Advertisement

OPSEARCH

pp 1–22 | Cite as

Performance evaluation of lean production based on balanced score card method using ANP and SIR: a case from Iranian home appliance industry

  • Soroush Avakh DarestaniEmail author
  • Nillofar Hojjat Shamami
Theoretical Article
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

Lean production is a productive philosophy with systematic perspective which takes steps toward eliminating waste materials by applying continual improvement in the sophisticated business processes. Appropriate implementation of this philosophy results in significant changes within a business. Despite the ample efforts devoted to lean production’s evaluation and implementation, this system’s efficient evaluation and implementation are still experiencing countless issues, which seem to be due to absence of a comprehensive model for examining and evaluating lean production within manufacturing companies. Having knowledge of the companies’ performance status, provides us with the possibilities of discovering weakness and strengths, allowing lead strategic managers to have higher performance comparing to their competitors by allocating more volume of market share to themselves. Balanced score card is an important management system which it will be explained using the following four dimensions: management system, exclusive reliance on financial criteria is incomplete and defective. This paper aims at performance evaluation of lean production using balanced score card (BSC), analytic network process (ANP) and inferiority and superiority based ranking (SIR) approaches where, four dimensions have been considered including financial performance, customer, internal business processes and innovation and learning. The expert questionnaire was used to evaluate lean production’s performance based on BSC, DEMATEL survey—for recognizing element’s internal relationships—and TOPSIS survey—for evaluating leanness of production line. To aid us in ranking the production line, data analysis was completed based on Super Decision and Visual PROMETHEE where, the fourth production line with total score of 0.77 stood in the first order, meaning the internal operations with the least level of cost which proves its leanness. The first and sixth line were placed in next ranks with total score of 0.72 and 0.36 which demonstrates leanness level respectively.

Keywords

Lean production BSC ANP SIR 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Al Ebrahim, N., Nasiri, J.: Global market and Iran home appliances industry. In: Third Conference of Industries Research and Development, Tehran (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brunet, P., New, S.: Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 33(12), 1426–1446 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eroglu, C., Hofer, C.: Lean, leaner, too lean? The inventory performance link revisited. J. Oper. Manag. 29(4), 356–369 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Epstein, M.J., Roy, M.: How does your board rate? Strateg. Finance 85, 25–31 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farias, L.M.S., Santos, L.C., Gohr, C.F., Rocha, L.O.: An ANP-based approach for lean and green performance assessment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 143, 77–89 (2019)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fry, L.W., Nisieiwcz, M., Vitucci, S.: Transforming organizations through spiritual leadership. Paper presented at the 2007 National Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fontela, E., Gabus, A.: World Problems an Invitation to Further Thought Within the Framework of DEMATEL. Batlelle Geneva Research Center, Geneva (1972)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haragovics, M., Mizsey, P.: A novel application of energy analysis: lean manufacturing tool to improve energy efficiency and flexibility of hydrocarbon processing. Energy Eng. Manag. Press 77, 382–390 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hofer, C., Eroglu, C., Hofer, A.R.: The effect of lean manufacturing in financial performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 138(2), 242–253 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Honge, P.: Impact of lean manufacturing and environment management on business performance: an empirical study of manufacturing firms. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 129(2), 251–261 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaplan, R.R., Norton, D.P.: Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy. Calif. Manag. Rev. 39, 53–79 (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kiriri, P.N.: Management of performance in higher education institution. Eur. J. Educ. 1(3), 168–176 (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lawshe, C.H.: A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers. Psychol. 28, 563–575 (1975)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Monden, Y.: Toyota Production System; An Integrated Approach to Just-In-Time. Productivity Press, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olve, N.G., Roy, J., Manus Wetter, M.: Performance Drivers. Wiley, Chichester (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pulkurte, R., Masilamani, R., Sonpatki, S., Dhake, R.: Cycle time education in assembly line through layout improvement. Ergonomics analysis and lean principles. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Res. 3(2), 455–463 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rother, M., Shook, J.: Learning to See. The Lean Enterprise Institute, Brookline, MA (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robbins, S., Judge, T., Millertt, B., Boyle, M.: Organization Behavior. Pearson Higher Education, Docklands (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Network Process Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback. RWS Publications, Pitsburgh (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saaty, T.L.: Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Sci. Iran. 9(3), 215–229 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shah, R., Ward, P.T.: Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance. J. Oper. Manag. 21(2), 129–149 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shah, R., Ward, P.T.: Defining and developing measures of lean production. J. Oper. Manag. 25(4), 785–805 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thomas, T., Sherman, S.R., Sawhney, R.S.: Application of lean manufacturing principles to improve a conceptual 238PU supply process. J. Manuf. Syst. 46, 1–12 (2018)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xiaozhan, X.: The SIR method. A superiority and inferiority ranking method for multiple criteria decision making. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 131, 587–602 (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang, Z., Lee, M.K.O., Hoong, P., Zhang, L., Hoong, X.: A framework of ERP system implementation success in China: an empirical study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 98(1), 56–80 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering, Qazvin BranchIslamic Azad UniversityQazvinIran

Personalised recommendations