Yes, thats definitly possible. In order to be generic the assessment criteria have to be oriented or deduced from the principles of lean rather that the methods or tools. The methods used can be quite different from one company or industry to another. Also one has to understand that in some industries companies will follow the lean principles without actually using the term "lean" to describe what they are doing. For example in Service the term Lean Services is rarely used. Nevertheless the are companies that use and follow the principles of lean very successfully, although they do not consider themselves a "Lean Service" company

1 – An organization that uses original data to frame the idea that the actual practice has promoted significant changes.

2 - Such organization is able to identify through existing data the main barriers that need to be addressed in order for the actual practice to motivate notable management and policy effects.

3 – The organization will then introduce a conceptual normative construct for addressing the design, implementation and evaluation of new structures.

I agree with Philip. Lean is essentially a long term adaptation to circumstances and change in business environment by continuous proactive learning process. Its main measure is continuity (no failing company is "lean"). Total Lean efficiency is measured by E=Q/L , Q measured by kotozukuri, monozukuri and hitozukuri advancements versus L measured by muda and muri reduction. Q is maximized and L zeronized. Simultaneously improvement is needed within each kemba as a system. Current Factor 4 thinking in lean means 4 times improved Q versus 4 times reduced L  for each new product line. Lean is never measured within solely a company or a factory or a line level but within total network and the society it serves and uses (total system view versus single optimization).  Tools are systemic. For instance Kai / Zen has two interacting process; process of change and process of understanding what is good. They are binary as "Kai" is locked (0) for standardised work, "Zen" is active (1) and vice versa.  Lean organisation has a culture for interacting strategic kotozukuri process for business, monozukuri for process and hitozukuri for organisation development. These should be followed. Tools are relevant to see as systemic.

The practices that most clearly distinguished lean and non-lean firms were  just-in-time, group technology, and employee involvement, all of which are internal practices under the sole control of operations management. JIT and GT represent well-defined, easily verifiable practices. One way to view JIT and GT are as “hard” lean practices since physical evidence of their implementation can be readily  verified through inspection of the production floor. One would expect to find  Kanbans in use and the demand pull originating from the customer traceable back through the production line to the raw material. JIT provides the underlying paradigm and mechanisms for production control. Group technology is evidenced by routing sheets and the grouping of equipment into product-family focused cells. The paradigm drives the facilities layout and routing of product through the factory. Both JIT and GT leave hard, physical evidence of their implementation and use. Evidence of employee involvement may be less readily apparent based on physical evidence. Employee involvement represents the soft, less tangible, human resource dimension of lean; the fact that shop floor employees “are the key to problem-solving” and “lead product/process improvement efforts” may not be  readily apparent upon inspection. A more in-depth knowledge of the operation’s workings or discussions with employees would be required to identify the implementation of employee involvement. Regardless of the difficulties in identifying the presence or absence of employee involvement, the salient observation is that it is not solely the hard practices that promote the effectiveness of lean implementations.

Jostein: I read your articles. Thanks for bringing it to my attentions.

You have used the LAT measures quantitative aspects of leanness through eight performance dimensions: time effectiveness, quality, process, cost, human resources, delivery, customer and inventory along with detailed sub-performance indicators.

In the qualitative section, through LAT, you have demonstrates a perceptional view within five performance dimensions: quality, process, customer, human resources and delivery, using 51 items.

Through the choice of fuzzy membership function based on data, you have helped organizations not to collect data for all performance indicators given in LAT.

I have performed a similar study through a set of assessment criteria derived from what is characterized in my article as "a set of world-class measures" for the products and processes. I believe such measures seem to provide better success mainly due to the fact that such assessments are well vetted. They are not simply based on "what an organization considers important or useful for this exercises" but based on what rest of the world economy considers relevant/important for the success of that products and their associated processes.

I have attached a link of the article. Feel free to provide your viewpoints, if any. I will be very interested.

Brian

Article Model for optimizing performance based on reliability, life-...

I see several relevant and interesting answers here. However, most of you point to criteria that are defined through outcomes (e.g. lead time, efficiency, inventory turnover). These are of course important indicators, but they cannot be directly derived from specific techniques, and could result from initiatives that are not necessarily associated with Lean. What I would like to see is a set of criteria that are more oriented towards what is readily observable in the organization (techniques and methods). When we try to do this, we often draw on "canonical" definitions of Lean, and the "level" of Lean will often correspond to the number of methods applied. The problem I have found is that the variation in practice is much greater than in Literature. An emerging issue is thus whether we as researchers have an interpretation/definition of Lean that for the most part does not exist in practice (with few exceptions). This is especially relevant for non-manufacturing organizations. 

I know that some people will disagree with my argumentation. My hope is to create some debate around this issue, and see if we can use this to fuel the progress of the field.

Article Researching Lean: Methodological Implications of Loose Definitions

Interesting.

Lean work practices can be easily defined when one considers it in relation to best/exemplar work practices. Managers may claim they are lean, but the reality may indicate otherwise. If I were to do an assessment, I would look more closely at those things that derail or inhibit lean from being successful at any time. For example, relaxing quality control checks so that production is not delayed, or cutting maintenance or training budget when profit has decreased.

Meanwhile, one needs to consider that every organization is unique in terms of culture, knowledge base, management’s thinking, resources, and a host of other endogenous and exogenous soft variables that are difficult to precisely quantify, measure or track.