that
they do from day to day (Dahlgaard & Dahlgaard, 2005; Hines, Holwe & Rich, 2004).
2.2 Lean thinking as a part of procurement
While lean thinking evolved out of lean production approaches, applied mostly within
manufacturing settings, other sectors – public and private, including firms involved in the
provision of services – have adapted and successfully deployed lean thinking approaches
(Hasenjager, 2006; Radnor & Walley, 2008). Within the public sector, health care organizations
have been most frequently using lean thinking (Hines, Lodge & Bamford, 2008; Kelly, Bryant,
Lox & Jolley, 2007). Hospitals for example have implemented a variety of tools and techniques
derived from the Toyota Production System to extensively improve workflow and the quality
and efficiency of all types of hospital services (Chetkovich & Frumkin, 2003). Some of these
tools and techniques included rapid improvement events, standardizing systems, value-stream
mapping, and root-cause analysis (Silvester, Lenden, Bevan, Steyn & Walley, 2004; Weber,
2006; Wysocki, 2004). By using rapid improvement events, such as value-stream mapping, and
every-day lean, and other lean tools, the Virginia Mason Medical Center, an acute care hospital
in Seattle, Washington, reduced staff walking distance by 38 percent, inventory by 50 percent,
and patient waiting time by 53 percent (Weber, 2006).
In addition, case studies involving government agencies in Scotland found that the
implementation of lean tools and techniques contributed to several positive outcomes (Radnor &
Walley, 2008). These outcomes appeared in a variety of aspects, including waste reduction,
improvement of customer satisfaction, decrease in employee turnover rate from twenty-five to
thirty percent to about four percent, and a reduction of customer acknowledgement time from
between fourteen and twenty days to three days. In an extensive study of public sector
organizations, Radnor, Walley, Stephens and Bucci (2006) concluded that the application of lean
thinking and lean practices is transferable to public organizations. Their research found that lean
thinking approaches can be used to develop more seamless processes, improve flow, reduce
waste, and develop an understanding of customer value. However, Radnor et al. (2006) noted
that to implement lean thinking within public sector agencies, people must first be aware of the
need to improve processes and then be willing to accept any changes that may be needed. They
also noted that the number of lean tools that were being applied were somewhat limited.
Research suggests that this may be because those working within public agencies have yet to
understand the true value, relevance, or purpose of these tools and techniques, and how they may
be used specifically when making improvements to the work that they do (Bagley & Lewis,
2008; Loader, 2009).
The opportunities for improvement discussed in the aforementioned studies may also
exist for public procurement. Public purchasing departments have similar operational targets and
missions, such as those related to cost savings, improved service quality, and process efficiency
and effectiveness. In addition, as an adaptable, collaborative approach to process improvement
and change, lean thinking focuses on the way that work is designed and managed so that targets
and missions can be achieved, no matter what type of value stream is being considered. Lean
thinking should therefore be considered as an integral part of an organization’s public
procurement strategy (Karlsson & Ahlstrom, 1997; Motwani, 2003). Puschmann and Alt (2005)
and Mohammed and Shankar (2008) concurred with this notion seeing lean procurement as
having an important role in an organization’s ability to operate effectively. The importance of
this function is clear, and thus every attempt should be made to ensure that this function operates
in the most efficient and effective manner.
2.3 Research hypotheses and assessing procurement’s ability to adopt lean thinking
As part of this research, a framework was developed that could be used to capture the unique
nature of public agencies’ operating environments and to assess procurement’s ability to adopt
lean thinking. The extant literature was used to identify several preconditions that should be in
place when attempting to adopt lean thinking as an approach to process improvement. Some of
the more salient preconditions were then organized into key categories.
Questions were then developed to assess the extent to which preconditions are being met.
The questions were written using simple language, as recommended by Converse and Presser
(1986) and then presented as “Likert” type statements, where respondents could answer with
agreement or disagreement (Likert, 1932). As part of validating the questions/statements and
ensuring their relevance to public procurement specifically, they were forwarded to several
experts for review, including academics that specialize in public procurement and supply
management and public procurement practitioners. Validating the content of statements used as
part of an assessment tool by using experts and other relevant stakeholders is a process that can
significantly improve the usefulness of such a tool and should be considered an essential step
when developing such instruments (Judd, Smith & Kidder, 1991). The following is a discussion
of each of the key categories, related statements that could be used for assessment purposes, and
a number of testable research hypotheses that were developed to guide our work.
Customer focus
Getting started as a lean thinker involves thinking about work in a very different way than non-
lean thinkers. Lean thinkers do nothing without thinking about how their work processes affects
their customers and how they can make improvements to those processes so that customers are
better served (Liker, 2004; Womack & Jones, 1996). For public procurement this means thinking
continually about how to better serve those that they help with making individual purchase
decisions, while simultaneously meeting the goals and objectives of the organization that they
are a part of. The following statements relate to whether an individual or group is focused on its
customers. These statements highlight certain activities that would naturally show that the
customer and their needs are at the forefront of purchasing related activities that are performed:
The purchasing department is involved in the planning activities of its customer
departments.
Key customer requirements are known and understood by the purchasing department
prior to engaging in a particular purchasing process with a customer department.
The purchasing department’s improvement efforts are proactive and focused on
increasing customer satisfaction.
Customers participate in the development of purchasing department improvement
strategies.
The purchasing department is positioned to design, produce, and deliver a wide variety of
services for its customers.
The purchasing department collaborates with external suppliers, working together to
improve customer satisfaction levels.
Those involved in lean thinking have to think like a customer, not like a gatekeeper, or
“sentry at the tax exit gate” (Forbes, 1941); lean thinking, therefore requires looking at the action
from the customer's perspective (McQuade, 2008; Papadopoulos & Merali, 2008). Procurement
specialists must look at their processes from the outside in. By understanding the value adding
process from the customer's view, they can discover what customers are seeing and feeling. With
this knowledge, procurement specialists would be better able to identify areas where they can
add more value through improvement from a customers’ perspective (Lasa, Labura & Vila,
2008).
Top management support
In a special issue of Public Money and Management (Vol. 28, No. 1, 2008) that was devoted to
discussion of the application of lean thinking within public sector organizations, several factors
that affect lean thinking success were discussed. These included leadership styles, management
support, buy-in of staff, understanding of process and customer requirements, organizational
culture, lack of clear customer focus, staff suffering from silo-affects, and the lack of systems
thinking (Esain, Williams & Massey, 2008; Hines & Lethbridge, 2008; Hines, Martins & Beale,
2008; Hines, Lodge & Bamford, 2008; McQuade, 2008, Papadopoulos & Merali, 2008; Radnor
& Walley, 2008; Scorsone, 2008). A common factor discussed in most of these works was the
need for top management support. Prior to engaging in any lean transformation effort within an
organization or group, it is recommended that top-management support be established.
Invariably, lean transformation involves change. Potentially, this includes changes to the core
values and beliefs held by members of an organization or group, long established processes,
policies that guide decision-making, and the way that people work together within a particular
system. To facilitate these types of changes, top-level management must be fully supportive of
any lean transformation efforts. This includes setting a clear vision for the organization or group
that is focused on lean transformation, providing those involved with the time needed to learn
about lean thinking and make incremental change, celebrating successes, being tolerant of
failures, creating an organizational culture that supports experimentation, and providing
resources needed for training and development of those employees involved in making lean
happen (Esain et al., 2008; Hines & Lethbridge, 2008; Hines, Lodge & Bamford, 2008) In short,
management must be committed to providing opportunities and incentives for employees to
focus their talents and energies on satisfying customers.
Another factor of particular concern was the highly bureaucratic processes that can be
associated with public settings that would naturally impede change efforts (Morgan, 1986;
Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Senge, 1990; Wierdsma & Swieringa, 2002). Therefore, management
should also be focused on removing any barriers that would prevent learning from occurring, and
that would prevent individuals from adapting organizational practices that are no longer effective
(Schimmel & Muntslag, 2009). Accordingly, statements were developed to assess the existence
of top management’s support. These statements identify specific activities or attitudes that would
help to assess whether top management is in place and fully supportive of any lean
transformation efforts. These activities or attitudes are critical if lean thinking is to occur within
the public procurement function are as follows:
There is a clear vision for improvement focused on customer departments.
Management is aware of the gaps that may exist between current and best practices
associated with the services that the purchasing department offers.
Management sets clear expectations for improvement.
Management has identified opportunities for improving customer satisfaction.
Management has clearly defined the value stream related to the services that it is
responsible for providing and its issues or related problems.
Management is committed to improvement efforts.
Additional resources and skills have been defined for improvement efforts.
Management walks the walk and talks the talk and champions improvement efforts.
Management helps remove barriers to change.
Management empowers workers so that they have the authority to make changes that
may be needed.
Management encourages teamwork and collaboration.
Management encourages out of the box thinking, risk taking, and mistake making as part
of the improvement process.
Management recognizes and rewards people for improvements made to processes.
Performer-level commitment
Once top-management support is in place and barriers to change eliminated, efforts involving the
application of lean thinking can focus on the development of performer-level commitment.
People create results. Lean thinking will therefore not occur unless those responsible for doing
the work are committed to making lean happen. To develop this commitment a clear
understanding of any levels or existence of resistance should be established. Because individual
employees can be driven by self-enhancement strategies, establishing any links between these
strategies and any related resistance is important if resistance is to be addressed (van Dijk & van
Dick, 2009). In addition to employee resistance, it is also important to understand the individual
personalities involved including the relationships that exist between the people involved in the
procurement process for doing so would help to improve the success of any change management
efforts (Price & Harrison, 2009). The following statements provide a basis to measure the extent
that individuals believe that lean thinking can benefit them or their departments, and the extent
which they feel they are prepared and willing to learn more about adopting such practices. These
statements are intended to measure the extent to which performer-level commitment exists
within an individual involved in procurement.
I believe that I could benefit from the adoption of lean thinking.
My purchasing department could benefit generally from the adoption of lean thinking.
I am prepared to adopt lean thinking when it comes to the work that I do.
I believe that my purchasing department is prepared to adopt lean thinking.
I want to learn more about lean thinking and the potential benefits that it may have to
offer.
Training and development
To further develop performer-level commitment, namely, employee readiness, understanding,
and general dedication to lean thinking, training those employees involved about the philosophy
of lean thinking and the related tools and techniques prior to moving forward with the
implementation of any change efforts is important (Neves, 2009). Once this basis of
understanding is established, it is important to quickly deploy those people so that they may go
to work on processes that they are responsible for managing to demonstrate how lean thinking
works and become more aware of the type of benefits that are possible. This would involve
identifying the value stream associated with a particular purchasing process, seeking out waste,
and identifying opportunities for value creation, moving forward with rapid improvement events,
and the use of a measurement and control system to establish longer-term sustainability. This in
turn increases employee commitment and causes those involved to see lean thinking not as
another quality program fad, but as a sustainable way of managing the work that they do on a
day-to-day basis (Bateman & Rich, 2003; Bhatia & Drew, 2006; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
The following statements can be used to assess the extent to which the purchasing department
supports and or provides training related to lean thinking. In addition, measures have been
included to assess action-based learning related to teaching people how to deploy some of the
philosophies, tools and techniques connected to lean thinking as a means to improve processes
that they themselves are responsible for performing. These types of action-based approaches
underpin a type of organizational development: an organized, top-down, organization-wide effort
to increase an organization's effectiveness and health (Beckhard, 1969). Organizational
development is achieved through interventions in an organization's processes, using a complex
strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values, and structures of organizations, and the
people that operate within them so that they can better adapt to new approaches (Lau & Ngo,
2001). If people are involved in the crafting of strategies that affect them, they will be more
likely to adopt new ways of doing things (French & Bell, 1973).
Procurement fosters and supports an environment that is focused on learning and a
professional development environment.
Procurement training programs focus on process improvement.
Training is focused on improving customer satisfaction levels.
Procurement training programs include topics related to lean thinking.
Teamwork is encouraged and supported with training focused on improving the way that
people work together to solve problems.
Educational programs have included real life problem-solving projects.
Education and training have been focused on teaching people how to use the lean tools
that are available to aid in improvement efforts (such as…Value Stream Mapping,
Kaizen, Lean, Six Sigma, 5Why, Fishbone-Root Cause Analysis, Brain-storming, etc.).
Procurement evaluates its various training programs regularly and makes the necessary
changes to improve the effectiveness of its training efforts.
Education and training conducted by procurement officials is effective in developing
people’s ability to correctly apply various improvement methodologies.
Education and training conducted by the procurement division is effective in developing
people’s ability to correctly mentor and lead improvement teams.
People within procurement departments are given time to improve and develop their
problem-solving skills.
Understanding the value stream and ability to identify waste
Those involved in public procurement should have a clear understanding of the value streams
associated with individual purchase decisions. A value stream includes the specific activities
performed to design, order, and provide a specific product or service from concept to launch, or
from order to delivery, or from raw materials into delivering the product into customers’ hands
(Womack & Jones, 1996). For public procurement this value stream would be related to the
various stages of the purchasing process and could start with early involvement in the planning
activities of other departments for upcoming purchase decisions, through need identification,
request for proposal development, solicitation of tenders, evaluation of bids, and eventual
purchase decisions, execution of required documentation, and any other follow-up activities that
may be required of procurement.
In addition, those involved should also have the ability to identify the various sources of
waste that may exist. Ohno (1978) identified seven sources of waste that can exist throughout
any value stream; they include defects (for procurement this might involve mistakes made during
the service delivery or purchasing process); overproduction (of procurement services provided to
the customer that are not needed to satisfy their needs); excess inventories (of items used in the
procurement process that are awaiting further processing); unnecessary processing (of any
paperwork needed to complete a purchasing process); unnecessary movement (of people);
unnecessary transport (of materials or procurement paperwork); and waiting (by employees for
other work to be completed so they may do theirs). Womack and Jones (1996) added one other
source of waste that included a design for a product or service that ultimately does not meet the
needs of a customer (for procurement this could be a process that is inflexible or incapable of
performing the key stages of the purchasing process as required, such as one that does not have a
mechanism in place for conflict resolution or feedback).
While it is important to seek out and eliminate waste throughout a particular value
stream, it is as important to identify ways to redeploy those wasted resources to other more
value-added activities. This in turn is what differentiates lean thinking from other
improvement/waste-management programs. For public procurement for example, instead of
spending time managing redundant or repetitive documentary type activities that take up
valuable time, procurement could automate or simplify such processes so that more time could
be spent on activities that were regarded as being more meaningful (Schiele & McCue, 2006).
This would have the effect of improving the efficiency of the purchasing process from a time-
savings perspective, which is arguably very important to those involved in making purchase
decisions, while simultaneously shifting attention to elements of the purchasing process that can
more positively affect customer satisfaction levels. The following statements relate to
procurement officials ability to both understand the value stream associated with decisions that
they make along with their ability to identify the different types of waste that may also exist:
Procurement officials understand the importance of the value stream and its key
components and inefficiencies.
There are several initiatives aimed at reducing service delivery time, increasing
responsiveness, and eliminating value stream inefficiencies.
The procurement department views it customers, the department, and its suppliers as one
entity or system.
People within the purchasing department are focused on the value stream.
The value stream within the purchasing department is well understood.
Processes followed by procurement are repeatable and measurable.
The procurement department embraces the idea that all customers are not the same and
designs processes so that they can serve various customers in various ways.
Processes are standardized so that they can be more easily understood and followed by
others.
The procurement department embraces the idea that process quality and perfection can
exist in every aspect of the total value stream.
Process improvement initiatives are used to improve customer satisfaction levels.
People responsible for procurement have a business process focus and place more
emphasis on process versus individual performance.
Employees think and act as process improvement owners.
Lean tools and techniques
Value creation through waste elimination does not occur without the proper application of tools
and techniques aimed at identifying root causes for the problems identified and better ways to
complete the work that needs to be done. Although the tools and techniques associated with lean
thinking were first developed for use primarily within manufacturing settings, they can be
adapted for other settings as well. Rapid improvement events, also called a Kaizen Blitz, are an
effective way to bring about small, quickly introduced changes in a targeted area (Radnor et al.,
2006; Suarez-Barraza & Lingham, 2008). Although, these events tend to focus more on short-
term outcomes rather than long-term development and should be seen as a starting point for
longer-term lean transformation, they can be used to show lean success and escalate employee
buy-in.
In addition to rapid improvement events, other lean approaches associated with the
Toyota Production System can also be adapted for use within public sector settings (Collins &
Muthusamy, 2007; Krings, Levine & Wall, 2006; Weber, 2006). Some of these approaches that
have been successfully applied within these environments include total quality management and
lean six sigma (Furterer & Elshennawy, 2005; Proudlove, Moxhad & Boaden, 2008; Ung,
Bonsall, Wall & Wang, 2007), Kaizen (McNichols, Hassinger & Bapst, 1999, Suarez-Barraza,
and Lingham, 2008), just-in-time management (Yasin, Wafa & Small, 2001), the 5S
methodologies (Hirano, 1995; Womack & Jones, 1996), and value stream mapping (Barber &
Tietje, 2008; Collins & Muthusamy, 2007; Lodge & Bamford, 2008). The following statements
are intended to be used to assess the degree to which individuals involved in lean thinking are
aware of the tools and techniques available for use and whether these tools and techniques are
being used by procurement to make process improvements:
People are aware of the full spectrum of lean tools and techniques that are available to aid
in improvement efforts (Value Stream Mapping, Kaizen, Lean, Six Sigma, 5Why,
Fishbone-Root Cause Analysis, Brain-storming, etc.).
People understand how to use the full spectrum of lean tools and techniques that are
available to aid in improvement efforts (Value Stream Mapping, Kaizen, Lean, Six
Sigma, 5Why, Fishbone-Root Cause Analysis, Brain-storming, etc.).
People are focused on solving problems, not just on applying or using tools.
People view improvement tools as a means to a better understanding of a particular
problem and its root causes.
Teamwork is encouraged and focused on process improvement.
Teams know how to deploy a broad spectrum of improvement tools.
People deploy the right tools correctly and to the right opportunities for improvement to
achieve tangible, customer-focused results.
Problem solving is focused on identifying and eliminating root causes to problems that
occur.
Measurement and improvement
While rapid improvement events and other tools and techniques related to making process
improvements seem to be an effective way to begin lean transformation efforts, they should be
considered a starting point, aimed at developing a better understanding of what lean thinking
really entails and establishing individual employee buy-in and commitment (Bateman, 2005). If
lean thinking is to be adopted as a true mindset and a sustainable system-wide approach to
process improvement, it has to be seen as a never ending journey involving a continual pursuit of
perfection (Bateman & Rich, 2003; McNichols et al., 1999; Suarez-Barraza & Lingham, 2008).
A note of caution: those involved in “fixing” a particular process may believe that they, having
‘perfected’ it, should then standardize and freeze that process.
What is unique with services and procurement particularly is that while a process might
be exactly what is called for to meet a customer’s needs and expectations in an efficient and
effective manner for that moment, those needs can vary considerably and change quickly and
therefore have to be continually monitored and the related processes improved as needed. For
procurement these changes, as far as customer needs and expectations are concerned, could
involve changes to the goals, objectives, or strategies of the departments that procurement is
involved with, changing market conditions including availability or capability of suppliers,
public preferences, and or changes to the regulatory environment, just to name a few. As an aid
to monitoring these changes, the development of a measurement and control system aimed at
helping process owners identify opportunities for improvement are needed. Measures should be
both customer- and process-based. Further, these measures should be directly linked so that
process owners understand what part of any given process is responsible for fulfilling any given
customer need (Ohno, 1978; Weber, 2006; Wierdsma & Swieringa, 2002). Without customer-
based measures, when needs and expectations change, there is not an immediate signal to process
owners that this has happened. Even if process owners do know about a particular change,
without directly linked process-based measures, process owners would not know what specific
part of a process had to be improved to make it more efficient, or effective in the eyes of
customers. Therefore, measurements and controls that link customer needs with specific
activities along a particular value stream help to ensure that changes made to a particular
procurement process have a positive effect on customer satisfaction levels (Bateman, 2005). The
following statements relate to the way that procurement officials use measurement as a means for
process improvement and the extent of their engagement in these activities:
Procurement officers regularly conduct thorough self-assessment diagnostics and
understand its strengths and needs for improvement.
Improvement goals are aligned with customer requirements and revised as requirements
change.
Improvement goals and objectives are discussed openly and frequently.
Everyone involved in procurement understands key improvement goals.
Improvement goals are concise, quantitative, and measurable.
Roles and responsibilities for improvement are defined.
Improvement goals are part of the formal performance review process.
Plans for improving the value stream are based on data, facts, and impact on customer
satisfaction levels.
Both process efficiency and customer satisfaction are measured and linked to
improvement strategies.
When customer satisfaction levels vary from targeted goals, process measures help to
define and focus on the areas that are responsible for the variation.
Communication and awareness
An awareness of the need for change, and an understanding of what needs to be changed are
important preconditions that should be in place if lean thinking is to occur. In addition, a
communication system that facilitates this type of understanding and helps to enable those
involved as they learn about and make improvements to their lean thinking approaches is also
important. (Chen & Thurmaier, 2009). Accordingly, the following statements provide a basis for
measuring the extent to which employees are aware of the need for change, what needs to be
changed, and whether there is a system in place to facilitate this understanding:
Procurement officers are aware of the need to improve and change.
Procurement officers understand what needs to be improved and changed.
Procurement officers understand how the purchasing department will change.
Procurement officers understand and accept their role in the change process.
A uniform improvement message is communicated to those responsible for procurement.
Two-way, formal communication systems exist to facilitate understanding and
awareness.
Procurement officers’ conduct improvement broadcasts with updates on goals, status, and
planned improvement activities.
Employees regularly meet to discuss improvement goals and progress.
A real-time data warehouse or information system exists to support improvement efforts.
3.0 Methods3.1 Research purpose and approach
Survey Methodology
Survey Conducted by: The National Institute of Governmental Purchasing, Inc. (NIGP)
Survey Funded by: NIGP/LES Foundation
Survey Method: SurveyMonkey.com on-line survey
Invitation method: E-mails through SurveyMoneky.com
Target Group: NIGP Agency members (representatives and support) and Individual members
(US and Canada)
Number of Invitations: 8,549
Number of Responses: 1,735
Opted Out: 97
Returned as Undeliverable: 462
Total 2294
Response rate: 27%
An online, web-based survey was used to meet the objectives of this study. These types
of surveys have gained increasing acceptance and have been noted as both an effective and
moreover efficient way to conduct empirical research (Ben-Ur and Newman, 2010; Davidov and
Depner, 2011). The survey instrument that was used was based on previous research. Details
concerning the survey can be found in the Appendix.
3.2 Measurement Items
The survey was divided into four parts. Part one contained background information concerning
the survey including an invitation to participate and instructions on how to proceed. Part two
contained measurement items that allowed survey respondents to assess the various factors that
they felt affected the adoption of lean thinking by procurement. Part four contained questions
intended to collect information concerning the background of respondents. To test for
comprehension, relevance, and completeness, the survey was pre-tested with study informants
and reviewed by a number of leading academics and practitioners in the public procurement
field. No major difficulties were encountered; only minor modifications were made for
clarification purposes.
3.3 Sample
The membership list of the National Institute of Governmental Purchasers (NIGP) was used as
the sample frame for the study. The NIGP is a national, membership based, not for profit
organization that provides support to professionals within the public procurement profession.
The NIGP is composed of 73 affiliate chapters and more than 2,300 agency members
representing federal, state, provincial, and local government levels throughout the United States
and Canada. These agencies represented over 13,500 individual members that served the public
procurement community. The membership list included the names and background information
(title, organization, and contact details) for all members and is considered to be the most
complete list available of public procurement practitioners throughout the United States and
Canada.
3.4 Data collection
Once the sampling frame was selected the web-based survey was administered online during a
six-week period. A total of 8549 email invitations were sent to NIGP members asking them to
participate in the study. The email invitation first asked recipients to respond to whether or not
procurement was involved in purchase decisions related to consulting services and if so, they
were then asked to complete the online survey. Following suggestions made by Munoz-leiva et
al. (2010), three personalized reminder emails were sent at two, three, and four-week intervals to
non-respondents as way of increasing response rates. Each email contained an embedded link to
the survey and a further invitation to participate in the study.
A total of 1735 responses were received, for a response rate of 27%. Job titles of
respondents represented the range of possible titles for individual members. Further, these
respondents were drawn from a cross section of public agencies. Most respondents were located
in the United States with a small percentage from Canada. Related statistics concerning
informants are contained in Table 1 and can be found in the Appendix.
3.5 Data analysis
Data analysis proceeded with the use of a statistical software package known as SPSS Version
(20). SPSS is a computer program used for survey authoring and deployment (IBM SPSS Data
Collection), data mining (IBM SPSS Modeler), text analytics, statistical analysis, and
collaboration and deployment (batch and automated scoring services). SPSS (originally,
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) was released in its first version in 1968 and has now
become one of the most widely used and accepted programs for statistical analysis in social
science research.
3.5 Testing for non-response bias and measurement quality
Non-response bias can alter the sample frame and can lead to a sample that does not represent
the population, and as such could limit the generalizability of any research results (Forza, 2002).
In order to examine the existence of non-response bias within our study, we compared
characteristics of non-respondents to the characteristics of those that chose to participate in our
study. This test yielded no significant differences between the two groups. In addition, a test was
also conducted to see if there were differences between early respondents and late respondents in
terms of the variables relevant to the research hypotheses. The average values found by the
survey instruments of the first ten percent of respondents were compared to the last ten percent
of respondents using a t-test. Results also showed no statistical significance between the two
groups and thus indicated further that non-response bias does not seem to be a significant
problem with associated with this study.
With the goal of assessing the measurement quality of our study we assessed both the
reliability of measurement that is concerned with stability and consistency of measurement,
along with the validity of our constructs. A description of these testing procedures along with the
results of these tests is as follows:
4.0 Results4.1 Introduction
4.2 The adoption of lean thinking by public procurement
4.3 Implications for public procurement
4.4 Limitations
In practice, to achieve the same types of cost-savings and quality improvements within a public
sector environment the lean tools and techniques used in the manufacturing industry may have to
be adapted according to varying conditions that may exist within public sector environments
before they can be adopted (Radnor & Walley, 2008). Scorsone (2008) cautioned that when
transferring lean tools and techniques from the private sector to the public sector, public
managers must consider two key factors that may constrain improvement initiatives. First,
administrative law includes procedural requirements that must be followed, and can limit the
types of changes that can occur. And second, management-labor relations in government
agencies are based on differing principles from those in the private sector, and thus may also
affect the way that work can be reorganized or changed. Nonetheless, Radnor et al. (2006) and
Bagley and Lewis (2008) concluded that there is little doubt that lean approaches can be
successfully applied within a public setting. Some of the more frequently applied lean tools, and
techniques that have been used successfully in public sector environments include rapid
improvement events (McNichols, et al., 1999; Radnor & Walley, 2008), value-stream mapping
(Hines & Rich, 1997; Weber, 2006), and the Six Sigma approach to root-cause problem-solving
(Proudlove, et al., 2008).
4.5 Future research
Additional research is needed to substantiate some of the claims made herein, and to develop
further our understanding of the lean thinking phenomenon as it applies to public procurement
specifically. With this goal in mind, researchers may want to examine whether lean approaches
are suitable for making improvements within public procurement environments and, if so,
whether there are preconditions that need to be in place in order for lean thinking to occur. In
addition, the notion that public procurement suffers from wicked problems presents an
interesting paradox; problems so difficult or impossible to solve because of their complexity, but
nonetheless need to be solved. Is lean thinking really a panacea of sorts when it comes to
addressing these types of problems? At least for the moment, there does not seem to be a
definitive answer to this question. To explore some of these issues several questions could be
used to guide future research, including the following:
Can lean thinking be applied within public procurement?
Is lean thinking more suitable for simple or less complex problems or processes, rather
than for those considered to be complex, difficult to understand, or wicked?
What are the practical implications of lean thinking within public procurement?
What preconditions need to be in place in order for lean thinking to occur?
Can an assessment of these preconditions determine a state of readiness as far as the
adoption of lean thinking is concerned?
Given the scarcity of research related to lean thinking as it applies to public procurement,
as well as the exploratory nature of the above research questions, researchers may want to first
begin with an exploratory case-based approach. This type of methodology is useful in developing
well-grounded theory and is especially helpful in explaining how and why events have occurred
(Meredith & Samson, 2001; Voss, Tsikriktsis & Frohlich, 2002; Yin, 2008). Beginning with a
case-based approach would provide a basis for the development of a number of testable
hypotheses. This would signify the second phase of theory development, which would be
founded upon the first phase that involved the exploratory case-based work. At the second stage,
frameworks can be created to define and justify relationships between variables, and then
hypotheses formed to allow future empirical study. The creation of hypotheses would help to
facilitate the adoption of a rationalist approach (Richardt & Cook, 1979) and could be used to
test empirically any theoretical claims that were made. This would likely improve our
understanding of the lean thinking phenomenon as it applies to public procurement and thus be
of interest to both academics and practitioners alike.
5.0 ConclusionsThis paper presented some strong evidence in support of the idea that lean thinking can be used
to achieve both fiscal and process improvements within public procurement. Notwithstanding,
the direct affect that improved service quality and value for money spent has on customers, any
effort that contributes to a more efficient public sector has the potential to stimulate economic
growth and deliver direct benefits to society as a whole. Therefore, the decision to move forward
with a program aimed at the development of lean thinking within public procurement would
seem to warrant some additional consideration.
That said we would be remiss if we did not discuss one final point about a concern that is
sure to arise from any attempt to implement lean-thinking approaches. This concern directly
relates to a type of performer-level resistance that is linked to a belief that the adoption of lean
thinking will result in the loss of jobs for those involved. As mentioned earlier in this paper,
individuals are driven by self-enhancement strategies and any initiative that threatens those
interests is sure to result in performer-level resistance (van Dijk & van Dick, 2009).
It is true that as processes are improved and consequentially right-sized that the wasted
resources once required to operate, will no longer be needed. Naturally, one such resource is the
time that people once spent performing non-value-added activities. However, because lean
thinking eliminates these wasted resources from an efficiency standpoint while at the same time
improves upon the overall effectiveness of a given process, it can create a situation where jobs
are created rather than eliminated (Liker, 2004; Womack & Jones, 1996). Perhaps at first glance
this is counterintuitive. However, when process efficiencies are achieved, say for example, from
a time-savings standpoint and quality improves, say from the standpoint of how effectively
customer needs are met, the demand for a given product or service can in fact increase. Consider
how this may be true for public procurement.
Research has shown that if a customer department is going to involve procurement in
their purchase decisions, the department must trust that the procurement officers have both the
ability and benevolent intentions required to assist meaningfully with the purchase decisions.
Simply mandating involvement (i.e., via formal policies and procedures) may not necessarily
mean that these departments will choose to involve procurement, and in fact, may find ways to
bypass them altogether (Schiele & McCue, 2006). If procurers are to be involved, they must
therefore ensure that others within the organization perceive them as being both benevolent
(sincerely interested in helping customer departments with meeting their purchase needs) and
technically capable of contributing to purchase decisions in an efficient and effective manner. If
they can do this, then the likelihood that they will be bypassed naturally decreases. And so, an
approach that increases the efficiency and perceived effectiveness of a particular procurement
process as seen from the customer’s perspective could have the effect of making departments
more willing to involve the procurement function and as such, actually increase the demands
placed on them for the services that they provide.
Lean thinking, when properly deployed, should have similar effects. As the demand for
their services increase, there could be a need for more resources. These additional resources
could come from the resources that may have been freed up through the application of lean
thinking approaches, or from additional resources that may be allocated based on need.
Potentially, the costs for these additional resources could be recovered from the waste that may
have been eliminated, or by the direct benefits that can be associated with meaningful
procurement involvement that would otherwise not be realized if they in fact were not involved.
Of course, the degree to which resources can be reallocated or recovered will depend on the
nature and extent of the improvements that are made and any increase in demand that may
consequentially result.
ReferencesBagley, A. & Lewis, E. (2008). “Debate: Why Aren't We all Lean?” Public Money &
Management, 28 (1): 10-11.
Barber, C.S., & Tietje, B.C. (2008). “A Research Agenda for Value Stream Mapping: The Sales
Process.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 38 (2): 155-165.
Basheka, B.C. (2009). “Procurement Planning and Local Governance in Uganda: A Factor
Analyses Approach.” International Journal of Procurement Management, 2 (2): 191-209.
Bateman, N. (2005). “Sustainability: The Elusive Element of Process Improvement.”
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25 (3): 261-76.
Bateman, N., & Rich, N. (2003). “Companies' Perceptions of Inhibitors and Enablers for Process
Improvement Activities.” International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 23 (2): 185-99.
Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization Development: Strategies and Models. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Bhasin, S., & Burcher, P. (2006). “Lean Viewed as a Philosophy.” Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, 17 (1): 56-72.
Bhatia, N., & Drew, J. (2006). “Applying Lean Production to the Public Sector.” The McKinsey
Quarterly, 3 (1): 97-98.
Camillus, J.C. (2008). “Strategy as a Wicked Problem.” Harvard Business Review, 86: 98-101.
Chen, Y., & Thurmaier, K. (2009). “Inter-local Agreements as Collaborations: An Empirical
Investigation of Impetuses, Norms, and Success.” The American Review of Public
Administration, 39 (5): 536-552.
Chetkovich, C., & Frumkin, P. (2003). “Balancing Margin and Mission: Non-Profit Competition
in Charitable versus Fee-Based Programs.” Administration and Society, 35 (5): 564-596.
Churchman, C.W. (1967). “Wicked Problem.” Management Science, 14 (4), December, Guest
Editorial. Collins, K., & Muthusamy, S. (2007). “Applying the Toyota Production System
to a Healthcare Organization: A Case Study on a Rural Community Healthcare Provider.”
The Quality Management Journal, 14 (4): 41-52.
Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Conklin, J. (2009, Winter). “Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems.” Rotman
Magazine: 16 - 21.
Converse, J.M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized
Questionnaire. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Dahlgaard, J.J., & Dahlgaard, P.S. (2006, January). “Lean Production, Six Sigma Quality, TQM
and Company Culture - A Critical Review.” TQM Magazine, 2: 263 - 281.
Esain, A., Williams, S., & Massey, L. (2008). “Combining Planned and Emergent Change in a
Healthcare Lean Transformation.” Public Money and Management, 28 (1): 21-26.
Flinchbaugh, J., Carlino, A., & Pawley, D. (2006). Hitchhiker’s Guide to Lean. Dearborn, MI:
Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
Forbes, R. (1929). Governmental Purchasing. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Forbes, R. (1941). Centralized Purchasing: a Sentry at the Tax Exit Gate (Rev. ed.). New York:
National Association of Purchasing Agents.
French, W.L., & Bell, C. (1973). Organizational Development: Behavioral Science Interventions
for Organization Improvement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Furterer, S. & Elshennawy, A. (2005). “Implementation of TQM and Lean Six Sigma Tools in
Local Government: A Framework and a Case Study.” Total Quality Management, 16
(10): 1179-1191.
Gordon, S.B., Zemansky, S.D., & Sekwat, A. (2000). “The Public Purchasing Profession
Revisited.” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 12 (2):
248-271.
Hasenjager, J. (2006). “Lean Government: Is Not an Oxymoron.” Industrial Engineer, 38 (7):
43-47.
Hines, P., & Lethbridge, S. (2008). “Creating a Lean University.” Public Money and
Management, 28 (1): 53-56.
Hines, P., Lodge, A., & Bamford, D. (2008). “Using Lean Techniques to Reduce Radiology
Waiting Times.” Public Money and Management, 28 (1): 49-52.
Hines, P., Martins, L.A., & Beale, J. (2008). “Testing the Boundaries Of Lean Thinking:
Observations from the Legal Public Sector.” Public Money and Management, 28 (1): 35-
40.
Hines, P., & Rich, N. (1997). “The Seven Value Stream Mapping Tools.” International Journal
of Operations and Production Management, 17 (1): 46-64.
Hines, P., Holweg, M., & Rich, N. (2004). “Learning to Evolve: A Review of Contemporary
Lean Thinking.” International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 24
(10): 994–1011.
Hirano, H. (1995). Five Pillars of the Visual Workplace: The Sourcebook for 5S Implementation.
Tokyo, Japan: Productivity Press.
Holzer, M., Charbonneau, R., & Kim, Y. (2009). “Mapping the Terrain of Public Service Quality
Improvement: Twenty-Five Years of Trends and Practices in the United States.”
International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75 (3): 403-418.
Jayaram, J. and & Vickery, S.K. (1998). “Supply-based Strategies, Human Resource Initiatives,
Procurement Lead-Time, and Firm Performance.” International Journal of Purchasing
and Materials Management, 34 (1): 12-23.
Judd, C.M., Smith, E.R., & Kidder, L.H. (1991). Research Methods in Social Relations (6th ed.).
Toronto, Canada: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch College Publishers.
Karlsson, C., & Ahlstrom, P. (1997). “A lean and Global Smaller Firm?” International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 17 (10): 940-952.
Kelly, A.M., Bryant, M., Cox, L., & Jolley, D. (2007). “Improving Emergency Department
Efficiency by Patient Streaming to Outcomes-Based Teams.” Australian Health Review,
31 (1): 16-22.
Kim, D., Bae, S. S., & Eger, R. J. (2009). “Is Local Discretionary Sales Tax Adopted to
Counteract Fiscal Stress: The Case of Florida Counties?” Economic Development
Quarterly, 23 (2): 150-166.
Krings, D., Levine, D., & Wall, T. (2006). “The Use of Lean in Local Government.” Public
Management, 88 (8): 12-17.
Kollberg, B., Elg, M., & Lindmark, J. (2005). “Design and Implementation of a Performance
Measurement System in Swedish Health Care Services: A Multiple Case Study of Six
Development Teams.” Quality Management in Health Care, 14 (2): 95-111.
Kollberg, B., Dahlgaard, J.J., & Brehmer, P. (2007). “Measuring Lean Initiatives in Health Care
Services: Issues and Findings.” International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 56 (1): 7-24.
Lamothe, M., & Lamothe, S. (2009). “Beyond the Search for Competition in Social Service
Contracting: Procurement, Consolidation, and Accountability.” The American Review of
Public Administration, 39 (2): 164-188.
Lamothe, S. Lamothe, M., & Feiock, R. C. (2008). “Examining Local
Government Service Delivery Arrangements over Time.” Urban Affairs Review, 44 (1):
27-56.
Lasa, I.S., Laburu, C.O., & Vila, R. (2008). “An Evaluation of the Value Stream Mapping Tool.”
Business Process Management Journal, 14 (1): 39-52.
Lau, C., & Ngo, H. (2001). “Organizational Development and Firm Performance: A Comparison
of Multinational and Local Firms.” Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (1): 95-
114.
Liker, J.K. (2004). The Toyota Way. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Likert, R. (1932). “A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes.” Archives of Psychology,
140: 55.
Liuzzo, C.N. (1967, February). “The Challenge to Municipal Purchasing.” Journal of
Purchasing: 52-63.
Loader, K. (2009). “Is Local Authority Procurement ‘Lean’? An Exploration to Determine If
‘Lean’ Can Provide a Useful Explanation of Practice.” Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, 16 (1): 41- 50.
McNichols, T., Hassinger, R., & Bapst, G.W. (1999). “Quick and Continuous Improvement
through Kaizen blitz.” Hospital Material Management Quarterly, 20 (4): 1-7.
McPherson, J.R., & Mitchell, A.V. (2005). “Lean Cuisine.” McKinsey Quarterly, 1: 12.
McQuade, D. (2008). “Leading Lean Action to Transform Housing Services.” Public
Management, 28 (1): 57-60.
Mechling, J. (1995). Information Technology and Government Procurement: Priorities for
Reform. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Meredith, J., & Samson D. (2001). “Call for Papers: Special Issue of Journal of Operations
Management on Case Study and Field Research.” Journal of Operations Management, 19
(1): 415-417.
Miller, D. (2005). Going Lean in Health Care. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare
Improvement.
Miller, Ken. (2009, May). “The Promise of Going 'Lean': It's The Latest, Buzziest Trend in
Government Management. Just Don't Call It a Fad.” Governing: 21.
Mohammed, I.R., Shankar, R., & Banwet, D.K. (2008). “Creating Flex-Lean-Agile Value Chain
by Outsourcing: An ISM-Based Interventional Roadmap.” Business Process Management
Journal, 14 (3): 338-389.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Motwani, J. (2003). “A Business Process Change Framework for Examining Lean
Manufacturing: A Case Study.” Industrial Management and Data Systems, 103 (3): 339-
46.
Neves, P. (2009). “Readiness for Change: Contributions for Employee’s Level of Individual
Change and Turnover Intentions.” Journal of Change Management, 9 (2): 215-231.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ohno, T. (1978). Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production. New York:
Productivity Press.
Papadopoulos, T., & Merali, Y. (2008). “Stakeholder Network Dynamics and Emergent
Trajectories of Lean Implementation Projects: A Study in the UK National Health
Service.” Public Money and Management, 28 (1): 41-48.
Piercy, N., & Rich, N. (2009). “Lean Transformation in the Pure Service Environment: The Case
of the Call Services Centre.” International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 29 (1): 54-76.
Pettijohn, C., & Qiao, Y. (2000). “Procuring Technology: Issues Faced by Public Sector
Organizations.” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 12
(1): 441-461.
Price, P.M., & Harrison, N.J. (2009). “Purchasing and Personality: A Review of the Literature
and a Case for Future Research.” International Journal of Procurement Management, 2
(1): 62-78.
Proudlove, N., Moxhad, C., & Boaden R. (2008). “Lessons for Lean in Healthcare from Using
Six Sigma in the NHS.” Public Money and Management, 28 (1): 27-34.
Puschmann, T., & Rainer, A. (2005). “Successful Use of e-Procurement in Supply Chains.”
Supply Chain Management, 10 (2): 122-133.
Radnor, Z., & Walley, P. (2008). “Learning to Walk Before We Try to Run: Adapting Lean for
the Public Sector.” Public Money and Management, 28 (1): 13-20.
Radnor, Z., Walley, P., Stephens, A., & Bucci, G. (2006). Evaluation of the Lean Approach to
Business Management and its Use in the Public Sector. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish
Executive Social Research.
Rich, N., & Hines, P. (1997). “Supply-chain Management and Time- Based Competition: The
Role of the Supplier Association.” International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 27 (3/4): 210-225.
Richardt, C.S., & Cook. T.D. (1979). Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation
Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Rittel, H. (1972). “On the Planning Crisis: Systems Analysis of the First and Second
Generations.” Bedriftskonomen, 8: 390-396.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences,
4 (1): 155-169.
Roberts, N.C. (2000). “Wicked Problems and Network Approaches to Resolution.” The
International Journal of Public Management Review, 1 (1): 1-19.
Schiele, J.J. (2007). “The value That Can Be Attributed to Public Purchasing Department
Involvement in Acquisition Processes for Consulting Services.” International Journal of
Procurement Management, 1 (1/2): 144-165.
Schiele, J.J., & McCue, C.P. (2006). “Professional Service Acquisition in Public Sector
Procurement: A Conceptual Model of Meaningful Involvement.” International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 26 (3): 300-325.
Schimmel, R., & Muntslag, D. R. (2009). “Learning Barriers: A Framework for the Examination
of Structural Impediments to Organizational Change.” Human Resource Management, 48
(3): 399-416.
Scorsone, E.A. (2008). “New Development: What Are the Challenges in Transferring Lean
Thinking to Government?” Public Money and Management, 28 (1): 61-64.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Silvester, K., Lendon, R., Bevan, H., Steyn R., & Walley, P. (2004). “Reducing Waiting Times
in the NHS: Is Lack of Capacity the Problem?” Clinician in Management, 12 (3): 105-
109.
Stolterman, E. (2008). “The Nature of Design Practice and Implications for Interaction Design
Research.” International Journal of Design, 2: 55-65.
Stone, D. (2009). “Rapid Knowledge: Bridging Research and Policy at the Overseas
Development Institute.” Public Administration and Development, 29 (4): 303-315.
Suárez-Barraza, M.F., & Lingham, T. (2008). “Kaizen within Kaizen Teams: Continuous and
Process Improvements in a Spanish Municipality.” The Asian Journal on Quality, 9 (1):
1-21.
Swank, C.K. (2003). “The Lean Service Machine.” Harvard Business Review, 81 (10): 123-30.
Thai, K. (2007). Introduction to Public Procurement. Herndon, VA: National Institute of
Governmental Purchasing, Inc.
Ung, S.T., Bonsall, S., Wall, A., & Wang, J. (2007). “The Application of Six-Sigma Concept to
Port Security Process Quality Control.” Quality and Reliability Engineering International,
23 (5): 631-639.
van Dijk, R., & van Dick, R. (2009). “Navigating Organizational Change: Change Leaders,
Employee Resistance and Work-Based Identities.” Journal of Change Management, 9 (2):
143-163.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. (2002). “Case Research in Operations Management.”
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22 (2): 195-219.
Weber, D. O. (2006). “Toyota-style Management Drives Virginia Mason.” The Physician
Executive, 32 (1): 12–17.
Wierdsma, A.F.M., & Swieringa, J. (2002). Lerend Organisern: Als Meer van Hetzelfde Niet
Meer Helpt (Learning from Organizing: When More of the Same No Longer Works).
Gronigen, The Netherlands: Stenfert Kroese.
Womack, J.P. (2002). “Lean Think: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?” Forming
and Fabricating, 9 (9): 2-6.
Womack, J.P., & Jones, D.T. (1996). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in your
Corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., & Roos, D. (1990). The Machine That Changed the World. New
York: Rawson Associates.
Wysocki, B. (2004, April 9). “Industrial Strength.” Wall Street Journal.
Yasin, M., Wafa, M., & Small, M.H. (2001). “Just-in-Time Implementation in the Public Sector:
An Empirical Examination.” International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 21 (9): 1195-1204.
Yin, R.K. (2008). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Zafra-gómez, J.L., López-hernández, A.M., & Hernández-bastida, A. (2009). “Developing a
Model to Measure Financial Condition in Local Government: Evaluating Service Quality
and Minimizing the Effects of the Socioeconomic Environment.” The American Review
of Public Administration, 39 (4): 425-449.
Zayko, M.J., & Broughman, D.J. (1997). "Lean Manufacturing Yield Work-Class Improvements
for Small Manufacturers.” IIE Solutions, 29 (4): 36-41.
Top Related