Content uploaded by Henrik Saabye
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Henrik Saabye on May 01, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Lean and action learning:
towards an integrated theory?
Henrik Saabye
Department of Materials and Production, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark and
VELUX, Østbirk, Denmark
Daryl John Powell
SINTEF Manufacturing, Raufoss, Norway and
Department of Business, Strategy and Political Sciences, USN School of Business,
Kognsberg, Norway, and
Paul Coughlan
Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Abstract
Purpose –Beingacquaintedwithbothleanandactionlearningintheoryandinpractice,thisstudyfinds
that the theoretical complementarity of these two research streams has traditionally been
underexploited. In this conceptual paper, this study aims to advance the theoretical understanding of
lean by exploring the complementarity of lean thinking and action learning leading to a proposed
integrated theory of these two research streams. Target audience is the operations management research
community.
Design/methodology/approach –By deliberately adopting a process of theorising, this paper explores,
reflects upon and combines individual experiences of researching, teaching and engaging in lean and action
learning as operations management scholars.
Findings –Having taken a gemba walk through the literature and practices of lean and action learning,
this study views and notices a systematic and complementa ry relationship between the two domains. The
overlapping theoretical and practical complementarities of lean and action learning suggest that these
two research streams are ripe for synthesis into an integrated theory. This finding provides an
opportunity to (1) progress towards an integrative design of interventions leading to more sustainable
lean system adoptions and (2) add new depth to our theoretical explanation of the success and failures of
lean system adoptions.
Originality/value –This paper contributes an original integrated theory perspective on lean and action
learning.
Keywords Lean, Action learning, Theorising
Paper type Conceptual paper
IJOPM
43,13
128
© Henrik Saabye, Daryl John Powell and Paul Coughlan. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may
reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of
this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
The authors want to acknowledge our lean research community for reflective and reflexive
discussions on lean and learning, especially:
Dan Jones, Michael Ball
e, P€
ar
Ahlstr€
om, Torbjørn Netland, Peter Hines, Pamela Danese, Desiree van
Dun, Matthias Th€
urer, Rachna Shah, Constantin Blome, Federico Caniato, Marte Holmemo,
Hanne Finnestrand, David Romero, Paolo Gaiardelli, Matteo Zanchi, Eivind Reke, Jacques Chaize,
John Shook, Jim Womack, Jiju Antony, Rose Heathcote, Graham Howe, Richard Morgan, Thomas
Borup Kristensen, Vincent Wiegel, Lejla Brouwer-Hadzialic, Jannes Slomp, David Coghlan and not least
our three reviewers and Co-Editor-in-Chief Tobias Schoenherr.
Funding: The authors would like to acknowledge support from the Research Council of Norway for
the research project Lean Digital (grant no. 295145).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0144-3577.htm
Received 10 June 2022
Revised 14 October 2022
5 December 2022
Accepted 10 December 2022
International Journal of Operations
& Production Management
Vol. 43 No. 13, 2023
pp. 128-151
Emerald Publishing Limited
0144-3577
DOI 10.1108/IJOPM-06-2022-0371
1. Introduction
From our combined experiences of studying, teaching and practising lean and action learning
as operations management scholars, we recognise likenesses and similar nuances in both
approaches. Further, we have discovered and explored how lean practitioners for years have
exhibited the use of action learning without being conscious of it. Therefore, by deliberately
adopting a process of theorising (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995;Hansen and Madsen, 2019;
Pagell and Wu, 2009), we seek with this conceptual paper to engage in a discussion and
reflection, enabling us and the operations management research community to advance our
theoretical understanding of lean by exploring the complementarity of lean and action
learning. We suggest that a conscious theoretical integration of lean and action learning
provides the operations management research community with an additional theoretical lens
for understanding the process of lean system adoption. This theoretical integration will
provide practitioners with an integrative intervention design invoking the complementarity
of lean and action learning towards realising the true promise of lean.
In a recent viewpoint article in this journal (
Ahlstr€
om et al., 2021), leading lean scholars
discussed and reflected upon both lean as a theory and the theoretical underpinnings of lean.
We visualise these perspectives in Figure 1 using a View-Master stereoscopic disc as a
metaphor. As one rotates the various lenses on the disc, one is immersed in the alternative
views of lean and the respective theoretical perspectives. The scholars agreed that, although
lean may not be a theory in itself, it does present itself as an umbrella concept for several
underlying theories and lenses, including lean as a socio-technical system (Danese); lean as a
business phenomenon (Netland); and lean as a meta-theory concerned with a culture of
learning and leadership (Powell and van Dun). However, while several of these perspectives
touch on the importance of learning in a lean transformation, none touch specifically on action
learning as a theoretical (or practical) perspective for realising the promise of lean.
Reading through the most cited articles in the leading operations management journals, as
well as the most popular business books on lean, we find that Revans’theory of action
learning is rarely included as a basis for understanding the core of lean thinking, its principles
and its practices (e.g. Revans, 1971,2011;Marquardt et al., 2017). Reflecting upon these
different lenses of what constitutes lean from a theoretical point of view, we raise the
following research question: What are the theoretical and practical complementarities of lean
and action learning and how can these two research streams be synthesised into an integrated
theory? This question originates from both practice- and research-based insights that lean
and action learning share several similarities, including a focus on finding, facing, framing
Figure 1.
The view-master reel:
a metaphor for the
different lenses of lean
Lean and
action learning
129
and forming solutions to problems (by applying a scientific method) –a perspective that
presents problem-solving in groups as a superior form of learning and leading, all founded on
systems thinking (Ball
eet al., 2019;Liker, 2021;Revans, 2011).
Being acquainted with both lean and action learning in theory and practice, we also find
that an integrated theory of these two streams of thought and practice provides an
opportunity towards (1) an integrative design of interventions during lean system adoptions
and (2) explaining the success and failures of lean system adoption theoretically. According to
Kristensen et al. (2022),Powell and Coughlan (2020a) and Saabye et al. (2022), applying action
learning is a useful and sustainable approach to developing problem-solving capabilities and
eventually becoming a lean organisation. Moreover, both lean and action learning are deeply
rooted in a respect for people and society perspective (Liker, 2021;Ball
eet al., 2017;Boshyk
and Dil worth, 2010). These insights suggest similarities between lean and action learning
practice but suffer from an absence of clarity about the complementarity between the two
related research streams. Rooted in this comparison and in conjunction with our own research
and practice, we go beyond the ongoing debate about lean as a theory and reflect on lean and
action learning as an integrated theory. We propose a novel perspective where lean thinking
contributes a theoretical component of what constitutes a lean system (in various contexts),
and action learning contributes a complementary theoretical component of what constitutes
the adoption and sustaining of a learning system as a (meta) cognitive foundation.
As we develop our thinking, we are guided by Brown and Eisenhardt (1995),Pagell and Wu
(2009) and Hansen and Madsen (2019). We present our development as a process of theorising
towards an integrated theory linking lean and action learning. In their paper, “Product
development”: Past research, present findings and future directions, Brown and Eisenhardt
(1995) identified, examined and compared identifiable research streams within the literature as a
starting point for proposing an integrated model. For us, lean and action learning are such
streams. Supplementing Brown and Eisenhardt (1995),Pagell and Wu (2009) specifically guided
our coding and analysis process, in which the paper’s integrative intervention design invoking
the complementarity of lean and action learning emerged. To develop and defend our proposal in
response to our observation that action learning theory is rarely considered in the ongoing
debate about lean theory, we adopt Weick’s argument that the process of theorising is as
important as focusing on theory as an outcome (Hansen and Madsen, 2019).
As a conceptual paper, we begin by outlining our method of theorising, followed by
reviewing the literature on lean and action learning to locate our academic families. Then,
once our academic families are located and connected, we present the theoretical foundation
for proposing an integrated theory of lean and action learning by outlining the similarities
and complementarity between the two streams of research derived from the literature.
Finally, we reflect on and discuss the contribution to practice and theory and propose
potential paths for future research.
2. Method: theorising
We see the challenge of inquiring into the complementarity of lean and action learning as
requiring our engagement in theorising, the process of constructing a theory (Lee et al., 2011).
In addressing this challenge, we are guided by Hansen and Madsen (2019), who see theorising
as “the process through which a theory is created, from the first feeble hunch to the final theory,
presented in print to the reader”(p. vii). For them, theorising involves talking, listening,
reading and writing in a community of scholars. It is this very process that guides our
methodological choices in constructing an integrated theory of lean and action learning.
In the practice of theorising, Hansen and Madsen (2019) emphasise the fundamental role of
conversation and engagement in a community of scholars. In this regard, we wish to express our
gratitude to the lean research community, especially the reviewers, editor and colleagues
IJOPM
43,13
130
mentioned in the acknowledgement section. As members of that community or family, we
introduce ourselves in terms of our respective experiences and how we came to collaborate. The
first author is employed as a Lean Manager at VELUX and an Industrial PhD fellow at Aalborg
University. He has more than 15 years of experience as a consultant, partner, coach and leader
within leadership and organisational development based on lean thinking from LEGO, Orsted and
the Danish Ministry of Transportation. The second author is Chief Scientist at SINTEF
Manufacturing and adjunct professor at both the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology and the University of South-Eastern Norway. He is also an award-winning lean author
and practitioner, having won the prestigious Shingo Research Award for The Routledge
Companion to Lean Management in 2017 and the Shingo Publication Award for the Lean Sensei in
2020. Moreover, he guided Kongsberg Maritime’s Subsea Division to receive the Norwegian Lean
Enterprise of the Year Award in 2017. The third author is a recognised academic in the field of
Operations Management. A EurOMA fellow, he has been active in European research networks
for more than 20 years, exploring and publishing in relation to systemic and systematic
improvements in operations and their roots in action learning and collaborative innovation.
Essentially, our theorising process began at the EurOMA conference in Trondheim,
Norway, in 2016. The second and third authors met to discuss the second author’s, then-
current practitioner endeavours in developing and deploying a lean program at Kongsberg
Maritime. Here, the ideas of action learning (more precisely network action learning) were
shared. From then on, the second author adopted the action learning formula L 5PþQto
guide his further development of the lean program deployment, particularly when it
concerned collaboration within and across the company’s supplier network. This work was
later written-up and published in IJOPM (see Powell and Coughlan, 2020a). Action learning
was also used to frame the company’s internal corporate lean program, providing practical
insights and implications for learning and continuous improvement (see Powell and
Coughlan, 2020b). Shortly after these articles were published, the first author reached out to
the second author as a “sparring partner”for his current work as an industrial PhD fellow at
Velux in Denmark. Inspired by the IJOPM publication “Rethinking lean supplier development
as a learning system”(and the special session “Lean Research: 30th Anniversary and mid-life
crisis”at EurOMA, 2020 in Warwick, UK), he was ready to explore some ideas about lean
thinking and action learning, while being open to the possibility of a fundamental theory
combining both approaches. From then on, our collaboration in co-authoring and teaching, as
well as our discussions with academic and practitioner colleagues, has given us the
opportunity to engage in our theorising on lean and action learning.
2.1 Coding process and analysis process
In our process of identifying the six similar and complementary elements of lean and action
learning (see Section 4.3) as the foundation for proposing our integrated theory, as illustrated
in Figure 2 (see Section 5), we were guided by Pagell and Wu (2009). The coding process was
as follows. Firstly, while co-authoring an earlier paper on lean and action learning (Saabye
and Powell, 2022), the first and second authors reflected on and discussed over several
meetings what lean can learn from action learning and what action learning can learn from
lean. Building on our combined insights into lean and action learning, a list of nine similarities
emerged from these conversations. Then the two authors invited the third author into the
conversation to review the proposed list of similarities between lean and action learning and
to advance the conceptualisation of this current paper. Second, once we refined the initial list
of similarities with the third author, we applied it as a coding scheme to review the existing
lean and action learning literature and locate the relevant references supporting our identified
similarities. During this iterative literature review, the coding scheme emerged as six themes
of similar and complementing lean and action learning elements. The themes reflect the
Lean and
action learning
131
underlying and logical (learning) process which characterises both domains. Third, with the
six similar and complementary elements located, we applied them as a theoretical lens to
analyse three cases (see Sections 4.2 and 5.2) and a classroom training scenario (see Section
3.2). Finally, we applied the insights obtained from this analysis to conceive Figure 2 (see
Section 5) as a proposed integrated theory (1) towards proposing an integrative design of
intervention during lean system adoptions and (2) explaining the success and failures of lean
system adoptions sustainment theoretically.
3. Literature review: locating our academic families
A foundational part of our theorising process towards proposing an integrated lean and
action learning theory is a literature review to locate our academic family of fellow scholars
who have shaped thinking in the area (Hansen and Madsen, 2019). To locate our family, we
first provide an interpretive synthesis of the lean literature, reflecting the challenge we have
identified and exploring the potential complementarity with action learning. Second, through
empirically identified inadequacies of expert-driven lean transformations, we outline the core
components of action learning theory and how action learning can complement lean
regarding adaptation and sustainment.
3.1 Lean
The concept of lean emerged out of the codification of the Toyota production system (Ohno,
1988) and was firstly labelled by Krafcik (1988) and later popularised by Womackros and
Jones (1990), who codified the five lean principles of (1) Specify the values, (2) Identify the
value stream, (3) Flow, (4) Pull and (5) Strive for perfection. Initially, the lean research stream
Figure 2.
The lean-action
learning
theoretical lens
IJOPM
43,13
132
focused on understanding and theorising the lean principles-based manufacturing systems of
Just-in-time and Jidoka to eliminate waste and improve quality for the benefit of the
customers (Jasti and Kodali, 2015). The research stream resulted in a vast amount of scientific
papers that provided detailed descriptions of the application of lean philosophy, principles,
practices and tools (Jasti and Kodali, 2015;Stentoft and Freytag, 2013). E.g. Jasti and Kodali
(2015) identified 848 publications between 1988 and 2011. Among these papers, 53% were
descriptive, 21% were empirical, 22% were exploratory and only 1% were conceptual. Lean
research has transcended into other sectors. However, since the many lean tools and methods
were primarily codified on the manufacturing shop floor, 76% of these papers can be
characterised as Lean Manufacturing, despite Karlsson and
Ahlstr€
om’s (1996) notation that a
lean system must be understood as a Lean Enterprise which covers everything within an
organisation. Besides Lean Manufacturing, Lean Enterprise systems must also include Lean
Product development and Lean Supply Chain. An overall conclusion from reviewing the first
two decades of lean research did not result in a clear definition since only a few of the
published papers discussed the basis and meaning of lean and actually documented the
preconditions and effect of the phenomenon (Stentoft and Freytag, 2013).
During the last decade of lean research, the “efficiency”lean research stream has
continued searching for a definition and theory behind the lean system. For example, recent
papers published in the Journal of Operations Management (JOM) also reflect on lean as a
theory (Hopp and Spearman, 2021) but choose to retain the efficiency stream of lean research
framed three decades ago. This perspective, concerned essentially with the implementation of
methods and systems for reducing waste, was subsequently scrutinised by Cusumano et al.
(2021), who considered that lean is more than efficiency and not confined to operations
management.
Originating from this critique is a distinction between “hard”and “soft”lean practices, where
“hard”practices refer to applying technical and analytical tools through an industrial
engineering lens (Bortolotti et al., 2015;Hines, 2022). Researching lean through a “hard”practices
approach has been criticised for not fully explaining the underlying “success”or “failures”of
lean systems adoption. Therefore, other studies have considered the “soft”lean practices as
unquestionably one of the most important factors in an organisation’s successful
implementation of lean (Bortolotti et al., 2015;Magnani et al., 2019). “Soft”practices, in
contrast to “hard”practices, concern people and relations, such as involving and empowering
front-line workers in small-group problem-solving and continuous improvement, supplier
partnerships, customer involvement and leadership (Bortolotti et al., 2015;Holmemo et al.,2018).
According to Bortolotti et al. (2015),“soft”lean practices are used more frequently by successful
lean plants. Also, other “soft”lean aspects have become part of the contemporary lean research
stream, such as “respect for people”(Emiliani and Stec, 2005;Ljungblom and Lennerfors, 2021),
lean leadership (Liker and Convis, 2011;Netland et al., 2019); culture (Dorval et al., 2019;Hines,
2010)and“hoshin kanri”(Jolayemi, 2008;Tennant and Roberts, 2001).
3.1.1 Lean and learning. From a “hard”lean practice perspective, the purpose of lean tools
and methods is to improve efficiency. In contrast, the “soft”lean practice perspective
considers the purpose of lean tools and methods is to identify learning opportunities and
problems to be solved, which then as an outcome can lead to improved performance (Ball
e
et al., 2019). Therefore, in another stream of lean research –the lean learning research stream
–Hines et al. (2004) define the foundation of lean as the ability to learn to evolve. Moreover,
according to Holweg’s (2007) seminal paper on how to become successful with lean, or TPS in
the case of Toyota, lean can be attributed to the presence of a “dynamic learning capability”
within and across the organisation, developing and innovating practices over several
decades. Coming out of the last decade, lean has evolved within other sectors outside
manufacturing, e.g. within service (Hadid et al., 2016), project management (Swink et al., 2006),
construction (Salem et al., 2006) and health care (Johnson et al., 2020). A central finding
Lean and
action learning
133
emerging from this research stream is that a lean enterprise can be described as a learning
organisation with the ability to improve through learning (Rother, 2010;Tortorella et al., 2020;
Liker, 2021;Rother, 2010;Saabye et al., 2020). Correspondingly, it is the ability to find, face,
frame and solve problems following the scientific method that is foundational for a lean
learning organisation (e.g. Ball
eet al., 2017;Camuffo and Gerli, 2018;Kristensen et al., 2022;
Liker, 2021;St
ahl et al., 2015;Tortorella et al., 2015).
Applying the lean learning lens, the “efficiency”lean research stream suffers from
“several”shortcomings, like lack of learning and cognitive realism. Firstly, the “efficiency”
stream of lean research has not been occupied by how leaders and employees become
cognitively aware and effective in finding, framing and solving problems (Shook, 2008;Ball
e
et al., 2017). There seems to exist a naive understanding and focus on what constitutes
learning. Teaching the codified problem-solving principles, tools and methods to leaders and
employees in a traditional sense based on a fundamental assumption that best practices can
simply be transferred from one context to another has proven inadequate. This reflection
raises some new questions: how do leaders and employees become meta-cognitively aware of
how they think about and learn to become better at solving problems, and how do they develop
others to solve them? As such, they are considered to have a learning-to-learn capability that
enables them to constantly find, frame, face and solve problems (Saabye et al., 2022;Powell
and Coughlan, 2020a;Ball
eet al., 2017). Similarly, Liker (2021) perceives Toyota as a lean
organisation as one of history’s best examples of a learning organisation, as defined by Senge
(2006). Building on the disciplines of personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team
learning and systems thinking, such a learning organisation focuses on addressing
expansive thinking patterns through the lens of systems thinking to foster a second-order
learning capability to lean.
As a learning capability, lean is about learning in and from action. The objective is to
understand and improve the processes and work through experimentation, reflection,
teaching and empowering workers and managers to innovate for the benefit of the customers
(Cusumano et al., 2021;Saabye et al., 2022). This learning stream of research regards lean
practices and tools as methods of generating knowledge and surfacing problems rather than
just increasing efficiency and eliminating waste. In that sense, it is, therefore, lean tools are
understood as learning tools with the inherent purpose of creating learning opportunities.
Hence, “A3 thinking”(Shook, 2008), “Toyota Kata”(Rother, 2010), “hoshin kanri”(Jolayemi,
2008;Tennant and Roberts, 2001) and “lean leadership”(Liker and Convis, 2011;Netland
et al., 2019) have become fundamental contributors to a systematic multi-purpose learning
process of simultaneously solving concrete problems and developing problem-solvers and
leaders as learning facilitators.
3.1.2 Lean as a learning system. Emerging from the lean learning lens is a notion that lean
is to be considered a learning system that seeks to maximise learning opportunities for
internal and external actors and pinpoint the strategic tools necessary to deliver value to
customers (Hines et al., 2004). The lean learning lens challenges the thinking that lean
knowledge is synonymous with the ability to transfer standard solutions from an expert to a
lean-learner during lean adoption. Instead, the lean learning lens adopts a Socratic approach
of fostering a dialectic process based on equal power between the learners and a (lean)
learning facilitator, enabling a helping relationship of learning and reflection among the
learners (Saabye et al., 2022). Organisations need to encompass superior adaptable and
flexible capabilities (i.e. learning and innovation) to cope with the increasing velocity of
changes stemming for disruptions and changes in the external environment, like COVID-19.
Correspondingly, systematic and continuous learning by a lean-practising organisation
allows it to adapt quickly to its changing environment (Gutierrez et al., 2022). According to
Gutierrez et al. (2022), this requires a lean culture that is oriented towards learning.
Consequently, lean is viewed as a learning or education system rather than a production
IJOPM
43,13
134
system that applies across sectors (Ball
eet al., 2019;Hines et al., 2020;Fenner et al., 2023;
Powell and Reke, 2019). Therefore, the organisation leaders must reorient themselves
towards facilitating learning and fostering a psychologically safe environment, which
becomes a foundational element for adopting a lean system (Fenner et al., 2023;Saabye, 2022).
Adopting the above perspective, Ball
eet al. (2019, p. 3) present lean as a learning system in the
following way:
Lean is a system to continuously develop people and create a culture of problem-solving; a strategy
to face challenges by engaging and involving all problem solvers into exploring issues and forming
unknown solutions by learning experientially from practical countermeasures. Lean tools are
techniques to create the conditions for such experiential learning, and the lean approach turns
management upside down by turning the chain of command into a chain of help: challenge and
support, rather than command and control,
Adopting the above definition of lean raises the question of how organisations might
institutionalise lean as a learning system. To address this question, we turn our attention to
our other academic family –those engaged in action learning –which may offer actionable
insights into solving this problem.
3.2 Action learning
There is a broad consensus that a core element of implementing a lean system is problem-
solving capabilities among the leaders and employees (Bateman, 2005;Camuffo and Gerli,
2018;Liker, 2021). However, what is a problem, what constitutes problem-solving capabilities
and how do organisations develop these? Many organisations often focus on developing
employees’ability to apply tools and templates to a (perceived) problem without an
underlying appreciation of the challenge or appropriate learning and action orientation.
Consider, for example, the following scenario:
The practice at manufacturing organisations where the first author worked was the classroom
approach to developing lean capabilities. Typically, selected employees participated in two-day
classroom training sessions focused on ‘practical problem-solving. The instructors presented the
theory and steps behind the practical problem-solving process and the associated analysis tools,
including fishbone, 5xwhy, Pareto and process analysis. The participants were exposed to small
exercises and cases to understand the tools and templates better. After the two days of classroom
training, the participants were instructed to identify a problem to start working on once back in their
departments. For help, they were advised to reach out to the instructors for sparring and coaching.
The instructors would then follow up on how the participants solved their problems and used the
tools and templates. However, at the follow-up sessions and despite giving the two-day training
course a high rating, most participants had not worked on their identified problems or applied the
tools and templates.
So, why did the participants not apply the practical problem-solving tools and templates in
practice? Was it because the tools or templates were poorly constructed? Or was it because
they did not have any problems to solve? Or was it that they could not recognise a problem
outside of the classroom context? Moreover, on reflection, could there have been a better way
to develop the ability to apply structured problem-solving in practice and eventually adopt a
lean system? Or, more fundamentally, was the training informed by any underlying theory of
lean that had validity but limited relevance? These practice-based prompts inform and
motivate the following review of the action learning literature in the context of lean
transformations.
3.2.1 Action learning components. Action Learning, as devised by Revans, proposed that
“there can be no learning without action and no (sober and deliberate) action without learning”
(Revans, 2011, p. 85). He resisted efforts to define action learning but outlined the assumptions
underpinning it, including learning being cradled in the task and formal instruction is not
Lean and
action learning
135
sufficient; learning involving doing and solving problems requires insightful questions.
Moreover, Revans (2011) draws upon a critical distinction in action learning between puzzles
and problems. Puzzles are regarded as issues with a single solution. Often organisations
request a specialist or expert to solve these puzzles. On the other hand, problems are
situations with no single answer and are not amenable to specialist intervention alone
(Revans, 2011). Often during lean transformations, lean learners are unwittingly being
trained to act as specialists and puzzle solvers. Yet, most of the lean learners’opportunities for
change and improvement in practice may arise in the context of a mix of machine
malfunctions and situations where people were not acting as expected. Therefore, the
training may not prepare participants to face problems with no single solution.
In addition, Revans (2011) specifies action learning with a learning formula, L 5PþQ
(Revans, 2011). Here, (L) stands for learning through insightful questioning (Q) in relation to
programmed knowledge (P). Revans stated that learning always starts with Q in an
endeavour to face, find and frame a problem which needs to be resolved. In contrast, lean
training and transformations often begin with experts or instructors focused on teaching the
lean learners the programmed knowledge (P) of lean tools and practices (Holmemo et al., 2018;
Scherrer-Rathje et al., 2009) in the hope of building understanding and comprehending lean in
the expense of developing the lean learners’ability to ask insightful questions (Q).
Another theoretical and foundational element of action learning is Revans’(1971)
praxeology of cyclical systems –alpha, beta and gamma. System alpha is about framing a
problem by considering the specific context. System beta concerns solving problems
structurally by applying a scientific method. Finally, system gamma discusses the
participants’learning from critical reflections upon their beliefs, underlying assumptions
and behaviours throughout the problem-solving process. During lean transformations, those
responsible often attend training courses that, at best, only convey programmed knowledge
(P) of the scientific method (system beta) but miss out on finding, facing and framing
problems (system alpha) and critical reflection and scrutinising underlying assumptions
(system gamma).
In summary, the lean and action learning streams point to two well-grounded and
potentially complementary perspectives on lean. However, together, do they address our
research question? For now, we contend, not yet. Despite the emergence of the lean learning
research stream, we suggest that a specific connection to an action learning dimension is
missing.
4. Analysis: connecting our academic families
As proposed, lean is about establishing a lean learning system –not deploying tools and
techniques, which requires action learning. In that sense, lean is actually an action learning
system. To further develop our proposed link and complementarity between lean and action
learning towards an integrated theory, we adopt Turner’s (2022, p. 3) definition of
complementarity:
Complementarity is the interaction of business strategies and management practices to produce
coherent, aligned and mutually reinforcing systems and processes that give superior outcomes (such
as shareholder value, profit, customer satisfaction, market share or cost reduction) over those that
would occur if such strategies or practices had taken place independently of one another. It is where
the complementary agency of those strategies produces superior results, where the relations of
independent units or their evolution creates higher value than their individual operation.
To illustrate the complementarity between lean and action learning, we first present a
description of what an application of action learning in a lean initiative might look like in
practice. Then, we outline three cases from the literature to explore lean and action learning
IJOPM
43,13
136
complementarity. In the first case, action learning is omitted during a lean transformation
despite the best (rhetorically) intentions (Holmemo et al., 2018). In contrast, we then present
two further cases where the respective authors have applied action learning as both a theory
and practice for adopting lean. In essence, these latter cases connect the two families.
4.1 Applying action learning
The learning design would be quite different by applying action learning instead of traditional
expert-driven lean implementations. The learning design would encompass action learning
groups where learning facilitators will firstly focus on (Q) challenging the lean learners to frame
a problem, take action and reflect on the action –by enacting systems alpha, beta and gamma.
There would be less prominence given to programmed knowledge (P) and more on asking
insightful questions (Q) and reflecting on practice. In particular, an action learning design will,
for example, encompass Marquardt et al.’s (2017, p. 28) six interactive components:
(1) A problem or opportunity: The core element of a lean transformation would be for the
participants to work on a concrete and relevant problem –not a puzzle, throughout
the course. Therefore, the training courses would not be organised around the full
day-class room training but split into small action learning workshops for several
weeks until the participants have solved their identified problems.
(2) A group: The lean learners would move from being passive students to engaged
members of an action learning group and act as critical friends, challenging and
supporting each other’s learning to define and solve their problems.
(3) Commitment to taking action: The purpose of action learning groups would be to
determine and conduct actions until a problem is solved rather than to devise
recommendations based on programmed knowledge as in a traditional classroom.
The learning focus would move from understanding and comprehending the
problem-solving tools and templates to framing and solving the specific problem.
Hence, the problem-solving tools and templates would become a means to an end –
not the end itself.
(4) Commitment to learning: Action learning is more than just learning about how to
solve a specific problem (system beta). The participants would also need to learn how
to frame and solve problems by applying the scientific method (systems alpha and
beta) and learn that you need to change yourself to become better at solving problems
(system gamma). Achieving this level of cognitive awareness requires a fundamental
commitment to learning.
(5) Questioning and reflection: Rather than relying on experts to solve problems, learning
occurs via questioning, investigating, experimenting and reflecting. Hence a core skill
for the participants to master is asking challenging questions –not coming up with
general answers. By learning this skill, the participants will experience that
challenging questions stimulate systems thinking, consensus building and impactful
actions.
(6) Action learning facilitator/coach: The traditional lean experts must also transform
their role –from a classroom teacher standing in front of the PowerPoint projector to a
coach and learning facilitator. Being a coach and action learning facilitator entails
fostering and improving the environment for learning and reflection among the
participants (system gamma) as they solve their problems and come to understand
and comprehend the usefulness and usability of the problem-solving tools and
templates in practice.
Lean and
action learning
137
4.2 Lean and action learning complementarity: cases from the literature
We present three cases from the literature to explore how lean and action learning might have
been or was associated with a learning-to-learn capability. The first case examines the
paradox of contemporary soft lean and consultant-driven lean implementation (Holmemo
et al., 2018). The second case reflects how a learning-to-learn capability is a critical success
factor for sustainable lean transformation within a supplier network (Powell and Coughlan,
2020a). Finally, the third case reflects how action learning enables the development of a lean
learning-to-learn capability that industry 4.0 technologies (Saabye et al., 2022).
4.2.1 Case 1: lean thinking: outside-in, bottom-up? The paradox of contemporary soft lean
and consultant-driven lean implementation (Holmemo et al., 2018). The first case study is a
longitudinal, qualitative case study of how external lean consultants were hired to help a
governmental service organisation to implement lean. The main goal of this design was to
introduce the coaching and learning ideal of lean thinking in order to assist the client
organisation in helping themselves implement lean. According to Holmemo et al. (2018),
although the external lean consultants’rhetoric reflected the modern ideal of “soft”lean, their
actual methods had not changed: implementation remained tool-focused, and outside
consultants assumed the responsibilities of subject matter experts and not lean learning
facilitators. For example, the consultants paradoxically used a “hard consulting”approach to
direct groups in their problem-solving efforts and instructed the appointed “lean navigators”
how to coach and develop others, as opposed to asking insightful questions to discuss until a
suitable solution has been devised. Moreover, the senior leaders were not engaged in fulfilling
a role as learning facilitators. Instead, the employees were trained as “lean navigators”.
Consequently, the engagement with the consultancy was prolonged since the self-sufficiency
objective of the governmental service organisation was not yet realised. Holmemo et al. (2018)
conclude that the rational, objective and decontextualised idea that lean is something that can
be brought in and established by an outside expert does not easily match with a “soft”,
participation-oriented lean. We regard this case as an example of lean transformation where
action learning is omitted, despite the best intention of (rhetorically) adapting to a “soft”lean
approach.
4.2.2 Case 2: rethinking lean supplier development as a learning system (Powell and
Coughlan, 2020). The second case addressed the research question: how can suppliers learn to
learn as part of a buyer-led collaborative lean transformation? The research site chosen was at
the Subsea Division of Kongsberg Maritime in Norway and six of its strategic suppliers.
Together, the network accounted for more than 60% of value-added in Kongsberg Maritime’s
core products. Together with its six strategic suppliers, the Subsea Division launched a
Network-action-learning (NAL) initiative to improve supply chain collaboration by
developing a shared understanding and practices of lean. The NAL initiative consisted of
six interventions: (1) Co-learning at a Lean lab, (2) Best practice study visits to exemplary lean
enterprises, (3) Individual company lean self-assessments, (4) Lean coaching and individual
company consultations, (5) Extended value stream mapping and (6) Rapid Lean
Assessments. These interventions were designed as NAL cycles of facilitating, monitoring
and reflecting on the interventions from individuals, groups, organisations and inter-
organisational perspectives. Powell and Coughlan (2020a, p. 936) applied an extension of
Revans’learning formula, L 5PþQ, proposed by Coughlan and Coghlan (2010), which
included organising insight (O) and inter-organisational insight (IO), hence arriving at
L5PþQþOþIO. They came to understand why developing a learning-to-learn capability
was a core construct and critical success factor for lean transformation and concluded that
NAL had a significant enabling role in buyer-led collaborative lean transformations.
4.2.3 Case 3: developing a learning-to-learning capability –insights on conditions for
industry 4.0 adoption (Saabye et al., 2022). The final case addresses how action learning
enables lean and industry 4.0 complementarity. In this case, the research site is one of the
IJOPM
43,13
138
Danish rooftop window and lean-intensive manufacturer VELUX’s Danish-based factories.
Despite practising lean for almost two decades, VELUX initially failed in adopting I4.0
technologies and improving operational performance during a digital transformation.
Acknowledging that a lean (learning system) built on a people and learning-based approach
had not been instituted as a prerequisite for adopting and utilising industry 4.0 technologies
required, VELUX Danish-based factory decided to initiate an action learning intervention to
develop a lean learning-to-learn capability. This 12-week action learning programme was
based on Revans’system alpha, beta and gamma principles and Marquardt et al. (2017) six
distinct interactive components of action learning. The purpose was to develop the
participants, starting with the general manager and senior leaders, into lean learning
facilitators capable of empowering and enabling others to adopt Revans’scientific method
when solving problems by fostering a supportive learning environment. Saabye et al., (2022)
proposed five underlying conditions for developing a lean learning-to-learn capability that,
for example, is capable of adopting industry 4.0 technologies: (1) Organisation-wide
systematic problem-solving abilities, (2) Leaders serving as (lean) learning facilitators, (3) A
supportive learning environment, (4) An organisational learning scaffold and (5) Knowledge
about I4.0 technologies and adoption.
5. Towards an integrated theory of lean and action learning
Having identified the two streams of lean research and action learning and have argued for a
link emerging from both practice and the extant literature, we are ready for the next step in
our theorising, where we connect our emergent academic families (Hansen and Madsen,
2019). We propose action learning as an additional theoretical lens to be integrated with lean
for understanding the process of lean system adoption and realising the promise of lean.
5.1 Reflecting on the overlap
To understand and comprehend this proposition, we reflect on the literature’s overlap
between action learning and lean. In Figure 2, we illustrate the six similar and complementing
elements of the two domains as inspired by the Toyota Production System (TPS) house
(Liker, 2021). The orientation of the six identified similarities (building blocks) is purposefully
arranged to resemble the underlying and logical (learning) process which characterises both
domains: The lean-action learning process begins (and rather repeats) with identifying and
solving problems through the application of the scientific method (1). Two pillars govern this
action learning process: individual learning (2) and group learning (3), which promotes
insightful questions over statements of knowledge (4) as a means to improve the whole
system (5), with a goal of both serving and improving society by demonstrating respect to
employees, customers, people and partners (6). We explore each element in turn.
5.1.1 Problem-solving by scientific method. According to Ball
eet al. (2017), lean is
fundamentally about finding, facing and framing the right problems and developing the
organisation’s members to solve these. Likewise, Liker (2021) defines scientific thinking as
the core of the TPS, connecting the four integrated and foundational categories of Philosophy,
Process, People and Problem-Solving.
In a complementary way, action learning revolves around empowering people to solve
unfamiliar, real, urgent and significant problems (Boshyk and Dilworth, 2010). Hence, if there
are no problems to solve, there is no basis for action learning (Marsick and O’Neil, 1999;
Marquardt et al., 2017;Pedler and Abbot, 2013). Both domains define a problem as a gap
between a current state and a future or goal state; hence framing problems is about
identifying or defining this gap, and problem-solving is about closing it (MacDuffie, 1997;
Mohaghegh and Furlan, 2020;Marquardt and Yeo, 2012). Problem-solving can be a reactive
Lean and
action learning
139
activity if it concerns returning a process to an expected state; or proactive if the focus is on
elevating it to the expected state (Sobek and Smalley, 2008;Marquardt and Yeo, 2012;
Smalley, 2018). Therefore, problems can be understood as repairing a malfunctioning system,
implementing a corporate strategy, overcoming a lack of organisational integration, reducing
incongruity within the organisation’s value system or inability to define a goal (Marquardt
and Yeo, 2012;Smalley, 2018).
The two domains embody nominally different methodologies for solving problems.
However, substantively both are similar in their systematic nature and progression towards
an emergent solution. Within the lean domain, the building blocks of the scientific method are
often referred to as the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) learning cycle, which was conceived by Dr
Edwards Deming: (1) Plan: Plan a change or test aimed at improvement, (2) Do: Carry it out,
preferably on a small scale, (3) Check: Study the results. What did we learn? and (4) Act:
Either adopt the change, abandon it, or run through the cycle again, possibly under different
environmental conditions. It was widely adopted after the Second World War, initially in
Japan, including by Toyota (Ball
eet al., 2017;Liker, 2021;Mohaghegh and Furlan, 2020). In
action learning, Revans (2011, p. 14) describes his five-step scientific method as a paradigm
for system beta: (1) survey/observation, (2) theory/hypothesis, (3) test/experiment, (4) audit/
evaluation and (5) review/control.
Another similarity between the two domains is a wish to preserve flexibility to respond to
the characteristics of the problem in its operating context. The process of solving problems is
perceived as a (meta) cognitive learning process following the scientific method through
experimentation and (critical) reflection and is not about following a pre-defined script of a
tool and template, as seen in the classroom training example in Section 3.2. Essentially
solving problems requires deep-thinking and not just filling out a piece of paper with pre-
defined steps and tools. For example, Taiichi Ohno opposed recording anything about the
Toyota system, as he believed that improvements were never-ending. By writing it down, the
process would become crystallised (Ohno, 1988, p. ix). This belief is exemplified in opposition
to codifying each methodology’s tools and methods. Similarly, Revans refused to define
action learning since he preferred to describe it in terms of what it was not. Revans believed
action learning would become constrained artificially by trying to define it. He, therefore,
purposely avoided giving simplistic techniques or recipe examples (Boshyk and Dilworth,
2010, p. 6). Revans was convinced that action learning could not be associated with puzzles,
textbooks, lectures, case studies, fabricated issues or simulations.
5.1.2 Individual learning. Both lean and action learning operate on a multi-purpose
foundation of simultaneously solving relevant problems, fostering insights and learning and
improving the organisation’s ability to solve future problems in a better way to achieve
strategic success (Ball
eet al., 2017;Liker, 2021;Marquardt et al., 2017). Therefore, the learning
generated from problem-solving efforts is perceived as of equal value to the solution.
According to Ohno (2013), employees at Toyota were not recognised for a successful result if
they could not account for their learning and steps leading up to the result. Likewise, Revans
conveyed that action and learning cannot be separated by stating that there is no learning
without action and no (sober and deliberate) action without learning (Rigg, 2015). This
statement from Revans also expresses the inference that solving problems takes place in
practice, and practitioners must distinguish between getting things done and talking about
getting things done (Revans, 2011, p. 5). Likewise, within the lean domain, the terms gemba
and genchi genbutsu are widely used to describe the practices of going to observe and
collecting the facts at the source of where a problem takes place in practice, that is, at the shop-
floor or the customers (Ball
eet al., 2017;Liker, 2021;Ohno, 2013). Moreover, it is at the gemba
where the employees learn and practice solving problems (Camuffo and Gerli, 2018;
Liker, 2021).
IJOPM
43,13
140
5.1.3 Group learning. Within the lean literature, problem-solving is often referred to as an
activity taking place within a group or team (Franken et al., 2021;Liker, 2021;Rother, 2010). In
some accounts, group problem-solving is described as a kaizen or kaizen event, where a group
of relevant and dedicated people have an accelerated timeframe to solve a specific problem
(Glover et al., 2013;Franken et al., 2021). In other (often older) accounts, quality circles describe
the manufacturing improvement activity of bringing a team together to work dedicatedly on
problems, e.g. quality, productivity or safety-related (Schonberger, 1983;Liker, 2021). Revans
often referred to quality circles as an example of action learning in Japan and sometimes
renamed them questioning circles (Boshyk and Dilworth, 2010). Thus, within action learning,
the group or set is the core entity where the members are responsible for reframing the
problem, assessing alternative actions, determining the goals, defining actions and
implementing these (Boak, 2016;Marquardt et al., 2017, p. 53).
Both the lean and action learning domains draw on theories from organisational learning
(Liker, 2021;Marquardt, 2011). E.g. West and Burnes (2000) investigated the link between
lean and organisational learning within the automotive industry. Saabye et al. (2020) explored
the association between lean and organisational learning within the context of technology
adoption, and Tortorella et al. (2015) studied lean adoption in Brazil through an
organisational learning lens. The action learning domain, e.g. Doyle et al. (2016)
investigated the link between action learning and public health care, and Pedler (2002)
studied local democracy through action learning and original learning theories. Finally,
Coughlan and Coghlan (2010) argued that sustainable strategic improvement in the extended
manufacturing enterprise is based on action and learning within and between firms and that
developing learning capabilities through appropriate learning mechanisms is central.
5.1.4 Leading with questions rather than statements of “knowledge”.Another similarity
between the lean and the action learning domain is the emphasis on leading change through
questioning and self-reflection (Marquardt, 2014;Liker and Convis, 2011;Pedanik, 2019).
Within the lean domain, the most crucial role of the leaders is to develop themselves and
others in problem-solving and kaizen through routines of coaching and asking questions
(Liker and Convis, 2011;Rother, 2010). According to Ball
eet al. (2017, p. 57), leaders enable
their employees, through questions, to define the goals and draw conclusions as opposed to
imposing readymade answers on them. Similarly, Maalouf and Gammelgaard (2016, p. 705)
conclude that leaders must assume the role of learning facilitators during change by boosting
employees’involvement and participation. Likewise, Adler and Borys (1996) suggest that
leaders must ensure enabling procedures instead of coercive ones, allowing and empowering
the employees to resolve problems themselves.
In Action Learning, asking fresh and insightful questions are foundational for enabling
groups to understand, clarify and explore problems and actions (Marquardt et al., 2017).
Moreover, questioning builds teamwork, improves listening skills and fosters individual,
team and organisational learning (Marquardt et al., 2017, p. 82). According to Pedanik (2019,
p. 120), asking questions can help people think critically and reflectively and shift their
behavioural patterns to resolve problems on their own in the future.
Critical reflection is also a dominant element of both domains and can be defined as
upstream and downstream learning (Coghlan and Coughlan, 2010, p. 198). The process of
questioning core assumptions, aspirations, objectives and life philosophy is called upstream
learning. Inquiring into behaviour, ways of relating and action in the world is referred to as
downstream learning, and it expresses the result of upstream learning in social and
leadership behaviour. In the lean literature, critical reflection or deep reflection is referred to
as hansei. It is the practice of self-development and entails the conscious process of looking
back at yourself, reflecting on what went well and what did not and adapting these insights
for future actions (Liker and Convis, 2011, p. 70). Within lean, the ability to perform hansei is a
prerequisite for developing others (Liker and Convis, 2011). Similarly, Revans (2011, p. 76)
Lean and
action learning
141
introduced the principle of the insufficient mandate: “Those unable to change themselves
cannot change what goes on around them.”Moreover, becoming aware of and avoiding
misconceptions or assumptions when framing and solving problems is also fundamental in
lean and action learning (Marquardt and Yeo, 2012;May, 2016;Ohno, 2013).
5.1.5 Systems thinking. Systems thinking is also ingrained into both domains. However,
unlike linear thinking, systems thinking is about recognising patterns and being aware that
what affects one part of an organisation also affects other parts in planned and unplanned
ways (Seddon and Caulkin, 2007;Senge, 2006). However, a small, well-designed and timely
action based on systems thinking can generate a significant outcome (Gharajedaghi, 2011).
Systems thinking can be traced back to the early leaders at Toyota (Liker, 2021, p. 53).
Within the extant literature originating from TPS, lean is described as a (learning) system
with people solving problems as a foundational and core element (Liker, 2021;Ball
eet al.,
2017). Since the world is not simple, linear or predictable lean thinkers recognise that we
cannot expect the organisation to follow formulated plans, as a mechanistic world view
suggest (Ball
eet al., 2017). Instead, lean thinkers perceive organisations as dynamic and
unpredictable living systems and therefore invest without expecting simple cause-and-effect
relationships between actions and the bottom line but prepare to make continuous
adjustments (Liker, 2021). Hence, when solving problems, lean thinkers apply a systems
viewpoint since solving a problem in one part of an organisation otherwise will likely impose
a new problem in another part of the organisation (Sobek and Smalley, 2008).
Action learning is fundamentally developed on the proposition that achieving long-lasting
and effective problem-solving requires systems thinking (Marquardt et al., 2017). Back in
1938, we find accounts in the literature that Revans was conscious of applying a systems
approach to health care (Boshyk and Dilworth, 2010).
5.1.6 Respect for people and society. A final and fundamental element of both lean and
action learning is respecting people and society over profit. Both build on a belief that, besides
it being the right thing to do, respect is a requirement to be profitable in the long term (Liker,
2021;Ball
eet al., 2017;Boshyk and Dilworth, 2010).
Within lean, respect for people is described as caring deeply about the success of every
employee and partner, the satisfaction of every customer and the well-being of the surrounding
communities (Liker, 2021;Ball
eet al., 2017). For example, concerning implementing lean, Hasle
et al. (2012) find that the effects on the working conditions are derived not from the concept of
tools and methods but from how lean is practised and the context where it is established.
Moreover, in this regard, Hasle et al. (2012) conclude that a meaningful way to prevent harmful
effects on the working environment and employee health and well-being is to involve employees
in lean implementation and lean production in practice.
Within action learning, Revans’often highlighted ethical values and principles such as
honesty and social responsibility while at the same time promoting behaviour based on
humility and respect for others (Boshyk and Dilworth, 2010, p. 53). In practice, he applied
these values and principles to his action learning programmes. For example, in his action
learning studies with teams of underground miners, he found that production improved when
workers were allowed to design their work methods and determine priorities instead of being
dictated to by management (Boshyk and Dilworth, 2010, p. 17). Similarly, in his study of the
10 largest hospitals in London, Revans focused on reducing a high turnover rate for nurses,
high mortality rates, prolonged hospital stays, and demoralised staff (Revans, 1971,
pp. 245–79).
5.2 Applying the lean-action learning theoretical lens: reflecting again on the three cases
The integrated lean-action learning theoretical lens (Figure 2) can be applied by reflecting on
lean implementation Case 1 in comparison with Cases 2 and 3, as outlined in Table 1.
IJOPM
43,13
142
Reflecting on Case 1, we can explain its failure in adopting lean through the lean-action
learning lens (Figure 2), which reveals that (1) the consultants introduced A3 problem-solving
methods without focusing on the underlying learning process of following the scientific
method of reflection and experimentation. (4) Despite the (rhetorical) intentions, the
consultants or leaders did not lead through questioning. Instead, the senior leaders mandated
“lean navigators”and consultants to lead the change, using a “hard”consultancy approach of
telling and directing. (2) This “hard”consultancy approach to solving problems prevents the
employees from learning the process of finding, facing, framing and forming solutions to
problems in their own way. (3) Moreover, the group members did not learn together but
instead “just”followed the direction of the appointed consultant or “lean navigator”. (5) The
case did not exhibit any indications of a systems view or establishing a learning system since
the engagement with the consultancy was prolonged. The governmental service organisation
did not manage to be self-sufficient. (6) Despite the good (rhetorical) intentions, the case did
not exhibit any elements of caring deeply about the success of every employee and partner,
the satisfaction of every customer and the well-being of the surrounding communities. In
contrast to Case 1, Cases 2 and 3 were purposefully designed on the principles of action
learning and the adoption of lean as a learning system (see Section 3.2). Hence, we contend
Case 1: Holmemo et al.
(2018)
Case 2: Powell and
Coughlan (2020) Case 3: Saabye et al. (2022)
1. Problem-solving
by scientific method
The objective was to
implement lean tools
The objective was to
improve supply chain
performance and
collaboration
The objective was to
improve performance and
the capability to adopt
industry 4.0
Adopting lean is viewed
as the goal
Adopting lean is viewed as
means of fostering learning-
to-learn capabilities
Adopting lean is viewed as
means of fostering learning-
to-learn capabilities
Focus on solving puzzles Focus on solving problems Focus on solving problems
2. Individual
learning
Learning is designed to
teach the programmed
knowledge (P) of lean
tools and practices
Learning is designed as a
cognitive discovery process
of finding, facing, framing
and solving problems
through insightful
questioning (Q)
Learning is designed as a
cognitive discovery process
of finding, facing, framing
and solving problems
through insightful
questioning (Q)
(L 5P) (L 5PþQ) (L 5PþQ)
3. Group learning Group members are
passive students that
follow the instructions
of the appointed
consultant
Focus on fostering good
collaboration and co-
learning within groups
across the supply chain
Focus on fostering good
collaboration and co-
learning within groups
across the factory
4. Leading with
questions rather
than statements of
“knowledge”
Consultants acting as
experts and “telling”
what to do
Leaders and external lean
experts acting as learning
facilitators
Leaders and external lean
experts acting as learning
facilitators
Leaders not engaged in
the learning process
Leaders actively engaged in
the learning process
Leaders actively engaged in
the learning process
5. Systems
Thinking
Perceiving and
practising lean as a set
of (standalone) tools and
methods
Perceiving and practising
lean as a learning system
encompassing system
alpha,beta and gamma
Perceiving and practising
lean as a learning system
encompassing system
alpha,beta and gamma
6. Respect for
people and society
No evidence of caring
deeply about the success
of employees and
customers
The lean learning program
was initiated to support
suppliers in achieving
success
The lean learning program
was initiated to develop,
enable and empower
employees
Table 1.
Cross-case analysis
Lean and
action learning
143
that these two cases exemplify, through the lean-action learning lens (Figure 2), the
complementarity of lean and action learning for successful lean system adoption.
6. Conclusion
In this article, we have explored the research question: What are the theoretical and practical
complementarities of lean and action learning and how can these two research streams be
synthesised into an integrated theory? Implicit in the question lies an inquisitiveness and
curiosity about why action learning as a theory and practice is absent in the lean literature. In
response, we have taken a gemba walk through the literature and practices of lean and action
learning. We have viewed and noticed a systematic relationship between the two domains by
drawing on emergent insights from comparing lean and action learning, a recognisable
classroom scenario (see Section 3.2), and three cases (see Section 4.2). Finally, we have
outlined the explicit similarities between action learning and lean that reward our curiosity
and support our reflections on the association between lean and action learning.
Furthermore, we have explored and reflected on how action learning as both a theory and
practice can explain the success and failures of adopting lean. We recognise that both lean
and action learning are systemic approaches that cannot be adopted by copying the practice
developed over many years and decades. System conditions differ in the way operations are
structured, how the work has been designed, how people are paid and rewarded, how
measures are used and the policies, procedures and IT systems (Seddon and Caulkin, 2007).
From a systemic point of view, many lean implementations have failed because organisations
tried simply to copy practices from Toyota without adapting to the conditions of their own
systems. Adapting to systemic conditions is a prerequisite for the discovery and utilisation of
practical solutions developed and the associated learning.
We contend that the stream of lean literature contributes a valuable but potentially limited
perspective on what constitutes a lean system. For its part, however, the action learning
stream offers a complementary perspective on adopting and sustaining a lean system. These
overlapping theoretical and practical complementarities suggest that the streams are ready
for synthesis into the integrated theory, illustrated in Figure 2. Hence, based on our
theorising, we present two propositions as new programmed knowledge (P) for designing the
underlying learning structures that successful lean adoption demands.
6.1 Emerging propositions
Emerging from the cross-case analysis (see Section 5.2), which is based on our proposed
integrated lean-action learning theory (see Figure 2), we propose that if organisations want to
solve operational problems as they implement lean systems, they have a valuable
opportunity to apply action learning. If conscious and deliberate, this effective integration
may improve the sustainability of the outcome. However, those responsible must first
understand and acknowledge the problems as systemic in practice through framing and
asking insightful questions (system alpha). Next, these groups must conceive and experiment
with solutions in the context of the application (system beta). Finally, the decision-makers
must critically reflect upon their mental models and behaviours as they learn from their
actions towards solving these systemic problems (system gamma). This cycle embodies two
integrative propositions emerging from Figure 2.
Proposition 1. Action learning as a theory and practice is foundational to designing
effective interventions during lean system adoption.
Second, the extant lean literature consists of an enormous amount of programmed knowledge
(P in action learning terms) proposing what (systemic) conditions and practices constitute a
IJOPM
43,13
144
lean organisation (e.g. Shah and Ward, 2003) as well as practical accounts and frameworks
for becoming a lean organisation (e.g. Bloom et al., 2013). But where is the programmed
knowledge (P) about facilitating the required situational learning to adopt lean practices and
frameworks in these conditions? For example, how do people learn to distinguish between
puzzles and problems? How do they unlearn the habit of jumping to solutions and providing
answers and, instead, begin to ask insightful questions when solving problems? How do
people learn to develop a system that fits and offers systemic solutions instead of
thoughtlessly implementing a copied practice? Essentially how do people and organisations
learn to learn? Our proposition is that action learning can prompt the development of such
relevant, useful and useable programmed knowledge (P) for the lean literature.
Proposition 2. Action learning as a theory and practice is foundational to understanding
the success of lean system adoptions.
Action learning can be understood and applied as the learning process underlying
sustainable lean adoption in actual system conditions. As outlined in Figure 2, the lean-action
learning process begins (and ends or rather repeats) with identifying and solving problems
through the application of the scientific method (1). This action learning process is governed
by two pillars: individual learning (2) and group learning (3), which promotes insightful
questions over statements of knowledge (4) as a means to improve the whole system (5), with
a goal of both serving and improving society by demonstrating respect to employees,
customers, people and partners (6).
In contrast, neglecting to apply an action learning process to lean system adoption can
explain the subsequent failure.
To conclude, action learning theory and practice can elevate our understanding of lean
beyond categorical descriptions of what constitutes a lean system. Given their
complementary nature, action learning enables us to understand better what it takes to
adopt and sustain a lean system. By espousing Whetten’s (1989) definition of what
constitutes a complete theory, we see that the extant lean literature, therefore, offers the
programmable knowledge (P) component of what constitutes a lean system (in different
contexts) while the theory of action learning offers the complementary programmable
knowledge (P) about adopting and sustaining a lean system as a (meta) cognitive and learning
foundation. Hence lean and action learning can be regarded as integrated theoretically,
offering a more complete understanding of lean as a phenomenon.
6.2 Implications for managers and teachers of lean
According to operation management research, 60–90% of lean implementations fail (Dora
and Gellynck, 2015;Jadhav et al., 2014;Pearce et al., 2018). Therefore, we recommend that
organisations embarking on adopting lean systems are conscious of designing their
interventions for adopting and sustaining lean systems with the philosophy and practice of
action learning. Guided by this paper’sFigure 2, we recommend that decisions-makers
become aware that (1) developing their employees to become proficient problem solvers is
foundational for lean system adoption by (2) providing the employees with a supportive
learning environment where they can experiment with and reflect on finding, facing, framing
and solving problems as opposed to classroom training. Solving the problem is a superior
form of learning, (4) which requires leaders and facilitators to ask questions (Q) instead of
telling and directing. (3) Learning and solving problems is not a one-person endeavour but
takes place within a group, where peers can challenge and learn from each other. (5) Adopt a
perspective that lean tools and methods are not to gain short-term improvements but to
develop the abilities to find, face, frame and solve problems since every problem poses a
learning opportunity. Moreover, solving problems requires a systems viewpoint. Solving a
Lean and
action learning
145
problem in one part of an organisation otherwise will likely impose a new problem in another
part of the organisation. Hence the purpose of lean is to adopt a learning system that (6) cares
deeply about the success of every employee, partner, customer and our society.
Finally, we recommend that teachers and students of lean at higher education institutions
consider applying an action learning approach to exploit the complementarity between the
two domains. Moreover, we believe it also can be beneficial for teachers and students of lean
to explore further our proposed integrated lean-action learning theory (Figure 2) when
seeking to convey and understand lean thinking in general and lean as a learning system in
particular.
6.3 Future research
To paraphrase Moli
ere (1670),“for over fifty years, lean practitioners have implemented action
learning without knowing it”. That said, lean and action learning have historically been two
unaffiliated research streams. As we discovered the similarities and complementarity
between lean and action learning, as described in this paper, an opportunity for integration
emerged. Guided by Coghlan and Coughlan (2023), our theorising had three characteristics:
(1) First, it was processual. Our research collaboration has taken place over some six
years, during which we have engaged with fellow researchers and practitioners, as
well as each other, in evolving our questioning, reflection, learning and writing.
(2) Second, our work was contextual. We have engaged actively in lean implementation
in practice in various settings. These implementations have contributed to the meta-
level questioning, reflection and learning on which we have built our theorising about
lean and action learning.
(3) Finally, our dialogue and collaboration have refined our previously published work
and developed the theoretical and practical links between lean and action learning.
Emerging from our theorising process, we have explored and reflected on the opportunity of
how action learning as a theory and practice can explain the success and failures of adopting
lean systems. We contend that lean thinkers, being practitioners or academics, have not
consciously been aware that action learning is the “secret”or intangible element of successful
lean system adoption. Hence, with the awareness of lean and action learning integration
provided in this paper, we invite the operations management research community to further
theorise about lean and action learning. Furthermore, we suggest applying the integrated
lean and action learning lens to future case studies and empirical analysis to advance our
understanding of lean system adoption and sustainment.
References
Adler, P.S. and Borys, B. (1996), “Two types of bureaucracy: enabling and coercive”,Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 1, p. 61.
Ahlstr€
om, P., Danese, P., Hines, P., Netland, T.H., Powell, D., Shah, R., Th€
urer, M. and van Dun, D.H.
(2021), “Is lean a theory? Viewpoints and outlook”,International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 41 No. 12, pp. 1852-1878.
Ball
e, M., Jones, D.T., Chaize, J. and Fiume, O. (2017), The Lean Strategy: Using Lean to Create
Competitive Advantage, Unleash Innovation, and Deliver Sustainable Growth, 1st Ed., McGraw-
Hill Education, New York.
Ball
e, M., Chaize, J. and Jones, D. (2019), “Lean as a learning system: what do organisations need to do
to get the transformational benefits from Toyota’s method?”,Development and Learning in
Organisations: An International Journal, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 1-4.
IJOPM
43,13
146
Bateman, N. (2005), “Sustainability: the elusive element of process improvement”,International Journal
of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 261-276.
Bloom, N., Eifert, B., Mahajan, A., McKenzie, D. and Roberts, J. (2013), “Does management matter?
Evidence from India *”,The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 1-51.
Boak, G. (2016), “Enabling team learning in healthcare”,Action Learning: Research and Practice,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 101-117.
Bortolotti, T., Boscari, S. and Danese, P. (2015), “Successful lean implementation: organisational culture
and soft lean practices”,International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 160, pp. 182-201.
Boshyk, Y. and Dilworth, R.L. (2010), (Eds) in Action Learning: History and Evolution, Palgrave
Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York.
Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1995), “Product development: past research, present findings, and
future directions”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 343-378.
Camuffo, A. and Gerli, F. (2018), “Modeling management behaviors in lean production environments”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 403-423.
Coghlan, D. and Coughlan, P. (2010), “Notes toward a philosophy of action learning research”,Action
Learning: Research and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 193-203.
Coghlan, D. and Coughlan, P. (2023), in Noumair, D.A., (Rami) Shani and Zandee, D.P. (Eds), Research
in Organizational Change and Development, Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, Vol. 30, pp.
183-203.
Cusumano,M.A.,Holweg,M.,Howell,J.,Netland,T.,Shah,R.,Shook,J.,Ward,P.andWomack,J.(2021),
“Commentaries on ‘the lenses of lean’”,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 627-639.
Dora, M. and Gellynck, X. (2015), “House of lean for food processing SMEs”,Trends in Food Science
and Technology, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 272-281.
Dorval, M., Jobin, M.-H. and Benomar, N. (2019), “Lean culture: a comprehensive systematic literature
review”,International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 68 No. 5,
pp. 920-937.
Doyle, L., Kelliher, F. and Harrington, D. (2016), “How multi-levels of individual and team learning
interact in a public healthcare organisation: a conceptual framework”,Action Learning:
Research and Practice, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 10-22.
Emiliani, M.L. and Stec, D.J. (2005), “Leaders lost in transformation”,Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 370-387.
Fenner, S.V., Arellano, M.C., von Dzengelevski and Netland, T.H. (2023), “Effect of lean
implementation on team psychological safety and learning”,International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 308-331.
Franken, J.C.M., van Dun, D.H. and Wilderom, C.P.M. (2021), “Kaizen event process quality: towards a
phase-based understanding of high-quality group problem-solving”,International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 962-990.
Gharajedaghi, J. (2011), Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A Platform for Designing
Business Architecture, 3rd ed., Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, MA.
Glover, W.J., Liu, W., Farris, J.A. and Van Aken, E.M. (2013), “Characteristics of established kaizen
event programs: an empirical study”,International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 33 No. 9, pp. 1166-1201.
Gutierrez, L., Lameijer, B.A., Anand, G., Antony, J. and Sunder, M, V. (2022), “Beyond efficiency: the
role of lean practices and cultures in developing dynamic capabilities microfoundations”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 42 No. 13, pp. 506-536
Hadid, W., Mansouri, S.A. and Gallear, D. (2016), “Is lean service promising? A socio-technical
perspective”,International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 36 No. 6,
pp. 618-642.
Lean and
action learning
147
Hansen, A.V. and Madsen, S. (2019), Theorising in Organization Studies: Insights from Key Thinkers,
Paperback edition, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, Northampton, MA.
Hasle, P., Bojesen, A., Langaa Jensen, P. and Bramming, P. (2012), “Lean and the working
environment: a review of the literature”,International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 829-849.
Hines, P. (2010), “How to create and sustain a lean culture”,Development and Learning in
Organisations: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 28-33.
Hines, P. (2022), “Human centred lean –introducing the people value stream”,International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 961-988.
Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean thinking”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management,Vol.24No.10,pp.994-1011.
Hines, P., Taylor, D. and Walsh, A. (2020), “The Lean journey: have we got it wrong?”,Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 31 Nos 3-4, pp. 389-406.
Holmemo, M.D.-Q., Rolfsen, M. and Ingvaldsen, J.A. (2018), “Lean thinking: outside-in, bottom-up? The
paradox of contemporary soft lean and consultant-driven lean implementation”,Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 29 Nos 1-2, pp. 148-160.
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.S. (2021), “The lenses of lean: visioning the science and practice of
efficiency”,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 610-626.
Jadhav, J., Mantha, S. and Rane, S. (2014), “Exploring barriers in lean implementation”,International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 122-148.
Jasti, N.V.K. and Kodali, R. (2015), “Lean production: literature review and trends”,International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 867-885.
Johnson, M., Burgess, N. and Sethi, S. (2020), “Temporal pacing of outcomes for improving patient
flow: design science research in a National Health Service hospital”,Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 66 Nos 1-2, pp. 35-53.
Jolayemi, J.K. (2008), “Hoshin Kanri and Hoshin process: a review and literature survey”,Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 295-320.
Karlsson, C. and
Ahlstr€
om, P. (1996), “Assessing changes towards lean production”,International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 24-41.
Krafcik, J. (1988), “Triumph of the lean production system”,Sloan Management Review; Cambridge,
Mass, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 41-53.
Kristensen, T.B., Saabye, H. and Edmondson, A. (2022), “Becoming a learning organisation while
enhancing performance: the case of LEGO”,International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 42 No. 13, pp. 438-481.
Lee, J.S., Pries-Heje, J. and Baskerville, R. (2011), “Theorizing in design science research”, in Jain, H.,
Sinha, A.P. and Vitharana, P. (Eds), Service-Oriented Perspectives in Design Science Research,
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, Vol. 6629, pp. 1-16.
Liker, J.K. (2021), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’sGreatest
Manufacturer, 2nd ed., McGraw Hill Education, New York.
Liker, J.K. and Convis, G.L. (2011), The Toyota Way to Lean Leadership: Achieving and Sustaining
Excellence through Leadership Development, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ljungblom, M. and Lennerfors, T.T. (2021), “The Lean principle respect for people as respect for
craftsmanship”,International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 1209-1230.
Maalouf, M. and Gammelgaard, B. (2016), “Managing paradoxical tensions during the implementation
of lean capabilities for improvement”,International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 687-709.
IJOPM
43,13
148
MacDuffie, J.P. (1997), “The road to ‘root cause’: shop-floor problem-solving at three auto assembly
plants”,Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 479-502.
Magnani, F., Carbone, V. and Moatti, V. (2019), “The human dimension of lean: a literature review”,
Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 132-144.
Marquardt, M.J. (2011), Building the Learning Organization: Achieving Strategic Advantage through a
Commitment to Learning, 3rd ed., Nicholas Brealey Pub, Boston, MA.
Marquardt, M.J. (2014), Leading with Questions: How Leaders Find the Right Solutions by Knowing
what to Ask, Revised and updated [edition], Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Marquardt, M.J. and Yeo, R.K. (2012), Breakthrough Problem Solving with Action Learning:
Concepts and Cases, Stanford Business Books, An Imprint of Stanford University Press,
Stanford, CA.
Marquardt, M.J., Banks, S., Cauwelier, P. and Seng Ng, C. (2017), Optimizing the Power of Action
Learning: Real-Time Strategies for Developing Leaders, Building Teams and Transforming
Organizations, 3rd ed., Nicholas Brealey, Boston.
Marsick, V.J. and O’Neil, J. (1999), “The many faces of action learning”,Management Learning, Vol. 30
No. 2, pp. 159-176.
May, M.E. (2016), Winning the Brain Game: Fixing the 7 Fatal Flaws of Thinking, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Mohaghegh, M. and Furlan, A. (2020), “Systematic problem-solving and its antecedents: a synthesis of
the literature”,Management Research Review, Vol. 43 No. 9, pp. 1033-1062.
Moli
ere, J.B. (1670), “The bourgeois gentleman”, Trans, in Cohen, R. (Ed.), Stage Production, New
York, 1982.
Netland, T.H., Powell, D.J. and Hines, P. (2019), “Demystifying lean leadership”,International Journal
of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 543-554.
Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Ohno, T. (2013), Taiichi Ohno’s Workplace Management: With New Commentary from Global Quality
Visionaries, Special 100th birthday edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Pagell, M. and Wu, Z. (2009), “Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain
management using case studies of ten exemplars”,Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 37-56.
Pearce, A., Pons, D. and Neitzert, T. (2018), “Implementing lean—outcomes from SME case studies”,
Operations Research Perspectives, Vol. 5, pp. 94-104.
Pedanik, R. (2019), “How to ask better questions? Dewey’s theory of ecological psychology in
encouraging practice of action learning”,Action Learning: Research and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 107-122.
Pedler, M. (2002), “Accessing local knowledge: action learning and organisational learning in Walsall”,
Human Resource Development International, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 523-540.
Pedler, M. and Abbott, C. (2013), Facilitating Action Learning: A Practitioner’s Guide, Open University
Press, Maidenhead.
Powell, D.J. and Coughlan, P. (2020a), “Rethinking lean supplier development as a learning system”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 921-943.
Powell, D.J. and Coughlan, P. (2020b), “Corporate lean programs: practical insights and implications
for learning and continuous improvement”,Procedia CIRP, Vol. 93, pp. 820-825.
Powell, D. and Reke, E. (2019), “No lean without learning: rethinking lean production as a learning
system”, in Ameri, F., Stecke, K.E., von Cieminski, G. and Kiritsis, D. (Eds), Advances in
Production Management Systems. Production Management for the Factory of the Future,
Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 62-68.
Lean and
action learning
149
Revans, R.W. (1971), Developing Effective Managers. A New Approach to Business Education,
Longman, London.
Revans, R.W. (2011), ABC of Action Learning, Gower, Farnham.
Rigg, C. (2015), “Problem solving or learning –which is priority?”,Action Learning: Research and
Practice, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-2.
Rother, M. (2010), Toyota Kata: Managing People for Improvement, Adaptiveness, and Superior
Results, McGraw Hill, New York.
Saabye, H. (2022), “Advancements on action learning and lean complementarity: a case of developing
leaders as lean learning facilitators”,Action Learning: Research and Practice, Vol. ahead-of-print
No. ahead-of-print.
Saabye, H. and Powell, D.J. (2022), “Fostering insights and improvements from IIoT systems at the
shop floor: a case of industry 4.0 and lean complementarity enabled by action learning”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/
IJLSS-01-2022-0017.
Saabye, H., Kristensen, T.B. and Wæhrens, B.V. (2020), “Real-time data utilization barriers to
improving production performance: an in-depth case study linking lean management and
industry 4.0 from a learning organization perspective”,Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 21,
p. 8757.
Saabye, H., Kristensen, T.B. and Wæhrens, B.V. (2022), “Developing a learning-to-learn capability:
insights on conditions for Industry 4.0 adoption”,International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 42 No. 13, pp. 25-53.
Salem, O., Solomon, J., Genaidy, A. and Minkarah, I. (2006), “Lean construction: from theory to
implementation”,Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 168-175.
Scherrer-Rathje, M., Boyle, T.A. and Deflorin, P. (2009), “Lean, take two! Reflections from the second
attempt at lean implementation”,Business Horizons, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 79-88.
Schonberger, R.J. (1983), “Work improvement programmes: quality control circles compared with
traditional western approaches”,International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 18-32.
Seddon, J. and Caulkin, S. (2007), “Systems thinking, lean production and action learning”,Action
Learning: Research and Practice, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 9-24.
Senge, P.M. (2006), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Rev. and
updated, Doubleday/Currency, New York.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2003), “Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 129-149.
Shook, J. (2008), Managing to Learn: Using the A3 Management Process to Solve Problems, Gain
Agreement, Mentor and Lead, Version 1.0, Lean Enterprise Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Smalley, A. (2018), Four Types of Problems: From Reactive Troubleshooting to Creative Innovation, 1st
ed., Lean Enterprise Institute, Inc, Cambridge, MA.
Sobek, D.K. and Smalley, A. (2008), Understanding A3 Thinking: A Critical Component of Toyota’s
PDCA Management System, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
St
ahl, 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 organisations:
a multilevel analysis”,Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 47, pp. 285-291.
Stentoft Arlbjørn, J. and Vagn Freytag, P. (2013), “Evidence of lean: a review of international
peer-reviewed journal articles”,European Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 174-205.
Swink, M., Talluri, S. and Pandejpong, T. (2006), “Faster, better, cheaper: a study of NPD project
efficiency and performance tradeoffs”,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5,
pp. 542-562.
IJOPM
43,13
150
Tennant, C. and Roberts, P. (2001), “Hoshin kanri: implementing the catchball process”,Long Range
Planning, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 287-308.
Tortorella, G.L., Marodin, G.A., Miorando, R. and Seidel, A. (2015), “The impact of contextual variables
on learning organisation in firms that are implementing lean: a study in Southern Brazil”,The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 78 Nos 9-12, pp. 1879-1892.
Tortorella, G.L., Fettermann, D., Cauchick Miguel, P.A. and Sawhney, R. (2020), “Learning
organisation and lean production: an empirical research on their relationship”,International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 12, pp. 3650-3666.
Turner, P. (2022), Complementarity in Organisations: Strategy, Leadership, Management, Talent and
Engagement in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
West, P. and Burnes, B. (2000), “Applying organisational learning: lessons from the automotive
industry”,International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 10,
pp. 1236-1252.
Whetten, D.A. (1989), “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”,The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, p. 490.
Womack, J.P., Roos, D. and Jones, D.T. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World: The Story of Lean
Production–Toyota’s Secret Weapon in the Global Car Wars that Is Now Revolutionising World
Industry, Free Press, Place of publication not identified.
Corresponding author
Henrik Saabye can be contacted at: henrik.saabye@velux.com
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
Lean and
action learning
151
