2023年6月24日发(作者：)

外 文 翻 译

原文：

Defining lean production: some conceptual and practical issues

Discriminant validity of lean

So what is then the difference between TQM and lean production? In the

following section Lean and TQM are compared based on the analysis made by

Hackman and Wageman (1995). The discussion is done with three different aspects;

basic assumptions, change principles and interventions:

Basic assumptions

Quality. In lean, quality does not receive the same amount of attention as in the

TQM literature. The main focus in the lean literature is on just-in-time (JIT)

production. JIT is assumed to decrease total cost, as well as highlight problems. This

is done through reducing the resources in the system, so that buffers do not cover up

the problems that arise. In the short-term perspective, the reduction of resources

implies a direct reduction of cost. In the long run, the reduction and subsequent

elimination of buffers is assumed to highlight the problems that exist in production,

thus being a vital source of continuous improvement (e.g. Shingo, 1984; Ohno, 1988;

Krafcik, 1988A common opinion is that the purpose of lean is waste elimination. ).

The literature review does not show support for this being the very purpose, but waste

elimination is definitely an important aspect of the concept. Some authors argue that

waste is reduced in order to increase the value for the customer (e.g. Dennis, 2002;

Bicheno, 2004), whereas others argue that it is a strategy for reducing cost (e.g. Ohno,

1988; Monden, 1998). Reducing waste is also a significant part of TQM, but under

the banner of poor-quality-costs (see Hackman and Wageman, 1995; Sörqvist, 1998).

A major difference between TQM and lean in this aspect is the precision in defining

waste. In the majority of the lean literature, waste or muda is based on the seven

forms[1] defined by Ohno (1988), whereas TQM has a very general definition of

poor-quality-costs, including everything that could be eliminated through improvement (Sörqvist, 1998).

Employees and the quality of their work. One major critique of the lean concept

is that it is generally weak concerning the employees” perspective. The proponents of

lean production usually have a strong instrumental and managerial perspective,

discussing employees in terms of components in the production system (see Kamata,

1982; Berggren, 1992, 1993The extensive ). discussion about jidoka and poka yoke

in the lean literature suggests that employees cannot be trusted to produce good

quality, thus creating a necessity for removing the possibility of human error from the

system.

Organizations as systems. One thing that lean and TQM have in common is

seeing the organization as a system (see Womack and Jones, 2003; Bicheno, 2004).

But there is a slight difference in perspective between the two concepts. Whereas

TQM has a strong focus on the internal structure and integration of departments

within the organization, lean stresses a supply chain perspective, seeing the internal

production operations as a part of a value stream from the sub-suppliers to the end

customer (e.g. Rother and Shook, 1998; Jones and Womack, 2002).

Quality is the responsibility of senior management. This is another perspective

that lean and TQM share, but again with some differences. TQM-managers should

create structures that support the employees in producing products of high quality

(Deming, 1986; Hackman and Wageman, 1995). The idea is the same in lean, but the

rationale for doing this seems to be centered around eliminating the human factor

from the system through jidoka and poka yoke. Using the terminology of McGregor,

one could argue that TQM seems to be based on theory Y, whereas lean seems to be

based on theory X (see Ezzamel et al., 2001).

Change principles

Focus on processes. Within the lean concept the term value stream is usually

preferred (Womack and Jones, 2003). The term process is usually used at a lower

level of abstraction that TQM theorists would call sub-processes or activities (see

Riley, 1998). The conception that management should analyze and improve the

processes and train the employees is also shared by the two concepts. Management by fact. The literature on lean does not really stress the management

by facts explicitly. However, this is implicit in the description of lean practices, many

of which are analytical tools designed to help achieve JIT production. Although this is

a shared perspective between lean and TQM, there is a difference. Within TQM the

analysis of variability through using statistical tools is a central concept (Hackman

and Wageman, 1995). In the lean tradition, this is not seen as equally important. In

fact, some authors argue against the use of statistical tools for analyzing production

performance, recommending alternative tools such as increased inspection and

visualization of problems (e.g. Dennis, 2002; Liker, 2004).

Learning and continuous improvement. In the words of Hackman and Wageman

(1995) TQM is “pro-learning, with a vengeance” (p. 330). The learning aspects are

not emphasized as much in literature on lean. As discussed above, the lean literature is

generally weaker on the human behavior side, focusing more on instrumental

techniques for improving system performance. There is a clear focus on continuous

improvement, which implies that some form of learning is required. However, the

question is who is learning. TQM is focused on stimulating creativity and individual

efforts for improvement (Hackman and Wageman, 1995), whereas lean places strong

emphasis on the standardization of work and collective learning (Niepce and

Molleman, 1998; Thompson and Wallace, 1996).

Interventions

Analysis of customer requirements. Customer focus is one of the hallmarks of

TQM, where every improvement should be based on an investigation of the

customer's requirements, whether the customer is internal or external. The lean

concept does not emphasize customer interests. Some authors argue that the very

purpose of lean is to please the customer (e.g. Dennis, 2002), but methods for

analyzing customer requirements are extremely rare in the reviewed literature,

suggesting this is not a typical lean intervention.

Supplier partnerships. The suppliers are seen as important in both lean and TQM.

Both concept stress the point that long term partnerships should be made with

suppliers and that improvements should be done in collaboration with them. Although this matter is not discussed by all authors in this analysis, the majority of them do (see

Table I).

Improvement teams. Quality circles have a central role in much of the TQM

literature, and can be put to use in problem solving or improvement activities. In the

lean literature, improvement teams are explicitly discussed by just about half of the

reviewed authors. However, they are often implicated in discussions about

improvement activities.

Scientific methods for performance measurement and improvement. Both TQM

and lean employ various scientific methods for analysis and evaluation of

performance. However, these methods differ significantly, and the tools associated

with one concept are generally not mentioned in literature on the other one. The

purpose of measurements also differs. In TQM measurements are done in order to

identify problems and to document improvement, whereas lean theorists argue that

measurements should be made for planning and synchronization purposes;, e.g. for

setting production rate (see Ohno, 1988; Bicheno, 2004).

Process management techniques. As discussed above, the term process is used in

slightly different ways by authors on TQM and lean. In the lean literature, different

techniques are presented for both overall process level and individual activities. At an

organizational level value stream mapping (VSM) can be used for highlighting

several kinds of problems in the processes (Rother and Shook, 1998). At a more

operational level, different time/work study techniques are discussed, e.g. so-called

spaghetti charts (e.g. Bicheno, 2004).

Lean and TQM – same but different

At a philosophical level, lean and TQM have many ideas in common, in

particular concerning continuous improvement and the systems perspective. However,

at a more operational level, the two concepts differ significantly. The fundamental

values of the two concepts are also quite different, especially regarding humanistic

values.

Conclusions

There is no agreed upon definition of lean that could be found in the reviewed literature, and the formulations of the overall purpose of the concept are divergent.

Discomforting as this may seem for lean proponents, there seems to be quite good

agreement on the characteristics that define the concept, leading to the conclusion that

the concept is defined in operational terms alone. Formulating a definition that

captures all the dimensions of lean is a formidable challenge.

According to Hines et al. (2004) lean is constantly evolving, implying that any

“definition” of the concept will only be a “still image” of a moving target, only being

valid in a certain point in time. This may be an explanation to the apparent differences

between authors on the subject. Based on this, it is hard not to raise the question of

whether a consistent definition of lean is possible to produce. Also, one can question

whether a definition will be useful at all, regarding the ever changing nature of the

type of constructs that management concepts such as TQM and lean are. Nonetheless,

attempts have been made in this article to present the essentials of lean production and

convey its most salient philosophical elements, hopefully clearing up some of the

confusion that surrounds the concept.

Lean is also significantly different from its closest relative TQM, leading to

the conclusion that lean is a management concept of its own. The conclusion from

Shah and Ward (2003) that TQM and other bundles are parts of lean is not supported

by this study.

Womack et al. (1990) argue that the lean principles are applicable to any

industry. If this is correct, then the Japanese should logically have distributed the

knowledge of these principles throughout all domestic Japanese industry. This does

not seem to be the case. The only “true” lean producers in Japan are confined to the

automobile industry, represented by, e.g. Toyota, Honda and Mazda, whereas other

areas of industry are performing at the same level as (or worse than) western

competitors[2]. This was pointed out more than 20 years ago by Keys and Miller

(1984), implying that the principles constituting LP have not received any

wide-spread attention outside the auto-industry. Cooney (2002) argues that the

possibility to become “lean” (through JIT in particular) is highly dependent upon

business conditions that are not always met, thus limiting the “universality” of the concept.

When embarking on a journey towards lean, it is important to acknowledge the

different perspectives that the concept comprises. Raising the awareness of these

differences may help make the message clearer and avoid conflicting opinions on

which concept the organization is implementing. The obvious fallibility of the

claimed universality of lean should help motivate an adaptational approach to

implementing the concept, aiming to find a production concept that agrees with the

contextual factors and previous production practices that exist within the organization.

Making active choices with regard to values and techniques should increase the odds

of succeeding in the improvement of the production system.

Source: The TQM Journal Volume: 21 Issue: 2 2009

译文：

精益生产的定义：一些概念和实际问题

区分效度精益

那么，什么是TQM与精益生产之间的区别？下面部分是在精益生产和TQM基础上进行比较的哈克曼和沃格曼（1995）所作的分析。讨论是通过三个不同的方面：基本假设，改变原则和干预措施

基本假设

质量。精益文献中的主要焦点是刚刚实行（JIT）的生产。 JIT是假设降低总成本，以及突出的问题。这是通过减少系统中的资源，使缓冲区表面的问题出现。在短期来看，资源的减少意味着成本的直接减少。从长远来看，减少和随后消除缓冲区假设突出问题在生产中存在的，因而是一个不断改进过程。例如真悟，1984（重要来源;大野，1988，看法是这样做的目的精益是消除浪费。）。文献审查不显示此作为根本目的的支持，但绝对是消除浪费的一个重要方面的概念。

有些学者认为，减少废弃物的排放，以增加对客户的价值（例如丹尼斯，2002;毕奇诺，2004年），而其他人则认为它是一个降低成本的策略（如大野，1988;蒙登，1998）。减少浪费，也是全面质量管理的重要组成部分，但在劣质，成本横幅（见哈克曼和沃格曼，1995）。之间的全面质量管理，并在这方面的主要区别是精益界定废物精度。在精益文献中，浪费或多数是基于七项大野定义（1988年）的形式[1]，而全面质量管理有一个劣质间接费用，包括一切可以通过改进的消除。

员工和他们的工作质量。精益概念一个主要被批评的是，它是普遍薄弱有关雇员的观点。精益生产的倡导者通常有一个强大的工具和管理的角度，讨论了在生产系统组件方面的员工（见蒲田，1982;贝格格伦，1992年，1993The广泛）。论jidoka和poka在精益文章枷锁表明，员工不能被信任而产生良好的品质，从而创造一个从系统中去除人为错误可能性的必要。

组织系统。从一个角度看，全面质量管理在常见的是看到了作为一个系统的组织（见Womack和Jones，2003;毕奇诺，2004年）。但这是一个角度两个概念之间的细微差别。而全面质量管理关系到内部结构和组织内各部门整合的强烈关注，从精益供应链的角度讲，看到作为一个价值流的次级供应商的一部分，最终客户（如勒特尔和内部生产经营舒克，1998;琼斯和沃马克，2002）。

质量是企业的高级管理人员的责任。这是从另一个角度出发，精益和TQM的份额，但同样有一些分歧。全面质量管理经理人应建立在生产结构，支持高品质产品的雇员（戴明，1986;哈克曼和沃格曼，1995）。这个想法是与精益相同，但这样做的理由似乎是围绕消除了通过jidoka和poka系统的人为因素为中心。麦格雷戈使用的术语，人们可以说，全面质量管理似乎是Y理论的基础上，而精益似乎对X理论基础（见Ezzamel等。，2001）。

变更原则

从流程焦点看。在长期的精益价值流的概念通常是首选（Womack和Jones，2003）。在长期的过程通常是用在一个较低的水平，全面质量管理的抽象理论家称之为子过程或活动（见莱利，1998）。管理的观念，应分析和改进过程和培训员工也由这两个概念共享。

管理的事实。关于精益文献并没有真正强调管理的明确事实。然而，这是精益做法，其中有许多是旨在帮助实现JIT生产的分析工具的描述含蓄。虽然从这是一个与TQM之间共享的角度来看是有区别的。在全面质量管理，通过运用统计分析工具，可变性是一个中心概念（哈克曼和沃格曼，1995）。在精益传统中，这是不会被视为同等重要的。事实上，一些作者认为对统计工具来分析生产性能，如增加检查建议和问题的可视化替代工具使用（如丹尼斯，2002;莱克，2004）。

学习和持续改进。在哈克曼和沃格曼（1995）全面质量管理的话是“有利学习，求回报 “（第330页）。在学习方面没有强调精益文学了。如上所述，精益文学是对人类行为的普遍较弱的一面，更适合于仪器技术提高系统性能为重点。有一个不断改进，这意味着某种形式的学习需要明确的重点。然而，问题是谁的学习。全面质量管理的重点是刺激创造力和提高个人的努力（哈克曼和沃格曼，1995年），而其他的地方，对工作和集体学习（涅普斯和Molleman，1998年;汤普森和华莱士，1996年）的标准化高度重视。

干预措施

分析客户的要求。以客户为中心是全面质量管理，点点滴滴地改进的地方，应根据对客户的要求进行调查，无论是内部还是外部客户标志之一。精益的概念并不强调客户的利益。有些学者认为，精益的根本目的是为了取悦客户（如丹尼斯，2002），但对于分析客户需求的方法是极为罕见的审查的文献，说明这不是一个典型的贫干预。

供应商伙伴关系。该供应商被视为重要的精益和全面质量管理。这两个概念强调，长期的伙伴关系应与供应商，并在改善应该与他们合作完成点。虽然这个问题不是所有的专家讨论分析其中多数活动（见表一）。

改善小组。质量圈中有太多的TQM文献中心，并可以投入使用问题的解决或改善活动。在精益文学，改进团队明确讨论了几乎一半作家的审查。然而，他们往往牵连关于改进活动的讨论。

科学方法测量和性能改进。运用全面质量管理和精益都进行分析和绩效评价的各种科学方法。但是，这些方法存在很大差异，并没有一个概念相关的工具，一般不会在文献中提到另外一个。其测量的目的也不同。全面质量管理进行测量，以便发现问题，并以文件的方法改善，而精益理论家认为，测量应有目的进行的规划和同步;，例如：生产速度设置（见大野，1988;毕奇诺，2004）。

工艺管理技术。如上所述，在长期的过程，是通过采用全面质量管理和精益专家略有不同。在精益文献中，提出了不同技术的整体工艺水平和个人活动。在组织层次的价值流图（VSM）在可用于进程中的突出问题（罗瑟和舒克，1998）几种。在更实际的层面上，对不同的时间/工作研究技术进行了探讨，如所谓的意大利面条图表（例如毕奇诺，2004）。

精益生产和TQM-相同，但又不同

在哲学的层面上，精益和全面质量管理有很多想法，特别是有关共同的持续改进系统的观点。然而，在更多的业务水平，这两个概念明显不同。这两个概念的基本价值也完全不同，尤其是关于人文价值。

结论

没有约定精益的定义，可以在回顾文献发现，和整体的概念是不同用途的。令人不安的，因为这可能看起来精益的支持者，似乎是相当一致的特性定义的概念，导致这个概念的定义是在业务方面单独的结论。制定一个定义，捕捉所有的精益特点是一项艰巨的挑战。 据海恩斯等人。（2004年）精益是不断地发展，这意味着任何“定义“的概念只是一个“静止图像“的移动目标，只是一种在特定时间点有效。这可能是一些专家之间关于这一问题的明显差异的解释。在此基础上，精益是否一致的定义可能会产生问题。另外，定义是否将是有益的根本，关于该类型结构不断变化的性质，如全面质量管理和精益管理概念。然而，有人试图在这篇文章中提出精益生产的基本要素，表达其最突出的哲学元素，希望清理周围混的一些概念。精益也明显不同，它的近亲全面质量管理，导致的结论是，精益是其自身的管理理念。从TQM和其他是精益不受此研究结果支持部分结论。

沃马克等。（1990）认为，精益原则适用于任何行业。如果这是正确的，那么，日本理应拥有分布在日本国内所有行业的这些原则。这似乎不是如此。唯一的“真正的“精益生产在日本只限于汽车行业为代表的，如丰田，本田，马自达，而其他工业领域都在为（或不如）西方竞争对手[2]相同的水平执行。指出这是20年多前通安键和米勒（1984年），这意味着该原则构成还没有受到任何外来的汽车行业广泛的关注。库尼（2002）认为可能成为“精益“（特别是通过JIT）的业务是高度依赖并不总是满足的条件依赖，从而限制了“普遍性“的概念。

从精益出发，重要的是要承认这个概念包含不同的观点。提高认识这些差异可能有助于使信息更清晰，避免对这些概念的正在组织实施意见产生冲突。作者声称普遍性的精益明显不可靠，应有助于激发一顺应性的方法来实现这个概念，目的是找到一个生产概念，随着环境因素和以往的生产方式，组织内存在意见。在制作方面的价值和方法应当增加在生产系统积极选择改进成功的可能性。

出处:

全面质量管理杂志：21问题：2 2009