Lean culture: a comprehensive systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess the level of pragmatic ambiguity (PA) lean culture has currently in the manufacturing and service literature. Design/methodology/approach A comprehensive systematic review of academic (journals, books and theses) and commercial literature was undertaken drawn from a six databases search of two keywords (“lean” and “culture”) and related citations. Findings A total sample of 1,066 references (678 academic papers, 121 books, 103 theses and 164 commercial documents) were analyzed. The authors found contributions from 67 countries but oddly, only two came from Japan. In total, 89 percent of citations were directly about lean culture. However, for 86 percent of them, lean culture was only discussed superficially. All four literature segments show an over 85 percent agreement on lean culture being an organizational aim. The authors encountered 103 definitions of organizational culture and found 13 definitions of lean culture. Issues of culture gap, leadership, human resource management, sustainability and innovation are found to amplify lean culture’s already high PA level. Research limitations/implications Further research and development are needed to decrease lean culture’s PA level and improve understanding of lean from a cultural perspective. Practical implications Current lean culture’s high PA level has positive and negative effects on lean implementation. Taking lean implementation from a cultural perspective may facilitate an organization’s lean transformation journey. Originality/value This is the first systematic literature review on lean culture using a broad and inductive approach. An original evidence-based definition of organizational culture is proposed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.039 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".