Production Planning & Control

The Management of Operations

ISSN: 0953-7287 (Print) 1366-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

A novel approach to lean six sigma project

management: a conceptual framework and
empirical application

Raja Sreedharan V & Vijaya Sunder M

To cite this article: Raja Sreedharan V & Vijaya Sunder M (2018) A novel approach to lean six
sigma project management: a conceptual framework and empirical application, Production Planning
& Control, 29:11, 895-907, DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2018.1492042

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1492042

Published online: 15 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppc20
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
2018, VOL. 29, NO. 11, 895–907
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1492042

A novel approach to lean six sigma project management: a conceptual

framework and empirical application
Raja Sreedharan Va and Vijaya Sunder Mb,c
a
Department of Management, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, India; bDepartment of Management Studies, Indian Institute of
Technology – Madras, Chennai, India; cHead – Business Process Excellence, The World Bank Group, Chennai, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The recent evolution of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) presents a potent combination of the speed of Lean and Received 31 October 2017
the robustness of Six Sigma. Literature shows significant application of DMAIC (Define-Measure- Accepted 18 June 2018
Analyse-Improve-Control) framework in LSS projects. Many studies suggest that LSS makes a positive
contribution towards the effectiveness of organisations. However, a few studies also suggest that
KEYWORDS
organisations find DMAIC projects problematic, and in many cases ineffective. We investigate and Assessment; Lean Six Sigma
resolve this paradox by conceptualising a novel LSS framework, and further test it for practical implica- (LSS); DMAIC; SDMMAICS;
tions. A four-phase methodology is used. In phase-1, relevant data is pooled from multiple sources framework; pro-
including the literature, semi-structured interviews and questionnaire-based survey in the scope of the ject management
manufacturing sector. The pooled data is classified and analysed in Phase-2. Phase-3 focused on devel-
opment of the conceptual framework, and Phase-4 aimed to test the conceptual framework in select
manufacturing firms in real-world environment. This study reveals focused gaps and shortcomings of
the DMAIC framework for LSS project management. Secondly, we propose a novel approach to LSS
project management by conceptualising ‘SDMMAICS’ framework. Thirdly, we validated the conceptual
framework in real-world. Finally, the practical implications were discussed to add value to both
researchers and practitioners.

1. Introduction with this amalgamation (Sunder, 2016c). Rather it has been

Since the initiation of Six Sigma methodology, which later
evolved to Lean Six Sigma (LSS) (Sunder, Ganesh, and
Marathe 2018) recently, the usage and acceptability of
DMAIC (Define-Measure-Analyse-Measure-Control) framework
for project management has been evident in both researcher
and practitioner communities. LSS methodology recom-
mends a mix of appropriate tools from the Lean toolkit and
Six Sigma across different phases of a DMAIC project (Kumar
et al. 2006; Vinodh, Gautham, and Ramiya 2011; Sunder
2013a; Shamsuzzaman et al. 2018). Many thinkers appreci-
ated this DMAIC framework and claimed it as most reputed
and influential in the application (Sunder 2013b; Sreedharan
and Raju 2016; Ruben, Vinodh, and Asokan 2017). In fact,
Chakravorty and Shah (2012) attributed the success of LSS
project management to the DMAIC framework. Hence, with-
out much confusion it has been accepted by many organisa-
tions that LSS DMAIC framework is an essential component
of the success of LSS projects, with less importance to its re-
emergence from its predecessor- Six Sigma (Bhasin 2015).
However, literature also shows certain criticisms towards
DMAIC framework. Not all organisations have gained real
benefits from DMAIC and a few rendered it as ineffective
(Albliwi et al. 2014). Despite LSS being a hybrid methodology
for process improvement, with synergies between Lean and
Six Sigma, the DMAIC framework has not been adapted
used in the same format as in the Six Sigma methodology,
leading to many gaps unaddressed. Few of them include
the criteria for project selection, mapping the process, and
ensuring the sustainability of the process etc. (Pepper and
Spedding 2010). One of the key reasons why a few organi-
sations fail to implement LSS projects successfully is the
lack of clear guidelines in DMAIC that describe when,
where, and how to implement the conceptual and context-
ual aspects of LSS (Kwok and Tummala 1998; Mohammad
et al. 2009). Further, many authors (Kumar et al. 2006;
Thomas et al. 2008; Pepper and Spedding 2010; Vinodh,
Gautham, and Ramiya 2011) stated that there are no clear
guidelines for LSS projects in early stages of project man-
agement. Some authors claimed that to the synergy of
Lean and Six Sigma leads to a variety of tools which is
why it is hard to understand and complex to use them.
(Kumar et al. 2006; N€aslund 2008; Thomas et al. 2008;
Laureani, Antony, and Douglas 2010; Albliwi et al. 2015). A
few authors (George and George 2003; Pepper and
Spedding 2010; Snee 2010; Sunder 2015) have urged the
need for a comprehensive LSS model to address sustain-
ability issues in project management. Hence, the purpose
of this study is to address such gaps within LSS method-
ology and develop a customised framework for the
application.

CONTACT Vijaya Sunder M mvijayasunder@gmail.com Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology – Madras, Chennai, India
ß 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
896 R. SREEDHARAN V AND V. SUNDER M
This article is presented in seven sections. The introduc-
tion is followed by the theoretical background and motiv-
ation for this study. Section 3 explains about the four-phased
methodology used for the study. Section 4 elaborates the
conceptual framework towards theory building, and Section
5 validates this theory by testing the framework in the real-
world scenario through two case studies. Lessons learned
and practical implications are discussed in Section 6,
followed by a conclusion.
2. Literature review
2.1. Limitations and shortcomings of DMAIC framework
Critics claimed that DMAIC methodology has scope for
enhancement (Senapati 2004). Nasuland (2008) argued that
DMAIC cycle is quite like Deming’s quality wheel. Hammer
and Goding (2001) criticised Six Sigma DMAIC as ‘Total
Quality Management on Steroid,’ and Catherwood (2002)
claimed that DMAIC repackages traditional principles and
techniques related to quality. Johnson and Swisher (2003)
suggested that picking and selecting strategic projects is
essential. Antony (2008) endorsed this claim stating ‘ … it is
important to ensure that early applications of DMAIC have a
very high probability of success.’ Subsequently, many authors
like Gijo and Rao (2005), Shanmugam (2007), Chakravorty
and Aakash (2012) have highlighted that the main reason for
failure is the incorrect selection of projects. In addition, this
becomes more evident when the projects are not aligned
with business strategy (Parr 2006; Ramu 2007; Kornfeld and
Kara 2013; Vinodh, Kumar, and Vimal 2014; Sreedharan, Raju,
and Srivatsa Srinivas 2017).
Projects could fail when they have a different focus
(Cudney and Elrod 2011), not aligned with the business
goals (Snee 2010). Projects with unrealistic scope (Hariharan
2006) and inappropriate methods (Kornfeld and Kara 2013)
leads to failure. Projects fail to deliver if poorly defined
(Koning et al. 2006; Snee 2010; Li et al. 2011). Pepper and
Spedding (2010) has pointed out the absence of clear
guidelines for LSS implementation in early stages for pro-
ject management in DMAIC.
Another important aspect of project management that is
not appropriately addressed in DMAIC is the sustainability
of results (McLean, Antony, and Dahlgaard 2017). Projects
suffer when the team is too quick to move onto the next
project before ensuring the sustainability of the proposed
improvements for the previous project for a significant
term (Pinedo-Cuenca, Gonzalez Olalla and Setijono 2012).
Sustaining a project is a daunting task, where many firms
struggle (Timans et al. 2016). With a focus on continuous
improvement, LSS emphasises on the long-term sustainabil-
ity of the project benefits, but this is not addressed in the
DMAIC framework (Oakland 2003; Kumar, Antony, and
Tiwari 2011; Antony, Gijo, and nChilde 2012; Shamsuzzaman
et al. 2018). Hilton and Sohal (2012) brought out the
importance of the Master Black Belts (MBBs) and Black Belts
(BBs) contribution for the successful deployment of LSS in
a conceptual manner. But, it failed to emphasise on the
hurdles met by the MBBs in an organisational environment.
Nordin et al. (2012) proposed an organisational change
management model for a lean environment which failed to
test in real life scenario. As per Zu and Fredendall (2009),
Six Sigma implementation fails due to lack of employee
involvement and poor knowledge of tools. Jones, Parast,
and Adams (2010) conceptualised a model for Six Sigma
implementation, but the model was not validated in an
industrial setting. Hagen (2010) developed a training mod-
ule for Six Sigma program, but the robustness of the
model is yet to be validated. Natarajan et al. (2010) pro-
posed a model for applying Six Sigma to achieve continu-
ous quality and reliability improvement in new product
development. However, the main limitation of the study
was the hypothetical case. So, rigor methods are needed to
validate the findings. Kumar, Antony, and Tiwari (2011)
highlighted that CI initiatives have failed due to lack of
understanding of the project and failure in linking the CI
initiative to the business goals. So, a customised LSS model
should overcome these issues. Sunder and Antony (2015)
developed a Six-sigma model for improving ‘Customer
Satisfaction’ in the banking sector. The main limitations of
the model were service-centric and cannot be implemented
in a manufacturing environment. Sunder (2016b) developed
an LSS model for stakeholder’s management. The model
highlighted the stakeholder’s influence on the different
stages of an LSS project, which is first of its kind.
Nevertheless, model applicability was constrained to the
service sector. Moreover, LSS project risk has as an uncer-
tain event or condition, and, if it occurs, has a counterpro-
ductive effect on the project’s goals (Delgado, Ferreira, and
Castelo Branco 2010; Chiarini and Bracci 2013).
Other existing LSS frameworks: Despite the nature of the
quality program, it is quite common for DMAIC to coexist
with other improvement initiatives like Kaizen, 5S, etc. But,
the original DMAIC framework did not accommodate any
Lean tool usage. So, introducing the Lean tools will enhance
the capability of the DMAIC approach (Snee 2005; Ricondo
and Viles 2005; Bendell 2006). De Mast and Lokkerbol (2012)
emphasised that Six Sigma’s DMAIC focuses on problems
regarding facts and measurable variables and drives the pro-
ject leaders to achieve it; rather it should focus on the peo-
ple problems which are ambiguous and subjective.
Moreover, DMAIC didn’t explore differences of opinion, per-
sonal views, and people interest towards a project. Shah,
Chandrasekaran, and Linderman (2008) proved that lean
method improves the likelihood of implementing Six Sigma
methods. And, emphasised the need for easy tool usage for
lean projects. Aurelio, Grilo, and Cruz-Machado (2011) devel-
oped a model for evaluating lean projects using AHP
approach. The model focus on choosing the lean project
rather than guiding the project towards completion. Later,
Hoppmann et al. (2011) developed a Lean model for product
development. But, the model development entirely depends
on the literature findings and was not evaluated by the sub-
ject experts for implementation. A similar study by Letens,
Farris, and Aken (2011) developed a multilevel model for
lean product development system design. The model was

particularly for product development environment and was
not customisable by the managers for other projects.
2.1. Motivation for the study
From the literature review, limitations of the DMAIC frame-
work and shortcomings of other existing LSS frameworks
were highlighted, and this shows that there is a need for a
novel approach to conduct LSS projects. Seeking this as a
valuable opportunity, the researchers aim to conceptualise a
new framework and validate its application for LSS pro-
ject management.
3. Methodology
Researchers used a four-phased methodology for this study.
Firstly, the researchers explored the relevant data from mul-
tiple resources, which include structured scholarly literature
review, semi-structured interviews with top management
personnel who lead LSS deployments in selected manufac-
turing firms across four countries, and a questionnaire-based
survey targeting LSS leaders from manufacturing sector from
the same four countries. Secondly, performed analysis on the
data obtained by these methods and identified focused gaps
existing in the DMAIC methodology to conduct LSS projects.
Then, developed a conceptual framework as an alternative to
DMAIC, for LSS project management, which could overcome
the gaps, identified. Finally, tested the conceptual framework
in two reputed manufacturing firms in their LSS projects to
derive practical implications.
3.1. Phase1: Pooling of relevant data from
multiple sources
Per Stasser and Titus (1985), ‘Pooling’ technique helps to
derive data from various resources to arrive at more
informed decisions, which would not be possible relying on
a single source of data. Further, it acts as a corrective func-
tion when members have incomplete and biased informa-
tion, but all the pieces of information put together could
lead to an unbiased picture. As part of the pooling strategy,
the researchers gathered the data using three differ-
ent methods.
1. A structured review of the relevant scholarly literature:
An online search was performed among the top aca-
demic journals across four databases (Science Direct,
Emerald, Taylor and Francis, and Springer) with key-
words ‘Lean Six Sigma’ and ‘LSS’ and a total of 318
papers were identified within 2003 to 2015 timeframe.
From the literature review, 118 articles were found rele-
vant to the manufacturing sector. Then excluded the
items that were not relevant to project management
frameworks in the context of Lean/Six Sigma/Lean Six
Sigma and this filter resulted in 42 papers. Full paper
reading of these 42 papers helped us to identify 17 rele-
vant articles which discussed the key implementation
issues in the existing frameworks. A deeper
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 897
understanding of these 17 articles helped us to identify
the current key models/characteristics relevant to the
subject under study. However, it is probable that there
may exist a few papers that were unintentionally not
investigated as a part of this study.
2. Semi-structured interviews: Over the span of 18 months,
two researchers conducted multiple retrospectives semi-
structured interviews with LSS deployment leaders from
31 manufacturing organisations (one representative per
organisation) across four different countries (USA, UK,
Netherlands, and India). The purpose of the interviews
was to discuss and understand the challenges in LSS
project management from the practitioner community
on various frameworks/characteristics identified from the
literature review. Industry experts at LSS Master Black
Belt level, holding senior positions in these organisa-
tions, with an average experience of 12 years in deploy-
ing various process improvement initiatives were
selected for this purpose. This sample group represented
homogeneity concerning their knowledge and expertise
in LSS, and heterogeneity about their experiences of LSS
project management in organisational context, as they
represent 31 distinct firms. The Researchers had an
opportunity to meet each of the 31 participants indi-
vidually in three rounds of interviews (93 interviews in
total), which helped us to derive relevant, meaningful
data as gaps existing in DMAIC approach.
3. Questionnaire-based survey: Our third resource in the
pooling process was an online questionnaire with a pur-
pose to gather the existing gaps in various process
improvement models identified and to explore the mag-
nitude of these gaps on a Likert scale. The researchers
developed a questionnaire in line with Strauss and
Corbin (1998), comprising of 50 such questions organ-
ised into five sections. These include: (1) Awareness –
organisation’s ability identify appropriate Process
Improvement practices, (2) knowledge of LSS principles,
(3) usage of various LSS tools in projects, (4) synergies
of Lean and Six Sigma, (5) perception of LSS frameworks
for project management. The sample participants were
contacted in advance via telephone and email, to whom
a covering letter and information sheet were emailed
with a brief background of our study and explaining
about the LSS models/characteristics considered in-
scope. The information sheet also included an invitation
with an online link to participate in the study. Before
responding to the survey, the respondents were assisted
via telephone by us, to eliminate bias in responses due
to the misunderstanding of questions (Corbin and
Strauss 2008). The survey was rolled out to 60 LSS prac-
titioners across four countries and consciously restricted
the scope of respondents to USA, UK, Netherlands, and
India to maintain consistency of data collected in Step-2.
41 participants responded to the survey with a response
rate of 63%. The responses helped us to identify poten-
tial ways to bridge the gaps of the existing models and
to identify what should go into the proposed conceptual
model for effective LSS project management.
898 R. SREEDHARAN V AND V. SUNDER M
3.2. Phase2: Classification and analysis of pooled data
The researchers created an MS Excel database with data
acquired, in Phase-1. The pooled data were classified based
on following criteria:
1. Classification based on LSS project management life
cycle: LSS project selection, project execution and pro-
ject monitoring for sustaining the results.
2. Classification based on modes of performance: In-house
deployment of LSS vs. deployment by engaging external
consultants.
3. Classification based on types of challenges in LSS proj-
ects. These included categories like organisational know-
ledge of LSS, perceptions, awareness level across the
staff, penetration of different levels LSS training across
business units, management commitment, program gov-
ernance, LSS projects completed, total team participa-
tion, creating a continuous improvement mindset,
participative leadership, etc.
4. Classification based on LSS tools used across different
stages of LSS project life cycle.
5. Classification based on success/failure of LSS projects
regarding returns on investment (ROI) in organisations.
The classification framework helped us to investigate and
analyse the gaps existing in the LSS DMAIC methodology
leading us to devise an alternative conceptual framework for
LSS project management.
3.3. Phase3: Development of a conceptual framework
Bringing the expertise from both practitioners and academi-
cians together in the data collection offered opportunities to
develop a model fit to practical use (De Villiers, Woodside,
and Marshall 2016; Timans et al. 2016). Based on the findings
of our analysis, a new conceptual framework ‘SDMMAICS’
(Select, Define, Measure, Map, Analyse, Improve, Control,
Sustain) was developed as part of this study. At every stage
of the SDMMAICS framework, the existing LSS toolkit was
categorised for the appropriate use of the LSS practitioners
(project managers). A systematic deployment strategy was
then devised for the deployment of the proposed conceptual
framework, suitable for the context of the manufactur-
ing sector.
3.4. Phase 4: Testing the conceptual framework in a
real-time environment
Studying and testing the applicability of theories strengthens
them. Despite the acknowledged practical value of opera-
tions management theories and methodologies, their rele-
vance has attracted criticism due to lack of testing them in
the real-time environments (Slack, Lewis and Bates 2014;
Boer et al. 2015). To further the cause of our theoretical con-
tribution through the development of SDMMAICS (concep-
tual) framework, researchers conducted an empirical
investigation of the same through testing the model via
action research in effecting LSS process improvement proj-
ects in two global manufacturing organisations. Lessons
learned, theoretical contributions and practical implications
are discussed in Section 5 and Section 6 of this paper.
4. The conceptual framework
4.1. Overview
This paper develops a new LSS project management frame-
work based on the data collected from the manufacturing
sector. The SDMMAICS framework aims to bridge the gaps
existing in the LSS DMAIC in general, i.e. all the conceivable
organisations on earth. Though, the researchers firmly
endorse the applicability of the model in the scope of the
manufacturing sector (since the data is collected from manu-
facturing firms), by proper validation and needed customiza-
tion, the same could be applied even in services firms.
Finally, although the main objective of the model is to sup-
port effective LSS project management, it is flexible enough
to serve different purposes in contrast with the analysed
data sources. Such purposes could be formalised to overall
LSS deployment in organisations, stakeholder’s management
in the course of LSS projects, sustaining the improve-
ments, etc.
The SDMMAICS framework comprises of eight stages of
LSS project management: (1) Selection (2) Define (3) Measure
(4) Map (5) Analyse (6) Improve (7) Control and (8) Sustain.
Subsequently, various activities across these stages are bro-
ken down into sub-activities that need to be accomplished
during LSS projects. Figure 1 shows the overview of
these stages.
4.2. Selection
This stage of the project aims to make the right selection of
LSS projects aligned with business priorities. Breyfogle (2008)
claims that there is no single standard to define appropriate-
ness of LSS projects, nevertheless not all business projects
could be solved by LSS way (Sunder 2013a). Incorrect project
selection could lead to wastage of resources and causes
potential wrong perceptions amongst the staff about the
overall LSS implementation. Project selection matrix is rec-
ommended as a tool at this phase which could scientifically
prioritise the project opportunities based on a defined criter-
ion, which could include the availability of resources, accept-
ability/resistance of expected changes, process risk, or
business/customer requirements or process health defined
by key performance indicators. A situational assessment of
overall corporate priorities and their alignment regarding the
project selection decision is recommended in this phase.
Another important step, which needs to be completed dur-
ing the ‘Selection’ stage, is estimating the ROI or potential
benefits that the project could deliver (Sreedharan, Raju, and
Srivatsa Srinivas 2018). It is important to convince the project
sponsors with direct comparison to the ROI/profit benefits
achieved by the LSS projects in the past.

Figure 1. Overview of SDMMAICS framework.
4.3. Define
At this stage, the team should have access to some existing
data (baseline) that could justify the business problem.
Moreover, the process issues have to be established through
data validation. Therefore, the project team can create a
problem statement with clarifying ‘how big is the problem’
that needs to be addressed by the project with details about
severity, business impact/consequences of the problem with
process specifications (Li et al. 2011). A suitable goal state-
ment needs to be devised which could clarify the measures
of success of the project from the current problem state.
Then, the project manager is expected to create a project
charter document highlighting problem statement, goal, a
project team with roles and responsibilities. Usually, Black
Belts would hold this responsibility of creation and presenta-
tion of the project charter to the senior management, seek-
ing sponsorship to kick-start the LSS project formally. The
classic LSS tool which can come handy at Define phase is
SIPOC (which stands for Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs,
and Customers), which helps the project team to get a bird’s
eye view of the end-end process with defined boundaries to
clarify the scope.
4.4. Measure
At this stage, data collection plan is devised by the project
manager to validate the business problem with process-spe-
cific data. And, the data collected is more detailed about the
process output when compared with the baseline data
shown in the project charter. It is advised to validate the
accuracy and precision of the data collection system before
rolling out the data collection plan. Standard LSS tools like
Measurement system analysis, Gage R-R could be handy for
this purpose. These are recommended objective methods to
assess the validity of a data measurement system to reduce
the factors contributing to the process variation that is aris-
ing from the measurement gauge (Larsen 2003). Then, the
project team is expected to calculate the process capability
(current health of the process on the sigma scale) using the
data collected.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 899
4.5. Map
Researchers emphasise this stage of the project attributing
to Womack and Jones (2005) per whom … The key word for
improvement is ‘process’ defined as a continuing set of activ-
ities linking many goods and services to solve consumer
problems (Seth et al. 2017). For producers and providers
(whether employees, managers, or entrepreneurs), develop-
ing robust processes requires determining how to configure
linked business activities, especially across firms, to meet cus-
tomer needs without squandering their own or the consum-
er’s time, effort, and resources (Barney 2003; Zhang et al.
2015; Kumar and Parameshwaran 2018).
Introduction of ‘Map’ phase to LSS project management is
to strengthen the process perspectives of Lean in LSS (Hines
and Rich 1997). Lean tools like Value Stream Mapping (VSM),
process mapping, flowcharting, etc., are a few scientific tools
recommended at this stage. These tools not only help under-
stand the process end to end but also provide the visual
indication of the business value-stream. And, helps in speci-
fying the Value-added against non-value added activities in
the process with few process metrics like lead time, takt
time, etc. In the traditional LSS DMAIC framework, it is
believed that lack of data-oriented technical skills will be a
hurdle for LSS implementation (Thomas et al. 2008;
Franchetti and Yanik 2011). The introduction of ‘Map’ phase
breaks that myth, by providing process-oriented tools to
identify causes by observatory methods, as not all staff in
organisations are comfortable with rigorous data analysis
tools. Further, this phase of the project helps to better iden-
tify and understand different types of wastes within and
between processes.
4.6. Analyse
After creating, verifying and examining detailed process
maps in the previous phases, the team will be able to list
concerns or pain points within the process. But process per-
spectives of the problem alone do not give a holistic idea of
the causes. Because ‘Map’ phase provides information about
the process metrics, but through data analysis, the metrics
become more meaningful and useable. However, the authors
900 R. SREEDHARAN V AND V. SUNDER M
do not recommend mere data analysis to LSS project manag-
ers. In fact, during the semi-structured interviews, the 82% of
the participants expressed concerns of LSS data toolkit which
is not easier to understand by all types of staff. Hence,
‘Analyse’ phase needs to be looked at both data and process
perspectives which allows the appropriate usage of the col-
lective wisdom of subject matter experts in the respective
business processes. Alongside standard ‘Analyse’ tools like
Cause-Effect Analysis, other process analysis tools like, Value
Analysis are recommended at this stage which helps to iden-
tify the causes of the problem (Srinivasan et al. 2016).
4.7. Improve
The ‘Improve’ phase leads to determine the solutions by
attacking the identified causes of the problem that the pro-
ject goals to address. It involves both logical and out of box
thinking styles, and hence, all project team members across
all levels of the organisation need to be empowered to play
a critical role at this stage. More, structured thinking tools
like the pugh matrix, benchmarking the best practice could
be few of the techniques recommended (Kreye 2016). Later,
the solutions are then prioritised based on parameters, which
include cost, time to implement, feasibility and availability of
resources, etc. Experimentation is another recommended
tool which helps to create simulations to visualise the output
of the proposed process changes, which in turn contributes
to obtaining the sponsorship from the top management
(project sponsor) for proceeding towards improvements (spe-
cifically where cost is involved). Often pilot improvements
are conducted before a full-scale rollout of improvements. In
many cases, a project team can employ a list of improve-
ments to the processes, but when they are forced to choose
between different options, tools like the Weighted Criteria
Matrix, Pugh Matrix, etc., could be handy (Kumar and
Parameshwaran 2018). With practical solutions in mind to
reduce rework loops, waste and wait times, the team can
draw an improved map of the process called as ‘To-be’ map.
Experimentations following simulations, to-be process maps
and cost-benefit analysis of solutions are few of the scientific
stakeholder management tools to obtain consent from the
project sponsors towards proceeding with the improve-
ment plan.
4.8. Control
This phase is about continuous monitoring the results post
implementation of changes as per the agreed improvement
plan. Control charts and visual dashboards could be handy
for this purpose. The control of the process leads to high-
light the real value of the improvements and help to gauge
the resistance, which could potentially come from the staff
who are used to old processes and convey resistance to the
new changes implemented (Kumar and Parameshwaran
2018). Post-monitoring the process for a given period (gener-
ally 4–6 weeks), project managers are expected to statistically
validate the process metric data comparing before vs. after
improvements to justify the value addition of the project to
the top management. Softer aspects like change manage-
ment, devising and implementing effective communications
strategy, highlighting the importance of change with data
and outcomes could be few of the techniques which project
managers are recommended to use at this stage
(Shamsuzzaman et al. 2018). The project team would be
expected to standardise and document the new process suc-
cessfully, create training plans, standard operating proce-
dures, and reference materials, and establish a mechanism
for ongoing process monitoring, by the end of this phase.
4.9. Sustain
Regarding the data collected as part of this study, the
researchers found out that many Lean, Six Sigma, and Lean
Six Sigma projects suffer from lack of sustenance of results.
Though the process metrics show significant improvement in
the Control phase, deviating from the project goal after
some months is often seen phenomena. Therefore, it implies
that the project is not successful if improvements cannot be
sustained (Pickrell, Lyons, and Shaver 2005; Maleyeff,
Arnheiter, and Venkateswaran 2012; Chiarini and Bracci
2013). This phase extends the project post control phase for
more monitoring and creating aids to control the process for
stability. Control mechanisms include mistake-proofing, escal-
ation matrix, periodic process governance as part of the cul-
ture, etc. Researchers strongly recommend using control
charts to monitor the process at this stage. However, control
charts are merely indicators of process control, but they do
not control the process. Defining the ownership of the
changed process to the process managers from the project
manager becomes essential at this stage, so that even after
the movement of the business case from project mode to
operation mode, the results are owned by specific personnel.
Further publishing dashboards about the process health
through metric-dashboards or implementations of Andon
and Jidoka techniques could be handy at this stage. Though
LSS projects are considered completed at the end of Control
phase, they are recommended to be formally closed only
after 2–3 months of monitoring as part of the Sustain phase.
So, the Sustain phase put forth how the learning from the
previous phases could be applied, transferred and shared
across the organisation to yield benefits on a long-term
basis. The idea behind including this phase was to ensure
the benefits and knowledge generated from LSS projects get
sustained on a long-term basis.
The authors have summarised the above discussion of
various activities and relevant recommended LSS tools at
each stage of the SDMMAICS model in Table 1 and Table 2.
The list of tools mentioned here is not an exhaustive LSS
toolkit, but a representation of our pooling process. Project
managers are recommended to apply their intuition and
logical discretion in selection and application of LSS tools
based on the project context, as no one tool suits all busi-
ness needs (Sunder 2016a).
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 901

Table 1. Summary of various activities in each phase of SDMMAICS model.

Phases Activities
Selection Project selection team Situational assessment Stake holder assessment Business case and risk analysis
Define Identify potential value project Clarify the clear goals Develop the plan Guiding team members
Measure Data collection plan Data gathering Measure variation
Map Identify the problem areas Understanding the Predict currently what Identify and eliminate waste
entire process is happening and inefficiency exist
Analysis Analyse all the (historical data Map the C and E relationships Identify defects, process delay
may give weakness) and quality problems
information
Improve Generate the new ideas based Apply it by using tools Select the best alternatives 5S, pull system, SMED, TPM
on analyse phase and techniques
Control Standardise the process Document the procedure Clearly explain it and Plan for how to implement
gives training successfully
Sustain At fixed intervals continuously Sustain the project process Prepare the documentation Pass the document to
analyse the results until comes new one upper management

Table 2. Summary of various LSS tools in each phase of SDMMAICS model.

Phases Tools
Selection Project selection matrix Force field analysis
Define Project charter RACI chart SIPOC diagram
Measure Pareto diagram Fishbone Control charts Measurement system analysis (MSA),
Map Value stream mapping Takt calculation and Work balance
Analysis ANOVA C and E Matrices Regression analysis FMEA
Improve Pilot plan Projects plan Hypothesis test Pugh matrix
Control Control charts Poke yoke-prevention, detection Control plan Response plan
Sustain Bench marking Base lining Forecasting tools

5. Validation of framework and applicability

5.1 Case-a
Company A started in September 98 with the main aim to
serve original equipment manufacturer in the automotive
sector with high-quality components at competitive prices.
The plant was set up to manufacture transmission shafts for
the automotive transmission line. These machines were
selected to meet the quality requirements of the OEMs and
also cost aspects of the present day competitive market. The
machining line consists of the high production machine to
induction harden components. The activities are already
started towards implementation of quality standards to meet
ISO 9001: 2015.
The study uses SDMMAICS framework for improving the
organisation performance. As per the LSS deployment plan,
the first Champion meet the CEO to get the approval for
starting an LSS project. Once, the LSS project gets approved
the business managers and the Master Black Belt (MBB) form
a team for the LSS deployment to identify the opportunity
for improvement. It started with the first phase of selecting a
problem, which can yield good results and help cost savings
through quick wins. Forcefield analysis was preferred.
Forcefield analysis is about the change in an institutional set-
ting by balancing both the restraining and driving forces in a
project. An imbalance in the forces causes change in focus
for business objective leading to poor project selection
(Baulcomb 2003; Thakkar, Deshmukh, and Kanda 2006).
The current quality level requires accurate measurement
to ensure improvement. With the scope of this study limited
to the reduction of the internal rejection rate, an investiga-
tion of this data of the past six months (July 2015 to Jan
2016) led to an understanding of the problem. The data of
the past six months alone was taken into consideration as it
Figure 2. Pareto analysis – Cost of rejection vs part no.
would reflect the current issues and production rate. The
company manufactures parts for the farm equipment like
tractor and earth movers. So, to identify the cause of failure
all the parts were studied based on the rejection cost and
rejection rate to determine the most contributing part in
the company
Figure 2 showed that four parts were contributing to 80%
of the total number of defectives as well as with costs of
about Rs 8,32,800 annually. From the rejection rate, the team
focused on these components to reduce the defects and ini-
tiate cost savings. Thus, these four parts were shortlisted for
further analysis.0719552 M02 – PTO (Power take off Shaft)
 1449C01401 – ASSY (Drive Shaft)
 4249863 M02 – LIFT (Rock Shaft)
 3759640 M01 – CNR (Connecting rod)
5.1.1. Part description
Among these four parts, the main contributor was ‘Part 1
(0719552 M02/Power Take off Shaft)’, as its contribution to
total rejections was 49% in quantity and 36% regarding cost.
Therefore, PTO shaft was chosen for the study as the
902 R. SREEDHARAN V AND V. SUNDER M
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the PTO shaft.
Table 3. Project results for Company A.
Project results – PTO shaft
Avg. no of rejections
S. No Category Before After
1 Average rejection % (CTQ) 0.76 0.2%
2 Critical to cost (Rs) 69,400 5800
3 Inspection – Prevention measures for each
defect were implemented
Cost saving/month Rs 64,400
component for the LSS project. Reduction in the number of
defects for this part could lead to a significant improvement
in the productivity and to cost savings. Moreover, the reason
for choosing this product is to achieve quick wins for
the company.
Therefore, the PTO shaft is a vital component in the trac-
tors from power transmission to the farm equipment.
Moreover, the cost of PTO shaft is Rs 480. Therefore, PTO
shaft was considered for further analysis in the LSS project
to achieve cost saving which is shown in Figure 3.
5.1.2. Summary
The case study was evaluated using the LSS Model
(SDMMAICS) for the auto component manufacturer. The
main contribution of the model was its ability to facilitate
easy use of LSS project with both Lean and Six Sigma tools
by the team members. The model provided a sequential
approach to the method for start and completion of the pro-
ject, which was helpful for the newcomers. Regarding prod-
uctivity, the two-bottleneck process in hobbling for 10
splines and 21 splines were balanced, and regarding internal
failures, process capability index showed improvement.
Moreover, when the project started, the top management
were not aware of the benefits of LSS. But, from this project,
they have understood the importance of LSS implementation
and tended to support it holistically. And, the project results
were tabulated in Table 3.
5.2. Case b
This case study relates to an auto manufacturer for the steer-
ing link mechanism was established in 1997. Manufactures of
different steering columns for ‘Off-road’ and ‘On road’ uses.
Preferred OE partner to major Passenger Car, Commercial
Vehicle, and Multi Utility Vehicle manufacturers. Accredited
with IATF 16949:2016. The company follows Automotive
Quality Management for achieving excellence in all
the activities.
Currently, COMPANY B requires support in Training and
Development, Process improvement and Resources
Management. Therefore, a team was formed under the
supervision of the MBB for overcoming these. The project
was carried out using the SDMMAICS framework. Using Force
field analysis, driving and restraining forces were evaluated
for the steering assembly project. Ball pin failure was chosen
while analysing the result from the force field analysis.
Moreover, there is scope for improvement to increase the
output by 25% through process improvement. The increasing
customer demand meeting made the demand with the cur-
rent level of setup and output flow is involved. Therefore,
there is a need to increase the cell output or buy new
machinery to increase production. Since the new machinery
requires high cost and delay, increase in the cell output with
the available resources was the imperative need.
5.2.1. Part description
Ball pin is a part of the steering mechanism as shown in
Figure 4. It is a part of the ball joint. It connects the drag
link with the steering arm. It is a necessary part as it facili-
tates toeing in and toeing out operations in the vehicle ena-
bling it to turn in the desired direction. Typically, ball pin
connects one end of the drag link with the steering rod and
another end of the steering rod to the steering gearbox
mechanism (refer Figure 4). And the cost of a ball pin is
Rs 115.
5.2.2. Summary
The analysis of the case study relating to LSS project has
achieved both defect reduction and cost savings shown in
Table 4. The cost savings of this project was Rs 9315 per
month, but the aggregate of benefits will change as the pro-
ject progresses. Presently, Annual benefit out of this LSS pro-
ject is Rs.1,11,780.
5.3. Findings from the case studies
The Study conducted in company A and Company B shows
that SDMMAICS found to be successful. Previously, in DMAIC,
the imbalance in the forces causes the change in business
objective leading to poor project selection. However, the
Selection phase in SDMMAICS ensures better project selec-
tion through force field analysis, which is instrumental in
capturing the employee’s perception of the restraining forces
and driving forces in a project. Further, Map phase intro-
duced tools like VSM, Takt Time synergising lean tools with
Six Sigma making it as LSS and more enhanced. Also, the
sustain phase ensures that project is under control and the
process metrics do not deviate from the project goal after
some months. Further, this phase extends the project post
control phase for monitoring and creating aids to control the
process for stability. From, these findings it is evident that
SDMMAICS aids LSS project in a better manner when

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of Ball pin.
Table 4. Cost saving between previous and current process.
Cost Saving b/w previous and current process
Avg. no of rejections
S. No Category Before
1 Rough turning 6 2
2 Finish turning 69
3 Thread damage 12
4 Pin hole missing 8 0
Total 95
Cost of poor quality (COPQ) 10925
Cost saving/month 9315
compared with DMAIC. Moreover, results of the case studies
are discussed in Section 5.4 followed by the learnings and
other managerial implications are expanded in Section 6.
5.4. Results and discussion
The study focused on developing an LSS model for LSS
projects, which address the gaps that were not addressed
by the previous studies. Jeyaraman and KeeTeo (2010)
developed a framework to conceptual the underlying the-
ory between LSS and organisational performance regarding
the critical success factors. The study was conducted in an
electronic equipment manufacturing industry. Page (2010)
developed an LSS framework for customer-supplier relation-
ship evaluation. The framework acted more like a proced-
ure for supplier evaluation. But, it was not validated for its
robustness. Moreover, McAdam et al. (2011) demonstrated
that the knowledge absorption processes is vital for an LSS
project. And, an LSS project should be able to share the
information of the processes involved in a project. Also, it
should define its related characteristics for LSS implementa-
tion. So, a project sustains phase is needed where the
knowledge about the previous phases can be shared. Later,
Cheng and Chang (2012) conducts an LSS profit in non-
profit organisations using DMAIC. However, the case fails
to capture the employee’s perception and people’s view of
the selected project. Moreover, once the control phase is
reached. The project failed to consider the project support
and the knowledge sharing.
Chiarini (2012) conducted an LSS project in a hospital
environment using Lean Six Sigma tools. The study was able
to drastically reduce the inventory wastage leading to a cost
saving of 200,000 Euros. Even though the DMAIC was
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 903
instrumental in this project, Value Stream Mapping played a
pivotal role in this project. It is evident that lean tools should
be integrated with the DMAIC rather being used in isolation
or parallel with one another. A similar study by Psychogios
After
and Tsironis (2012) in airline industry proved that LSS project
9 should integrate lean tools with Six Sigma Toolkit to achieve
3 better results. Timans et al. (2012) studied in SMEs and iden-
tified that poor project selection, change in business focus,
14
1610 and lack of leadership acts as an impeding factor of LSS proj-
ects. Moreover, emphasise to conduct a global study for
developing a new LSS model. Singh et al. (2010) developed
Lean projects aided by value stream mapping in selected
manufacturing industries. But, failed to carry out the cost-
benefit analysis of the project.
The present framework has addressed issues as mentioned
above through three new phases to DMAIC. Starting with
the selection phase, enabling the employees to choose the
project. Moreover, employees’ opinion is considered for
project selection through force field analysis. Further, to
enhance the DMAIC, introducing the map phase was crucial
through which Lean tools can be used together with the Six
Sigma tools for the LSS projects. The Sustain phase is equally
important to ensure project sustainability till successful com-
pletion of the project and serve as a medium for knowledge
sharing. Thirdly, SDMMAICS has suggested tools for each
phase to facilitate project managers. Finally, the SDMMAICS
framework was deployed in two different manufacturing
industries to test its effectiveness. The results obtained from
the industries were promising and are as follows:
COMPANY A
Measures: Deployed SDMMAICS framework for performance
improvement.
LSS Projects: ‘Reducing internal failures’ and ‘Improve pro-
duction rate’
Product chosen: (0719552 M02/Power take off shaft)
accounts for 49% of total rejections in quantity and 36%
Rejection cost.
Project outcome: Defect reduction to 0.2% and of cost sav-
ing of Rs 64.400 (Refer Table 3).
Results: Top management was the main barrier for LSS
implementation. Awareness of the LSS benefits was created
in them. The project was completed. But, still defect rate had
not become 0% and was at 12%. So, more LSS projects were
be done to avail the benefits of LSS.
904 R. SREEDHARAN V AND V. SUNDER M
COMPANY B
Measures: Deployed SDMMAICS Model for performance
improvement.
LSS Projects: ‘Ball pin failure’ for steering Linkage assembly.
Product chosen: (Part AX001122) with opportunity to
increase the cell output by 25%.
Project outcome: Defect reduction and the proposed plan
for process control.
Results: Annual cost saving of Rs.1,11,780 is achieved (refer
Table 4).
6. Other practical implications
1. People perspectives: During the testing of the framework
in the organisational context, the team considered the
inputs from the employees using force field analysis for
project selection. This empowering inclusion made the
staff believe in the framework and work in par with it.
Further, through ‘Map’ phase employees could be using
Lean tools in a structured manner. This phase gave them
an opportunity to understand the entire value chain of
the process end-to-end, rather than working with the nar-
row task-oriented approach. Further, the ‘Sustain’ phase
ensured the documentation of the project leading to bet-
ter knowledge transfer among the colleagues which is
highly appreciated by the employees. So, SDMMAICS
model provides better project selection and usage of
lean tools in a structured manner and make sure the pro-
ject sustains to get the required results.
2. Stakeholders Management: Since the relevant stake-
holders were involved as part of the entire project life-
cycle from Define Phase to Sustain phase, the
improvements were handled with less resistance from
the stakeholders. Further, participative leadership, along-
side project management helped in achieving the key
results. Unlike DMAIC approach, SDMMAICS framework
emphasised on both process-oriented and data-oriented
approaches, which eased the understanding by senior
leaders for executive sponsorship and sustained interest
levels throughout the LSS projects. Though both the
companies selected for testing the framework are from
the manufacturing sector, the stakeholder management
learnings could be generalised across sectors.
3. Breaking the project-only approach: LSS projects focus
on improving specific project metrics, defined as project
goal which describes the measures of success. However,
sufficient focus should be given to the side effects of
the project on other metrics. For example, in Case-A the
project metric was to reduce internal failures. Here, the
project manager should not be focusing on reducing or
compromising on the turn-around-time (TAT) of delivery.
Here both error rate and TAT are different metrics (one
could increase by reducing the other). Hence, in this
case, the project focused on improving the error rate
time maintaining an optimal TAT. To summarise the dis-
cussion, project managers should not think narrowly
about the project metric improvement alone; rather,
they should have end-end vision and understanding
about the process from all perspectives.
7. Conclusions
Firms that have a well-structured LSS deployment, outper-
form their competitors. LSS supports business process
improvements and hence, positively affects the overall per-
formance of the organisation. However, its implementation
through DMAIC framework was found unsuccessful in a few
cases. So, to address this issue an LSS project management
framework (SDMMAICS) was developed to conduct LSS proj-
ects in firms. The framework consists of eight phases that
systematically guide project managers. Although the frame-
work recommends a systematic approach to sequential
phases and their corresponding activities, modifications can
be made specific to the organisational context. Hence, the
proposed framework is a general guideline and not a rigid
prescriptive approach.
The SDMMAICS framework introduced three important
phases to LSS project management viz., Select, Map and
Sustain. These phases helped in reducing the limitations identi-
fied with the recent DMAIC approach. Further, the LSS toolkit
has been classified across the project life cycle phases to help
project managers while working on the real-world projects.
Finally, the framework also emphasises on employee empower-
ment, stakeholder’s management and breaking the narrow pro-
ject-only approach while conducting LSS projects in firms.
The study was scoped within the manufacturing context.
Both the data collection to conceptualise the framework, and
the subsequent validation of the framework were conducted
in the manufacturing environment. However, the SDMMAICS
framework has the potential for validation in services context
as an opportunity for future research. Further, this paper pro-
vides validation of the frame with two cases, and hence, uni-
versal generalisations could be avoided. Moreover, smart
factory requires flawless process execution and SDMMAICS
has the opportunities to develop an error-free process for
leaner and greener environment.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Raja Sreedharan V is an Assistant Professor at the
Department of Management Studies, Amrita School of
Business, Kochi. He has undertaken doctoral research
at the Department of Industrial Engineering, Anna
University and his Ph.D. focused on ‘A Study and
Analysis of Lean Six Sigma practices in Indian manu-
facturing industries’. He has garnered corporate expos-
ure working with multi speciaity Hospital as external
auditor for 5S implementation. He has attended many
international conferences and has published many
articles on Lean Six Sigma, MCDM approach, and structural equation
modelling in peer reviewed journals like IJQRM, Benchmarking,
International journal of Lean Six Sigma, TQM, TQM & BE etc. His current
research interests are centred in the field of Lean Six Sigma for services,
circular economy, Industry 4.0 and Blockchain. He serves as an active
consultant to the public and private sectors.

Vijaya Sunder M is the Head of Business Process
Excellence at the World Bank, Chennai, India. He is a
Lean Six Sigma Leader with experience in leading
cross-functional programs for process improvements
and operational effectiveness. Vijaya Sunder is a Six
Sigma Master Black Belt (from Indian Statistical
Institute) and Lean facilitator. He has led and men-
tored various reengineering and process improvement
programs that helped improve service quality, cus-
tomer experience, employee satisfaction, eliminate process defects,
increase productivity and reduce costs across service organisations. He is
a LSS Trainer – trained more than 1500 people in LSS Yellow, Green and
Black Belts till date. He also is certified in Business Process Modeling and
Six Thinking Hats. He is a distinction holder in Master of Business
Administration from the Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
(Puttaparthi), and gold medalist in Bachelor of Engineering from the
Anna University, India. He is a keynote speaker and has publications in
several peer-reviewed international journals on topics relating to leader-
ship, strategy and quality excellence. Alongside his corporate job, Vijaya
Sunder practices teaching for MBA students, as a visiting faculty at the
Business Schools. He is currently pursuing his doctoral research for PhD
from Indian Institute of Technology-Madras, India.
ORCID
Raja Sreedharan V http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3601-8002
Vijaya Sunder M http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7095-7743
References
Albliwi, S., J. Antony, S. Abdul Halim Lim, and T. van der Wiele. 2014.
“Critical Failure Factors of Lean Six Sigma: A Systematic Literature
Review.” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
31 (9):1012–1030. doi:10.1108/IJQRM-09-2013-0147.
Albliwi, S. A., J. Antony, and S. A. H. Lim. 2015. “A Systematic Review of
Lean Six Sigma for the Manufacturing Industry.” Business Process
Management Journal 21 (3):665–691. doi:10.1108/BPMJ-03-2014-0019.
Antony, J. 2008. “Can Six Sigma be Effectively Implemented in SMEs?”
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 57
(5):420–423.
Antony, J., E. V. Gijo, and S. J. Childe. 2012. “Case Study in Six Sigma
Methodology: manufacturing Quality Improvement and Guidance for
Managers.” Production Planning & Control 23 (8):624–640. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2011.576404.
Aurelio, D., Grilo, A., and Cruz-Machado, V. 2011. A Framework for
Evaluating Lean Implementation Appropriateness. In Industrial
Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), 2011 IEEE
International Conference on Singapore (pp. 779–783). IEEE.
Baulcomb, J. S. 2003. “Management of Change through Force Field
Analysis”. Journal of nursing management 11 (4):275–280.
Bendell, T. 2006. “A Review and Comparison of Six Sigma and the Lean
Organisations”. The TQM Magazine 18 (3), 255–262.
Berney, G., and D. Blane. 2003. “The Lifegrid Method of Collecting
Retrospective Information from People at Older Ages.” Research Policy
and Planning 21 (2):13–22.
Bhasin, S. 2015. Lean Management Beyond Manufacturing. New York, NY:
Springer International Publishing, 10, 978–973.
Boer, H., M. Holweg, M. Kilduff, M. Pagell, R. Schmenner, and C. Voss.
2015. “Making a Meaningful Contribution to Theory”. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 35 (9):1231–1252.
Breyfogle, F. W. I., II. 2008. “Beyond Troubleshooting.” ASQ Six Sigma
Forum Magazine 8 (1):27–31.
Catherwood, P. 2002. “What's Different about Six Sigma?” Manufacturing
Engineer 81 (4):186–189.
Chakravorty, S. S., and A. D. Shah. 2012. “Lean Six Sigma (LSS): an
Implementation Experience.” European J. of Industrial Engineering 6
(1):118–137. doi:10.1504/EJIE.2012.044813.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 905
Cheng, C. Y., and P. Y. Chang. 2012. “Implementation of the Lean Six
Sigma Framework in Non-Profit Organisations: A Case Study.” Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence 23 (3–4):431–447.
doi:10.1080/14783363.2012.663880.
Chiarini, A. 2012. “Risk Management and Cost Reduction of Cancer
Drugs Using Lean Six Sigma Tools.” Leadership in Health Services 25
(4):318–330. doi:10.1108/17511871211268982.
Chiarini, A., and E. Bracci. 2013. “Implementing Lean Six Sigma in
Healthcare: Issues from Italy.” Public Money & Management 33
(5):361–368. doi:10.1080/09540962.2013.817126.
Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques
and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 3rd ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cudney, E., and C. Elrod. 2011. “A Comparative Analysis of Integrating
Lean Concepts Into Supply Chain Management in Manufacturing and
Service Industries”. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 2 (1):5–22.
De Mast, J., and J. Lokkerbol. 2012. “An Analysis of the Six Sigma DMAIC
Method from the Perspective of Problem Solving.” International
Journal of Production Economics 139 (2):604–614. doi:10.1016/
j.ijpe.2012.05.035.
De Villiers, R., A. G. Woodside, and R. Marshall. 2016. “Making Tough
Decisions Competently: Assessing the Value of Product Portfolio
Planning Methods, Devil’s Advocacy, Group Discussion, Weighting
Priorities, and Evidenced-Based Information.” Journal of Business
Research 69 (8):2849–2862. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.054.
Delgado, C., M. Ferreira, and M. Castelo Branco. 2010. “The
Implementation of Lean Six Sigma in Financial Services
Organizations.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
21 (4):512–523. doi:10.1108/17410381011046616.
Franchetti, M., and M. Yanik. (2011). “Continuous Improvement and
Value Stream Analysis through the Lean DMAIC Six Sigma Approach:
A Manufacturing Case Study from Ohio, USA”. International Journal of
Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage 6 (4):278–300.
George, M. L. 2003. Lean Six Sigma for Services. New York, NY: McGraw-
hill.
Gijo, E. V.,and T. S. Rao. 2005. “Six Sigma Implementation – Hurdles and
more Hurdles”. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 16
(6);721–725.
Hagen, M. 2010. “Black Belt Coaching and Project Outcomes: An
Empirical Investigation.” Quality Management Journal 17 (2):54–67.
doi:10.1080/10686967.2010.11918270.
Hariharan, A. 2006. “CEO’s Guide to Six Sigma Success.” ASQ Six Sigma
Forum Magazine 16–25.
Hilton, R. J., and A. Sohal. 2012. “A Conceptual Model for the Successful
Deployment of Lean Six Sigma.” International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management 29 (1):54–70. doi:10.1108/02656711211190873.
Hammer, M., and J. Goding. 2001. “Putting Six Sigma in Perspective.”
Quality 40 (10):58.
Hines, P., and N. Rich. 1997. “The Seven Value Stream Mapping Tools.”
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 17
(1):46–64. doi:10.1108/01443579710157989.
Hoppmann, J., E. Rebentisch, U. Dombrowski, and T. Zahn. 2011. “A
Framework for Organizing Lean Product Development.” Engineering
Management Journal 23 (1):3–15. doi:10.1080/10429247.2011.11431883.
Johnson, A., and B. Swisher. 2003. “Managers at Work: How Six Sigma
Improves R&D.” Research – Technology Management 46 (2), 12–15.
Jones, E. C., M. M. Parast, and S. G. Adams. 2010. “A Framework for
Effective Six Sigma Implementation.” Total Quality Management
21 (4):415–424. doi:10.1080/14783361003606720.
Kornfeld, B., and S. Kara. 2013. “Selection of Lean and Six Sigma Projects
in Industry”. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 4 (1):4–16.
Koning, H., J. P. Verver, J. van den Heuvel, S. Bisgaard, and R. J. Does.
2006. “Lean Six Sigma in Healthcare”. Journal for Healthcare Quality 28
(2):4–11.
Kreye, M. E. 2016. “Employee Motivation in Product-Service System
Providers.” Production Planning & Control 27 (15):1249–1259.
doi:10.1080/09537287.2016.1206219.
Kumar, M. B., and R. Parameshwaran. 2018. “Fuzzy Integrated QFD, FMEA
Framework for the Selection of Lean Tools in a Manufacturing
906 R. SREEDHARAN V AND V. SUNDER M
Organisation.” Production Planning & Control 29 (5):1–15. (Accepted
online).
Kumar, M., J. Antony, R. K. Singh, M. K. Tiwari, and D. Perry. 2006.
“Implementing the Lean Sigma Framework in an Indian SME: A Case
Study.” Production Planning and Control 17 (4):407–423. doi:10.1080/
09537280500483350.
Kumar, M., J. Antony, and M. K. Tiwari. 2011. “Six Sigma Implementation
Framework for SMEs–a Roadmap to Manage and Sustain the
Change.” International Journal of Production Research 49
(18):5449–5467. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.563836.
Kwok, K. Y., and V. M. R. Tummala. 1998. “A Quality Control and
Improvement System Based on the Total Control Methodology
(TCM).” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 15
(1):13–48. doi:10.1108/02656719810197288.
Larsen, G. A. 2003. “Measurement System Analysis in a Production
Environment with Multiple Test Parameters.” Quality Engineering 16
(2):297–306. doi:10.1081/QEN-120024019.
Laureani, A., J. Antony, and A. Douglas. 2010. “Lean Six Sigma in a Call
Centre: A Case Study.” International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management 59 (8):757–768. doi:10.1108/17410401011
089454.
Letens, G., J. A. Farris, and E. M. V. Aken. 2011. “A Multilevel Framework for
Lean Product Development System Design.” Engineering Management
Journal 23 (1):69–85. doi:10.1080/10429247.2011.11431887.
Li, S. H., C. C. Wu, D. C. Yen, and M. C. Lee. 2011. “Improving the
Efficiency of IT Help-Desk Service by Six Sigma Management
Methodology (DMAIC) – a Case Study of C Company.” Production
Planning & Control 22 (7):612–627. doi:10.1080/09537287.2010.503321.
Maleyeff, J., E. A. Arnheiter, and V. Venkateswaran. 2012. “The
Continuing Evolution of Lean Six Sigma.” The TQM Journal 24
(6):542–555. doi:10.1108/17542731211270106.
McAdam, R., J. Antony, M. Kumar, and A. S. Hazlett. 2011. “Absorbing
New Knowledge in Small and Medium – Sized Enterprises: A Multiple
Case Analysis of Six Sigma.” International Small Business Journal 32
(1):81–109
McLean, R. S., J. Antony, and J. J. Dahlgaard. 2017. “Failure of Continuous
Improvement Initiatives in Manufacturing Environments: A Systematic
Review of the Evidence.” Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence 28 (3–4):219–237. doi:10.1080/14783363.2015.1063414.
Mohammad, M., R. Mann, N. Grigg, and J. P. Wagner. 2009. “Selection of
Quality Improvement Initiatives: An Initial Conceptual Model.” Journal
of Quality Measurement & Analysis 5 (2):1–14.
N€aslund, D. 2008. “Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Sigma: Fads or Real Process
Improvement Methods?” Business Process Management Journal 14
(3):269–287. doi:10.1108/14637150810876634.
Natarajan, M., V. Senthil, S. R. Devadasan, and N. Vijay Mohan. 2011.
“QUARNEWSS: A Model for Applying Six Sigma Framework to Achieve
Continuous Quality and Reliability Improvement in New Product
Development.” International Journal of Productivity and Quality
Management 7 (1):44–73. doi:10.1504/IJPQM.2011.037731.
Nordin, N., B. M. Deros, D. A. Wahab, and M. N. A. Rahman. 2012. “A
Framework for Organisational Change Management in Lean
Manufacturing Implementation.” International Journal of Services and
Operations Management 12 (1):101–117. doi:10.1504/IJSOM.2012.046676.
Oakland, J. S. 2003. TQM: Text with Cases. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Page, T. 2010. “Achieving Manufacturing Excellence by Applying LSSF
Model – a Lean Six Sigma Framework.” i-Manager's Journal on Future
Engineering and Technology 6 (1):51. doi:10.26634/jfet.6.1.1298.
Parr, W. 2006. “Making Six Sigma Last”. ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine 5
(2):15–19.
Pepper, M. P. J., and T. A Spedding. 2010. “The Evolution of Lean Six
Sigma.” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 27
(2):138–155. doi:10.1108/02656711011014276.
Pickrell, G., J. Lyons, and J. Shaver. 2005. “Lean Six Sigma
Implementation Case Studies.” International Journal of Six Sigma and
Competitive Advantage 1 (4):369–379. doi:10.1504/IJSSCA.2005.008503.
Pinedo-Cuenca, R., P. Gonzalez Olalla, and D. Setijono. 2012. “Linking Six
Sigma's Critical Success/Hindering Factors and Organizational Change
(Development) A Framework and A Pilot Study”. International Journal
of Lean Six Sigma 3 (4):284–298.
Psychogios, A. G., and L. K. Tsironis. 2012. “Towards an Integrated
Framework for Lean Six Sigma Application: Lessons from the Airline
Industry.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence
23 (3–4):397–415. doi:10.1080/14783363.2011.637787.
Ramu, G. 2007. “Six Sigma Project Assignment: Know Your Black Belts”.
ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magine 6 (2):1–10.
Ricondo, I., and E. Viles. 2005. “Six Sigma and Its Link to TQM, BPR,
Lean and the Learning Organisation.” International Journal of Six
Sigma and Competitive Advantage 1 (3):323–354. doi:10.1504/
IJSSCA.2005.008095.
Ruben, R. B., S. Vinodh, and P. Asokan. 2017. “Implementation of Lean
Six Sigma Framework with Environmental Considerations in an Indian
Automotive Component Manufacturing Firm: A Case Study.”
Production Planning & Control 28 (15):1193–1211. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2017.1357215.
Senapati, R. N. 2004. “Six Sigma: Myths and Realities.” International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 23 (6):683–690.
Seth, D., N. Seth, and P. Dhariwal. 2017. “Application of Value Stream
Mapping (VSM) for Lean and Cycle Time Reduction in Complex
Production Environments: A Case Study.” Production Planning &
Control 28 (5):398–419. doi:10.1080/09537287.2017.1300352.
Shah, R., A. Chandrasekaran, and K. Linderman. 2008. “In Pursuit of
Implementation Patterns: The Context of Lean and Six Sigma.”
International Journal of Production Research 46 (23):6679–6699.
doi:10.1080/00207540802230504.
Shamsuzzaman, M., Alzeraif, M. Alsyouf, I., and Khoo M. B. C. 2018.
“Using Lean Six Sigma to Improve Mobile Order Fulfilment Process in
a Telecom Service Sector.” Production Planning & Control 29
(4):301–314. doi:10.1080/09537287.2018.1426132.
Shanmugam, V. 2007. “Six Sigma Cup: Establishing Ground Rules for
Successful Six Sigma Deployment”. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence 18 (1–2):77–82.
Singh, B., S. K. Garg, S. K. Sharma, and C. Grewal. 2010. “Lean
Implementation and Its Benefits to Production Industry.” International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma 1 (2):157–168. doi:10.1108/20401461011049520.
Slack, N., M. Lewis, and H. Bates. 2004. “The Two Worlds of Operations
Management Research and Practice: Can they Meet, should they
Meet?” International Journal of Operations & Production Management
24 (4):372–387.
Snee, R. D. 2010. “Lean Six Sigma – Getting Better All the Time.”
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 1 (1):9–29. doi:10.1108/
20401461011033130.
Sreedharan, V. R., S. Gopikumar Nair, A. Chakraborty, and J. Antony.
2018. Assessment of Critical Failure Factors (CSFs) of Lean Six Sigma
in Real Life Scenario: Evidence from Manufacturing and Service
Industries, Benchmarking: An international Journal. (Accepted).
Sreedharan, V. R., and R. Raju. 2016. “A Systematic Literature Review of
Lean Six Sigma in Different Industries.” International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma 7 (4):430–466. doi:10.1108/IJLSS-12-2015-0050.
Sreedharan, V. R., R. Raju, and S. Srivatsa Srinivas. 2017. “A Review of the
Quality Evolution in Various Organisations.” Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence 28 (3–4):351–365. doi:10.1080/14783363.2015.1082421.
Srinivasan, K., S. Muthu, S. R. Devadasan, and C. Sugumaran. 2016.
“Enhancement of Sigma Level in the Manufacturing of Furnace
Nozzle through DMAIC Approach of Six Sigma: A Case Study.”
Production Planning & Control 27 (10):810–822. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2016.1143130.
Stasser, G., and W. Titus. 1985. “Pooling of Unshared Information in
Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling during
Discussion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48 (6):1467.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467.
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques
and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sunder, M. V. 2013a. “Synergies of Lean Six Sigma”. IUP Journal of
Operations Management 12 (1):21.
Sunder, M. V. 2013b. “Six Sigma-a Strategy for Increasing Employee
Engagement”. The Journal for Quality and Participation 36 (2):34.
Sunder, M. V. 2015. “Corporate Perspectives: Commonalities and
Differences Between Six Sigma and Lean”. Sigma 6 (3):281–288.

Sunder, M. V. 2016a. “Rejects Reduction in a Retail Bank Using Lean Six
Sigma.” Production Planning & Control 27 (14):1131–1142. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2016.1187312.
Sunder, M. V. 2016b. “Lean Six Sigma in Higher Education Institutions.”
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 8 (2):159.
doi:10.1108/IJQSS-04-2015-0043.
Sunder, M. V. 2016c. “Lean Six Sigma Project Management – a
Stakeholder Management Perspective.” The TQM Journal 28
(1):132–150. doi:10.1108/TQM-09-2014-0070.
Sunder, M. V., and J. Antony. 2015. “Six-Sigma for Improving Top-Box
Customer Satisfaction Score for a Banking Call Centre.” Production
Planning & Control 26 (16):1291–1305. doi:10.1080/09537287.2015.1021879.
Sunder M. V., L. S. Ganesh, and R. R. Marathe. 2018. “A Morphological
Analysis of Research Literature on Lean Six Sigma for Services.”
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 38
(1):149–182. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-05-2016-0273.
Super, J. F., P. Li, G. Ishqaidef, and J. P. Guthrie. 2016. “Group Rewards,
Group Composition and Information Sharing: A Motivated
Information Processing Perspective.” Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes 134:31–44. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.04.002.
Thakkar, J., S. G. Deshmukh, and A. Kanda. 2006. “Implementing Six
Sigma in Service Sector using AHP and Alderfer's Motivational Model-
a Case of Educational Services”. International Journal of Six Sigma and
Competitive Advantage 2 (4):353–376.
Thomas, A. J., H. Rowlands, P. Byard, and R. Rowland-Jones. 2008. “Lean
Six Sigma: An Integrated Strategy for Manufacturing Sustainability.”
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 907
International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage 4
(4):333–354. doi:10.1504/IJSSCA.2008.022948.
Timans, W., K. Ahaus, R. van Solingen, M. Kumar, and J. Antony. 2016.
“Implementation of Continuous Improvement Based on Lean Six Sigma
in Small – and Medium-Sized Enterprises.” Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence 27 (3–4):309–324. doi:10.1080/14783363.2014.980140.
Timans, W., J. Antony, K. Ahaus, and R. van Solingen. 2012.
“Implementation of Lean Six Sigma in Small-and Medium-Sized
Manufacturing Enterprises in The Netherlands.” Journal of the
Operational Research Society 63 (3):339–353. doi:10.1057/jors.2011.47.
Vinodh, S., S. G. Gautham, and R. A. Ramiya. 2011. “Implementing Lean
Sigma Framework in an Indian Automotive Valves Manufacturing
Organisation: A Case Study.” Production Planning & Control 22
(7):708–722. doi:10.1080/09537287.2010.546980.
Vinodh, S., S. V. Kumar, and K. E. K. Vimal. 2014. “Implementing Lean
Sigma in an Indian Rotary Switches Manufacturing Organisation.”
Production Planning & Control 25 (4):288–302. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2012.684726.
Womack, J. P., and D. T. Jones. 2005. “Lean Consumption.” Harvard
Business Review 83 (3):58–68.
Zhang, M., W. Wang, T. N. Goh, and Z. He. 2015. “Comprehensive Six
Sigma Application: A Case Study.” Production Planning & Control 26
(3):1–234. doi:10.1080/09537287.2014.891058.
Zu, X., and L. D. Fredendall. 2009. “Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation
through Human Resource Management.” Quality Management Journal
16 (4):41–54. doi:10.1080/10686967.2009.11918249.