The Implementation of Lean: Lost in Translation

The implementation of lean: Lost in translation?

Jostein Pettersen

Helix VINN Excellence Centre, LinköpingUniversity, Linköping, Sweden

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to investigate and analyze the early stages of implementing a lean-type production system in a large Swedish manufacturing company.

Design/methodology/approach: The paper is based on an interview study, comprising interviews with 20 representatives from all organizational levels within the studied company. The roles of the interviewees are: Managing Director, Division Manager, Production Manager, Production Unit Manager, Production Supervisors (2 people), Production Engineers (3 people), Operators (10 people), Lean Coordinator, Quality Management Expert. The interviews are analyzed from an Actor-network perspective, using the concept of translation as a key component.

Findings:The company has not achieved the results they were hoping for. In certain areas, focus of the initial ideas has shifted in unforeseen directions. The analysis indicates that this is a result of the individual actors’ translation of the ideas concerning the new production concept (lean production) so that it is in line with their own frame of reference. On account of the actors’ positive inclination towards the lean production concept, ideas concerning organizational inertia and resistance to change do not seem to be applicable in this case. One key feature in this paper is that ahigh delegation of authority – which is common in Swedish organizations – gives the translation process extra energy. Another key finding is that the tendency to rely too much on the actions of individuals, instead of aiming for collective action based on a common understanding, creates greater room for translation to take place, thus increasing the risk of change failure.

Research limitations/implications: The paper shows how the Actor-network perspective and especially the translationof ideas can be useful in researching processes of organizational change.

Practical implications:Thepaper shows that people in managerial positions can have great benefits from taking the processes of translation into account in their work. Considerable efforts should be directed towards understanding the actors’ frames of reference and design information that suits the actors’ needs.

Originality/value:The paper uses Michel Callon’s framework for sociology of translation in the context of organizational change and on various levels of abstraction.

Keywords:Actor-network theory, sociology of translation, lean production, implementation, organizational change

Paper type: Research paper

Conference topic: Other

Introduction

Translation and organizational change

According to some researchers, organizational change can be summed up as a process where the organization goes from one state to another (e.g. Beer & Nohria, 2000). According to another research tradition, this image is not correct, but is an illusion that is produced when organizations are perceived from a macro perspective (Czarniawska & Sevón, 1996; Weick, 2000). Through lowering the perspective and viewing the details, one can see change as a process of continuous adjustment and adaptation (Weick, 2000).

According to the practitioners in the studied organization, it is the change process and not the object of change in itself (i.e. the Lean concept) that is the critical point. Czarniawska & Joerges (1996)have through their research come to the same conclusion and argue that change is synonymous with translation:

With some exaggeration, one can claim that most ideas can be proven to fit most problems, assuming good will, creativity and a tendency to consensus. It is therefore the process of translation that should become our concern, not the properties of ideas. (Czarniawska & Joerges, 1996: 25)

A translation perspective on change requires a micro perspective and attention to details. These translations are hard to catch since they usually aren’t explicit (cf.Latour, 1987; Weick, 1995) and are hard to analyze in a structured way. Theories of translation is a vast field of research (Røvik, 2007), where the chosen perspective (Callon, 1986; Latour, 1987; Law & Callon, 1992) is merely one of several possibilities. The framework suggested by Callon (1986)is extraordinarily well structured, wherefore it is suitable for the current study.

An integrative ontology

Actor-network Theory (ANT) is a theoretical direction that describes processes in which actors build networks and interact. A central concept within ANT is generalized symmetry (Callon, 1986;Latour, 1993; Law & Bijker, 1992), which means that no analytical distinction is made between human and non-human actors. This means that even artifacts can be seen as actors. Actorship should not be confused with the term agency, although these are similar (Law, 1992). The most important distinction between the terms is the ability of making choices embedded in the agency term. An actant or actor in ANT terms does not necessarily have this ability. This confusion of terms is one aspect that often leads to critique of ANT from researchers that do not subscribe to the theoretical standpoint (e.g.Bloor, 1999; Amsterdamska, 1990).

To say that there is no fundamental difference between people and objects is an analytical stance, not an ethical position. (Law, 1992: 4)

ANT theoreticians, in particular Bruno Latour, usually criticize sociologists for what is deemed an excessive anthropocentricity (e.g.Latour, 1992b). Through integrating human and artifacts in the same analysis, the conditions for a more nuanced and holistic image of reality are improved.

The translation process

According toCallon (1986), the translation process can be divided into four stages: (1) Problematization, (2) Interessement, (3) Enrolment and (4) Mobilization. The descriptions below are mainly based onCallon (1986).

Problematization

The first stage in the translation process is that of problematization. In this stage the actors in the network and their individual goals are defined.

Figure1.Three actors have their individual goals and a conception of the quickest/best way of reaching their respective goals.

In the problematization stage, the main actor aims to weaken the other actors’ connections to other actors and to present his/her approach as an alternative and better way to reach the individual goals. The main actor’s solution is through this work defined as an obligatory passage point (OPP), through which all actors in the network must pass in order to reach their individual goals.

Figure2.One of the actors put up barriers for the other actors and defines his/her approach as an OPP and makes him-/herself a main actor.

A successful problematization requires the definition of a strong OPP. If there is enough space for interpretation for the actors in the network to choose an alternative to the OPP, the network is weakened (cf.Law & Callon, 1992).

Interposition (Interessement)

The next stage is that of interposition (interessement)[1]. The purpose of this stage is to stabilize the actors’ identities and connection to the network that has been formed in the problematization stage. The main actor must in this stage work to weaken the actors’ links to outside actors and networks, and strengthen the connections between the actors in the own network. This is done through interposing various artifacts in the network, in which certain interests are inscribed. These can function as representatives for parts of the network and strengthen the position of the main actor (Akrich, Callon, & Latour, 2002;Latour, 1986).

Enrolment

The third stage of the translation process is enrolment. In this stage, the roles are defined and distributed between the actors of the network. This stage is basically a negotiation with each individual actor concerning their ability and will to fulfill certain objectives inscribed in the OPP. This negotiation locks the actors into place and defines their roles and identities in the network.

Mobilization

According to Callon (1986)the translation process can be seen as a continuous reduction of the number of intermediaries through letting a decreasing number of actors speak on the behalf of a certain group. The mobilization stage is the final step in this process, where the whole network finally is represented by the main actor, which in this way becomes a macro actor (Callon & Latour, 1981).

Action programs, power and anti-programs

The type of strategy connected to the process described above is called an action program (Latour, 1992a). The performance of an action program that includes other actors requires a certain amount of power. The question is where this power lies. Some would claim that the power is with the main actor, since he/she gains such a central role in the network. Latour (1992a)does not share this view. He argues that there is a problem with power that can be summarized in the following paradox:

When you simply have power – inpotentia – nothing happens and you are powerless; when you exert power – in actu – others are performing the action and not you. (Latour, 1992a:265)

A central position within ANT is the idea of distributed power (Callon & Latour, 1981). The power is in interpretation and translation, which means that the power is basically equal for all actors.According to the translation model

… the spread in time and space of anything – claims, orders, artifacts, goods – is in the hands of people; each of these people may act in many different ways, letting the token drop, or modifying it, or deflecting it, or betraying it, or adding to it, or appropriating it (Latour, 1986: 267)

Just like actors have the power to contest a certain message, they also have the power to contest an action program and create a contrary program – so called anti-programs(Latour, 1986; Akrich & Latour, 1992).

Case description

HiTech inc. produce, sell and service complex machinery for industrial applications. The majority of the company’s facilities is located the middle part of Sweden. The main site has approximately 2000 employees and is thereby one of the largest organizations in the region.

The HiTech site is a quite complex organization. From a wide perspective, the organization can be described as a divisional structure, comprising four divisions. Each of these divisions can be described as a traditional hierarchical structure with functional departments.

Method

For this study, interviews have been used as the primary method. Some documents have been reviewed in order to support some of the statements in the interview material.

Figure3.An illustration of the selected interviewees at HiTech inc.

The interviewees have been selected in order to trace a complete branch of the organization from top to bottom in the hierarchy, thus checking for possible chains of translation in the line organization. A separate interview study has been made in another production unit in order to get a broader view of the implications of the new concept for operative personnel.

The interviews were performed in a semi structured way, with a general interview guide and thematic questions(Kvale, 1996). The interviews were recorded and transcribed. A stepwise analysis of the interviews has been made.The first step was an overall, hermeneutical inspired mode of procedure, developing an overall understanding of the material. Based on this step a conceptual framework for analysis was made. This conceptual framework was transformed to a coding system (cf.Miles & Huberman, 1994), which was applied for coding the interview transcripts. The coded transcripts were then used for building up the case description.

Introducing Lean Production at HiTech Inc.

Lean production (LP) was introduced at HiTech in 2003 on the initiative from their global production coordinator (GPC). Drawing on his experience from mass production industry, he saw opportunities to improve the production of HiTech products and wanted to introduce the LP concept at HiTech. The main driving force was to make HiTech more cost efficient and efficient through the reduction of waste.

The GPC focused his attention on the Division Manager (DM) at HiTech. Together, they discussed the fundamental principles of Lean and came to the conclusion to implement the concept at HiTech. The GPC devised a set of performance indicators that he wished to receive periodical reports on, to follow the progress of the implementation process. After this decision had been made, the DM and the production management group carried discussions about the possible benefits of becoming a ‘Lean organization’, and invited a consultant to help them with the implementation process.

The consultant advised HiTech to begin the Lean transition by implementing two basic methods; 5S and Visual Management. The idea was to use these two methods as a base for successively implementing other methods associated with the Lean concept.

5S was mainly focused on the production areas, whereas Visual Management was focused on the vertical flow of information within the organization, thus mainly affecting managers.

Being novices concerning LP, the managerial group at HiTech, led by the DM, mobilized a number of sources to help them understand the concept. The inspiration came from various lecturers on the subject, a book circle within the managerial group.

One major part of the implementation process has been the appointment of ‘lean implementers’ in the line organization. These are responsible for educate the production supervisors and assist in making the necessary changes out in the various departments. These efforts are coordinated through a ‘lean coordinator’ who is a part of the production manager’s staff.

Implementing Lean has largely been a managerial exercise. Operative personnel have been given general information about the concept at common meetings, but no extensive education has been provided.

Attitudes to Lean Production at HiTech Inc.

The MD is not very impressed by the Lean concept, but he feels obliged to mention the concept from time to time, in contact with corporate colleagues and upper management from other companies.He sees the concept as an arbitrary collection of cost reductionmethods that could be characterized as common sense.

The DM was initially skeptical towards the Lean-concept, much because of the critical perspectives that emerged during the nineties. He referred to the conception of LP as being ‘mean production’ and producing ‘anorectic organizations’. Through the discussions with the GPC some fundamental principles of LP were established. These are team-work, continuous improvements, standardized work, simplification, creating a sense of pace/takt in the organization, production leveling and reduction of waste. These discussions contributed to a reassessment of the concept and a conclusion that LP is not necessarily mean.

The PM had a similar experience, associating LP with downsizing and closing of plants. This view changed during the experiences of implementing the basic tools and seeing the potential positive effects of the concept.

We have had many turns [change initiatives] of different kinds here, so we were all a bit skeptical at first. But we were convinced once we got started and then we actually didn’t think it was that bad, really. Now that we have the facts at hand, regarding 5S, we see that it has turned out really well. (Production Manager)

There is a high degree of autonomy in the production units. In the Swedish culture, a high degree of delegated authority is quite common. The division manager states that there are some department managers who do not express their disagreements on the decisions being made at management meetings, and go back to their departments and do not follow the decisions. One of these people is the production unit manager (PUM). He has the following to say about the introduction of Lean at HiTech:

We looked into it and concluded that Lean was in line with the way we want to work and are working already. […] we work a lot with reducing lead times out here, since it is so important; we have such long lead times. […] I mean what is Lean really? It is lead time reduction. (Production Unit Manager)

The PUM says that there is a difference in perspectives between the management group and the work in his production unit. He says that lead time reduction is so important in his part of production. They have therefore made a local adaptation of the concept in order to place focus on reducing lead times.

The operative personnel have generally been very positive towards LP. A few interviewees have indicated that some operators have a negative attitude, but among the ten operators who have participated in this study, all of them have a positive attitude to the overall concept and believe that the quality of work will improve. However, most of them are skeptical to whether any improvement of performance will be reached.

Effects of the ‘Lean transition’

As stated above, 5S has mainly been focused on production. The idea has been to go through each ‘S’ one at a time, following up the process through the employment of checklists and management audits. Some production areas have achieved good results with 5S, cleaning up their work places and improving the physical work environment. Under the LP banner, management has been more willing to invest money in new tool cabinets and other utilities, which has been a contributing factor in creating positive reactions. The improved orderliness in certain workstations has to a certain extent inspired others to do the same, without being pushed by management. Unfortunately, there has been insufficient time for managers to perform the 5S audits, reducing the attention towards the concept.