Search results

This editorial aims to introduce the theme of the special issue: “Lean vs agile from an organizational sustainability, complexity and learning perspective”.

The methodology of the editorial is that of a survey. In the first part it presents the relevance of the theme and in the second part it presents the papers included in the special issue, including their themes, findings and novel contributions.

The individual findings by the papers present significant new contributions in a deeper insight of the “lean” and “agile” philosophies, or approaches in, and to, organizations. It could be noticed that the controversies of the issue “lean vs. agile” still remain. However, it could be said that an eventual further investigation in the phenomenology of “lean” and “agile” will be more informed after consideration of the results presented in this special issue.

Further investigation should be undertaken on a more abstract “level” of the theories of “lean” and “agile” and their mutual relationship, such as theories about the internal processes of “lean”/“agile” users, general “lean”/“agile” theories, epistemology of “lean”/“agile”, and ontology of “lean”/“agile”, and relationship with learning organization and chaordic organization.

Readers, both theoreticians and practitioners, will find in this editorial a “guide” to the issues of their interest concerning the valuable explanations, ideas and tools, presented in the special issue, for both concrete applications in enterprises and organizations, and for further research and development of learning, complex and sustainable organizations, and towards new ideas and insights generation.

This editorial presents an analysis of the special issue on “lean vs agile”, contributing to the higher levels of the theories of “lean” and “agile” and their mutual relationship, namely to the theories about the internal processes of “lean”/“agile” users, general “lean”/“agile” theories, and epistemology of “lean”/“agile”.

The purpose of this paper is to present an examination of the concepts and mechanisms of complexity and learning usability and applicability for management in turbulent environments as well as their examination through the Chaordic system thinking (CST) lenses and framework. Contributing to awareness of how different mechanisms could be interpreted as the complexity mechanisms and learning for sustainability of organizations.

The methodology applied is a secondary analysis of the papers that present concepts, research thesis and case study on applications of the complexity mechanisms and learning for sustainability of organizations.

Complexity and learning, applied through the CST, are enablers of sustainability of organizations. CST mechanisms are proved feasible and acceptable within the organization that seeks sustainability, which is an emerging requirement in nowadays turbulent environments.

All findings contribute to further learning and growth in capability for application of the complexity mechanisms and learning towards sustainability in concrete organizations.

The paper contributes to the perspective of organizational sustainability through complexity and learning approach. The complexity approach means in the first place that for going towards the sustainability the complexity should be increased, in opposite to the “traditional” management approaches. Additionally, the CST is seen, and validated through the secondary analysis of five papers in this special issue, as a model of complexity for management towards sustainability.

The aim of this paper is to analyze international and national research and development (R&D) programs and roadmaps for the manufacturing sector, presenting how agile and lean manufacturing models are addressed in these programs.

In this review, several manufacturing research and development programs and roadmaps – national programs from the USA and Canada, and international programs from the European Union and from one international organization – are reviewed.

The major finding of this review is that the main concerns in agile manufacturing, as highlighted in these programs, are networks, supply chain and product/service customization, and lean manufacturing's inclination towards achieving better cost efficiency. Although the lean manufacturing approach has been considered in many past and present programs, analysis of the most recent programs shows a greater priority is given to the agile manufacturing approach. The path towards sustainable manufacturing is delineated by pro‐active attitude and action towards customers.

The study analyzes two national R&D programs from the USA, one international program from the European Union, three international roadmaps from the European Union, one business plan from Canada and one international roadmap from the global organization Intelligent Manufacturing Systems.

The findings of this paper are intended to help managers, researchers and practitioners from the manufacturing sector to enhance their understanding and define suitable strategy for their organizations' sustainability and identify suitable manufacturing path with respect to agile and lean philosophies. This study could also help academics in defining course curricula for students more coherent with the R&D policies and/or requirements towards sustainable manufacturing with respect to agile and lean philosophies.

There are reviews comparing agile and lean manufacturing paradigms, but there are no reviews about how the two manufacturing concepts are addressed in manufacturing R&D programs and roadmaps.

The objective of this paper is to provide a deeper insight into the relationship of the issue “lean vs agile” in order to inform managers towards more coherent decisions especially in a dynamic, unpredictable, uncertain, non‐linear environment.

The methodology is an exploratory study based on secondary data analysis.

“Lean” and “agile” are two exclusive concepts “in the limit” and “agile” has a higher potential for serving as an instrument for starting “a journey” towards a new sustainable organizational paradigm.

Further research in the context of the arguments presented is necessary, especially in the “field” and on primary data.

There are clearly indicated contexts of primary applications of “lean” and “agile”, and especially along with the techniques, methodologies and system‐thinking informed by chaordic system thinking (CST), which should be of help for managers.

The novel contribution of the paper is the presentation of the argumentation on “lean” and “agile” as exclusive concepts and their analysis through the CST lenses, as well as the presentation of suggestions for development of new manufacturing systems paradigms.

To highlight a few critical issues related to indicators that are used to compare organizational practices.

The approach is as follows: to compare the efficacy of qualitative and quantitative indicators; objectivity in identification of processes and practices; and make a distinction between essence and logistics of benchmarking.

For any benchmarking exercise the most important job is objectivity in identification of processes and practices. The distinction between the two is not always apparent. Qualitative evaluation of practices is as important as quantitative evaluation. The quantitative performance indicators for evaluation of best practices come only at the end of a series of critical qualitative analysis of the organizational processes and practices.

The subject of the paper has been the enhancement of the effectiveness of R&D organizations. Such organizations form an important part of the innovation system of a nation, generally known as national innovation system (NIS). NISs of more successful countries are being continuously evaluated and emulated by other countries for attaining respective technological aspirations. This leaves a wide scope for application of benchmarking methodology. The dynamics of networks like NIS being different from that of a business organization, the methodology for best practices has to be refined. The present paper has addressed only the R&D organization part of NIS. Much of the validity of the conclusions will depend upon studies on NIS in particular and organizations not driven by profit motive in general.

The exact definition of the organization in terms of its mandate, long‐term vision and source of competence is the critical task. This is an important lesson for extending benchmarking exercise beyond business enterprises. The study envisages that the methodology would have wide scope of application for organizational restructuring of R&D organizations. However, methodology has to be refined depending on the specificity of the problem of R&D organizations.

It is in presenting the comparative efficacy of qualitative and quantitative indicators for R&D organizations and also in highlighting the importance of benchmarking, the essence of organizational practices, to arrive at the logistics.

The European Chaos and Complexity in Organizations Network (ECCON) held its Third Annual Meeting in Guimarães, Portugal, June 2003, at the very same spot where the First Business Excellence conference was organized. As an outcome of that meeting, this TLO special brings together six ECCON members around the theme of “Chaordic Systems Thinking” (CST), a “new science” lens based in chaos and complexity. The CST framework will be presented, as well as some preliminary explorations into how it might inform a learning organization. Apart from the CST lens, the issue contains chaos‐and‐complexity concepts of learning and the learning organization, a dialogical conversation about the framework and some paper presenting empirical research findings.

In order to set the stage for this special issue, the prime concepts are defined: i.e. “chaos,” “complexity,” “learning” (individual and organizational), “learning organization,” and “chaordic enterprise”. Also, several chaos‐and‐complexity‐related definitions of learning and learning organizations are provided. Next, the guest editors' main thesis is presented, namely that the “chaordic enterprise” might be the goal state towards which a company – seen as a learning organization – might evolve, and that the framework of “chaordic systems thinking” could be used as a meta‐model to inform a learning organization which is capable of self‐organization and transformative change under hyper‐turbulent conditions. Finally, in order to illustrate the contours of a chaordic enterprise, the case of a dynamically reconfigurable, globally integrated, networked enterprise is presented.

The aim of this paper is to construct a performance evaluation of banks with the stock market taken into consideration.

Grey relation analysis (GRA), a concept borrowed from the study of industry and increasingly applied to commerce, is used to evaluate the relative performance of three major banks in Australia. The purpose of using GRA is to reduce the number of financial indicators by selecting representative indicators from financial statement analysis.

Benchmarking performance indicators are essentially finding the representative indicator from the existing ratios most commonly used in financial analysis to assess business operational performance. The paper compares the GRA results from the financial statement analyses and shows the same result can be obtained.

This paper conducted a review of literature and five‐power analysis to aggregate financial ratios appropriate for the analysis. This method may result in incompleteness in the aggregation of ratios, and requires adjustment when other issues for analysis are involved. Future research could set up a specific model for the preliminary selection of financial ratios with a new to make studies of this kind more complete.

This paper introduced a new approach for performance evaluation – GRA. The major contribution of this paper is the use of GRA methodology to retrieve ratios most commonly used in financial analysis to tackle the problems of sample size and distribution uncertainty. This could avoid the waste of resources due to the uncertainty of relations among the ratios when using them for analysis.