HEIs globally, especially the public ones, are under pressure to adapt to increased competition, declining funding, changing student demographics and needs, and rising expectations for quality and accountability. In the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), significant growth in student numbers (11% from 2015/2016 to 2020/2021) and institutions (25% from 2018/2019 to 2022) has further intensified these challenges (European Education and Culture Executive Agency, 2024). These pressures have urged institutions to explore innovative ways to manage resources effectively, improve processes, and deliver high-quality services, with Lean emerging as a proven approach.

Lean Higher Education (LHE) represents the application of Lean thinking - a management framework operating at both the strategic level (philosophy of Lean) and the operational level (Lean tools) - to higher education (HE) (Balzer, 2020; Hines et al., 2004). This concept, adapted from Lean principles originally developed for the manufacturing industry, has been a topic of discussion and application in HE for more than two decades now, due to the positive results it has demonstrated across various industries and sectors, including both products and services.

The core idea of Lean, which focuses on eliminating waste, i.e. activities that do not add value for the customer/consumer, optimising processes, and delivering greater value to customers, has been adapted to meet the unique needs of higher education institutions (HEIs). Used in this context, Lean aims to enhance the quality of academic, administrative, and support functions by optimisation of their processes and increase stakeholder satisfaction.

Lean implementation in HEIs has expanded in reach over the past decade, demonstrating benefits like cost reduction, resource optimisation, shorter student wait time, reduced backlogs in campus maintenance, and increased student satisfaction (Balzer et al., 2015, Petrusch et al., 2019). Despite its proven benefits, its adoption is primarily concentrated in developed countries, such as the UK and the USA, while developing regions remain underexplored.

Numerous studies have examined critical success factors (CSFs) (e.g., Antony, 2014; Balzer et al., 2015; Petrusch et al., 2019; Kokkinou and van Kollenburg, 2023). Also various barriers to Lean implementation (particularly within the framework of Lean Six Sigma, which integrates Lean principles with the process improvement methodology of Six Sigma), have been identified and analysed (Antony et al., 2012; Klein et al., 2020; Hines and Lethbridge, 2008; Wiegel and Brouwer-Hadzialic, 2015).  However, deeper investigation into the specific barriers and their impact on Lean adoption is essential for understanding the factors that impede successful implementation in diverse HE contexts. Engaging Lean experts with managerial experience in HEIs to quantify and rank barriers based on their significance is a critical step towards prioritising their removal during implementation planning. This approach also supports the development of more robust models for achieving organisational readiness for Lean.

This study investigates the key barriers to Lean implementation from the perspective of senior academics who are experts on Lean and have held middle- to top-management roles in HEIs in South-Eastern Europe, to capture region-specific challenges and opportunities within higher education. It provides region-specific insights and offers a ranked list of barriers, serving as a practical guideline for institutions to prioritise and strategically address the most significant obstacles, enabling HEIs to unlock the full potential of Lean.

This study employed the Delphi method, a structured group communication technique designed to achieve consensus on complex issues through iterative rounds of questioning and feedback (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963). The Delphi panel in this study consisted of 20 experts, professors at universities in SEE countries, including 60% Macedonian, 20% Serbian, 15% Croatian, and 5% German with professional experience in SEE region. The selection criteria ensured that participants had extensive knowledge of Lean principles and substantial experience in HEI management, ranging from middle to top leadership roles such as rectors, vice-rectors, deans, and department heads. This diverse group provided a solid foundation for generating insights into Lean implementation within the regional context. The Delphi process consisted of three iterative rounds conducted over two months. Experts were asked to rank 15 predefined barriers to Lean implementation based on their perceived impact, using a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was measured using interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD), with thresholds of SD < 1 and IQR ≤ 1, alongside the criterion that at least 90% of ratings fell within ±1 of the median. Quantitative data were analysed using statistical tools, including IBM SPSS and Microsoft Excel, to calculate measures of central tendency and dispersion. Qualitative data from open-ended responses were thematically analysed to provide contextual depth and validate the relevance of the predefined items. The method resulted in a high response rate, with 100% of the experts completing Round 1 and 95% participating in subsequent rounds. This high level of engagement ensured the reliability and validity of the findings. The results offered a clear prioritisation of barriers that need to be addressed before initiating Lean implementation in HEIs.

The expert panel showed strong consensus on the impact of the proposed barriers to Lean implementation, with all barriers having an SD below 1, an IQR of ≤1, and nearly all achieving over 90% of ratings within ±1 of the median. Lack of top management support (mean score 4.37) emerged as the most significant barrier, which aligns with existing literature and confirms the crucial role of committed leadership in Lean implementation. The lack of Lean knowledge, ranked as the second most critical barrier (mean 4.05), reflects limited familiarity with Lean principles in the region. Addressing this gap through capacity-building initiatives, such as training and workshops, is crucial to equip HEI staff with the necessary skills and expertise to adopt Lean effectively. Resistance to change and weak alignment between processes and strategic objectives, both closely linked to leadership support, were also identified as significant challenges, sharing the third position on the ranking list (mean 3.89). These findings highlight the importance of effective change management strategies and integration of Lean principles into institutional goals. On the other hand, some barriers commonly emphasised in the literature received lower rankings in this study. For instance, academic freedom, often cited as a significant obstacle to Lean in HEIs, received a moderate average score in this study (mean 3.37). Similarly, fear of job loss was also evaluated as less impactful (mean 2.68). In the SEE context, the stability of academic positions likely contributes to the lower perceived impact of job-related fears. In the same vain, complex customer structure was ranked lower, potentially reflecting limited stakeholder recognition. Lean offers considerable potential for HEIs to improve efficiency and enhance service quality. To enable successful implementation, HEIs need to address these barriers, starting from the most influential once, and ensure organisational readiness for the adoption of Lean thinking.

Antony, J. (2014), “Readiness factors for the Lean Six Sigma journey in the higher education sector”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 257-264. Antony, J., Krishan, N., Cullen, D. and Kumar, M. (2012), “Lean Six Sigma for higher education institutions (HEIs): challenges, barriers, success factors, tools/techniques”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 8, pp. 940-948. Balzer, W.K., Brodke, M.H. and Kizhakethalackal, E.T. (2015), “Lean higher education: successes, challenges, and realizing potential”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 924-933. Balzer, W.K. (2020), “Lean Higher Education: Increasing the value and performance of university processes”, Routledge/Productivity Press, New York, NY. Dalkey, N. and Helmer, O. (1963), “An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts”, Management Science, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 458–467. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2627117 Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve: A review of contemporary Lean thinking”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No.10, pp. 994-1011. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570410558049 Hines, P. and Lethbridge, S. (2008), “New development: creating a lean university”, Public Money and Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 53–56. European Education and Culture Executive Agency: Eurydice (2024), The European higher education area in 2024: Bologna process implementation report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/483185 Klein, L.L., Tonetto, M.S., Avila, L.V. and Moreira, R. (2021), “Management of Lean waste in a public higher education institution”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 286.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125386 Petrusch, A., Roehe Vaccaro, G.L. and Luchese, J. (2019), “They teach, but do they apply? An exploratory survey about the use of Lean thinking in Brazilian higher education institutions”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 743–766. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-07-2017-0089 Kokkinou, A. and van Kollenburg, T. (2023), "Critical success factors of Lean in Higher Education: an international perspective", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 1227-1247. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-04-2022-0076 Wiegel, V. and Brouwer-Hadzialic, L. (2015), “Lessons from higher education: adapting Lean Six Sigma to account for structural differences in application domains”, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 72-85.