VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY TEST OF A SELF LEAN ASSESSMENT

121

IMPACT FACTOR VALUE: 0.615 ISSN: 2320-9704- Online ISSN: 2347-1662-Print

Volume 2, Issue 6 (June, 2014)

INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY TEST OF A SELF LEAN ASSESSMENT

MODEL FOR APPAREL INDUSTRY IN SRI LANKA

D.M.A. KULASOORIYA 1 R. S. CHALAPATHI

2

1 Director, NIBM and Dean of School of Business of NSBM, Member of Board of Directors of

NSBM.

2 Mechanical Engineer, Director of Institute of Sigma Learning, India and PhD in Mechanical

Engineering

.

ABSTRACT

Lean is a buzz word in the world of work and many industrialists are of the view that a

comprehensive tool to measure the degree of leanness would serve industries to sustain their cutting

edge over the consumption of resources. In this paper, a study has been conducted to test validity and

reliability of a Self- Lean Assessment Model developed by authors using the current lean assessment

models being used in industries in the world. A validity test was carried out using the factor analysis

after collecting data from subject matter specialists in the field of lean management. Results indicated

that there were several items of the model which were in poor correlation. Modification was done for

all related items before testing the reliability. The Reliability test was carried out using the

Reliability Calculator created by Del Siegle for both in terms of overall and constructs wise. Study

was conducted in five garment manufacturing companies and found that both internal consistencies

of overall and component wise are acceptable for a wide scale of field study. Hence it is

recommended to make use of the tested Self – Lean Assessment model for further studies to

measure the degree of leanness of manufacturing companies.

Keywords: Lean Manufacturing System, Maturity Model, Just In Time, Kanban, Load Leveling,

Overall Equipment Effectiveness, Total Productive Maintenance, Value Stream Mapping

1. INTRODUCTION

Lean management is becoming a robust management system in the world of business. It was

originated in Toyota Corporation as Toyota production system and consequently the same production

system was implemented by many industries both in manufacturing and services. Implementing lean

principles have been made profound impact in many industries. As a result, it has become a

trend in all industries to practice lean tool and techniques which demands assessments criteria to

measure the degree of leanness. Some of the trends influencing today's manufacturing environments

are making the shape of modern business : global competition; shortened product life

cycle; increasing requirements for quality and reliability; increasing need for product customization;

faster paced advances in increasingly complex technology; and rapidly expanding options in

materials and processes (Sameh M. Saad-2007). Global competition and the increased

122



INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW unpredictability of surroundings are relatively new pressures that most companies believe are not only

going to endure, but also perhaps accelerate. The ability of an enterprise to take advantage of rather

than be destroyed by these forces is a key ingredient of any successful manufacturing strategy.

Elements representing the implementation of lean manufacturing are evident across sectors, but

the pace of change is dramatically different and the specific outcomes vary company by company

(Kochan et al., 1997). Despite this interest, however, there have been few attempts to precisely

define leanness in an operational context or model leanness with a view to developing an

instrument to measure the extent of its adoption in particular firms. There are a large numbers of

lean assessment model have been in practice though they have been subjected to the validly and

reliability is questionable. This paper provides information on the process of testing the validity and

reliability of a self lean assessment questionnaire which was developed by authors.

(D.M.A. Kulasooriya and R.S. Chalapathi, 2014)

2. RESEARCH PROBLEM

Though there are measurements models have been developed to measure the degree of leanness of

business organizations, issues have been raised by many industrialists on the validity and reliability of

the measurement tools. Hence it is vital to test the validity and reliability of the holistic lean

assessment model developed by authors before testing in real life situation.

2.1 Research Questions

This study addresses two main research questions;

a) Is the self lean assessment model questionnaire developed by the Authors valid in its constructs?

b) Does the self lean assessment model reliable in its implementation in real life situation?

2.2 Research Objectives

It is expected to achieve the following objectives in the study.

2.2.1 To test the validity of the Self Lean Assessment model

2.2.2 To test the reliability of the Self Lean Assessment model in real life situation

3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

In the past two decades there has been a substantial change in manufacturing practices. We have

seen a move from reliance on traditional “Tayloristic” work organization principles to a greater

emphasis on team-based work and multiskilling; production lines replaced by more “agile” or

123



INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW “flexible” systems such as manufacturing cells; quality- testing departments replaced through total

quality management (TQM); stock levels and work-in-progress made “lean” through just-in-time

(JIT); and the mushrooming use of computer-based systems throughout manufacturing. These

changes have largely been in response to the increasing need for companies to become competitive not

only in terms of cost, but also with regard to quality and responsiveness to customers. Developments

have been facilitated by the increasing availability of advanced manufacturing technology, as well as

the adoption of a range of practices associated with the success of Japanese manufacturers

throughout the 1980s.

One consequence of the changing nature of manufacturing industry has been a difficult for

practitioners and academics to understand and evaluate findings relating to a particular

practice before having to move on and examine new ones. This means that within the

fields of operations management, manufacturing engineering and

industrial/occupational psychology, there is a constantly changing dialogue in which new practices are

discussed and old ones all too often ignored.for an entertaining review of management fads over the

past 30 years (Richard Bolden -1997)

One possible reason for this lack of continuity is that communication between the different

disciplines concerned to improve manufacturing is poorly developed, and that practices used in one

area are relatively neglected in another. Likewise, multi-disciplinary collaboration, often called for, is

still more a pipe-dream than a reality.

There is thus a need for an overall framework, summarizing and inter-relating all the principal

activities found within current manufacturing organizations. Several authors have provided partial

models or frameworks in this area. Examples include JIT, flexible manufacturing systems (FMS),

and computer-based information systems. Others have produced models aimed at identifying

maturity stages of manufacturing organizations, such as lean assesment models, models for quality

and productivity awards and different types of maturity models. Yet others have set out

frameworks of manufacturing performance measures.

Since the publication of the lean production thesis (Womack et al., 1990) interest in the concept of

leanness has grown and further evolved into notions of agility and responsiveness. The lean

concept has many appeals for the practitioner: it aggregates related principles of improvement via

TQM, synchronicity and coordination via just-in- time management, and integration via computer-

aided processes to the areas of design, factory management, supply and distribution (Forrester et al.,

1996). It is important that lean manufacturing can only be achieved through time, and that it is not

possible to use it as a panacea to solve short-term competitive problems (Womack and Jones, 1996).

So lean manufacturing is best viewed strategically as a formidable weapon in increasingly

competitive markets (Söderkist and Motwani, 1999). Theoretically and critically lean production

also has appeal to academics. It represents a natural progression from Fordist mass production, though

there has also been debate on the extent to which it represents a new paradigm (Williams et al., 1992).

In developing a clear definition of what exactly comprises leanness the studies that were initially

124



INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW performed in the automobile industry by Womack, Jones and Roos (1990) are considered as major

guiding principles. The studies highlighted that leanness has several characteristics;

1. Lean is a dynamic process of change driven by a systematic set of principles and best practices

aimed at continual improvement

2. Lean refers to the total enterprise from shop floor to the executive suite, and from supplier to the

customer value chain

3. Lean requires rooting out everything that is non-value added

4. Becoming lean is a complex enterprise. There is no single principle or method that will make an

organization lean

Lean assessment model refers to a form which enables to measure the degree of leanness. Lean

assessment models are very much important as it is critical to find the current position of the

organization in context of lean practice. Without knowing the current position of the lean practice it

is not possible for a company to attempt for more improvements. Proper lean assessment provides

the strengths and weaknesses of the current lean practice which guide the company for more

improvement of the lean practices.( DMA Kulasooriya and R S Chalapathi, 2014)

3.0 S T UDY FRAMEWORK

Based on the following conceptual framework, the study was conducted.

A weighted Self- Lean

Assessment Model

Validity

Test

A Validated

Self-Lean

Assessment

Model

Reliability

Test

Tested Self- Lean

Assessment Model

A weighted Self-Lean Assessment Model was tested for the validity as a first step and then the

same was tested for the reliability. The weighted Self –Lean Assessment model has been subjected to

the validity and reliability and the findings of the study are as follows.

125



INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Results of the study are of two folds. First the Self- Lean Assesment model was subjected to

validity using factor analysis and Second test was reliability test using Reliability Calculator

created by Del Siegle.

4.1 Validity Test of Self –Lean Assessment Model

Validity of a measurement tool is considered to be a degree to which the tool measures what it claims

to measure. Hence the validity test for the Lean assessment questionnaire was carried out to measure its

validitybefore being used in real life application. The Validation test was carried out with Experts or

Subject Specialists of Lean Management Systems. Opinions of seven experts were taken in for factor

analysis to assess the factors that explain the variability. Hence constructs which were

identified have been changed in the final questionnaire before reliability testing. The results of the

validity test are shown below.

4.1.1 Factor Analysis

Factor analysis was carried out for seven constructs or lean components separately and

summary of results are show below.

Construct -01 Management Support and Lean Vision

Construct -01 has 10 criterions and they are coded from 1.1 to 1.10 and its analysis is

as follows.

Factor Loadings and Communalities Factor Score Coefficients

Variable Factor Communality Variable Factor

1.1 0.723 0.522 1.1 0.154

1.2 0.763 0.583 1.2 0.162

1.3 0.746 0.557 1.3 0.159

1.4 0.560 0.314 1.4 0.119

1.5 0.783 0.613 1.5 0.166

1.6 0.839 0.704 1.6 0.178

1.7 0.418 0.175 1.7 0.089

1.8 0.714 0.509 1.8 0.152

1.9 0.403 0.162 1.9 0.086

1.10 0.753 0.567 1.10 0.160

Variance 4.7056 4.7056

% Variance 0.471 0.471

Table 4.1 Unrotated Factor Loadings and Communalities and coefficients

Since most of the factors are highly correlated and loadings are higher all factors are taken in for the

assessment model.

126



INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW

Construct -02 Pull methods (Kanban) / JIT and Line Balancing

Construct -02 has 08 criterions and they are coded from 2.1 to 2.8 and its analysis is as follows.

Factor Loadings and Communalities

Factor Score Coefficients


2.1 0.450 0.203 2.1 0.098

2.2 0.896 0.803 2.2 0.195

2.3 0.758 0.574 2.3 0.165

2,4 0.923 0.852 2,4 0.200

2.5 0.897 0.804 2.5 0.195

2.6 0.834 0.696 2.6 0.181

2.7 0.472 0.223 2.7 0.102

2.8 0.671 0.450 2.8 0.146

Variance 4.6058 4.6058

%

Variance

0.576 0.576

Table 4.2Un rotated Factor Loadings and Communalities and coefficients

Since most of the factors are highly correlated and loadings are higher, all factors are taken for the

assessment model.

Construct -03 Leaders, employees and Suppliers

Construct -03 has 09 criteria and they are coded from 3.1 to 3.9 and its analysis is as follows.



3.1 0.624 0.390 3.1 0.317

3.2 0.763 0.582 3.2 0.387

3.3 0.224 0.050 3.3 0.114

3.4 0.058 0.003 3.4 0.030

3.5 0.158 0.025 3.5 0.080

3.6 0.836 0.698 3.6 0.424

3.7 -0.351 0.123 3.7 -0.178

3.8 0.014 0.000 3.8 0.007

3.9 -0.312 0.097 3.9 -0.158

Variance 1.9692 1.9692

% Variance 0.219 0.219


3.4 and 3.8 factors are poorly correlated and loadings are also lower except all other factors. Hence,

these components are to be modified or eliminated from the questionnaire.

127




Construct -04 Standardization, Visual work place and Technology

Construct -04 has 07 criterions and they are coded from 4.1 to 4.7 and its analysis is as follows .



4.1 0.867 0.752 4.1 0.248

4.2 0.901 0.812 4.2 0.258

4.3 0.690 0.477 4.3 0.197

4.4 0.777 0.604 4.4 0.222

4.5 0.476 0.226 4.5 0.136

4.6 0.637 0.406 4.6 0.182

4.7 0.468 0.219 4.7 0.134

Variance 3.4958 3.4958

% Variance 0.499 0.499

Table 4.4 Un rotated Factor Loadings and Communalities and coefficients

Since most of the factors are highly correlated and loadings are higher, all factors are taken in for the

assessment model.


Construct -05 has 10 criterions and they are coded from 5.1 to 5.10 and its analysis is as follows.



5.1 0.667 0.445 5.1 0.210

5.2 0.421 0.178 5.2 0.133

5.3 0.837 0.701 5.3 0.264

5.4 0.799 0.639 5.4 0.252

5.5 0.025 0.001 5.5 0.008

5.6 0.605 0.366 5.6 0.190

5.7 0.089 5.7 0.094

5.8 -0.019 0.000 5.8 -0.006

5.9 0.714 0.510 5.9 0.225

5.10 0.498 0.248 5.10 0.157

Variance 3.1762 3.1762

% Variance 0.318 0.318


5.5 and 5.8 factors are poorly correlated and loadings are also lower than except all other factors. Hence,

these components are to be modified or eliminated from the questionnaire.

128




Construct -06 Problem solving




6.1 0.489 0.239 6.1 0.181

6.2 0.150 0.022 6.2 0.055

6.3 0.580 0.336 6.3 0.215

6.4 0.723 0.523 6.4 0.268

6.5 0.310 0.096 6.5 0.115

6.6 0.815 0.665 6.6 0.302

6.7 0.906 0.821 6.7 0.335

Variance 2.7023 2.7023

% Variance 0.386 0.386


6.2 Factor is poorly correlated and loadings are also lower than except all other factors. Hence, this

component is to be modified or eliminated from the questionnaire.

Construct -07 Continuous flow




7.1 0.510 0.260 7.1 0.093

7.2 0.788 0.621 7.2 0.144

7.3 0.754 0.569 7.3 0.138

7.4 0.445 0.198 7.4 0.081

7.5 0.059 0.004 7.5 0.011

7.6 0.498 0.248 7.6 0.091

7.7 0.832 0.692 7.7 0.152

7.8 0.811 0.658 7.8 0.148

7.9 0.345 0.119 7.9 0.063

7.10 0.823 0.677 7.10 0.150

7.11 0.514 0.264 7.11 0.094

7.12 0.810 0.657 7.12 0.148

7.13 0.712 0.508 7.13 0.130

Variance 5.4728 5.4728

% Variance 0.421 0.421


129



INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW 7.5 Factor is poorly correlated and loadings are also lower than all other factors. Hence, this component

is to be modified or eliminated from the questionnaire. A t the end of validity test, it was found that there

were 06 items in the Self- Lean Assessments model, which needed to be modified. Accordingly the

author made the modification for its higher validity and correlation.

4.2 Reliability Test of Self -Lean Assessment Model

A sample of 30 respondents from five garment manufacturing was selected for the survey. Each

respondent was given the Self- Assessment Model (See Appendix –A) and requested them to rate

the scale independently. Reliability test is used to describe the overall consistency of a measure. (Cooper

and Schindler -2010). The Reliability test was out using the Reliability Calculator created by Del

Siegle both overall and constructs wise.

4.2.1Internal Consistency of the overall components of the tool using Cronbatch’s alpha

Internal consistency of the lean assessment model was tested using the soft ware of reliability calculator

designed by Del Siegle and found that Cronbach‟s alpha is 96 percent and Split-Half (odd-even)

Correlation 92 percent. Hence it can be concluded that the overall consistency of the measurement tool

is acceptable.

Details of analysis are shown in table 4.2.1.

Cronbach's Alpha 0.960552157

Split-Half (odd-even) Correlation 0.928693614

Spearman-Brown Prophecy 0.963028661

Mean for Test 249.5483871

Standard Deviation for Test 24.56438375

KR21 2.233907698

KR20 2.262864518

Table 4.2.1 Overall consistency of Lean Assessment Model

4.2.2 Internal Consistency of partial components of the tool using Cronbatch’s alpha

Major components of the Lean Assessment Model were tested for the reliability and results of the test

are described below.

Construct -01 Management Support and Lean Vision






KR21 8.191668623

KR20 8.223698187

Table 4.2.2 Internal Consistency of Construct -01

130



INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW Cronbach‟s alpha is 86 percent and Split-Half (odd-even) Correlation 72 percent. Hence it can be

concluded that the internal consistency of the Management support and lean vision construct of the lean

assessment model is reliable.

Construct -02 Continuous Flow






KR21 4.102205661

KR20 4.152772583


Cronbach‟s alpha is 88 percent and Split-Half (odd-even) Correlation 76 percent. Hence it can be

concluded that the internal consistency of the continuous flow construct of the lean assessment model

is reliable.

Construct -03 Pull Method (Kanban)/ JIT and Line Balancing






KR21 2.233907698

KR20 2.262864518



concluded that the internal consistency of the Pull Method (kanban) JIT and line balancing construct

of the lean assessment model is reliable.

Construct -04 Standardization, Visual work place and Technology






KR21 8.981067382

KR20 9.002708209


131




concluded that the internal consistency of the standardization, visual work place and technology

construct of the lean assessment model is reliable.







KR21 2.233907698

KR20 2.262864518


Cronbach‟s alpha is 96 percent and Split-Half (odd-even) Correlation 92 percent. Hence it can

be concluded that the internal consistency of the Leaders, employees and suppliers construct of the

lean assessment model is reliable.

Construct -06 Problem solving






KR21 2.233907698

KR20 2.262864518



concluded that the internal consistency of the problem solving construct of the lean assessment

model is reliable.

Construct -07 Continuous flow






KR21 2.233907698

KR20 2.262864518


132




concluded that the internal consistency of the continuous flow construct of the lean assessment

model is reliable.

The Summary of reliability test on internal consistency of all lean components of the lean assessment

model is show in table 4.41.

Component Cronbatch’s alpha

Management Support and Lean Vision 0.86

Pull Method (Kanban) JIT and Line balancing 0.88

Culture and Quality 0.96

Visual Place and Standardization 0.81

Leaders, Employees and Suppliers 0.96

Problem Solving 0.96

Continuous Flow 0.96

Table 4.2.9 Factor Analysis of all Partial lean components

Table 4.42 indicates almost all components are consistent with overall results as the

Cronbatch‟s alpha values are much higher than the acceptable level.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES

The Study revealed the following conclusions and recommendations for further studies in the in the

field of lean management.

5.1 Conclusions

The study concludes that there were some issues related to items in the assessment model in

terms of its validity. However, once they were modified, the overall internal consistency and internal

consistency of components are in consistent and acceptable for field studies in large scale. Hence it

is recommended to apply the self-Lean Assessment model for future studies in the field of lean

management and for assessing of degree of leanness of manufacturing industries

5.2 Recommendations for Further Studies

It is recommended that the following step will further improve the value of the tool in order to

measure the depth of lean practices in manufacturing and other industries.

a) It is important to test the model in selected other industries especially in the field of manufacturing

b) Since companies which practice lean management are limited in Sri Lanka, the sample was confined

to firms which are in the practice of lean management. Hence, it is recommended to conduct the study

using firms in other countries.

133




REFERENCES

1. Association for Manufacturing Excellence, Canada (AME), „Get Back to the Future‟, [Online]

Available from: http://www.ameconference.org/2011-calgary/ [Accessed 06 December 2011]

2. Byron J. Finch (2008): „Operations now: supply chain profitability and performance‟, 3rd edition,

New Delhi: McGraw

3. Jeffrey Liker (2003), „The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest

Manufacturer‟, First edition, McGraw-Hill, (ISBN 0-07-139231-9)

4. Jeffrey K. Liker and Michael Hoseus (2008): „Toyota Culture’, First edition, McGraw- Hill

5. John Hayes (2010): „The Theory and Practice of Change Management‟, 3rd

edition: Palgrave

Macmillan

6. Lean Scorecard and Self Assessment Tool, Lockheed Martin,

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/7518.pdf [14 November 2011]

7. LMAC, LEAN Specialists, New Zealand LEAN Manufacturing, „LEAN Manufacturing‟,[Online]

Available from: http://www.lmac.co.nz/index.php [Accessed 18th December

2011]

8. MTI institute, „Lean Enterprise Self Assessment Tool (LESAT)‟ [Online] Available from:

http://lean.mit.edu/products/lean-enterprise-self-assessment-tool-lesat.html [Accessed 18th December

2011]

9. The Shingo Prize, The Shingo prize for Operational Excellence,

http://www.shingoprize.org/the-shingo-prize.html [14 November 2011]

10. Sameh M. Saad, Faculty of Arts, Computing, Engineering and Sciences, Sheffield Hallam

University, Sheffield, UK

11. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990): „The Machines that change the world‟, New

York: Rawson Associates

http://www.ameconference.org/2011-calgary/

http://www.enotes.com/topic/The_Toyota_Way

http://www.enotes.com/topic/The_Toyota_Way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0071392319

http://lean.mit.edu/products/lean-enterprise-self-assessment-tool-lesat.html

http://www.shingoprize.org/the-shingo-prize.html

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY TEST OF A SELF LEAN ASSESSMENT

Documents

Transcript of VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY TEST OF A SELF LEAN ASSESSMENT