质量管理中英文对照外文翻译文献

质量管理中英文对照外文翻译文献质量管理中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)Definingleanproduction:someconceptualandpracticalissuesAbstract:Purpose–Thepurposeofthispaperistoinvestigatethedefinitionofleanproductionandthemethodsandgoalsassociatedwiththeconceptaswellashowitdiffersfromotherpopularmanagementconcepts.Design/methodology/approach–Thepaperisbasedonareviewofthecontemporaryliteratureonleanproduction,bothjournalarticlesandbooks.Findings–Itisshowninthepaperthatthereisnoconsensusonadefinitionofleanproductionbetweentheexaminedauthors.Theauthorsalsoseemtohavedifferentopinionsonwhichcharacteristicsshouldbeassociatedwiththeconcept.Overallitcanbeconcludedthatleanproductionisnotclearlydefinedinthereviewedliterature.Thisdivergencecancausesomeconfusiononatheoreticallevel,butisprobablymoreproblematiconapracticallevelwhenorganizationsaimtoimplementtheconcept.Thispaperarguesthatitisimportantforanorganizationtoacknowledgethedifferentvariations,andtoraisetheawarenessoftheinputintheimplementationprocess.Itisfurtherarguedthattheorganizationshouldnotacceptanyrandomvariantoflean,butmakeactivechoicesandadapttheconcepttosuittheorganization'sneeds.Throughthisprocessofadaptation,theorganizationwillbeabletoincreasetheoddsofperformingapredictableandsuccessfulimplementationOriginality/value–Thispaperprovidesacriticalperspectiveonthediscoursesurroundingleanproduction,andgivesaninputtothediscussionoftheimplementationofmanagementmodels.Keywords:Leanproduction;TotalqualitymanagementArticleIntroductionWheninitiatingresearchconcerningtheconceptofleanproduction(LP)onelineofquestionsnaturallycomestomind:“Whatislean?Howisleandefined?Howdoesleanrelatetoothermanagementconcepts?Whatdoesleanhaveincommonwithothermanagementconcepts?Whatdiscriminatesleanfromothermanagementconcepts?”Seekinganswerstothesequestions,willleadtotherealizationthattheyareexceedinglyhardtofind.Itseemslogicalthatamanagementconceptaspopularasleanshouldhaveaclearandconcisedefinition.Muchdisappointingly,thedefinitionofleanproductionishighlyelusive.Someauthorshavemadeattemptstodefinetheconcept(e.g.Lewis,2000;Hinesetal.,2004;ShahandWard,2007),whileothershaveraisedthequestionofwhethertheconceptisclearlydefined(seeDahlgaardandDahlgaard‐Park,2006;Engströmetal.,1996;Lewis,2000).Ajustifiedquestioniswhethertheconvergentvalidityofleanactuallymakesanydifference–doesitmatterhowwedefinelean?Therearevariousopinionsontheeffectsofthis.Theabsenceofacleardefinitionhasanumberofconsequencesforpractitionersseekingtoimplementleanaswellasresearcherstryingtocapturetheessenceoftheconcept.Theseissueshavebeenaddressedbyanumberofresearchers.Thelackofadefinitionwillleadtocommunicationdifficulties(DaleandPlunkett,1991inBoaden,1997).Itwillcomplicateeducationonthesubject(Boaden,1997).Researchingthesubjectwillbedifficult(Godfreyetal.,1997;Parker,2003)–althoughBoaden(1997)statesthatthisisnotessential.Therewillalsobedifficultiesindefiningoverallgoalsoftheconcept(Anderssonetal.,2006).Parker(2003)statesthatthemultitudeofinterpretationsonwhatleanreallyismakesithardertomakeclaimstowardstheeffectsoflean,thusincreasingtherequirementsthatresearchersspecifyexactlywhattheyareresearching.KarlssonandÅhlström(1996)pointoutthatthelackofaprecisedefinitionalsowillleadtodifficultiesindeterminingwhetherchangesmadeinanorganizationareconsistentwithLPornot,andconsequentlydifficultiesinevaluatingtheeffectivenessoftheconceptitself.PurposeofthearticleThemainpurposeofthisarticleistogiveapresentationofwhatleanproductionis.Thiswillbedonethroughareviewofcontemporaryliteratureonleanandsummaryofpracticesassociatedwithleanaswellasthestatedpurposeoftheconcept.Basedonthis,anevaluationoftheconstructvalidityofleanwillbemade.Thepaperwillconcludewithadiscussionofthepracticalimplicationsoftheconstructvalidityoflean.ResearchapproachHackmanandWageman(1995)reviewedtheTQMconceptandraisedthequestionof“whethertherereallyissuchathingasTQMorwhetherithasbecomemainlyabannerunderwhichapotpourriofessentiallyunrelatedorganizationalchangesareundertaken”.ThisisavalidquestionforanyconstructsimilartoTQM,andtheconceptofleanproductionisnoexception.FollowingthereasoningofHackmanandWageman,thisquestioncallsfortheevaluationoftheconcept'sconvergentanddiscriminantvalidity.HackmanandWageman(1995)describethetwokindsofvalidityasfollows:Convergentvalidityreflectsthedegreetowhich[different]versions[oftheconcept][…]shareacommonsetofassumptionsandprescriptions.[…]Discriminantvalidityreferstothedegreetowhich[theconcept]canbereliablydistinguishedfromotherstrategiesfororganizationalimprovement(HackmanandWageman,1995).Inotherwords,thediscriminantvaliditytellsuswhetherornotaconceptcarriesanynewsvaluecomparedtootherexistingconcepts,whereastheconvergentvalidity,strictlyspeaking,tellsuswhetherornottheconceptitselfreallyexists.Forthisarticle,thetwomajorcitationdatabasesISIandScopushavebeensearchedforarticlescontainingtheterms“leanproduction”or“leanmanufacturing”inthetopic,abstractorkeywords.The20mostcitedarticlesfromeachdatabasewereselectedforfurtherstudy.Throughreadingtheseandotherarticlesonthesubject,themostinfluentialbookswereidentified.Thislistwasverifiedthroughusingthecitationanalysissoftware“publishorperish”.Thereviewedliteraturewillbecomparedbylistingthecharacteristicsofleanpresentedbyeachauthor.Theideaisthatamethod,toolorgoalthatiscentraltoleanwillbementionedbyeveryauthoronthetopic.Thepurposeorgoalofleanshouldlogicallybethesameforallauthors.Concurrenceamongtheauthorswillsignifyahighconvergentvalidity.Ifleanpassesthisconvergentvaliditycriterion,anevaluationofthediscriminantvaliditycanbemade,basedonacomparisonwithTQM.HackmanandWageman(1995)concludedthatTQMpassedthetestsofbothconvergentanddiscriminantvalidity,makingitagoodconcepttocompareagainstleanproduction.LiteraturereviewThetwodatabasesearchesproducedatotalof37articles(seeAppendix),ofwhich12ofthemcontainedpresentationsoftechniquesand/oroverallgoalsassociatedwithLP,thuscontributingtoaconceptualdiscussion.The12articlesthataredeemedsuitableforafurtheranalysisareKrafcik(1988),Oliveretal.(1996),SánchezandPérez(2001),Lewis(2000),Mumford(1994),James‐MooreandGibbons(1997),MacDuffieetal.(1996),Dankbaar(1997),WhiteandPrybutok(2001),HayesandPisano(1994),JagdevandBrowne(1998)andCusumano(1994).Anumberofbooksturnedupintheliteraturesearch.Aninvestigationofthebooks'citationrankingsledtoafilteringprocesswith13booksremaining.TheseareWomacketal.(1990),WomackandJones(2003),Bicheno(2004),Ohno(1988),Monden(1998),Liker(2004),Feld(2001),Dennis(2002),Schonberger(1982),Shingo(1984),RotherandShook(1998),JonesandWomack(2002)andSmalley(2004).ThepublicationsbytheLeanEnterpriseInstitute(RotherandShook,1998;JonesandWomack,2002;Smalley,2004)areveryspecificoncertaintools(mainlyvaluestreammapping),andwerenotdeemedsuitableforaconceptualdiscussionaboutleaningeneral.AnoverviewofleancharacteristicsTableIisapresentationofthemostfrequentlymentionedcharacteristicsofleaninthereviewedbooks.Characteristicsthathavebeendiscussedbylessthanthreeauthorshavebeenexcludedfromthepresentation.Thecharacteristicsinthetablearesortedbasedonfrequencyofdiscussioninthereviewedliterature.Lookingatthetablerevealssomeinterestingaspectsabouttheideassurroundinglean.Theonlytwocharacteristicsthatallauthorsdiscussare“setuptimereduction”and“continuousimprovement”,indicatingthatthesearecentraltotheconcept.Ontheconditionthatpullproductioncanbeseenasaspecialcaseofjust‐in‐timeproduction,allauthorsliftthischaracteristicaswell.Failureprevention(pokayoke)andproductionleveling(heijunka)alsoseemtobecentralcharacteristicsofleanproduction.AnalysisConvergentvalidityofleanThecharacteristicslistedinTableIhavesomerelationtooneanother,motivatinganaffinityanalysis.OnewayofgroupingthesecharacteristicsispresentedinTableII.Throughgroupingthecharacteristicsamorehomogeneousimageoftheleancharacteristicsarises.Forallbutthreeofthegroupsallauthorshavediscussedatleastoneofthecharacteristicsinthegroup.InthegrouplabeledashumanresourcemanagementnoneofthecharacteristicsarediscussedbyauthorsBichenoandShingo.TheauthorsOhnoandSchonbergerhavenotdiscussedanyofthecharacteristicsinthegrouplabeledassupplychainmanagement.Furthermore,thebundledtechniqueshaveslightlylowerfigures.Thisindicatesthatthetwogroupshumanrelationsmanagementandsupplychainmanagementarenotdefinablecharacteristicsoflean,contrarytothefindingsofShahandWard(2003).However,thescoresarequitehigh,indicatingthattheyareimportant(althoughnotvital)partsoftheleanconcept.Lookingatthegoalspresentedbythereviewedauthors(TableI)raisessomequestionstowardstheconvergentvalidityoflean.Thegeneralopinionthatthepurposeofleanistoreducewastedoesnotseemtohold,althoughsomeauthors(Bicheno,2004;Monden,1998;Shingo,1984)argueforthis.Asdiscussedabovetherearetwomaintraditionsoflean;“toolboxlean”and“leanthinking”.Thisisalsoevidentinthedifferencesofgoalsinthereviewedliterature.Generallyspeaking,therearetwodifferenttypesofgoals,internallyfocused(Liker,2004;Feld,2001;Ohno,1988;Monden,1998;Schonberger,1982;Shingo,1984)andexternallyfocused(Womacketal.,1990;WomackandJones,2003;Bicheno,2004;Dennis,2002;Schonberger,1982).Onecouldarguethatthedifferencesinformulationofpurposeareverysmallthusmakingitaminorissue.However,aninternallyfocusedcostreductioninitiativewilldiffersubstantiallyfromanexternallyfocusedinitiativetoimprovecustomersatisfaction.Thedivisionofleanproductioninthetwopartsdiscussedabovehasledtodiscussionsofwhichoneismorecorrect.Acommonstatementisthat“leanismorethanasetoftools”(Bicheno,2004),arguingforamorephilosophicalapproachtolean.However,thereisalsoanotherpositionthatarguesforamorepracticalandprojectbasedapproachtoleanandthat“leanisacollectionofwastereductiontools”.Thiskindofstatementishardtofindexplicitlyinacademictexts,butverycommonamongcertainpractitioners.Neitherofthepositionsaremorecorrectthantheother,sinceleanexistsatbothlevels,havingbothstrategicandoperationaldimensions(Hinesetal.,2004).Inaddition,leancanbeseenashavingbothaphilosophicalaswellasapracticalorientation(ShahandWard,2007).ThroughadaptingandcombiningthefourapproachestoleansuggestedbyHinesetal.(2004)andShahandWard(2007)respectively,leancanbecharacterizedinfourdifferentways.Thetermspracticalandphilosophicalaresubstitutedbythetermsperformativeandostensive.Thetermsoperationalandstrategicaresubstitutedbythetermsdiscreteandcontinuous.InTableIIIfourdifferentapproachestoleanproductionarepresented.Thetermostensivesignifiesashiftoffocusfromgeneralphilosophytowardsissuesthatcanonlybedefinedbyexamples,whereasperformativeandpracticalfocusonthethingsthataredone.Thetermdiscretesignifiesafocusonisolatedevents,suchasindividualimprovementprojectsusingthe“leantoolbox”(seeBicheno,2004;NicholasandSoni,2006),orthefinalstateof“leanness”(seeKrafcik,1988).Asacontrast,thetermcontinuoussignifiesaprocessorientedperspective,focusingonthecontinuousefforts;thephilosophyof“leanthinking”or“theToyotaway”(seeWomackandJones,2003;Liker,2004)ortheprocessof“becominglean”(seeLiker,1998;KarlssonandÅhlström,1996).Althoughthescoreisnotperfect,leanseemstobeareasonablyconsistentconceptcomprisingjustintimepractices,resourcereduction,improvementstrategies,defectscontrol,standardizationandscientificmanagementtechniques.However,itishardtoformulateacleardefinitionthatcapturesalltheelementsofleanandintegratesthevariousgoalsinthereviewedliterature.Inotherwords,leancanbesaidto(barely)passtheconvergentvaliditytest,althoughthereisnoclearagreementamongtheauthorsastotheoverallpurposeoftheconcept.DiscriminantvalidityofleanSowhatisthenthedifferencebetweenTQMandleanproduction?InthefollowingsectionLeanandTQMarecomparedbasedontheanalysismadebyHackmanandWageman(1995).Thediscussionisdonewiththreedifferentaspects;basicassumptions,changeprinciplesandinterventions:1.Basicassumptions:•Quality.Inlean,qualitydoesnotreceivethesameamountofattentionasintheTQMliterature.Themainfocusintheleanliteratureisonjust‐in‐time(JIT)production.JITisassumedtodecreasetotalcost,aswellashighlightproblems.Thisisdonethroughreducingtheresourcesinthesystem,sothatbuffersdonotcoveruptheproblemsthatarise.Intheshort‐termperspective,thereductionofresourcesimpliesadirectreductionofcost.Inthelongrun,thereductionandsubsequenteliminationofbuffersisassumedtohighlighttheproblemsthatexistinproduction,thusbeingavitalsourceofcontinuousimprovement(e.g.Shingo,1984;Ohno,1988;Krafcik,1988). Acommonopinionisthatthepurposeofleaniswasteelimination.Theliteraturereviewdoesnotshowsupportforthisbeingtheverypurpose,butwasteeliminationisdefinitelyanimportantaspectoftheconcept.Someauthorsarguethatwasteisreducedinordertoincreasethevalueforthecustomer(e.g.Dennis,2002;Bicheno,2004),whereasothersarguethatitisastrategyforreducingcost(e.g.Ohno,1988;Monden,1998).ReducingwasteisalsoasignificantpartofTQM,butunderthebannerofpoor‐quality‐costs(seeHackmanandWageman,1995;Sörqvist,1998).AmajordifferencebetweenTQMandleaninthisaspectistheprecisionindefiningwaste.Inthemajorityoftheleanliterature,wasteormudaisbasedonthesevenforms[1]definedbyOhno(1988),whereasTQMhasaverygeneraldefinitionofpoor‐quality‐costs,includingeverythingthatcouldbeeliminatedthroughimprovement(Sörqvist,1998).•Employeesandthequalityoftheirwork.Onemajorcritiqueoftheleanconceptisthatitisgenerallyweakconcerningtheemployees”perspective.Theproponentsofleanproductionusuallyhaveastronginstrumentalandmanagerialperspective,discussingemployeesintermsofcomponentsintheproductionsystem(seeKamata,1982;Berggren,1992,1993). Theextensivediscussionaboutjidokaandpokayokeintheleanliteraturesuggeststhatemployeescannotbetrustedtoproducegoodquality,thuscreatinganecessityforremovingthepossibilityofhumanerrorfromthesystem.•Organizationsassystems.OnethingthatleanandTQMhaveincommonisseeingtheorganizationasasystem(seeWomackandJones,2003;Bicheno,2004).Butthereisaslightdifferenceinperspectivebetweenthetwoconcepts.WhereasTQMhasastrongfocusontheinternalstructureandintegrationofdepartmentswithintheorganization,leanstressesasupplychainperspective,seeingtheinternalproductionoperationsasapartofavaluestreamfromthesub‐supplierstotheendcustomer(e.g.RotherandShook,1998;JonesandWomack,2002).•Qualityistheresponsibilityofseniormanagement.ThisisanotherperspectivethatleanandTQMshare,butagainwithsomedifferences.TQM‐managersshouldcreatestructuresthatsupporttheemployeesinproducingproductsofhighquality(Deming,1986;HackmanandWageman,1995).Theideaisthesameinlean,buttherationalefordoingthisseemstobecenteredaroundeliminatingthehumanfactorfromthesystemthroughjidokaandpokayoke.UsingtheterminologyofMcGregor,onecouldarguethatTQMseemstobebasedontheoryY,whereasleanseemstobebasedontheoryX(seeEzzameletal.,2001).2.Changeprinciples:•Focusonprocesses.Withintheleanconceptthetermvaluestreamisusuallypreferred(WomackandJones,2003).ThetermprocessisusuallyusedatalowerlevelofabstractionthatTQMtheoristswouldcallsub‐processesoractivities(seeRiley,1998).Theconceptionthatmanagementshouldanalyzeandimprovetheprocessesandtraintheemployeesisalsosharedbythetwoconcepts.•Managementbyfact.Theliteratureonleandoesnotreallystressthemanagementbyfactsexplicitly.However,thisisimplicitinthedescriptionofleanpractices,manyofwhichareanalyticaltoolsdesignedtohelpachieveJITproduction.AlthoughthisisasharedperspectivebetweenleanandTQM,thereisadifference.WithinTQMtheanalysisofvariabilitythroughusingstatisticaltoolsisacentralconcept(HackmanandWageman,1995).Intheleantradition,thisisnotseenasequallyimportant.Infact,someauthorsargueagainsttheuseofstatisticaltoolsforanalyzingproductionperformance,recommendingalternativetoolssuchasincreasedinspectionandvisualizationofproblems(e.g.Dennis,2002;Liker,2004).•Learningandcontinuousimprovement.InthewordsofHackmanandWageman(1995)TQMis“pro‐learning,withavengeance”(p.330).Thelearningaspectsarenotemphasizedasmuchinliteratureonlean.Asdiscussedabove,theleanliteratureisgenerallyweakeronthehumanbehaviorside,focusingmoreoninstrumentaltechniquesforimprovingsystemperformance.Thereisaclearfocusoncontinuousimprovement,whichimpliesthatsomeformoflearningisrequired.However,thequestioniswhoislearning.TQMisfocusedonstimulatingcreativityandindividualeffortsforimprovement(HackmanandWageman,1995),whereasleanplacesstrongemphasisonthestandardizationofworkandcollectivelearning(NiepceandMolleman,1998;ThompsonandWallace,1996).3.Interventions•Analysisofcustomerrequirements.CustomerfocusisoneofthehallmarksofTQM,whereeveryimprovementshouldbebasedonaninvestigationofthecustomer'srequirements,whetherthecustomerisinternalorexternal.Theleanconceptdoesnotemphasizecustomerinterests.Someauthorsarguethattheverypurposeofleanistopleasethecustomer(e.g.Dennis,2002),butmethodsforanalyzingcustomerrequirementsareextremelyrareinthereviewedliterature,suggestingthisisnotatypicalleanintervention.•Supplierpartnerships.ThesuppliersareseenasimportantinbothleanandTQM.Bothconceptstressthepointthatlongtermpartnershipsshouldbemadewithsuppliersandthatimprovementsshouldbedoneincollaborationwiththem.Althoughthismatterisnotdiscussedbyallauthorsinthisanalysis,themajorityofthemdo(seeTableI).•Improvementteams.QualitycircleshaveacentralroleinmuchoftheTQMliterature,andcanbeputtouseinproblemsolvingorimprovementactivities.Intheleanliterature,improvementteamsareexplicitlydiscussedbyjustabouthalfofthereviewedauthors.However,theyareoftenimplicatedindiscussionsaboutimprovementactivities.•Scientificmethodsforperformancemeasurementandimprovement.BothTQMandleanemployvariousscientificmethodsforanalysisandevaluationofperformance.However,thesemethodsdiffersignificantly,andthetoolsassociatedwithoneconceptaregenerallynotmentionedinliteratureontheotherone.Thepurposeofmeasurementsalsodiffers.InTQMmeasurementsaredoneinordertoidentifyproblemsandtodocumentimprovement,whereasleantheoristsarguethatmeasurementsshouldbemadeforplanningandsynchronizationpurposes;,e.g.forsettingproductionrate(seeOhno,1988;Bicheno,2004).•Processmanagementtechniques.Asdiscussedabove,thetermprocessisusedinslightlydifferentwaysbyauthorsonTQMandlean.Intheleanliterature,differenttechniquesarepresentedforbothoverallprocesslevelandindividualactivities.Atanorganizationallevelvaluestreammapping(VSM)canbeusedforhighlightingseveralkindsofproblemsintheprocesses(RotherandShook,1998).Atamoreoperationallevel,differenttime/workstudytechniquesarediscussed,e.g.so‐calledspaghetticharts(e.g.Bicheno,2004).LeanandTQM–samebutdifferentAtaphilosophicallevel,leanandTQMhavemanyideasincommon,inparticularconcerningcontinuousimprovementandthesystemsperspective.However,atamoreoperationallevel,thetwoconceptsdiffersignificantly.Thefundamentalvaluesofthetwoconceptsarealsoquitedifferent,especiallyregardinghumanisticvalues.ConclusionThereisnoagreedupondefinitionofleanthatcouldbefoundinthereviewedliterature,andtheformulationsoftheoverallpurposeoftheconceptaredivergent.Discomfortingasthismayseemforleanproponents,thereseemstobequitegoodagreementonthecharacteristicsthatdefinetheconcept,leadingtotheconclusionthattheconceptisdefinedinoperationaltermsalone.Formulatingadefinitionthatcapturesallthedimensionsofleanisaformidablechallenge.AccordingtoHinesetal.(2004)leanisconstantlyevolving,implyingthatany“definition”oftheconceptwillonlybea“stillimage”ofamovingtarget,onlybeingvalidinacertainpointintime.Thismaybeanexplanationtotheapparentdifferencesbetweenauthorsonthesubject.Basedonthis,itishardnottoraisethequestionofwhetheraconsistentdefinitionofleanispossibletoproduce.Also,onecanquestionwhetheradefinitionwillbeusefulatall,regardingtheeverchangingnatureofthetypeofconstructsthatmanagementconceptssuchasTQMandleanare.Nonetheless,attemptshavebeenmadeinthisarticletopresenttheessentialsofleanproductionandconveyitsmostsalientphilosophicalelements,hopefullyclearingupsomeoftheconfusionthatsurroundstheconcept.LeanisalsosignificantlydifferentfromitsclosestrelativeTQM,leadingtotheconclusionthatleanisamanagementconceptofitsown.TheconclusionfromShahandWard(2003)thatTQMandotherbundlesarepartsofleanisnotsupportedbythisstudy.Womacketal.(1990)arguethattheleanprinciplesareapplicabletoanyindustry.Ifthisiscorrect,thentheJapaneseshouldlogicallyhavedistributedtheknowledgeoftheseprinciplesthroughoutalldomesticJapaneseindustry.Thisdoesnotseemtobethecase.Theonly“true”leanproducersinJapanareconfinedtotheautomobileindustry,representedby,e.g.Toyota,HondaandMazda,whereasotherareasofindustryareperformingatthesamelevelas(orworsethan)westerncompetitors[2].Thiswaspointedoutmorethan20yearsagobyKeysandMiller(1984),implyingthattheprinciplesconstitutingLPhavenotreceivedanywide‐spreadattentionoutsidetheauto‐industry.Cooney(2002)arguesthatthepossibilitytobecome“lean”(throughJITinparticular)ishighlydependentuponbusinessconditionsthatarenotalwaysmet,thuslimitingthe“universality”oftheconcept.Whenembarkingonajourneytowardslean,itisimportanttoacknowledgethedifferentperspectivesthattheconceptcomprises.Raisingtheawarenessofthesedifferencesmayhelpmakethemessageclearerandavoidconflictingopinionsonwhichconcepttheorganizationisimplementing.Theobviousfallibilityoftheclaimeduniversalityofleanshouldhelpmotivateanadaptationalapproachtoimplementingtheconcept,aimingtofindaproductionconceptthatagreeswiththecontextualfactorsandpreviousproductionpracticesthatexistwithintheorganization.Makingactivechoiceswithregardtovaluesandtechniquesshouldincreasetheoddsofsucceedingintheimprovementoftheproductionsystem.

精益生产的定义：一些概念和实践问题作者（S）：该佩特森单位：DivisionofQualityTechnologyandManagementandHelixVINNExcellenceCentre,LinköpingUniversity,Linköping,Sweden引用：全面质量管理杂志摘要目的本文的目的是探讨精益生产的定义，如何实现它的方法和精益生产的目标。以及其他流行的管理理念的概念，设计/方法/方式-本文是基于精益生产的理念，包括是杂志文章和书籍的当代文学评论。调查结果它显示的文件中，精益生产的研究作者之间并没有达成共识的定义。作者似乎也有不同的意见，对应与其相关的概念。总体而言，可以得出结论，精益生产是没有明确界定的回顾文献。这种分歧可能会导致一些混乱的理论水平，但在一个实际的水平，当组织的目标是实施的概念可能是更多的问题。本文认为，重要的是一个组织承认的不同的变化，并提高认识的投入，在实施过程中。有进一步的争论，该组织不应该接受任何随机变量的精益，但作出积极的选择和适应的概念，以适应组织的需要。通过这一过程的适应，该组织将能够增加的可能性进行预测和成功的实施独创性/价值-本文提供了一个关键的角度对精益生产的话语，并给出了一个输入的管理模型的实施的讨论。关键词：精益生产；全面质量管理文章介绍当启动关于精益生产（LP）一个问题自然浮现在脑海中的概念研究：“什么是精益？精益是如何定义的？如何区分精益与其他管理理念？精益与其他管理理念共同之处是什么？精益相对于其他的管理理念优势在哪里？”寻找这些问题的答案，将导致他们是非常难找到的。一个管理概念作为流行的管理概念，应该有一个清晰简明的定义似乎是符合逻辑的。更令人失望的是，精益生产的定义是难以捉摸的。有些作者试图定义的概念（如Lewis，2000；海因斯等人，2004；Shah和Ward，2007），但是其他人都提出概念是否明确的问题（见dahlgaard和dahlgaard‐park，2006；öEngstrmetal.，1996；Lewis，2000）。一个合理的问题是，精益实际上使任何差异是否收敛有效，它对于我们如何定义精益，有不同意见的影响。在没有一个明确定义的情况下，对一个寻求实施精益从业者或者试图捕捉的本质的概念的研究人员会造成一些后果。这些问题已经得到了一些研究人员的讨论。一个定义的缺乏会导致沟通困难（Dale和Plunkett，1991博登，1997）。它将复杂化教育主体（博登，1997）研究客体对象将是困难的（戈弗雷etal.，1997；Parker，2003）。虽然博登（1997）指出，这不是必需的。在确定概念的总体目标时也有困难（安德松等人，2006）。帕克（2003）指出，对精益生产的众多解释使其更难对精益的影响得出结论。从而增加了研究人员明确规定他们正在研究的要求。卡尔森和ÅhlströM（1996）指出，缺乏一个确切的定义也会导致在确定一个组织变化是否与精益一致的存在困难，因此在概念本身的有效性评估就比较困难困难。论文目的这篇文章的主要目的是给一个简单定义精益生产是什么。这将通过审查当代精益文学的和精益的做法，以及所述的目的的概念与概述。在此基础上，对精益生产的结构效度进行了评价。本文将对讨论的精益建设的实际影响的有效性做出结论。研究方法哈克曼和沃格曼（1995）回顾了TQM的概念，提出了“是否真有这样的事情作为TQM或是否已成为主要的旗帜下，各种基本无关的组织变化进行”。这是任何构造类似于全面质量管理有效的问题，和精益生产的概念是没有例外。继哈克曼和沃格曼推理，这个问题要求对这一概念的收敛效度和判别效度评价。哈克曼和沃格曼（1995）描述了两种有效性如下：收敛有效性反映到不同版本都有一个共同的假设和处方的程度。判别效度是指在何种程度上可以从组织改进其他策略（哈克曼和Wageman，1995）时可靠区分概念。换句话说，判别有效性告诉我们一个概念，无论是否带有相对于其他现有概念的任何价值，而收敛效度，严格的说，告诉我们这个概念本身是否真的存在。在这篇文章中，两大引文数据库ISI和Scopus已经搜索包含术语“精益生产”或主题，抽象或关键字“精益制造”的文章。被选作进一步的研究，从每个数据库中的20篇引用最多的文章。通过阅读这些和其他处理方式上的问题，用最有影响力的著作进行鉴定。这份名单是通过使用引文分析软件“发布或灭亡”验证的。该评审文献将上市的每位提出精益概念的作者提交的特征进行比较。这个想法是：其一，工具或目标即中央倚靠将由在话题每个作者被提及。精益的目的或目标理应是和所有作家一样的。作者之间的竞合，将意味着较高的收敛效度。如果精益通过这项会聚效标准，区分效度的评价，可以进行基于与TQM的比较。哈克曼和Wageman（1995）认为TQM通过两种收敛和判别有效性的测试，使其成为一个很好的概念进行比较的精益生产。文献评论这两个数据库检索共有37篇，其中，其中12篇载有和精益相关的技术或总体目标，从而促进一个概念性的讨论。被认为适用于进一步分析的12个制品克拉夫茨克（1988），O