Content uploaded by Sam Solaimani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sam Solaimani on Sep 07, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
On the application of Lean
principles and practices to
innovation management
A systematic review
Sam Solaimani and Jack van der Veen
Center for Marketing and Supply Chain Management,
Nyenrode Business Universiteit, Breukelen, The Netherlands
Durward K. Sobek II
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering,
Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA, and
Erdogan Gulyaz and Venu Venugopal
Center for Marketing and Supply Chain Management,
Nyenrode Business Universiteit, Breukelen, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose –Increasingly, a firm’s innovation capability has become one of the key frontiers of competitive
advantage. The Lean philosophy has a well-proven reputation for its focus on process efficiency and
effectiveness, and therefore, is often applied in various areas of innovation. Such wide and ever-increasing
applicability also has resulted in an incoherent corpus of literature on Lean innovation. The purpose of this
paper is to conceptualize an integrative view on Lean innovation management.
Design/methodology/approach –Based on a systematic literature review, the key Lean principles and
practices useful in the context of innovation management are identified and synthesized into an all-inclusive
framework. By means of three illustrative cases (i.e. public hospital, electronics company and avionics
manufacturer), this paper elaborates on how the proposed framework can be applied.
Findings –A total of 88 publications are analyzed, leading to 34 Lean principles and practices
relevant to innovation management, which are further integrated into a comprehensive model, dubbed the
“Leanovation”framework.
Originality/value –This study is the first attempt to advance the understanding of various interrelated and
interdependent components of Lean innovation management in a holistic way.
Keywords Lean philosophy, Toyota Production System, Innovation management,
Leanovation framework, Systematic literature review
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Innovation drives our economic prosperity and is vital for firms’profitability, growth and
competitive advantage (Denton, 1999; Porter, 1990; Tidd et al., 2005). It is part of almost
every conceivable aspect of business, from products and services to processes and
technologies to business and cost-revenue models. Yet disorder and unpredictability,
sometimes termed “chaos,”seem to epitomize the prevailing perception of the innovation
process (Guston, 2008). To arrive at what Quinn (1985) describes as “controlled chaos,”
scholars increasingly earmark “innovation management”as the way to successfully spur
innovation (Trott, 2008). The key underlying idea is that only through efficient and effective
management of innovation, firms can stimulate and absorb novel ideas and navigate them
toward valorization and full-fledged commercialization (Tidd et al., 2005).
As one of the most prominent innovations in the field of production and operations
management, the Lean philosophy provides principles and practices to rejuvenate innovation
capability. After all, Toyota, frequently credited as the pioneer of Lean philosophy, has been
The TQM Journal
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1754-2731
DOI 10.1108/TQM-12-2018-0208
Received 25 December 2018
Revised 10 March 2019
26 April 2019
Accepted 11 May 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2731.htm
Application of
Lean principles
and practices
one of the most consistent innovators alongside Apple, Google and Microsoft (Ringel et al.,
2015), producing a multitude of incremental and disruptive innovations represented by
highest numbers of patents in the automotive industry (Pohl, 2012; Thomson Reuters, 2015;
Tan and Perrons, 2009). The Lean philosophy focuses on adding value for stakeholders,
particularly customers, and encouraging employee’s continuous contribution to safety, quality
and performance improvements, while maintaining a holistic focus on the end-to-end process.
However, although the complementary relationship between Lean and innovation is broadly
recognized (Browning and Sanders, 2012; Schuh, 2013; Sehested and Sonnenberg, 2011), the
increasing body of knowledge on the application of Lean to innovation management remains
scattered and unstructured, with remarkable diversity of concepts such as knowledge transfer
(Lindlöf et al., 2013), new product development (NPD) (Anand and Kodali, 2008; Biazzo et al.,
2016), design engineering (Baines et al., 2006), concurrent engineering (Karlsson and Åhlström,
1996; Al-Ashaab et al., 2013), value system (Siyam et al., 2015) and continuous improvement
(Salah, 2017).
This study aim to address the question of “how Lean principles and practices are
applied to innovation management?”To develop a holistic understanding of Lean
innovation management, in this paper a systematic review of literature on “Lean within
innovation management”setting is conducted. By doing so, this paper aims to synthesize
innovation-specific Lean principles and practices into an integrative model. Such model
aims to help scholars and practitioners to establish a more efficient and effective “system”
to manage innovation processes, instead of being limited to the “scattered”or “siloed”
parts of such system.
The paper is structured as follows. To set the wider context, Section 2 elaborates on
the Lean philosophy after which Section 3 outlines the research method. The findings are
discussed in Section 4, where the literature is synthesized into a holistic view on Lean
innovation management (named the Leanovation framework). Section 5 describes the
relationship between various dimensions of the Leanovation framework. The paper
concludes with a discussion of theoretical and managerial implications, provides several
illustrative examples and suggests potential areas for future research.
2. Lean in innovation management context
In their seminal book summarizing the findings of an international benchmarking study of car
assembly plants, Womack et al. (1990) brought the famed Toyota Production System (TPS) to
a wider audience and described the principles and practices that helped the firm achieve its
superior performance. They popularized the term Lean to refer to a compendium of
manufacturing, NPD and supplier relations practices. Ever since, Lean has been one of the
most salient and widely cited concepts in the operations management literature (Holweg,
2007). Although definitions of Lean production or manufacturing are in abundance ( for a
systematic overview, see Shah and Ward, 2007, p. 788; Pettersen, 2009, p. 130), in a more
generic view, continuous improvement, waste elimination and variability reduction havebeen
the traditional focus of Lean production (e.g. Hines et al., 2004; Hopp and Spearman, 2004).
Since its introduction, opinions and interpretations of Lean’s essence and its application
have been increasingly diverse and continuously evolved (Hoss and ten Caten, 2013; Ruffa,
2008), so much so that Bhasin and Burcher (2006) propose to refer to Lean as a “philosophy”
or way of thinking facilitated with practices for both “soft”social and cultural aspects and
“hard”tools or processes. Most striking is the antithesis between the traditional
interpretation of Lean and the contemporary school of thought (Bozdogan, 2010). In this
respect, the generally accepted practices from the TPS epoch seem to have made room for a
more liberal interpretation of the Lean philosophy that tends to contextualize –and
consequently reprioritize the relevance of –various TPS principles and practices. Within
this interpretation, three patterns in the evolution of Lean philosophy are noteworthy.
TQM
First, although the concept has its genesis in the automotive industry, a wide variety of
industries have benefited from or studied the benefits of the Lean philosophy, e.g.,
government (Radnor, 2010), healthcare (Ferreira et al., 2018), construction (Green and May,
2005; Forbes and Ahmed, 2010), textiles and clothing (Bruce et al., 2004), aerospace (Crute
et al., 2003), food ( Jie and Gengatharen, 2019), software development (Poppendieck and
Poppendieck, 2003), mining (Kippel et al., 2008), service industries (George and George, 2003;
Swank, 2003) and universities (Hines and Lethbridge, 2008).
Second, the Lean philosophy has been integrated using various theoretical concepts, and
hence the Lean frame of reference has been extended. For example, Lean philosophy has
been reappraised to cope with a volatile marketplace and changing customer demands by
combining it with agility to form Leagility (e.g. Naylor et al., 1999), which promotes a Lean
approach “upstream”of the process to enable a level schedule and drive down costs, while
ensuring an agile response “downstream”by creating the capability of delivering in
unpredictable markets (cf. Mason-Jones et al., 2000). Elsewhere, Lean Six Sigma considers
Lean practices and the emphasis of Six Sigma on the reduction of variation and variability
(Näslund, 2008). More recently, the combination of the Lean philosophy and dynamic
systems is advocated to cope with rapidly changing market dynamics and customer
demands and conditions (cf. Ruffa, 2008).
Third, instead of solely focusing on shop-floor (manufacturing) processes, the
contemporary Lean approach involves a holistic view of people, tools and technology
(Bozdogan, 2010; Hines et al., 2004; Liker and Morgan, 2006). In this light, the Lean
philosophy has been studied from various perspectives (or domains), including culture
(Mann, 2014), leadership (Mann, 2009), project management (Ballard and Howell, 2003),
organizational change (De Toni and Tonchia, 1996), marketing (Piercy and Rich, 2009),
information management (Hicks, 2007), accounting (Maskell et al., 2011) and innovation
management which is the focus of this paper.
Bel (2010, p. 47) defines innovation management as “developing a vision and a strategy,
setting up the processes that will materialize it, and creating the organizational conditions
and culture that will facilitate the emergence of ideas and their implementation.”According
to Morris (2011, p. 11), innovation is not only an outcome or attribute; it also involves the
process of “developing ideas and turning them into valuable realities.”Innovation
management aims to create an environment for innovation to emerge, minimizing the cost of
innovation process and maximize the value of innovative outcome at the level of individual
innovation project (cf., Terwiesch and Ulrich, 2009; Trott, 2008). The management of
innovation process, however, is frequently considered as a “black-box”(Guston, 2008), or in
the words of Kline and Rosenberg (1986, p. 275) as “complex, uncertain, somewhat
disorderly, subject to changes of many sorts, and difficult to measure.”
Given that innovation management involves processes at various levels, that
management of the innovation process is not straightforward and that Lean is focused
on improving processes, an interesting and relevant question is how Lean principles and
practices can spur innovation and help its management; a question that this study aims to
address. Accordingly, the focus of analysis is neither on the broader field of Lean (i.e.
beyond innovation) nor the wider field of innovation (i.e. beyond Lean), but on the
intersection of both streams.
3. Research approach
To understand the complementarities between innovation management and the Lean
philosophy, a systematic literature review was considered as a suitable research approach.
Properly conducted, this approach is a systematic and replicable way to identify, evaluate
and synthesize the existing body of knowledge of a given subject (Fink, 2005), while
minimizes biases and errors and provides a transparent process (Transfield et al., 2003).
Application of
Lean principles
and practices
As such, it has become a versatile method used in numerous contexts and published in
high-quality scientific journals (Danese et al., 2018). To ensure internal validity, the
study followed the broadly accepted and frequently applied Okoli and Schabram’s (2010)
eight-step guideline:
•Step 1: purpose –as elaborated in Section 1, the core objective of the literature review
was to explore how Lean philosophy contributes to innovation management.
•Step 2: protocol and training –the literature review process was initiated with a series
of meetings wherein the reviewers (i.e. the first author together with two co-authors)
established a consensus view on the purpose of the study, definitions (e.g. Lean,
innovation management), data collection and structured analysis methods. The
definitions, criteria, scope and procedure were captured in a detailed protocol.
•Step 3: search for literature –two dominant search engines were used: Social Science
Research Network and Scopus. The search aimed to collect journal publications that
include both “Lean”and “Innovation”in their title, abstract and/or keywords. To
make sure that no relevant publication was overlooked, the search also included the
key terms “R&D,”“Start-up”and “NPD”as highly related to innovation; and
“Toyota,”“World Class Manufacturing”and “TPS”frequently associated with Lean
philosophy. Accordingly, the following search query was formulated: [“Lean”OR
“Toyota”OR “TPS”OR “Toyota Production System”OR “World Class
Manufacturing”] AND [“Innovation”OR “R&D”OR “Research and Development”
OR “NPD”OR “New Product Development”OR “Product Development”OR
“Start-up”]. The search covered articles published between 1990 (when the seminal
book by Womack et al. was published) and 2016 (data collection took place in 2017),
and was limited to peer-reviewed journal publications in the English language. Once
duplications had been removed, the search resulted in 785 references. To check the
consistency and reliability of the output, several operations (e.g. Journal of Operations
Management,International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
International Journal of Production Research,IEEE Engineering Management Review)
and innovation management (e.g. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
International Journal of Product Development,Creativity and Innovation
Management,R&D Management) publishers were independently screened.
•Step 4: practical screen –in the first selection round, the title, abstract and keywords
of the papers were screened for relevance and 636 references were excluded. The
articles excluded were those referring to chemical and clinical meaning of Lean, use
lean as a verb or refer to Toyota in unrelated contexts, including Toyota sewing
system, or other domains such as Thermal Power Station (TPS), Treatment-Planning
System (TPS), Third Party Sales (TPS).
•Step 5: quality appraisal –the remaining 149 publications were subjected to
full-paper screening to identify sources that explicitly relate Lean principles and
practices to innovation or innovation management, further reducing the database to
80 articles. At this stage, the first author together with two co-authors read the entire
publication and excluded those that refer to Lean or innovation management without
expounding the relationship in-between. Reviewers also identified eight additional
publications based on citations ( five books and three articles), which were added to
the database to bring the total literature review to 88 references.
•Step 6: data extraction –the selected papers were scrutinized in this step, for which
keywords, phrases, sections and figures that explain how Lean philosophy may serve
innovation or innovation management were collected in a database (made in
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet). The database also captures additional information
TQM
including the papers’theoretical perspective, research domain, research method and
sample size (if applicable). Although the first author was the main reviewer of the
selected articles, to improve internal validity, a random subset of the articles were
also reviewed by two co-authors. Iterative discussions among authors were needed to
identify the reviewers’output deviations and to reach a complete unanimity on how
to position the data in the database.
•Step 7: synthesis –the authors first reviewed the data to identify discern recurring
themes within the data set (Miles and Huberman, 1994). In the continuation of the
process, a “hub-and-spoke”structure emerged with the higher-order dimensions and
constituting elements. Three authors have independently reviewed the publications
and analyzed each other’s outputs. After several iterations, the authors agreed on five
dimensions that seemed to capture the higher-level structure of the data, each with
several constituents. From this point, the authors persistently juxtaposed the
remaining data with the initial model, and revised each time new insights were
identified. Gradually, the model was polished to the point that no new insight could
be added, suggesting that an acceptable “level of saturation”was reached.
Throughout the process of synthesis, the authors constantly compared and discussed
their outputs to reach consensus on the final classification, including categories,
disciplines and the labels used.
•Step 8: write the review –the next section provides a detailed prescriptive and
analytical account of the conducted literature review.
4. Five dimensions of Lean innovation
The trend of publication on Lean and innovation or innovation management appears to be
growing (see Figure 1). Of the 88 articles and books reviewed, 47 percent are qualitative case
studies (from which 23 articles are based on a single case), with another 18 percent being
conceptual papers. Multi-method, survey, systematic literature review, (expert) interviews
and content analysis constitute 15, 9, 7, 3 and 1 percent of the sample, respectively. In terms
of the industry, 34 percent of the articles are industry-independent, followed by
manufacturing (non-automotive), automotive, pharmaceutical and healthcare (17, 13, 9 and
5 percent, respectively). And the publishers with four or more articles on Lean and
innovation management (or its subparts such as product development) are International
Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing,Research Technology Management,Drug
Discovery Today and Harvard Business Review. For more descriptive analysis of data,
see Figure A1.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014
Number of publications
Figure 1.
Trend of publications
between 1990
and 2016
Application of
Lean principles
and practices
Analysis of the data extracted in Step 7 above identified 34 Lean innovation practices and
principles, which were classified into five dimensions: coaching, learning culture,
collaborative internal structure, collaborative external networks and learning routines.
The following sections describe the five dimensions in detail. Table I summarizes the key
constructs, principles and practices for each dimension along with the relevant references.
4.1 Lean leadership (coaching)
Several researchers see Lean leadership as the missing link between harboring the ambition
to become Lean and actually benefitting from it (Dombrowski and Mielke, 2013; Emiliani,
2008; Mann, 2009). With a focus on innovation, at least two main aspects of Lean leadership
were underlined in the literature: “traits”to serve (as opposed to “Tayloristic”command and
control), and “actions”as part of a Lean coach’s“people system.”To emphasize the Lean’s
unique way of management, the literature refers to coaches (or sensei). Although both traits
and actions are naturally interrelated, for more clarity these aspects are discussed
separately below.
Traits –servant leader. Lean innovation scholars appear to have a shared view of the
Lean coach as respectful, inspiring and supportive (Adler, 1993; Boehm, 2012; Takeuchi
et al., 2008). Lean coaches obtain respect and trust from their employees by practicing what
they preach (Adler, 1993), showing respect (Takeuchi et al.,2008),theyenjoy
experimentation removing the perturbation associated with mistakes (Everett and
Sitterding, 2013; Johnstone et al., 2011; Ota et al., 2013), and have a long-term vision and
near-unattainable goals (Lindeke et al., 2009; Polk, 2011).
Lean coaches are often on the work floor (“Gemba management”) in order to be visible
and actively observe and directly interact with employees (Boehm, 2012; Sehested and
Sonnenberg, 2011). In this setting, communication skills appear critical, especially to provide
transparency about the firm’s strategic objectives and organizational changes (Boehm, 2012;
Takeuchi et al., 2008). Also, coaches’technical expertise appears to be equally important, not
only to gain the trust and confidence of employees, but also to orchestrate cross-functional
teams (Belt et al., 2009; Harkonen et al., 2009; Hoppmann et al., 2011; Nepal et al., 2011; Schuh
et al., 2011; Tyagi et al., 2015). In short, Lean coaches are involved facilitators and not
distanced “spreadsheet wonder managers”(Mintzberg, 2004).
Actions –people system. TPS system focused heavily on its human capital with the
fundamental premise that “employees are not just viewed as pairs of hands but as
knowledge workers who accumulate chie –the wisdom of experience –on the company’s
front lines”(Takeuchi et al., 2008, p. 2). Dickson, et al. (2009) define the people system as “a
system designed to provide the tools for people to continually improve their work and add
value to the product or service they are producing.”The idea is that Lean leader encourages
employees to challenge the status quo, even by voicing contrarian opinions if necessary
(Takeuchi et al., 2008), facilitates them with the resources they need and guides them in their
problem-solving endeavors (Adler, 1993; Aoki and Lennerfors, 2013; Nahmens and Ikuma,
2011), and servers as a “system integrator”who orchestrates project teams toward a
synergistic whole (Morgan and Liker, 2006).
To maintain their relationship with employees, Lean leader remains in close dialogue
with employees (Sehested and Sonnenberg, 2011), often short frequent daily huddles with
examples and visualization (Evans and Wolf, 2005; Ward and Sobek II, 2014). Furthermore,
apprenticeships is encouraged (Tyagi et al., 2015), scheduling and trainings are based on
skill maps (Boehm, 2012), and creativity is stimulated through fun contests (e.g. “Innovator
of the Month”). Also, interaction with board-level managers seems to be stimulating (e.g.
“periodic lunch with the firm chairman,”Ozorhon et al., 2013). In line with inner inclination
toward experimentation (explained earlier), Lean leader seeks to remove the fear and
TQM
Constructs Lean principle and practices in
the context of Innovation References
Coaching
Servant leader Trust-driven relationship
(respect for employees) Adler (1993), Boehm (2012), Evans and Wolf (2005), Mascarenhas
Hornos da Costa et al. (2014)
Clear communication about
objectives based on both
short-term and long-term vision
(strategic, tactical, inspirational)
Antony et al. (2016), Boehm (2012), Byrne et al. (2007), Evans and
Wolf (2005), Karlsson and Åhlström (1996), Lindeke et al. (2009), Polk
(2011), Ries (2011), Smith et al. (1999), Takeuchi et al. (2008), Tan and
Perrons (2009), Tyagi et al. (2015), Ward and Sobek II (2014)
Management based on
experience and mastery
(technical competence)
Adler (1993), Belt et al. (2009), Harkonen et al. (2009), Hoppmann
et al. (2011), Nepal et al. (2011), Schuh et al. (2011), Sehested and
Sonnenberg (2011), Tyagi et al. (2015), Ward and Sobek II (2014)
People system Leader’s commitment to and
engagement with innovation
(willingness to change)
Adler (1993), Byrne et al. (2007), Lantz et al. (2015), Lindeke et al.
(2009), Ozorhon et al. (2013), Sehested and Sonnenberg (2011),
Sewing et al. (2008), Walker and Davies (2011)
Empowering, encouraging and
broadening people’s perspective
and knowledge (Gemba)
Antony et al. (2016), Adler (1993), Angelis and Fernandes (2012),
Boehm (2012), Abuhejleh et al. (2016), Evans and Wolf (2005),
Lindeke et al. (2009), Nahmens and Ikuma (2011), Nepal et al.
(2011), Ota et al. (2013), Ozorhon et al. (2013), Radeka (2016),
Reinertsen and Shaeffer (2005), Sakai et al. (2007), Tam et al.
(2012), Tyagi et al. (2015)
Discursive system-oriented
guidance Braczyk (1996), Everett and Sitterding (2013), Ota et al. (2013),
Sehested and Sonnenberg (2011), Tyagi et al. (2015), Ward and
Sobek II (2014)
Taking away fear and
frustrations Antony et al. (2016), Angelis and Fernandes (2012), Everett and
Sitterding (2013), Johnstone et al. (2011), Ota et al. (2013), Ozorhon
et al. (2013), Takeuchi et al. (2008)
Learning culture
Continuous
improvement Continuous improvement
mindset (critical thinking) Adler (1993), Al-Ashaab and Sobek II (2013), Barnhart (2008,
2016), Belt et al. (2009), Blank (2013), Browning and Sanders
(2012), Abuhejleh et al. (2016), Harkonen et al. (2009),
Johnstone et al. (2011), Morgan and Liker (2006), Radeka (2016),
Sehested and Sonnenberg (2011), Takeuchi et al. (2008), Tan and
Perrons (2009)
Desire for excellence
(confidence, risk-taking) Adler (1993), Everett and Sitterding (2013), Haque and
James-Moore (2004), Harkonen et al. (2009), Johnstone et al. (2011),
Lindeke et al. (2009), Ota et al. (2013), Solleiro et al. (2016)
Employee engagement
(e.g. suggestion programs,
celebrating success)
Adler (1993), Angelis and Fernandes (2012), Delbridge et al.
(2000), Hines et al. (2006), Nicoletti (2015), Takeuchi et al. (2008)
Deliberately initiated change
(problem ownership) Braczyk (1996), Sewing et al. (2008), Takeuchi et al. (2008), Tam
et al. (2012), Wallace (2004)
Collectivism Collective interest and
accountability Adler (1993), Bicen and Johnson (2015), Cooper and Edgett (2008),
Morgan and Liker (2006), Ries (2011), Takeuchi et al. (2008),
Wallace (2004), Ward and Sobek II (2014)
Collaborative learning and
problem solving Al-Ashaab and Sobek II (2013), Barnhart (2016), Bicen and
Johnson (2015), Delbridge et al. (2000), Hines et al. (2006), Lindeke
et al. (2009), Nepal et al. (2011), Solleiro et al. (2016), Ståhl et al.
(2015), Ward and Sobek II (2014)
Collaborative internal structure
Self-regulative
governance Decision-making latitude
(self-reliance and autonomy) Angelis and Fernandes (2012), Braczyk (1996), Evans and Wolf
(2005), Lantz et al. (2015), Ries (2011), Ståhl et al. (2015), Takeuchi
et al. (2008)
Decision-making across
hierarchical layers of
organization
Adler (1993), Boehm (2012), Lantz et al. (2015), Ota et al. (2013),
Wallace (2004)
Variegated job Boehm (2012), Braczyk (1996), Wallace (2004)
(continued )
Table I.
Framework
conceptualization
Application of
Lean principles
and practices
Constructs Lean principle and practices in
the context of Innovation References
Stimuli to engage and motivate Boehm (2012), Braczyk (1996), Carleysmith et al. (2009),
Evans and Wolf (2005), Delbridge et al. (2000), Sakai et al. (2007),
Wallace (2004)
Process
orientation Value alignment between
teams/departments Barnhart (2008), Braczyk (1996), Byrne et al. (2007), Mascarenhas
Hornos da Costa et al. (2014), Browning and Sanders (2012)
Multidisciplinary teamwork
(multi-skilled staff) Angelis and Fernandes (2012), Barnhart (2008), Boehm (2012),
Braczyk (1996), Cooper and Edgett (2008), Haque and
James-Moore (2004), Hoppmann et al. (2011), Johnstone et al.
(2011), Karlsson and Åhlström (1996), Khan et al. (2013), Lindeke
et al. (2009), Nahmens and Ikuma (2011), Nepal et al. (2011), Ota
et al. (2013), Ries (2011), Takeuchi et al. (2008), Tyagi et al. (2015),
Walker and Davies (2011)
Job rotation Angelis and Fernandes (2012), Florida (1996), Ota et al. (2013),
Sakai et al. (2007)
Supportive cross-functional
organizational setting (e.g.
hybrid or matrix)
Belt et al. (2009), Boehm (2012), Evans and Wolf (2005), Harkonen
et al. (2009), Morgan and Liker (2006), Sehested and Sonnenberg
(2011), Ullman and Boutellier (2008), Ward and Sobek II (2014)
Collaborative external networks
Customer
centricity Customer engagement Bicen and Johnson (2015), Bieraugel (2015), Blank (2013),
Cooper and Edgett (2008), Dal Forno et al. (2016), Florida (1996),
Haque and James-Moore (2004), Karlsson and Åhlström (1996),
Ozorhon et al. (2013), Pohl (2012), Ries (2011), Sehested and
Sonnenberg (2011)
Customer requirements Belt et al. (2009), Boehm (2012), Byrne et al. (2007), Cooper and
Edgett (2008), Gudem et al. (2014), Haque and James-Moore (2004),
Hines et al. (2006), Hoppmann et al. (2011), Karlsson and Åhlström
(1996), Mascarenhas Hornos da Costa et al. (2014), Nahmens and
Ikuma (2011), Nepal et al. (2011), Nicoletti (2015), Pohl (2012),
Reinertsen and Shaeffer (2005), Ries (2011), Sakai et al. (2007),
Schuh et al. (2011), Sehested and Sonnenberg (2011), Tam et al.
(2012), Walker and Davies (2011)
Supplier
development Partnership with other
stakeholders Bidault et al. (1998), Bruce and Moger (1999), Byrne et al. (2007),
Haque and James-Moore (2004), Harkonen et al. (2009), Karlsson
and Åhlström (1996), Kinkel and Som (2010), Lantz et al. (2015),
Morgan and Liker (2006), Ota et al. (2013), Smith and Tranfield
(2005), Tam et al. (2012), Tuli and Shankar (2015)
Initiatives with suppliers (e.g.
education, loyalty programs,
NPD, JIT/Kanban)
Angelis and Fernandes (2012), Aoki and Lennerfors (2013),
Bidault et al. (1998), Morgan and Liker (2006), Ozorhon et al. (2013)
Knowledge exchange with
suppliers (e.g. study groups,
collaborative problem solving)
Aoki and Lennerfors (2013), Belt et al. (2009), Dyer and Hatch
(2006), Evans and Wolf (2005), Florida (1996), Hoppmann et al.
(2011), Lantz et al. (2015), Nepal et al. (2011), Ozorhon et al. (2013),
Pohl (2012), Smith and Tranfield (2005), Tan and Perrons (2009),
Tuli and Shankar (2015), Ullman and Boutellier (2008), Ward and
Sobek II (2014)
Learning routines
Efficient
learning Waste reduction Carleysmith et al. (2009), Cooper and Edgett (2008), Haque and
James-Moore (2004), Helander et al. (2015), Karlsson and Åhlström
(1996), Lindeke et al. (2009), Mascarenhas Hornos da Costa et al.
(2014), McManus (2005), Nepal et al. (2011), Reinertsen and
Shaeffer (2005), Schuh et al. (2011), Sehested and Sonnenberg
(2011), Smith et al. (1999), Ward and Sobek II (2014)
Standardization (reducing
unnecessary variability) Adler (1993), Belt et al. (2009), Haque and James-Moore (2004),
Harkonen et al. (2009), Helander et al. (2015), Hines et al. (2006),
Hoppmann et al. (2011), Khan et al. (2013), Letens et al. (2011),
(continued )
Table I.
TQM
frustration that potentially stem from making mistakes, promote risk-taking attitude, ask
questions and calls for self-reflection and constructive criticism (e.g. Angelis and Fernandes,
2012; Everett and Sitterding, 2013; Johnstone et al., 2011).
4.2 Learning culture
The second dimension is a learning culture where the literature emphasizes at least two
aspects; a continuous improvement mindset and collectivistic behavior.
Continuous improvement mindset. Several authors stress the importance of continuous
improvement “mindset”(Kaizen in Lean terms) (e.g. Adler, 1993; Blank, 2013; Johnstone
et al., 2011) which refers to a ceaseless inner urge to strive for perfection, ingrained at an
Constructs Lean principle and practices in
the context of Innovation References
Morgan and Liker (2006), Nepal et al. (2011), Polk (2011), Sakai
et al. (2007), Schuh et al. (2011), Sehested and Sonnenberg (2011),
Sewing et al. (2008)
Process flow Carleysmith et al. (2009), Boehm (2012), Haque and James-Moore
(2004), Harkonen et al. (2009), Helander et al. (2015), Hoppmann
et al. (2011), Letens et al. (2011), McManus (2005), Morgan and
Liker (2006), Nepal et al. (2011), Rauch et al. (2016), Reinertsen and
Shaeffer (2005), Sewing et al. (2008), Ullman and Boutellier (2008),
Walker and Davies (2011), Ward and Sobek II (2014)
Prioritization (e.g. funneling,
project portfolio, delayed
decision making)
Al-Ashaab and Sobek II (2013), Belt et al. (2009), Cooper and
Edgett (2008), Hoppmann et al. (2011), Johnstone et al. (2011),
Letens et al. (2011), Morgan and Liker (2006), Nepal et al. (2011),
Ries (2011), Sehested and Sonnenberg (2011)
Effective
learning Value (definition, perception,
expectation) Belt et al. (2009), Browning and Sanders (2012), Cooper and
Edgett (2008), Harkonen et al. (2009), Hines et al. (2006), Khan et al.
(2013), Letens et al. (2011), Mascarenhas Hornos da Costa et al.
(2014), McManus (2005), Ries (2011), Sehested and Sonnenberg
(2011), Ward and Sobek II (2014)
Rapid iterative experiments Blank (2013), Cooper and Edgett (2008), Helander et al. (2015),
Johnstone et al. (2011), Leite et al. (2016), Nepal et al. (2011),
Nicoletti (2015), Pohl (2012), Ries (2011), Sehested and Sonnenberg
(2011), Smith et al. (1999), Takeuchi et al. (2008)
Scientific problem-solving
(root-cause analysis, PDCA,
set-based concurrent
engineering, value stream
mapping, visual management,
hypothesis-driven, metrics)
Adler (1993), Al-Ashaab et al. (2013), Al-Ashaab and Sobek II
(2013), Barnhart (2008, 2016), Belt et al. (2009), Biazzo (2009),
Bicen and Johnson (2015), Bieraugel (2015), Blank (2013),
Browning and Sanders (2012), Carleysmith et al. (2009), Cooper
and Edgett (2008), Evans and Wolf (2005), Haque and James-
Moore (2004), Harkonen et al. (2009), Helander et al. (2015), Hines
et al. (2006), Hoerl and Gardner (2010), Hoppmann et al. (2011),
Khan et al. (2013), Kinkel and Som (2010), Leite et al. (2016), Letens
et al. (2011), Majerus (2016), Mascarenhas Hornos da Costa et al.
(2014), McManus (2005), Morgan and Liker (2006), Nepal et al.
(2011), Nicoletti (2015), Pohl (2012), Polk (2011), Radeka (2016),
Raudberget (2010), Reinertsen and Shaeffer (2005), Ries (2011),
Sakai et al. (2007), Sehested and Sonnenberg (2011), Sewing et al.
(2008), Smith et al. (1999), Sobek et al. (1999), Ståhl et al. (2015),
Stonemetz et al. (2011), Tam et al. (2012), Tortorella et al. (2016),
Tyagi et al. (2015), Ullman and Boutellier (2008), Ward and
Sobek II (2014)
Knowledge management
(information generation,
sharing, use and reuse)
Al-Ashaab et al. (2016), Al-Ashaab and Sobek II (2013), Belt et al.
(2009), Evans and Wolf (2005), Gudem et al. (2014), Helander et al.
(2015), Hines et al. (2006), Hoppmann et al. (2011), Lindeke et al.
(2009), Morgan and Liker (2006), Pohl (2012), Sehested and
Sonnenberg (2011), Tortorella et al.(2016), Ward and Sobek II (2014) Table I.
Application of
Lean principles
and practices
individual level. Employees are “change agents”and have a sense of “problem ownership”;
they are willing to take responsibility and act autonomously (Braczyk, 1996; Ota et al., 2013;
Sewing et al., 2008). This is achieved through critical thinking and by challenging the
established order and structure of the firm’s policies, standards, processes and solutions
(Barnhart, 2008). It should be noted that continuous improvement mindset is not limited to
incremental innovation; Bicen and Johnson (2015) point out that the Lean innovation
capability enable firms to unlock radical innovation by a more effective reconfiguration and
reallocation of existing resources.
What is more, authors addressing learning culture observe that where continuous
learning is a collective norm; it is more actively nurtured (Everett and Sitterding, 2013;
Johnstone et al., 2011). In that sense, Lean innovation does not rely so much on traditional
monetary “carrots”and control “sticks”to encourage engagement (Evans and Wolf, 2005),
but employs subtle stimuli, including public recognition (Boehm, 2012; Carleysmith et al.,
2009), peer admiration (Evans and Wolf, 2005), suggestion schemes (Adler, 1993; Delbridge
et al., 2000), celebration of day-to-day successes (Hines et al., 2006; Sewing et al., 2008) and
sharing and pursuing an innovation agenda across the company and beyond (Byrne et al.,
2007); all to create a climate where continuous learning is instinctive.
Collectivism. Another feature of learning culture appears to be prioritization of team
interests over individual interests. According to Tyagi et al. (2015), knowledge is a “dynamic
gain”based on team members’interactions, problem-solving actions and tasks performed.
Adler (1993) argues that Toyota’s well-known no-layoff policy not only removed workers’
fear of losing their job, it also reinforced the firm’s team culture, where problem-solving is
not individualistic, but endemic in the teams made up of individuals (Wallace, 2004), and
where teams feel safe to practice hensei (reflection) to identify mistakes and take
responsibility for rectifying and improving on them (Morgan and Liker, 2006). Knowledge is
a“relational asset”(Bicen and Johnson, 2015) that is generated and disseminated through
multidisciplinary teamwork and collaborative problem-solving, as well as informal
relationships (Lindeke et al., 2009; Nepal et al., 2011; Ståhl et al., 2015; Takeuchi et al., 2008).
4.3 Collaborative internal structure
For a Lean innovation to emerge, the literature calls for a collaborative organizational structure
with two underpinning ingredients: process orientation and self-regulative governance.
Process orientation. The Lean innovation literature deplores departmentalization;
instead, it calls for cross-functional and cross-sectional, multidisciplinary collaborative
structure (Braczyk, 1996; Karlsson and Åhlström, 1996; Walker and Davies, 2011) to
create customer value (Ståhl et al., 2015). As such, as a focal orientation, value streams are
preferred over departments. Fiore (2005) describes the value stream as “the connection
between all the process steps with the goal of maximizing customer value.”Hence, firms’
performance can better be measured by considering the whole operations rather than the
sum of its parts (Browning and Sanders, 2012). Accordingly, the product portfolio and
development pipeline toward innovation efforts are encouraged to be assessed by a
multidisciplinary team made up of R&D, sales, finance, planning and control with an eye on
profitability, customer value, strategic relevance and available resources (Boehm, 2012;
Sehested and Sonnenberg, 2011).
Although the literature on exact structure of Lean innovation organization is limited,
modular teaming and hybrid (or matrix) organization have received the most attentions.
The former refers to teams focusing on small, simple tasks that together make up a larger
whole (Evans and Wolf, 2005). The latter proposes paired teams of experts in which one
team focuses on intense knowledge creation and hypothesis formulation (innovation studio),
while the other is responsible for data generation and hypothesis-testing (process factory)
TQM
(Ullman and Boutellier, 2008). A different interpretation of hybrid organization is a
dichotomy between horizontal process coordination and vertical functional management
(Boehm, 2012). Ward and Sobek II (2014) oppose the negative connotation of the
“working-for-two-bosses”trademark, and emphasize that such a structure enables a
collaborative environment where project managers and functional leaders support each
other, while remain closely in touch with the board-level management and front-line
developers. That said, it is a delicate task to overcome likely conflict of interest between
functional department and task-oriented projects (Karlsson and Åhlström, 1996; Morgan
and Liker, 2006).
Self-regulative governance. Rather than being entirely top-down, from the Lean
innovation perspectives, employees enjoy a fair amount of decision-making latitude (Ståhl
et al., 2015). The firm’s goals are broken down into concrete milestones to be agreed upon by
employees through continuous dialogue, negotiation and consensus-building, and
employees are free to stipulate their own roadmap as long as they meet the agreed upon
deadlines (Karlsson and Åhlström, 1996; Morgan and Liker, 2006; Ota et al., 2013).
In describing the Lean transformation of a R&D division, Boehm (2012) highlights the
bottom-up effort of employees by, for instance, developing and testing process improvement
ideas and spreading the best practices across the organization. At a strategic level, in TPS,
hoshin kanri (strategy deployment) was a to gain consensus on management targets and
measures at all levels of the firm through bottom-up feedback in an iterative “catch-ball”
process (Hutchins, 2008; Tennant and Roberts, 2001).
Furthermore, self-regulatory teamwork is encouraged by variegated job description, e.g.,
assigning a combined set of execution and executive tasks to employees to encourage
self-regulation, especially if performance is subjected to self-evaluation (Braczyk, 1996); and
“sense of ownership”(Angelis and Fernandes, 2012; Wallace, 2004), e.g., establishing
“temporary think tank”where creative employees are taken away from their routine work,
organized in teams, on a temporary basis, and encouraged to develop and test creative ideas
and remain accountable for product rollout (Lindeke et al., 2009).
4.4 Collaborative external networks
TPS did not merely rely on its internal improvement potentials; its outward collaborative
orientation has been an important, yet often overlooked, factor in its success (Aoki and
Lennerfors, 2013; Bidault et al., 1998; Liker and Choi, 2004). In this regard, two aspects
stood out: customer centricity and supplier development.
Customer centricity. Schuh (2013) posit that invention becomes innovation when it
creates value for a customer. However, customer needs are often latent, dynamic and not
unambiguously expressed (Bicen and Johnson, 2015; Cooper and Edgett, 2008; Letens et al.,
2011). TPS therefore positioned the customer as an integral part of its development process
(Cooper and Edgett, 2008), proactively explored their needs (Ota et al., 2013), through
feedback loops (Reinertsen and Shaeffer, 2005) and carefully planned experiments to
systematically elicit customers’desires and requirements (Bieraugel, 2015; Ries, 2011). Note
that the emphasis is not only on “utilitarian”values (i.e. rational values that are independent
of the observer or users), but also on “emotional”values (i.e. subjective experiential
attributes dependent on the opinions, feelings and perceptions of observers or users)
(Gudem et al., 2014; Gülyaz et al., 2019).
Supplier development. TPS seems to have benefitted from its early engagement with its
suppliers, based on long-term relationship, information sharing, co-creation and
collaborative innovation (Aoki and Lennerfors, 2013; Bidault et al. 1998; Bruce and
Moger, 1999; Smith and Tranfield, 2005). Various initiatives helped to stimulate positive
supplier relations, including loyalty plans, educational programs and traineeship involving
Application of
Lean principles
and practices
supply chain partners, cross-company teams, collaborative R&D activities, multilateral
agreements to centralize and exchange information and knowledge, to name a few (Bidault
et al., 1998; Harkonen et al., 2009; Nepal et al., 2011; Smith and Tranfield, 2005; Tam et al.,
2012; Tan and Perrons, 2009; Tuli and Shankar, 2015).
To explain collaborative Lean innovation, Wallace (2004) underlines Edquist’s (2001)
concept of “interactive learning,”which is driven by interactions and knowledge exchange
between firms involved in innovation processes ( for instance, Toyota invites guest
engineers from its suppliers; Morgan and Liker, 2006). Other benefits of supplier
development are: accrued collective knowledge is tacit and dispersed across complex webs
of inter-organizational interactions that cannot easily be acquired or copied by competitors
(Bicen and Johnson, 2015), collaborative partnering accelerates the process of innovation
diffusion among the involved actors (Ozorhon et al., 2013) and radical innovation can be
enabled through collaboration, particularly when practiced at a global scale (Tan and
Perrons, 2009).
4.5 Learning routines
Finally, Lean innovation is closely related to learning and various tools and techniques can
help to make the learning process more efficient and effective.
Efficient learning processes. With respect of efficiency, two key components of Lean
innovation, namely, waste elimination through standardization and improved process flow
are frequently put forward (Morgan and Liker, 2006). Both of these help to free up resources,
which in turn, are to be re-invested in creativity-demanding, non-repetitive (often
knowledge-generating), difficult to standardized activities (Adler, 1993; Schuh, 2013;
Sewing et al., 2008).
Administrative activities such as meetings, documentation and reporting (Schuh, 2013)
and training of new employees and use of equipment (Sewing et al., 2008) are some areas
conducive to standardization. Process flow refers to “rhythmic”cycles of activities with
minimum interruptions (sometimes referred to as “cadence”; Ward and Sobek II, 2014), and
it can be achieved by limiting and prioritizing the number of projects (e.g. portfolio
management, kanban project phasing[1]) (Boehm, 2012; Cooper and Edgett, 2008; Helander
et al., 2015), minimizing “undesirable”[2] process variability (Nepal et al., 2011), establishing
a“pull”system to prevent process variation (Reinertsen and Shaeffer, 2005), staggering
projects to level the workload (or Heijunka in Lean terminology) (Hoppmann et al., 2011),
keeping project handoffs at a minimum (Nepal et al., 2011), flexible staffing (Morgan and
Liker, 2006) and avoiding any scatter effect such as distracted developers, unavailable
resources or disrupted communication (Nepal et al., 2011; Ward and Sobek II, 2014).
Furthermore, small-scale batch-sized experiments (Ries, 2011; Reinertsen and Shaeffer,
2005), as well as a clean and organized workplace (Sewing et al., 2008) can improve flow.
Effective learning processes. The effective learning process refers to the value or
applicability of learning outcomes, e.g., deducing insight from testing process to initiate
succeeding testing iterations, augmenting product functionalities in close consultation with
users and sharing captured knowledge across the organization wherever and whenever
needed (Sehested and Sonnenberg, 2011). To enhance effectiveness, learning process is to be
structured with a clear scope and objectives (Ries, 2011); it is not about unfettered
exploration, but rather a systemic and controlled process of hypothesis-testing (Biazzo,
2009; Ries, 2011), or in the words of Smith et al. (1999) “guilty-until-proven-innocent”
assumptions. Hence, experimentation is not a “shot in the dark”; it is virtually a scientific
problem-solving process backed up with validated data (Bicen and Johnson, 2015; Bieraugel,
2015; Nepal et al., 2011; Sewing et al., 2008), starting with a solid understanding of customer
expectations of value and anti-value (Browning and Sanders, 2012; Cooper and Edgett, 2008;
TQM
Helander et al., 2015; Letens et al., 2011; Mascarenhas Hornos da Costa et al., 2014), and
aiming to fill knowledge gaps with quick iterations of small-scale experiments (e.g. rapid
prototyping, simulation or minimum viable products) (Blanks, 2013; Hoppmann et al., 2011;
Ries, 2011).
Such learning process calls for a systematic approach, which can be managed with tools
and techniques such as Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) (the Deming wheel) to systematize the
learning process and collect users’early feedback; various root-cause analysis techniques
such as 5 Whys, Fishbone diagrams, trade-off curves and cross-checking; set-based
concurrent engineering to allow for more alternative solution-testing, while delaying certain
decisions until sufficient insight is achieved before narrowing down (also called front-
loading); visualization techniques (e.g. value stream mapping, spaghetti diagram); and
metrics and performance indicators (e.g. patent metrics, cycle-time, revenue projection,
quality index) to steer processes, measure results and, particularly, communicate in a
stimulating way (e.g. Adler, 1993; Carleysmith et al., 2009; Cooper and Edgett, 2008;
Helander et al., 2015; Hoppmann et al., 2011; Khan et al., 2013; Nepal et al., 2011; Pohl, 2012;
Ries, 2011; Sewing et al., 2008; Smith et al., 1999; Ståhl et al., 2015; Stonemetz et al., 2011; Tam
et al., 2012).
In addition, the literature draws attention to knowledge management, i.e., how to
effectively capture, store, organize, categorize, update data/knowledge pool and make data/
knowledge accessible whenever and wherever needed (Hoppmann et al., 2011; Khan et al.,
2013; Morgan and Liker, 2006). Some areas where knowledge management appears to be
critical are knowledge transfer between running projects (Hines et al., 2006; Cusumano and
Nobeoka, 1998), knowledge retention (e.g. by keeping their technical experts much longer in
their technical position before moving them toward general management) (Hoppmann et al.,
2011), elicitation of critical tacit knowledge (Belt et al., 2009).
5. The Leanovation framework
With a bird’s-eye view on the five dimensions as discussed in the previous Section 2 important
observations can be made. First, each dimension requires a set of multilayered ambidextrous
capabilities including: employees’collective accountability vs a self-regulatory work setting
(culture vs structure), efficiency vs effectiveness in learning processes (learning routines),
exploration vs exploitation together with stakeholders (internal and external collaboration)
and competent leadership that stimulates a culture of innovation while managing and
monitoring learning routines and practices. This suggests that management teams do well to
be aware of this ambidexterity, and strive to not overly emphasize one side or the other.
Second, although each the five dimensions in the previous section are discussed
independently, the data also indicate that they mutually support and reinforce one another.
The so-called “Leanovation framework”as shown in Figure 2 attempts to describe such
connectivity between the dimensions. Below the various connections between the
dimensions (i.e. the arcs in Figure 1) will be shortly discussed.
As part of collaborative internal structure, multidisciplinary teams with self-regulative
authority can perpetuate a mindset and attitude of accountability and continuous
improvement across the organization. At the same time such a mindset and attitude help to
uphold and enhance the desire among employees for collaboration with cross-functional
colleagues and their willingness to fully benefit from organizational non-confinement in
their decision-making. As part of learning routines, several tools and practices can
be employed, mainly to cater for a more efficient and effective learning process, which
can be enriched with the involvement of and feedback from the value chain. In turn, the
released value can be co-appropriated by the involved stakeholders in terms of higher
quality and novel products and services, optimized operations and knowledge
Application of
Lean principles
and practices
spillover (Gülyaz, 2017). The learning culture spurs staff on to use learning routines, while
applying the routines institutionalizes learning within the culture. Likewise, a collaborative
intra-organizational structure can be seen as a cognitive preparation of
inter-organizational collaboration, which in turn helps to further establish a collaborative
working routine. In this sense, there is a reinforcing effect between the four dimensions of
innovation management.
The literature on Lean innovation considers coaching as an adhesive force
between −and a facilitator of −all four other dimensions. Lean innovation coaching is
marked by a synergetic combination of technical competence, visionary thinking, a
trust-driven relationship with employees, keen to serve employees by accommodating
them with resources and supporting them in their problem-solving endeavors.
It emphasizes the importance of suppliers and customers, orchestrating their
involvement in R&D activities. In terms of internal organization, the Lean coach
empowers employees, thus steering them toward self-development, self-regulation and
self-reliance on their path of “learning how to learn”and “continuous persuasion of
perfection.”The Lean coach therefore establishes and maintains process orientation,
which means that inter-disciplinary cross-functional network of inter/intra-organizational
actors collaborate to serve the downstream customer. Such an organizational structure
enables and is reinforced by a learning culture with an everlasting thirst for creativity.
The Lean innovation leader fulfills an indispensable role, feeding this culture by acting as
the epitome of Lean principles and practices, and actively guides and encourages others in
adopting an explorative, inquisitive mindset, committed to continuous learning, along
with a collectivistic attitude.
6. Discussion
In the era of “innovate or perish,”understanding the mechanics of innovation is increasingly
important. Innovation capability does not come automatically; studies point out that it is the
outcome of effective and efficient management of innovation processes. The Lean
philosophy has proven to be a potential way to boost firms’innovation capability, by first,
“doing the right thing,”and then “doing it right,”and finally “doing it better”all the time
(Sehested and Sonnenberg, 2011, p. 3). The interest in Lean innovation has been immense,
leading to many scholarly publications in this area, and inevitably, a miscellaneous
Learning
Routines
Collaborative
External
Networks
Efficient Learning
Effective Learning
Customer Centricity
Supplier Development
Reinforce
Reinforce
Develop and
Orchestrate
Epitomize and
Stimulate
Monitor and
Guide
Establish
and Preserve
Reinforce
Reinforce
Collaborative
Internal
Structure
Self-regulatory
Process Orientation
Learning
Culture
Continuous Improvement
Collectivism
Coaching
Servant leader
People management
Figure 2.
The Leanovation
framework
TQM
collection of concepts, principles and practices that aim to shed light on how Lean can be
applied in the innovation management context.
Contributing to the existing socio-technical conception of Lean (Hadid et al., 2016;
Johnstone et al., 2011; Tortorella et al., 2016), this study integrates the literature into a
comprehensive framework consisted of cultural, relational, organizational, technical and
leadership attributes. It is not the attributes in isolation that describe the Lean innovation
system, but the reinforcing and synergistic effect in-between. Such a socio-technical system
requires ambidextrous capabilities which underline firms’ability to simultaneously pursue
exploitation and exploration (i.e. incremental improvement of current operations and
exploration of new breakthrough innovation) (Tushman, 2004). Gibson and Birkinshaw
(2004) refer to “structural”ambidexterity where firm creates “dual structure”to
accommodate exploitation and exploration separately, and “contextual”ambidexterity
where firms adopt a simultaneous adoption of exploration and exploitation (or alignment
and adaptability) across an entire business unit.
In the context of Lean implementation, Secchi and Camuffo (2019) advocate a
“situational”approach in choosing between structural and contextual ambidexterity –that
is, the choice between structural and contextual ambidexterity is contingent upon several
variables, including the type of business, the company size, the company’s strategic goal,
the size of targeted performance improvement. The synergistic relationship between Lean
principles and practices discussed in this study, however, call for a more contextual
ambidexterity where both soft and hard factors are simultaneously embedded in all layers
of organization regardless of firms’contingencies. It is evident, however, that more empirical
evidence is needed in exploring the role.
7. Managerial implications
Taking an organizational perspective, managers and practitioners are suggested to combine
both “soft”(e.g. learning culture, collaborative attitude) and “hard”(e.g. learning routines,
collaborative organizational structures) aspects of Lean philosophy, ensure coherence and
alignment between soft and hard factors and train managers to be supportive, inspiring,
respectful and trustworthy coaches, committed to the Lean journey, linking pin between
employees, focused on learning, with a clear vision. The proposed framework can stimulate
firms toward a well-balanced Lean innovation system where both the soft and hard aspects
are equally considered and synergistically interconnected.
Without any model validation pretense, Table II provides three illustrative cases from
healthcare, electronics and avionics industries, to which the Leanovation framework is
applied. It can be observed that in the case of public hospital there can be more emphasis on
employees’(autonomous) teamwork and concomitant collaborative mindset; in the electronics
company case, leadership seems to be limited to awareness programs and Gemba
management, and in the case of the avionics manufacturer, additional trainings around Lean
learning tools and techniques may stimulate the firm’s overall innovation culture.
8. Limitations and future work
To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to systematically review the existing body
of knowledge on the application of the Lean philosophy for innovation management.
That being said, the findings of this study are limited by the specific research method that was
used (e.g. more articles and books could have been collected by accessing more publishing
networks, using more search keys or applying fewer exclusion criteria). The work is further
limited by the conceptual nature of the study, which suggests that further empirical validation
is needed. For instance, engaging in action research to study how the framework may help
firms to improve their innovation capability, i.e., assessing the frameworks impact on
innovation performance by means of quantitative studies (Solaimani et al., 2019).
Application of
Lean principles
and practices
Case (references) Coaching Learning culture Collaborative internal
structure Collaborative external
networks Learning routines
Public hospital: innovative
solution to meet the
guidelines regarding arrival-
to-treatment interval for
cardiovascul-ar patients in a
public hospital in the UAE
(Abuhejleh et al., 2016,
pp. 29-30)
Servant leader
A committed team of
senior leaders
implementing
reverse pyramid
model of leadership
Engaging the front-
line staff and
caregivers to
improve the
processes they own
People management
Reviewing and
recognizing the staff
and the processes
Focus on problem-
solving and
engagement of front-
line caregivers and
managers
Gemba walks as a
sign of respect to
staff
Continuous improvement
Improving the hospital
culture through bottom-up
decision-making,
caregivers’empowerment,
shared communication,
and considering the
patients’interests as top
priorities
Engaging everyone in
continuous improvement
(identifying and solving
problems) to stimulate a
long-term patient-driven
improvement mindset
Collectivism
Collaborative problem-
solving leading to a culture
supportive of quality
improvement with joint
effort
Celebrating success
Process orientation
Multidisciplinary teams
who involved
stakeholders early in the
process
Quality improvement by
employee involvement
across all levels
Self-regulatory
Staff evaluation of as-is
workflow (including
suboptimal
communication with
physicians, pharmacy
space distribution) while
seeking for process
inefficiencies
Customer centricity
Focus on patients’
satisfaction (e.g. patients
“access and waiting time”),
which granted a sense of
urgency and support to
initiate a complete change
process with ambitious
goals
Supplier development
Besides substantial
reduction in waiting time,
the biggest achievement of
the Lean transformation
was empowering and
engaging the pharmacy
staff from day one, leading
to increased morale and
satisfaction, boosted self-
confidence, and unleashed
creativity
Efficient learning
Comprehensive analysis of
the data to identify waste
and barriers to flow (e.g.
communication channels
between various
departments, shortcomings
in outpatient’s pharmacy
process)
Effective learning
Applying PDCA cycles and
continuous testing by
piloting the ideas on the
ground before selection and
rollout
Training and developing
staff in Lean tools and
techniques (e.g. VSM
trainings)
By using the
measurements at every
step in projects and adding
them to VSM, the teams
excelled at brainstorming
and deep analyses
Philips: full-fledged
transformation to Lean
innovation on a global scale
(Ende, 2014; ICSB Report,
2014; Philips Innovation
Services, 2016a, b)
Servant leader
Not only looking into
the solutions but also
how solutions has
come into existence
Managers are
“coaches”and
stimulate
Continuous improvement
Stimulating staff toward a
continuous improvement
mindset
Lean behavioral
development for staff and
teams
Collectivism
Process orientation
Integration of more
departments in Lean
transformation until the
entire organization is
involved
Embedding an end-to-
end process view into
Customer centricity
Voice-of-customer in the
early development stage (e.
g. the needs of the “crowd”
via social media) to
minimize failures and
optimize “conversion”in
later stages
Efficient learning
Eliminating the waste of
unnecessary duplications
and “re-inventing the
wheel”to facilitate “rapid
learning cycles”
Increasing extent of
standardization of the
(continued )
Table II.
Deployment of
Leanovation
framework in three
illustrative cases
TQM
Case (references) Coaching Learning culture Collaborative internal
structure Collaborative external
networks Learning routines
improvement
initiatives
Committed and
engaged
management team
Coaches attended
awareness programs
and trainings
People management
Gemba walk as a
frequent ritual of
(executive) leaders to
see the problems and
work together with
small teams
Defining the innovation
process to ensure
transparency, and create a
sense of unity among
departments, disciplines
and business units
Focus on cross-
departmental alignment
management and
reporting structure to
eradicate inefficiencies
caused by
departmentalization
Facilitating small
entrepreneurial,
multidisciplinary teams
or “cells”
Self-regulatory
Encouraging staff
(informal) collaborative
problem-solving as part
of their daily work
Supplier development
Expanding the Lean
organization by involving
suppliers and co-
developers in the product
development process
Open community with
architects, hobbyists to
work with Philips’
interconnected and
intelligent lighting systems
Horizontal collaboration
with actors beyond the
supply network, such as
CitizenM (which is an
innovative hotel chain)
development processes (in
fact, even a good portion of
leaders tasks are
standardized)
Using “kamishibai”boards
as visual audit needed to
sustain standards
Effective learning
Lean innovation is about
two value streams: product
development (ideation to
commercialization) and
knowledge value stream
(knowledge generation,
capture, store and reuse) at
the base of product
development
For each problem, the
developer seeks the
corresponding “knowledge
holder”that can be found in
consultation with a
dedicated “knowledge
team”(with eight members,
each with its own expertise)
responsible for connecting
knowledge supply and
demand
“Critical question
mapping”and “set-based
engineering”to focus on
knowledge gaps
(continued )
Table II.
Application of
Lean principles
and practices
Case (references) Coaching Learning culture Collaborative internal
structure Collaborative external
networks Learning routines
Rockwell Collins: a Lean
innovation- centric enterprise
(Barrett and Long, 2003;
Srinivasan, 2010, pp. 387-393)
Servant leader
Creative leader who
can create a right
team with right
capabilities
(integrator)
Supportive attitude
toward innovation
and innovators
Securing leadership
commitment to
support and drive
enterprise behavior
People management
Mentoring program
to help employees
gain professional
skills and insight
Senior managers
involved in active,
periodic on-the-job
interactions
Consistent funding
for innovation
activities
Continuous improvement
Financial incentives and
peer recognition (e.g.
“Corporate Engineer of the
Year”) to encourage
everyone to spot
opportunities and trends
related to their own work
Introduction of “10X”
program to encourage the
staff to submit high-risk
ideas with ten times larger
impact on cost, size or
power requirements
Collectivism
Using performance metrics
that points to the general
effectiveness of R&D and
serves as a rallying point
around which multiple
groups can coalesce
Supporting the
development of
“communities of practice”
among engineers
Process orientation
Stimulating staff to have
a“big picture
perspective”so they
understand their impact
on the whole value
stream
Creating shared value
proposition across the
enterprise on the role
and value of innovation
Self-regulatory
Career trajectories to
enable staff to grow
within a technical role
and take on greater
responsibility to drive,
support, and manage
innovation efforts
Funding employees
ideas and allowing them
to develop their proof-of-
concept and once proven
viable, join the R&D
pipeline
Customer centricity
Adopting customer focus
as the organization value
Customers’needs and
expectation embedded in
teams’goals
Access to technologies that
enable flexibility to
respond to customers’
needs
Supplier development
Adopting “open
innovation”as an approach
to collaborate with
stakeholders involved in
innovation process
Involving multiple (internal
and external) stakeholders
in the enterprise innovation
system (e.g. product
development and trainings
with vendors)
Efficient learning
Designing various e-
learning modules and
computer-based trainings
to enable staff use their
time efficiently while
enjoying the trainings
Effective learning
Support organizational
learning with knowledge
management programs
Changing the learning
culture from static
classroom training to
“learner-controlled”setting
in which the learner
decides what, when, how
much
Co-location of engineers
with production team to
facilitate cross-functional
learning
Informal “brown bag
lunches”among
mechanical engineers or
functional teams who do
their own research
Table II.
TQM
Equally important is to study the interrelationships and interaction between various
dimensions of Lean innovation system. It is worth to note that the socio-technical duality of
literature appeared in this study is in line with the existing conception of Lean “system”
(Hadid et al., 2016; Soliman and Saurin, 2017). However, such a systemic view gives rise to
new questions including how the interaction effects work, i.e., in what combination the “sum
of the parts is greater than the whole”? Worded differently, how the sociocultural aspects
reinforce the techno-processual interventions? Particularly, the role of leadership as a
catalyst in effectuating the proposed framework requires more attention.
Another interesting area of study is the impact of the firm’s context on the model, such as
firms in dynamic vs stable markets, product vs service industries, knowledge intensive vs
labor intensive settings, SMEs vs large enterprises. The aim is to understand how effective
the proposed framework is various contexts? After all, there is no one-size-fits-all approach
in management of innovation; it is in fact contingent on a broad range of firms’internal and
external factors (e.g. Tidd, 2001). This study provides the overall structures, and a long list
of promising principles and practices that “modularly”can be combined to address the
firms’specific context and peculiarities. That said, Lean may not always be applicable
(Andersson et al., 2006); further research is needed to address possibly conflicting views on
Lean innovation management and other approach to innovation management. Finally, Lean
is considered as a gradual transformation (Boehm, 2012). Accordingly, future studies can
focus on the Lean innovation management “transformation process”and how it can be
monitored and evaluated along a maturity model.
Finally, while in qualitative terms the volume of literature on “learning routines”hints
that scholars have mainly focused on Lean tools and techniques (see Table I: learning
routines); hence, further research is needed to develop a more refined understanding of the
less tangible (or soft) aspects of Lean innovation management.
Notes
1. The Kanban rule permits a limited number of simultaneous projects at various stages of product
development, e.g., backlog, in progress, built, validated (Ries, 2011).
2. In contrast to manufacturing settings, where variability is conventionally ruled out, R&D may
benefit from variability and hence “desirable”and “undesirable”variability need to be
distinguished from one another (Reinertsen and Shaeffer, 2005). For instance, as part of drug
discovery process, generation of more substance variants (i.e. compound design) is desirable, but
undesirable is any variation in measurement of substance properties (Walker and Davies, 2011).
References
Abuhejleh, A., Dulaimi, M. and Ellahham, S. (2016), “Using lean management to leverage innovation in
healthcare projects: case study of a public hospital in the UAE”,BMJ Innovations, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 22-32.
Adler, P.S. (1993), “Time-and-motion regained”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 97-108.
Al-Ashaab, A. and Sobek, D.K. (2013), “Lean product and process development: a value creation
paradigm that goes beyond lean manufacturing”,International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 1103-1104.
Al-Ashaab, A., Golob, M., Urrutia, U.A., Gourdin, M., Petritsch, C., Summers, M. and El-Nounu, A.
(2016), “Development and application of lean product development performance measurement
tool”,International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 342-354.
Al-Ashaab, A., Golob, M., Attia, U.M., Khan, M., Parsons, J., Andino, A., Perez, A., Guzman, P., Onecha, A.,
Kesavamoorthy, S., Martinez, G., Shebab, E., Berkes, A., Hague, B., Soril, M. and Sopelana, A.
(2013), “The transformation of product development process into lean environment using
set-based concurrent engineering: a case study from an aerospace industry”,Concurrent
Engineering, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 268-285.
Application of
Lean principles
and practices
Anand, G. and Kodali, R. (2008), “Development of a conceptual framework for lean new product
development process”,International Journal of Product Development, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 190-224.
Andersson, R., Eriksson, H. and Torstensson, H. (2006), “Similarities and differences between TQM,
six sigma and lean”,The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 282-296.
Angelis, J. and Fernandes, B. (2012), “Innovative lean: work practices and product and process
improvements”,International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 74-84.
Antony, J., Setijono, D. and Dahlgaard, J.J. (2016), “Lean six sigma and innovation –an exploratory
study among UK organisations”,Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 27
Nos 1-2, pp. 124-140.
Aoki, K. and Lennerfors, T.T. (2013), “Global business the new, improved Keiretsu”,Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 91 No. 9, pp. 109-119.
Baines, T., Lightfoot, H., Williams, G.M. and Greenough, R. (2006), “State-of-the-art in lean design
engineering: a literature review on white collar lean”,Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 220 No. 9, pp. 1539-1547.
Ballard, G. and Howell, G. (2003), “Lean project management”,Building Research & Information, Vol. 31
No. 2, pp. 119-133.
Barnhart, T. (2008), “Lean in R&D: the surprising fit”, Future State Spring, pp. 1-3.
Barnhart, T.M. (2016), Creating a Lean R&D System: Lean Principles and Approaches for
Pharmaceutical and Research-Based Organizations, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Barrett, B. and Long, K. (2003), “Case study: Rockwell Collins and IBEW locals 1362 and 1634”, MIT
Sociotechnical Systems Research Center (SSRC), Cambridge, MA.
Bel, R. (2010), “Leadership and innovation: learning from the best”,Global Business and Organizational
Excellence, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 47-60.
Belt, P., Haapasalo, H., Harkonen, J., Mottonen, M. and Kess, P. (2009), “Improving product development
in different types of ICT companies”,International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 6
No. 6, pp. 672-693.
Bhasin, S. and Burcher, P. (2006), “Lean viewed as a philosophy”,Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 56-72.
Biazzo, S. (2009), “Flexibility, structuration, and simultaneity in new product development”,Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 336-353.
Biazzo, S., Panizzolo, R. and de Crescenzo, A.M. (2016), “Lean management and product innovation: a critical
review”, in Chiarini, A., Found, P. and Rich, N. (Eds), Understanding the Lean Enterprise –Strategies,
Methodologies, and Principles for a More Responsive Organization, Measuring Operations
Performance, Springer, London.
Bicen, P. and Johnson, W.H. (2015), “Radical innovation with limited resources in high-turbulent
markets: the role of lean innovation capability”,Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 278-299.
Bidault, F., Despres, C. and Butler, C. (1998), “The drivers of cooperation between buyers and suppliers
for product innovation”,Research Policy, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 719-732.
Bieraugel, M. (2015), “Managing library innovation using the lean startup method”,Library
Management, Vol. 36 Nos 4/5, pp. 351-361.
Blank, S. (2013), “Why the lean start-up changes everything”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 91 No. 5,
pp. 63-72.
Boehm, E. (2012), “Improving efficiency and effectiveness in an automotive R&D organization:
how a traditional R&D division reshaped itself into a high-performance organization”,
Research-Technology Management, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 18-25.
Bozdogan, K. (2010), “Towards an integration of the lean enterprise system, total quality management,
six sigma and related enterprise process improvement methods”, in Blockley and Shyy, W.
(Eds), Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, John
Wiley & Sons, pp. 1-23.
TQM
Braczyk, H.J. (1996), “Organisational restructuring as an innovation strategy Lean production in
industry”,Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 362-372.
Browning, T.R. and Sanders, N.R. (2012), “Can innovation be lean?”,California Management Review,
Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 5-19.
Bruce, M. and Moger, S.T. (1999), “Dangerous liaisons: an application of supply chain modelling for
studying innovation within the UK clothing industry”,Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 113-125.
Bruce, M., Daly, L. and Towers, N. (2004), “Lean or agile: a solution for supply chain management in the
textiles and clothing industry?”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 151-170.
Byrne, G., Lubowe, D. and Blitz, A. (2007), “Using a Lean Six Sigma approach to drive innovation”,
Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 5-10.
Carleysmith, S.W., Dufton, A.M. and Altria, K.D. (2009), “Implementing Lean Sigma in pharmaceutical
research and development: a review by practitioners”,R&D Management, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 95-106.
Cooper, R.G. and Edgett, S.J. (2008), “Maximizing productivity in product innovation”,Research
Technology Management, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 47-58.
Crute, V., Ward, Y., Brown, S. and Graves, A. (2003), “Implementing Lean in aerospace –challenging
the assumptions and understanding the challenges”,Technovation, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 917-928.
Cusumano, M.A. and Nobeoka, K. (1998), Thinking Beyond Lean: How Multi-project Management
is Transforming Product Development at Toyota and Other Companies, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Dal Forno, A.J., Forcellini, F.A., Kipper, L.M. and Pereira, F.A. (2016), “Method for evaluation via
benchmarking of the lean product development process: multiple case studies at Brazilian
companies”,Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 792-816.
Danese, P., Manfè, V. and Romano, P. (2018), “A systematic literature review on recent lean research:
state-of‐the-art and future directions”,International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 579-605.
Delbridge, R., Lowe, J. and Oliver, N. (2000), “Shopfloor responsibilities under lean teamworking”,
Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 11, pp. 1459-1479.
Denton, D.K. (1999), “Gaining competitiveness through innovation”,European Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 82-85.
De Toni, A. and Tonchia, S. (1996), “Lean organization, management by process and performance
measurement”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 221-236.
Dickson, E.W., Anguelov, Z., Vetterick, D., Eller, A. and Singh, S. (2009), “Use of lean in the emergency
department: a case series of 4 hospitals”,Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 54 No. 4,
pp. 504-510.
Dombrowski, U. and Mielke, T. (2013), “Lean leadership –fundamental principles and their
application”,Procedia CIRP, Vol. 7, pp. 569-574.
Dyer, J.H. and Hatch, N.W. (2006), “Relation‐specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers:
creating advantage through network relationships”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 27
No. 8, pp. 701-719.
Edquist, C. (2001), “Systems of innovation for development”, Background paper for UNIDO World
Industrial Development Report 2002/3, UNIDO, Vienna.
Emiliani, B. (2008), Practical Lean Leadership: A Strategic Leadership Guide for Executives, The Center
for Lean Business Management, LLC, Wethersfield, CT.
Ende, V.J. (2014), “Philips laat kennis stromen (in Dutch –Philips let knowledge stream)”, available at:
www.procesverbeteren.nl/Lean_Six_Sigma/Philips_knowledge_value_stream.php (accessed
August 21, 2019).
Application of
Lean principles
and practices
Evans, P. and Wolf, B. (2005), “Collaboration rules”,IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 33
No. 4, pp. 50-57.
Everett, L.Q. and Sitterding, M.C. (2013), “Building a culture of innovation by maximizing the role of the
RN”,Nursing Administration Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 194-202.
Ferreira, G.S.A., Silva, U.R., Costa, A.L. and Pádua, S.I.D.D.D. (2018), “The promotion of BPM and
lean in the health sector: main results”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 400-424.
Fiore, C. (2005), Accelerated Product Development, Productivity Production Press, New York, NY.
Fink, A. (2005), Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Florida, R. (1996), “Lean and green: the move to environmentally conscious manufacturing”,California
Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 80-105.
Forbes, L.H. and Ahmed, S.M. (2010), Modern Construction: Lean Project Delivery and Integrated
Practices, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
George, M.L. and George, M. (2003), Lean Six Sigma for Service, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Gibson, C.B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004), “The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 209-226.
Green, S.D. and May, S.C. (2005), “Lean construction: arenas of enactment, models of diffusion and the
meaning of leanness”,Building Research & Information, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 498-511.
Gudem, M., Steinert, M. and Welo, T. (2014), “From lean product development to lean innovation:
searching for a more valid approach for promoting utilitarian and emotional value”,
International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 1-20.
Gülyaz, E. (2017), “Extending Lean framework beyond the conventional boundaries: exploring
value creation and appropriation in SMEs and service”, doctoral dissertation, Nyenrode
Business University, Breukelen.
Gülyaz, E., van der Veen, J.A.A., Venugopal, V. and Solaimani, S. (2019), “Towards a holistic view of
customer value creation in lean: a design science approach”,Cogent Business & Management,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-46.
Guston, D.H. (2008), “Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp”,Nature, Vol. 454 No. 7207,
pp. 940-941.
Hadid, W., Mansouri, S.A. and Gallear, D. (2016), “Is lean service promising? A socio-technical
perspective”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 36 No. 6,
pp. 618-642.
Haque, B. and James-Moore, M. (2004), “Applying lean thinking to new product introduction”,Journal
of Engineering Design, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-31.
Harkonen, J., Belt, P., Mottonen, M., Kess, P. and Haapasalo, H. (2009), “Analysing telecom companies
using the Toyota NPD model”,International Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 7 No. 5,
pp. 544-561.
Helander, M., Bergqvist, R., Stetler, K.L. and Magnusson, M. (2015), “Applying lean in product
development-enabler or inhibitor of creativity?”,International Journal of Technology
Management, Vol. 68 Nos 1-2, pp. 49-69.
Hicks, B.J. (2007), “Lean information management: understanding and eliminating waste”,International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 233-249.
Hines, P. and Lethbridge, S. (2008), “New development: creating a lean university”,Public Money and
Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 53-56.
Hines, P., Francis, M. and Found, P. (2006), “Towards lean product lifecycle management: a framework
for new product development”,Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17
No. 7, pp. 866-887.
TQM
Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean
thinking”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,
pp. 994-1011.
Hoerl, R.W. and Gardner, M.M. (2010), “Lean Six Sigma, creativity, and innovation”,International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 30-38.
Holweg, M. (2007), “The genealogy of lean production”,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 420-437.
Hopp, W.J. and Spearman, M.L. (2004), “To pull or not to pull: what is the question?”,Manufacturing &
Service Operations Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 133-148.
Hoppmann, J., Rebentisch, E., Dombrowski, U. and Zahn, T. (2011), “A framework for organizing lean
product development”,Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Hoss, M. and ten Caten, C.S. (2013), “Lean schools of thought”,International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 51 No. 11, pp. 3270-3282.
Hutchins, M.D. (2008), Hoshin Kanri: The Strategic Approach to Continuous Improvement,
Gower Publishing, Routledge, London.
ICSB Report (2014), “Lean innoveren: een kijkje in de keuken bij Philips (in Dutch –Lean innovation:
behind the scenes at Philips)”, available at: http://icsb.nl/artikelen/lean-innoveren-een-kijkje-in-
de-keuken-bij-philips/ (accessed August 21, 2019).
Jie, F. and Gengatharen, D. (2019), “Australian food retail supply chain analysis”,Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 271-287.
Johnstone, C., Pairaudeau, G. and Pettersson, J.A. (2011), “Creativity, innovation and lean sigma: a
controversial combination?”,Drug Discovery Today, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 50-57.
Karlsson, C. and Åhlström, P. (1996), “The difficult path to lean product development”,Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 283-295.
Khan, M.S., Al-Ashaab, A., Shehab, E., Haque, B., Ewers, P., Sorli, M. and Sopelana, A. (2013), “Towards
lean product and process development”,International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 1105-1116.
Kinkel, S. and Som, O. (2010), “Internal and external R&D collaboration as drivers of the product
innovativeness of the German mechanical engineering industry”,International Journal of
Product Development, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 6-20.
Kippel, A.F., Peter, C.O. and Antunes, J.A.V. Jr (2008), “Lean management implementation in mining
industries”,DYNA, Vol. 75 No. 154, pp. 81-89.
Kline, S.J. and Rosenberg, N. (1986), “An overview of innovation”, in Landau, R. and Rosenberg, N.
(Eds), The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 275-305.
Lantz, A., Hansen, N. and Antoni, C. (2015), “Participative work design in lean production: a strategy
for dissolving the paradox between standardized work and team proactivity by stimulating
team learning?”,Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 19-33.
Leite, M., Baptista, A.J. and Ribeiro, A.M.R. (2016), “A road map for implementing lean and agile
techniques in SMEs product development teams”,International Journal of Product Development,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 20-40.
Letens, G., Farris, J.A. and Van Aken, E.M. (2011), “A multilevel framework for lean product
development system design”,Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 69-85.
Liker, J.K. and Choi, T.Y. (2004), “Building deep supplier relationships”,Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 82 No. 12, pp. 104-113.
Liker, J.K. and Morgan, J.M. (2006), “The Toyota way in services: the case of lean product
development”,The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 5-20.
Lindeke, R.R., Wyrick, D.A. and Chen, H. (2009), “Creating change and driving innovation in
highly automated and lean organizations: the Temporal Think Tank™(T3™)”,Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 879-887.
Application of
Lean principles
and practices
Lindlöf, L., Söderberg, B. and Persson, M. (2013), “Practices supporting knowledge transfer –an
analysis of lean product development”,International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 1128-1135.
McManus, H.L. (2005), “Product development value stream mapping (PDVSM) manual”, Lean
Aerospace Initiative (LAI), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Majerus, N. (2016), Lean-Driven Innovation: Powering Product Development at the Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company, CRC Press, New York, NY.
Mann, D. (2009), “The missing link: lean leadership”,Frontiers of Health Services Management, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 15-26.
Mann, D. (2014), Creating a Lean Culture: Tools to Sustain Lean Conversions, CRC Press, New York, NY.
Mascarenhas Hornos da Costa, J.M.H., Oehmen, J., Rebentisch, E. and Nightingale, D. (2014), “Toward a
better comprehension of Lean metrics for research and product development management”,
R&D Management, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 370-383.
Maskell, B.H., Baggaley, B. and Grasso, L. (2011), Practical Lean Accounting: A Proven System for
Measuring and Managing the Lean Enterprise, CRC Press, New York, NY.
Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B. and Towill, D.R. (2000), “Lean, agile or leagile? Matching your supply
chain to the marketplace”,International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 38 No. 17,
pp. 4061-4070.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mintzberg, H. (2004), Managers, not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and
Management Development, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Morgan, J.M. and Liker, J.K. (2006), The Toyota Product Development System: Integrating People,
Process, and Technology, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Morris, L. (2011), The Innovation Master Plan: The CEO’s Guide to Innovation, Innovation Academy,
Walnut Creek, CA.
Nahmens, I. and Ikuma, L.H. (2011), “Effects of lean construction on sustainability of modular
homebuilding”,Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 155-163.
Näslund, D. (2008), “Lean, six sigma and lean sigma: fads or real process improvement methods?”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 269-287.
Naylor, B.J., Naim, M.M. and Berry, D. (1999), “Leagility: integrating the lean and agile manufacturing
paradigms in the total supply chain”,International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62
No. 1, pp. 107-118.
Nepal, B.P., Yadav, O.P. and Solanki, R. (2011), “Improving the NPD process by applying lean
principles: a case study”,Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 65-81.
Nicoletti, B. (2015), “Optimizing innovation with the lean and digitize innovation process”,Technology
Innovation Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 29-38.
Okoli, C. and Schabram, K. (2010), “A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information
systems research”,Sprout: Working papers on Information Systems, Vol. 10 No. 26, pp. 1-49.
Ota, M., Hazama, Y. and Samson, D. (2013), “Japanese innovation processes”,International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 275-295.
Ozorhon, B., Abbott, C. and Aouad, G. (2013), “Integration and leadership as enablers of innovation in
construction: case study”,Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 256-263.
Pettersen, J. (2009), “Defining lean production: some conceptual and practical issues”,The TQM
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 127-142.
Philips Innovation Services (2016a), “Lean innovation: product development in the next decade”,
available at: www.innovationservices.philips.com/news/lean-innovation-product-development-
next-decade (accessed August 21, 2019).
TQM
Philips Innovation Services (2016b), “Masterclass on ‘Best-in-class product development with Lean’”,
available at: www.innovationservices.philips.com/news/best-in-class-product-development-lean/
(accessed August 21, 2019).
Piercy, N. and Rich, N. (2009), “The implications of lean operations for sales strategy: from sales-force
to marketing-force”,Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 17 Nos 3-4, pp. 237-255.
Pohl, H. (2012), “Japanese automakers’approach to electric and hybrid electric vehicles: from
incremental to radical innovation”,International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 57
No. 4, pp. 266-288.
Polk, J.D. (2011), “Lean Six Sigma, innovation, and the change acceleration process can work together”,
Physician Executive, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 38-42.
Poppendieck, M. and Poppendieck, T. (2003), Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit,
Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, MA.
Porter, M.E. (1990), “The competitive advantage of nations”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 2,
pp. 73-93.
Quinn, J.B. (1985), “Managing innovation: controlled chaos”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 63 No. 3,
pp. 73-84.
Radeka, K. (2016), The Mastery of Innovation: A Field Guide to Lean Product Development,
Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Radnor, Z. (2010), “Transferring lean into government”,Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 411-428.
Rauch, E., Dallasega, P. and Matt, D.T. (2016), “The way from lean product development (LPD) to smart
product development (SPD)”,Procedia CIRP, Vol. 50, pp. 26-31.
Raudberget, D. (2010), “Practical applications of set-based concurrent engineering in industry”,Journal
of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 685-695.
Reinertsen, D. and Shaeffer, L. (2005), “Making R&D lean”,Research-Technology Management, Vol. 48
No. 4, pp. 51-57.
Ries, E. (2011), The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs use Continuous Innovation to Create
Radically Successful Businesses, Crown Business, New York, NY.
Ringel, M., Taylor, A. and Zablit, H. (2015), “The most innovative companies 2015”, available at:
https://media-publications.bcg.com/MIC/BCG-Most-Innovative-Companies-2015-Nov-2015.pdf
(accessed August 21, 2019).
Ruffa, S.A. (2008), Going Lean: How the Best Companies Apply Lean Manufacturing Principles to
Shatter Uncertainty, Drive Innovation, and Maximize Profits, AMACOM, New York, NY.
Sakai, Y., Sugano, T. and Maeda, T. (2007), “Introduction of Toyota production system to promote
innovative manufacturing”,Fujitsu Scientific and Technical Journal, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 14-22.
Salah, S. (2017), “Lean Six Sigma and innovation: comparison and relationship”,International Journal
of Business Excellence, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 479-493.
Schuh, G. (2013), Lean Innovation, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg.
Schuh, G., Lenders, M. and Hieber, S. (2011), “Lean Innovation –introducing value systems to product
development”,International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 41-54.
Secchi, R. and Camuffo, A. (2019), “Lean implementation failures: the role of organizational
ambidexterity”,International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 210, pp. 145-154.
Sehested, C. and Sonnenberg, H. (2011), Lean Innovation, A Fast Path from Knowledge to Value,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg.
Sewing, A., Winchester, T., Carnell, P., Hampton, D. and Keighley, W. (2008), “Helping science to
succeed: improving processes in R&D”,Drug Discovery Today, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 227-233.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007), “Defining and developing measures of lean production”,Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 785-805.
Application of
Lean principles
and practices
Siyam, G.I., Wynn, D.C. and Clarkson, P.J. (2015), “Review of value and lean in complex product
development”,Systems Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 192-207.
Smith, D.J. and Tranfield, D. (2005), “Talented suppliers? Strategic change and innovation in the UK
aerospace industry”,R&D Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 37-49.
Smith, G.R., Herbein, W.C. and Morris, R.C. (1999), “Front-end innovation at AlliedSignal and Alcoa”,
Research-Technology Management, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 15-24.
Sobek, D.K. II, Ward, A.C. and Liker, J.K. (1999), “Toyota’s principles of set-based concurrent
engineering”,Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 67-84.
Solaimani, S., Talab, A.H. and van der Rhee, B. (2019), “An integrative view on Lean innovation
management”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 105, December, pp. 109-120.
Soliman, M. and Saurin, T.A. (2017), “Lean production in complex socio-technical systems: a systematic
literature review”,Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 45, October, pp. 135-148.
Solleiro, J.L., Castañón, R. and Gaona, C. (2016), “Promoting lean innovation for SMEs: a Mexican case”,
in Al-Hakim, L., Wu, X., Koronios, A. and Shou, Y. (Eds), Handbook of Research on Driving
Competitive Advantage through Sustainable, Lean, and Disruptive Innovation, IGI Global,
Hershey, PA, pp. 165-184.
Srinivasan, J. (2010), “Creating a lean system of innovation: the case of Rockwell Collins”,International
Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 379-397.
Ståhl, A.C.F., Gustavsson, M., Karlsson, N., Johansson, G. and Ekberg, K. (2015), “Lean production tools
and decision latitude enable conditions for innovative learning in organizations: a multilevel
analysis”,Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 47, March, pp. 285-291.
Stonemetz, J., Pham, J.C., Necochea, A.J., McGready, J., Hody, R.E. and Martinez, E.A. (2011), “Reduction
of regulated medical waste using lean sigma results in financial gains for hospital”,
Anesthesiology Clinics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 145-152.
Swank, C.K. (2003), “The lean service machine”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 10, pp. 123-130.
Takeuchi, H., Osono, E. and Shimizu, N. (2008), “The contradictions that drive Toyota’s success”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 6, pp. 96-104.
Tam, D.A., Chessum, T. and Leopold, J. (2012), “The challenge of innovation and the high-performance
team”,Health Environments Research & Design Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 66-73.
Tan, K.H. and Perrons, R.K. (2009), “Is globalisation an enabler of radical innovation in Toyota?”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 285-298.
Tennant, C. and Roberts, P. (2001), “Hoshin Kanri: implementing the catchball process”,Long Range
Planning, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 287-308.
Terwiesch, C. and Ulrich, K.T. (2009), Innovation Tournaments: Creating and Selecting Exceptional
Opportunities, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
Thomson Reuters (2015), The State of Innovation in the Automotive Industry 2015, Thomson
Reuters, available at: http://science.spb.ru/files/presentation/2015/thomson_reuters/SOI-
Automotive-Industry-Report.pdf (accessed June 2018).
Tidd, J. (2001), “Innovation management in context: environment, organization and performance”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 169-183.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and
Organizational Change, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Tortorella, G.L., Marodin, G.A., Fettermann, D.D.C. and Fogliatto, F.S. (2016), “Relationships between
lean product development enablers and problems”,International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 54 No. 10, pp. 2837-2855.
Transfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”,Britisch Journal
of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Trott, P. (2008), Innovation Management and New Product Development, 4th ed., Prentice Hall, London.
TQM
Tuli, P. and Shankar, R. (2015), “Collaborative and lean new product development approach: a case
study in the automotive product design”,International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53
No. 8, pp. 2457-2471.
Tushman, M.L. (2004), “The ambidextrous organization”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 4,
pp. 74-81.
Tyagi, S., Cai, X., Yang, K. and Chambers, T. (2015), “Lean tools and methods to support
efficient knowledge creation”,International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 204-214.
Ullman, F. and Boutellier, R. (2008), “A case study of lean drug discovery: from project driven research
to innovation studios and process factories”,Drug Discovery Today, Vol. 13 No. 11, pp. 543-550.
Walker, S.M. and Davies, B.J. (2011), “Deploying continuous improvement across the drug discovery
value chain”,Drug Discovery Today, Vol. 16 No. 11, pp. 467-471.
Wallace, T. (2004), “Innovation and hybridization: managing the introduction of lean production into
Volvo do Brazil”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 8,
pp. 801-819.
Ward, A.C. and Sobek, D.K. II (2014), Lean Product and Process Development, Lean Enterprise Institute,
Cambridge, MA.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson
Associates, New York, NY.
Further reading
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Procedures and Techniques for
Developing Grounded Theory, Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Application of
Lean principles
and practices
Appendix
About the authors
Sam Solaimani is Associate Professor at Nyenrode Business University. Sam holds a PhD Degree from
Delft University of Technology, with focus on Business Model innovation in complex networked
enterprises. He has obtained an MSc (Cum Laude) on Business Information Systems from University of
Amsterdam, and a BSc on Information Science from Utrecht University. He has published in several
peer-reviewed academic journals, some of which have recently appeared in the journals of European
Management Review,Electronic Markets,Information Systems Frontiers,Technological Forecasting and
Social Change and Information Systems Management. His research focuses on lean management,
emerging technologies and business model innovation, particularly in supply chain context.
Sam Solaimani is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: s.solaimani@nyenrode.nl
Jack van der Veen is Professor of Supply Chain Management and holder of the evofenedex Chair for
SCM at Nyenrode Business University sponsored by the Dutch shipper association. Also, Jack is
Cluster lead “Lean at SME”at the Nyenrode Lean Institute. Furthermore, Jack is the Chairman of VLM,
the Dutch society for logistics and supply chain professionals. Jack’s areas of interest include
operations research, production and logistics management, operational excellence, lean management,
social innovation and supply chain collaboration. Courses taught by him at various institutes, include
“Operations Management”and “Supply Chain Management.”He also gave many seminars and
workshops for industry and taught in many (executive) programs, primarily on Supply Chain
Management-related issues. Jack has published numerous articles both in international research
journals and in managerial journals and regularly writes columns for various Dutch websites.
Durward K. Sobek II is Professor in and Program Coordinator of Industrial and Management
Systems Engineering at Montana State University. He holds PhD and MS Degrees in Industrial and
Operations Engineering from the University of Michigan, and an AB Degree in Engineering
Sciences from Dartmouth College. His research focuses on how organizations can increase their
performance capacity through the application of lean principles, particularly in new product
R&D Management,
3
Engineering
Management
Journal, 3
Drug Discovery
Today, 4
Research
Technology
Management, 4
Harvard Business
Review, 4
International
Journal of
Computer
Integrated
Manufacturing, 4
Publishers with
one or two
article(s), 66
19%
15%
17%
14%
14%
11%
10%
(a)
(c)
Notes: (a) Publishers with .3 articles on Lean and Innovation Management; (b) underlying
disciplines of the selected articles; (c) industry sectors involved in the selected articles; (d) main
perspectives of the selected articles
(d)
(b)
Miscellaneous
(e.g., Journal of Workplace Learning, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews)
Manufacturing and Engineering
(e.g., Manufacturing Engineering, Engineering Management Journal)
Innovation and R&D
(e.g., R&D Management, International Journal of Product Development)
Information Communication Technology
(e.g., International Journal of Technology Management,
International Journal of Information Management, Research-Technology Management)
Operations, Production and Quality
(e.g., International Journal of Operations and Production Management)
Business and Strategy
(e.g., HBR, MIT Sloan, California Management Review, Strategic Management Journal)
Healthcare and Medicine
(e.g., Drug Discovery Today, Nursing Administration Quarterly)
Manufacturing
17%
Generic
23%
Automotive
16%
Pharmaceutical
10%
Healthcare
5%
Aerospace
5%
Construction
3%
Engineering
3%
Multi-sector
5%
Miscellaneous
(incl. ICT,
Library,
Startup, Telco)
7%
39%
36%
13%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%1
9
10
12
12
13
17
15
1
2
2
2
3
11
32
34
(New) Product Development
Research and Development
Toyota Production System
Continuous Improvement
Lean Start-up
Sustainability
Knowledge Management
Design Engineering
Total Quality Management
Figure A1.
Complementary
descriptive
representation of data
TQM
development and healthcare. He is Co-founder of the not-for-profit Lean Product and Process
Development Exchange, Inc. whose mission is to share and expand the body of knowledge around
lean product and process development.
Erdogan Gulyaz is Senior Project Manager –New Product Development (NPD), working for a large
multinational organization. He worked as Design Engineer, Process Engineer and Project Manager
(NPD) over 12 years in various countries for multinational organizations. Following his MBA, he
pursued a PhD in “Lean and Competitiveness,”which he finished in 2017. Besides, he is Lean Master
Trainer and Operations Management Lecturer at Nyenrode Lean Institute. Erdogan has authored
several peer-reviewed publications in the area of OM. Erdoğans’areas of interest include Lean
management, customer value, new product development and value creation and appropriation.
Venu Venugopal is Professor of Supply Chain Operations at Nyenrode University. He received his
MSc in Operations Research, MSc in Industrial Management and PhD in Operations Management.
Currently, he teaches in MBA, MSc and Executive programs at Nyenrode. His teaching and research
areas include operations management, supply chain management and modeling business decisions. He
has published research papers in reputed international journals such as International Journal of
Production Research,European Journal of Operations Research,Computers in Industry,Decision
Support Systems,Journal of Operational Research Society and OR Letters.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Application of
Lean principles
and practices
