Critical success factors-based taxonomy for Lean Public Management: a systematic review

Caiado, Rodrigo Goyannes Gusmão; Carocha, Daniel Michilini; Goulart, Adriana Karla; Tortorella, Guilherme Luz

doi:10.1590/0103-6513.20200030

Tabla de contenido Anterior Actual Siguiente

Thematic Section - Present and Future of Production Engineering • Prod. 30 • 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.20200030 linkcopy

Critical success factors-based taxonomy for Lean Public Management: a systematic review

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Paper aims This paper aims to critically review the Lean-based methodologies (e.g. Lean production, Lean Six Sigma, and lean government) in Public Administration to locate the critical success factors (CSFs) for lean public management implementation.

Originality It is one of the first systematic literature reviews to explore the CSFs of Lean-based methodologies in the public sector with a strategic focus on the l-government.

Research method This research is based on a systematic review of 83 articles that were published on Lean-based methodologies in public sector organizations in well-known academic databases.

Main findings There were identified 28 CSFs, grouped by a taxonomy of five significant lean public management categories that deal with the spread of Lean-based methodologies in different public sector environments and can be used to guide continuous improvement (CI) in the public sector.

Implications for theory and practice This paper can provide a better panorama to understand the present status of Lean-based methodologies towards public practices, as well as, to bridge the gap of a systematic approach (taxonomy) that could direct CI implementation in the public sector, considering a proper understanding of distinct public management characteristics, which can effectively guide practitioners, facilitating their decision-making.

Keywords
Lean thinking; L-government; Critical factors; Literature review; Public sector

	CSFs	Description	References
I. Goals and values	Continuous monitoring	Understand lean is an ongoing evaluation, monitoring and assessment. It is continuous improvement approach as compared to process re-engineering which can be viewed as a one-time change.	Comm & Mathaisel (2000); Edgeman et al. (2005); Furterer & Elshennawy (2005); Fryer et al. (2007); Radnor & Boaden (2008); Suárez-Barraza & Ramis‐Pujol (2010); Radnor (2010); Papadopoulos (2011); Silva et al. (2015); Antony et al. (2016); Antony et al. (2017); Almeida et al. (2017); Fletcher (2018); Lukrafka et al. (2020)
	Communication	Communication and role of Quality department. Having aims and objectives that are communicated to the workforce and used to prioritise individual’s actions – a corporate quality culture.	Edgeman et al., (2005); Hines et al. (2008); Radnor & Boaden (2008); Suárez-Barraza & Ramis‐Pujol (2010); Pedersen & Huniche (2011); Miao et al. (2011); Radnor & Osborne (2013); Silva et al. (2015); Juliani & Oliveira (2019); Rodgers & Antony (2019)
	Process-based view	Rationalize and map the process. Study the entire working, not just one part, and avoid cannibalizing the process.	Radnor & Walley (2008); Radnor & Boaden (2008); Suárez-Barraza & Ramis‐Pujol (2010); Silva et al. (2015); Agbodzakey & McCue (2015); Antony et al. (2017); Lukrafka et al. (2020)
	Incentive/Reward system	Recognition and reward systems. Recognize the viability of outsourcing as a driver of needed changes.	Fryer et al. (2007); Pedersen & Huniche (2011); Rodgers & Antony (2019)
	Workflow integration	Integrate the workflow and make it visible. Breaks in the flow, both internal and external and blind spots can be pockets of waste.	Miao et al. (2011); Almeida et al. (2017); Lukrafka et al. (2020)
	Strategic alignment	Link between improvement programs and strategy.	Hines et al. (2008); Radnor & Walley (2008); Almeida et al. (2017); Juliani & Oliveira (2019); Rodgers & Antony (2019)
II. Complexity and importance	Quick wins prioritisation	Project selection and prioritisation – look for quick wins or “low hanging fruit”. Assess for gaps or redundancies that create time waste.	Fryer et al. (2007); Elias (2016)
	TQM tools	Understanding Total Quality Management (TQM) guidelines and philosophy and identification of critical quality characteristics.	Furterer & Elshennawy (2005); Edgeman et al. (2005); Suárez-Barraza & Ramis‐Pujol (2010); Di Pietro et al. (2013); Arfmann & Barbe (2014); Agbodzakey & McCue (2015)
	Root cause focus	Drive for root causes, not symptoms, and be objective (cost cutting/lay-offs or improvement of process).	Edgeman et al. (2005); Rappel et al. (2017)
	Cause-effect actions	Perform cause-effect impacts and product design. Grasp the impact of the organization and culture on lean process design and operation.	Miao et al. (2011); Arlbjørn et al. (2011); Almeida et al. (2017)
	Advanced control tools	The complexity of public affairs increases the need for event and exception management technology, capability and control.	Comm & Mathaisel (2000); Adler et al. (2012); Sreedharan et al. (2017)
III. Balance of power	Top management commitment	Gain top management's commitment and stability. Continuous improvement requires ongoing support.	Comm & Mathaisel (2000); Radnor & Boaden (2008); Juliani & Oliveira (2019)
	Employee involvement	Structured organisational culture and ownership management system, as well as readiness and employee support. Bottom up as well as top down approach.	Radnor & Boaden (2008); Radnor & Walley (2008); Rodgers & Antony (2019)
	Multi-disciplinary team work	Project, process, customer and supplier management skills. Build a multi-disciplinary team for the project-one that understands lean management..	Hasenjager (2006); Barton & Barton (2011); Fletcher (2018)
	Training and education	Training, knowledge transfer, learning and teamwork, collaborate with various departments. It is a requirement, not an option; and it is a two-way exchange.	Comm & Mathaisel (2000); Hasenjager (2006); Fryer et al. (2007); Juliani & Oliveira (2019); Lukrafka et al. (2020)
	Employee empowerment	Employee empowerment. Honesty of the organisation, i.e. trust of and by all employees. Avoid general belief that staff are overworked and underpaid.	Hasenjager (2006); Fryer et al. (2007); Fletcher (2018); Rodgers & Antony (2019)
IV. Resources and capabilities	Reliable performance measures	Use of pilot study, quality data, measurement and reporting to elaborate a strategic planning. ‘Identifiability’ of impact and realistic time plan/natural pace of change.	Comm & Mathaisel (2000); Fryer et al. (2007); Pedersen & Huniche (2011); Procter & Radnor (2014)
	Skilled professionals	Adequate amount and skills of human resources. Involve relevant people to provide input on present effectiveness and for improvements.	Comm & Mathaisel (2000); Radnor & Boaden (2008); Radnor & Walley (2008); Juliani & Oliveira (2019)
	Customer focus	Clear customer focus. Ask citizens about how well the public bodies operate.	Hasenjager (2006); Radnor & Johnston (2013); Di Pietro et al. (2013); Antony et al. (2017); Juliani & Oliveira (2019); Rodgers & Antony (2019)
	Social responsibility	Management commitment and social responsibility. Demand public department performance. It is vital to lean implementation. Awareness of strategic direction procedures and targets.	Fryer et al. (2007); Suárez-Barraza & Ramis‐Pujol (2010); Sreedharan et al. (2017)
	Proactive culture	Cultural change. Improve the process to drive fast response to change, e.g. environmental or technological. Include change management in lean program requirements.	Hines et al. (2008); Radnor & Osborne (2013); Silva et al. (2015); Antony et al. (2017); Lukrafka et al. (2020)
V. Technology and systems	Technological integration	Effective incorporate new technology and medium as part of the process improvement. Know that technology cannot overcome process flaws.	Edgeman et al. (2005); Bharosa et al. (2013); Fryer et al. (2007)
	Data reuse	Business data reuse;	Edgeman et al. (2005); Bharosa et al. (2013); Fryer et al. (2007)
	Shared infrastructure	Use of generic (shared) infrastructure services;	Edgeman et al. (2005); Bharosa et al. (2013); Fryer et al. (2007)
	Architectural considerations	Emergence of architecture as a critical stabilising force;	Edgeman et al. (2005); Bharosa et al. (2013); Fryer et al. (2007)
	Built-in application controls	Shift of control tasks for simple data checks and functions to the businesses;	Edgeman et al. (2005); Bharosa et al. (2013); Fryer et al. (2007)
	Network innovation	Restrictive yet flexible project management, positioning SBR as a cross-government policy initiative;	Edgeman et al. (2005); Bharosa et al. (2013); Fryer et al. (2007)
	Information security	Emphasis on end-to-end security and development of a national taxonomy allowing extensions.	Edgeman et al. (2005); Bharosa et al. (2013); Fryer et al. (2007)

location_on

Associação Brasileira de Engenharia de Produção CNPJ: 30.115.422/0001-73, Avenida Cassiano Ricardo, Nº 601, Residencial Aquarius, CEP: 12.246-870, http://portal.abepro.org.br/ - São José dos Campos - SP - Brazil
E-mail: production@editoracubo.com.br

rss_feed Acompañe los números de esta revista en su lector de RSS