Resumen: Over recent decades, the increasing competitiveness of markets has propagated the term “lean” to describe the management concept for improving productivity, quality, and lead time in industrial as well as services operations. Its overuse and linkage to different specifiers (surnames) have created confusion and misunderstanding as the term approximates pragmatic ambiguity. Through a systematic literature review, this study takes a historical perspective to analyze 4962 papers and 20 seminal books in order to clarify the origin, evolution, and diversification of the lean concept. Our main contribution lies in identifying 17 specifiers for the term “lean” and proposing four mechanisms to explain this diversification. Our research results are useful to both academics and practitioners to return to the Lean origins in order to create new research areas and conduct organizational transformations based on solid concepts. We conclude that the use of “lean” as a systemic thinking is likely to be further extended to new research fields. Idioma: Inglés DOI: 10.3390/app112110318 Año: 2021 Publicado en: Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 11, 21 (2021), 10318 [20 pp.] ISSN: 2076-3417 Factor impacto JCR: 2.838 (2021) Categ. JCR: ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY rank: 39 / 92 = 0.424 (2021) - Q2 - T2 Categ. JCR: PHYSICS, APPLIED rank: 76 / 161 = 0.472 (2021) - Q2 - T2 Categ. JCR: MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY rank: 218 / 345 = 0.632 (2021) - Q3 - T2 Categ. JCR: CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY rank: 100 / 180 = 0.556 (2021) - Q3 - T2 Factor impacto CITESCORE: 3.7 - Engineering (Q2) - Materials Science (Q2) - Chemical Engineering (Q2) - Computer Science (Q2) - Physics and Astronomy (Q2)