Quality Engineering

ISSN: 0898-2112 (Print) 1532-4222 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lqen20

Lean Six Sigma meets data science: Integrating

two approaches based on three case studies

Inez M. Zwetsloot, Alex Kuiper, Thomas S. Akkerhuis & Henk de Koning

To cite this article: Inez M. Zwetsloot, Alex Kuiper, Thomas S. Akkerhuis & Henk de Koning
(2018): Lean Six Sigma meets data science: Integrating two approaches based on three case
studies, Quality Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/08982112.2018.1434892

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08982112.2018.1434892

Accepted author version posted online: 05

Feb 2018.
Published online: 21 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 34

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lqen20
QUALITY ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/./..

Lean Six Sigma meets data science: Integrating two approaches based on three
case studies
a b
Inez M. Zwetsloot , Alex Kuiper , Thomas S. Akkerhuisc , and Henk de Koningd
a
Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; b Department of
Operations Management, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; c Shell Projects and Technology, Royal Dutch Shell, The
Netherlands; d Blackbelt Team, ING Group, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The amount of available data is rapidly increasing, which is an opportunity to the Lean Six Sigma case-study research;
(LSS) methodology. Starting off with a well-established definition of LSS as theoretical foundations we CRISP-DM; data science;
employ theory-generating case-study research. Three successful improvement projects from a large DMAIC; Lean Six Sigma;
process improvement; Six
financial services firm in the Netherlands are analyzed. Clear differences to the definition of LSS are
Sigma method
observed. The research leads to three recommendations for integrating data science in LSS. Concern-
ing the structure of an improvement organization, skills of employees and, practical modifications to
LSS’s celebrated DMAIC roadmap to solidify its applicability in the modern age of data.

Introduction
The amount of data that is generated and stored
increases every day, as does the capacity of computers
to process these data. Competitive advantage can be
obtained by using these data effectively (Manyika
et al. 2011). Large datasets are used for various goals
within organizations, in this article, we consider its
applicability in operations improvement. A variety of
methodologies for operations improvement have been
proposed, such as total quality management, business
process reengineering, lean management, theory of
constraints, Six Sigma, and Lean Six Sigma (LSS). In
this article, we focus on the latter: LSS, since it has been
proven a widely used and successful method (Hahn
et al. 1999; Pande et al. 2000).
LSS consists of a well-established methodological
framework for improving operational efficiency and
effectiveness in organizations (George 2003). It is
mostly known because of its stepwise approach to
improvement, called DMAIC, which is an acronym
for Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control.
The approach is very much like the scientific approach
to problem solving. As a complete methodology, it
also lays out how a culture of effective and lasting
continuous improvement can be realized. For example,
it provides guidelines concerning project selection,
project management, as well as deployment.
LSS projects are data driven: in a first stage, pro-
cess data are collected and baseline performance is
quantified. In a second stage, vital influence factors
are selected and its effects are quantified, leading
to evidence-based improvement actions. Traditionally,
the data collected in a LSS project consist of some pro-
cess characteristics that should be improved (Y) and
some influence factors (X). For a successful project,
typically 30–1000 observations are collected. However,
over the last decades, larger data volumes of a wide vari-
ety of process metrics have become readily available as
a result of rapid developments in IT, automation, sen-
sors, and storage media. The traditional datasets are
looking smaller and smaller compared to the typical
dataset that is available nowadays. Traditional statisti-
cal methods, typically used within LSS projects, like the
t-test and linear regression turn out to be less effective
with larger data sets. Analysis of large data sets require
different tools which have become known as “data sci-
ence” tools (see Section ‘Data science: Definitions and
projects structures’).
Most research in the field of LSS focuses either on
specific tools or analytical techniques that are used

CONTACT Inez M. Zwetsloot i.m.zwetsloot@cityu.edu.hk Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong
Kong College of Science and Engineering, AC- P,  Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonlie.com/lqen.
©  Taylor & Francis
2 I. M. ZWETSLOOT ET AL.
within the approach (e.g., control charts and design of
experiments), or on success factors in developing an
improvement organization (Lameijer et al. 2016). Some
initial ideas have been shared in the commercial liter-
ature on the integration of Lean and Six Sigma on the
one side and big data and data science on the other side
(Auschitzky et al. 2014; Dhawan et al. 2014; Dutcher
2014). Still little is known how to integrate both fields,
whereas it has been recognized by Antony et al. (2017)
that there is a huge opportunity for LSS to use big data
and data science. Therefore, in this article we focus on
the capacity of the methodology to adapt to this devel-
opment. We will pose the term data science LSS for LSS
that revolve around large data sets (big data) and apply-
ing data science tools that are beyond LSS’s standards.
In this article, we investigate what a LSS project that
uses data science techniques looks like. Some examples
of such projects are described by Gaudard et al. (2009),
Köksal et al. (2011), Jang and Jeon (2009), Stojanovic
et al. (2015), and Oliff and Liu (2017). We study three
cases, which are improvements projects at a financial
service provider and compare these to the traditional
LSS approach. We aim to formulate an answer to the
following research questions:
r What distinguishes a data science LSS project
from a traditional LSS improvement project?
r What modifications are needed in order to make
the LSS methodology compatible for projects
based on big data sets and data science tools?
We answer the first question from a descriptive
angle; in which we check whether or not the cases
match the four elements that define LSS according
to Schroeder et al. (2008). By analyzing the case
(within-analysis) and looking for difference among
cases (cross-case analysis) we can formulate an answer
to our first question. The second question has a pre-
scriptive nature in which we try to pinpoint what mod-
ifications are needed to blend LSS with the field of data
science.
This article is structured as follows. In the next sec-
tion, we provide some background on and definitions
of LSS and data science. Afterwards, we provide sum-
maries and highlights of the considered cases. Next, we
analyze each case and perform a cross-case analysis and
we answer our first research question. Following, we
blend data science and LSS by proposing three modifi-
cations. We also answer our second research question.
Finally, we provide guidelines regarding the use of data
science LSS projects and we conclude and discuss our
results.
Methodology and definitions of Lean Six Sigma
and data science
Before discussing the synergy of LSS and data science,
it is important to understand what they are. In the fol-
lowing two subsections, we provide some background.
We assume that the reader has some knowledge of
LSS and a basic understanding of data science. For an
introduction to LSS the reader is referred to De Mast
et al. (2016) and to data science please refer to James
et al. (2013). Finally, we discuss our case-based research
methodology.
Lean Six Sigma
LSS is a methodological framework for establish-
ing continuous improvement within organizations
(De Mast et al. 2016). Although it started out in indus-
try, it has become increasingly popular in other sectors
as well, like healthcare (De Koning et al. 2006), finance
(De Koning et al. 2008; Delgado 2010), and others
(Lameijer et al. 2016).
For the case study in this article, we use the defini-
tion of the methodology by Schroeder et al. (2008). The
definition is based on four elements:
r There is a parallel-meso structure, see Figure 1.
r An improvement specialist leads the project.
r A structured methodology is used prescribed by a
roadmap called DMAIC.
r The goal is to improve performance metrics
within the organization.
Figure . Parallel meso-structure in a LSS organization.

Figure . DMAIC phases and their relations for a LSS improvement
project.
A parallel-meso structure helps to achieve operations
improvement (Raje 2007), because the structure of the
organization is used as a template for the organization
of improvement projects. Figure 1, based on Schroeder
et al. (2008) and Akkerhuis et al. (2015), visualizes such
a parallel-meso structure.
At the core of the (parallel) LSS organizational struc-
ture are the Green and Black Belts (see Figure 1).
These professionals get extensive training in a wide
variety of topics and are therefore improvement spe-
cialists, who are responsible for the execution of the
project. Every project has a Champion: the prob-
lem owner who is accountable for the project. Evi-
dently not all problems have equal priority, so pro-
gram management at the level of senior management
determines the strategy and sets out which prob-
lems are to be tackled first. Finally, Orange and Yel-
low Belts are supporting improvement projects and
are often found on the work floor (De Mast et al.
2016).
LSS offers a structured method for process improve-
ment: the DMAIC cycle, which is used by project lead-
ers as a roadmap to success. Its phases are summa-
rized in Figure 2 and Table 1. The roadmap prescribes
a sequential project trajectory in which every phase
should be discussed with the Champion before the
project can continue to the next phase.
In these DMAIC phases, data are essential. Without
data, the importance of the project cannot be estab-
lished and demonstrated, and more importantly, the
effectiveness of improvement actions cannot be proven.
Table . DMAIC phases of a LSS project (De Mast et al. ).
Define
Measure
Analyze
Improve
Control
QUALITY ENGINEERING 3
However, the amount of data is usually limited since
project leaders often manually collect data to ensure
reliability. As a consequence, 30 observations of the
process metrics are usually considered to be sufficient
to get a good indication of the performance. As a con-
sequence the complexity of statistical tools is relatively
low, and the toolbox is limited to basic tools like analy-
sis of variance and simple linear regression, and graph-
ical methods such as histograms and Pareto charts.
Data science: Definition and project structures
There have been various innovations in statistics and
modeling, which has resulted in new terminology for
working with data. Such as data analytics, which tries to
provide insights by extracting information from data.
In that sense (statistical) analysis is a part of analyt-
ics. Business analytics (Bartlett 2013) focuses on the
insights that data can provide for the business to make
better decisions. Data mining is focused on the applica-
tion of specific algorithms to extract patterns from the
data (Fayyad et al. 1996).
Big data, finally, refers to data mining techniques
that are related to data that adhere to the three Vs:
velocity, volume, and variety, and sometimes also a
fourth V (veracity) (Megahed and Jones-Farmer 2015).
It also refers to the physical practice of data storage
(Sagiroglu and Sinanc 2013). An example of this type of
data is click registration in websites, where the amount
of information that is released cannot be processed by
most storage media. We find that all these data-related
terms fall under the heading of data science. The three
cases considered in this research fall in the definition of
“data science” as they utilize large data sets to provide
insights.
This article focuses on applied data science. Azevedo
and Santos (2008) provide a comparison of vari-
ous industry standards for execution of data science
projects. From their comparison, we conclude that
CRISP-DM, which stands for Cross Industry Standard
Process for Data Mining, is a widely used and most
comprehensive methodology. Figure 3 and Table 2
show the phases and the relations of the methodology
as described by Wirth and Hipp (2000). CRISP-DM is
Select project and project leader and establish objectives and conditions.
Make the problem quantifiable and measurable.
Analyze and diagnose the current situation.
Develop and implement improvement actions.
Control the improved process performance and close the project.
4 I. M. ZWETSLOOT ET AL.
Figure . CRISP-DM phases and their relations for a data science
project.
a methodology consisting of various phases providing
structure to data mining projects. Note that there are
loops in between some of the six phases, which is dis-
tinctive to the five sequential phases prescribed by LSS,
cf. Figure 2.
Case-study research
We use a qualitative case-study research to address
our research questions, see Eisenhardt (1989). Case-
study research is used either inductively or deductively,
to study research questions in the field of operations
management. A comprehensive review is given by Bar-
ratt et al. (2011), where also a standard for inductive
research is given. Our justification for doing case-study
research lies in the fact that there is limited research on
how LSS is, and should be, used in conjunction with
data science.
Our case-study research revolves around three
projects that have been well-documented. We believe
that data science played a crucial role for the success
of these projects. We only consider three cases so that
we can do an in-depth analysis of each case (Voss
et al. 2002). We collected the documentation of these
projects and performed three interviews. To ensure
correctness we shared our within-case analyses with
the employees involved. In a final stage we compare the
Table . CRISP-DM phases of a data science project.
Phase
Business understanding
Data understanding
Data preparation
Modeling
Evaluation
Deployment
events of these cases, with the events that are intended
by the traditional DMAIC approach.
Case-study descriptions
We discuss three projects at a large bank in the
Netherlands. The bank is active in the international
market, has about 50,000 employees and serves about
35 million customers (including small- and medium-
sized enterprises).
The bank has a 10-year history with the LSS method-
ology, as it started in 2007 with some pilot projects.
Nowadays, it has its own operational excellence (OpEx)
team. The team consists of more than 30 employees
with a thorough background in LSS, as most of them
are educated at the level of a Black Belt. The project
leaders have also been trained on the job, using a buddy
system.
In 2014, the organization started to become aware
of the phenomenon called big data, and started to hire
data scientists. It did not take long until these data sci-
entists were also called in to support projects within
the OpEx team. Before they could actually support LSS
projects, they were asked to follow a short course on an
Orange Belt level.
One of the authors was the OpEx team lead. Within
the OpEx team, Black Belts lead the improvement
projects, and the data scientists function as indispens-
able team members. Although Black Belts are full-time
improvers, a data scientist supports LSS projects only
on a part-time basis. Within the OpEx team, Black Belts
manage the data scientists on a functional level, but
outside of the team, this is not necessarily so.
In the next sections, we discuss the three cases. In
the selected projects, data science was vital for suc-
cess and DMAIC was used as template to execute
the projects. We selected these cases because they are
well documented, they involved data scientists (and
would have been unsuccessful without them), they
use complex modeling, the legal department allowed
publication of (some of) the background and results,
and they are judged as successful projects.
Description
Understanding project objectives and requirements from a business perspective.
Initial data collection and familiarization with the data. Assess data quality.
Construct final dataset from raw data.
Build, estimate, and assess data models.
Evaluate model to be certain it properly achieves the business objectives.
Implementation of selected model and documentation.

Case I—Increasing the number of private banking
customers
In August 2014, a project was initiated to increase the
number of private banking (PB) customers; a PB cus-
tomer is a customer with more than 1 million euro
assets. A benchmark revealed that approximately 10
percent of all millionaires in the Netherlands were PB
customers of the bank in case, whereas the overall
market share (in mass segment) was substantially
higher. Therefore, there was an opportunity to grow
the (profitable) PB segment. It was decided that the
focus of this project, in order to realize growth, would
be the acquisition of new PB customers. The goal was
to acquire 320 new PB customers on annual basis. The
selected quality metric (CTQ) was therefore the num-
ber of new PB customers.
The current acquisition process was a one size fits all
process, see the macro process description in Figure 4.
The main problem was that, although bankers reached
out to potential PB customer in their own network, they
only saw limited opportunities and they had too little
leads. Key to being successful was to identify a larger
number of higher quality leads.
During the Analyze phase, the team, consisting of
Black Belts and data scientists, focused on identifying
typical profiles of potential new clients. A model was
built to predict whether a prospect has sufficient assets
and/or he is willing to switch. The model involved ana-
lyzing a vast amount of clients’ behavior to be found in
internal and external databases. In these large datasets
variables and important indicators were obtained from
statistical analysis, but also with the help of private
bankers’ expert knowledge.
In the improvement step the model was used iter-
atively, first the prospects were put into segments and
next for each segment a different proposition was for-
mulated and tested. As a result three different prospect
groups were formulated and correspondingly three
different propositions were developed. Finally, a new
process was implemented based on the segmentation
of prospects into two groups. Both groups receive a
Figure . Macro process for Case I: description of acquisition PB clients.
QUALITY ENGINEERING 5
different treatment and this resulted in high conver-
sion rates from approached prospect to customers. The
final result was approximately 370 new PB customers
(yearly).
Case II—Preventing capital outflow
In November 2014 a project, entitled CANDY, was
initiated with the objective to prevent capital outflow of
the 440,000 so-called personal banking (PerBa) clients.
These clients have between 100,000 and 1,000,000 euro
in assets in their bank account. In the current situ-
ation the amount of outflowing money was approxi-
mately equal to the amount of inflowing money. Reduc-
ing the outflow will therefore increase the banks’ assets,
resulting in significant benefits in terms of interest and
fee income. The selected CTQ was “capital outflow.” To
reach the objective of reducing outflow a project team
was formed consisting of two Black Belts, two data sci-
entists, and a marketer.
An extensive amount of time was spent on prepar-
ing data, in which databases were connected by means
of name matching algorithms and missing values
were corrected with imputation techniques. After these
efforts an initial analysis showed that a substantial part
of outflow was hard to influence (because related to
consumption, paying of a mortgage, etc.), but a sig-
nificant part of the PerBa clients (18,000) restructured
accounts every year. This means that their total amount
of assets does not change, but the division over banks
does, leading to regular outflow of assets to competi-
tors. This part of the outflow was determined as the
project scope in the Analyze phase of the project.
As a next step, customers (exhibiting this kind
of outflow) were clustered into ten groups capturing
75% of the outflow. Segmentation of the clients was
necessary as the total group was too large and very
diverse, rendering any homogenous action to retain
the capital fruitless. It appeared that customers could
be segmented according to their target of outflow. For
instance, some of them typically put their assets at a
“green” bank, others at investment brokers, etc. The
6 I. M. ZWETSLOOT ET AL.
destination of the outflow could easily be related to the
reason of outflow. This segmentation was determined
based on a full year of data which incorporated 96,000
records.
Next, small pilots of 500 e-mails and 50 phone
calls for the five largest segments were used to ver-
ify the segmentation and test possible improvement
actions. A/B-tests (comparing two alternatives: A vs.
B) were used on the e-mail messages. A number of
these outflow segments were targeted with a tailor
made proposition (resulting in small adjustment to
both segmentation and proposition). After this test
period the clustering algorithm was run again, now
on 14 months of data and improvement actions were
implemented. Overall the project resulted in reaching
out to 10,000 customers per year and ensuring that 23
percent less capital left the bank.
Case III—Reducing the number of impairments
Between 2006 and 2013, the amount of costs asso-
ciated with impairments on the mortgage portfolio
had increased roughly 600 percent. In January 2013, a
project was initiated to drastically reduce the number
of impairments. The selected characteristics were the
percentage of customers in arrears, and the amount of
the arrear. They decided to follow the LSS approach,
but included data science elements to build a classifica-
tion model indicating the extent to which the customer
is to become financially self-supporting without help.
An improvement team was formed, consisting of a LSS
Black Belt (providing direction, act as team lead), a data
scientist (building the prediction model), a front office
team (contacting the customers and doing the actual
pilots), and risk (to sanity check and approve of new
processes).
In the current process, clients are contacted as soon
as they are 60 days behind on their payments. Usu-
ally they are contacted only via mail, sometimes they
receive a call. No consistent process was in place.
Approaching the customer earlier, than after 60 days,
would require too much manpower. This seems not
efficient because most payment problems resolve them-
selves without any action from the bank (natural recov-
ery). For this reason, it seemed logical to build a model
enabling to label customers that need help in a very
early stage. First a database needed to be built, this was
one in three steps: (1) extract data from various sources,
(2) build a structured data base, and (3) build a file for
analysis.
In the Analyze phase, the Black Belt noticed that for
some clients, a simple warning might have been enough
because they just forgot to execute the payment. How-
ever, some clients are in serious debt and require a
tailored approach. The Improve phase was aimed at
finding out which client needs which approach. This
is a two-step improvement: finding the correct clients
requires correct segmentation of the clients, and find-
ing an effective approach for each of the segments.
Various techniques were used to classify cus-
tomers (naïve Bayes, decision trees, logistic regression,
k-nearest neighbors, and random forest). Metrics
quantifying the detection probability, but also the
probabilities of false alarm, like the receiver operating
characteristic curve (ROC curve), were applied to
assess the performance of these techniques. The best
performance to handle 17 months of historic data in
terms of speed and accuracy was attained by using
random forests. A number of combinations of seg-
mentation and approach have been tried iteratively,
until a satisfactory client categorization and approach
was obtained. In the end a model was built in which 65
percent of all customer that require help are identified
and in which 25 percent of all customer labeled need
help. Moreover, pilots showed that the number of
impairments was reduced by 34 percent using the new
process. Figure 5 shows the old and the new improved
process timeline.
Three differences between data science LSS and
traditional LSS
In order to answer our first research question “What
distinguishes a data science LSS project from a tra-
ditional LSS improvement project?” we compare the
three cases, described in the previous section, with each
of the elements in the definition of LSS by Schroeder
et al. (2008) as stated above. We present our findings
per element.
Parallel-meso structure: Include data scientists
The original team, named the OpEx team, has had a
place in the organization since 2007, and was func-
tioning at a management level; senior management
assigns task and projects to the OpEx team. Since

Figure . Timeline old and new process for Case III.
2014, the organization has employed data scientists as
it became aware of the importance of data. From then
on, there is a weak hierarchy in the OpEx team, where
data scientists support Black Belts in projects. During
the execution of a project they go to the work floor
and ask the help and involvement of line management
and line personnel for analysis and implementation of
improvements.
Therefore, we conclude that the team’s hierarchy par-
allels that of the entire organization, where a data sci-
entist works for the Black Belt within the improvement
team, both are managed by senior management.
Improvement specialists: Data scientists managed
by Black Belts
In each of the three cases, the projects are led by one
or more full-time Black Belts. These are specialized
employees and have received training in the DMAIC
method, project management, and organizational
politics. These Black Belts are actual improvement
specialists.
The data scientists are not only involved in pro-
cess improvement, but are used throughout the entire
organizations. They are thus not full-time improve-
ment specialists. And this is not necessary, as they are
managed by Black Belts. From our interviews, it
appears that it is considered the Black Belt’s job to trans-
late business questions into research questions for the
data scientists. This does not appear to be easy in all
cases, as the backgrounds of the project leaders and
data scientists are quite different.
The data scientists are necessary for these projects
because they possess essential skills to deal with data.
Especially, evaluating the three case studies on these
skills we observe that data wrangling and skills to deal
with large volumes of data, the application of vari-
ous algorithms and iteratively adjusting and improving
QUALITY ENGINEERING 7
data models are important skills that a data scientist has
in contrast to a LSS professional.
Structured method: Iterative nature not facilitated
From the case descriptions it follows that data science
LSS projects go back and forth between the Improve
phase and the Analyze phase. For example, in Case
I, three iterations were needed from segmentation to
testing of improvements (propositions) before a mean-
ingful division into groups was found. Similarly, in
Case II, the project success depended on iteratively seg-
menting the clients based on their cash outflow. And
also Case III shows an iterative project trajectory. As
the Improve phase was aimed at finding out which
clients needed which approach. This was a two-step
improvement: a number of combinations of segmenta-
tion and improvements had been tried iteratively, until
a satisfactory client categorization and approach was
obtained.
The tremendous amount of data, compared to LSS
projects that use a small sample, allow to zoom in on
customer groups and propose tailored and effective
actions for each group. This search is described, by
the team lead, as an iterative project trajectory, which
differs greatly from the structured sequential method
followed in traditional LSS projects.
Performance metrics: No differences
No noteworthy differences were observed. The projects
of the OpEx team, start with finding the correct CTQs
belonging to the project objectives that are aligned
with the organization’s strategic focal points. Improve-
ment actions are tested before final implementation,
and project success is calculated by comparing baseline
and final performance of these metrics.
8 I. M. ZWETSLOOT ET AL.

Table . Observed differences between data science LSS and the traditional elements of Lean Six Sigma.
Elements of Lean Six Sigma Observations based on three cases

Parallel-meso structure Team of data scientists incorporated in parallel structure and data scientist is part of the improvement team
Improvement specialists Data scientists are managed by improvement specialists
Structured method DMAIC does not facilitate iterative nature of data science-driven project
Performance metrics No differences

For example, in the first case in the define phase
the objective was to acquire 320 new PB customers
belonging to the organization goal of expanding their
business. In the control phase it was already shown
that the project exceeded the expectations by 370 new
PB customers annually. Furthermore, in the other
two cases we see that the focus lies on increasing
market share and improving their customer portfolio,
translated into performance metrics, capital outflow
per year, and the number of customers in arrears.
Both projects revolved on getting these performance
metrics down, which turned out to be a successful
effort as these metrics were decreased by 23% and 34%,
respectively.
Overview: Differences between LSS and data science
LSS
Table 3 summarizes the findings and thereby answers
our first research question. We observe three differ-
ences between data science LSS projects and the tradi-
tional LSS projects organized according to the elements
of LSS defined by Schroeder et al. (2008). First a team
of data scientists is added to the parallel-meso structure
and these data scientists take place in each improve-
ment team. Second, the data scientist is managed by the
Table . Overview of data science tools in LSS projects and its importance for a Black Belt in terms of understanding. Note that the Black
Belt is assisted by data scientists.
Category
improvement specialist. And third, DMAIC is a strictly
sequential methodology and does not facilitate itera-
tions embedded in the data mining process.
The observed differences in Table 3 will help us to
formulate modifications to integrate data science in
LSS, which we will do so in the next section, thereby
answering our second research question. These modi-
fications even amount to suggestions for adapting the
current LSS framework.
Overview: Data science tools used in data science LSS
Table 4 provides an overview of the data science tools
used in data science LSS projects we considered. Based
on the experience of the OpEx team supervisor these
tools are classified in how important this knowledge is
for a Black Belt in this company. For this purpose, we
distinguish cognitive levels based on the taxonomy of
Bloom (Anderson et al. 2001); in increasing order of
understanding we have: remember, apply, analyze, and
evaluate.
Blending data science and Lean Six Sigma
In the previous section, we demonstrated that data sci-
ence LSS projects differ from traditional LSS projects
Tools Importance of knowledge

Data wrangling as part of preparing data Data queries Remember

Data restructuring
Descriptive techniques as part of data analysis Descriptive statistics Evaluate
Boxplot, histogram, control chart
Distributions & probability plots
Clustering as part of finding relevant factors X-means (# groups unknown) Apply
K-means (# groups known)
Principle component analysis Remember
Hierarchical clustering
Topic modeling (text mining)
Regression as part of determining impact Univariate regression Analyze
Multivariate regression Apply
Tree-based methods
Classification as part of determining impact Neural nets Apply
Decision trees
K-nearest neighbors Remember
Naïve Bayes

in three aspects. In this section, we try to formulate
an answer to our second research question; what
modifications are needed in order to make the LSS
methodology compatible for projects based on large
data sets and data science tools?
Data specialists are a necessity in a Lean Six Sigma
organization
The OpEx team modernized its approach to pro-
cess improvement by including data scientists in key
projects, such as the cases described above. According
to the team lead, these data scientists have been impor-
tant in realizing success. Their value to the business
is more general, as demonstrated in scientific litera-
ture. For example, Dahwan et al. (2014) discuss how
combining advanced analytics and lean management
is worthwhile. They stipulate that combining these
two will “typically require forming a small team of
econometrics specialists, operations research experts,
and statisticians familiar with the appropriate [data
analytics] tools.”
Indeed, the amount and complexity of statisti-
cal knowledge required for a successful data science
project, surpasses what can be expected from LSS
project leaders who also need a solid basis of project
management and management skills. The involvement
of improvement specialists has been identified as one
of nine critical success factor for contemporary LSS
projects (Arumugam et al. 2014; Easton and Rosen-
zweig 2012). The data scientist can, in some sense, be
seen as an improvement specialist as well, as he/she is
responsible for a part of the improvement project: the
data analysis and modeling. The project leader remains
responsible for the team and the outcomes, see Figure 6.
Therefore, the first modification we propose is to the
parallel-meso structure.
Modification I: A pool of data scientists should be
available within the parallel LSS organization and data
scientists are to be included in data science LSS projects
as team members.
Unifying two roadmaps CRISP-DM and DMAIC
A second recommendation concerns the blend-
ing of two fields, that is, the field of operations
improvement and the field of doing data science.
Both fields have their own proven roadmaps to suc-
cess, that is, DMAIC and CRISP-DM. Where DMAIC
QUALITY ENGINEERING 9
Figure . Organizational structure for a data science improvement
team.
prescribes a strictly sequential structure, CRISP-DM
allows an iterative structure between its phases (com-
pare Figures 2 and 3).
DMAIC is a problem-driven approach in which a
project is formed to tackle a business problem. Part of
the approach is to make the problem quantifiable and
to collect data. CRISP-DM is focused on data mining
projects in which the data takes center stage from the
start till the end of the project. We believe that the syn-
thesis of both approaches will help both fields to be
more valuable. A sensible starting point is to integrate
the CRISP-DM roadmap into DMAIC, since DMAIC
is problem driven. In addition, the cases demonstrate
that using LSS for these data science projects was bene-
ficial. However, we do need a (large) dataset to start off
with. Integrating both approaches results in the follow-
ing Define phase: select project and project leader and
establish objectives and (data) conditions.
In the Measure phase of DMAIC, we make the
problem quantifiable and measurable. Traditionally, it
means that we relate our project objectives to quan-
tifiable performance metrics (CTQs) followed by vali-
dating the measurement procedures and collecting the
data. A big difference is now that we do not have to
measure the data ourselves, but instead we have data
available. Therefore, the choice of CTQs depend criti-
cally on the available data, or it may be approximated
by (a combination of) other metrics. This trouble spot
is exactly at the intersection between business and data
understanding that can be found in the CRISP-DM
10 I. M. ZWETSLOOT ET AL.

approach. As an example consider Case II in which

an initial data analysis helped define the scope of the
project. After the data and business understanding have
converged the data quality is assessed and prepared for
further analysis.
In the Analyze phase of LSS, we diagnose the current
situation in terms of the CTQ(s), which comprehends
the modeling phase in the CRISP-DM roadmap. It can
occur that the model is too general or incorrectly spec-
ified, since we deviate from Six Sigma’s standards for
doing analyses, since we do not control the data gov-
erning process. In such situation where the model has
to be reconsidered, the project leader may have to go
back to the Measure phase to get additional data from
the databases available and/or has to prepare the data Figure . Integration of CRISP-DM in the DMAIC roadmap.
in another way. Finally, a project leader ends up with an
adequate and applicable model in the Analyze phase. Creating an effective improvement environment
Traditionally in LSS the Improve phase consists of
developing and implementing improvement actions. Data scientists reached employment at the bank in
But, a first critical step in the combined approach, is to quite a different way than the Green or Black Belts
evaluate the model in terms of which factors have the did. They have followed a different type of educa-
biggest impact on the CTQ(s). If the vital influence fac- tion (especially regarding management and business
tors are found the focus is shifted to propose interven- versus statistics and mathematics). We have observed
tions or improvement actions to be put in practice. This that the background of these individuals can be miles
is not a trivial exercise, as one of the case interviews apart. Adequate training is important to bridge this gap
demonstrates: “[we] develop and test propositions for ensuring that these people work together effectively,
homogenous groups in at least three iterations. Deter- which leads to another recommendation.
mine the success of groups (identification and pre- Modification III: Ensure that data scientists have,
dictability) and propositions (impact).” The Improve to some extent, knowledge about LSS, and vice versa:
phase of LSS ends with the project leader translating ensure that improvement specialists have, to some
the intervention in an effect on the CTQ(s), guaran- extent, knowledge about data science.
teeing a direct translation to business impact, which is Specifically, depending on the type of training that
depicted in the CRISP-DM roadmap by an arrow back the Belt has received, the project leader might need
to the Business understanding phase. additional training to better understand what a data
Finally, deployment of CRISP-DM resembles that scientist does, that is, a Black Belt should have thor-
the model is implemented and the documentation is ough understanding of the various tools that are avail-
updated accordingly. This is part of the Control phase able and can be used to tackle problems, cf. Table 4. A
of LSS. In Figure 7 we show our comprehensive data
science LSS model and in Figure 8 the iterative nature
in the DMAIC phases. Furthermore, Figure 7 resonates
Table 4, where data preparation can be categorized
under Measure, data analysis and clustering under
Analyze, and regression and classification belongs to
the DMAIC’s Improve phase.
Modification II: Integrate CRISP-DM in the
DMAIC roadmap. Specifically, relax the sequential
DMAIC roadmap and allow for iterations between Figure . Iterative DMAIC roadmap to facilitate data science LSS
various phases as depicted in Figures 7 and 8. projects.

Figure . Selection matrix of solution methods.
high-level course on data cleaning, multivariate tech-
niques, and machine learning ensures that project lead-
ers can better understand what a data scientist has
to offer and how such a specialist can contribute.
This curriculum can be added to the current body of
knowledge for Black Belts (see, e.g., ASQ 2017). We
hypothesize that such a “data science black belt” may
more effective in leading a successful data science LSS
project.
As team member the data scientist can benefit from
a Yellow/Orange Belt level course, in which the basic
principles of DMAIC are explained.
Project selection matrix: Differentiation between
traditional LSS and data science LSS
As we are differentiating between traditional LSS and
data science LSS projects, a guideline to select the
appropriate methodology is useful. In order to do this
we need to define differentiators between these two
types of projects. We turn to Hoerl and Snee (2013)
who distinguish between two axes in process innova-
tion projects; namely whether a solution for the pro-
cess or problem is known or unknown and whether
the complexity of the problem at hand is high or low.
Figure 9 shows these axis, where we follow the repre-
sentation as provided by Akkerhuis et al. (2015).
In order to differentiate between LSS and data
science LSS projects a third axis has to be added: the
availability of data. In case of low data volumes at
hand the traditional DMAIC project structure should
be followed. However, if high volumes of data are
QUALITY ENGINEERING 11
available, and are to be utilized for the project, the
project should be executed according to the iterative
DMAIC phases and a data scientist should be included
in the project team. Finally we remark that if the com-
plexity is low, the solution is unknown and there is a
lot of data available that a data science analysis would
likely lead to a solution to the problem.
Discussion and conclusion
This article discusses three cases of projects were LSS
is used in conjunction with data science. Case-study
research enabled us to point out differences between
the traditional LSS approach (as defined in Schroeder
et al. 2008) and a combined version in which the LSS
approach has been modified to accommodate opera-
tions improvement based on large data sets and data
science. We provide recommendations to adapt the LSS
framework. We foresee such that this modified frame-
work will dramatically increase the impact of LSS in
modern-day operations improvement and the current
era of increasing importance and availability of data. Of
course additional research is needed to study further
generalizability.
Three differences between traditional LSS and data
science LSS projects
By comparing the three case-study projects to the defi-
nition of LSS as provided by Schroeder et al. (2008) we
observed that LSS projects based on data science differ
regarding three aspects (also see Table 3). First data sci-
entists are part of the parallel organizational structure
12 I. M. ZWETSLOOT ET AL.
and within the project team they are managed by the
improvement specialists (generally the Black Belt). The
third difference is to the DMAIC roadmap. DMAIC
is a sequential framework, whereas data science LSS
projects typically are iterative.
Practical implications and modifications to the LSS
framework
We recommend organizations that use LSS to improve
operations, and strive to use data as a competitive
advantage, that they should (1) form a data science
team and incorporate data scientists into project teams.
Also in order to facilitate a common language, (2)
the data scientist should be trained in basic lean tools
and the Black Belt should be educated to be a “Data
Scientist Black Belt.” We furthermore recommend to
reconsider the exact sequential DMAIC phases that are
traditionally used, and (3) propose to allow for iter-
ations between the DMAIC phases as prescribed by
Figure 8.
Limitations and discussion
A limitation of this research is that we considered one
financial organization and only three cases. We do
believe that (part of) the obtained results are generic.
Practitioners in LSS and data science should consider
this article as a first attempt to support the evolu-
tion of the celebrated LSS methodology into the age of
data.
About the authors
Inez Zwetsloot obtained her master’s degree (M.Phil.) in econo-
metrics from the University of Amsterdam in 2013. Currently,
she works as an assistant professor at the Systems Engineering
and Engineering Management department of City University of
Hong Kong. Previously, she worked for the Institute for Busi-
ness and Industrial Statistics as a Lean Six Sigma consultant and
obtained her Ph.D. at the University of Amsterdam. Her current
research interests include process monitoring, quality engineer-
ing, and quality improvement.
Alex Kuiper obtained his master’s degrees in mathematics
and econometrics at the University of Amsterdam in 2013. He
obtained his Ph.D. at the University of Amsterdam in 2016,
where he has continued to work as an assistant professor. His
current research focuses on operations management in the
application domain of healthcare. Furthermore, he works for the
Institute for Business and Industrial Statistics as a senior consul-
tant in Lean Six Sigma.
Thomas Akkerhuis has a Ph.D. in industrial statistics. Previ-
ously, he was a consultant in Lean Six Sigma and applied statis-
tics at the Institute for Business and Industrial Statistics. Cur-
rently, he works as a consultant in Statistics and Data Science at
Shell Global Solutions.
Henk de Koning has been employed as a Lean Six Sigma
Master Black Belt since 2011 at ING. Currently he fulfills the
role of team Leader of the OpEx team at ING Domestic Bank.
He obtained his Ph.D. at the University of Amsterdam in 2008,
where his research was focused on the effectiveness and appli-
cation of Lean Six Sigma.
ORCID
Inez M. Zwetsloot http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6144-4188
Alex Kuiper http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8408-4018
References
Akkerhuis, T. S., C. M. Spanjaard, S. E. Nuijten, O. G. Berendes,
and R. J. M. M. Does. 2015. Quality quandaries: realizing
strategic focal points at a business school. Quality Engineer-
ing 27 (2):267–273.
Anderson, L. W., D. R. Krathwohl, P. Airasian, K. Cruikshank, R.
Mayer, P. Pintrich, and M. Wittrock. 2001. A taxonomy for
learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxon-
omy. New York: Longman Publishing.
Antony, J., R. Snee, and R. Hoerl. 2017. Lean Six Sigma: yester-
day, today and tomorrow. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management 34 (7):1073–1093.
Arumugam, V., J. Antony, and K. Linderman. 2014. A multilevel
framework of Six Sigma: a systematic review of the litera-
ture, possible extensions and future research. Quality Man-
agement Journal 21 (4):36–61.
ASQ. 2017. Certified Six Sigma black belt body of knowl-
edge. Available at www.asq.org/cert/six-sigma-black-belt
(accessed 18 July 2017).
Auschitzky, E., M. Hammer, and A. Rajagopaul. 2014. How
big data can improve manufacturing. McKinsey & Com-
pany. Accessed August 15, 2017. http://www.mckinsey.
com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/how-big-
d ata-can-improve-manufacturing.
Azevedo, A. and M. F. Santos. 2008. KDD, SEMMA and CRISP-
DM: a parallel overview. Proceedings of IADIS European
Conference on Data Mining:182–185.
Barratt, M., T. Y. Choi, and M. Li. 2011. Qualitative case studies
in operations management: trends, research outcomes, and
future research implications. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment 29 (4):329–342.
Bartlett, R. 2013. A practitioner’s guide to business analytics:
Using data analysis tools to improve your organization’s deci-
sion making and strategy. McGraw Hill Professional, United
States of America.
De Koning, H., J. de Mast, R. J. M. M. Does, T. Simons, and S.
Vermaat. 2008. Generic Lean Six Sigma project definitions

in financial services. The Quality Management Journal 15
(4):32–45.
De Koning, H., J. P. Verver, J. Heuvel, S. Bisgaard, and R. J. M.
M. Does. 2006. Lean Six Sigma in healthcare. Journal for
Healthcare Quality 28 (2):4–11.
De Mast, J., R. J. M. M. Does, and H. De Koning. 2016. Lean Six
Sigma for service and healthcare. Second Edition. Beaumont
Quality Publications, The Netherlands.
Delgado, C., M. Ferreira, and M. Castelo Branco. 2010. The
implementation of LSS in financial services organiza-
tions. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 21
(4):512–523.
Dhawan, R., K. Singh, and A. Tuteja 2014. When big data goes
lean. McKinsey Quarterly 24 (2):97–105.
Dutcher, R. 2014. Capgemini, Linking Big Data to Big
Process Improvement. An Imperative. Capgemini post.
Accessed August 15, 2017. www.capgemini.com/blog/bpo-
thought-process/2014/03/linking-big-data-to-big-p rocess-
improvementan-imperative.
Easton, G. S., and E. D. Rosenzweig. 2012. The role and expe-
rience in six sigma project success: an empirical analysis of
improvement projects. Journal of Operations Management
30 (7–8):481–493.
Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Building theories from case study research.
The Academy of Management Review 14 (4):532–550.
Fayyad, U., G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, and P. Smyth. 1996. From data
mining to knowledge discovery in databases. AI magazine
17 (3):37–54.
Gaudard, M., P. Ramsey, and M. Stephens. 2009. Interactive data
mining informs designed experiments. Quality and Reliabil-
ity Engineering International 25 (3):299–315.
George, M. 2003. Lean Six Sigma for Service. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Hahn, G. J., W. J. Hill, R. W. Hoerl, and S. A. Zinkgraf. 1999.
The impact of Six Sigma improvement—a glimpse into
the future of statistics. The American Statistician 53 (3):
208–215.
Hoerl, R. W., and R. D. Snee. 2013. One size does not fit all:
identifying the right improvement methodology. Quality
Progress 46 (5):48–50.
James, G., D. Witten, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani. 2013. An
introduction to statistical learning. New York: Springer.
Jang, G. S., and J. H. Jeon. 2009. A Six Sigma methodology using
data mining: a case study on Six Sigma project for heat effi-
ciency improvement of a hot stove system in a Korean steel
manufacturing company. In Cutting-Edge Research Topics
QUALITY ENGINEERING 13
on Multiple Criteria Decision Making (72-80). Berlin, Hei-
delberg: Springer.
Köksal, G., İ. Batmaz, and M. C. Testik. 2011. A review of
data mining applications for quality improvement in man-
ufacturing industry. Expert systems with Applications 38
(10):13448–13467.
Lameijer, B., R. J. M. M. Does, and J. De Mast. 2016. Inter-
industry generic Lean Six Sigma project definitions. Inter-
national Journal of Lean Six Sigma 7 (4):369–393.
Manyika, J., M. Chui, B. Brown, J. Bughin, R. Dobbs, C.
Roxburgh, and A. Hung Byers. 2011. McKinsey &
Company. Big data: The next frontier for innovation,
competition, and productivity. Accessed August 15, 2017.
http://www.mckinsey.com/businessfunctions/digital-mcki
nsey/our-insights/big-data-the-next910-frontier-for-innov
ation.
Megahed, F. M., and L. A. Jones-Farmer. 2015. Statistical per-
spective on ‘big data’. Frontiers in statistical quality control
11:29–47. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Oliff, H., and Y. Liu. 2017. Towards Industry 4.0 utilizing data-
mining techniques: a case study on quality improvement.
Procedia CIRP 63:167–172.
Pande, P. S., R. P. Neuman, and R. R. Cavanagh. 2000. The six
sigma way. United States of America: McGraw-Hill.
Raje, P. 2007. Six Sigma maturity model. Available at: https://
www.isixsigma.com/implementation/basics/maturity-mod
el-describes-stages-six-sigma-evolution/ (accessed on 15
August 2017).
Sagiroglu, S., and D. Sinanc, 2013. Big data: A review. In Collab-
oration Technologies and Systems (CTS), IEEE International
Conference on CTS, 42–47.
Schroeder, R. G., K. Linderman, C. Liedtke, and A. S. Choo.
2008. Six Sigma: definition and underlying theory. Journal
of Operations Management 26 (4):536–554.
Stojanovic, N., M. Dinic, and L. Stojanovic. 2015. Big data pro-
cess analytics for continuous process improvement in man-
ufacturing. Big Data, IEEE International Conference on Big
Data, Santa Clara, CA.
Voss, C., N. Tsikriktsis, and M. Frohlich. 2002. Case research in
operations management. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management 22 (2):195–219.
Wirth, R., and J. Hipp. 2000. CRISP-DM: Towards a stan-
dard process model for data mining. In Proceedings of
the 4th international conference on the practical applica-
tions of knowledge discovery and data mining, AAAI Press,
29–39.