<p>This study is about to see whether the two models representing the strategies of lean production is to use and apply in different companies. The models are structured in two different ways in which one of them is checking the softer elements of lean production in the form of leadership and strategies. This model is called Lesat and is based on interviewquestions. The second model, called "learning to see" is about identifying flows. This, together shall then give an idea of how mature companies are when it comes to a whole in the concept of lean production, and susceptibility to use these models to their respective companies.</p><p> </p><p>The study is conducted in two companies, SKF couplings systems and AQ parkoprint. SKF is a company that makes connections through a special method called the oil injection method. Parkoprint produces mainly parking meters of all kinds, this is done in close cooperation with customers and their preferences.</p><p> </p><p>The study has been carried out by means of interviews of individuals in leadership positions in each business. We also interviewed operations personnel and has developed facts through observation and computer systems to make the flow surveys.</p><p> </p><p>The results show that the models themselves are useful and functional. However, it became more difficult to use the Lesat showing soft data, rather than "learn to see" that focuses mostly on flows. This is for several reasons. One of the reasons was that the companies examined were not quite at the level existing strategies and leadership that Lesat calls, this makes it difficult to estimate where in the assessment firms ports when the people interviewed do not really are in line or understand how the model or concept works in some areas. In addition to this we experienced it difficult to make a fair assessment when the model in any way based on subjective assessments from companies and then marked in a way that also tends to be of subjective nature. From this perspective, we believe that Lesat model fit better in a study of the companies that has made more of work on lean production and has achieved a higher degree of maturity, and thus become a little easier to rate and provide a more realistic sense.</p><p> </p><p>It appears that the models worked with different conditions and also with different results. However, the two worked so well that it clearly has been able to see the potential strengths, weaknesses and possible improvements in the respective organization. This means that the combination of the two satisfactory to achieve a whole, and that any use, ie organization, can help to improve and lead organizations to more effectively work with and against the lean production.</p>

This study is about to see whether the two models representing the strategies of lean production is to use and apply in different companies. The models are structured in two different ways in which one of them is checking the softer elements of lean production in the form of leadership and strategies. This model is called Lesat and is based on interviewquestions. The second model, called "learning to see" is about identifying flows. This, together shall then give an idea of how mature companies are when it comes to a whole in the concept of lean production, and susceptibility to use these models to their respective companies.   The study is conducted in two companies, SKF couplings systems and AQ parkoprint. SKF is a company that makes connections through a special method called the oil injection method. Parkoprint produces mainly parking meters of all kinds, this is done in close cooperation with customers and their preferences.   The study has been carried out by means of interviews of individuals in leadership positions in each business. We also interviewed operations personnel and has developed facts through observation and computer systems to make the flow surveys.   The results show that the models themselves are useful and functional. However, it became more difficult to use the Lesat showing soft data, rather than "learn to see" that focuses mostly on flows. This is for several reasons. One of the reasons was that the companies examined were not quite at the level existing strategies and leadership that Lesat calls, this makes it difficult to estimate where in the assessment firms ports when the people interviewed do not really are in line or understand how the model or concept works in some areas. In addition to this we experienced it difficult to make a fair assessment when the model in any way based on subjective assessments from companies and then marked in a way that also tends to be of subjective nature. From this perspective, we believe that Lesat model fit better in a study of the companies that has made more of work on lean production and has achieved a higher degree of maturity, and thus become a little easier to rate and provide a more realistic sense.   It appears that the models worked with different conditions and also with different results. However, the two worked so well that it clearly has been able to see the potential strengths, weaknesses and possible improvements in the respective organization. This means that the combination of the two satisfactory to achieve a whole, and that any use, ie organization, can help to improve and lead organizations to more effectively work with and against the lean production.