Paper for 2nd International Conference on Lean Six Sigma for Higher Education Lean as a management strategy: universal or domain specific adaptation required

1. 1
Lean as a management strategy: universal or domain specific
adaptation required
A contingency framework for the assessment and adaptation of Lean
Vincent Wiegel – HAN university of applied sciences, vincent.wiegel@han.nl
Introduction
Lean is applied in wide range of economic sectors (application domains) ranging from industry to
services, from health to education. Domains that do differ markedly in structure (private vs public),
drivers (profit vs non-profit), local vs global, customer freedom vs patient dependency,
technologically advanced vs basic, tangible products vs intangible services, etc. etc.
Given these wide ranging application domains and their differences the Lean practice is remarkably
uniform. That raises some questions. Is Lean indeed an universally applicable operations
management strategy? If not, the Lean practice must fall short. What adjustments are required to
account for the various differences in its application domains? If it is an universal strategy why do we
see the proliferation of domain specific Lean flavors (Lean health, Lean government, Lean education,
etc.)? And why are these flavors existing? Various authors have looked into Lean applications in
specific domains and noted serious lack of progress. Some attribute this to general challenges of
leadership, ownership, wrong scoping, etc. If this is the case there is no need to speak of specific
strands of Lean. We will argue that there exist more structural differences that need to be
accommodated when applying Lean in different domains.
1 Lean as an (operations) management strategy
This paper begins when we revisited our efforts in applying Lean in the field of higher education.
Exercising some Hansei the key questions were: why is or ought there be anything such as Lean
education? And, if affirmative, what is about? These question evoked two observations that seem
paradoxical.
One, organization and management theories are mostly general, i.e. not domain specific. This in
contrast to the tendency in Lean where we find Lean healthcare, Lean government, Lean services,
etc. Two, organization and management theories (e.g. Porter, Montgommery) offer several variables
and mechanisms to account for and adjust to structural, environmental and technological differences
that characterize various domains and organizations. This in stark contrast to Lean theory that is
remarkably void of any specific or adjustable variables and mechanisms.
It might be that Lean theory is an universal theory that needs no adjustments. Another explanation,
more plausible we argue, could be that Lean as it stands is undertheorized.
Lean started as an operations management strategy. Since operations is about processes and
everything is a process Lean has gradually moved into areas outside operations such as for example
sales and HR. Nonetheless it remains in essence an operations management strategy. Its core
assignment is to deal with the contingencies and constraints posed by the environment in which the
organization operates and the contingencies and constraints of the technology deployed by the
organization (Thompson, 2008).

2. A contingency framework for Lean
2
V.Wiegel – Draft version – under review and not open for citation
2 Contingencies
One of the key objectives of an operations management strategy is to deal with and exploit the
uncertainties and contingencies an organization faces. The degree, type and source of contingencies
varies across organization within a domain and across domains (Thompson, 2008).
Our simple argument is the following. Organizations operate in varying environments, with varying
technologies. They adapt their structure and operations strategies accordingly. Lean as a strategy for
operations management needs to facilitate these adaptions if it is to be successful. In as far as Lean
has not been adapted / or capable of adaptation we would expect Lean to be unsuccessful in
application domains (e.g. public services, education, healthcare) that differ markedly from the
application domain for which it was originally developed (large scale industrial production).
3 Falling short
Various authors have evaluated Lean practices in relatively new application domains such as
healthcare and education. The general tenor seems to be that the Lean practices and impact fall
short of expectation and performance compared to other domains. The reasons for this failure can
be grouped in two groups: one, general (change) management related issues, two, structural,
domain specific issues. An instance of the first group is provided by Antony et. al. (2012). Radnor et.
al. 2013) provide an example of the second group. Our argument is not one of the two groups being
wrong or incorrect. Change management capabilities in HE might poorly developed. Education as
with all public services might be different in that it involves, for example, strong customer
participation in the production of the service. In the first case the redress is practices and execution.
In the second case the challenges to Lean are more fundamental and of a conceptual nature.
Antony et. al. (2012) conclude that Lean is fit for higher education but that application is lagging far
behind compared to other application domains. They note that Lean for HE faces various challenges.
None of these challenges however are specific to the nature of higher education. Lack of visionary
leadership or process ownership would be a challenge in any application domain. This lack might be
(though arguably is not) more prevalent in higher education than in other application domain but
does not relate to the structure of the HE application domain. The redress would be in change
management practices. We argue that though these challenges do exist they are not specific to HE.
More importantly they overlook structural differences from the traditional Lean application domain
that requires adaptations.
4 A contingency framework for Lean
4.1 A framework
Following Klingenberg (forthcoming) and Thompson (2008) we use a framework to define the various
sources of contingency. A set of six elements that are a source of contingency define our framework1
.
The degree of uncertainty associated with these contingency has implications for the operations
strategy deployed. In our case we argue that it determines to some extent the use and usefulness of
the various Lean concepts and tools (section five) and possibly the need for adjustments.
1
Our definition of contingency sources is such that it encompasses Slack’s four V’s. Volume,
Variety, Variation and Visibility.

3. A contingency framework for Lean
3
V.Wiegel – Draft version – under review and not open for citation
4.2 Six elements of the contingency framework
So we have six elements that together comprise our contingency framework.
1. Output variation
2. Co-production
3. Interdependency
4. Technology
5. Input variation
6. Informational nature
Ad 1) Output variation
Output variation refers to the variation in demand with regard to both quantity and specification of
the output, i.e. the products and services. Output quantity can be stable or vary strongly either with
or without patterns. Some products are in demand according to a stable, regular pattern and in high
quantities and little variation in specification.
Ad 2) Co-production
Co-production refers to the extent in which the customer has (not) a large contribution (input and
continued involvement) in the actual production of the good or service. Production and consumption
appear simultaneously and cannot (always) be clearly distinguished. The production process can be
part of the actual product or service.
Ad 3) Interdependence
Various parts of an organization are interdependent. Thompson (2008:54-55) distinguishes three
types of interdependence: a) pooled, b) sequential and c) reciprocal. In the instance of pooled
dependence parts of the organization are not necessarily interacting but nonetheless require (every)
other part to make its contribution for the organization and each to be successful. In the case of
sequential dependence the order and direction of the interdependence is specific. It is asymmetrical
in that one requires input of another part. The most complex type of interdependence is constituted
by reciprocal interdependence in which the involved parts of the organization need each other to
complete the working. In the context of our framework this is important because “…the three types
of interdependence are increasingly difficult to coordinate because they contain increasing degrees
of contingencies.” (Thompson, 2008:55)
Ad 4) Technology
Technology refers to the method by which the product or service is rendered / produced. Though we
tend to think of technology as tangible, technical matter in the sense in which it is used here a
teaching pedagogy is also a technology as is therapy for example. Technology has two dimensions
that are important in the context of this paper: a) linkage (Thompson 2008, pp 15-18), b)
predictability. Both are indicators for the uncertainty associated with technology. Linkage refers to
technology that is either
 long-linked – serial linked, interdependent activities applying (parts) of technology – mass
production assembly lines are a typical example;

4. A contingency framework for Lean
4
V.Wiegel – Draft version – under review and not open for citation
 mediating – technology linking groups of customers requiring different but complementary
services – insurance and banking business are typical examples;
 intensive – multiple techniques applied in various configurations according to the feedback
from the customer and or object – therapy and construction are typical examples.
Predictability refers to the extent in which the outcome of the process in which the technology is
applied can be reliably predicted. And whether any uncertainty is definable in individual instances.
Ad 5) Input variation
Input to the production process can vary in quantity and specification. The extent in which the input
is constant and homogeneous or not is a contingency that creates uncertainty. It creates larger
demand on the technology and organization processing the input. It requires greater flexibility both
in capacity and robustness in dealing with variation. A university or a hospital typically are dealing
with high input variation. Traditional chemical industry on the other hand deals fairly well controlled
resources as input to its processes.
Ad 6) Informational nature
Products and services seldom are exclusively informational or material in nature. Most services has
physical components and most material products require some information for its use. The larger the
informational content of the product or service c.p. the larger the uncertainty. Information in as far
as it is intended for communication with human agents is more ambiguous than material.
Each of the elements in the framework is a source of varying uncertainty. As it is one of the goals of
an organization and particularly of operations management to deal with contingencies it helps to
determine the challenges that an operations management strategy must answer. In dealing with
these challenges the operations management strategy deploys various concepts and tools. These
concepts and tools might (will) need tailoring to be fit for purpose. If we characterize the different
application domains through this framework we might find significant differences that require
adaptions of the Lean concepts and tools used. If this is the case it might explain why Lean as an
operations management strategy is more or less successful.
5 Adjustment of Lean concepts based on the contingency profile of an
application domain
The upshot of our analysis is that it might be the case that within an application domain structural
differences can be very large. Sub-domains might have more in common with sub-domains from
other application domains than with sub-domains within the same domain. E.g. trying murders has
more in common with engineer-to-order gas treatment systems than with the processing of speeding
tickets. The latter might be more similar to the industrial mass production of paperclips.
The contingencies that an organization faces determines in part the way it is organized. And more
importantly for our current purpose it determines the operations management strategies. The way
Lean is applied and what concepts and tools can be and are used. Given that Lean has been
developed in and for a rather specific situation implies that new application domains might require a
different and/or adapted set of concepts and tools. E.g. organizations that face a high degree of

5. A contingency framework for Lean
5
V.Wiegel – Draft version – under review and not open for citation
variation in demand with small quantities will have trouble implementing concepts such as takt and
Kanban.
6 Characterizing Lean for Higher Education
Using the Contingency framework for Lean we now try to identify some defining aspects of Lean for
Higher Education. As uncertainty grows and an organization is characterized more by the right-hand
extreme of our scales and organization tends to be more decentralized with quasi-autonomous
professionals working in small groups but with some strict, central rule setting. An university is a
typical example. The various faculties are strongly separated with institutes and research groups that
are largely autonomous. They are governed though by a set of strict, central rules regarding
financing, HR policy, student treatment, quality monitoring, etc. Otherwise they face very different
customers (defined as both students, and as organizations as future employers and consumers of
research output). Different is numbers of students, varying degrees of knowledge and attitudes of
students, using different technologies (e.g. arts classes versus nuclear power studies), etc. The
heterogeneity of such an organization is much larger than other larger organizations such as a copper
miner. The introduction of Lean by a central staff in the former is much more like introducing Lean in
ten organizations than the formally one that it is.
In higher education demand varies a little but the timing, seasonal influences are well-known and
mostly determined by law. The output qualifications are relatively straight forward and determined
at national level. The student is heavily involved in the learning process and both input and output.
The teacher and student, and the students are heavily and reciprocally interdependent. The teacher
applies various techniques making the technology intensive. The effectiveness of the various
techniques is at times know though varies strongly among individual cases (students). Students come
with different backgrounds (former high school education, family situation), different sex (boys and
girls have markedly different study preferences and respond differently to the ways information is
presented), different ambitions, preferred learning style, prior knowledge, social skills, etc. All these
factors cause a high degree of variation in input. Finally, teaching is a predominantly information
oriented activity. Information that is ambiguous, the impact of which is further enlarged by the
preceding aspects of input variation and uncertainty related to the applied technology.
The following characterization of Higher Education presented in figure 2 indicates why adjustments
to Lean might be in order. We think it would be naïve to assume that the same tools and techniques
apply to education as to mass production without any further adjustment. Though there is a prima
facie case for the application of Lean to HE there is also a prima facie case for adjustment. The lack of
success so far might have to do a lot with the lack of change management skill but also probably with
differences in application domain. A proposition that deserves at least consideration based on the
analysis provided in this paper.

6. A contingency framework for Lean
6
V.Wiegel – Draft version – under review and not open for citation
Figure 1 Characterization of Higher Education

7. A contingency framework for Lean
7
V.Wiegel – Draft version – under review and not open for citation
Literatuur
Antony, J., Krishan, N., Cullen, D., Kumar, M.,, 2012, Lean Six Sigma for higher education institutions
in International Journal of Productivity and performance management, Vol. 61
Klingenberg, W., Slomp, J., Gaalman, G., (forthcoming) Mass customisation - a contingency
framework
Larsson, R., Bowen, D.E. (1989) “Organization and Customer: Managing Design and Coordination of
Services”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14(2), pp. 213-233.
Mazzocato, P., … , 2010, Lean thinking in healthcare: a realist review of the literature, in Qual Saf
Health Care 2010;19:376-382
Montgommery, C., 2012, The strategist, HarperBusiness
Porter, Michael E., 2014, "What is strategy?" Harvard Business Review 74.6 (1996): 61
Radnor, Z., Osborne, S., 2012 (online), Lean, a failed theory for public services in Public management
review, Volume 15, Issue 2, 2013
Sanders, N., 2014, The Definitive Guide to Manufacturing and Service Operations
Scott, R.W., 2008, Introduction to the transaction edition: Thompson’s bridge over troubled waters
Slack, N., Brandon-Jones, A., Johnston, R., 2013, Operations management 7th
edition
Thompson, J.D., 2008, Organizations in action,