The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-4166.htm

Soft and hard

Soft and hard skills development skills
in lean management trainings development
Ana Paula Lista
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina – Campus Florianópolis,
Florianopolis, Brazil 1137
Guilherme Luz Tortorella Received 29 June 2021
Revised 20 September 2021
The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Victoria, Australia Accepted 8 January 2022
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina – Campus Florianopolis,
Florianopolis, Brazil
Marina Bouzon
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil
Matthias Thürer
Jinan University, Zhuhai, China, and
Daniel Jurburg
Universidad de Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to investigate the impact of traditional teaching and active learning methods in
lean management (LM) on the development of both soft and hard skills.
Design/methodology/approach – Through a longitudinal study, team members from two different
organisations (the administrative sector of a public higher education institution and a public teaching
hospital), each adopting different teaching methods to support their LM trainings, were systematically
examined at four moments during an 18-month period. How teaching methods impacted team members’
development and knowledge was then assessed using multivariate data analysis techniques.
Findings – Results indicated that LM trainings can provide significant impacts when a combination of
traditional teaching methods and active learning is adopted. Traditional teaching methods can be a good choice
for learning hard skills depending on resources’ availability. However, it is recommended to include active
learning methods to assist in the comprehension of more complex and abstract LM concepts (soft skills).
Originality/value – Although there exists a large number of publications on the relationship between LM
implementation and teaching methods, the number of studies that consider the development of both hard and soft
skills is rather limited. This study complements the existing literature on LM by identifying which teaching
methods can support the development of hard skills and which the development of soft skills. Such identification
facilitates the work of both scholars wishing either to begin or to dig deeper into this sphere and practitioners
pursuing the best outcomes from LM.
Keywords Teaching methods, Lean management, Soft skills, Hard skills
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction International Journal of Lean Six

Sigma
Lean management (LM) has been one of the most popular approaches for increasing Vol. 13 No. 5, 2022
pp. 1137-1158
competitiveness in the past few decades (Gao and Low, 2015; Tortorella et al., 2017). Yet, © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-4166
over the years, practical experience has shown that an effective implementation of LM DOI 10.1108/IJLSS-06-2021-0116
IJLSS depends on active and innovative employees, with multiple skills and with continuous
13,5 motivation to promote improvements. This includes the ability to get the right information,
in the right form, to the right people at the right time, which was denoted as “lean knowledge
management” by authors such as Yang and Cai (2009) and Rooke et al. (2010). This concept
emphasizes a number of practical issues for knowledge management (KM) which, in turn,
have implications for lean theory (Demeter and Losonci, 2019).
1138 To sustain long-term competitive advantage, organisational development has been often
based on technology advances or innovative approaches associated with knowledge development
initiatives (Baena et al., 2017). Among them, LM practices and principles are seen as a successful
strategy to shift from a traditional mindset towards a lean enterprise (Sisson and Elshennawy,
2014; Arnheiter, 2014; Yazici, 2016; Dinis-Carvalho, 2020). Nevertheless, organisations struggle to
develop such skills as the knowledge to manage the outcomes of this transformation is still
unknown and unclear (Forghani and Tavasoli, 2017). According to Mamat et al. (2015), LM
encompasses both hard and soft skills. Hard skills refer to technical aspects, a set of tangible
actions for a successful lean implementation (e.g. goals, approaches, procedures and technologies)
(Resta et al., 2015; Dora et al., 2015). On the other hand, soft skills comprise intangible elements
and interpersonal aspects of the lean transformation (Belhadi et al., 2019; Tortorella and Cauchick-
Miguel, 2018). Most of the literature focuses on hard skills development, while the teaching of soft
receives less attention. This is a major shortcoming in lean knowledge management, given the
practical importance of soft skills (Bortolotti et al., 2015; Gonzalez, 2017; Furterer et al., 2019).
Research on lean education and training has gained considerable attention (Tortorella and
Fogliatto, 2014; Petrusch and Vaccaro, 2019; Furterer et al., 2019). Studies have focused on
different teaching methods varying from in-class lectures and presentations (i.e. traditional
teaching methods) to practical-experimental situations (i.e. active learning) (Pozzi et al., 2015;
Tortorella and Cauchick-Miguel, 2018). In traditional teaching methods students usually learn
in a passive way, by listening or reading content. In opposition, in active learning methods
students assume an active role in their own learning, while mentors are responsible for guiding
apprentices through the learning process (Ramires et al., 2016; Gomez-Molina and Moyano-
Fuentes, 2021). Surprisingly, few publications evaluate LM teaching methods in terms of soft
and hard skills learning (Merwe, 2017; Simonyte et al., 2021), featuring a gap in both theory and
practice. Based on these arguments, we raise the following research question:

RQ. What is the impact of different LM teaching methods on the development of both
hard and soft skills?
To answer this question, team members from two different service organisations undergoing lean
implementation were systematically examined in four moments during an 18-month period. Data
collection occurred in the administrative sector of a public higher education institution
(Organisation 1) and a public teaching hospital (Organisation 2). Each organisation has adopted
different teaching methods to support their LM trainings, which allowed to analyse through
multivariate data techniques how those teaching methods impacted on teams’ development. The
contribution of this study is twofold. First, in theoretical terms, this study complements the existing
literature on LM teaching by identifying which teaching methods can support the development of
hard and soft skills. Secondly, in practical terms, such identification allows managers of
organisations undergoing lean implementation to anticipate possible difficulties, either from a
technical or sociocultural standpoint, derived from the selected LM teaching method. Hence, this
research supports more assertive decision-making processes focused on a more efficient KM, which
has been highlighted as a key issue for successful LM implementation (Liu et al., 2013).
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, related work about LM
and teaching methods is presented. Section 3 introduces the research method along with the
sample selection and data collection procedure (Section 3.1), questionnaire development Soft and hard
(Section 3.2) and data analysis (Section 3.3). Results are reported in Section 4 before the skills
paper concludes in Section 5.
development
2. Literature review
2.1 Lean management hard and soft skills
A successful lean transformation depends on learning both hard and soft skills of LM. As 1139
mentioned by Osono et al. (2008, p. 19), “it is the way Toyota combines the hard and soft
sides that allow it to continue outperforming competitors.” Hard skills refer to tools and
techniques for process improvement and operational performance (Badurdeen et al., 2010;
Hopp, 2018). More recently, Burch et al. (2019) described LM hard skills as a combination of
appropriate approaches and targeted technologies to achieve expected results. Also,
Badurdeen et al. (2010) and Tortorella et al. (2019a) defined LM hard skills as a set of
technical expertise which is important for qualifying a professional in fields such as
engineering, technology, medicine or law. Hard skills can be easily formalized and shared
with other people using resources such as text, images, infographics, videos, among others.
Hua (2007) and Tortorella et al. (2014) argued that the transition into a lean system, from
conception to implementation, requires a number of technical factors which usually include
goal setting, and the use of proper approaches and technologies for achieving such goals,
mainly known as hard skills of LM. This proposition was also verified among researches on
LM education. For example, Zighan and Ahmed (2020) studied applications of lean thinking
in the business school curriculum. Their results showed that the acquisition of problem-
solving skills and the ability to make decisions in light of rapid changes have become two of
the most important requirements for getting a job.
On the other hand, LM soft skills comprise behaviours and attitudes embedded in the
human mind through experience and routines, and characterize the sociocultural aspects of
an individual, team or organisation (Tortorella and Fogliatto, 2014; Gento et al., 2020).
Generally, LM soft skills are difficult to transmit to other people, as they cannot be easily
extracted and codified (Gong and Blijleven, 2017; Bauer et al., 2018). Other definitions of LM
soft skills include values and perspectives (Badurdeen et al., 2010), leadership style,
teamwork, communication skills, problem-solving, creativity (Larteb et al., 2015), system
thinking and organisational culture (Gao and Low, 2015; Tortorella et al., 2019a).
According to Tortorella et al. (2014), LM should not be viewed as a mere set of tools and
techniques; the human dimensions of motivation, empowerment and respect for people are
also important drivers of success. Because soft skills allow organisations to deal with KM,
they can contribute to building a behaviour that supports and helps sustaining the change
process in the long run (Tortorella et al., 2019a). Soft skills can be used to encourage
knowledge sharing and knowledge transformation to maintain organisational growth and
continuity (Putra et al., 2020). Zighan and Ahmed (2020) argued that empowering
individuals with soft and hard skills is timely due to all changes at the workplace.

2.2 Lean management teaching methods

LM professional training and academic education are considered strategic for adapting
employee’s qualifications to the requisitions and opportunities of the 21st century (Adam
et al., 2020). Forghani and Tavasoli (2017) argue that learning environments are critical to
ensure LM development. More importantly, Kregel (2019) and Tortorella et al. (2020) argue
that if organisations remain not practicing organisational learning, they might not gain
effective knowledge from LM.
IJLSS By developing LM content and competency, professionals can gain system-thinking
13,5 skills, which is a sustainable conscious and ethical behaviour required to new market
demands (Alves et al., 2016, 2017). However, the most effective teaching method for LM
learning is not yet known, varying according to target audience or training objective (Abele
et al., 2017). Some instructors prefer experimental methods to provide students with active
roles, while others favour more theoretical approaches based on in-class lectures. Initially,
1140 organisations had LM teaching methods solely based on traditional teaching methods (e.g.
classroom lectures and discussions). However, cognitive science research suggests that
students should do more than simply listen for effectively learning. They should read, write,
ask, discuss and solve problems (Hamzeh et al., 2017). In other words, students should be
encouraged to develop an active position so that they can interact with other people and
different contexts, contributing to improved learning. This fact is especially true when
considering LM principles, which are somewhat abstract and difficult to be understood by a
low-experienced audience (Tortorella and Cauchick-Miguel, 2017; Tortorella et al., 2020).
With the advent of active learning methods, traditional teaching methods started to be
complemented so that LM learning could be more effective (Alves et al., 2016, 2017). In
particular, the incorporation of experimental simulations (an active learning practice)
represented an important milestone in the evolution of LM teaching, as it enabled the
development of skills that were difficult to acquire through traditional teaching methods
(Uriarte et al., 2020). Often, these teaching methods tend to be more practical oriented and
student-centred, allowing to test hypotheses in real scenarios and evaluate them through
performance (De Zan et al., 2015; Goerke et al., 2015; Barnabè et al., 2017). According to
Blöchl and Schneider (2016), the development of individual skills in LM trainings may be
compromised in some situations, especially in cases with lower interactions between those
individuals and reality. In these cases, as the interactions are limited, students’ attention on
the teaching topic might be reduced as well (Mehta and Monroe, 2006; Johnson and Wanless,
2016).

2.3 Hypotheses development

While the transition to LM organisation is in progress, the required knowledge to manage
the outcomes of this transformation is usually unclear, and it demands many adjustments
and improvements to the learning process. Particularly, for knowledge acquisition on LM,
organisations need support to decide which LM teaching method provides better results, i.e.
provide the necessary technical and sociocultural skills. To teach LM to individuals,
especially for the youngest public, training has taken forms that mimic the modern
technologies, such as video games and simulations (Barnabè et al., 2018). Active learning
methods are considered to be more involved and enjoyable than other more traditional forms
of learning, and research has shown that problem-based learning stimulates a greater level
of knowledge transfer and long-term retention of information and skills (Burch et al., 2019).
Similarly, Alves et al. (2016) stated that problem-based learning provides a more interactive
and responsive environment for enabling knowledge development, especially of LM hard
skills. However, there is still concern among LM scholars on the efficacy of using active
learning methods for developing theoretical and intangible concepts generally related to soft
skills (De Zan et al., 2015). Also, most of active learning methods have limited applications
(Badurdeen et al., 2010; Burch et al., 2019). In this sense, LM teaching must be revisited to
meet arising challenges of market demand (Abdi et al., 2018; Alves et al., 2020).
The development of LM skills (both hard and soft) enables the achievement of a “learning
organization” that continuously transforms its processes, technologies and cultural values,
to become efficient, flexible and consistent with market demands (Larteb et al., 2015;
Hamzeh et al., 2017; Uriarte et al., 2020). Despite its relevant contribution on LM Soft and hard
development, soft skills are typically neglected in LM teaching due to the level of effort skills
required to develop new behaviour patterns (Barnabè et al., 2018; Vlachos et al., 2019) and to
the lack of understanding of the philosophy underlying LM (Putnik et al., 2012). Hence,
development
organisations approach LM teaching through activities mainly oriented to hard skills
development. Additionally, as LM soft skills require several mentoring sections to allow
time for flourishing new behaviours, they are less covered in trainings and educational
programs (Tortorella and Cauchick-Miguel, 2017; Barnabè et al., 2018). 1141
Although both hard and soft skills are of equal relevance for a successful LM
implementation, the relationship between LM teaching methods and the underlying soft and
hard skills that promote such collaboration and learning throughout an organisation is not
yet fully understood in the literature (Burch et al., 2019). Further empirical evidence is
required to determine how LM teaching methods can specifically impact these skills
(Tortorella et al., 2020). In response, this study aims to identify the impact of different LM
teaching methods on the development of both hard and soft skills. This is captured by the
following research hypothesis.

H1. The adoption of traditional teaching methods positively impacts the development of
LM hard skills.
H2. The adoption of traditional teaching methods positively impacts the development of
LM soft skills.
H3. The adoption of active learning methods positively impacts the development of LM
hard skills.
H4. The adoption of active learning methods positively impacts the development of LM
soft skills.

3. Method
This research aims to examine the impact of different LM teaching methods on the
development of both soft and hard skills. Owing to its inherent exploratory nature, the
methodological procedure of this research followed an empirical approach, which is an
adequate way of gaining knowledge by means of direct/indirect observation or experience
(Goodwin, 2005). The quantification of empirical evidence collected from non-random
respondents that meet certain criteria is a common approach in similar studies (Tortorella
et al., 2014, 2015). For that, the longitudinal research method is frequently used because of its
high level of representativeness, low cost, good statistical significance and a standardized
stimulus to all respondents (Montgomery, 2013). This method is also recommended for
studying a phenomenon’s behaviour in different contexts, therefore, it can be used to test
how the LM teaching methods impact the development of hard and soft skills. Three main
steps were executed (see Figure 1): sample selection and data collection; questionnaire
development; and data analysis. These steps are detailed in the subsequent sections.

3.1 Sample selection and data collection

Sample selection was based on purposive sampling to improve the rigour of the study and
the trustworthiness of the data and results (Campbell et al., 2020). Hence, some criteria for
respondents were initially defined. First, the research should be exclusively conducted in
organisations that were training their employees in LM concepts and practices. Second, due
to our study’s purpose, these organisations should use different teaching methods (i.e.
IJLSS Phases Description

13,5 Organisation
Teaching Sample Data collection
method size (n) t0 t1 t2 t3
Mainly
focused on
(i) Sample 1- Higher education institution 10 March 2018 May 2018 December 2018 September 2019
Traditional
selection and data
teaching
collection
Mainly
focused on
2- Public teaching hospital 14 March 2018 May 2018 December 2018 September 2019
1142 Active
learning

o Demographic information
(ii) Questionnaire o Hard skills assessment
development o Soft skills assessment
o Lean implementation assessment

Figure 1. o Sample’s classification according to LM implementation level (HLGi and LLGi)

Research design (iii) Data analysis o Comparative analysis between the implementation levels of LM
o Comparative analysis within the implementation levels of LM over time

traditional teaching and active learning) to train their employees on LM. Third, as we
intended to collect data throughout time, the involved organisations should preferably allow
easy access to data and respondents.
Data collection occurred in two organisations: the administrative sector of a public higher
education institution (Organisation 1) and a public teaching hospital (Organisation 2). Both
organisations had their LM trainings supported by some of the authors of this research. In
Organisation 1, the LM training included 10 persons, such as administrative technicians and
senior managers. The training was predominantly based on traditional teaching methods (e.g.
expository classes, group discussions and exercises, and classroom activities), sometimes
complemented with computational simulation activities (e.g. exercises in BizagiV R software).

On the other hand, Organisation 2’s LM training included 14 persons from the dietetic
nutrition department of the hospital. This training was mainly based on active learning
methods (e.g. project-based learning, on-site visits and practical experimentations). Thus, the
teaching methods developed in both organisations were of different nature, fitting within the
criteria established for this research. Additionally, the training of both organisations was
evaluated according to learning levels from Marley’s (2014) and the teaching methods from
Lista and Tortorella’s (2019). Such analysis allowed a better characterization of their teaching
methods to obtain a more assertive comparison of their results.
Data collection occurred in an 18-month period (from March 2018 to September 2019).
The interval between each data collection was based on the recommendations from Joyce
and Showers (2002), which advised a minimum interval of three months so that there is
sufficient time for participants to start developing both hard and soft skills. Thus, a total of
four data collections were carried out over the study period. The first collection (t0) was
performed before the start of training (March 2018), and the second (t1) immediately after the
training (May 2018). The two subsequent data collections (t2 and t3) occurred in December
2018 and September 2019, respectively. In each data collection, questionnaires were printed
and personally delivered to the respondent to ensure the participation of the same
respondent on each data collection moment.
Respondents’ demographic profile is given in Table 1. Approximately 96% of the sample
had less than two years of experience in lean implementation. In total 58.3% of respondents
were between 20 and 35 years old. In both organisations most respondents were female
(75% in Organisation 1 and 91.7% in Organisation 2). In Organisation 1, 60% of
respondents held positions in administrative areas; while in Organisation 2, there was a
predominance of respondents who worked in technical areas (71.4%).
 LM experience
Soft and hard
Respondent Role Gender Age (years) Organisation skills
development
r1 Administrative assistant Male 20–35 <2 1 (n1 = 10)
r2 Administrative technician Female 35–50 <2
r3 Administrative assistant Female 20–35 <2
r4 Librarian Female 20–35 >2
r5 Administrative assistant Female 20–35 <2 1143
r6 Construction engineer Female 20–35 <2
r7 Administrative assistant Male 20–35 <2
r8 Administrative assistant Female 20–35 <2
r9 Administrative assistant Female 20–35 >2
r10 Administrative technician in education Male 35–50 >2
r1 Nutritionist Female 20–35 <2 2 (n2 = 14)
r2 Nutrition manager Female >50 <2
r3 Nurse manager Female 20–35 >2
r4 Administrative assistant Female 20–35 >2
r5 Nutritionist Female 20–35 <2
r6 Nutrition assistant Female >50 <2
r7 Nurse Female 35–50 <2
r8 Nutritionist Female >50 <2
r9 Nurse Female 35–50 >2
r10 Inventory manager Female 20–35 >2
r11 Nutritionist Female >50 <2
r12 Nutritionist Female 20–35 <2 Table 1.
r13 Inventory assistant Male 35–50 <2 Sample’s
r14 Logistics and supply chain manager Female 35–50 >2 demographic profile

3.2 Questionnaire development

The research was based on a questionnaire composed of four parts The first part
comprised the sample’s demographic profile. The second part gathered data on hard
skills of LM. It was based on Aroldi et al.’s (2018) questionnaire. A five-point Likert
scale was used to assess respondents’ knowledge on each LM concept or practice, where
1 designates “very unsatisfactory” and 5 designates “very satisfactory.” In the third
part, the development of soft skills (sociocultural aspects) was assessed based on
organisational learning statements suggested by Marsick and Watkins (2003). These
statements were also used as a proxy for soft skills in LM implementation in previous
studies (Tortorella and Fogliatto, 2014). A five-point Likert scale was applied, where 1
represented a situation that “never” occurs and 5 a situation that “always” occurs.
Finally, in the fourth part, the implementation level of LM practices was assessed using
the instrument from Saurin and Ferreira (2008). Each practice was measured on a five-
point Likert scale, where 1 denoted a not used lean practice and 5 a fully adopted one.
Respondents were also informed upfront of the absence of right or wrong answers and
that responses would be treated anonymously and confidentially.
To verify the reliability of the research instrument, Cronbach’s alpha value was
calculated. The questionnaire’s consistency was considered adequate according to Taber
(2018), as the alpha values obtained were all above 0.7 (0.961 for hard skills, 0.924 for soft
skills and 0.939 for LM implementation).
IJLSS 3.3 Data analysis
13,5 We first determined the mean values of all members of each organisation for hard skills, soft
skills and LM implementation according to each data collection moment (t0, t1, t2 and t3).
Then, we calculated the mean values of items within each dimension of the questionnaire (i.e.
hard skills, soft skills and LM implementation). Grouping a set of variables in a single
dimension is a common practice in the literature as it allows for a holistic view of the data
1144 (Marodin et al., 2016). Subsequently, using ordinary least squares linear regression (Stone and
Brooks, 1990), we regressed the average score of each respondent’s lean implementation
(dependent variable) on time (i.e. data collection moments; t0, t1, t2 and t3) as independent
variable. This allowed us to measure how respondents’ perceptions on their LM
implementation evolved over time. Regressions resulted in unstandardised coefficients
associated with each respondent. Coefficients whose p-values were lower than 0.10 were
considered significant; otherwise, these respondents were excluded from the subsequent
analysis. Furthermore, respondents whose regression coefficients were significant and
greater than the median value of the respective sample (0.98 for organisation 1 and 1.63 for
organisation 2) were categorized as “high lean growth” (HLG), while the remaining ones
whose coefficients were significant and lower than the median value were grouped and
denoted as “low lean growth” (LLG) (see Table 2). In each organisation, respondents were
classified into HLGi and LLGi, with i ranging between 1 and 2 (1 refers to Organisation 1, and
2 to Organisation 2).
Based on previous classification of lean implementation we then conducted two
comparative analyses for each organisation: (a) between the implementation levels of LM;

Organisation Respondent Unstandardised coefficients R2 Adjusted R2 Group

1 r4
0.56* 0.88 0.82 LLG1

r9 0.84* 0.83 0.76
r10 0.87* 0.81 0.72
r5 1.08* 0.84 0.77 HLG1
r6 1.08* 0.84 0.77
r8 1.80* 0.87 0.80
r3 1.87** 0.96 0.94
r2 1.91** 0.97 0.96
r1
0.26 0.57 0.36 Excluded
r7 0.43 0.66 0.50
2 r7 0.55** 0.92 0.88 LLG2
r8 0.94** 0.89 0.84
r5 1.16* 0.83 0.75
r2 1.22** 0.93 0.89
r1 1.26** 0.95 0.92
r6 1.35* 0.83 0.75
r12 2.00** 0.91 0.87
r14 2.21** 0.93 0.89 HLG2
r3 2.73* 0.81 0.72
r10 2.75* 0.82 0.72
r4 2.78* 0.83 0.74
r9 2.98* 0.84 0.76
r11 4.90 0.77 0.66 Excluded
Table 2. r13 0.80 0.70 0.54
Sample’s clusters
(HLGi e LLGi) Notes: *Significant at 0.10 level; **Significant at 0.05 level
and (b) within the implementation levels of LM. Analysis (a) aimed at assessing the effect of Soft and hard
LM implementation (now as independent variable) on the development of both hard and soft skills
skills (dependent variables) in each organisation. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (Razali and
Wah, 2011) showed a non-normal distribution (p-value < 0.05) for hard and soft skills of
development
each organisation. Thus, the non-parametric Mann–Whitney test (Chen et al., 2014) was
used to verify whether there were significant differences between the HLGi and LLGi groups
in relation to the development of hard and soft skills in each organisation over time (t0, t1, t2
and t3). Analysis (b), on the other hand, examined how the development of hard and soft 1145
skills (dependent variables) evolved over time (independent variable) within each LM
implementation level (HLGi and LLGi). Again, the Mann–Whitney test was performed to
compare the variation of hard and soft skills among respondents in the same group
individually. A pairwise analysis was performed between each time slot, i.e. six comparative
analyses were conducted for each group from each organisation for both hard and soft skills.
It is worth mentioning that, although the sample sizes were relatively small, previous
studies (Tortorella et al., 2019b) have evidenced the utilization of Mann–Whitney test to
compare data from small samples.

4. Results and discussions

4.1 Characterization of lean management training in both organisations
Table 3 describes the LM training of each organisation in terms of the practices and learning
levels based on Marley (2014), which originated from the taxonomy of learning levels
proposed by Benjamin Bloom (Bloom et al., 1956). Organisation 1’s training lasted
approximately three months and mainly used traditional teaching methods, such as
classroom exercises, lectures and classroom discussions. Eventually, some practical
application exercises were also used, such as activities in the BizagiV R software and short-

term improvement projects. As for the learning levels, most of the levels were developed,
except for “memorize”, which refers to the ability of individuals to remember basic facts and
concepts of the training content. More specifically, LM training in Organisation 1 comprised
activities that focused on the development of the levels “understand” and “analyse”, which
are directly associated with traditional teaching methods.
Organisation 2’s LM training lasted about three months and its teaching method was
mainly based on active learning, although a few traditional teaching methods were also
verified with minor intensity (e.g. lectures and in-class discussions). Active learning
occurred through physical simulations, group dynamics and on-site visits, and long-term

Organisation Content Learning levels

1 – Continuous improvement Memorize

– Business process managent Understand þþ
– A3 report Apply þ
– Plan-do-check-act Analyse þþ
– Visual management Evaluate þ
Create þ
2 – Continuous improvement Memorize
Table 3.
– A3 report Understand þþ
– Value stream mapping Apply þþþ Training
– Continuous flow Analyse þþþ characteristics in
– Pull system Evaluate þþ Organisations 1
Create þþþ and 2
IJLSS projects in the work environment. Surprisingly, the learning levels approached in this
13,5 training were similar to those of Organisation 1. However, LM training in Organisation 2
was focused on learning levels “apply,” “analyse” and “create,” as most of the time
participants remained in practical activities with the aim of creating, testing and evaluating
improvement proposals.

1146 4.2 Comparative analysis between the implementation levels of lean management
Table 4 shows the results for the Mann–Whitney test to verify the effect of the LM
implementation levels (HLGi and LLGi) on the development of hard and soft skills in both
organisations.
In Organisation 1, where traditional teaching was applied, results indicate that there
was no significant difference between groups HLG1 and LLG1 regarding the development
of soft skills at all moments (t0, t1, t2 and t3). Regarding hard skills, a significant difference
(p-value < 0.10) was identified only at time t0, in which the respondents from LLG1 group
claimed to have greater skills than those from the HLG1 group (medians of 4.0 and 1.0,
respectively). Over time, scores related to hard skills of both groups had no more
significant differences anymore.
These outcomes suggested that the development of soft skills remained similar between
the HLG1 and LLG1 groups since the beginning of the training. As this organisation used
traditional teaching methods, the LM training provided fewer opportunities to exercise
behaviours and teamwork abilities, poorly supporting the development of soft skills (Delago
et al., 2016; Flumerfelt et al., 2016). With regards to hard skills, differences in t0 may be
explained differently. HLG1 was the group with the greatest LM implementation leap in the
studied period. Although LLG1 had a smaller growth rate, its initial mean implementation
score (2.15 in t0) was higher than the one from HLG1 (0.85 in t0). As time passed, both groups
converged to the same implementation level, and so did the hard skills (see Figure 2).
According to Bauer et al. (2018) and Turner et al. (2019), as LM practices are being
implemented individuals’ experience increases and so does their familiarity with concepts
related to hard skills.
With respect to Organisation 2, where active learning was applied, results of soft skills
showed significant differences only in the medium and long term (t2 and t3), with higher
median values in the HLG2 group at both moments. On the other hand, development of hard
skills diverged considerably in the short term (t0 e t1), with the HLG2 group being the one
with the highest development. As Organisation 2’s training involved active learning
methods, in which the participants had to make improvements in loco, differences in soft

Teaching t0 t1 t2 t3
Organisation method Skills Group n Meda SDb Meda SDb Meda SDb Meda SDb

1 Traditional Soft LLG1 3 2.6 0.4 1.9 0.8 3.0 0.7 2.7 0.4
Table 4. teaching HLG1 5 2.6 0.9 3.0 0.9 3.7 1.5 3.4 0.9
Mann–Whitney test Hard LLG1 3 4.0* 1.2 2.5 1.0 3.5 0.3 3.5 0.0
to verify the HLG1 5 1.0* 0.9 3.0 0.7 2.5 1.1 3.0 1.1
variation on hard and 2 Active Soft LLG 2 7 2.2 0.5 3.0 0.7 2.8** 0.6 3.0** 0.6
learning HLG2 5 2.2 0.3 2.5 1.0 4.2** 0.1 4.8** 0.1
soft skills Hard LLG2 7 2.0** 0.4 2.4** 0.5 2.6 0.4 2.5 0.2
development HLG2 5 3.0** 0.3 4.1** 0.3 3.0 0.7 3.0 0.5
according to LM
implementation level Notes: *Significant at 10%; **Significant at 5%. aMed means median; bSD means standard deviation
 Soft and hard
skills
development

1147

Figure 2.
Comparative of LM
implementation level
and boxplot analysis
of hard and soft skills
learning
IJLSS skills development were prominent between groups. These differences gained greater
13,5 notoriety in the medium term (t2 and t3), with respondents from HLG2 presenting higher
values. As indicated by Serembus et al. (2012) and Tortorella and Cauchick-Miguel (2018),
active learning methods favour the development of interpersonal behaviours intrinsic to LM
soft skills. As for hard skills, the difference between HLG2 and LLG2 was more sensitive at t0
and t1, and as time passed their development converged to a similar level. Interestingly,
1148 although both groups had similar levels of LM implementation at t0 and t1, the development
of hard skills diverged significantly between them which might be associated with
respondents’ profile. HLG2 was formed by respondents who held administrative positions
with previous experience in LM initiatives (see Table 1). In opposition, LLG2 was composed
of professionals from technical areas (e.g. nurses and nutritionists), who are less likely to
present a strong background in concepts related to management practices; consequently,
they had a low knowledge of hard skills in t0 and t1. Over time, LM training allowed both
groups to become familiar with the topic, mitigating differences initially identified.
According to Grove et al. (2010) and Costa et al. (2017), one of the greatest challenges in
promoting operational improvements in hospitals is to convince renowned professionals
from technical areas to adopt practices of a systematic-managerial nature which they are not
familiar with.
Overall, the results of the analyses indicated that training in Organisation 1 (traditional
teaching method) was better suited for learning hard skills of LM, while Organisation 2
training (active learning method) was better suited for learning hard and soft skills. When
measuring the effect of lean implementation level (HLGi and LLGi) on hard and soft skills,
results showed that LM learning can diverge according to the nature of the training. More
specifically for soft skills, the level of knowledge was significantly different between groups
when the teaching plan included active learning methods, while for traditional teaching
methods, no significant differences were found. As for the hard skills, with the traditional
teaching methods the group which started the training with the lowest level of lean
implementation had the greatest variation in lean implementation and hard skills. In the
training with active learning teaching methods, the group that started the training with the
highest level of lean implementation was the one that that had the highest variance in its
lean implementation level, and the one that showed the highest level of hard skills in the
medium and long term.

4.3 Comparative analysis within the implementation levels of lean management over time
Table 5 presents the results of the Mann–Whitney test which was applied to verify the
variation in both hard and soft skills development over time in each organisation.
With regards to Organisation 1, where traditional teaching was applied, the comparison
of soft skills development did not indicate representative changes between any pair of
moments, both in HLG1 and in LLG1. Similarly, results showed that the teaching method did
not provide significant changes in the development of hard skills for respondents from
LLG1. On the other hand, in HLG1 significant differences were identified between t0 and the
other moments (t1, t2 and t3), suggesting an increasing development for hard skills over time.
The fact that there was no significant change in the development of soft skills in both
groups may be associated with the nature of the teaching method. According to White et al.
(2016) and Alves et al. (2017), teaching methods based on classroom activities offer less
interaction with the studied problem and students assume a more introspective and passive
posture. Thus, students might develop a simplified understanding of reality, missing some
complex concepts of LM (e.g. leadership style of a LM organisation). In opposition, it seems
that Organisation 1’s training (traditional teaching method) had a more prominent effect on
 Organisation 1 – traditional teaching Organisation 2- active learning
t0 t1 t2 t3 t0 t1 t2 t3
Skills Group Meda SDb Meda SDb Meda SDb Meda SDb Group Meda SDb Meda SDb Meda SDb Meda SDb

Soft LLG1 2.6 0.4 1.9 0.8 LLG2 2.2* 0.5 3.0* 0.7
2.6 0.4 3.0 0.7 2.2 0.5 2.8 0.6
2.6 0.4 2.7 0.4 2.2** 0.5 3.0** 0.6
1.9 0.8 3.0 0.7 3.0 0.7 2.8 0.6
1.9 0.8 2.7 0.4 3.0 0.7 3.0 0.6
3.0 0.7 2.7 0.4 2.8** 0.6 3.0** 0.6
HLG1 2.6 0.9 3.0 0.9 HLG2 2.2 0.3 2.5 1.0
2.6 0.9 3.7 1.5 2.2** 0.3 4.2** 0.1
2.6 0.9 3.4 0.9 2.2** 0.3 4.8** 0.1
3.0 0.9 3.7 1.5 2.5* 1.0 4.2* 0.1
3.0 0.9 3.4 0.9 2.5** 1.0 4.8** 0.1
3.7 1.5 3.4 0.9 4.2** 0.1 4.8** 0.1
Hard LLG1 4.0 1.2 2.5 1.0 LLG2 2.0 0.4 2.4 0.5
4.0 1.2 3.5 0.3 2.0* 0.4 2.6* 0.4
4.0 1.2 3.5 0.0 2.0* 0.4 2.5* 0.2
2.5 1.0 3.5 0.3 2.4 0.5 2.6 0.4
2.5 1.0 3.5 0.0 2.4 0.5 2.5 0.2
3.5 0.3 3.5 0.0 2.6 0.4 2.5 0.2
HLG1 1.0** 0.9 3.0** 0.7 HLG2 3.0** 0.3 4.1** 0.3
1.0** 0.9 2.5** 1.1 3.0 0.3 3.0 0.7
1.0* 0.9 3.0* 1.1 3.0 0.3 3.0 0.5
3.0 0.7 2.5 1.1 4.1* 0.3 3.0* 0.7
3.0 0.7 3.0 1.1 4.1** 0.3 3.0** 0.5
2.5 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 0.7 3.0 0.5

Notes: *Significant at 10%; **Significant at 5%. aMed means median; bSD means standard deviation

and soft skills

variation on hard
Soft and hard

time
Table 5.

development over
to verify the
1149

Mann–Whitney test
development
skills
IJLSS hard skills development, especially for HLG1. Ncube (2010) and Abele et al. (2017) showed
13,5 that the combination of lectures with practical activities based on computer simulation helps
to elucidate concepts and develops skills for decision making. As in Organisation 1 lectures
were complemented with activities in the BizagiV R software, it can be assumed that the

results observed for HLG1 were a consequence of this combination of methods. Meanwhile,
there was no significant variation in hard skills over time in LLG1. Respondents from LLG1
1150 claimed to have an initial level of hard skills higher than HLG1, remaining relatively stable
over time. Hence, this group was less affected by the combination of the aforementioned
teaching methods. This result converges to findings from Silva et al. (2013) and Brioso
(2015), who stated that some teaching methods may not be effective in situations where the
participants already have a high prior knowledge, and the teaching plan comprises basic
concepts.
In Organisation 2, where active learning was applied, there was a significant increase in
soft skills over time in both groups LLG2 and HLG2 (in t0-t1, t0-t3 and t2-t3; and t0-t2, t0-t3, t1-t2,
t1-t3 e t2-t3, respectively). Likewise, for hard skills, an increasing development was observed
between t0-t2 and t0-t3 in LLG2. Interestingly, despite a significant increase in the level of hard
skills between t0-t1 in HLG2, over time there has been a drop in such level between t1 e t2.
Overall, results in Organisation 2 had a more prominent effect on soft skills and hard
skills in the medium and long term. With regards to soft skills, results showed growing
trends for both HLG2 and LLG2. This effect can be attributed to the nature of the training’s
teaching methods used, for example, on-site exercises with active learning activities that
provide greater interaction with study objects, as observed in Goldberg and Rank (2013),
Mamat et al. (2015); and Ahmad et al. (2018). In addition, according to Netland et al. (2012),
Witt et al. (2018); and Abdi et al. (2018), organisations that actively implement LM by
fostering knowledge management practices are more likely to have their work habits
changed as LM practices are integrated into the work routine, contributing to the
establishment of a learning environment across the company.
Regarding hard skills, LLG2 and HLG2 presented different trends during the studied time
slot. While the first group showed a significant increase in their skills level over time, the
second group presented some signs of a possible reduction. For LLG2, the combination of
active learning methods with lectures generated more opportunities to better exercise
theoretical concepts. In fact, scientific research indicates that active learning methods can
illustrate complex concepts in a creative and attractive way (Tvenge et al., 2016; Goerke
et al., 2017; Barnabè et al., 2018), enabling comparisons of the effect of different practices of
LM (Ramos et al., 2013; Dinis-Carvalho et al., 2017). In turn, HLG2 had an unusual behaviour
in relation to LM hard skills. It initially showed a significant growth between t0 (median =
3.0) and t1 (median = 4.1), followed by a reduction between t2 and t3 (median = 3.0 at both
times). This provides evidence that respondents’ perception changed between these
moments. As the level of LM implementation increased, individuals noticed the deficiencies
in their work environment, as well as realized how much they still had to learn. Hence, these
results suggest that, although there was an increase in the LM implementation, this does not
necessarily mean there should be an increase in LM hard skills, contrasting with what was
observed in Bauer et al. (2018) and Turner et al. (2019). According to Mayer et al. (2013),
Vaporciyan (2016); Telang et al. (2017); and Burch’s (1970) model of competency hierarchy,
as individuals evolve through the competency hierarchy levels, they acquire new knowledge
and become more aware of their competencies. When skills are poorly developed,
individuals are still unaware of their deficiencies and may underestimate the difficulty of
fully understanding a particular subject. However, when the same skills are more mature,
individuals tend to recognize learning gaps. As HLG2 respondents claimed to have a drop in
hard skills, perhaps at the beginning of the training they were not yet aware of their lack of Soft and hard
knowledge in LM and, as the lean implementation advanced, they acquired more knowledge skills
and noticed their limitations. This fact converges to indications from McDermott and development
Venditti (2015) and Zhao et al. (2016), who suggested that as lean knowledge increases,
individuals are more likely to “know what they still do not know.”
Summarizing, the traditional teaching methods of Organisation 1 did not present a
significant result for hard skills when the participants already had prior knowledge of 1151
LM or when the teaching agenda included basic concepts. On the other hand, for novice
participants in lean implementation, the combination of lectures with computer
simulation exercises enabled to learn hard skills in the medium and long terms. Hence,
results partially support H1. However, the traditional teaching methods investigated did
not show prominent learning in terms of soft skills in any of the groups, invalidating H2.
The impact of active learning teaching methods appears to depend on the degree of lean
implementation. Individuals more mature in LM were more likely to notice learning gaps
in hard skills, while individuals new to LM still did not realize their learning limitations.
Due to this result, H3 requires further research for validation. Finally, both groups of
respondents that used active learning teaching method showed an increase in soft skills,
validating H4.

5. Conclusions
This study started by asking: RQ: What is the impact of different LM teaching methods on
the development of both hard and soft skills? For that, a longitudinal research was carried out
in two organisations, which enabled a comparative content analysis. Results indicated that
soft skills development is mainly facilitated by active teaching methods, regardless of the
lean implementation level. But the perceived learning of hard skills depends on the lean
implementation level. In general, traditional teaching methods may be better suited for the
teaching of hard skills, specifically when a combination of lectures and computer
simulations is used. These findings extend existing literature which often only focusses on
either hard or soft skills. In terms of practical implications, results suggest that LM trainings
can provide more extensive impacts when a combination of traditional teaching and active
learning is adopted. The combination of these methods enables greater familiarity with LM
concepts and practices and, consequently, result in more effective trainings and knowledge
development. With regards to manufacturing and service organisations that are beginners
in LM, traditional teaching methods can be a good choice for learning hard skills depending
on resources’ availability. However, it is recommended to include active learning methods to
assist in the education of more complex and abstract LM concepts.
It is also worth highlighting some limitations of this research. First, sample data was
collected in the same region. Although this research does not aim to investigate the influence
of regional culture on LM training, our results are restricted to similar socioeconomic
contexts. To allow for generalization and more comprehensive validation of our findings, it
is recommended to develop additional studies in different socioeconomic contexts. In
addition, data analysis remained restricted by the sample size. Larger sample sizes would
allow for more sophisticated multivariate data analysis techniques, which could result in
more robust and insightful indications. Finally, we only considered organisations from the
service sectors (i.e. education and health care). Further studies could investigate the validity
of our outcomes in manufacturing organisations, which are supposed to be more familiar
with LM.
IJLSS References
13,5 Abdi, K., Mardani, A., Senin, A., Tupenaite, L., Naimaviciene, J., Kanapeckiene, L. and Kutut, V. (2018), “The
effect of knowledge management, organizational culture and organizational learning on innovation in
automotive industry”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Abele, E., Chryssolouris, G., Sihn, W., Metternich, J., Elmaraghy, H., Seliger, G. and Seifermann, S.
(2017), “Learning factories for future oriented research and education in manufacturing”,
Procedia CIRP, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 803-826.
1152
Adam, M., Hofbauer, M. and Stehling, M. (2020), “Effectiveness of a lean simulation training:
challenges, measures and recommendations”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 32 No. 6,
forthcoming.
Ahmad, R., Masse, C., Jituri, C., Doucette, J. and Mertiny, P. (2018), “Alberta learning factory for training
reconfigurable assembly process value stream mapping”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 23,
pp. 237-242.
Alves, A.C., Flumerfelt, S., Moreira, F. and Leão, C. (2017), “Effective tools to learn lean thinking and
gather together academic and practice communities”, Paper presented at ASME 2017
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Florida, November 3–9.
Alves, A.C., Leão, C., Uebe-Mansur, A. and Kury, M. (2020), “The knowledge and importance of lean
education based on academics’ perspectives: an exploratory study”, Production Planning and
Control, Vol. 32 No. 6, forthcoming.
Alves, A.C., Sousa, R., Fernandes, S., Cardoso, E., Carvalho, M., Figueiredo, F. and Pereira, R. (2016),
“Teacher’s experiences in PBL: implications for practice”, European Journal of Engineering
Education, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 123-141.
Arnheiter, E. (2014), “Teaching lean management using experiential methods to improve learning”,
International Journal of Information and Operations Management Education, Vol. 5 No. 4,
pp. 344-362.
Aroldi, J.B.C., Peres, H. and Mira, V. (2018), “Perception of the impact of online training on pressure
injury prevention at work”, Text and Nursery, Vol. 27 No. 3, p. e3020016.
Badurdeen, F., Marksberry, P., Hall, P. and Gregory, B. (2010), “Teaching lean manufacturing with
simulations and games: a survey and future directions”, Simulation and Gaming, Vol. 41 No. 4,
pp. 465-486.
Baena, F., Guarin, A., Mora, J., Sauza, J. and Retat, S. (2017), “Learning factory: the path to industry 4.0”,
Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 9, pp. 73-80.
Barnabè, F., Giorgino, M., Guercini, J., Biancardi, C. and Mezzatesta, V. (2017), “Engaging professionals
with serious games: the lean healthcare lab at Siena university hospital”, Development and
Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 7-10.
Barnabè, F., Giorgino, M., Guercini, J., Biancardi, C. and Mezzatesta, V. (2018), “Management
simulations for lean healthcare: exploiting the potentials of role-playing”, Journal of Health
Organization and Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 298-320.
Bauer, H., Brandl, F., Lock, C. and Reinhart, G. (2018), “Integration of industry 4.0 in lean
manufacturing learning factories”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 23, pp. 147-152.
Belhadi, A., Touriki, F.E. and Elfezazi, S. (2019), “Evaluation of critical success factors (CSFs) to lean
implementation in SMEs using AHP: a case study”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 803-829.
Blöchl, S. and Schneider, M. (2016), “Simulation game for intelligent production logistics: the pull
learning factory”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 54, pp. 130-135.
Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W. and Krathwohl, D. (1956), “Taxonomy of educational
objectives: the classification of education goals”, Handbook 1: cognitive Domain, David Mckay,
New York, NY.
Bortolotti, T., Boscari, S. and Danese, P. (2015), “Successful lean implementation: organizational culture Soft and hard
and soft lean practices”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 160, pp. 182-201.
skills
Brioso, X. (2015), “Teaching lean construction – pontifical catholic university of Peru training course in
lean project and construction management”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 123, pp. 85-93.
development
Burch, W.R. Jr (1970), “Resources and social structure: some conditions of stability and change”, The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 389 No. 1, pp. 27-34.
Burch, V., Reuben, F. and Smith, B. (2019), “Using simulation to teach lean methodologies and the 1153
benefits for millennials”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 30 Nos 3/4,
pp. 320-334.
Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D. and Walker, K.
(2020), “Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples”, Journal of Research
in Nursing, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 652-661.
Chen, R., Chen, T., Lu, N., Zhang, H., Wu, P., Feng, C. and Tu, X. (2014), “Extending the Mann–
Whitney–Wilcoxon rank sum test to longitudinal regression analysis”, Journal of Applied
Statistics, Vol. 41 No. 12, pp. 2658-2675.
Costa, L.B.M., Filho, M., Rentes, A., Bertani, T. and Mardegan, R. (2017), “Lean healthcare in developing
countries: evidence from Brazilian hospitals”, The International Journal of Health Planning and
Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. e99-e120.
De Zan, G., De Toni, A., Fornasier, A. and Battistella, C. (2015), “A methodology for the assessment of
experiential learning lean: the lean experience factory case study”, European Journal of Training
and Development, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 332-354.
Delago, L.C., Machado, M., De Brito, F., Landgraf, G., De Andrade, S. and Torezzan, C. (2016), “Learning
lean philosophy through 3D game-based simulation”, Proceedings of the 2016 Winter
Simulation Conference, IEEE Press, pp. 3385-3392.
Demeter, K. and Losonci, D. (2019), “Transferring lean knowledge within multinational networks”,
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 30 Nos 2/3, pp. 211-224.
Dinis-Carvalho, J. (2020), “The role of lean training in lean implementation”, Production Planning and
Control, Vol. 32 No. 6, forthcoming.
Dinis-Carvalho, J., Fernandes, S., Lima, R., Mesquita, D. and Costa-Lobo, C. (2017), “Active learning in
higher education: developing projects in partnership with industry”, Paper presented at
INTED2017 Conference, Valencia, Espanha, March 6-8, pp. 1695-1704.
Dora, M., Kumar, M. and Gellynck, X. (2015), “Determinants and barriers to lean implementation in
food-processing SMEs – a multiple case analysis”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 27
No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Flumerfelt, S., Alves, A., Leão, C. and Wade, D. (2016), “What do organizational leaders need from lean
graduate programming”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 40 No. 5,
pp. 302-320.
Forghani, M. and Tavasoli, A. (2017), “Investigating the relationship between knowledge management
dimensions and organizational performance in lean manufacturing”, International Journal of
Management, Accounting and Economics, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 218-225.
Furterer, S.L., Schneider, K., Key, M.B., Zalewski, D. and Laudenberger, M. (2019), “Implementing lean
six sigma and discrete-event simulation for tutoring operations in higher education institutions”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 909-927.
Gao, S. and Low, S. (2015), “Toyota way style human resource management in large Chinese
construction firms: a qualitative study”, International Journal of Construction Management,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 17-32.
Gento, A., Pimentel, C. and Pascual, J. (2020), “Lean school: an example of industry-university
collaboration”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 32 No. 6, forthcoming.
IJLSS Goerke, M., Schmidt, M., Busch, J. and Nyhuis, P. (2015), “Holistic approach of lean thinking in learning
factories”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 32, pp. 138-143.
13,5
Goerke, M., Schmidt, M., Busch, J. and Nyhuis, P. (2017), “Employee qualification by digital learning
games”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 9, pp. 229-237.
Goldberg, J.R. and Rank, D. (2013), “A hands-on, active learning approach to increasing manufacturing
knowledge in engineering students”, Paper presented at American Society for Engineering
Education, Atlanta, June 23-26.
1154
Gomez-Molina, D.L. and Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2021), “Lean management in universities: a systematic
literature review”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma.
Gong, Y. and Blijleven, V. (2017), “The role of lean principles in supporting knowledge management in
IT outsourcing relationships”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 533-541.
Gonzalez, R. (2017), “Knowledge management taxonomy in the Brazilian automotive industry”,
Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 491-505.
Goodwin, C. (2005), Research in Psychology: Methods and Design, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Grove, A.L., Meredith, J., Macintyre, M., Angelis, J. and Neailey, K. (2010), “UK health visiting:
challenges faced during lean implementation”, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 204-218.
Hamzeh, F., Theokaris, C., Rouhana, C. and Abbas, Y. (2017), “Application of hands-on simulation
games to improve classroom experience”, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 42
No. 5, pp. 471-481.
Hopp, W.J. (2018), “Positive lean: merging the science of efficiency with the psychology of work”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 Nos 1/2, pp. 398-413.
Hua, Y. (2007), “Double-loop learning control (DLC) model for reengineering: a “ying” and “yang”
balanced approach for effective organizational change”, International Journal of Production
Economics, No. 110, pp. 336-350.
Johnson, D. and Wanless, L. (2016), “Facilitative learning model for student engagement in a project
management course: a case study”, International Journal of Information and Operations
Management Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 173-199.
Joyce, B.R. and Showers, B. (2002), “Student achievement through staff development”, Paper presented
at National College for School Leadership, Virginia, USA.
Kregel, I. (2019), “Kaizen in university teaching: continuous course improvement”, International Journal
of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 975-991.
Larteb, Y., Haddout, A. and Benhadou, M. (2015), “Successful lean implementation: the systematic and
simultaneous consideration of soft and hard lean practices”, International Journal of Engineering
Research and General Science, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1258-1270.
Lista, A.P. and Tortorella, G. (2019), “Lean production teaching methods and their evaluation systems –
a literature review”, Paper presented at XV National Conference of Management Excellence, Rio
de Janeiro, October 3-4.
Liu, S., Leat, M., Moizer, J., Megicks, P. and Kasturiratne, D. (2013), “A decision-focused
knowledge management framework to support collaborative decision making for lean
supply chain management”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 7,
pp. 2123-2137.
McDermott, C.M. and Venditti, F. (2015), “Implementing lean in knowledge work: implications from a
study of the hospital discharge planning process”, Operations Management Research, Vol. 8
Nos 3/4, pp. 118-130.
Mamat, R.C., Deros, B., Nizam, M., Rahman, A., Omar, M. and Abdullah, S. (2015), “Soft lean practices
for successful lean production system implementation in Malasya automative SMEs: a proposed
framework”, Journal Teknologi (Sciences and Engineering), Vol. 77 No. 27, pp. 141-150.
Marley, K. (2014), “Eye on the Gemba: using student-created videos and the revised bloom’s taxonomy Soft and hard
to teach lean management”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 89 No. 6, pp. 310-316.
skills
Marodin, G.A., Frank, A., Tortorella, G. and Saurin, T. (2016), “Contextual factors and lean production
implementation in the Brazilian automotive supply chain”, Supply Chain Management: An
development
International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 417-432.
Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K. (2003), “Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture:
the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire”, Advances in Developing Human
Resources, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 132-151. 1155
Mayer, I., Wolff, A. and Wenzler, I. (2013), “Learning efficacy of the ‘hazard recognition’ serious game”,
Paper Presented at International Conference on Serious Games Development and Applications,
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 118-129.
Mehta, M. and Monroe, R. (2006), “Teaching lean manufacturing on a distance learning platform using
virtual simulation”, Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference and Exposition.
Merwe, K.R. (2017), “A longitudinal study of the efficacy of lean learning experienced through a
simulated working environment (SWE)”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 66 No. 5, pp. 651-661.
Montgomery, D. (2013), Design and Analysis of Experiments, Wiley, New York, NY.
Ncube, L. (2010), “A simulation of lean manufacturing-the lean lemonade tycoon 2”, Simulation and
Gaming, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 568-586.
Netland, T., Mediavilla, M. and Errasti, A. (2012), “The insignificant role of national culture in global
lean programmes”, Paper presented at IFIP International conference on advances in production
management systems, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 454-462.
Osono, E., Shimizu, N. and Takeuchi, H. (2008), Extreme Toyota, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Petrusch, A. and Vaccaro, G.L.R. (2019), “Attributes valued by students in higher education services: a
lean perspective”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 862-882.
Pozzi, R., Noè, C. and Rossi, T. (2015), “Experimenting ‘learn by doing’ and ‘learn by failing’”, European
Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 68-80.
Putnik, G.D., Alves, A.C., Dinis-Carvalho, J. and Sousa, R.M. (2012), “Lean production as promoter of
thinkers to achieve companies’ agility”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 219-237.
Putra, A.S., Novitasari, D., Asbari, M., Purwanto, A., Iskandar, J., Hutagalung, D. and Cahyono, Y.
(2020), “Examine relationship of soft skills, hard skills, innovation and performance: the
mediation effect of organizational learning”, International Journal of Science and Management
Studies, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 27-43.
Ramires, F., Martins, M., Cunha, M. and Alves, A. (2016), “Different structures of projects in
engineering: the perspective of freshmen students”, Paper presented at the 8th International
Symposium on Project Approaches in Engineering Education and Active Learning, 6-8 July.
Ramos, A., Lopes, M. and Ávila, P. (2013), “Development of a platform for lean manufacturing
simulation games”, IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias Del Aprendizaje, Vol. 8 No. 4.
Razali, N.M. and Wah, Y. (2011), “Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors
and Anderson-Darling tests”, Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 21-33.
Resta, B., Gaiardelli, P., Dotti, S. and Pinto, R. (2015), “Towards a new model exploring the effect of the
human factor in lean management”, Paper presented at IFIP International Conference on
Advances in Production Management Systems (APMS), Tokyo, Japan, pp. 316-323.
Rooke, J., Sapountzis, S., Koskela, L. Codinhoto, R. and Kagioglou, M. (2010), “Lean knowledge
management: the problem of value”, University of Huddersfield Repository, available at: http://
IJLSS eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/25933/1/2010_Lean_knowledge_mgmnt_the_problem_of_value.pdf
(accessed on 20 June 2020).
13,5
Saurin, T.A. and Ferreira, C. (2008), “Qualitative assessment of the implementation of lean production
practices: a case study in a heavy machinery manufacturer”, Gestão and Produção, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 449-462.
Serembus, J.F., Meloy, F. and Posmontier, B. (2012), “Learning from business: incorporating the Toyota
production system into nursing curricula”, The Nursing Clinics of North America, Vol. 47 No. 4,
1156 pp. 503-516.
Silva, I., Xambre, A. and Lopes, R. (2013), “A simulation game framework for teaching lean production”,
International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 81-86.
Simonyte, S., Adomaitiene, R. and Ruzele, D. (2021), “Experience of lean application in higher education
institutions”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma.
Sisson, J. and Elshennawy, A. (2014), “Achieving success with lean”, International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 263-280.
Stone, M. and Brooks, R. (1990), “Continuum regression: cross-validated sequentially constructed
prediction embracing ordinary least squares, partial least squares and principal components
regression”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 237-258.
Taber, K.S. (2018), “The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments
in science education”, Research in Science Education, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1273-1296.
Telang, A., Rathod, S., Supe, A., Nebhinani, N. and Mathai, S. (2017), “Faculty views on competency-
based medical education during mentoring and learning web sessions: an observational study”,
Journal of Education Technology in Health Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 9-13.
Tortorella, G., Vergara, L. and Ferreira, E. (2017), “Lean manufacturing implementation: an assessment
method with regards to socio-technical and ergonomics practices adoption”, The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 89 Nos 9/12, pp. 3407-3418.
Tortorella, G. and Cauchick-Miguel, P. (2017), “An initiative for integrating problem-based learning into
a lean manufacturing course of an industrial engineering graduate program”, Production,
Vol. 27.
Tortorella, G. and Cauchick-Miguel, P. (2018), “Teaching lean manufacturing at a postgraduate level:
integrating traditional teaching methods and problem-based learning approach”, International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 301-323.
Tortorella, G. and Fogliatto, F. (2014), “Method for assessing human resources management practices
and organisational learning factors in a company under lean manufacturing implementation”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 15, pp. 4623-4645.
Tortorella, G., Fettermann, D., Cauchick Miguel, P. and Sawhney, R. (2019a), “Learning organisation
and lean production: an empirical research on their relationship”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 12, pp. 1-17.
Tortorella, G., Marodin, G., Fogliatto, F. and Miorando, R. (2014), “Learning organisation and human
resources management practices: an exploratory research in medium-sized enterprises
undergoing a lean implementation”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 13,
pp. 3989-4000.
Tortorella, G., Marodin, G., Miorando, R. and Seidel, A. (2015), “The impact of contextual variables
on learning organization in firms that are implementing lean: a study in Southern Brazil”,
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 78 Nos 9/12,
pp. 1879-1892.
Tortorella, G., Miorando, R., Fettermann, D. and Mendoza, D. (2020), “An empirical investigation on
learning and teaching lean manufacturing”, Education þ Training, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 339-354.
Tortorella, G., Fogliatto, F., Mac Cawley Vergara, A., Quelhas, O. and Sawhney, R. (2019b), “Influence Soft and hard
of team members’ characteristics on the sustainability of continuous improvement initiatives”,
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 32 Nos 7/8, forthcoming.
skills
Turner, J.R., Thurlow, N., Baker, R., Northcutt, D. and Newman, K. (2019), “Multiteam systems in an
development
agile environment: a realist systematic review”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 748-771.
Tvenge, N., Martinsen, K. and Kolla, S. (2016), “Combining learning factories and ICT- based situated
learning”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 54, pp. 101-106. 1157
Uriarte, A.G., Amos, H. and Moris, M. (2020), “Bringing together lean and simulation: a comprehensive
review”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 87-117.
Vaporciyan, A.A. (2016), “Teaching and learning surgical skill”, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery,
Vol. 101 No. 1, pp. 12-14.
Vlachos, I., Siachou, E. and Langwallner, E. (2019), “A perspective on knowledge sharing and lean
management: an empirical investigation”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice,
Vol. 18 No. 2, forthcoming.
White, P.J., Larson, I., Styles, K., Yuriev, E., Evans, D., Rangachari, P. and Eise, N. (2016), “Adopting an
active learning approach to teaching in a research-intensive higher education context
transformed staff teaching attitudes and behaviours”, Higher Education Research and
Development, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 619-633.
Witt, C.M., Sandoe, K. and Dunlap, J. (2018), “5S your life: using an experiential approach to teaching
lean philosophy”, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 264-280.
Yang, K. and Cai, X. (2009), “The integration of DFSS, lean product development and lean knowledge
management”, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 75-99.
Yazici, H. (2016), “Role of learning style preferences and interactive response systems on student
learning outcomes”, International Journal of Information and Operations Management
Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 109-134.
Zhao, P., Rasovska, I. and Rose, B. (2016), “Integrating lean perspectives and knowledge management
in services: application to the service department of a CNC manufacturer”, IFAC-PapersOnLine,
Vol. 49 No. 12, pp. 77-82.
Zighan, S. and Ahmed, E.Q. (2020), “Lean thinking and higher education management: revaluing the
business school programme management”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 675-703.

Further reading
Aoun, M. and Hasnan, N. (2013), “Lean production and TQM: complementary or contradictory driving
forces of innovation performance?”, International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 5 No. 4,
pp. 237-252.
Dombrowski, U. and Mielke, T. (2013), “Lean leadership – fundamental principles and their
application”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 7, pp. 569-574.
Dombrowski, U., Mielke, T. and Engel, C. (2012), “Knowledge management in lean production
systems”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 3, pp. 436-441.
Forza, C. (2002), “Survey research in operations management: a process-based perspective”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 152-194.
Hertle, C., Jokovic, B., Weber, C., Tisch, M., König, C., Meißner, A., Ardelt, T., Bruder, R., Metternich, J.
and Tenberg, R. (2017), “Innovative approaches for technical, methodological, and socio
communicative competency development in production areas”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 9,
pp. 299-306.
IJLSS Manikas, A., Gupta, M. and Boyd, L. (2014), “Experiential exercises with four production planning
and control systems”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 14,
13,5 pp. 4206-4217.
Secchi, R. and Camuffo, A. (2016), “Rolling out lean production systems: a knowledge-based
perspective”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 61-85.
Tortorella, G., Miorando, R. and Castillo, A. (2018), “Association between lean manufacturing teaching
1158 methods and students’ learning preferences”, Progress in Lean Manufacturing, Springer, Cham,
pp. 105-128.
Zapp, M., Hoffmeister, M. and Verl, A. (2013), “Methodology to apply semantic wikis as lean knowledge
management systems on the shop floor”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 12, pp. 444-449.
Zhang, L. and Chen, X. (2016), “Role of lean tools in supporting knowledge creation and performance in
lean construction”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 145, pp. 1267-1274.

Corresponding author
Ana Paula Lista can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]