The diffusion and popularity of Lean in Norway: An exploratory survey

Madsen, Dag Øivind; Storsveen, Maria; Klethagen, Pål; Stenheim, Tonny Article The diffusion and popularity of Lean in Norway: An exploratory survey Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Madsen, Dag Øivind; Storsveen, Maria; Klethagen, Pål; Stenheim, Tonny (2016) : The diffusion and popularity of Lean in Norway: An exploratory survey, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 3, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1258132 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/205923 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Madsen et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1258132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1258132 MANAGEMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE The diffusion and popularity of Lean in Norway: An exploratory survey Dag Øivind Madsen 1 *, Maria Storsveen 2 , Pål Klethagen 3 and Tonny Stenheim 4 Abstract:Although commentators have noted that Lean currently is receiving a great deal of attention in Norway, little is known about how and to what extent Lean is used by Norwegian organizations. The overall purpose of this paper is to present the results of an explorative survey that attempts to map the diffusion and popularity of Lean in Norway. The results indicate that the adoption rate is still quite low, but that Lean is relatively more widely used in industries such as manufacturing and accounting, auditing and finance. Furthermore, the results indicate that Norwegian organizations are relatively recent adopters of Lean. Among users there is a general consensus that Lean has positive effects on organizational performance. At the same time, a wide range of implementation challenges are reported. These findings are discussed in relation to the extant literature on Lean. Subjects: Operations Management; Critical Management Studies; Organizational Studies; Organizational Change Keywords: Lean; Norway; diffusion; adoption; implementation; management concept; management fashion 1. Introduction 1.1. Lean Lean is a production concept that stems from the Toyota Production System (Monden, 1983). Lean was popularized in the early 1990s by the best-selling management book “The Machine that Changed *Corresponding author: Dag Øivind Madsen, School of Business, Department of Strategy and Finance, University College of Southeast Norway, Bredalsveien 14, Hønefoss 3511, Norway E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Tahir Nisar, University of Southampton, UK Additional information is available at the end of the article ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dag Øivind Madsen holds a PhD from the Norwegian School of Economics and is currently a faculty member in the Department of Strategy and Finance at the University College of Southeast Norway. Maria Storsveen holds a MSc from the School of Economics and Business at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Pål Klethagen holds a MSc from the Norwegian School of Economics and an MA in sociology from the University of Oslo. He works as a researcher at the Work Research Institute (AFI) at Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences. Tonny Stenheim holds a PhD from the Copenhagen Business School and is currently a faculty member in the Department of Accounting, Auditing and Business Analytics at BI Norwegian Business School. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT Lean is one of the most influential management concepts in the world. In recent years, Lean has attracted much attention in Norway. Still, little is known about to what extent Lean is used in practice. This paper presents the findings from an exploratory survey about the use of Lean in Norwegian organizations. The results show that the usage rate is relatively low. Lean is more widespread among larger organizations, and in industries such as manufacturing and accounting, auditing, and finance. While users generally have a positive view of Lean, different types of implementation challenges are reported. Received: 10 May 2016 Accepted: 03 November 2016 Published: 05 December 2016 © 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Page 1 of 21 Page 2 of 21 Madsen et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1258132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1258132 the World” (Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990). During the 1990s, Lean became a buzzword in the management community (Benders, 1996). Since then, Lean has garnered a lot of attention in public management discourse, and enjoyed considerable interest in private and public sector organizations alike (McCann, Hassard, Granter, & Hyde, 2015; Radnor & Boaden, 2008; Wittrock, 2015). In prior research, it has been shown that even though Lean has Japanese origins, this concept has “travelled” far and wide (Benders, 1996; Ingvaldsen & Benders, 2016; Ingvaldsen, Ringen, & Rolfsen, 2014; Wittrock, 2015). However, Lean is not used to the same extent or in the same way everywhere. Rather, the adoption and implementation of Lean may be shaped by local cultural and institutional factors (Wittrock, 2015). Previous studies of the Lean concept have shown that the reception and trajectory of Lean varies across countries, for instance, due to the presence of local actors and institutions that help diffusing and popularizing the concept (Benders & Van Bijsterveld, 2000; Ingvaldsen et al., 2014; Larsson, 2012). Recently, Lean has “travelled” to Norway (Ingvaldsen et al., 2014), and the concept has attracted much interest among consultants, academics, and managers in Norwegian industry (Aspøy, 2014; Holmemo, Rolfsen, & Ingvaldsen, 2016; Rolfsen, 2014). Even unions have generally been supportive of Lean initiatives (Rolfsen & Ingvaldsen, 2012). The current popularity of Lean in Norway has been fueled by a spectrum of supporting actors and institutions. In 2009, Lean Forum Norge (www.leanforumnorge.no) was established as a result of cooperation between actors from industry, government, and academia. Lean Forum Norge is a type of umbrella organization that spearheads, facilitates, and coordinates most of the Lean-related events and activities in Norway. Between 2011 and 2014, a total of 10 regional Lean forums sprung up, covering every part of the country. In addition, numerous consulting firms and trainers have started offering consulting services, educational courses and certifications related to the Lean methodology. A database search reveals that Lean has attracted much attention in the Norwegian media since 2009 (Figure 1). There has been a rapid growth in the volume of media discourse on Lean in the years following the establishment of Lean Forum Norge. Although the interest seems to have peaked in the years 2012 and 2013, it is still too early to tell if the interest will stabilize at the current level, decline or resurge.1 Overall, the Norwegian interest in Lean has been so strong that has been referred to as a “pandemic” (Aspøy, 2014). Still, we know relatively little about how and to what extent Lean is used by Norwegian organizations. Figure 1. Norwegian media articles mentioning Lean in the headline or opening paragraph. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Norwegian media articles mentioning Lean (headline or opening paragraph) Page 3 of 21 Madsen et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1258132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1258132 1.2. Purpose and contribution Against this background, the aim of this paper is to map the diffusion and popularity of Lean in Norwegian organizations. Although some previous studies have looked at the diffusion of Lean in specific industries in Norway, e.g. municipalities (Dolva, 2011; Schie, 2012), manufacturing (Heien, 2012), or banking (Larsen, 2009), this survey is, to the best of our knowledge, the first broad-based survey of Lean across different industries in Norway. The data presented in this article help to sketch a picture of the impact of Lean on organizational practice in Norway. At a more theoretical level, our study engages with the research literature on Lean as a popular global management concept (e.g. Benders & Van Bijsterveld, 2000; Ingvaldsen & Benders, 2016; Ingvaldsen et al., 2014; Larsson, 2012; Näslund, 2008; Wittrock, 2015). Our findings indicate that the Norwegian adoption and diffusion pattern differs from the pattern seen in studies carried out in some other countries. The data indicate that Norway is lagging behind some other countries in terms of adoption of Lean. While there are indications internationally that Lean is not as fashionable as it used to be (Rigby & Bilodeau, 2015; Wittrock, 2015), our data indicate that Lean is a relatively new phenomenon in most Norwegian organizations. 1.3. Structure The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we provide a brief overview of the origins and characteristics of the Lean concept, as well as a brief review of extant literature on the diffusion and popularity of Lean in different contexts. In Section 3, the methods and data are outlined. In Section 4, we present the findings of the survey. In Section 5, the findings are discussed in light of debates in the literature on Lean. Finally, Section 6 concludes, discusses shortcomings, and suggests ideas for future research. 2. Literature review 2.1. Emergence and evolution of Lean In this section, we provide a brief account of the emergence and evolution of Lean as a management concept and practice. It is not within the scope of this paper to provide a very detailed historical review of the origins and evolution of the Lean concept. Therefore, we refer interested readers to previous contributions that provide very detailed accounts of Lean’s rather complex genealogy (e.g. Hines, Holweg, & Rich, 2004; Holweg, 2007). As noted in the introduction, Lean is a Japanese production concept that stems from the Toyota Production System (Monden, 1983, 2012; Spear & Bowen, 1999). The term Lean Production was first used by Krafcik (1988) in the article “Triumph of the Lean Production System” published in MIT Sloan Management Review. Lean was further popularized in the best-selling management book “The Machine that Changed the World” by Womack et al. (1990). Since the early 1990s, the Lean concept has been further developed by researchers and other thinkers in a large number of books and articles (e.g. Bicheno, 2000, 2004, 2008; Hines, Found, Griffiths, & Harrison, 2011; Liker, 1997; Rother & Shook, 2003). In the years following Womack et al. (1990), Lean quickly gained much attention. During the 1990s, Lean became somewhat of a buzzword in the management community (Benders, 1996). Since then the Lean concept has “travelled” all over the world (Benders, 1996; Ingvaldsen et al., 2014; Scarbrough & Terry, 1998; Wittrock, 2015). Today the use of Lean is not limited to a conventional manufacturing context. Instead, Lean has been adapted for use in a wide range of other contexts such as construction, service industries (e.g. health care or accounting), as well as in public sector organizations (e.g. municipalities). Page 4 of 21 Madsen et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1258132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1258132 2.2. Characteristics of the Lean concept In this section, we analyze the characteristics of the Lean concept. Before we proceed, it is useful to briefly lay out what a management concept or idea is. A management concept or idea is a “prescriptive, more-or-less coherent view on management known under a particular label” (Nijholt & Benders, 2007, pp. 629–630). An alternative definition is that a management concept or idea is “a model for directing the activities of companies and other organizations” (Jutterström & Norberg, 2013, p. 2). Lean clearly fits both definitions being a highly prescriptive view on how to direct the activities of organizations to reduce waste and improve efficiency. Not all management concepts become popular and fashionable (Nijholt & Benders, 2007, pp. 629– 630). In the literature on management concepts and ideas, researchers have noted that management concepts that succeed in attracting attention and become popular and fashionable exhibit some essential characteristics (Benders & Van Veen, 2001; Røvik, 2002). In the following, we will discuss the characteristics that are necessary for a concept such as Lean to have a high popularity potential. The first characteristic is related to how the concept is labeled. Management concepts are usually labeled in a distinctive and catchy way (Røvik, 1998, 2007), and often a twoor three-letter acronym is used (Grint, 1997). In this respect, Lean differs a bit from most other management concept since it is not an acronym (Sørhaug, 2016, p. 155). However, Lean is a term that generally has positive connotations. Legge (2000, cited in Green & May, 2005) notes that “lean” is a positively charged word, whereas the words “fat” and “thin” both have negative connotations. Furthermore, the Lean rhetoric resonates with managers who like the sound of reducing waste and inefficiencies (“trimming the fat”). In addition, the term also lends itself to different variations such as Lean Construction (Alarcón, 1997; Ballard & Howell, 1994; Green, 2011), Lean Healthcare (Brandao de Souza, 2009; Mazzocato, Savage, Brommels, Aronsson, & Thor, 2010), and Lean Accounting (Brosnahan, 2008; Kennedy & Brewer, 2005). The second essential characteristic of a management fashion is that such concepts can be interpreted in a multitude of ways, i.e. so-called “interpretive viability” (Benders & Van Veen, 2001) or “interpretive space” (Clark, 2004). This wide room for interpretation means that concepts may be “translated” (Czarniawska & Sevòn, 1996) in different ways. To this point, researchers have noted that Lean is loosely defined, exists in many forms, and may be translated in different ways as it is implemented in organizations (Brännmark et al., 2012; Green & May, 2005, p. 503; Langstrand, 2012; Langstrand & Drotz, 2015; Morris & Lancaster, 2006). For example, it is possible to distinguish harder from softer versions of Lean, where the former is associated with more concrete techniques and methodologies, while the latter is associated with more intangible elements such as organizational learning and culture (Holmemo et al., 2016). The third characteristic is related to performance improvements. Substantial performance improvements are usually promised to adopters of management concepts (Kieser, 1997; Røvik, 1998; Ten Bos, 2000). In the context of Lean, these promises are linked to reductions in waste and inefficiencies (Womack et al., 1990). In a period of increasingly tough global competition (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994), such claims tend to resonate with business managers. In other words, it becomes difficult for a “rational” manager to argue against and to resist the Lean philosophy. The fourth characteristic is related to the notion of universality (Fincham & Evans, 1999; Røvik, 2007; Strang & Meyer, 1993). The Lean literature is full of universalist claims (Wittrock, 2015). For example, the Lean concept is often claimed to be useful for both private and public sector organizations (Bhatia & Drew, 2006; Radnor & Boaden, 2008; Radnor, Walley, Stephens, & Bucci, 2006). The myriad of different Lean variants mentioned earlier also underlines the universality of Lean. Page 5 of 21 Madsen et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1258132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1258132 2.3. Lean as a management fashion Based on the analysis in the previous section, we argue that Lean exhibits several of the characteristics associated with fashionable management concepts. Therefore, management fashion seems like a promising theoretical lens through which to view the diffusion and popularity of Lean. Before we proceed, we will briefly delve into the meaning of the term “management fashion.” Abrahamson (1996, p. 257) defines management fashion as a “relatively transitory collective belief, disseminated by management fashion setters, that a management technique leads to rational management progress.” Another definition is provided by Jung and Kieser (2012, p. 329) who highlight that management fashions are those “management concepts that relatively speedily gain large shares in the public management discourse.” Both of these definitions focus primarily on the supply-side of fashions. Benders and Van Veen (2001) have pointed out that a definition of management fashion should take into account not only the discourse on management concepts (“the talk”) but also what impact a fashionable management concept has on the demand-side, i.e. the fashion’s diffusion and implementation in organizations. In previous research, it has been suggested that the popularity of Lean could be explained by theories about management fashion (Benders & Van Bijsterveld, 2000; Green & May, 2005, p. 501; Ingvaldsen et al., 2014, p. 41–42; Larsson, 2012; Näslund, 2008). For example, Benders and Van Bijsterveld (2000) studied the reception of Lean in Germany, and found that Lean was highly fashionable during the 1990s, probably more so than most other places in Europe. Larsson (2012) studied the diffusion of the Lean Production concept in Sweden from a supply-side perspective. Focusing on how Lean has been communicated in the Swedish print-media, Larsson found that Lean went through a fashion cycle during the 1990s, but that the concept re-surged in 2004 and started a new fashion cycle, which as of 2009 was still in the growth phase (Larsson, 2012, 2015, p. 31). In a similar vein, Ingvaldsen and Benders (2016, p. 36) note that Lean has made a comeback during the last 10 years, and that the current Lean wave appears more durable than the first. Näslund (2008, p. 276) found that Lean grew rapidly in popularity during the 1990s and that the rise continued throughout the early to mid-2000s. In a more recent study, Wittrock (2015) has a slightly different perspective on the trajectory of Lean’s popularity, pointing out that the surveys carried out by Bain & Company show that Lean is not as popular and widely used as it used to be. Lean fell out of the top 25 of Bain & Company’s Management Tools and Trends Survey in 2009, and has not reappeared in subsequent editions (Rigby & Bilodeau, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015). Moreover, Wittrock (2015) cites Thawesaengskulthai and Tannock (2008) who argue that Lean could be going out of fashion and be replaced by a new, similar concept. 2.4. Evaluation This brief literature review has shown that the reception and popularity of Lean varies across social and institutional contexts. In other words, the Lean concept’s trajectory has not been uniform across different countries. As noted by Ingvaldsen and Benders (2016, p. 36), Lean’s popularity has varied across different countries. As pointed out in the introduction, Lean has in a relatively short period of time become popular in Norwegian public management discourse. This indicates that Lean, following Jung and Kieser’s (2012, p. 329) definition, currently can be considered a management fashion in Norway. However, we know relatively little about the Lean concept’s actual diffusion among Norwegian organizations. In the next section, we outline and discuss the research approach employed to investigate the diffusion and popularity of Lean in Norway. Page 6 of 21 Madsen et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1258132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1258132 3. Methods and data 3.1. Electronic survey The data in this study were collected using an electronic survey methodology (Jansen, Corley, & Jansen, 2007). The survey was administered using the survey software Questback (www.questback. com). An electronic survey was deemed appropriate given the purpose of our study, which was to map the diffusion and popularity of Lean in Norway. A large number of respondents are needed in order to be able to sketch a picture of the overall impact of Lean in Norwegian organizations. According to the research methods literature, a survey methodology is well suited for obtaining data from a large number of respondents (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2002). 3.2. Structure of the questionnaire The questionnaire consisted of a total of 32 questions. However, the survey was dynamic, meaning that the number of questions given to each respondent depended on their answers to previous questions. For example, a respondent who answered “no” when asked about whether he had heard of Lean was not asked any further questions about implementation, etc. The questionnaire covered several different themes, e.g. knowledge and awareness, adoption motives and rationales, implementation, as well as positive and negative experiences. Most of the questions were closed-ended and utilized seven-point Likert scales. On some of the questions, the respondents were able to select up to three alternatives. This means that the percentages in several of the tables presented in this article add up to more than 100%. 3.3. Response rate The survey was sent to 11,923 Norwegian organizations during the spring of 2015. The organizations’ email addresses were collected from the Norwegian company database Proff Forvalt (www. forvalt.no). Seven hundred and sixty emails were returned due to inactive, expired, or wrong email accounts. As shown in Table 1, after one reminder, a total of 1,220 completed questionnaires had been received. Another 54 respondents sent textual responses via email, but these responses were not taken into consideration in the analysis as they were typically incomplete. One of the background questions explored the respondent’s role in the organization. The respondents were for the most part general managers (e.g. CEOs) or financial managers (e.g. CFOs). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the respondents were relatively familiar with their own organization and their use of Lean or other management concepts and tools. It should be noted that in the presentation of the survey data, we let the respondents speak on behalf of their respective organizations. As Table 1 shows, the response rate was 10.9%. This is generally considered a low response rate. However, electronic surveys tend to get lower response rates than traditional postal surveys (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000; Shih & Fan, 2008). The relatively low response rate in our study can be explained by several factors. For example, one possible explanation is that the survey was targeted at a broad group of respondents. An important Table 1. Overview of responses Respondent Number Percentage Completed 1,220 10.9 Not completed 99 0.9 Declined 342 3 Non-response 9,503 84.7 E-mail response 54 0.5 Total 11,218 100 Page 7 of 21 Madsen et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1258132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1258132 question is to what extent the low response rate threatens the validity of our results. Therefore, simple checks for non-response bias were conducted by comparing characteristics of the respondents with characteristics of the population as a whole. 4. Knowledge, awareness, information sources, and the adoption decision-making process In this section, we present the findings from the part of the survey that focuses on Norwegian organizations’ knowledge and awareness of Lean, their information sources, and contact points, as well as the adoption decision-making process. 4.1. Knowledge and awareness of Lean More than half of the respondents (56.3%) indicated that they had heard of Lean (Table 2). Respondents from larger organizations are more likely to have heard of Lean. This question was also used to explore whether there was a relationship between organizational size and awareness of Lean. The results show that more than 90% of the organizations with more than 100 employees were familiar with Lean. Among organizations with 50–99 employees, less than 70% had heard of Lean. For organizations with less than 50 employees, this share dropped to about 50%. 4.2. Information sources and contact points We also asked the respondents about where they first came in contact with Lean (Table 3). The data show that the conference/seminar scene, previous jobs, other organizations, business media, and educational institutions were the most important contact points. The role of conferences and seminars is not surprising since the role of the conference scene is emphasized in the management fashion literature (Kieser, 1997). For example, the annual Lean Conference in Norway attracted close to 600 participants in 20112 and 500 in 2015.3 It is also interesting that many report previous jobs and other organizations as contact points. This finding can be seen in light of research showing that management practices tend to spread via professional and organizational networks (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Relatively few respondents reported consultants as a contact point. This is somewhat surprising given that consultants are generally considered the most important and central actor in relation to popular management concepts (Heusinkveld & Benders, 2012; Jung & Kieser, 2012). Lean consultants often play key roles as speakers in conferences/seminars and authors of business media articles, as well as assisting organizations in the implementation of new concepts and ideas. Given the presence of consultants at Norwegian conferences and in the business media, e.g. as speakers or authors of media pieces, it is possible that their importance could be a bit understated in the data. 4.3. Adoption among those aware of Lean We asked the respondents who answered that they had heard of Lean whether they had in fact adopted the concept. As Table 4 shows, 21.8% of these respondents had adopted and were currently using Lean, while 77.4% of the respondents had not adopted the concept. A small number of organizations were ex-users of Lean. Table 2. Knowledge/awareness and organizational size Number of employees NAwareness (%) 1–9 128 27.3 10–49 786 51.3 50–99 135 69.6 100–249 95 92.6 250+ 72 91.7 Do not know 4 25.0 1,220 56.3 Page 8 of 21 Madsen et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1258132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1258132 We also asked the non-adopters about their reasons for not adopting Lean (Table 5). The most important reason was that they were currently using other management concepts and ideas. Other respondents cited not having enough competence/expertise as reason for not adopting Lean. In the literature on Lean, it is often pointed out that Lean requires a high level of knowledge and competence (Sayer & Williams, 2012). Some respondents reported that they did not see the need for Lean or that that the performance effects were unclear to them. It was somewhat surprising that very few mentioned change fatigue, since organizations tend to jump from one popular concept to another (see Abrahamson, 2004). An alternative explanation for this low percentage is that the first four answer alternatives in Table 5 partly reflect change fatigue. Table 3. Contact points with Lean (N=687) Contact points Percentage Conferences/seminars/courses 22.0 Previous job 20.5 Business media 20.4 Other organizations 19.9 Education 19.5 Consulting firms 11.9 Co-workers 9.3 Lean Forum Norge 1.7 Other 10.6 N687 Table 4. Adoption among those aware of Lean NPercentage Yes 150 21.8 No 532 77.4 Used it previously, but discontinued 5 0.7 Total 687 100 Table 5. Reasons for non-adoption of Lean (N=531) Reason Percentage Using other management concepts/ideas 37.3 Not enough competence/expertise 23.4 Not needed 19.8 Potential effects unclear 19.0 Too resource-intensive 8.7 Change fatigue 2.6 Do not want to answer 1.9 Do not know 9.8 Other 16.8 Page 15 of 21 Madsen et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1258132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1258132 question of whether the adoption of Lean is partly driven by “fad and fashion” motives. As pointed out by Røvik (2007), imitation could be perceived by managers as passive and “weak.” Therefore, survey respondents may have been inclined to portray the adoption decision as less driven by fad and fashion motives than was perhaps the case. 7.2. Adoption and diffusion pattern 7.2.1. Adoption rate Overall, the adoption rate is relatively low. However, the survey responses show that most are recent adopters, and there are also many respondents that are currently considering adopting Lean. This could indicate a possible future rise in the use of Lean. Having said that, a majority still report that they do not have any plans of adopting Lean. In addition, many of the users are recent adopters and most report implementation challenges, something that could potentially lead to future abandonment if not addressed or resolved. There is also reason to believe that a larger portion of the nonresponders are non-adopters and not considering using Lean. Therefore, at this point, it is difficult to make predictions about the future adoption or rejection of Lean in Norway. 7.2.2. Diffusion The data indicate that Lean is diffused in most industries. However, there are some industry-specific differences in the adoption and diffusion of Lean. The use of Lean is particularly widespread in the manufacturing industry and among service firms focusing on accounting, auditing, and finance. The “travel” of Lean to service industries such as accounting, auditing, and finance is particularly interesting. This finding indicates that the Lean concept has spread to most industries in Norway. It is possible that the relatively positive attitude of Norwegian unions toward Lean (Rolfsen & Ingvaldsen, 2012) has facilitated the travel of Lean between different industries. 7.2.3. Life cycle The findings indicate that Lean is still in the early phase of its life cycle in Norway. Most respondents are relatively recent adopters of Lean. Our findings indicate that manufacturing is the only industry with more than 10 years of Lean experience. The majority (72%) are still in an early phase of Lean implementation, having adopted the concept less than 5 years ago. Only 18% of the Norwegian users adopted Lean more than 5 years ago. These findings indicate that the life cycle of Lean in Norway differs in some way from what has been observed in other countries. Although some organizations implemented Lean more than 5 years ago, the main wave of Lean adoption started around 2010/2011. In other words, Norway appears to have lagged behind other countries in terms of Lean adoption. For example, Lean was very popular in Germany and Sweden during the 1990s (Benders & Van Bijsterveld, 2000; Larsson, 2012). 7.2.4. Management fashion Internationally, Lean has previously been referred to as a management fashion, e.g. in countries such as Germany and Sweden (Benders & Van Bijsterveld, 2000; Larsson, 2012). Therefore, an interesting question is whether Lean is currently a management fashion in Norway. Arguing that there is a fashion aspect to the rise of Lean is reasonable given the many observations of a Lean “pandemic” in Norway (Aspøy, 2014; Sørhaug, 2016). Lean is currently taking up a lot of public management discourse in both print and social media in Norway. This means that Lean fits Jung and Kieser’s (2012) definition of a management fashion since it relatively quickly has gained large shares of the public management discourse in Norway. Our data also show that organizations report having been in contact with many types of fashion-setters and are generally very enthusiastic about Lean and its effects. Our findings suggest a Norwegian adoption and diffusion pattern that in some ways diverges from the international trajectory of Lean. At the international level, there are indications that Lean Page 16 of 21 Madsen et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1258132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1258132 currently is not as popular and fashionable as it used to be. Wittrock (2015) points out that there are indications, e.g. the aforementioned Bain & Company survey, that Lean is on a downward trend internationally. Wittrock (2015) also cites Thawesaengskulthai and Tannock (2008) who argue that Lean could be replaced by a new, similar concept. Our data on media discourse, however, suggest that Lean at the moment is possibly the most popular management concept in Norway and has yet to hit a clear downturn phase in terms of popularity. 7.3. Implementation and perceived effects 7.3.1. Implementation Our results show that the respondents generally perceive themselves to be moderate users of Lean. As of now, Lean is for the most part implemented in primary activities, but there are indications that organizations increasingly are planning to use Lean to improve supporting activities. Since most of the current Lean users are recent adopters, it is likely that the way Lean is implemented and applied will change over time. For example, Womack and Jones (2003) argue that it may take 5–10 years to implement a Lean culture and support structures. Similarly, a number of organizational factors play important roles in shaping the success of Lean implementation (Bhasin & Burcher, 2006). 7.3.2. Benefits and barriers The survey results show that very few respondents have negative experiences with Lean, and generally perceive Lean to have positive performance effects. This high level of satisfaction could be due to a “honeymoon phase” effect where the Lean users find it hard to be critical of a new concept that they have recently adopted (cf. Malmi, 2001, p. 213). Sørhaug (2016, p. 158) notes that users of management ideas such as Lean tend to be “religious”, almost to the point of being fundamentalists. This means that users of concepts such as Lean become almost immune to criticism, and will tend to censor critical voices (Sørhaug, 2016, p. 158). However, over time it could prove difficult to “keep the faith.” In the management fashion literature, it has been pointed out that negative stories tend to surface later in the life cycle of fashionable management concepts (Benders & Van Veen, 2001; Heusinkveld, 2004). Stories about implementation failures may spread via print or social media platforms (Madsen & Slåtten, 2015). Over time, when a fashionable concept fails to live up to the (perhaps overly high) expectations, this could lead to disillusionment among its followers (Benders & Van Veen, 2001). Wittrock (2015) points out that internationally, Lean has received more than its fair share of criticism, e.g. starting with Harrison (1994) and others (Green, 1999; Mehri, 2006). Røvik (2007) argues that the authors of practitioner-oriented management literature tend to be very optimistic with respect to effects of implementing management concepts and ideas such as Lean. However, a review of peer-reviewed research on Lean in ranked academic journals shows that only a small number of studies reports positive effects of Lean (Stentoft Arlbjørn & Vagn Freytag, 2013). Seen in light of this research, the generally positive perception among Norwegian organizations is striking. It will be interesting to see if this perception of Lean will remain as positive in the future. 8. Conclusion 8.1. Contributions In the current paper, we have by means of an explorative, cross-sectional survey mapped the diffusion of Lean in Norway. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to provide a broad-based overview of the diffusion and popularity of Lean in Norway. The findings presented in our paper have implications for the academic literature on Lean as a popular management concept. First, with respect to the overall adoption and diffusion pattern, the findings reported in this paper suggest that most Norwegian organizations started their “Lean journeys” only a few years ago. Lean seems to be in a relatively early stage of the management concept Page 17 of 21 Madsen et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1258132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1258132 life cycle in Norway. Therefore, the local adoption pattern of Lean differs from what has been seen in several other countries. Second, our findings shed light on how Lean is implemented in Norwegian organizations. Lean is generally used to a moderate degree. This could possibly indicate that Lean is translated and combined with existing concept and practices. While researchers have struggled to document positive effects of Lean (Stentoft Arlbjørn & Vagn Freytag, 2013), our data indicate that most Norwegian organizations use Lean quite enthusiastically. Despite implementation problems, they generally perceive positive effects on many areas of organizational performance. 8.2. Limitations and future research areas The present paper has several limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, a major limitation of our study is the cross-sectional nature of the design. A longitudinal, time-series design would be preferable. For instance, it would have been preferable to conduct a study of the diffusion of Lean at regular intervals, e.g. similar to the 2-year intervals used in Bain & Company’s survey of management tools and trends (Rigby & Bilodeau, 2015). However, such longitudinal studies are, in practice, difficult to carry out. Not surprisingly, there are few, if any, such studies in the literature on fashionable management concepts and ideas (Madsen & Stenheim, 2013; Røvik, 2007). A second limitation is related to the fact that the survey was answered by a single respondent from each organization. As a result, we cannot know whether the respondent’s views are shared by other organizational members. Moreover, there could be bias due to function, length of service or knowledge. For example, the respondent may not have sufficient knowledge of Lean. However, this problem was partly mitigated by asking the respondents if they had knowledge and awareness of Lean, as well as a background question about their position in the organization. Third, future studies could follow a qualitative approach. A qualitative approach would provide richer data, and such an approach would be better suited to shed light on how Lean is actually interpreted and used, and how employees are experiencing the organizational changes associated with Lean implementation. A carefully designed multiple case study could possibly shed light on factors that explain differences in the interpretation and use of Lean. A longitudinal case-study approach could also shed light on how the Lean concept evolves over time in organizations (Andersen & Røvik, 2015; Rovik, 2011). Fourth, post hoc rationalization (Elster, 1989) could be a source of bias in this study. Managers tend to want to appear rational (Røvik, 2007), and therefore the fad and fashion aspects associated with Lean in Norway could be somewhat understated in our data. Moreover, it is generally difficult to get managers to open up about failed management practices (Francis & Holloway, 2007, p. 177). It could be in managers’ best interest to provide a glossy portrait of the implementation process to make themselves look better. This is especially true for recent adopters of Lean who are still in the “honeymoon phase” where they may find it difficult to be critical about a newly adopted management concept (cf. Malmi, 2001, p. 213). In addition, Lean is currently very timely and is referred to as a “pandemic” in Norway (Aspøy, 2014). The concept has a high degree of legitimacy and social appropriateness in the Norwegian business community, and for many followers Lean is almost a “religious conviction” (Sørhaug, 2016). Future studies could explore the fashion and “religious” aspects of Lean and related management concepts in greater detail. Fifth, some may react to our use of the term “management fashion” in the context of Lean. Commentators have pointed out that management fashion researchers tend to use the term fashion as a pejorative (Benders & Van Veen, 2001; Clark, 2004). The fashion metaphor implies manager irrationality, and there is a risk that we have taken an overly socialized view of the Lean adoption and diffusion process, putting too much emphasis on social and institutional factors at the expense of Page 18 of 21 Madsen et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1258132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1258132 economic and rational influences. Moreover, it could be rational to follow fashions such as Lean, especially if organizations are able to learn from experiences of other organizations. So maybe fashion to a certain extent is necessary in order to drive practice forward, as strong rhetoric and lots of fanfare is a way to get the attention of managers and address issues of concern to managers (e.g. cost-reductions and elimination of waste). Hence, we should point out that we are not intending to make a value judgment of the usefulness of Lean concept, or imply that Lean cannot have real performance enhancing effects in organizations. Rather, our choice to utilize management fashion as theoretical lens has been guided by its ability to explain the rise, fall, or resurgence of Lean in different countries. Finally, this study has only examined the diffusion and popularity of Lean in Norway. A natural extension of this study could look at inter-country patterns in Lean adoption and diffusion. A study of the diffusion of Lean in a region such as the Nordic countries could potentially shed light on factors explaining similarities and differences in terms of diffusion and popularity. Funding The authors received no direct funding for this research. Author details Dag Øivind Madsen 1 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8735-3332 Maria Storsveen 2 E-mail: [email protected] Pål Klethagen 3 E-mail: [email protected] Tonny Stenheim 4 E-mail: tonny[email protected] 1 School of Business, Department of Strategy and Finance, University College of Southeast Norway, Bredalsveien 14, Hønefoss 3511, Norway. 2 School of Economics and Business, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Chr. Magnus Falsens vei 18, 1430 Ås, Norway. 3 Work Research Institute, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway. 4 BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo 0442, Norway. Citation information Cite this article as: The diffusion and popularity of Lean in Norway: An exploratory survey, Dag Øivind Madsen, Maria Storsveen, Pål Klethagen & Tonny Stenheim, Cogent Business & Management(2016), 3: 1258132. Notes 1. For 2016, the database only contains articles published until September 20. 2. http://nce-se.no/index.php/nyheter/konferanse_lean_ pa_norsk. 3. http://www.kommunalteknikk.no/lean-egner-det-segfor-kommunene-og-tekniske-tjenester.5813403-40825. html. 4. It should be noted that there was a low number of responses (28) from this category of firms. References Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16, 586–612. Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashions. Academy of Management Review, 21, 254–285. Abrahamson, E. (2004). Avoiding repetitive change syndrome. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45, 93–95. Alarcón, L. (1997). Lean construction. Abingdon: CRC Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203345825 Andersen, H., & Røvik, K. A. (2015). Lost in translation: A casestudy of the travel of lean thinking in a hospital. BMC Health Services Research, 15, 376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1081-z Aspøy, A. (2014). Lean tar over styringen [Lean takes over the control]. Stat & Styring, 4. Retrieved from https://www. idunn.no/stat/2014/04/lean_tar_over_styringen Aune, K., & Holmemo, M. (2014). Lean i tjenesteytende virksomhet [Lean in service industries]. In Lean blir norsk—Lean i den norske samarbeidsmodellen (pp. 161– 175). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Ballard, G., & Howell, G. (1994). Implementing lean construction: Stabilizing work flow. In L. Alarcón (Ed.), Lean construction (pp. 101–110). Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema Publishers. Benders, J. (1996). Leaving Lean? Recent changes in the production organization of some Japanese car plants. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 17, 9–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143831X96171002 Benders, J., & Van Bijsterveld, M. (2000). Leaning on lean: The reception of a management fashion in Germany. New Technology, Work and Employment, 15, 50–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.2000.15.issue-1 Benders, J., & Van Veen, K. (2001). What’s in a fashion? Interpretive viability and management fashions. Organization, 8, 33–53. Bhasin, S., & Burcher, P. (2006). Lean viewed as a philosophy. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17, 56–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410380610639506 Bhatia, N., & Drew, J. (2006). Applying Lean production to the public sector. The McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 97–98. Bicheno, J. (2000). The Lean toolbox. Buckingham: PICSIE Books. Bicheno, J. (2004). The new Lean toolbox: Towards fast, flexible flow. Buckingham: PICSIE Books. Bicheno, J., & Holweg, M. (2008). The Lean toolbox: The essential guide to Lean transformation. PICSIE Books. Brandao de Souza, L. (2009). Trends and approaches in lean healthcare. Leadership in Health Services, 22, 121–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17511870910953788 Brännmark, M., Langstrand, J., Johansson, S., Halvarsson, A., Abrahamsson, L., & Winkel, J. (2012). Researching Lean: Methodological implications of loose definitions. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 16, 35–48. Breit, E., & Rolfsen, M. (2014a). Bruk av konsulenter i utviklingen av lean [Use of consultants in the development of Lean]. In M. Rolfsen (Ed.), Lean blir norsk—Lean i den norske samarbeidsmodellen [Lean becomes Norwegian - Lean in the Norwegian cooperative model] (pp. 211–221). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Page 19 of 21 Madsen et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1258132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1258132 Breit, E., & Rolfsen, M. (2014b). Implementering av lean [Implementation of Lean]. In M. Rolfsen (Ed.), Lean blir norsk—Lean i den norske samarbeidsmodellen [Lean becomes Norwegian - Lean in the Norwegian cooperative model] (pp. 198–210). Fagbokforlaget. Brosnahan, J. P. (2008). Unleash the power of Lean accounting. Journal of Accountancy, 206, 60–66. CIMA. (2009). Management accounting tools for today and tomorrow. London: Author. Retrieved from http://www. cimaglobal.com/Documents/Thought_leadership_docs/ CIMA%20Tools%20and%20Techniques%2030-11-09%20 PDF.pdf Clark, T. (2004). The fashion of management fashion: A surge too far? Organization, 11, 297–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350508404030659 Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in webor internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821–836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970934 Czarniawska, B., & Sevòn, G. (1996). Translating organizational change. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110879735 DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095101 Djelic, M.-L. (1998). Exporting the American model. The postwar transformation of the American business. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dolva, M. M. (2011). Implementering av lean i norske kommuner: har norske kommuner implementert lean, eller vurderer de å implementere det? [Implementation of Lean in Norwegian municipalities: Have Norwegian municipalities implemented Lean, or do they consider implementing it?] (Master’s thesis). Universitetet i Agder/ University of Agder, Kristiansand. Retrieved from https:// brage.bibsys.no/xmlui//handle/11250/135666 Elster, J. (1989). Nuts and bolts for the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812255 Fincham, R., & Evans, M. (1999). The consultants’ offensive: Reengineering—From fad to technique. New Technology, Work and Employment, 14, 32–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.1999.14.issue-1 Francis, G., & Holloway, J. (2007). What have we learned? Themes from the literature on best-practice benchmarking. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, 171–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.2007.9.issue-3 Frost, F. A. (2003). The use of strategic tools by small and medium-sized enterprises: An Australasian study. Strategic Change, 12, 49–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1697 Ghauri, P., & Grønhaug, K. (2002). Research methods in business studies (2nd ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall Europe, Pearson Education Limited. Green, S. D. (1999). The dark side of lean construction: Exploitation and ideology. In Seventh Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Berkeley, CA. Retrieved from http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~tommelein/ IGLC-7/PDF/Front%20pages%20+%201%20to%2096c. pdf#page=29 Green, S. D. (2011). Lean construction: Making sense of construction improvement (pp. 238–273). Oxford: WileyBlackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444341102 Green, S. D., & May, S. C. (2005). Lean construction: Arenas of enactment, models of diffusion and the meaning of “leanness”. Building Research & Information, 33, 498–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210500285106 Grint, K. (1997). TQM, BPR, JIT, BSCs and TLAs: Managerial waves or drownings? Management Decision, 35, 731– 738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251749710192048 Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Harrison, B. (1994). Lean and mean: The changing landscape of corporate power in the age of flexibility. New York, NY: Basic Books. Heien, V.-A. A. (2012). Lean: Utbredelsen blant norske produksjonsbedrifter [Lean: Diffusion among manufacturing firms]. Universitetet for Miljøog Biovitenskap/Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway. Heusinkveld, S. (2004). Surges and sediments. Organization concepts between transience and continuity. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen. Heusinkveld, S., & Benders, J. (2012). Consultants and organization concepts. In M. Kipping & T. Clark (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of management consulting (pp. 267– 284). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hines, P., Found, P., Griffiths, G., & Harrison, R. (2011). Staying lean. Boca Raton, FLCRC Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b10492 Hines, P., Holweg, M., & Rich, N. (2004). Learning to evolve. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24, 994–1011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570410558049 Holmemo, M. D. Q., Rolfsen, M., & Ingvaldsen, J. A. (2016). Lean thinking: Outside-in, bottom-up? The paradox of contemporary soft lean and consultant-driven lean implementation. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1171705 Holweg, M. (2007). The genealogy of Lean production. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 420–437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.04.001 Ingvaldsen, J. A., & Benders, J. (2016). Lost in translation? The role of supervisors in lean production. German Journal of Human Resource Management: Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 30, 35–52. Ingvaldsen, J., Ringen, G., & Rolfsen, M. (2014). Lean på global vandring [Lean migrating globally]. In M. Rolfsen (Ed.), Lean blir norsk: Lean i den norske samarbeidsmodellen (pp. 33–47). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Jansen, K. J., Corley, K. G., & Jansen, B. J. (2007). E-survey methodology. In R. A. Reynolds & R. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of research on electronic surveys and measurements (pp. 416–425). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference. Jung, N., & Kieser, A. (2012). Consultants in the Management Fashion Arena. In M. Kipping & T. Clark (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of management consulting (pp. 327–346). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Jutterström, M., & Norberg, P. (2013). CSR as a management idea. In M. Jutterström & P. Norberg (Eds.), CSR as management idea—Ethics in action (pp. 1–15). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781782544722 Kennedy, F. A., & Brewer, P. C. (2005). Lean accounting: What’s it all about? Strategic Finance, 87, 27–35. Kieser, A. (1997). Rhetoric and myth in management fashion. Organization, 4, 49–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135050849741004 Krafcik, J. F. (1988). Triumph of the lean production system. MIT Sloan Management Review, 30, 41–52. Langstrand, J. (2012). Exploring organizational translation: A case study of changes toward Lean production (Doctoral thesis). Linköping University, Linköping. Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:503206/ FULLTEXT03.pdf Page 20 of 21 Madsen et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1258132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1258132 Langstrand, J., & Drotz, E. (2015). The rhetoric and reality of Lean: A multiple case study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 27, 398–412. Retrieved from http:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/ abs/10.1080/14783363.2015.1004307 Larsen, J. E. (2009). Lønnsomheten av lean i Norge: fører praktisering av lean til forbedret lønnsomhet blant norske forretningsbanker? [The profitability of Lean in Norway: Does the practice of Lean lead to improved profitability for Norwegian commercial banks?]. Bergen: Norwegian School of Economics. Larsson, E. (2012). Managementmoden och popularitetssvängningar - En studie av Lean-konceptet i svensk populärpress 1990–2008 [Management fashions and waves of popularity - A study of the Lean-concept in Swedish popular press 1990–2008] (Licentiate thesis). University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg. Retrieved from http://www.ipd.gu.se/digitalAssets/1358/1358878_elinlarsson---slutmanus-f--r-lic..pdf Larsson, E. (2015). Management accounting fashion settingStudies on supply-side actors in Sweden. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg. Legge, K. (2000). Personnel management in the Lean organisation. In K. Sisson & S. Bach (Eds.), Personnel management: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice (pp. 43–69). Oxford: Blackwell. Liker, J. K. (1997). Becoming Lean: Inside stories of US manufacturers. New York, NY: Productivity Press. Madsen, D. Ø. (2014). How do managers encounter fashionable management concepts? A study of balanced scorecard adopters in Scandinavia. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 8, 249–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMCP.2014.066904 Madsen, D. Ø., & Slåtten, K. (2015). Social media and management fashions. Cogent Business & Management, 2, 1122256. Madsen, D. Ø., & Stenheim, T. (2013). Doing research on “management fashions”: Methodological challenges and opportunities. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 11, 68–76. Malmi, T. (2001). Balanced scorecards in Finnish companies: A research note. Management Accounting Research, 12, 207–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/mare.2000.0154 Mazzocato, P., Savage, C., Brommels, M., Aronsson, H., & Thor, J. (2010). Lean thinking in healthcare: A realist review of the literature. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19, 376–382. McCann, L., Hassard, J. S., Granter, E., & Hyde, P. J. (2015). Casting the Lean spell: The promotion, dilution and erosion of lean management in the NHS. Human Relations, 68, 1557–1577. 0018726714561697. Mehri, D. (2006). The darker side of Lean: An insider’s perspective on the realities of the Toyota production system. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20, 21–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2006.20591003 Mitchell, F., & Reid, G. C. (2000). Editorial. Problems, challenges and opportunities: The small business as a setting for management accounting research. Management Accounting Research, 11, 385–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/mare.2000.0152 Monden, Y. (1983). Toyota production system: Practical approach to production management. Norcross, GA: Engineering & Management Press. Monden, Y. (2012). Toyota production system: An integrated approach to just-in-time (4th ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Morris, T., & Lancaster, Z. (2006). Translating management ideas. Organization Studies, 27, 207–233. Nicolai, A. T., Schulz, A.-C., & Thomas, T. W. (2010). What wall street wants—Exploring the role of security analysts in the evolution and spread of management concepts. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 162–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00862.x Nijholt, J. J., & Benders, J. (2007). Coevolution in management fashions: The case of self-managing teams in The Netherlands. Group & Organization Management, 32, 628–652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601106293781 Näslund, D. (2008). Lean, six sigma and lean sigma: Fads or real process improvement methods? Business Process Management Journal, 14, 269–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637150810876634 Poppendieck, M., & Poppendieck, T. (2003). Lean software development: An agile toolkit. Boston, MA: AddisonWesley Professional. Powell, W. W., Gammal, D. L., & Simard, C. (2005). Close encounters: The circulation and reception of managerial practices in the San Francisco Bay area nonprofit community. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevon (Eds.), Global ideas (pp. 233–258). Fredriksberg: CBS Press. Radnor, Z., & Boaden, R. (2008). Editorial: Lean in public services— Panacea or paradox? Public Money & Management, 28, 3–7. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ abs/10.1111/j.1467-9302.2008.00610.x?journalCode =rpmm20 Radnor, Z., Walley, P., Stephens, A., & Bucci, G. (2006). Evaluation of the lean approach to business management and its use in the public sector. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Rigby, D., & Bilodeau, B. (2009). Management tools & trends 2009. London: Bain & Company. Rigby, D., & Bilodeau, B. (2011). Management tools & trends 2011. London: Bain & Company. Rigby, D., & Bilodeau, B. (2013). Management tools & trends 2013. London: Bain & Company. Rigby, D., & Bilodeau, B. (2015). Management tools & trends 2015. London: Bain & Company. Rolfsen, M. (2014). Lean blir norsk: Lean i den norske samarbeidsmodellen [Lean becomes Norwegian: Lean in the Norwegian cooperative model]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Rolfsen, M., & Ingvaldsen, J. (2012). Unions and the Lean concept. Stockholm: ILPC Conference. Retrieved from http:// www.ilpc.org.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=6135&absid=904 Rolfsen, M., & Jensen, H. C. (2014). Lean bygging [Lean construction]. In M. Rolfsen (Ed.), Lean blir norsk - Lean i den norske samarbeidsmodellen [Lean becomes Norwegian - Lean in the Norwegian cooperative model] (pp. 130–139). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Rolfsen, M., & Wulff, K. (2014). Lean programvareutvikling [Lean software development]. In M. Rolfsen (Ed.), Lean blir norsk - Lean i den norske samarbeidsmodellen [Lean becomes Norwegian - Lean in the Norwegian cooperative model] (pp. 149–160). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Rother, M., & Shook, J. (2003). Learning to see: Value stream mapping to add value and eliminate muda. Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute. Røvik, K. A. (1998). Moderne organisasjoner [Modern organizations]. Oslo: Fagbokforlaget. Røvik, K. A. (2002). The secrets of the winners: Management ideas that flow. In K. Sahlin-Andersson & L. Engwall (Eds.), The expansion of management knowledge: Carriers, ideas and sources (pp. 113–144). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Røvik, K. A. (2007). Trender og translasjoner – ideer som former det 21. århundrets organisasjon [Trends and translations - ideas that are forming 21st century organizations]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Rovik, K. A. (2011). From fashion to virus: An alternative theory of organizations’ handling of management ideas. Organization Studies, 32, 631–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0170840611405426 Page 21 of 21 Madsen et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1258132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1258132 © 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Sahlin-Andersson, K., & Engwall, L. (2002). The expansion of management knowledge: Carriers, flows and sources. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Sayer, N. J., & Williams, B. (2012). Lean for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Scarbrough, H., & Terry, M. (1998). Forget Japan: The very British response to lean production. Employee Relations, 20, 224–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01425459810228298 Schie, I. (2012). Lean i norske kommuner: En studie om spredning av lean som styringsverktøy, og endringer i organisasjonen som en følge av implementeringen [Lean in Norwegian municipalities: A study of the diffusion of Lean, and organizational changes as a result of implementation] (Master’s thesis). Universitetet i Agder/ University of Agder, Kristiansand. Retrieved from https:// brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/135750 Shih, T.-H., & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20, 249–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1525822X08317085 Sørhaug, T. (2016). Gull, arbeid og galskap: penger og objekttrøbbel [Gold, work and madness: Money and objects of trouble]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Spear, S., & Bowen, H. K. (1999). Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system. Harvard Husiness Review, 77, 96–108. Staw, B. M., & Epstein, L. D. (2000). What bandwagons bring: Effects of popular management techniques on corporate performance, reputation, and CEO pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 523–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667108 Stentoft Arlbjørn, J., & Vagn Freytag, P. (2013). Evidence of Lean: A review of international peer‐reviewed journal articles. European Business Review, 25, 174–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555341311302675 Storey, D. J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. London: International Thompson Business Press. Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993). Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society, 22, 487–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00993595 Sturdy, A. (2004). The adoption of management ideas and practices. Theoretical perspectives and possibilities. Management Learning, 35, 155–179. Ten Bos, R. (2000). Fashion and utopia in management thinking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/aios Thawesaengskulthai, N., & Tannock, J. (2008). Fashion setting in quality management and continuous improvement. International Studies of Management and Organization, 38, 5–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825380201 Van Rossem, A., & Van Veen, K. (2011). Managers’ awareness of fashionable management concepts: An empirical study. European Management Journal, 29, 206–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2010.10.005 White, R. E., Pearson, J. N., & Wilson, J. R. (1999). JIT manufacturing: A survey of implementations in small and large US manufacturers. Management Science, 45(1), 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.45.1.1 Wittrock, C. (2015). Reembedding Lean: The Japanese cultural and religious context of a world changing management concept. International Journal of Sociology, 45, 95–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2015.1061852 Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your organisation. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (2003). Lean thinking (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.