Develops a model which operationalizes the different principles in lean production, with a focus on those that concern the work organization in the manufacturing part of a company. The model has been developed using available theory and has also been tried out in a clinical field study. The model has implications both for research and practice. For research, it can be used as a model for operationalizing lean production to be able to study change processes properly. In practice, the model can be used as a tool to assess the development taking place in an effort to become lean. Finally, it can be used as a checklist for what to aim at when trying to implement lean production. Lean should be seen as a direction, rather than as a state to be reached after a certain time and, therefore, the focus lies on the changes in the determinants, not on their actual values.

The practice of innovation management is developing fast. As new concepts emerge, exploratory studies are needed and case study research is often appropriate. To investigate the usage and quality of case study research in innovation management, all of the articles published in five top journals over 20 years (1997–2016) were reviewed. Case study research accounted for 818 of the published articles in this period (12%) and an evaluation template (termed case study evaluation template: CASET) was developed to objectively assess these articles against 10 quality criteria. It was found that the quality of case study research has often been low, although it has improved over time. Similarly, quality was found to fluctuate both within and between the different innovation journals. This indicates that the peer review process for case study research is not as robust as it should be. The assessment of individual articles using the evaluation template found significant deficiencies. Many articles: did not justify why case study research was appropriate; did not apply theoretical sampling criteria; were not transparent on how conclusions were drawn from the data; did not consider validity and reliability adequately; and did not go beyond description in their interpretation. However, the evaluation template also identified 23 “exemplary studies,” which clearly addressed nearly every criterion. Such exemplary studies provide innovation management researchers with “benchmark” reading, which can help shape their own research. This article makes four contributions to the innovation management discipline. First, the evaluation template and exemplary studies can help innovation researchers improve the quality of their case study research. Second, clear recommendations are given for how reviewers can use the template to make the peer review process more consistent and robust. Third, journal editors are encouraged to consider the implications of the findings for their particular journal. Fourth, the article should stimulate a long overdue debate on methodology in innovation management research, including the use of case study research.

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to develop and empirically validate an instrument containing operational measures of lean service. The instrument is intended for use by both researchers and practitioners. Design/methodology/approach -The instrument was developed and validated in an iterative process between theoretical and empirical insights. Drawing on a wide selection of frequently cited papers on lean service, a preliminary list of items was generated. These items were then vetted through four steps in order to achieve high validity. Empirical refinement and validation included workshops and semi-structured interviews with expert practitioners, as well as testing the instrument's ability to discriminate between high and low adoption of lean and portray changes during lean service adoption. Findings -The instrument contains 34 items that assess enablers of lean adoption, lean practices, and operational performance. Empirical validation suggested the instrument was able to discriminate between high and low adoption of lean service, as well as portray changes over time during lean adoption. Practical implications -Practicing managers will be able to use the instrument in order to track progress during lean service adoption, thereby identifying and acting upon deviations from planned progress. Originality/value -The paper represents the first comprehensive attempt to develop an instrument for assessing lean service adoption. Through this instrument, operational definitions of lean service will allow researchers to measure the level of lean service adoption, and using this information, to develop knowledge of for instance the contingencies to lean service adoption, the problems and pitfalls in lean service adoption and the feasibility of transferring practices to various service settings.

Introduction In order to understand what practices are necessary to reach world class standards, many organizations have begun to use benchmarking as a way of acquiring knowledge. Benchmarking can be defined as the search for industry best practices that lead to superior performance (Camp, 1989). Pioneered by Xerox, benchmarking has been widely adopted by companies as an improvement initiative (Port and Smith, 1992). At the core of successful benchmarking lies a regular and documented worldwide scan for organizations that are skilled at what they do, regardless of industry (Garvin, 1991). These organizations are then visited with the aim of gaining a better understanding of their processes and ways of working. These findings are used to stretch the imagination and develop new goals, as well as finding new ways of operating. Thus, benchmarking is both a means by which new practices are discovered and understood, as well as a goal setting process (Camp, 1989). As "a process for measuring your performance against best-in-class companies, then using the analysis to meet and surpass the best-in-class companies" (Pryor and Katz, 1993, p. 7), benchmarking is one way of identifying and understanding the practices needed to reach new goals. By identifying how superior companies organize their processes, a company can seek to adopt and adapt these practices. Benchmarking can also be used as a goal-setting process, an aid in setting performance objectives to achieve performance improvements (Venetucci, 1992). If benchmarking is carried out using best-in-class companies, these goals are likely to be stretch goals, which are important for performance improvements and learning (Roth et al., 1994). Benchmarking can be an effective tool for planning and implementing change processes that lead to organizational improvement when the knowledge gained is converted into a detailed action plan to improve competitive advantage (Pryor and Katz, 1993).

This paper reports the results of a survey conducted to explore issues surrounding mass customization and in particular its implications for operations management. The findings cover the market changes driving customization, the methods used to provide customized goods, the positive and negative effects of customization, and the difficulties of implementation. There are shown to be important implications for operations management in a strategy of mass customization, and thus substantial scope for further research by operations management academics.