Journal of Manufacturing Systems 45 (2017) 135–148

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Manufacturing Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmansys

Review

Lean production in complex socio-technical systems: A systematic

literature review
Marlon Soliman ∗ , Tarcisio Abreu Saurin
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGS, Industrial Engineering and Transportation Department – DEPROT, Av Osvaldo Aranha, 99, 5th Floor., Porto
Alegre, RS, 90035-190, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Although lean production (LP) is usually associated with complexity reduction, it has been increasingly
Received 8 February 2017 applied in highly complex socio-technical systems (CSS) (e.g. healthcare), in which the complexity level
Received in revised form 3 August 2017 cannot be reduced below a certain (high) threshold. This creates a paradoxical situation, which is not
Accepted 6 September 2017
well understood in theory and can be underlying the frustrating results of many lean implementations.
This article presents a systematic literature review of how LP has dealt with complexity, both in theory
Keywords:
and in practice, from a complexity science perspective. The review was based on 94 papers, which were
Lean production
analyzed according to seven criteria: how the concept of complexity is being used in lean research; the
Complex socio-technical systems
Systematic literature review
complexity level of the studied systems; the compatibility between the methodological approach and
Barriers the nature of complexity; how complexity is managed by LP; barriers to LP in CSS; side-effects of LP in
Side-effects CSS; and whether complexity is always detrimental to LP. A research agenda is also proposed.
© 2017 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
2. What is complexity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
3. Research design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
3.1. Selection of papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
3.2. Framework of data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
4. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
4.1. Overview of the included papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
4.2. Theoretical approaches to complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
4.3. How complex were the systems in which LP was implemented? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
4.4. Was the methodological approach compatible with complexity science? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
4.5. How is complexity managed in LP systems? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
4.6. What are the main barriers to LP in CSS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
4.7. Are there side-effects arising from LP in CSS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
4.8. Is complexity necessarily detrimental to LP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
5.1. Contributions of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
5.2. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.3. Agenda for future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: marlon.soliman@ufrgs.br, marlonsoliman@gmail.com (M. Soliman), saurin@ufrgs.br (T.A. Saurin).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2017.09.002
0278-6125/© 2017 The Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
136 M. Soliman, T.A. Saurin / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 45 (2017) 135–148
1. Introduction
Lean Production (LP) is widely known as a philosophy to
improve performance in production systems by eliminating waste
and delivering value for customers [1]. Several studies have pro-
vided empirical evidence of the LP benefits in terms of lead times,
productivity, quality, and other business dimensions. Mostly, such
evidence comes from manufacturing plants [2], which is consistent
with the origin of LP in the automotive sector. Only recently has LP
been more widely applied in services such as healthcare [3].
The dissemination of LP to a wide range of sectors also means
that it has been implemented in systems which are fundamen-
tally different from car manufacturing. In particular, LP has been
more and more used in highly complex socio-technical systems,
CSS [4]. These systems are characterized by high levels of uncer-
tainty, diversity, and dynamic interactions, among other features
that require management approaches compatible with their nature
[5].
In these environments, LP as usually applied in more linear sys-
tems can have unintended consequences. For instance, LP can make
the system more vulnerable to unexpected variability (i.e. a com-
plexity characteristic), since the limit between necessary slack and
waste is not straightforward in CSS [6]. This concern has been sup-
ported by empirical evidence. For example, Ref. [7] reported the
case of lean adoption in the F-22 aircraft manufacturing, where
tasks that did not add value to the end customer were eliminated
without considering their real utility to support the whole system
functioning. Ref. [4] conducted a survey with 126 US manufacturing
companies and evaluated the effect of complexity and dynamism
on lean operations. The authors found that when the rate of envi-
ronmental change was high, performance was not improved by lean
operations [4]. A similar finding was obtained by Ref. [8], with 228
manufacturing Irish companies, in which lean practices were asso-
ciated with a positive impact on quality, delivery and flexibility
only when dynamism was low. In line with this, Ref. [9] argue that
lean may have reached its limit, since today’s strong fluctuations in
markets are in conflict with required levelled capacity utilization
praised by lean.
When confronted with such failures of LP in CSS, the instinc-
tive reaction of some lean practitioners and consultants may be to
question the extent to which the lean projects were truly in line
with the lean theory – i.e. their assumption is likely to be that the
theory is ‘right’, and thus failure is essentially a matter of misun-
derstanding the theory and not applying it correctly. By contrast,
from a scientific perspective, a mismatch between theory and prac-
tice also raises the question of whether the theory has fundamental
gaps [10].
In fact, the relationship between LP and complexity has not
been discussed in depth in the literature. There is a need for dis-
cussing this relationship from a complexity science perspective,
which has theoretical and practical implications. Indeed, complex-
ity science has received increasing attention across a number of
disciplines, as a result of both the perceived limitations of the mech-
anistic paradigms as well as the perceived increasing complexity of
contemporary socio-technical systems [5,11]. In the broader oper-
ations management literature, and in this journal, several studies
have discussed the implications of complexity, in topics such as
product and process design [12–15], supply chain management
[16–21], knowledge management [22,23], and project manage-
ment [24]. With some exceptions (e.g. [21,24]), these studies do not
adopt an explicit complexity science perspective and they seem to
agree that complexity is mostly a hindrance, even though it can also
be a source of resilience [7,25]. Therefore, new or revised practices
are necessary for dealing with attributes of complexity.
In this paper we limit our scope to the management of com-
plexity when associated with LP. This decision was made because
LP adopts particular principles and practices, which can interact
with complexity in different ways, in comparison with other oper-
ations management theories. At the same time, as LP involves all
management areas (e.g. inventory management, product design,
etc.), it provides a broad scope for investigation.
Considering the aforementioned context, the research question
addressed by this study is stated as follows: how does LP deal with
the complexity of socio-technical systems? In order to answer this
question, we carried out a systematic literature review of the LP
implementation in CSS. From a theoretical perspective, this review
sheds light on: how the concept of complexity is being used in lean
research, the complexity characteristics of the studied systems, and
the compatibility between the methodological approaches used by
researchers and the nature of complexity. From a practical view-
point, the review offers insights into how complexity is managed
by LP, barriers to LP in CSS, side-effects of LP in CSS, and whether
complexity is always detrimental to LP. Although several literature
reviews of LP implementation have been published recently (e.g.
[26]), this is the first review focused on LP and complexity to the
authors’ knowledge.
2. What is complexity?
Although there is no consensus on the definition of complex-
ity, it is usually accepted that complex systems in general share
some interrelated attributes, such as a large number of elements
[5,27,28], emergent properties [11,29], nonlinear dynamics [30,31],
feedback loops [5,11,30] and adaptive behavior [32,33].
Complex systems may be either natural (e.g. thermodynamic
systems; human organism) or artificial (e.g. nuclear plants; space
missions; chemical plants) [30,34,35]. This study focuses on com-
plex socio-technical systems (CSS), which are a particular class of
complex adaptive systems [36,37] composed by people and tech-
nology interacting to produce a desirable output [38]. Table 1
presents examples of how the attributes of complexity might be
present in socio-technical systems.
It is also worth noting the difference between complex and
complicated systems. Although complicated systems may have
thousands of parts, they follow a set of predefined rules (e.g. a com-
puter software), and interactions are mostly linear. By contrast, CSS
cannot be fully described and modelled mathematically, and their
behavior is unpredictable to some extent [39].
The definition of a philosophical perspective of complexity also
matters for this study, since this has implications for the research
design and data analysis. As such, we approach complexity from a
critical realist view. This view assumes the existence of an objec-
tive reality (i.e. in line with realism), while at the same time it
recognizes that any observation is liable to the subjectivity of the
individual (i.e. in line with constructivism) [40]. This perspective
implies that complexity can be measured, and thus some systems
are expected to be more complex than others [41]. Additionally,
critical realism implies that, regardless of the unavoidable differ-
ent perspectives of what counts as complex or not, complexity can
be managed to some extent. Although it is not possible to intervene
directly on complexity due to its emergent nature [42], the perspec-
tive of critical realism is relevant to operations management since
it acknowledges the possibility of designing practices to influence
the factors and their interactions that set the stage for the emer-
gence of complexity. In fact, even the observer-dependent aspect
of complexity can be influenced by design to some extent. Ref. [24]
identified six factors that may increase imaginary complexity, such
as unintuitive system organization and lack of observer capability.
Although these authors refer to imaginary complexity as “compli-
catedness”, it should be noted that this concept is not the same as
the aforementioned concept of complicated systems.
 M. Soliman, T.A. Saurin / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 45 (2017) 135–148 137

Table 1
Attributes of complexity and examples in socio-technical systems.

Attributes Examples

Large number of elements Equipment, people, materials, supplies, procedures, sectors, departments, business types
Dynamic interactions People exchanging information; chemical interactions between materials
Rich interactions Single agents may be interconnected to innumerous customers, suppliers, colleagues and third-parts,
exchanging large portions of information
Non-linear interactions A small variation in the output of an operation (e.g. a tiny defect) can cause large disruptions (e.g. a recall)
Interactions with immediate neighbors In assembly lines, workstations primarily interact with the next and the previous operation
Feedback loops An increase in sales (e.g. a clearance sale) may rapidly saturate the market, thus decreasing sales for the
next period
Openness Socio-technical systems are subjected to external variability such as macroeconomics, politics and
environment
Operations are far from equilibrium Supply and demand are ever-changing, thus the system is ever adjusting its function to support operations
Complex systems have a history The way the system is currently managed is due to previous experiences and challenges overcome in the
past
Ignorance of the behavior of the system as a whole Front-line operators are unaware of the impacts of their work on downstream departments and overall
plant performance

Source: Adapted from [5].

Lastly, the complexity classification proposed by Ref. [43] was
adopted in this paper. According to these authors, complexity can
be divided into dynamic complexity, which accounts for the inter-
actions, and detail complexity, which is related to the number of
elements composing the system. This classification is similar to
others available in the literature, such as functional and structural
complexity [44], dynamic and structural complexity [45], and rela-
tionship and element complexity [24].
3. Research design
3.1. Selection of papers
The selection of papers to be included in the literature review
was based on the steps recommended by Ref. [46] (Fig. 1), involving:
(a) identification of the papers; (b) screening; (c) eligibility; and (d)
inclusion.
As for the Identification step, six databases, which were avail-
able from the authors’ institution, were included: Emerald Insight;
Science Direct; IEEE Xplore; Springer Link; Wiley Online Library;
and EBSCO Business Source Complete. The databases were queried
between March 9th and 11th, 2016 and, for each database, the
results were downloaded in single batches and on the same day.
The search criteria encompassed the terms ‘Lean’ AND ‘Com-
plexity’ in the title, abstract and/or keywords. This limitation was
necessary since browsing in the full text returned a very large
number of results (e.g. more than 31,000 only for Springer Link
database). The period of publications was not specified. After
excluding 2 duplicates; 618 records were identified at the end of
this step.
Concerning the screening step, six exclusion criteria were
applied: (i) non-scientific texts (e.g. magazine paper and techni-
cal reports, 7 records); (ii) papers written in other languages than
English (3 records); (iii) conference proceedings (34 records); (v)
book chapters (195 records); and (vi) full content access denied
(10 records). Based on these criteria, 249 articles were excluded
and 369 remained for the next step.
Regarding the eligibility step, the full contents of the 369 articles
were analyzed in light of one exclusion and one inclusion criteria:
(i) papers in which the terms ‘Lean’ and ‘Complexity’ were not used
in the sense of the research question were excluded (e.g. ‘lean burn’
in combustion science, and ‘complexity’ not referring to produc-
tion systems or to lean implementation); (ii) papers about LP that
presented results that could be reinterpreted from the complexity
perspective were included – e.g. a lean application that reduced the
number of employees could be reinterpreted as a reduction in the
number of parts and interactions. As a result of applying these cri-
teria, 275 articles were excluded and 94 remained for the next step
of the review.
These 94 articles were included in a database, which con-
tained: (i) identification data (database, journal’s name, title, year
of publication, sector); (ii) main contents of the study (objectives,
techniques for gathering and analyzing data, research strategy, and
main results); and (iii) pieces of evidence of complexity, such as
descriptions of the system or results that could be reinterpreted
according to the attributes of complexity presented in Section 2.
It should be noted that the exclusion of certain sources from
the on-line search for papers does not mean these sources were
neglected by this review. It only means that these contributions
were not included in the previously mentioned database and
therefore were not included in the calculation of the distribution
of papers according to the data analysis categories described in
Section 3.2. Thus, a number of additional sources were used to sup-
port the analysis of the results obtained from the on-line search.
Although these sources did not count as “data” they had an impor-
tant role to enrich data analysis.
3.2. Framework of data analysis
A framework of data analysis was specifically devised for this
study. The included papers were analyzed according to two crite-
ria: (i) links with the complexity theory; and (ii) implications for
practice. Each criterion was broken down into relevant categories of
data analysis defined upfront (Table 2). Data coding in the defined
categories was initially carried out by one researcher. Then, results
were thoroughly reviewed by another researcher, and reasons for
disagreements were discussed until a consensus was achieved.
4. Results
4.1. Overview of the included papers
Most papers (72%) were published after 2011, indicating the
acknowledgment of contextual factors (e.g. use of IT) that increase
the complexity of contemporary socio-technical systems. On the
one hand, this fairly recent emphasis on LP and complexity may be
due to the more frequent use of lean in highly CSS. On the other
hand, it may arise from the evolution of lean thinking, which has
moved from understanding LP as a set of operational practices to a
broad business system, which should be based on systems thinking
[47].
Mostly, papers were empirical (62.7%) involving the collection of
field data and using varied research strategies, such as case studies,
surveys, expo-facto analysis, and simulations. Theoretical papers
138 M. Soliman, T.A. Saurin / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 45 (2017) 135–148
Fig. 1. Steps for selecting the papers.
(37.3%) included literature reviews and framework proposals that
have not been tested in practice.
Fig. 2 shows the economic sectors addressed by the articles. The
category referred to as ‘not specified’ stands for papers that are
not focused on any specific domain, such as the development of
generic frameworks and theoretical papers. Studies involving more
than one sector (surveys with multiple firms, for example) were
included in the ‘cross-sector’ category.
According to Fig. 2, healthcare was the sector most frequently
associated with LP and complexity. Indeed, hospitals and health-
care organizations in general have been widely recognized as highly
CSS [48,49]. The use of LP in automotive and other manufacturing
firms, respectively the second and third most emphasized sec-
tors, has also been explicitly connected with complexity. Although
manufacturing assembly lines are often regarded as prototypical
examples of linear systems, whole manufacturing plants, and the
broader supply chains of which these are part, may be highly CSS
[50].
Regardless of the prominence of some sectors in Fig. 2, we opted
for not restricting our review to those most emphasized by the lit-
erature. This choice made it possible to explore different attributes
and contexts of CSS. Furthermore, it would be an oversimplification
to assume that the economic sector, by itself, defines a company as
a highly CSS. Within a same sector, the complexity level of different
companies and plants can be substantially different depending on
the way processes are designed and managed.
4.2. Theoretical approaches to complexity
Only 20.2% of the studies were explicitly and systematically sup-
ported by theoretical frameworks aligned to complexity science.
We identified nine different theoretical approaches to complexity
(Table 3).
In fact, most of the included papers (79.8%) had no commit-
ment to complexity theory as a framework underlying study design
and data analysis. Nevertheless, most of these studies presented an
operational definition of complexity that accounted for some of the
 M. Soliman, T.A. Saurin / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 45 (2017) 135–148 139

Table 2
Framework of data analysis.

Categories of data analysis Relevance from the research question Information searched in the papers and analytical
perspective procedure

Theoretical approaches to
Links with complexity
complexity
theory
Complexity of the systems in
which LP was implemented
Compatibility between the
methodological approach and
the nature of complexity
Contribution of LP to manage
Implications for complexity
practice Barriers to LP in CSS
Side-effects arising from LP in
CSS
Whether complexity is always
detrimental do LP
To investigate how the complexity
concept is being used in lean research
To evaluate if the systems addressed
had attributes of complexity
To investigate whether the analytical
methods were compatible with the
nature of CSS
How complexity is managed by LP
To what extent the barriers arise from
complexity
To identify side-effects of adopting LP
in CSS
To investigate what portion of
complexity should not be removed
Definitions of complexity and complexity theory (if
any) adopted. This information used to be explicit
either in the Introduction or Literature review sections.
Characteristics of the context (e.g. number of
employees, suppliers, clients, hands-off).
Analytical methods employed. Methods were
considered appropriate if they accounted for
non-linear interactions and analyzed relationships
between attributes of complexity [5,30,39]. This is a
pragmatic criterion that accounts for core
characteristics of complexity, since there is no widely
accepted framework to define what counts as a
methodological approach fit for complexity.
Examples of how LP impacted on the attributes of
complexity.
Examples of how complexity attributes created
barriers to implement LP.
Examples of unintended or undesired consequences of
LP, which could be at least partially due to complexity
attributes.
Examples of how complexity attributes were beneficial
or detrimental for LP.

Fig. 2. Distribution of papers per sector.

Table 3
Studies that adopted theoretical frameworks aligned to complexity science.

Refs. Theoretical framework Examples of assumptions of the underlying theory

[6,7,17,43,51–54] Complex Systems Theory Complex systems are open and present nonlinear behavior
[55,56] Realist Evaluation Interventions are social products triggered by mechanisms that are specific to the context
[50,57] System-of-Systems Systems are composed by a set of interrelated subsystems
[21,58] Normal Accidents Theory Disruptions are an undesired outcome from interactions, which are unavoidable and unpredictable to some extent
[25] Actor-Network Theory Individuals are linked together in socio-technical systems
[59] Chaordic Systems Thinking Coexistence of order and chaos within system’s boundaries
[60] Morin’s Principles Reality is not objective, but rather a social construction
[61] System Dynamics Complex systems present several feedback loops
[62] Viable System Model Sustainable systems are adaptive and self-organizing
140 M. Soliman, T.A. Saurin / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 45 (2017) 135–148

Table 4
Definitions of complexity adopted in the selected papers.

Definitions Attributes of CSS Refs.

Complexity as interrelated elements
Complexity as diversity of elements
Complexity as uncertainty and dynamism
Complexity as multiple competing goals
Complexity as shared and scarce resources
Complexity as technical difficulty
Large number of interrelated processes, suppliers, individuals and materials. Examples [63–66]
include supply chain management and processes with multiple hands-off.
Multiple requirements of customers, multi-model lines, different quality standards, [67–70]
products with thousands of different components. This definition is usually adopted in
processes opened to customization and supply chains.
Uncertainty about internal processes, as well as the rate of change of the external [8,71–73]
environment. This situation is present, for example, when product lifecycle is short.
Pressure for quality, cost, safety, environmental regulations, responsiveness and low [74–76]
inventory create trade-offs, as a result of pursuing competing goals.
The scarcity of resources and their sharing among diverse users trigger interactions and [77–81]
may compromise organization’s ability to absorb variability. Examples of this definition
are presented in manufacturing and in healthcare settings.
Technical requirements of the product, dimensional constraints and perishability are some [82–84]
of the attributes posed as technical difficulty. Technical difficulty requires the use of highly
specialized resources, which in turn tends to increase couplings. Examples of complexity
as technical difficulty include aircraft manufacturing and Intensive Care Units.

complexity attributes listed in Table 1, which justifies their inclu-

sion in the sample. Six main complexity definitions were identified High detail and low dynamic High detail and high
complex dynamic complex
(Table 4).
As a drawback, the definitions of complexity presented in Table 4 [51] [68] [66] [74] [63]
are either unidimensional or bi-dimensional, in the sense that none [113] [122] [69] [125]
of them includes more than two of the complexity attributes listed [21] [25] [7] [55] [84]
in Table 1. Thus, these complexity definitions are reductionist to [99] [67] [86] [70]
[89] [90] [91] [81] [92]
the extent that interrelations between attributes are neglected. [126] [95]
There are theoretical and practical implications of adopting nar- [83] [93] [72]
row definitions of complexity. For instance, while LP may reduce
interactions in certain sub-systems of a broader system, the over-
all complexity may not necessarily decrease. In fact, the remaining
Low detail and low dynamic Low detail and high
parts may increase the diversity of their functions to compensate complex dynamic complex
for the eliminated interactions, which in turn may give rise to new
unintended interactions. Empirical evidence of this phenomenon
[123] [124]
was found by Ref. [85] in a blood sampling process. As a result of
reducing non-adding-value activities, the phlebotomist no longer
needed to walk to the waiting room to call the next patient; patients [87]
themselves went to the sampling room by looking at an electronic
display based on a queuing system. However, some patients did not
understand the new system or ignored the electronic call because
they wanted to be seen by specific phlebotomists. As such, the
diversity of functions (and interactions) performed by the recep- Fig. 3. Systems studied according to their complexity level. Note: the relative posi-
tioning of the references in the quadrants is random, and thus it does not convey the
tionist increased, since she then had to manage patients to ensure
existence of any differences in the complexity level within quadrants [122–126].
compliance with the queuing system [85].

well-known classification of the complexity of systems in general

4.3. How complex were the systems in which LP was
implemented?
A tentative classification of the complexity level of the sys-
tems subjected to lean interventions was carried out (Fig. 3). This
classification was based on information available in the analyzed
papers, which indicated evidence of the level of detail (e.g. num-
ber of workstations, number of employees, number of suppliers,
product mix) and dynamic complexity (e.g. dependence among
activities, production routes, common mode connections, shared
resources, ambiguities). This objective information presented in the
papers made it possible a relative comparison between the studied
systems, thus enhancing the internal validity of our analysis. Nev-
ertheless, the placement of the systems in the quadrants of Fig. 3
is also based on our judgment, since there are no reliable ways of
measuring and comparing detail and dynamic complexity across
sectors, neither for defining thresholds between levels of complex-
ity [30]. Our approach to place systems in Fig. 3 can be interpreted
as an operationalization of the critical realist philosophical view of
complexity adopted in our study (see Section 2), which combines
objective and subjective perspectives. It is also worth noting that a
by Perrow [30,p. 97] takes a similar approach to ours.
Sixty-three out of the 94 papers did not present sufficient infor-
mation to support the intended classification. This is a drawback of
these studies in itself, since any claims on the impacts of complex-
ity cannot be fully verified, given that the complex nature of the
studied systems was not clearly described. The papers that had the
required information were mostly case studies, which is consistent
with the emphasis placed by that research strategy on describing
the context.
Most of the papers (58%) included in Fig. 3 are located in the
top right quadrant which indicates that LP was used in highly CSS,
such as patient care in emergency departments [55,72]. The system
addressed by [7] (F-22 jet manufacturing), for example, was com-
posed of approximately 5000 workers and 1100 suppliers. Ref. [68]
analyzed the supply chain of a laptop manufacturer, which involves
the coordination of hundreds of discrete suppliers, many quality
standards and quality controls. Ref. [21] studied a steel processing
plant with over 1200 customers in various industries, which make
operations highly interactive.
The top left quadrant accounts for systems with high detail level
but low dynamic interactions. Studies that focused on manufac-
 M. Soliman, T.A. Saurin / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 45 (2017) 135–148
turing assembly lines and warehouse management were included
in this quadrant, since their level of predictability is relatively
high (e.g. work at the front-line can be standardized to a large
extent) and unexpected and undesired interactions are not as likely
as in the top right quadrant. One example refers to the manu-
facturing of clutch discs which encompassed 150 products with
30–40 different components each [86]. The operation, however,
was conducted in eight workstations with dedicated operators, and
therefore dynamic complexity was considered low. Another exam-
ple, from warehouse management, describes a lean approach to
a system composed by over ten million parts, which represented
more than 10,000 different items. Although detail complexity was
high, interactions between them were quite inexpressive [67].
The bottom-left quadrant encompasses four studies that eval-
uated fairly linear systems. For example, Ref. [87] described the
modelling of bricklaying processes as complex. However, the study
reported that this system involved repetitive tasks and it was com-
posed by only six operations and seven workers. This seems to be
in line with our findings presented in Section 4.2, which indicated
the narrow definition of the term complexity by many studies.
Lastly, no papers were assigned to the bottom right quadrant.
Anyway, LP could certainly be implemented in systems character-
ized by high dynamics and low detail complexity. This could be the
case, for example, for lean startups, which tend to be small compa-
nies, and therefore have relatively few parts, but are highly dynamic
in nature [88].
4.4. Was the methodological approach compatible with
complexity science?
Papers were analyzed according to the compatibility between
the research method and the nature of CSS. An overview of the
methodological approaches adopted by the papers which inves-
tigated highly detailed and highly dynamic systems (top right
quadrant of Fig. 3) is presented in Table 5.
Based on our data analysis criteria (see Table 2), ten out of
the 18 papers listed in Table 5 adopted methods unfit for com-
plexity, since they did not account for non-linear interactions nor
jointly analyzed relationships between attributes of complexity.
For example, Ref. [90] investigated lean adoption in the discharge
process of patients at a 651-bed hospital. Although the study recog-
nized that the discharge process involved the coordination of many
agents (e.g. physicians, nurses, patients), the improvement strategy
relied on process mapping tools, which did not capture non-linear
interactions, multiple value wishes, parallel interactions, feedback
loops, and trade-offs. In fact, findings suggest that while complexity
has been explicitly recognized by many studies, this is not always
accompanied by changes in the analytical approaches.
4.5. How is complexity managed in LP systems?
The literature consulted indicated that lean principles and prac-
tices have been used to manage several sources of complexity. A
summary of the evidence is presented in Table 6.
Although all studies presented in Table 6 argue that complexity
was reduced due to LP, measurements were based on proxy mea-
sures such as lead time, total inventory and quality. For example,
the elimination of unnecessary instruments in an operating room
[95] means that there was a reduction in the diversity of elements
that compose the system, and thus interactions were also more pre-
dictable. Thus, the system possibly became less complex at least in
the ‘diversity’ and ‘interactions’ dimensions.
Nevertheless, the results presented by the reviewed studies are
limited to the intervention site, and then broader impacts of lean
on other systems and side-effects are not taken into account. For
instance, in the study by Ref. [95] it is unclear how other systems
141
were impacted by reducing instruments in the operating room,
and how the freed-up capacity in the sterilization department was
used. It is possible, in principle, that since the time spent to pre-
pare the operating rooms decreased, more surgeries may have been
scheduled, thus stressing other systems, such as bed management.
It is also noteworthy that the role played by leaders aligned with
lean principles was missed by the reviewed studies as a strategy for
coping with complexity. Lean leadership is a key for successful LP,
and it involves the development of a particular set of beliefs, behav-
iors, and competences [100,101]. Thus, it is reasonable to assume
that lean leadership can tackle some of the factors identified by
Ref. [24] as contributors to imaginary complexity. For instance, lean
leaders are more likely to be aware of the details of work-as-done
at the front-line, and thus they tend to be more capable of finding
problems and issues in a process. This supports the management
of the factors referred to by Ref. [24] as lack of observer experi-
ence and lack of observer capability − in other words, a lean leader
may perceive a certain process as less complex than a traditional
leader. Divergent viewpoints, which is another factor identified by
Ref. [24] and that can make imaginary complexity to fester, may
also be reduced due to shared beliefs developed as a lean culture
gets matured.
4.6. What are the main barriers to LP in CSS?
Although barriers to LP implementation have been investigated
by several studies [102], these have not taken a complexity per-
spective − of course, this is not exclusive with the possibility that
barriers identified in earlier studies are complexity-related. Fur-
thermore, barriers pointed out in literature are usually associated to
specific sectors, such as healthcare and public services [103,104]. In
this respect, a complexity perspective may provide a fairly general-
izable account of barriers, since similar complexity attributes can be
present across sectors. Moreover, the intensity of the barriers can be
moderated by the complexity level of the system, which is a propo-
sition that needs empirical investigation in future studies. Thus,
we searched for barriers associated with complexity attributes, as
follows:
(i) Limited suitability of lean principles and practices: although
lean principles and practices are not in conflict with the nature
of CSS [52], they may be either insufficient or need adapta-
tion in order to address complexity [8]. This limitation arises
from the intractability of CSS, in which the intensity of some
complexity attributes cannot be reduced below a certain (high)
threshold, which undermines the performance of LP [4,98]. For
example, the limitations of the kanban system in environments
in which the demand is unstable have been pointed out by
several studies [105].
(ii) Difficulty to establish cause-and-effect relationships: CSS
have emergent properties and, as a consequence, linear cause-
and-effect relationships cannot be assumed. For example, Ref.
[106] heavily criticizes the use of the five whys technique,
which is commonly associated with LP, as a tool for the analy-
sis of incidents in healthcare. Furthermore, waste types are so
interrelated that it is not simple to remove one without creat-
ing others [107]. To compensate for this, lean adoption in CSS
must adopt a slower pace [17] and make use of a ‘sense and
respond’ strategy, which means conducting small experiments
and assessing how the system behaves, rather than planning
and deploying large projects at once [7].
(iii) There are no clear-cut boundaries between waste and value:
as complexity increases, boundaries between waste and value
become blurred [108]. Both waste and value can be emergent
properties, and due to this, value may emerge from a series of
activities that, in isolation, are waste − the opposite reason-
142 M. Soliman, T.A. Saurin / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 45 (2017) 135–148

Table 5
Methodological approaches to investigate high detailed and high dynamic systems.

Refs. Objective System studied and economic Methodological approach Is it in line with complexity science?
sector

[66] To introduce cross-functional
process charts to evaluate
construction projects under lean
lens
[68] To devise a decision-making
framework to aid waste
elimination in supply chains
[72] To find the best combination of
resources that will reduce the
non-value added time and lead
time
[81] To evaluate the efficiency of Health
Information Systems in optimizing
flows
[84] To propose a decision-making
framework to choose among
different improvement programs
[89] To describe the potential of lean in
a mental healthcare system
[90] To examine lean adoption in a
patient discharge process
[91] To describe the benefits of lean at
Seattle Children’s Hospital
[92] To compare the practices
employed in civil aerospace with a
typical lean sector (automotive)
[93] To assess an alternative system to
triage patients
[51] To assess lean in an environment
characterized by novelty and
complexity
[7] To take a deeper look into the
mechanisms by which lean affects
production costs
[55] To evaluate 7 different lean
interventions at the same hospital
[21] To investigate the relationship
between complexity, coupling and
supply chain disruptions
[25] To investigate the dynamics
involved in process improvement
interventions
[63] To investigate the potential risk of
‘lean thinking’ in an environment
with high levels of complexity and
uncertainty
[74] To explore the complexity and
dynamics of lean and agile
strategies in automotive industry
[83] To assess how physicians
understand care in the ICU Context
Installation of seismic isolation
bearings (Construction)
Supply chain of laptop
manufacturing (Electronic
equip.)
Emergency Department
(Healthcare)
Anesthesia Department
(Healthcare)
Aircraft manufacturing
(Aerospace)
Mental healthcare delivery
system (Healthcare)
651-bed tertiary teaching
hospital (Healthcare)
Pediatrics Emergency
Department (Healthcare)
Civil aerospace industry
(Aerospace)
Emergency Department
(Healthcare)
F-22 jet manufacturing
(Aerospace)
F-22 jet manufacturing
(Aerospace)
Emergency Department
(Healthcare)
Steel processing plant with
more than 1200 customers
from various sectors (Steel
processing)
Pathology unit of a hospital
with high levels of uncertainty
(Healthcare)
Supply chain of two major
construction projects
(Construction)
Supply chain of the automotive
sector (Automotive)
Intensive Care Unit
(Healthcare)
Cross-functional process
charts
Framework to support
waste elimination in lean
supply chains
Process mapping
Value Stream Mapping
Framework for aiding
decision; computer
simulation
Framework to relate lean
and Evidence-Based
Practices
Process mapping
Qualitative descriptive
analysis
Framework of the expected
characteristics of a lean
company
Linear regression
Conceptual framework to
relate complexity and
novelty concepts
Conceptual framework to
relate LP, learning, novelty
and uncertainty
Qualitative descriptive
analysis
Binary logistic regression;
Qualitative descriptive
analysis
Qualitative descriptive
analysis
Qualitative descriptive
analysis
Qualitative descriptive
analysis
Qualitative descriptive
analysis
No, since the method captures hands-offs,
but not other attributes of complexity
No, since the framework is based on a
causal tree, which assumes linearity
No, since process mapping assumes
linearity
No, since Value Stream Mapping assumes
linear interactions
No, since only the attribute uncertainty (or
variability) was taken into account
No, since it advocated the possible benefits
of a set of lean tools in isolation
No, since process mapping assumes
linearity
No, since it describes the results achieved
without assessing for the mechanisms that
made changes possible
No, since lean practices were approached
isolated
No, since the evaluation focused only on
indicators before/after the proposed
changes, without accounting for the
mechanism activated
Yes, since it addressed complexity as an
emerging property and accounted for
non-linear interactions, novelty,
uncertainty and detail complexity
Yes, since the analysis explicitly addresses
feedback loops, emergent properties and
interactions
Yes, since the description accounted for
detail complexity and mechanisms (i.e.
interactions)
Yes, since the explanation for the
phenomena accounted for interactive
complexity and coupling
Yes, since it describes the success of lean as
an emerging phenomena from people
interacting to support changes
Yes, since it addresses interactions and the
role of slack to cope with uncertainty
Yes, since it describes the impact of
interactions, unexpected variability and
trade-offs
Yes, since it describes how conflicting
goals, the high level of details and
uncertainty make it difficult to define what
counts as value and waste

ing can also be true [7,107]. Furthermore, in CSS the existence
of multiple stakeholders is common, each holding a different
perception of value, oftentimes in conflict [76]. For example,
Ref. [83] analyzed lean adoption in an ICU, and concluded that
compassionate care (e.g. spending time at bedside to listen to
patient’s needs) adds value to physicians, patients, and family,
while it may be perceived as waste by managers and funders,
since it demands spare time.
(iv) Contextual factors are hard to manage but cannot be
neglected in CSS: contextual variables are very dynamic and
often out of the control of any individual agent. For exam-
ple, Ref. [55] identified different outcomes after the same lean
intervention was applied in seven emergency services in a
same public hospital. These authors concluded that contextual
factors contributed to the differences, even though they were
not investigated in depth. As a result of the impact of contex-
tual factors, the use of standard lean implementation methods
across companies and even within companies is not recom-
mended, and a tailored approach for each system is advised
[102].
 M. Soliman, T.A. Saurin / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 45 (2017) 135–148
Table 6
LP approaches to manage complexity.
Refs. Sources of complexity
[80] Excess of supervisors at the shop floor
[94] Difficulty to link employees’ actions, customer
needs, and results
[21] Excess resources may increase the potential for
undesirable interactions
[95] Operating rooms with unnecessary
instruments
[73] Different assemblies and routes makes
planning more complex
[69] Many possibilities for customization in
homebuilding
[52] Unforeseen consequences caused by
improvement interventions
[96] Demand forecast has many sources of
uncertainty associated
[97] Constant environmental changes demand
rapid adaptation and ability to solve problems
[82] Ever-increasing costs in US healthcare without
observable significant improvements
[8] Pressure for quality, flexibility, delivery, and
cost reduction
[75] Pressure for quality, flexibility, delivery, and
cost reduction
[78] Lack of space to accommodate patients and
materials
[81] Shortage of resources in terms of technical
staff and room availability
[76] Healthcare providers struggle to deliver care
under time constraints
[93] Patient’s illness request expertise and valuable
resources
[98] The production of eye lens is a very sensible
process. Once started, it has a minimum and a
maximum time to be completed
[99] Concerns about the feasibility of lean approach
to aircraft maintenance, due to low
repeatability of the tasks
4.7. Are there side-effects arising from LP in CSS?
Although some instability is expected to occur in the early stages
of lean adoption [109], this may contribute to unacceptable failures
in complex and hazardous systems, once the pattern of interactions
that maintains the integrity of the system is changed. Therefore,
side-effects and negative results of LP in CSS were investigated in
the reviewed papers (Table 7).
From Table 7, it can be noticed that only nine studies (9.6% of the
total) reported side-effects. However, it is likely that side-effects
occur much more frequently than reported in literature, since the
introduction of LP in a CSS tends to trigger a very large number of
interactions that cannot be fully anticipated. A possible explanation
for the few reports of side-effects may be the lack of long-term
and broad evaluations of LP implementation, taking into account
other systems in addition to those focused on by the intervention.
Furthermore, the mechanisms that linked the side-effects to the
lean adoption were not clear in the papers reviewed. We propose
that, in future studies, side-effects of lean be framed as emergent
phenomena. This means that emphasis should be placed on the
identification of the factors, and especially their interactions, that
set the stage for unexpected outcomes.
4.8. Is complexity necessarily detrimental to LP?
In the vast majority (86%) of the reviewed papers, complexity
is regarded as a hindrance to LP, since it creates uncertainty and
variability that makes it difficult the implementation of core lean
143
Attributes of complexity LP approach to manage complexity
Interrelated elements Unnecessary complexity due to the excess of interacting
people was reduced through visual management
Interrelated elements Lean pull system replaced MRP and made it easier for
operators to know what, how much, and when to produce
Interrelated elements Lean simplifies systems to the point they can operate with
lower slack
Diversity of elements 5S reduced the number of instruments for spine surgery from
197 to 58
Diversity of elements Lean product development resulted in fewer and standardized
parts
Diversity of elements Workload balancing and standardization facilitated the
handling of product choice
Uncertainty and dynamism Lean principles such as the use of only tested and reliable
technology is an asset to reduce possible side-effects
Uncertainty and dynamism In LP, processes start only after receiving real orders from
customers, thus reducing reliance on forecasts
Uncertainty and dynamism Computer simulations indicated LP achieved higher accuracy
in solving quasi-repetitive production problems
Multiple competing goals Analysis of value and non-value-added activities helps to
balance trade-offs between multiple competing goals
Multiple competing goals Internal lean practices such as SMED and JIT presented positive
impact simultaneously on multiple dimensions, but only for
slow changing environments
Multiple competing goals Lean practices can manage multiple goals, but implementation
order matters. Quality and flexibility should be developed first,
then delivery reliability, and finally cost reduction
Shared and scarce resources Visual management resulted in better inventory management,
free rooms and improved flexibility for patient placement
Shared and scarce resources VSM and A3 helped to simplify processes and freed up
resources
Shared and scarce resources A lean-based program was designed to relieve time to care in
the NHS, with positive results
Technical difficulty A fast-track process (an abstraction of a ‘production cell’) was
created to attend patients with similar needs
Technical difficulty Improvements following lean principles and constraint-based
simulation indicate the possibility to reduce buffers with
minimum disruption risks
Technical difficulty Simulation based on value stream mapping and lean practices
indicate a possible lead time reduction from 28 to 13 days and
improved financial indicators
practices such as standardization and pull production. Therefore,
authorsı́ recommendations are usually in terms of reducing com-
plexity to the possible extent, assuming that lean in itself can be an
effective strategy for this reduction. Some statements from these
papers illustrate these points: “lean means reducing complexity”
[112,p. 130], “it [lean] works best in predictable environments”
[73,p. 1308], and “the higher levels of unpredictability and instabil-
ity in dynamic environments make it difficult for lean operations
to synchronize production process and reduce inventory, which
undermines the effectiveness of lean operations” [4,p. 205].
Conversely, 14% of the papers adopt a more balanced perspec-
tive of complexity. While these papers recognize the problems
created by complexity, they also stress the benefits arising from
some complexity attributes, such as diversity, interactions, and
variability. This can be illustrated by the following statements:
“three human factors essential to successful lean implementation:
communication, leadership, and workload, which are interactive,
interrelated and dynamic” [53,p. 26], “the continuance of lean
depends on complex interaction between a number of variables”
[113,p. 6610], and “product variety – and the associated complex-
ity that confronts the manufacturing plant – is therefore ‘good’ if it
provides market place advantages at little cost” [114,p. 353].
Therefore, a distinction can be made between complexity that
can be an asset to lean (i.e. leverage points to improve perfor-
mance) and complexity that can be a liability. Fig. 4 presents a
proposed framework for making sense of this distinction, which
is based on the attributes of complexity previously mentioned. It is
worth noting that a similar distinction, albeit not focused on LP and
144 M. Soliman, T.A. Saurin / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 45 (2017) 135–148

Table 7
Side-effects of LP.

Refs. Context Attributes of complexity Side-effects of LP

[25] Pathology unit of an UK hospital Staff support to LP relied on a complex Initial changes made the system chaotic. People
network of interacting people were insecure about the new practices.
Performance started to fall
[110] LP implementation at three hospital units (two Group functioning (interacting people) as a Lean and teamwork deteriorated at ED. Good
wards and one ED) moderator of lean group functioning was found as a prerequisite to
successful LP implementation
[111] Implementation of LP at three Ford plants in Diversity of cultural aspects, location and Different achievements at each plant. Workers
Mexico. characteristics of the work force at each plant satisfaction decreased and conflicts emerged
[7] F-22 jet manufacturing under pressure to Many interacting parts, suppliers, procedures, Recurrent introduction of new methods hindered
reduce costs and improve efficiency tools, cutting-edge technologies learning capacity. Small changes caused large
disruptions
[107] Simulation model to evaluate trade-offs in Uncertainty on demand and number of Higher complexity scenarios increased
removing interconnected forms of waste machines/operators overproduction to compensate for uncertainty
[6] Adoption of lean practices in supply chains Trade-offs, increasing globalization and LP is likely to remove slack (inventory) in supply
outsourcing makes supply chain complex chains, thus making systems more interactively
complex
[63] Adoption of lean practices in construction Construction involves many suppliers, Indiscriminant use of LP removed slack and made
projects materials and highly interdependent activities the system more vulnerable to uncertainty
[55] Same hospital-wide lean-inspired intervention Opening hours, unit size, heterogeneity of More complex services (e.g. surgery) failed to
at seven emergency services people, rotation of physicians, and technology sustain improvements, while less complex (e.g.
levels as drivers of complexity gynecology) succeeded
[80] Manufacturing company adopting LP Unnecessary complexity caused by the excess Dismissed supervisors were assigned to new
eliminated the necessity of many supervisors of interacting people at the shop floor functions of planning and support, which they
at the shop floor found more stressful

referring to necessary and unnecessary complexity, has been made
by other authors in the broader operations management literature
[16,115,116].
According to Fig. 4, attributes of complexity can either hinder
lean or support it, depending on the context. For example, peo-
ple interacting using lean in order to pursue parochial interests
(e.g. self-promotion at the expenses of the interests of the broader
group) is a source of ‘liability’ complexity. Conversely, people inter-
acting to solve problems are a source of ‘asset’ complexity. The
same reasoning is applicable to the other complexity attributes.
Furthermore, value and waste are located in the overlap zone since,
in practice both emerge from the same interacting factors, whose
interactions cannot be completely anticipated. For example, it is
not possible to predict, with complete certainty, if the diversity of
elements will be a valuable slack or a waste in the future. A similar
point is made by Ref. [117] in the analysis of safety in CSS. According
to this author, accidents and safe work are equivalent in the sense
that the same variability sources are present in both situations; the
nature and intensity of interactions are what makes the difference
between outcomes.
5. Conclusions
5.1. Contributions of this study
The research question that guided this study had been stated as
follows: how does LP deal with the complexity of socio-technical
systems? This question was addressed through a systematic lit-

Fig. 4. Asset and liability complexity, from the perspective of LP.

 M. Soliman, T.A. Saurin / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 45 (2017) 135–148
erature review of LP in CSS, which relied on a data analysis
framework that included seven categories, relevant from theoret-
ical (i.e. complexity concepts and theories, level of complexity,
and methodological approaches) and practical perspectives (i.e.
management of complexity, barriers, side-effects, and ambiguity
of complexity attributes). This distinction between theoretical and
practical categories was a compromise solution, since they have
interactions. In itself, the data analysis framework is a contribution
of this study, to the extent that it may be a basis for similar litera-
ture reviews focusing on the relationship between complexity and
other operations management paradigms – e.g. agile manufactur-
ing, theory of constraints, and six sigma.
Concerning the theoretical categories, results indicated that the
complexity concept has been approached in a fragmented and loose
manner by most reviewed studies. Thus, there is a need for taking
a more explicit and systematic approach based on a complexity
science lens. Furthermore, findings from the theoretical categories
suggest that LP in highly CSS is often approached in a similar man-
ner to much more linear systems, in which lean tools have emerged.
These tools (e.g. five whys) are built upon assumptions of linearity
which do not hold in CSS.
Regarding the practical categories, results that stand out refer
to the need for evaluating the impacts of LP in the long-run and
on broader systems, which are not limited to the intervention site.
Indeed, interventions in one part of CSS reverberate over the whole
system, and waste removed from one subsystem may reappear
elsewhere. This can happen, for example, when a major company
poses demands on its suppliers, which in practice mean waste and
complexity are simply being “outsourced” to some extent. Never-
theless, in theory, if waste cannot be completely eliminated, it could
be transferred to a less critical subsystem, with more slack and less
safety hazards. Even though lean designers and practitioners may
be applying this principle in practice, our results indicated this has
not been made explicit in the studies.
Moreover, this review indicated that the relationship between
lean and complexity is synergistic. On the one hand, lean influences
complexity by increasing some of its dimensions (e.g. diversity of
skills) and decreasing others (e.g. interactions arising from waste-
ful activities, such as rework). On the other hand, complexity
influences lean, by posing constraints for the application of some
principles and practices – e.g. work standardization cannot be as
strict as in linear systems. While less emphasized by the literature,
findings also suggested that complexity can be an asset for LP. This
is in line with Ashby’s “law of requisite variety”, which poses that a
system uses variety to destroy variety [118,p. 207] which implies,
for instance, that a lean system needs a certain internal complexity
in order to cope with an external complex environment. Therefore,
lean efforts should be concerned with disentangling necessary from
unnecessary complexity, using the former as a lever for innova-
tion and the development of adaptive capacity. Nevertheless, what
counts as necessary and unnecessary complexity may be ultimately
a matter of negotiation, involving power relations, risk perceptions,
costs, and other perspectives.
5.2. Limitations
Some limitations of this research should be stressed. First, our
inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as the databases used, may
have neglected relevant studies. Another drawback is that we had
no information to accurately assess the ‘leanness’ and the com-
plexity of the systems focused on by the reviewed studies. As a
result, a distinction between inappropriate lean application and
lean strictly hindered by complexity could not be made. This was
relevant especially for the analysis of barriers and side-effects from
LP in CSS. Moreover, our focus on LP may have omitted relevant
papers on the management of complexity available in the broader
145
operations management literature not focused on LP. In fact, car-
rying out a wider review on the relationship between operations
management and complexity is an opportunity for future studies.
However, the present review confirmed that firms are relying on
LP to cope with complexity, and therefore the lean perspective is
relevant from both practical and theoretical perspectives.
5.3. Agenda for future research
This literature review identified theoretical and practical gaps
regarding the use of LP in CSS. These gaps set a basis for a pro-
posal for future research, which is structured according to the seven
categories of data analysis adopted in this study, as follows:
• Theoretical approaches to complexity: although we found
many studies that linked LP with complexity attributes, most
of them did not consider interactions between the attributes.
Moreover, future studies should investigate empirically how LP
interacts with a broader set of complexity attributes, in order to
shed light on the overall effects of complexity on LP and vice-
versa. These interactions are likely not to be trivial, and mixed
impacts may be expected. Both surveys in large samples and
case-based research may be fruitful in this line of investigation.
• Complexity of the systems in which LP was implemented:
methods could be devised for developing lean implementation
frameworks which are adequate to the different levels and nature
of complexity in socio-technical systems (e.g. the structure pre-
sented in Fig. 3). Of course, this implies, to the possible extent, in
the need for a qualitative and/or quantitative assessment of the
intensity of complexity attributes previously to the start of using
lean in CSS.
• Compatibility between the methodological approach and the
nature of complexity: there is a need for developing empirically
tested frameworks to define whether a methodological approach
is adequate for CSS. Additionally, new or revised tools should be
developed to account for complexity attributes when designing
or improving lean systems. An option is to use tools based on
systems thinking, which may help to anticipate the impacts of
lean interventions. For instance, approaches like System Dynam-
ics and the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) [119]
have recently been used with this specific purpose in lean studies
in healthcare [120,121].
• Contribution of LP to manage complexity: frameworks for
implementing LP could make it explicit their intended ways to
cope with complexity, and they also could make it clear that lean
is not only about reducing complexity. The increase of certain
dimensions of complexity can be an effect of LP, and this may
have mixed impacts on performance. The definition of metrics
for assessing the impacts of LP on complexity is also a research
opportunity.
• Barriers to LP in CSS: future studies should go deeper in
understanding to what extent the attributes of complexity can
moderate the barriers to LP. Moreover, the concept of value (and
its opposite, waste) needs to be refined to account for the per-
spectives of multiple stakeholders, which are often in conflict.
• Side-effects arising from LP in CSS: lean initiatives should
explore and report side-effects in more detail. This implies in tak-
ing a broader view of the system under evaluation and tracking
how the architecture and functions of the system change over
time to compensate for the waste removed.
• Whether complexity is always detrimental to LP: future stud-
ies should provide theories and practices to disentangle necessary
from unnecessary complexity. For example, while CSS must have
146 M. Soliman, T.A. Saurin / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 45 (2017) 135–148
slack (i.e. necessary complexity) to cope with uncertainty, slack
can be easily misinterpreted as waste (i.e. unnecessary complex-
ity). Although the lean literature has stressed the role of inventory
and time as slack resources, other resources such as people, space,
money, cognitive capacity, and others have not been addressed
with the same emphasis. In this sense, methods for determining
how much slack is necessary, where it should be located, and how
to assess slack efficiency are necessary.
References
[1] Jasti NVK, Kodali R. Lean production: literature review and trends. Int J Prod
Res 2015;53:867–85, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.937508.
[2] Shah R, Ward PT. Defining and developing measures of lean production. J
Oper Manag 2007;25:785–805,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.019.
[3] D’Andreamatteo A, Ianni L, Lega F, Sargiacomo M. Lean in healthcare: a
comprehensive review. Health Policy (New York) 2015;119:1197–209,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.02.002.
[4] Azadegan A, Patel PC, Zangoueinezhad A, Linderman K. The effect of
environmental complexity and environmental dynamism on lean practices.
J Oper Manag 2013;31:193–212,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2013.03.002.
[5] Cilliers P. Complexity and postmodernism: understanding complex systems.
London: Routledge; 1998.
[6] Christopher M. Managing supply chain complexity: identifying the requisite
skills. Supply Chain Forum Int J 2012;13:4–10.
[7] Browning TR, Heath RD. Reconceptualizing the effects of lean on production
costs with evidence from the F-22 program. J Oper Manag 2009;27:23–44,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2008.03.009.
[8] Chavez R, Gimenez C, Fynes B, Wiengarten F, Yu W. Internal lean practices
and operational performance. Int J Oper Prod Manag 2013;33:562–88,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443571311322724.
[9] Kolberg D, Zühlke D. Lean automation enabled by industry 4.0 technologies.
IFAC-Papers OnLine 2015;48:1870–5,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.359.
[10] Carlile PR, Christensen CM. The cycles of theory building in management
research. HBS Work. Paper Series 2005;05–057:1–26.
[11] Érdi P. Complexity explained. Berlin: Springer; 2008.
[12] Vickery SK, Koufteros X, Dröge C, Calantone R. Product modularity, process
modularity, and new product introduction performance: does complexity
matter? Prod Oper Manag 2016;25:751–70,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/poms.12495.
[13] Park K, Kremer GEO. Assessment of static complexity in design and
manufacturing of a product family and its impact on manufacturing
performance. Int J Prod Econ 2015;169:215–32,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.07.036.
[14] Elmaraghy H, Algeddawy T, Samy SN, Espinoza V. A model for assessing the
layout structural complexity of manufacturing systems. J Manuf Syst
2014;33:51–64, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2013.05.012.
[15] Isanaka SP, Sparks TE, Liou FF, Newkirk JW. Design strategy for reducing
manufacturing and assembly complexity of air-breathing Proton Exchange
Membrane Fuel Cells (PEMFC). J Manuf Syst 2016;38:165–71,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.10.004.
[16] Serdarasan S. A review of supply chain complexity drivers. Comput Ind Eng
2013;66:533–40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2012.12.008.
[17] Egan MJ. Private goods and services contracts: increased emergency
response capacity or increased vulnerability? Int J Prod Econ
2010;126:46–56, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.10.005.
[18] Ge H, Nolan J, Gray R, Goetz S, Han Y. Supply chain complexity and risk
mitigation – a hybrid optimization-simulation model. Int J Prod Econ
2016;179:228–38, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.06.014.
[19] Daie P, Li S. Hierarchical clustering for structuring supply chain network in
case of product variety. J Manuf Syst 2016;38:77–86,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.10.002.
[20] Hosseini S, Al Khaled A, Sarder M. A general framework for assessing system
resilience using Bayesian networks: a case study of sulfuric acid
manufacturer. J Manuf Syst 2016;41:211–27,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2016.09.006.
[21] Marley KA, Ward PT, Hill JA. Mitigating supply chain disruptions – a normal
accident perspective. Supply Chain Manag Int J 2014;19:142–52,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/scm-03-2013-0083.
[22] Lang M, Deflorin P, Dietl H, Lucas E. The impact of complexity on knowledge
transfer in manufacturing networks. Prod Oper Manag 2014;23:1886–98,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/poms.12193.
[23] Blome C, Schoenherr T, Eckstein D. The impact of knowledge transfer and
complexity on supply chain flexibility: a knowledge-based view. Int J Prod
Econ 2014;147(Part B):307–16,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.02.028.
[24] Ramasesh RV, Browning TR. A conceptual framework for tackling knowable
unknown unknowns in project management. J Oper Manag
2014;32:190–204, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.03.003.
[25] Papadopoulos T, Radnor Z, Merali Y. The role of actor associations in
understanding the implementation of Lean thinking in healthcare. Int J Oper
Prod Manag 2011;31:167–91,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443571111104755.
[26] Narayanamurthy G, Gurumurthy A. Leanness assessment: a literature
review. Int J Oper Prod Manag 2016;36:1115–60,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2015-0003.
[27] Carayon P. Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems. Appl Ergon
2006;37:525–35, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.011.
[28] Johnson N. Simply complexity: a clear guide to complexity theory. Oxford:
One-World; 2010.
[29] Sweeney K. Complexity in primary care: understanding its value. Boca
Raton: CRC Press; 2006.
[30] Perrow C. Normal accidents living with high-risk technologies. Princeton:
Princeton University Press; 1984.
[31] Snowden DF, Boone ME. A leader’s framework for decision making: wise
executives tailor their approach to fit the complexity of the circumstances
they face. Harv Bus Rev 2007:69–76,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCDM.2007.369449.
[32] Stacey RD. Complexity and management: fad or radical challenge to systems
thinking? London: Routledge; 2000.
[33] Kurtz CF, Snowden DJ. The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a
complex-complicated world. IBM Syst J 2003;42:462–83.
[34] Winter A, Haux R, Ammenwerth E, Brigl B, Hellrung N, Jahn F. Health
information systems. London: Springer London; 2011,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-441-8.
[35] Simon HA. The sciences of the artificial. 3rd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1996.
[36] Hettinger LJ, Kirlik A, Goh YM, Buckle P. Modelling and simulation of
complex sociotechnical systems: envisioning and analysing work
environments. Ergonomics 2015;58:600–14,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2015.1008586.
[37] Behdani B. Evaluation of paradigms for modeling supply chains as complex
socio-technical systems. Proc. Title Proc. 2012 Winter Simul. Conf., IEEE
2012:1–15, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2012.6465109.
[38] Trist E. The evolution of socio-technical systems: a conceptual framework
and action research program. In: Occasional Paper No. 2. Ontario, CA:
Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre; 2017.
[39] Dekker S. Drift into failure: from hunting broken components to
understanding complex systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2011.
[40] Archer M, Bhaskar R, Collier A, Lawson T, Norrie A. Critical realism: essential
readings. London: Routledge; 1998.
[41] Walker GH, Stanton NA, Salmon PM, Jenkins DP, Rafferty L. Translating
concepts of complexity to the field of ergonomics. Ergonomics
2010;53:1175–86, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2010.513453.
[42] Dekker S, Bergström J, Amer-Wåhlin I, Cilliers P. Complicated, complex, and
compliant: best practice in obstetrics. Cogn Technol Work 2013;15:189–95,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10111-011-0211-6.
[43] Bozarth CC, Warsing DP, Flynn BB, Flynn EJ. The impact of supply chain
complexity on manufacturing plant performance. J Oper Manag
2009;27:78–93, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2008.07.003.
[44] Adami C. What is complexity? Bioessays 2002;24:1085–94,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bies.10192.
[45] Floricel S, Michela JL, Piperca S. Complexity, uncertainty-reduction
strategies, and project performance. Int J Proj Manag 2016;34:1360–83,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.11.007.
[46] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med
2009;6:e1000097, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
[47] Hines P, Holweg M, Rich N. Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary
lean thinking. Int J Oper Prod Manag 2004;24:994–1011,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570410558049.
[48] Mallin ML, Jones DE, Cordell JL. The impact of learning context on intent to
use marketing and sales technology: a comparison of scenario-based and
task-based approaches. J Mark Educ 2010;32:214–23,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0273475309360163.
[49] Cannon-Bowers JA, Bowers C, Procci K. Optimizing learning in surgical
simulations: guidelines from the science of learning and human
performance. Surg Clin North Am 2010;90:583–603,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2010.02.006.
[50] Mahmood A, Montagna F. Making lean smart by using system-of-systems’
approach. IEEE Syst J 2013;7:537–48,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2013.2244801.
[51] Browning TR, Sanders NR. Can innovation be lean? Calif Manage Rev
2012;54:5–19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.54.4.5.
[52] Saurin TA, Rooke J, Koskela L. A complex systems theory perspective of lean
production. Int J Prod Res 2013;51:5824–38,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.796420.
 M. Soliman, T.A. Saurin / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 45 (2017) 135–148
[53] Lorden AL, Zhang Y, Lin S-H, CÔTÉ MJ. Measures of success: the role of
human factors in lean implementation in healthcare. Qual Manag J
2014;21:26–37.
[54] Flumerfelt S, Bella Siriban-Manalang A, Kahlen F-J. Are agile and lean
manufacturing systems employing sustainability, complexity and
organizational learning? Learn Organ 2012;19:238–47,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696471211219976.
[55] Mazzocato P, Thor J, Bäckman U, Brommels M, Carlsson J, Jonsson F, et al.
Complexity complicates lean: lessons from seven emergency services. J
Health Organ Manag 2014;28:266–88,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-03-2013-0060.
[56] Goodridge D, Westhorp G, Rotter T, Dobson R, Bath B. Lean and leadership
practices: development of an initial realist program theory. BMC Health Serv
Res 2015;15:362, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1030-x.
[57] Fradinho JMS, Nightingale DJ, Fradinho MTW. A systems-of-systems
perspective on healthcare: insights from two multi-method exploratory.
IEEE Syst J 2014;8:795–802.
[58] Marley KA, Ward PT. Lean management as a countermeasure for Normal
disruptions. Oper Manag Res 2013;6:44–52,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12063-013-0077-2.
[59] Putnik GD, Putnik Z. Lean vs agile in the context of complexity management
in organizations. Learn Organ 2012;19:248–66,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696471211220046.
[60] Browaeys M-J, Fisser S. Lean and agile. an epistemological reflection. Learn
Organ 2012;19:207–18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696471211219903.
[61] Belay AM, Welo T, Helo P. Approaching lean product development using
system dynamics: investigating front-load effects. Adv Manuf
2014;2:130–40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40436-014-0079-9.
[62] Dominici G, Palumbo F. Decoding the japanese lean production system
according to a viable systems perspective. Syst Pract Action Res
2013;26:153–71, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11213-012-9242-z.
[63] Fearne A, Fowler N. Efficiency versus effectiveness in construction supply
chains: the dangers of lean thinking in isolation. Supply Chain Manag Int J
2006;11:283–7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598540610671725.
[64] Forno AJD, Pereira FA, Forcellini FA, Kipper LM. Value Stream Mapping: a
study about the problems and challenges found in the literature from the
past 15 years about application of lean tools. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2014;72:779–90, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-5712-z.
[65] Madu CN, Kuei C-H. Disaster relief supply chain quality management
(DRSCQM). Int J Qual Reliab Manag 2014;31:1052–67,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-08-2013-0136.
[66] Tuholski SJ, Gursel AP, Tommelein ID, Bomba G. Lean comparison using
process charts of complex seismic retrofit projects. J Constr Eng Manag
2009;135:330–9,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:4(330).
[67] Chen JC, Cheng C, Huang PB, Wang K-J, Huang C-J, Ting T-C. Warehouse
management with lean and RFID application: a case study. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 2013;69:531–42, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5016-8.
[68] Liu S, Leat M, Moizer J, Megicks P, Kasturiratne D. A decision-focused
knowledge management framework to support collaborative decision
making for lean supply chain management. Int J Prod Res 2013;51:1–15,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.709646.
[69] Nahmens I, Mullens M. The impact of product choice on lean homebuilding.
Constr Innov Inf Process Manag 2009;9:84–100,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14714170910931561.
[70] Stump B, Badurdeen F. Integrating lean and other strategies for mass
customization manufacturing: a case study. J Intell Manuf 2012;23:109–24,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10845-009-0289-3.
[71] Roghanian E, Alipour M. A fuzzy model for achieving lean attributes for
competitive advantages development using AHP-QFD-PROMETHEE. J Ind
Eng Int 2014;10:68, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40092-014-0068-4.
[72] Setijono D, Naraghi AM, Ravipati UP. Decision support system and the
adoption of lean in a Swedish emergency ward: balancing supply and
demand towards improved value stream. Int J Lean Six Sigma
2010;1:234–48, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/20401461011075026.
[73] Summers GJ, Scherpereel CM. Decision making in product development: are
you outside-in or inside-out? Manag Decis 2008;46:1299–312,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740810911957.
[74] Borgström B, Hertz S. Supply chain strategies: changes in customer
order-based production. J Bus Logist 2011;32:361–73,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0000-0000.2011.01031.x.
[75] Jadhav JR, Mantha SS, Rane SB. Development of framework for sustainable
Lean implementation: an ISM approach. J Ind Eng Int 2014;10:72,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40092-014-0072-8.
[76] Morrow E, Robert G, Maben J, Griffiths P. Implementing large-scale quality
improvement. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2012;25:237–53,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09526861211221464.
[77] Gregoire MB, Theis ML. Practice paper of the academy of nutrition and
dietetics: principles of productivity in food and nutrition services:
applications in the 21st century health care reform era. J Acad Nutr Diet
2015;115:1141–7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2015.04.025.
147
[78] Hwang P, Hwang D, Hong P. Lean practices for quality results: a case
illustration. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2014;27:729–41,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-03-2014-0024.
[79] Low SP, Gao S, Tiong KL. Applying lean production principles to facilities
design of ramp-up factories. Facilities 2015;33:280–301,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-11-2013-0086.
[80] Seppälä P. Flat organizations and the role of white-collar employees in
production. Int J Ind Ergon 2004;33:15–27,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(03)00102-1.
[81] Yusof MM, Khodambashi S, Mokhtar AM. Evaluation of the clinical process
in a critical care information system using the Lean method: a case study.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012;12:150,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-150.
[82] Bastian ND, Munoz D, Ventura M. A mixed-methods research framework for
healthcare process improvement. J Pediatr Nurs 2016;31:e39–51,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2015.09.003.
[83] Bishop JP, Perry JE, Hine A. Efficient, compassionate, and fractured:
contemporary care in the ICU. Hastings Cent Rep 2014;44:35–43,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hast.330.
[84] Godinho Filho M, Barco CF. A framework for choosing among different
lean-based improvement programs. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2015;81:183–97, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7181-4.
[85] Hounsgaard J. Patient safety in everyday work: learning from things that go
right. Syddansk Universitet; 2016.
[86] Andrade PF, Pereira VG, Del Conte EG. Value stream mapping and lean
simulation: a case study in automotive company. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2016;85:547–55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7972-7.
[87] Abbasian-Hosseini SA, Nikakhtar A, Ghoddousi P. Verification of lean
construction benefits through simulation modeling: a case study of
bricklaying process. KSCE J Civ Eng 2014;18:1248–60,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12205-014-0305-9.
[88] Ries E. The Lean Startup: how today’s entrepreneurs use continuous
innovation to create radically successful businesses. Danvers: Crown
Business; 2011.
[89] Steinfeld B, Scott J, Vilander G, Marx L, Quirk M, Lindberg J, et al. The role of
lean process improvement in implementation of evidence-based practices
in behavioral health care. J Behav Health Serv Res 2015;42:504–18,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11414-013-9386-3.
[90] McDermott CM, Venditti FJ. Implementing lean in knowledge work:
implications from a study of the hospital discharge planning process. Oper
Manag Res 2015;8:118–30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12063-015-0103-7.
[91] Rutman L, Stone K, Reid J, Woodward GA, Migita R. Improving patient flow
using lean methodology: an emergency medicine experience. Curr Treat
Options Pediatr 2015;1:359–71,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40746-015-0038-0.
[92] James-Moore SM, Gibbons A. Is lean manufacture universally relevant? An
investigative methodology. Int J Oper Prod Manag 1997;17:899–911,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579710171244.
[93] Ieraci S, Digiusto E, Sonntag P, Dann L, Fox D. Streaming by case complexity:
evaluation of a model for emergency department fast track. Emerg Med
Australas 2008;20:241–9,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-6723.2008.01087.x.
[94] Barker R. Production systems without MRP: a lean time based design.
Omega 1994;22:349–60.
[95] Farrokhi FR, Gunther M, Williams B, Blackmore CC. Application of lean
methodology for improved quality and efficiency in operating room
instrument availability. J Healthc Qual 2015;37:277–86,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jhq.12053.
[96] Simangunsong ES, Hendry L, Stevenson M. Supply chain uncertainty: a
review and theoretical foundation for future research. Int J Prod Res
2012;50:4493–523, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.613864.
[97] Bay CW, Kong H. Adapting to the changing environment: a theoretical
comparison of decision making proficiency of lean and mass organization
systems. Comput Math Organ Theory 1997;3:113–42,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009612617180.
[98] Van Der Krogt R, Geraghty J, Salman MR, Little J. On supporting Lean
methodologies using constraint-based scheduling. J Sched 2010;13:301–14,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10951-009-0144-6.
[99] de Jong SJ, Beelaerts van Blokland WWA. Measuring lean implementation
for maintenance service companies. Int J Lean Six Sigma 2016;7:35–61,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-12-2014-0039.
[100] Emiliani ML. Lean behaviors. Manag Decis 1998;36:615–31,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251749810239504.
[101] Mann D. Creating a Lean culture: tools to sustain lean conversions. 3rd ed.
New York: Productivity Press; 2014.
[102] Marodin GA, Saurin TA. Managing barriers to lean production
implementation: context matters. Int J Prod Res 2015;53:3947–62,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.980454.
[103] Radnor ZJ, Holweg M, Waring J. Lean in healthcare: the unfilled promise?
Soc Sci Med 2012;74:364–71,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.011.
148 M. Soliman, T.A. Saurin / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 45 (2017) 135–148
[104] de Souza LB, Pidd M. Exploring the barriers to lean health care
implementation. Public Money Manag 2011;31:59–66,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2011.545548.
[105] Junior ML, Filho MG. Variations of the kanban system: literature review and
classification. Int J Prod Econ 2010;125:13–21,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.01.009.
[106] Card AJ. The problem with 5 whys. BMJ Qual Saf 2017;26:671–7,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005849.
[107] Gopinath S, Freiheit TI. A waste relationship model and center point
tracking metric for lean manufacturing systems. IIE Trans 2012;44:136–54,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0740817X.2011.593609.
[108] Maleyeff J. The continuing evolution of lean six sigma. TQM J
2012;24:542–55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17542731211270106.
[109] Scherrer-Rathje M, Boyle TA, Deflorin P. Lean, take two! Reflections from the
second attempt at lean implementation. Bus Horiz 2009;52:79–88,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2008.08.004.
[110] Ulhassan W, von Thiele Schwarz U, Thor J, Westerlund H. Interactions
between lean management and the psychosocial work environment in a
hospital setting – a multi-method study. BMC Heal Serv Res 2014;14:480,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-480.
[111] Carrilo J. Flexible production in the auto sector: industrial reorganization at
ford-Mexico. World Dev 1995;23:87–101.
[112] Zuehlke D. SmartFactory-towards a factory-of-things. Annu Rev Control
2010;34:129–38, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2010.02.008.
[113] Taylor A, Taylor M, McSweeney A. Towards greater understanding of success
and survival of lean systems. Int J Prod Res 2013;51:6607–30,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.825382.
[114] MacDuffie JP, Sethuraman K, Fisher ML. Product variety and manufacturing
performance evidence from the international automotive assembly plant
study. Manage Sci 1996;42:350–69.
[115] Sahin IMF. A model of supply chain and supply chain decision-making
complexity. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 2011;41:511–49,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600031111138844.
[116] Secchi R, Camuffo A. Rolling out lean production systems: a
knowledge-based perspective. Int J Oper Prod Manag 2016;36:61–85,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2014-0194.
[117] Hollnagel E, Pariès J, Woods DD, Wreathall J. Resilience engineering in
practice: a guidebook. Burlington: Ashgate; 2012.
[118] Ashby WR. An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall; 1956.
[119] Hollnagel E. FRAM: the functional resonance analysis method – modeling
complex socio-technical systems. Burlington: Ashgate; 2012.
[120] Rust TTC. Dynamic analysis of healthcare service delivery: application of
lean and agile concepts. Worcester Polytechnic Institute; 2013.
[121] Saurin TA, Rosso CB, Colligan L. Towards a resilient and lean health care. In:
Braithwaite J, Wears R, Hollnagel E, editors. E. Resilient Health Care:
Reconciling Work-as-imagined and Work-as-done. Boca Raton: CRC Press;
2017.
[122] Lian Y-H, Van Landeghem H. Analysing the effects of Lean manufacturing
using a value stream mapping-based simulation generator. Int J Prod Res
2007;45:3037–58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540600791590.
[123] Åhlström P, Karlsson C. Change processes towards lean production. Int J
1996;16:42–56, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579610131447.
[124] Barker RC. The design of lean manufacturing systems using time-based
analysis. Int J Oper Prod Manag 1994;14:86–96,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579410068666.
[125] Andersson R, Hilletofth P, Manfredsson P, Hilmola O-P. Lean six sigma
strategy in telecom manufacturing. Ind Manag Data Syst 2014;114:904–21,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-02-2014-0069.
[126] Al-Araidah O, Momani A, Khasawneh M, Momani M. Lead-time reduction
utilizing lean tools applied to healthcare: the inpatient pharmacy at a local
hospital. J Healthc Qual 2010;32:59–66,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1945-1474.2009.00065.x.
Marlon Soliman is a PhD student at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul,
Brazil. He holds a master degree in Industrial Engineering and a bachelor degree
in Chemical Engineering. His PhD research is focused on the relationship between
complex socio-technical systems and lean production.
Tarcisio A. Saurin has worked since 2005 as an associate professor at the Industrial
Engineering Department, at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. His
main research interests are related to lean production, safety management, and
complex socio-technical systems. On these topics, he has been either a principal
investigator or co-investigator in several research projects funded by public and
private organizations.