**4. Arguments and discussion**

#### *Argument 1: A method of success-by-design.*

Lean promotes the advantages of developing quality, productivity, reduced inventory, flat structures, teaming and flexibility [17]. Main principles of Lean: specify value from the standpoint of the customer, identify all the steps in the value stream and relentlessly work towards eliminating steps that do not create value, make the steps flow smoothly towards the customer, let customers pull value from the next upstream activity and begin the process again until a state of perfection is reached. Lean in the absence of a repeatable and reproducible methodology in reality is a method of success-by-chance with tools and techniques. Lean does not believe in investing in elaborate designs of experiments or benchmarking due to the absence of standard methodology and measurements.

Lean promotes an organizational transformational context; therefore size, age, complexity, infrastructure and competency create the essential environment that decides the strategy of the endeavor. Then the change management determines the success of the initiative as it is bestowed with the charge of change over, risk control, sustenance, disaster recovery and business continuity while transforming the situation [18]. Thus, observations favor the counter argument, that Lean is a method that provides success-by-chance.

*Argument 2: A method that favors industrial relations.*

Teaming for the enterprise is different from democratic industrial relations. Lean teams are with limited objective and scope of operation. The teaming process in Lean revolves around, a process or a machine or an area of the production floor. The competency required to be part of the team is limited to lean tools. Thus, Lean rhetoric is countered in this argumentation with a selected scope and interpretation.

*Argument 3: A method aligned to economics.*

In Neo-liberalized and capitalist economy, continuous improvement through waste elimination to eventually generate value is not a choice. Classic example is the growth of IT industry in the developing countries on the cusp of maintenance, enhancement and support projects of many softwares that were developed earlier. Thus, at times, waste itself creates an industry, then that waste becomes value adding waste. Any resource that does not generate value to customer is eligible to be called a waste [19] is not a sustainable argument as for one service provider, an effort that could be termed as waste may eventually create a new business line, more employment and an expansion in the purchasing power of society. Thus, Lean need not find a complete alignment with social economics.

Surveys claim, lion-share of lean initiatives fail to achieve systematic productivity improvement and even suspects the benefits claimed in many of such initiatives [20]. Popular as a management system and has become a style symbol of operations, as part of leaning operations may save for the organization, but reduction in manpower and remuneration restructuring to the lower side associated with such initiatives impacts the purchasing power of the society. This indirectly points to disparate definitions and perceptions in interpreting the claims.

Free-market economies propounding laissez-faire economics that allows a free hand to the business to devise norms to conquer market with ruthless competitiveness and reduced subsidies for the sake of survival was forced to shed virulent trade union intransigence leading to a social and political transformation. It is essential to investigate the role of Lean methodology in promoting unemployment in many industrial belts. Unchecked capitalism and globalization have taken away pluralism in management and turned focus to discover value for the customer as an outcome of value chain. This is possible only by increasing productivity at lower costs, so internally, the focus is still not on customer but on production systems. If value and loyalty are perceived in faith, the politics in displayed improvements comes obvious.

#### *Argument 4: A method that sustains benefit.*

The repeatability and reproducibility of the results associated with Lean initiatives are invariably absent in the survey. It also could be due to absence of a structured methodology, accepted glossary of terminologies and availability of verifiable results. Thus, absence of a standardized scientific method creates a void while treating lean as a system to enhance business practice rather than industry sectoral differences.

The experiences from Toyota Production System of 1970s formed the basis of western attempts to build a corpus of derived knowledge out of it to create a book of knowledge on Lean [21]. The whole objective of Womack et.al [22, 23] in 1990s was to create a theoretical basis applicable irrespective of industry to gain advantages that are agreeable irrespective of the verifier. The hypocritical bias and judgmental attitude took a backseat as soon as Lean terminology emerged out of International Motor Vehicle Program. Eventually, five principles that laid the foundation of Lean emerged and they were concept of value, value stream mapping, perfecting the ideology of pull the flow. Then it was a time for a plethora of techniques to evolve along with contexts for their application.

Lean is industry independent, while its roots may be in production, and it is prevalent in services as well. Lack of empirical rigor is an established issue in Lean and even research papers are analytically inadequate as most authors prefers to discuss around an event, experiences or an implementation and rarely it gets into compare and contrast analysis of a cluster of failed case or case surveys to reveal the differences, factors involved, extent of success that can be attributable to plans, implementation models, and actions. Even qualitative analysis when it is contextual it generates arguments, possibilities, hypothesis which could eventually be tested to identify the effectiveness of the Lean effort, which rarely happens [24]. While lean remains as a collection of techniques, their relative importance and effectiveness and efficiency of performance are yet to be quantitatively evaluated to structure

it into a framework or lifecycle to give universal acceptability, thus its ability to provide a sustained benefit cannot be proved beyond doubt.

*Argument 5: A method that sustains business.*

Radnor and Johnston studies [25] is of the view that lean transformation mainly motivated by the cost reduction associated with it rather than the customer value it can bring. But at times waste also sustains business as is the case with certain failures create a demand to do the right for the customer which becomes the subsequent version that would sustain the life cycle of a product in the market and the antithesis is it is the consequence of a poor service design. So then what is a leaning operation and how to perform a lean service. Unless there is a clarity, a framework, and process and tools to support it and metrics to measure, the claims will become redundant. Else, adopting and adapting techniques that showed result elsewhere when planted in a different environment and in different context, need not realize the same outcome. In other words, techniques that provided benefits in a industry under specific conditions need not reward the same way, and it may even import unwanted effects [26].

How much pull effect can reverse low demand in a production environment? Pull effect is on the basis of creating a product that generates a desire in a customer which translates to a product demand. Demand is not merely based on features, but also determined by affordability, necessity, substitute and uniqueness that together generates the value the product generates in the market. Lean is not a product innovation methodology, rather it always remains as method to optimize cost. Unless cost is balanced with features and ego satisfiers, the product will meet with the history of Nano car in India. Hence, lean is never a guarantee for a product to be a success in the market.

#### *Argument 6: A methods that is universally applicable.*

Lean, because of its origin in manufacturing may have all the wastes defined with a manufacturing perspective, then a direct correspondence in services is difficult to find. For example, a defect in a tangible product and a defect in service is totally disparate. Similarly, the context determines the definition of defect, for example, an excess inventory in manufacturing stock foretells possible wastage, but at the same time a shortage in inventory need not be ideal too as it may create opportunity cost in services and may be appreciated as JIT in manufacturing [27]. So universality of the concept is at the goal level that is, generate value by reducing waste rather than debating at applicability of the definition of the type of waste in different industries and sectors, moreover, in service value is co-created while in manufacturing producer creates and recipient perceives. This becomes clear when it is translated to monitory values where post-service revenue is based on conditions created by customer and hence lack definiteness, but a tangible product revenue is definite and earned as soon as it is sold. This brings the curtain down over multisectoral comparability. Even in strategy, a pull method is a possibility in manufacturing but the same cannot be expected in services as arrival rate and pattern in services is a matter of probability.

In all safety critical industries such as health, aeronautics, nuclear energy, oil and natural gas etc., active Lean employment on that system is not advisable. The situation is identical in every production space where there is a statutory and regulatory compliance involved. But any other Lean efforts performed in other departments, if it reduces environmental impact score, then that will be considered as a financial incentive generated out of resource conservation and pollution reduction. Thus, there are scenarios where Lean is not likely to be the drug-of-choice.

*Argument 7: A method neutral to production peculiarities.*

While Six Sigma strives for near perfection, Lean tries to accelerate the velocity of the end-to-end process by reducing the Lead Time. But consistency in achieving near perfection at high productivity rates is not mere LSS achievement. Lean promotes the idea of high rate of production in small batches is under the assumption of Overall Equipment Effectiveness and maintaining constancy of quality is never a guarantee.

In those industries where bulk production is not possible, Lean faces limitations. In case of multi service counters, made-to-order large engineering goods, where demands are unique for every customer. Under such conditions, attempting Lean at higher levels where commonality can be perceived is tried as an option, but farther in the value chain when optimization strategies are attempted, the real value perceived at the recipient end is limited.

Then the methodology claims to have the ability to maximize shareholder value by consistently improving Quality, Cost and Customer Satisfaction. Absence of credible quantitative data to evaluate and benchmark performance of lean projects is unavailable is a major constraint. If it has to be proved that it is the methodology that makes difference, it is equally significant to nullify the effects of factors such as industry, culture, competency, production volume, process, technology, material involvement etc. The performance that are pertinent are, but not limited to the following areas such as lead time, waste management, labor productivity, and economic value add synergistically. Is yet to be ascertained consistency in performance, causality for variability etc. Thus nature of product and volume could be critical determinants while deciding on Lean as the method for process improvement.

*Argument 8: A method in itself is a strategy and enhances creativity.*

While subjectivity, scale and understanding affects the measurement system error; an authentic survey analytics to agree on source or type or excellence-based clusters formed by practices, techniques, and tools is still not available. Principal Component Analysis with Varimax rotation will generate principal component with high factor loadings to identify a theme associated with it that significantly influences the success of a Lean initiative. Does Lean promote innovation? Role of lean in creativity through product designs and functionality is a questionable character, hence its strategic role is of limited extent. Success of a operational strategy must be linked to performance parameters such as quality, cost, rate of flow, safety, and innovation. If Lean has to qualify itself as a strategy, then it needs to perform on all such parameters to stay in isolation as a independent methodology [28].

*Argument 9: A method with many techniques as strength.*

In lean, plenty is the problem when it comes to techniques. Then, appropriateness in choice and correctness in application determines fate of the problem. Deciding on which of the many lean tools to apply, where and when and how it is applied create the inevitable inconsistency in methodology. This also highlights the critical constraint when it comes to benchmarking of practices and outcomes, as it has become relative.

Similarly, situation or tool finds prominence in the whole episode matters, but the methodology must not lean on the effectiveness of a technique rather on the appropriateness of the protocol and efficiency of its implementation. Therefore, there has to be a clarity in approach that will stabilize, steer, and succeed in achieving objective. Waste reduction is not an assurance on cost of quality nor productivity will decrease and gross profit will rise which will take the excellence professional to stardom [14]. A naïve implementation of Lean is a demonstration of few techniques and tools with absolute disregard to the problem at hand and waiting for a magical improvement to follow.

Lean is tightly coupled with production planning and control system; therefore, a naïve implementation will make inadequate changes in isolated regions that will not be sufficient to create an impact on the ecosystem and thus, the objective of organizational transformation will hit a logjam. Therefore, in a haste such a lean

approach bend on tools that fails to collectively build on benefits and cover the optimization of the entire system leading to an incomplete appreciation of the role of leadership for organizational development. Then, such a Lean approach end up as a mean-based approach that cannot assure enduring benefits.

*Argument 10: A method that creates a culture.*

If Lean is a culture, then the cultural elements must be transient in the society and political forces must support it, then only a change management leadership that fosters the outcome can survive. The methodology, techniques, people empowerment, human relations, communication must work synergistically to create a milieu where continuous transformation as a culture thrives. Neglecting role of consensus and collaboration that forms the bedrock of human relations will jeopardize the outcome of the strategy [29]. Situational relevance and deliberate temporal progression as critical variables; with choice of tools and risk management as residuals determines the fate of the Lean implementation strategy. Only a learning organization from its mistakes, culturally tuned for waste elimination, and iterative implementation alone can churn value out of a system. Lean fails to have a phase and an analytical schema to connect factors such as intuitiveness, perception, judging etc. as human factors that contributes to errors, thus creating process prisoners created by our espoused past. In the effort to dehumanize processes, are they not antithetical to the claims on human resources competency and conveniently being sidelined in Lean when it comes to defects management? While people are not monitored, the people scrupulously monitor process with stopwatches and the numbers are only seen from the point of process disorders while process masters might leave unscathed. By any chance, if numbers are looked from a people angle, then it is invariably will find an overarching reason to settle scores and materialize individual agenda. Have that not made Lean a methodology averse to radical innovations? This is in addition to the failure mode created by the inadequate implementation of a successful strategy. By not having a Lean hierarchy to drive initiatives, the first among equals norm sets in, then it becomes persuasiveness of the phrases, placards and parades unleashed by power brokers in enterprises that determines the effectiveness of a methodology rather than the value it actually generated.

*Argument 11: A method that makes difference by setting house in order.*

When problem lies outside the production house, then how best a leaning drive inside the house bring betterment to overall process. For example, congested roads and supply ecosystem widely distributed, and their supply chains are not optimized will bring more anonymity and failures in the JIT process. The extended gap between Lean intervention storms also added to reasons to lose momentum and motivation.

#### *Argument 12: A method with a human centric face.*

The role and competency of Lean management leadership many times by the nature and style of intervention, and by the demands set on employees (long working hours, denial of leave, lack of support for their suggestions, ad-hoc project management, no lead-by-example, only demands) has only created unhappiness and loss of confidence. In an effort to build speed, management fails to realize that the same thrilling speed can even kill the quality and creativity in business. To support the rush, specialization becomes a must that takes away the variety and boredom sets in.

In a hurry to crunch the unproductive training time, create parallel training tracks but that denied integrated competencies and holistic visibility. Limiting the training to senior and middle segments of organizational hierarchy, companies make the mistake of leaving the larger section of the workers on the floor guessing on the developments and builds anxiety. The behavioral changes from anxiety to discontentment to rebellion is not a long way which will manifest as loss in

productivity and quality which will defeat any process improvement irrespective of however better it may be.

Laxity in leadership commitment and failures in creating breakthrough in culture change management leads to failure of Lean management. Minor glitches during test and transition phase of any Lean life cycle, if it rakes up restlessness in leadership leading to issuing discomforting communications, adds fuel to failure. The cumulative effect is loss in trust and respect to the management. Eventual Robotic Process Automation decisions will lead to elimination of manpower and even necessity for further lean intervention. Why there was no analysis on the failure in responsibility and accountability of senior management in ensuring the culture change? Where lies the human centricity?
