Enhancing U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness through Lean Manufacturing: A Framework for Supply Chain Resilience and Risk Mitigation

Abstract

This study addresses a persistent problem in U.S.-oriented manufacturing supply chains: firms pursue lean to stabilize cost and flow, yet disruptions expose gaps in preparedness, response, recovery, and risk mitigation, creating uncertainty about which lean bundles most reliably strengthen supply chain resilience. The purpose was to quantify and synthesize how lean practice clusters relate to resilience capabilities and risk-mitigation outcomes across enterprise case evidence using a quantitative, cross-sectional, case-based research design. Using a structured evidence-synthesis dataset of 42 enterprise manufacturing cases reported in peer-reviewed studies, lean was operationalized as practice clusters (LP1–LP9) such as standardized work and visual management, continuous improvement, quality at the source, TPM, pull routines, supplier development, and visibility dashboards; resilience was measured as four capability variables (Readiness RC1, Response RC2, Recovery RC3, Adaptation RC4) and an overall Resilience Capability Score (RCS); risk mitigation was captured via an overall Risk Mitigation Index (RMI) across risk categories. The analysis plan applied a five-point Likert evidence-strength scoring for each construct link and aggregated means, standard deviations, and study counts, complemented by cross-case comparisons by manufacturing segment. Headline findings show strong overall support for a positive lean–resilience relationship (RCS M = 4.1, SD = 0.6, n = 42), with the strongest capability evidence in Response (RC2 M = 4.3, SD = 0.6, n = 41) and Recovery (RC3 M = 4.2, SD = 0.6, n = 40), while Adaptation was comparatively lower (RC4 M = 3.8, SD = 0.8, n = 33) . Lean practice evidence was highest for standardized work and visual management (LP1 M = 4.4, SD = 0.6, n = 42) and continuous improvement (LP2 M = 4.2, SD = 0.7, n = 40), and overall risk mitigation was strong (RMI M = 3.9, SD = 0.7, n = 42). Cross-case patterns indicate higher resilience in discrete, coordination-intensive segments such as automotive (RCS M = 4.4, SD = 0.5) than process industries (RCS M = 3.9, SD = 0.7), and supplier-facing lean yielded stronger supplier-risk mitigation (M ≈ 4.1) than internal-only lean (M ≈ 3.6). Implications are that managers should treat lean as a capability-building system, prioritizing visibility, disciplined escalation, and joint problem-solving across supplier interfaces, and should pair flow-focused tools with selective buffers and segment-appropriate continuity strategies where external logistics constraints dominate.