Organisational learning to sustain lean implementation in New
Zealand manufacturing companies
Affandi Mohd-Zainal 1+
, Jane Goodyer 1
and Nigel Grigg 1
1
School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Abstract. In New Zealand, lean manufacturing is slowly becoming popular, and its adoption by
manufacturing companies has been particularly encouraged and supported. However, efforts to sustain lean
implementation have been difficult, and met with many obstacles. One of the factors in sustaining lean is the
ability of the workforce as a whole to learn and change continuously within the framework of organisational
learning. This paper highlights the theoretical linkages between organisational learning and lean
sustainability. It identifies points of intersection where organisational learning connects with the basic
principles of lean, and where organisational learning contributes to sustainability of lean implementation.
However, there has not been much research on organisational learning in New Zealand. Therefore, there is a
need to empirically confirm the linkage between organisational learning and lean sustainability within the
context of New Zealand manufacturing companies. This paper concludes by explaining research
methodology to empirically investigate the linkage.
Keywords: lean sustainability, organisational learning, learning organisation, New Zealand, structural
equation modelling
1. Introduction
While there is no consensus definition of what lean is, there is a general agreement that lean is about
creating products or services exactly as requested by customer with less work and waste [1]. Lean originates
from the Toyota Production System (TPS) in the automotive industry. However, it is no longer confined to
the automotive industry, and can be applied in other manufacturing sectors as well as services industries [2].
The popularity of lean, being one of the most influential new paradigms in manufacturing [3], is still strong
with some success stories reported from different parts of the world.
2. Lean sustainability
2.1. Lean failures
While lean continues to be aggressively promoted and adopted by many industries, the fact remains that
there are more failures than successes. Many companies worldwide have tried to implement lean but the
majority of them only achieved modest levels of success [1]. In many cases, companies enjoyed drastic
improvements in the beginning of their lean implementation, where obvious types of waste were quickly
discovered and removed. However, they later found that improvement activities began to slow down and no
more meaningful improvements could be made. Reasons that are often cited as main factors for lean failures
include, among other things, poor leadership, lack of concrete process or mechanisms, lack of clear targets or
direction, lack of conducive environment, poor communication, staff resistance to change, and lack of
learning that lead to poor understanding of lean [4]
2.2. Sustaining lean
What can be done to improve sustainability? Different companies have different issues and need
different approaches to implement and sustain lean. In the case of New Zealand manufacturing companies,
Murti [5] indicates that people development was not given enough attention. The lack of concerted efforts to
+
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 64 6 3569099 ext 7439; fax: +64 6 3505604
E-mail address: a.mohd-zainal@massey.ac.nz
151
2011 3rd International Conference on Information and Financial Engineering
IPEDR vol.12 (2011) © (2011) IACSIT Press, Singapore
develop people into continuous learners makes it difficult to embed a culture of continuous improvement.
Murti [5] suggests to look into organisational learning as a means to sustain lean implementation.
The suggestion is not without merit. Takahiro Fujimoto, an expert on Toyota, as cited in Balle et al [2],
has attributed the phenomenal success of Toyota, as a lean exemplar company, to its highly advanced
organisational learning capability. This is quite expected since many disciplines of organisational learning
are compatible with lean principles [2]. Some leading researchers such as Liker, Spear and Brown have also
indicated the role of organisational learning in Toyota’s success [6, 7].
3. Organisational learning
Organisational learning has been researched from various perspectives and angles, giving rise to various
models, concepts and theories of learning. Easterby-Smith [8] states that organisational learning can be
looked from six different disciplines – psychology, management science, sociology and organisational theory,
strategy, production management, and cultural anthropology – with each discipline has different
contributions and conceptions of problems.
All organisations are bound to learn something anyway to a certain degree, so learning in organisations is
a relative matter [9]. What makes a good learning organisation is the management intervention that
prescribes specific recommendations about the correct way for organisations to learn. This approach is
known by a different yet closely related term, learning organisation. Tsang [10] explains that “organisational
learning is a concept used to describe certain types of activity that take place in an organisation while the
learning organisation refers to a particular type of organisation in and of itself”. It is simply the difference
between ``becoming'' and ``being'' [10]. Research on organisational learning is more descriptive, analytical
and usually backed up by empirical evidence with the main objective of understanding how an organisation
learns. A learning organisation, on the other hand, is a more prescriptive approach that deals with “how
should an organisation learn”. There is an active intervention on the part of the management to create an
organisation that continuously learns. In short, a learning organisation is one that has excellent organisational
learning capabilities [10].
3.1. How does an organization learn?
An organisation does not learn. It is the individuals that make up the organisation that act as learning
agents. While individual learning is a prerequisite for organisational learning, it does not always contribute to
organisational learning. As a result, sum of learning acquired at the organisational level is often not as much
as the sum of learning by individual members of the organisation [11]. What is needed for individual
learning to be translated into organisational learning is an organisational memory system where all individual
learning (in the form of newly obtained information, theories or models etc) can be stored and later shared
with everyone else in the organisation [11]. Organisational memory refers to such things as routines,
standard operating procedure (SOP), documents, or job instructions that can be used to control behaviours of
the organisation or members of the organisation.
3.2. Organisational learning and lean
The linkage between organisational learning and lean can be explained via continuous improvement.
Lean is sustainable when there is an embedded culture of continuous improvement [1, 6]. Whatever
contributes toward continuous improvement plays a role in sustaining lean. Organisational learning has been
noted to have direct linkages with continuous improvement [12, 13], thus it follows logically that
organisational learning contributes toward lean sustainability.
Garvin [14] states that continuous improvement requires commitment to learning. According to Garvin
[14], an organisation cannot improve without new ideas, and new ideas generally come from learning. In
order to contemplate a meaningful solution to a problem, sometimes it is necessary to look at it from a
different perspective. In the absence of learning, it is very difficult to even think of the new perspective.
Consequently, the old practices will prevail and solution to the problem may just be cosmetic and short-lived
[14]. In a learning organisation environment, employees are supposed to give feedback to evaluate
performance, making it possible for the results of continuous improvement activities to be deposited into the
152
organisational knowledge memory [15]. Consequently, organisational learning can generate more
improvements by building on past accomplishment, information of which comes from the knowledge base
[15].
The nature of relationship between organisational learning and continuous improvement is not a onedirection
process. Both organisational learning and continuous improvement enhance one another [13].
Initially, learning will contribute toward continuous improvement, and later whatever outcomes from
continuous improvement is channelled back to the learning process, effectively creating a continuous cycle
of improvement and learning.
Continuous improvement is normally associated with problem solving. This is indicated by Bessant’s
model of continuous improvement capability. The more systematic problem solving, the higher level of
continuous improvement capability [12]. It is here within the process of problem solving - identifying and
resolving problems that occur in the daily work routines - that learning can occur [16]. The nature of learning
that takes place during the problem solving process is a topic of interest because it can have a direct impact
on the continuity of the improvement programme. If there is systematic problem solving in place, there is a
possibility that for every problem solved, more learning (with more knowledge and skill) can be generated,
which in turn can create more opportunities for continuous improvement in future. However, in some cases,
there is a tendency to engage in the wrong problem solving behaviour, where problem solving becomes a
mere fixing of problem temporarily instead of an analysis and modification of the underlying causes to
prevent the same problem from happening again [17]. Such type of problem solving (first-order solution)
prevents continuous organisational learning [17], and in the long run, a continuous improvement programme
will not be able to go beyond fixing the obvious ‘low hanging fruit’ problems.
In contrast, a learning organisation, with a correct approach to problem solving, can continue to make
significant improvements. Problem solving in the form of experimentation is an excellent mechanism
through which double-loop learning can take place. It is here that potential solutions to problem are tested or
verified against the anticipated results. In short, this is the familiar learning cycle of Plan-Do-Check-Act
(PDCA). Many organizations, with no proper organisational learning system in place, rarely make use of this
fundamental concept.
Figure 1 briefly explains the relationship between lean sustainability, continuous improvement, and
organisational learning. At the bottom of the figure is a learning organisation where there is a conducive
environment for organisational learning to develop. Organisational learning in turn works in combination
with continuos improvement. The continuing cycle of organisational learning and continuous improvement
eventually contributes toward lean sustainability. At the same time, the presence of second-order problem
solving behaviour will contribute toward both organisational learning and continuous improvement in
reciprocal manner.
Fig. 1: Relationship between lean sustainability, continuous improvement and organisational learning.
4. Research gap
153
Although existing literature supports the notion that organisational learning can contribute toward lean
sustainability [6, 7], there has been very little research that looks into the empirical evidences that could link
organisational learning to lean sustainability, particularly in the context of New Zealand manufacturing
companies. As such, there is a need to carry out a quantitative testing to clarify the proposed linkages
between organisational learning and lean sustainability.
5. Research Methodology
As mentioned previously, lean has a higher chance of sustaining if there are continuous efforts on
improvement activities [1, 6]. For the purpose of this research, the linkage between organisational learning
and lean sustainability is explained via problem solving behaviour and continuous improvement activities.
Thus, the following hypothesis will be used.
H1: Organisational learning and continuous improvement enhance one another
H2: Organisational learning and problem solving behaviour enhance one another
H3: Problem solving behaviour and continuous improvement enhance one another
5.1. Conceptual model
The first task is to develop a conceptual structural equation model to show the relationship between
organisational learning, problem solving behaviour and continuous improvement activities. In this research,
Watkins and Marsick’s model of organisational learning will be used to measure level of organisational
learning within an organisation [18]. This model is based on seven dimensions of learning with observable
actions that can be easily measured to build a learning organization. Problem solving behaviour is assessed
by using 7-item instrument adapted from Carmeli’s work [19] while measurement of continuous
improvement is based on survey questionnaire used in Sun et. al.’s work [13].
The conceptual structural equation model is shown in Figure 2. The main body of the structural model
contains three latent variables - learning organisation, problem solving behaviour and continuous
improvement. Learning organisation in turn is made up of seven constructs as identified by seven dimensions
of Watkins and Marsick’s learning organisation model. Lines linking learning organisation, problem solving
behaviours and continuous improvement represents the regression between the variables.
5.2. Survey and data analysis
This research will be done by conducting survey among employees of New Zealand manufacturing
companies that are implementing lean, or have some experience with lean implementation in the past. The
research will also cover individuals who are not currently attached to any company but have past working
experience in lean manufacturing companies
The survey research instrument was developed based on Watkins and Marsick’s Dimensions of Learning
Questionnaire (DLOQ), problem solving behaviour scale developed by Carmeli [19] and continuous
improvement scale previously used by Sun et. al.’s work [13].
Two analysis techniques will be used. First, a correlation analysis is used to assess the associations
among the constructs of learning organization, problem solving behaviour and continuous improvement and
the dimensions included in the three constructs. Then, the Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) approach
will be used to identify relationships among the three constructs and to test a structural model.
6. Conclusion
This research is basically confirmatory in nature where the expected outcome is whether or not there is
sufficient empirical evidence to support the theoretical linkages between organisational learning and lean
sustainability via problem solving behaviour and continuous improvement especially in the context of New
Zealand manufacturing companies. This research is expected to make a modest contribution to the
knowledge and practice in the area of lean and organisational learning.
154
Fig. 2: Relationship between learning organisation, problem solving behaviour and continuous improvement.
7. References
[1] Womack, J.P. and D.T. Jones, Lean Thinking Banish Waste and Create Wealth In Your Corporation 2003: Simon
& Schuster UK Ltd.
[2] Balle, M., et al., The thinking production system Reflections, 2006. 7(2): p. 1 - 12.
[3] Hines, P., M. Holweg, and N. Rich, Learning to evolve - a review of contemporary lean thinking. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2004. 24(10).
[4] Emiliani, M.L. and D.J. Stec, Leaders lost in transformation Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
2005. 26(5): p. 370 - 387
[5] Murti, Y., Sustaining Lean in New Zealand Manufacturing Organisations, in School of Engineering and Advanced
Technology. 2009, Massey University: Palmerston North.
[6] Liker, J.K., The Toyota Way 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer. 2004, New
York: McGraw-Hill.
[7] Spear, S. and H.K. Bowen, Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System Harvard Business Review
1999(September - October 1999).
[8] Easterby-Smith, M., Disciplines of Organizational Learning : Contributions and Critiques Human Relations 1997.
50(9): p. 1085 - 1113.
[9] Francis, S., A time for reflection : learning about organizational learning The Learning Organization, 1997. 4(4):
p. 168 - 179
[10] Tsang, E., Organizational learning and the learning organization: a dichotomy between descriptive and
prescriptive research. Human Relations, 1997. 50(1): p. 73-89.
[11] Argyris, C. and D.A. Schon, Organizational Learning : A theory of action perspective. 1978, Reading MA:
Addison Wesley.
[12] Bessant, J. and D. Francis, Developing strategic continuous improvement capability International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 1999. 19 (11 ): p. 1106 - 1119
[13] Sun, H., K. Ho, and W. Ni, The empirical relationship among organizational learning continuous improvement
and performance improvement. International Journal of Learning and Change 2008. 3(1).
[14] Garvin, D.A., Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 1993. July-August
[15] Oliver, J., Continuous improvement: role of organisational learning mechanisms. International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, 2009. 26(6): p. 546 - 563.
[16] Jones, L.N. and R.C. McBride, An Introduction to Team-approach Problem Solving 1990, Milwaukee WI ASQC
Quality Press.
155
[17] Tucker, A., A. Edmondson, and S. Spear, When problem solving prevents organizational learning. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 2002. 15(2): p. 122-137.
[18] Marsick, V.J. and K.E. Watkins, Demonstrating the value of an organization's learning culture: the dimensions of
the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 2003. 5(2): p. 132 - 151.
[19] Carmeli, A., Social Capital, Psychological Safety and Learning Behaviours from Failure in Organisations. Long
Range Planning, 2007. 40: p. 30 - 44.
156