Lean production and work-related musculoskeletal disorders: overviews of international and Swedish studies

Abstract

This paper aimed at summarizing the knowledge of the relationship between Lean and work related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD), and WMSD risk factors, in manufacturing companies. Literature search processes identified 23 publications studying this, in scientific journals. Eight included measurements of WMSD; three were mostly negative, two showed mixed results, one showed no results and two were mostly positive. Eighteen publications included measurements of WMSD risk factors; seven showed mostly negative results, eight snowed mixed results, two showed mostly positive results and one was inconclusive. Three literature reviews were identified, which studied this question; two were mostly negative, while the third was inconclusive. Also, 12 publications of grey literature studying Lean and WMSD risk factors in Swedish organizations were identified; nine showed mixed results, two showed mostly positive results and one showed mostly negative results. Due to the varying quality and study design of the publications, together with the few identified studies, it is difficult to compare them. The context and the implementation also likely affect the results. The general conclusion was that a Lean implementation may increase the risk of WMSD and risk factors for WMSD, if it is not accompanied with an ergonomic intervention.

Packages of Participation: Swedish Employees’ Experience of Lean Depends on How They Are Involved

“…In general, the results across all the participation groups are similar to those usually found in Swedish companies implementing Lean change programs: increases in participation in improvement activities, teamwork, and orderliness are commonly observed, as are negative effects such as increased stress and higher work pace (Brännmark & Håkansson, 2012). While similar results are seen in non-Swedish studies of Lean’s employee effects, the magnitude of the negative effects seems to be lower in Swedish studies.…”

“…While similar results are seen in non-Swedish studies of Lean’s employee effects, the magnitude of the negative effects seems to be lower in Swedish studies. This raises the possibility that “Lean” is implemented and interpreted differently in the Swedish/Nordic context, perhaps in its emphasis on participation (Brännmark & Håkansson, 2012; Seppälä & Klemola, 2004). Lean change programs in the Nordic countries may also differ in their use of Lean tools (e.g., more improvement groups; smaller scale implementations) and in the local context (e.g., more union influence; a socio-technical tradition) (Björkman, 1996; Johansson & Abrahamsson, 2009).…”

“…“mean production”) and that Lean has undesired employee consequences such as increased mental and physical workload, increased risk for work-related musculoskeletal disorders, negative effects on unions, increased peer pressure and monitoring, work intensification, and stress, all resulting in a perceived undesired effect of Lean on work (Babson, 1995a, 1995b; Brenner, Fairris, & Ruser, 2004; Börnfelt, 2006; Delbridge, Turnbull, & Wilkinson, 1992; Munchus, 1983; Parker & Slaughter, 1995). Reviews of employees’ experiences of Lean show equivocal evidence, though mixed or mostly negative experiences are more likely to be reported in the scientific literature than positive ones (Brännmark & Håkansson, 2012; Landsbergis, Cahill, & Schnall, 1999; Westgaard & Winkel, 2011). Further, many of the relevant studies are methodologically and theoretically limited (Brännmark & Håkansson, 2012; Genaidy & Karwowski, 2003).…”

“…Reviews of employees’ experiences of Lean show equivocal evidence, though mixed or mostly negative experiences are more likely to be reported in the scientific literature than positive ones (Brännmark & Håkansson, 2012; Landsbergis, Cahill, & Schnall, 1999; Westgaard & Winkel, 2011). Further, many of the relevant studies are methodologically and theoretically limited (Brännmark & Håkansson, 2012; Genaidy & Karwowski, 2003). For example, studies rarely attempt to understand the contextual factors or mechanisms that may differentiate between positive and negative experiences of Lean (e.g.…”

“…This is because of the strong tradition of “socio-technical” job design and worker democratization, established legislation regarding working conditions, and strong union influence that are characteristic of Sweden and other Nordic countries (Björkman, 1996; Johansson & Abrahamsson, 2009). This may explain why, in general, Lean change programs in Swedish organizations may tend to produce more positive employee experiences (Brännmark & Håkansson, 2012). Therefore, in Sweden, the key question may not be about active versus passive involvement but rather, given that employees are going to be actively involved, how do different packages of involvement affect the employee experience?…”