The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm

Six Sigma
An institutional theory adoption
perspective on Six Sigma
adoption
423
Michael J. Braunscheidel
Department of Management and Marketing, Richard J. Wehle School of Business, Received December 2008
Canisius College, Buffalo, New York, USA Revised December 2009,
June 2010,
James W. Hamister September 2010
Department of Information Systems and Operations Management, Accepted October 2010
Raj Soin College of Business, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, USA, and
Nallan C. Suresh and Harold Star
Department of Operations Management and Strategy, School of Management,
State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is, first, to utilize institutional theory to assess motivation for the
adoption of Six Sigma. Second, to examine the role of an organization’s innovation implementation
climate and the fit between the innovation considered and the values of the organization’s members on
the implementation of Six Sigma. Third, to study the impact that the adoption and implementation of
Six Sigma has on organizational performance.
Design/methodology/approach – Methods advocated in case study research were employed in the
conduct of seven case studies. The research protocol consisted of identifying organizations in a variety
of manufacturing industries, and conducting focused interviews with a minimum of three respondents
in each company in order to improve validity.
Findings – This paper suggests that institutional theory proves to be an effective means by which to
examine the adoption of Six Sigma. In addition, support for innovation implementation model suggested
by Klein and Sorra is found. Each of the studied firms reported performance improvements as a result of
the adoption and implementation of Six Sigma.
Originality/value – This paper contributes to a better understanding of Six Sigma adoption,
implementation, and implementation effectiveness of Six Sigma by exploring how it is applied in
different manufacturing contexts.
Keywords Quality management, Six Sigma, Organizational processes, Organizational theory,
Manufacturing industries
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
This paper describes an exploratory research project of firms practicing Six Sigma in
order to better understand the firms’ motivations for adopting and implementing
International Journal of Operations &
Production Management
The research team thanks the seven anonymous organizations that were willing to share their Vol. 31 No. 4, 2011
valuable time and experiences relating to their Six Sigma efforts. This paper has also benefited pp. 423-451
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
greatly from the insightful comments and suggestions made by the editors and three anonymous 0144-3577
reviewers. DOI 10.1108/01443571111119542
IJOPM Six Sigma methodologies, as well as its impact on the adopting firm’s performance and
31,4 competitive advantage.
Six Sigma is one of the more recent quality management innovations which many
organizations have adopted, with the intent to significantly improve performance and
customer service. Six Sigma initiatives are closely related to total quality management
(TQM) initiatives (Goeke and Offodile, 2005; Amheiter and Maleyeff, 2005; Thawani,
424 2004). One of the major differences between Six Sigma and TQM is Six Sigma’s focus on
profitability (Goeke and Offodile, 2005). Recently, there has been little published empirical
research into the application and implementation of Six Sigma methodologies, with some
recent notable exceptions (McAdam and Lafferty, 2004; Linderman et al., 2003;
Nonthaleerak and Hendry, 2008; Schroeder et al., 2008; Zu et al., 2008; Gutiérrez et al., 2009).
While this literature has been very helpful with respect to providing suitable definitions of
Six Sigma and establishing theoretical support for Six Sigma, very little research has been
conducted on the motivation for the adoption of Six Sigma and its impact on performance.
A review of research literature reveals a general lack of empirical research with
respect to the reasons for Six Sigma adoption. This paper argues that institutional
theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) is a useful approach in explaining the adoption of
Six Sigma in organizations. Institutional theory posits that organizations do not just
compete for resources and customers but also cope with pressure to conform to “shared
notions of appropriate forms and behaviors, since violating them may call into question
the organization’s legitimacy and thus affect its ability to secure resources and social
support” (Teo et al., 2003). DiMaggio and Powell (1983) described three mechanisms of
institutional isomorphic change by which firms adopt similar organizational processes
and structures. Institutional theory has been used to help explain the adoption of TQM
(Westphal et al., 1997), interorganizational linkages (Teo et al., 2003), interorganizational
business process standards (Bala and Venkatesh, 2007), and business continuity
planning (Zsidisin et al., 2005).
In addition to investigating the effects of institutional theory on the adoption of
Six Sigma, we also employ the model of the determinants of the effectiveness of
organizational implementation developed by Klein and Sorra (1996). In this model, it is
posited that both an organization’s climate for innovation implementation and the
perceived fit between an innovation and the values of the targeted users of the
innovation are important for effective implementation of an innovation.
The paper is organized as follows. First a brief literature review discusses major
findings in the quality literature that are relevant to this research, as well as a discussion
of institutional theory and its application to Six Sigma adoption. Pertinent information
related to Klein and Sorra’s (1996) implementation effectiveness model is presented.
Research questions and propositions are then offered. This is followed by a review of the
research methodology employed and a brief synopsis of the company profiles, including
Six Sigma history, implementation, and results. This is followed by a proposed
theoretical model, methods, discussion of findings, future research opportunities, and
conclusions and limitations of this research.

2. Literature review
The following section provides a summary of the academic literature that is relevant to
this study. It includes a section on Six Sigma from an academic perspective, institutional
theory, and the determinants of innovation implementation effectiveness.
2.1 Six Sigma Six Sigma
Six Sigma was introduced by Motorola in the early 1980s in response to competitive
pressures by Japanese firms in the semiconductor industry (Raisinghani et al., 2005;
adoption
Amheiter and Maleyeff, 2005). From a statistical point of view, Six Sigma is associated
with 3.4 defects per million opportunities (DPMO) (Raisinghani et al., 2005; Antony,
2004). In the practitioner literature, Six Sigma has been defined as:
[. . .] a comprehensive and flexible system for achieving, sustaining and maximizing business 425
success. Six Sigma is uniquely driven by close understanding of customer needs, disciplined
use of facts, data and statistical analysis, and diligent attention to managing, improving, and
reinventing business processes (Pande et al., 2000).
Other definitions include: a “high performance data-driven approach to analyzing the root
causes of business problems and solving them” (Blakeslee Jr, 1999), a disciplined approach
and statistically based approach for improving product and process quality (Hahn et al.,
1999) and a “business process that allows companies to drastically improve their bottom
line by designing and monitoring everyday business activities in ways that minimize
waste and resources while increasing customer satisfaction” (Harry and Schroeder, 2000).
Since the introduction and initial success of the Six Sigma concept by Motorola, it has
been emulated by many organizations, notably General Electric and Allied Signal, with
the objective of step-change performance improvements. Six Sigma initiatives are
having a major impact on the culture, operation and profitability of many large
organizations such as Asea Brown Bavari, Allied Signal, General Electric, Motorola, and
Texas Instruments (Hahn et al., 1999). While there has been a relative abundance of
papers and information in the practitioner literature, in the academic literature there has
been a relative paucity of empirical research with respect to Six Sigma, its adoption and
implementation (Linderman et al., 2003; Schroeder et al., 2008; Zu et al., 2008). Recently,
however, Six Sigma has begun to receive more attention from the academic community.
The following paragraph provides a brief review of papers pertaining to Six Sigma.
Linderman et al. (2003, p. 195) proposed that a goal theoretic perspective be used as a
starting point for understanding the Six Sigma phenomenon. In this research, the
authors offered a definition of Six Sigma in “an attempt to develop the concepts and
principles underlying Six Sigma.” Using this definition as a foundation, the authors then
employed a goal theoretic perspective to better understand Six Sigma. Linderman et al.
(2003) proceeded to develop but not test propositions with respect to Six Sigma and goal
theory. The authors concluded that goal theory is one of the many potentially useful
theories that might be employed in the pursuit of understanding the Six Sigma
phenomena. McAdam and Lafferty (2004, p. 545) conducted a multilevel case study that
analyzed Six Sigma from both a process and people perspective. They concluded that
Six Sigma has “some way to go before it is accepted as a broad change philosophy,
applicable across a range of organizational types.” McAdam and Lafferty (2004) propose
a conceptual model of their findings where Six Sigma is not a replacement for TQM but
as a means for refocusing business deliverables. Linderman et al. (2006) empirically test
the role of goals in Six Sigma improvement teams. They find that when teams employ
the appropriate Six Sigma tools and methods, setting goals can be effective. However,
if Six Sigma tools and methods are not rigorously followed, challenging goals can be
problematic. Schroeder et al. (2008) employ a grounded theory approach to propose
an initial definition and theory of Six Sigma. In this research, they find that TQM and
Six Sigma differ primarily in four areas:
IJOPM (1) focus on financial and business results;
31,4 (2) the rigor of following structured methods and the level of training of
improvement specialists;
(3) use of specific metrics (e.g. DPMO, critical to quality); and
(4) the use of full-time improvement specialists.
426 The authors conclude that much research remains to be completed and provide
suggestions for future research.
Nonthaleerak and Hendry (2008) conducted a multiple case study of Thai companies
that had implemented Six Sigma and sought to investigate weaknesses in Six Sigma
implementations, differences in implementation between manufacturing and service
organizations and success factors that are critical to Six Sigma implementation. Some of
their findings from this study include:
.
in the define phase, care needs to be taken during project selection to ensure that
Six Sigma projects are properly aligned with corporate goals;
.
in the control phase, a good quality control system along with management
support are necessary to sustain the identified improvements;
.
statistical tools and quality tools may create a fear of Six Sigma especially among
those who are not mathematically skilled or have an engineering background; and
.
full-time black belts may not be feasible for small organizations, project
champions should be process owners and coaching advice regarding Six Sigma
tools should be readily available.

Zu et al. (2008) sought to investigate the criticism that Six Sigma is just a reformulation of
TQM. Their empirical findings identified three new practices that are necessary for the
successful implementation of Six Sigma. These new practices include: a Six Sigma role
structure, a Six Sigma structured improvement procedure and a focus on metrics. They
conclude that these new practices are complementary to traditional TQM practices and
that they enhance both quality and business performance. Gutiérrez et al. (2009)
investigated the effects of Six Sigma teamwork and statistical process control (SPC) on
organizational shared vision. They concluded that while teamwork and SPC positively
affected organizational shared vision, there was no impact on organizational performance.
While each of these papers have served to enhance our knowledge of Six Sigma, its
definition, theoretical underpinnings, and differences from TQM, this research stream
does not appear to answer the question “What motivates the adoption of Six Sigma in
organizations?” Simply stating “to improve performance” is not enough justification as
there are many avenues available to firms that are seeking performance improvement.
In addition, with the exception of Zu et al. (2008), Schroeder et al. (2008), and Gutiérrez et al.
(2009), none of these studies directly investigated the impact of Six Sigma on
performance. The practitioner literature is replete with examples of how Six Sigma has
improved the performance of firms that adopted and implemented Six Sigma (Pande et al.,
2000; Harry and Schroeder, 2000). Zu et al. (2008, p. 643) found that “Six Sigma practices
and traditional QM practices work together to generate improved quality performance,
which then leads to higher business performance” while Gutiérrez et al. (2009) did not
find a significant link between shared vision and organizational performance. A study
conducted by Goh et al. (2003) indicated that the long run stock performance
of organizations that adopt Six Sigma initiatives was not better than the S&P 500. Hence, Six Sigma
there is a divergence of findings with respect to Six Sigma adoption and performance. adoption
2.2 Institutional theory
A common reason given for the adoption of Six Sigma is to facilitate change (Choo et al.,
2007) and improve performance (Schroeder et al., 2008). This suggests that organizations
strive for economic fitness and the allocation of scarce resources. DiMaggio and Powell 427
(1983) maintain that where free and open competition exists, competitive isomorphism as
espoused by Hannan and Freeman (1977, p. 150) assumes that a “market rationality that
emphasizes market competition, niche change and fitness measures” exists. Competitive
isomorphism may explain early adoption of an innovation but does not present a complete
view of organizations. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) then proceed to argue that marketplace
and competitive pressures may no longer be sufficient to explain why firms adopt certain
innovations and structures for their organizations. There may be other mechanisms at
work that may provide an explanation for the adoption of Six Sigma. Institutional theory
seeks to explain the process of institutional isomorphic change that exists in
organizations. DiMaggio and Powell (1983), in keeping with Hawley (1968), maintain
that organizations, faced with the same environmental conditions, adopt similar
structures and processes. Institutional theory argues that forces exist that encourage the
convergence of business practices (Zsidisin et al., 2005). The three institutional isomorphic
change mechanisms are: coercive, mimetic, and normative. These three mechanisms,
while analytically different, are not necessarily empirically distinct. DiMaggio and Powell
(1983) posited that these three isomorphic mechanisms may act individually or in concert
with each other to influence the changes that occur in organizations.
DiMaggio and Powell (1983, p. 150) maintain that coercive isomorphism results from
“both formal and informal pressures exerted on organizations by other organizations
upon which they are dependent, and by cultural expectations in the society within which
the organizations function.” With respect to Six Sigma, an example of coercive
isomorphism would be the customer requirement that a supplier adopt and implement the
practices of Six Sigma. Organizations can apply coercive pressure formally through
the use of contract specifications and the like or informally by suggesting and discussing
the benefits to be gained through the adoption of Six Sigma. The second isomorphic
mechanism is mimetic. Mimetic isomorphism results from environmental uncertainty.
When environmental conditions are uncertain, firms may copy or imitate the practices of
similar firms especially if these other firms are perceived as being successful. As initial
adopters of Six Sigma, Motorola, General Electric, Allied Signal may be perceived to be
successful as a result of the adoption and implementation of Six Sigma. Other
organizations may be more inclined to adopt and implement these practices as a result of
this perceived success. The last mechanism is normative isomorphism and is a result
of professionalization. Two important aspects of professionalization are the result of
formal education provided by university specialists and the growth of professional
networks that span organizations and allow for the rapid diffusion of new models of
change. With respect to Six Sigma, professional societies such as the American Society for
Quality (ASQ) and other organizations such as SixSigma would be examples
of organizations that promote the diffusion of quality practices such as Six Sigma.
Furthermore, many colleges and universities offer classes in Six Sigma methodologies
and other quality management initiatives, which can also promote isomorphism.
IJOPM 2.3 Innovation implementation effectiveness
31,4 Klein and Sorra (1996) state that “innovation implementation within an organization is
the process of gaining targeted employees’ appropriate and committed use of an
innovation” (p. 1055). They define implementation effectiveness as “the quality and
consistency of targeted organizational members’ use of an adopted innovation” (p. 1056).
The two determinants of implementation effectiveness are the organization’s climate for
428 implementation and the perception of fit between the intended innovation and the values
of the targeted organization’s members:
An organization’s climate for the implementation of a given innovation refers to targeted
employees’ shared summary perceptions of the extent to which their use of a specific
innovation is rewarded, supported, and expected within their organization (p. 1060).
While group values are implicit or explicit views, shared to a considerable extent by members
of a group within an organization, about the external adaptation and internal integration of
the organization and of the group itself (p. 1063).
Klein and Sorra (1996) focused on user-based models of innovation implementation that
take the point of view of the user. Examples of such innovations include TQM, SPC, and
manufacturing resource planning.
An organization’s climate for implementation was categorized by Klein and Sorra
(1996) as strong or weak. Characteristics of a strong innovation implementation climate
included “(a) ensuring employee skill in innovation use, (b) providing incentives for
innovation use and disincentives for innovation avoidance and (c) removing obstacles to
innovation use” (p. 1060). Some examples of items that organizations that exhibit a strong
climate for innovation use include: providing training (Fleischer et al., 1988; Rousseau,
1989), user support (Rousseau, 1989), time to experiment with the innovation (Zuboff, 1988),
financial incentives (Lawler and Mohrman, 1991), supervisory support and praise and job
reassignment or job elimination for those who do not use the innovation (Klein et al., 1990).
A strong implementation climate may promote compliant behavior through the use
of incentives and disincentives for the use of an innovation. However, this does not
ensure alignment of the innovation with that of the targeted group’s values. Thus, the
presence of a strong climate is a necessary but not sufficient element in the
implementation of an innovation (Klein and Sorra, 1996).
However, there are limits to the climate for implementation. In their work, Klein and
Sorra (1996, p. 1061) maintain that the limit of climate is the provision that “employees
are committed to innovation use.” This limitation is referred to by Klein and Sorra (1996)
as the innovation-values fit.
Klein and Sorra (1996) theorized the commitment to use an innovation “is a function of
the perceived fit of the innovation to employees’ values” (p. 1062). “Innovation-values fit
describes the extent to which targeted users perceive that use of the innovation will foster
(or, conversely, inhibit) the fulfillment of their values” (p. 1063). Klein and Sorra (1996)
classified innovation-fit into good, neutral, and poor. A good innovation-values fit occurs
when the innovation and values are highly compatible while a poor innovation-values fit
happens when there is little or no compatibility between the two. A neutral
innovation-values fit comes about when the fit between innovation and values is neither
good nor bad.
Some examples of poor innovation-values fit include the following. Members of a
manufacturing facility value production more than change and learning and thus resist
the implementation of an SPC system (Bushe, 1988). In many organizations, managers may Six Sigma
favor a hierarchal system whereas information technology specialists assume that a flatter adoption
organization is better (Schein, 1992). Yet in a third example of poor innovation-values fit,
a manufacturing organization with a flexible, unstructured system resisted the rigidity
and structure of a new computerized inventory system (Klein et al., 1989).
From these two categorizations, Klein and Sorra (1996) developed a two-by-three
matrix that predicted the impact of these two determinants on employees’ responses and 429
use of the innovation. From their matrix it can be determined that there are six outcomes
related to employee reaction and innovation use. When the implementation climate is
strong and the innovation-values fit is poor, there will be compliant innovation use, at best.
If the innovation-values fit is neutral, there will be adequate innovation use and for good
innovation-values fit, there will be committed, consistent and creative innovation use.
However, if the implementation climate is weak, there will be essentially no innovation use
if the innovation-values fit is poor or neutral and when the innovation-values fit is good,
there will be sporadic and inadequate use of the innovation. For a more in-depth discussion
of this subject please see Klein and Sorra (1996).
So far we have provided a review of the academic literature with respect to Six Sigma
and have found that there is a gap in academic study into the motivations for the adoption
of Six Sigma by organizations. In addition, with the exception of a few academic studies,
there is a lack of clear empirical evidence that establishes a positive link between the
adoption and implementation of Six Sigma and performance improvement. In the next
section, we propose three research questions that will help to address these gaps. We then
advance several propositions that we will test using the information collected from
seven case studies of firms that have or are in the process of implementing Six Sigma.

3. Research questions and propositions

Based on the gaps in the literature noted in Section 2 above, it is the intent of this research
to investigate Six Sigma and its adoption and implementation in organizations.
The three research questions to be explored are:
RQ1. Based on the institutional theory framework, what motivates the adoption of
Six Sigma in organizations?
RQ2a. What role does the organizational climate for implementation play in
Six Sigma implementation?
RQ2b. What role does the perception of fit of the innovation to organizational values
play in Six Sigma implementation?
RQ3. What impact does the adoption and implementation of Six Sigma have on
organizational performance?

3.1 Propositions
In the literature review section of this paper, both Six Sigma (Section 2.1) and
institutional theory (Section 2.2) have been discussed. It is believed that the three
isomorphic mechanisms from institutional theory will, individually or collectively,
play a significant role in a firm’s decision to adopt Six Sigma. Figure 1 shows the model
and propositions that are investigated in this research.
IJOPM Isomorphic
Climate for
31,4 change
mechanisms implementation

P1 P4
Coercive

430 Six sigma Six sigma

P5
Performance
Mimetic P2
adoption implementation improvements

Normative P3
P4

Figure 1. Innovation-
Proposed model values fit

The first isomorphic mechanism discussed by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) is coercive in
nature. According to this mechanism, pressure from external sources such as the
marketplace, customers or suppliers play a significant role in a firm’s decision to adopt a
particular practice or structure. These coercive forces may be either formal or informal in
nature. For example, customers may insist on the adoption of Six Sigma as a condition for
doing business, as we document in our research. Under these circumstances, firms have
the choice of either conceding to customer demands or foregoing that business
relationship. Informal coercive pressures may also be brought to bear in commercial
relationships, where supplier firms feel pressured to demonstrate a mechanism for
continuous improvement, and Six Sigma may serve as that mechanism. A customer’s
perceived success with Six Sigma may also motivate that customer to pressure its
suppliers to adopt similar improvement mechanisms. Adoption of Six Sigma may be a
requirement of an important customer or may be considered to be either an order winner
or an order qualifier in a particular industry. Therefore, we offer the following proposition:
P1. Coercive isomorphic mechanisms will be evident in firms that adopt Six Sigma.
The next isomorphic mechanism is concerned with the emulation or mimicking of
successful practices that have already been adopted and implemented by other
organizations that are perceived to be successful. Thus, mimetic isomorphic mechanisms
involve the replication of current practices that have been deemed to be successful and can
be considered a form of modeling behavior, where the focal organization attempts to imitate
the mechanisms employed by another organization which is perceived as successful within
a domain. The modeled organization may or may not be aware of this imitative activity.
Organizations will surely take note of the success of organizations such as 3M, Motorola,
and General Electric who have adopted Six Sigma and have publicized their results and
successes as a result of this adoption. In an effort to imitate these well-known companies
and their success stories, other firms will be inclined to copy these early adopters of
Six Sigma. This modeling behavior may diffuse practices, both intentionally and
unintentionally, through a variety of mechanisms, such as employee transfers, manager
participation in industry trade groups, and engagement of consulting organizations:
P2. Mimetic isomorphic mechanisms will be evident in firms that adopt Six Sigma.
Normative isomorphism is the third influence mechanism suggested by institutional Six Sigma
theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Professionalism is the primary basis for this adoption
influence mechanism and works in one of the two ways:
(1) university education which creates a shared mental model of the environment;
and
(2) trade and professional organizations that transcend organizational boundaries
and facilitate the communication and dissemination of normative ideas 431
regarding how organizations should behave and respond to their environment.

The growth and involvement of organizations such as the ASQ will likely play a role in
the dissemination of the practice of Six Sigma. Additionally the promulgation of
practitioner-oriented literature will also have a normative effect on organizations, since
there is an emerging body of knowledge with respect to implementation methodologies
that may encourage a consistency in executing Six Sigma programs:
P3. Normative isomorphic mechanisms will be evident in firms that adopt
Six Sigma.
As presented earlier in this paper, Klein and Sorra (1996) created a two-by-three matrix
used to predict how implementation climate and innovation-values fit affects employee
response to innovation and the use of that innovation. In this research the innovation is
Six Sigma. It is our intention to provide additional evidence in support of Klein and
Sorra’s research and to demonstrate that effective implementation of Six Sigma leads
to improved performance as stated in P5 below. Therefore, P4 is as follows:
P4. Six Sigma implementation will be influenced by an organization’s climate for
implementation and the targeted user’s innovation-values fit as predicted by
the Klein and Sorra implementation effectiveness model.
There are mixed reviews from both the practitioner and academic literature regarding the
impact of Six Sigma on firm performance and customer satisfaction. Research from
the innovation adoption literature indicates that, in general, innovation is adopted with the
intention to improve the performance or effectiveness of the organization (Damanpour,
1991). Klein and Sorra (1996, p. 1058) used the term innovation effectiveness to describe
“the benefits an organization receives as a result of its implementation of a given
innovation (e.g. improvements in profitability, productivity, customer service, and
employee morale).” With the emphasis of Six Sigma on profitability, variation reduction
and customer focus, it seems that improved performance would be a consequence of the
adoption and implementation of Six Sigma. This leads to the following proposition:
P5. The adoption and effective implementation of Six Sigma will lead to
performance improvements in the adopting organizations.

4. Research methods
Case study research is a research strategy that focuses on the dynamics present within
single settings and is appropriate for fairly new topic areas and for the development of
new theories (Eisenhardt, 1989; Meredith, 1998; Voss et al., 2002). Another advantage of
case study research is the ability of the researchers to acquire both qualitative
and quantitative data. Case study research allows for an in-depth investigation of
IJOPM the subjects covered. Follow-up questions can be immediately solicited so that a
31,4 comprehensive understanding can be achieved. Therefore, case study research was
employed to enhance the understanding of the implementation of Six Sigma initiatives in
the firms to be studied. In this section, we discuss the research methodology, including
the protocol followed, our interview process, and the analytical strategy.

432
4.1 Research protocol
Consistent with case study research methods advocated (Eisenhardt, 1989; Pagell, 2004;
Yin, 1999), the research protocol consisted of four elements: a structured questionnaire,
focused interview process, identification of respondents, and an analysis plan. A focused
interview employs a predetermined list of questions that are to be asked of each of the
interviewees. This enables the case study researchers to maintain a consistency among the
respondents. The use of a focused interview does not preclude the updating or
improvement of the question set after each replication (Eisenhardt, 1989; Pagell, 2004).
Through the literature review, examination of the research questions and interaction
among the researchers, a list of appropriate open-ended questions was proposed to serve as
the interview template. Additionally, other case study research was reviewed to evaluate
the techniques employed and to extract as much information with respect to contextual
and/or general business information that might be relevant to this research. This focused
questionnaire consisted of the following constructs: general company information,
markets in which the firms complete, company definition of Six Sigma, implementation of
Six Sigma and the impact of Six Sigma on business performance. The questions were
open-ended in nature to provoke and promote in-depth discussion of the topics broached.
Minor modifications were made to the interview format as the research progressed.
Two interview protocols were considered to be appropriate for this research. The first
interview protocol was defined as a vertical: subjects at different levels in the
organizational hierarchy were interviewed. In this way, the perspectives of the various
levels that exist in an organization could be studied and analyzed. The second interview
protocol was referred to as a horizontal: multiple interviews were conducted with
managers at the same level of the organizational hierarchy. For example, if a master
black belt was interviewed, the other interviewees could be either two black belts
(horizontal relationship between the black belts), or one black belt and one person whose
position is of a horizontal nature to the master black belt (e.g. VP operations).
The horizontal interview protocol provided the researchers with the opportunity to view
the Six Sigma initiative across the organization. In some of the cases, the researchers
were offered the opportunity to interview more than three individuals. This allowed for
the implementation of both the vertical and horizontal interview protocols. The method
chosen was based on availability and willingness of respondents to participate at each
target firm. Table I contains information related to the interview protocol employed at
each case study as well as the titles of the respondents.
Both protocols provided the researchers with the ability to triangulate the
information received from the individuals interviewed. Triangulation is an important
aspect of case study research so that the validity and reliability of the information
received can be assured (Meredith, 1998). In fact, one of the strengths of the case study
method is the ability to obtain multiple sources of evidence, in order to improve the
researcher’s understanding of the phenomenon under consideration (Yin, 2003).
 Six Sigma
Company Interview protocol Title of respondents
adoption
A Horizontal Master black belt
Black belt (2)
B Vertical General manager
Operations manager
Product manager
C Vertical and horizontal Business director
433
Master black belt (2)
Black belt (2)
D Vertical and horizontal Site manager
Champion/process owner (2)
QA manager
Process development manager
Black belt
E Horizontal Master black belt
Black belt (2)
F Vertical Owner
VP manufacturing
Quality manager
G Vertical Quality manager Table I.
Black belt Respondents and
Green belt interview protocol

Another important aspect of the research protocol was selection of cases. Our analytical
strategy specified cross-case analysis where we were interested in a theoretically relevant
sample, meaning that we were interested in studying a broad range of different degrees of
experience with Six Sigma as well as organizations of different relative sizes. We were
limited by time and budget constraints so we restricted our search area to a reasonable
driving distance from our University, approximately 60 miles in radius. We contacted the
local chapter of the ASQ and our professional contacts to identify potential target
organizations. Seven organizations were identified and agreed to be part of the research
study. These organizations represent various levels of Six Sigma maturity, from early
implementations to fairly mature programs, and a diversity of scale, from single-location
facilities to Fortune 500 firms. All participants are in the manufacturing sector.

4.2 Interview process

Upon receiving consent of the organizations implementing Six Sigma, interviews with each
of the firms were scheduled at mutually convenient times. Each of the interviews lasted
approximately one hour. In order to maintain consistency in the data collection effort, the
focused questionnaire was followed very closely. While the use of the face-to-face interview
allowed the researchers to follow a particularly interesting line of discussion, the open-ended
questions helped to maintain focus. For each interview, one of the researchers asked
questions while the second researcher took notes. These respective tasks were consistent
across all of the interviews. Employment of a two-person research team may enable the team
to establish different perspectives of the case. The interviewer can establish a more personal
relationship with the interviewee while the data recorder maintains a more distant view
(Eisenhardt, 1989). Upon completion of the interview, the results were transcribed. During
this process, the information received was evaluated and any discrepancies among the
respondents were noted. A total of 26 1 hour interviews were conducted for this research.
IJOPM 4.3 Analytical strategy
Analytical techniques within case study research are less well defined than they are
31,4 within other research paradigms. An analytical strategy in this context helps focus the
research efforts and improve prospects for reliability and validity in findings. Our overall
approach in analysis was to focus on evidence based on our theoretical propositions,
consistent with recommendations in Yin (2003). Pattern matching was employed to
434 identify similarities and differences in interview responses in order to assess construct
validity. Explanation-building is the analytical technique which probes, through the lens
of the focused interview, the relationship between constructs of interest in this study.
With this technique we attempt to determine the subjects’ perceived causal relationship
between constructs of interest in the study. We also synthesized across cases to identify
coherence and differences to strengthen internal validity of our study.
To develop operational definitions of our constructs we began with theoretical
definitions from the literature. We developed simple language to define performance
levels from each construct that would be both consistent with the underlying theoretical
basis and be testable against the recorded interviews. We utilized two passes to agree on
final definitions where three researchers on the team separately analyze each case and
then conducted a review where we harmonized our findings. The principal change to our
rating system at this review was a tighter definition of the meaning of institution theory
pressures in context. Initially we viewed pressure for performance improvement from
outside the organization as a coercive pressure, as evidenced from either the investment
community or from customers. Upon reflection, this does not represent isomorphism
that we are studying: there are a variety of ways to respond to this pressure to improve.
We redefined our construct evaluation to specifically look for the decision to adopt
Six Sigma once performance improvement was deemed necessary. See Table II for a
listing of construct definitions.
To assess the reliability of our rating, we used the proportional reduction in loss
approach (Rust and Cooil, 1994). This approach is a generalized model similar to the
two-rater model put forward by Perreault and Leigh (1989) and can be interpreted in a
similar manner to Cronbach’s alpha. A suggested minimum level of reliability of
70 percent was adopted for this work. See to Table III for a compilation of the reliabilities.

5. Company profiles
For the sake of brevity, company profiles are relegated to the Appendix. Each of the profiles
follows a basic pattern in providing a general description of the company background,
its Six Sigma history and implementation, and the results from Six Sigma efforts.
The companies are labeled A through G to provide anonymity to the organizations which
agreed to participate in the research. Table IV provides general company information and
Table V provides a brief company profile and a summary of each organization’s Six Sigma
history, implementation and results of their Six Sigma initiative.

6. Findings
For each of the propositions listed in Section 3, evidence from each of the case studies is
presented to either confirm or disconfirm the proposition. Each of the propositions is
repeated for the convenience of the reader:
P1. Coercive isomorphic mechanisms will be evident in firms that adopt
Six Sigma.
Construct
Coercive pressure
Mimetic pressure
Normative pressure
Six Sigma adoption
Climate for implementation
measures
Construct definitions and
Table II.
Definition
Coercive isomorphism is driven by two key forces:
pressure from other firms on which a focal firm is
dependent and pressure to conform to societal
expectations (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983)
Mimetic isomorphism is a response to uncertainty
wherein managers mimic a successful peer (Bala and
Venkatesh, 2007)
Normative isomorphism occurs for two reasons: (1)
managers develop a shared mental model of the
institutional environment and act accordingly; and
(2) managers interact with each other through
professional and trade professional and trade
associations and form perceptions of industry norms
and expectations (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983)
A formal decision to adopt Six Sigma has been made
by senior management (consistent with Klein and
Sorra, 1996)
Targeted employees shared summary perceptions of
the extent to which their use of a specific innovation
is rewarded, supported, and expected within their
organization (Klein and Sorra, 1996)
Levels and evidence
0 – no comments in interview 1
1 – only 1 manager mentioned this pressure, specific
pressure specifically to adopt Six Sigma
2 – two or more mentioned this pressure, specific
pressure specifically to adopt Six Sigma
0 – no comments in interview
1 – only one manager mentioned this pressure,
specific pressure specifically to adopt Six Sigma
2 – two or more mentioned this pressure, specific
pressure specifically to adopt Six Sigma
0 – no comments in interview
1 – only one manager mentioned this pressure,
specific pressure specifically to adopt Six Sigma
2 – two or more mentioned this pressure, specific
pressure specifically to adopt Six Sigma
0 – no
1 – yes
0 – weak: the specific innovation is neither
encouraged nor discouraged
1 – strong: training regarding innovation use is
readily available; ample time is given to employees
so they can both learn about the innovation and use
it on an ongoing basis; employees’ concerns are
responded to by those in charge of the innovation
implementation
(continued)
adoption
Six Sigma
435

Table II.
Construct
Innovation-values fit
Six Sigma implementation effectiveness
Performance improvement
Definition
The extent to which targeted users perceive that the
use of the innovation will foster (or inhibit) the
fulfillment of their values (Klein and Sorra, 1996)
Implementation effectiveness describes the quality
and consistency of the use of a specific innovation
within an organization as a whole (Klein and Sorra,
1996)
Performance improvement indicates innovation
effectiveness and describes the benefits an
organization receives as a result of its
implementation of a given innovation (Klein and
Sorra, 1996)
31,4
436
IJOPM
Levels and evidence
0 – innovation-values fit is poor when targeted users
regard the innovation as highly incongruent with
their high-intensity values
1 – innovation-values fit is neutral when targeted
users regard the innovation as either moderately
congruent or moderately incongruent with their low-
intensity values
2 – innovation-values fit is good when targeted
innovation users regard the innovation as highly
congruent with their high-intensity values
0 – abandoned program, not fully integrated into
business processes
1 – moderate. Program well structured, no buy in
from all organization groups
2 – good. Full buy in and use
0 – minimal/no performance improvement
1 – moderate
2 – significant improvement
Coercive pressure is applied from outside the organization. This pressure can be from a Six Sigma
particular customer who insists on the adoption and implementation of Six Sigma or the adoption
source of the pressure may be from the marketplace and its requirement of improving
performance. There is evidence from four of the seven companies that coercive pressure
played a key role in the decision to adopt Six Sigma. When their customers insisted that
they adopt it, Companies B and F formalized Six Sigma in their organizations. The
operations manager at Company B stated that they “adopted Six Sigma at the insistence 437
of their customers even though they employed the ‘tools of Six Sigma’ for ten years
or more.” In a review of the interviews for Companies B and F, customer pressure to
adopt Six Sigma was mentioned by at least two of the interviewees. For Companies D
and G, there is also some evidence of customer pressure. However, for each of these
companies customer pressure was described by only one of the interviewees. There was
no evidence from the other three organizations that would support the notion of the
coercive mechanism as being a factor in their adoption of Six Sigma. Thus, it would
appear that there is moderate support for P1, indicating that coercive pressure from
many sources appear to form the drivers for Six Sigma adoption in practice:
P2. Mimetic isomorphic mechanisms will be evident in firms that adopt Six Sigma.
Mimetic pressure occurs when organizations feel the need to copy other organizations that
they perceive to be successful. With respect to Six Sigma, firms that believe that Six Sigma
helped other organizations improve their performance will be prone to imitate the
behaviors of the organizations believed to be successful. Evidence of mimetic pressure was
found in four of the seven case studies. One of the compelling reasons for Company A to

Construct First pass (%) Second pass (%)

Coercive pressure 70 91
Mimetic pressure 83 99
Normative pressure 91 100
Climate for implementation 89 89
Innovation-values fit 96 96
Implementation effectiveness 99 99 Table III.
Performance improvement 100 100 Reliability

Number of Six Sigma adopted and

Company Industry Sales employees implemented

A Building products $400M (2004) ,700 1999

B Defense and aerospace $70M 250 2000
C Imaging . $13B n/a Late 1980s; restarted late 1990s
D Military and $230M 1,000 1999
commercial airlines
E Medical devices n/a 1,200 2001
F Precision machining $5.7M (2004) ,100 2001
G Aerospace $70M (2004) 350 2002 Table IV.
General company
Note: n/a, not available information
IJOPM
6S History and
31,4 Company Company profile implementation 6S results

A Part of a multi-national CEO attended a 6S Organization is now data

Fortune 500 firm benchmarking session
Building products regarding GE
438 Improve stagnant
performance and signal
Wall Street the
commitment to improve
performance
B Supplier to defense and Employed many of the
aerospace industries tools of 6S
Customers were not
satisfied and insisted on a
formal 6S initiative
Lean and 6S are employed
simultaneously
C Multi-national Fortune 500 Late 1980s took part in a 6S
firm consortium led by Motorola
Photography and imaging Late 1990s re-energized 6S
business program to solve some
difficult issues
D Major division of a larger Late 1990s decided to focus
corp on process variation
Primary markets: military reduction
and commercial airlines Follow up to lean initiative
E Medical device industry CEO wanted to solve some
nagging technical issues
F Precision machined 6S requested by major
components for the aircraft customers
and defense industries Reduce costs
G OEM serving the aerospace 6S instituted to support the
industry strategic goals of the
Table V. organization
Company profiles 6S part of quality group
driven
6S project results are verified
by a financial analyst
Sales growth is attributed to 6S
Able to maintain margins and
offer additional services in a
highly competitive market
Increased on-time delivery by
30 percent Doubled inventory
turns
Realized savings of $600 million
Project savings are validated
by a financial analyst Used for
transactional processes
No concrete results to date
Operating performance is
beyond expectations and is
attributed to 6S
Some impact to profitability
6S “makes problems go away”
Able to reduce setup times
Program abandoned in 2004
No tangible results to date as
the program was in its infancy

adopt Six Sigma was a result of the chief executive officer (CEO) attending a
benchmarking meeting where the successes of Six Sigma as implemented by General
Electric were presented. Company C took part in a consortium led by Motorola and as a
result employed Six Sigma in its organization. The master black belt at Company E said
that “Six Sigma worked for other companies” and so was adopted by this organization.
Company G decided to adopt Six Sigma after a brainstorming session and realizing that a
sister division was in the process of employing Six Sigma in their operations. Although
there was no mandate to employ Six Sigma in all divisions, there was a mandate from
upper management that each department must support the profit margin goals. While this
evidence from Company G is not clear cut with respect to mimetic pressures, there is some
support that the adoption of Six Sigma by its sister division was a factor. Again we find
moderate support for the adoption of Six Sigma due to mimetic mechanisms:
P3. Normative isomorphic mechanisms will be evident in firms that adopt
Six Sigma.
In analyzing the information from the seven case studies, we discovered an interesting Six Sigma
phenomenon. That is, normative isomorphic pressure was not immediately evident as adoption
were coercive or mimetic pressures. What was observed is that normative pressures
played a role after the decision was made to investigate the feasibility of adopting
Six Sigma. We did not observe normative isomorphic pressure as playing a role in the
motivation to adopt Six Sigma. However, once the decision was made to adopt Six Sigma,
the presence of normative isomorphic pressure was evident as the case study firms 439
selected consultants (Juran Institute, iSixSigma) and professional societies (ASQ) to begin
the training of individuals from each of these organizations. In the organizations studied,
we found that normative isomorphic mechanisms played a role in the implementation of
Six Sigma. While we did not see any evidence of normative isomorphic pressure to adopt
Six Sigma, we cannot rule out this as a factor in the decision to adopt Six Sigma.
One of the ways in which normative isomorphic mechanisms act is through
professional organizations. There are a variety of professional organizations (e.g. ASQ) and
consultants (e.g. iSixSigma) that promote Six Sigma and offer training and certification
in Six Sigma practices and techniques. All of the interviewed organizations demonstrated
evidence of normative pressure once the decision to adopt Six Sigma was made. Each of
these organizations employed some type of Six Sigma consultant to start them on their
Six Sigma journey. While the reasons for selecting one consultant over another may have
differed, they all began their Six Sigma implementation with a Six Sigma consultant.
Company A only stated that a leading Six Sigma consultant was hired. Company B sent
several people to two different, independent Six Sigma training organizations. As a result
of this training, one of the consultants was selected based on the perceptions of those who
receive Six Sigma training. Motorola provided training for Companies C and E. In addition
Company E supplemented their training with training from the Juran Institute. Company D
selected a consultant who was flexible in their approach. However, this consultant was
soon replaced when it was discovered that it was not a good fit for them. A second
consultant was then engaged to continue the implementation. Company F had eight people
trained: two black belts and six green belts. Company G prefers their training to be
conducted by a local chapter of ASQ. While they have several black belts, they still rely
heavily upon ASQ for training and support. A summary of the results is provided in
Table VI and Figure 2 indicates a revised model to show these findings.
From Table VI, it can be determined that coercive and mimetic isomorphic pressures
were factors in the initial decision to adopt Six Sigma while normative pressures were
not an initial consideration in the decision to adopt but may play a role in the
implementation of Six Sigma. Unfortunately the data from our case studies does not
allow us to determine the impact of normative pressure on the implementation of
Six Sigma. This may be an opportunity for future research however:
P4. Six Sigma implementation will be influenced by an organization’s climate for
implementation and the targeted user’s innovation-values fit as predicted by
the Klein and Sorra implementation effectiveness model.
Company A exhibited a strong climate for implementation and the innovation-values fit
was determined to be neutral due to a dichotomy between management and the union.
Evidence of a strong climate for implementation was demonstrated by providing
incentives based on Six Sigma project savings, training for green belts, black belts, and
master black belts and training for Six Sigma improvement team members. In addition,
 31,4

440
IJOPM

Table VI.
Case evidence of
isomorphic pressure
Coercive Mimetic Normative
Company pressurea Case evidence pressure Case evidence pressureb Case evidence

A 0 No evidence 2 CEO decided to implement 6S after 0 Six Sigma consultant used

B 2
C 0
D 1
E 0
F 2
G 1
Notes: aRefer to Table II for definitions; bnormative pressure not initially a factor in the decision to adopt but impacted implementation
Formalized 6S to satisfy customer
requirements
No evidence
One interviewee mentioned that a
customer stated that they should
consider adopting 6S
No evidence
Formalized 6S to satisfy customer
requirements
“Political tool to talk with the
customer”
attending a benchmarking session and
learning about the benefits from GE
0 No evidence 0 Key employees sent to two
different Six Sigma
consultants for training
Six Sigma consultant
selected based on this
experience
1 Company C was an early adopter of 6S 0 Motorola provided training
after attending a consortium led by
Motorola
0 No evidence 0 Employed two different
consultants
1 Master black belt stated “Six Sigma 0 Motorola provided training
worked for other companies” Juran Institute provided
training
0 No evidence 0 Six Sigma consultant used
1 Realized that a sister division had adopted 0 Training provided by ASQ
6S and decided to do so as well
 Isomorphic Six Sigma
change Climate for
mechanisms implementation
adoption

Coercive

441
Six Sigma Six Sigma Performance
Mimetic
adoption implementation improvements

Normative

Relationships found Innovation-

Figure 2.
values Fit
Relationships not found Case study findings

promotional opportunities were linked to Six Sigma training. For the salaried group, the
innovation-values fit was strong as Six Sigma enabled them the means by which they
could attain their professional goals as well as improve their production processes.
Those employees interviewed were engineers and as part of their academic training,
process improvement is important. For the second group, the unionized hourly workers,
the fit was a poor one. While union members were not available for interviews, it was
discussed that the union’s displeasure with the Six Sigma process was that it would
ultimately reduce the number of union workers by making the process more efficient and
thus fewer workers (members of the union) would be necessary. They believed that this
would be counter to their value of increased membership. As a result of this, Six Sigma
projects were conducted only with salaried employees. Union members participated
only as a matter of performing their contractual job assignments.
While on the surface these results appear to support the prediction of the Klein and
Sorra (1996) model, a more detailed investigation leads us to conclude otherwise. In this
case, the relationship between the company and the union can be considered a
“horizontal” relationship in that neither group has power over the other. This is true in
collective bargaining situations where the union and management are equal partners to
the negotiated agreement. In Klein and Sorra’s (1996, p. 1068) model, they predict that:
[. . .] when innovation-values fit is good for one group within an organization and poor for another
group, and when neither of the groups has power over the other, the strength of the organization’s
implementation climate determines the “winner” of the conflict over innovation use.
They predict that when the implementation climate is strong, all targeted users are likely
to use the innovation. In the case of Company A, the implementation climate is strong but
the union does not participate in Six Sigma improvement projects.
The implementation climate for Company B was strong as evidenced by their
extensive training provided to all employees. Although the number of black belts was
fairly small in this firm, all employees received training in the tools of Six Sigma.
In addition, this organization was embarking on a design for Six Sigma (DSS) for its
engineering staff. Upon learning about the success of Six Sigma projects, this group
inquired about how they could play an active role in the process. Hence, the introduction
IJOPM of DSS to Company B. Company B managers expressed a willingness to constantly seek
31,4 ways to provide their products and services in a more efficient and effective manner,
driven in part by the technical nature of the firm’s products. Six Sigma enables them to
do this. The result, as predicted by the Klein and Sorra model was a committed and
consistent use of Six Sigma along with enthusiastic employee participation.
Company C also exhibited a strong implementation climate. Company C had its own
442 Six Sigma trainers and training facility. In addition, promotional opportunities were tied
to competence in Six Sigma and demonstration of savings through Six Sigma projects.
Company C has undergone some intense competitive pressure. As a result of this the
organization has a renewed emphasis on improving the performance of existing products
and services and developing and introducing new ones. The innovation-values fit was
mixed in that certain parts of the operation genuinely embraced the concept, while
others completed the required training for promotional opportunities but then were no
longer active in applying the Six Sigma methodology. Thus, the innovation-values fit
was rated neutral. Evidence of committed use is demonstrated in Six Sigma project
savings improvements in transactional processes (e.g. order entry improvements).
However, the fact that some employees are demonstrating proficiency in Six Sigma and
then abandoning it once they have been promoted demonstrates compliance but not
commitment.
The climate for implementation at Company D was also strong and the
innovation-values fit was good. Training was provided for the employees and as an
organization that prided itself on innovative products and services to the military and
airline industry, Six Sigma enabled them to better solve problems and make their
products in a more efficient and effective manner. Interviewed employees were
enthusiastic about the potential and the results generated from Six Sigma. Six Sigma
was being applied in a consistent manner. A long-term employee referenced a Six Sigma
team with which he participated. He was certain that he knew the solution but felt it was
best to apply the Six Sigma process to the problem. He was glad that he did, as he stated
that his “original solution would have made the problem worse!”.
At Company E the climate for implementation was strong but the innovation-values
fit was neutral. All employees, within the first six months of employment, received
training in Six Sigma. Progressive training was available to all employees and was an
important consideration for promotion. However, the main champion of Six Sigma left
the organization and it appeared from the interviews that most of the Six Sigma projects
were being implemented through the quality department. This resulted in some use of
the Six Sigma process but with little support from the operations side of the organization.
The climate for implementation at Companies F and G was weak. Company F
provided black belt training to only a couple of employees and had recently abandoned
the formal Six Sigma process due to the recession of 2001-2002. While the
innovation-values fit was judged to be neutral, the result was that Six Sigma was not
being extensively used. At Company G, the Six Sigma initiative was primarily focused in
the quality control department. A small number of people were trained in Six Sigma but
were only working on Six Sigma projects on a part-time basis. While Six Sigma
implementation at Company G was in its early stages, many of the initial projects were
abandoned prior to completion. While some of those interviewed stated that Six Sigma
would be useful, there were many concerns. As predicted by the Klein and Sorra model,
Six Sigma was not being used at Company G to any great extent.
 As can be determined from Table VII, each organization’s climate for implementation Six Sigma
and innovation-values fit was assessed and the outcome was compared to those adoption
predicted by the Klein and Sorra matrix. The results from these case studies indicate
clear support for the predictions of the Klein and Sorra model:
P5. The adoption and effective implementation of Six Sigma will lead to
performance improvements in the adopting organizations.
443
While each of the organizations interviewed for this research was at a different stage of
implementation of Six Sigma, it is evident from the case studies that Six Sigma has had a
positive impact on the performance of each organization. As with any initiative,
performance improvement can be measured in a variety of ways. The following are some
of the ways that the studied organizations measured and kept track of the process
improvements and performance improvements made: Six Sigma project savings,
process improvements, improvement of on-time delivery, reduction of inventory
and setup time reduction. Table VIII contains an assessment of the implementation
effectiveness and a listing of the performance improvements.
From Table VIII, we can ascertain that Companies A, C, and E used project savings as
a benchmark for improved performance. In each of these organizations, a financial
analyst verified the savings attained by the Six Sigma projects successfully completed.
One of the main selling points of Six Sigma is its ability to save organizations significant
amounts of money that can be translated to improved financial performance.
Organization B employed three main measures to access the performance of their
Six Sigma projects. The first two are traditional accounting measures commonly
employed in many organizations: on-time delivery and inventory turns. With each of
these measures firm B improved on-time delivery by 30 percent over two years and
nearly double their inventory turns in the same time period. The third measure of
improvement was rolled throughput yield. This is a term often associated with lean
production systems and firm B simultaneously employed both Six Sigma and Lean
methods in their operations. Rolled throughput yield can be defined as is the probability
that a single unit can pass through a series of process steps free of defects. Firm B,
through the use of Six Sigma and Lean techniques was able to improve rolled throughput
yield. While actual improvements were not shared during the interviews, this metric was
measured on a monthly basis with plans to measure it on a weekly basis. The operating
performance of firm D improved beyond management expectations. This improvement
was beyond expectations even if product mix adjustments were considered. The
managers interviewed attributed this additional improvement to the adoption and
implementation of Six Sigma. At firm F, the major focus of one of the initial Six Sigma
project teams was set up time reduction. They were able to successfully reduce the setup
time for one of their operations from 10 hours to 3 hours. Performance improvements
were not available from Firm G as they had just begun implementation of Six Sigma and
no projects were completed at the time of the interviews.
Another means by which to assess the impact of Six Sigma adoption and
implementation is the effect it has on customers. In other words, what was the reaction or
feedback from the customers of the organizations studied? From a performance
perspective, assessment of improvement is relatively easy as metrics can be employed
to determine whether or not improvements have been made. From a customer perspective,
it is often desirable to know the impact on the customer but metrics may not be readily

Table VII.
Case evidence for
implementation climate
and innovation-values fit
Climate for
Company Evidence of implementation climate implementation
A Incentives for project savings Strong
Extensive training for green belts,
black belts
Promotional opportunities linked to
black belt certification
B Extensive 6S training provided to all Strong
employees
6S was the expected way to perform
improvements
Firm B was starting a DSS initiative
C Promotional opportunities linked to Strong
black belt certification
Strong emphasis on 6S savings
Emphasis on process improvement
D Extensive training provided to Strong
employees
31,4
444
IJOPM
Innovation- Consistent with Klein and
Evidence of innovation-values fit values fit Sorra model
Salaried and professionals Neutral Yesa
6S as a means to attain professional
goals 6S in keeping with academic
and professional training
(engineering) Union members
6S projects will lead to greater
process efficiency and a loss of
union jobs
Technical manufacturing Good Yes
environment
All interviewees stressed the
importance of continuous and
constant improvement in the
products and services offered
In certain areas, 6S was widely Neutral Yes
embraced and utilized
Since promotional opportunities
were dependent upon black belt
attainment, many BB achieved
certification but then abandoned the
process
Interviewees expressed pride in the Good Yes
products and services that they
provide
6S provided them with the means to
solve problems and be more efficient
(continued)
 Climate for Innovation- Consistent with Klein and
Company Evidence of implementation climate implementation Evidence of innovation-values fit values fit Sorra model

E Extensive and progressive training Strong
provided to all employees
Promotional opportunities linked to
6S proficiency
F Limited training opportunities Weak
Certified black belts were recently
laid off
G Limited number of people Weak
trained in 6S
Part-time work on 6S
Managed from the quality
department
Note: aRefer to Table II for definitions
Main champion of 6s left the Neutral Yes
organization
Most 6s projects were being
conducted by the quality
department. No significant “buy-in”
from operations
Sporadic use of 6S tools and other Neutral Yes
quality tools
Interviewees stated that they liked
the 6S methods but with the
business conditions they were
facing, the initiative was not
sustainable
Interviewees expressed many Neutral Yes
concerns about 6S
Did not know how 6S fit into the
overall scheme Several of the early
projects were abandoned leading to
the questioning of the value of 6S
adoption
Six Sigma

Table VII.
445
IJOPM
Implementation
31,4 Company effectiveness Performance measures Performance improvements

A Moderate Project savings measured by Evidenced by project savings process

financial analyst Process improvements offset raw material
improvements increases
446 Indirect impact on customer satisfaction
B Good On-time delivery Increased market share
Inventory turns Improved on-time delivery (30 percent in
Rolled throughput yield two years)
Improved inventory turns (,doubled in
two years)
Able to offer additional services
C Moderate Project savings $600 million project savings
Improved customer satisfaction by
decreasing order entry error rates
D Good Operating performance Operating performance has improved
beyond expectations since 6S
implementation
Raises customer perception of firm D
Improved speed and thoroughness of
solutions to field problems
E Moderate Project savings , $300,000 in project savings
Were able to solve a problem that the
customer wanted “to just go away”
F Not effective Setup time reduction Setup time reduction (10-3 hours)
Acquisition of a new account by
adopting 6S
G Not effective 6S is too new for tangible results
For newer programs, customers may
select firm G based on their adoption of
Table VIII. Six Sigma
Implementation Customer relationships improved as
effectiveness and customers respect the attempt to
performance results improve systematically

available or the impact on customers may be situation dependent. None of the

organizations directly measured customer satisfaction. However, from comments made
during the interviews, it can be determined that the Six Sigma initiatives indeed had a
positive impact on the customer. Firm A is primarily a manufacturing entity and most of
their projects focused on cost reductions and process efficiency. However, the individuals
interviewed felt that there was an indirect impact to customer satisfaction. Firm B has been
able to offer additional design services to their customers as a result of their Six Sigma
efforts. One of the interviewees at firm C indicated that as a result of a transactional
Six Sigma project, they were able to significantly reduce the number of errors during the
order entry process. The implication is that customer satisfaction was improved as if the
order information is entered correctly. Interviewees at firm D felt that the adoption and
implementation of Six Sigma improved customer perceptions of their organization and
they were better able to solve field problems. Customers positively commented about the
speed and thoroughness of the solutions to these problems. Firm E had one customer who
just asked them to “make this problem go away.” Through the use of Six Sigma methods,
firm E was able to do just that. Firm F was able to acquire a new customer by their adoption Six Sigma
of Six Sigma. While firm G was at the earliest stages of Six Sigma implementation, they adoption
believed that suppliers for new programs may be required to adopt and implement Six
Sigma. They thought that the adoption of Six Sigma would provide them with an
advantage over their competitors. In addition one interviewee mentioned that relationship
with one of their customers improved as that customer respected firm G’s efforts to
systematically improve. Table VIII contains a summary of the results with respect to 447
customer satisfaction.

7. Contributions of this research

This research contributes to our understanding of Six Sigma by determining that there
are three influence mechanisms – coercive, mimetic and normative – that affect the
adoption and implementation of Six Sigma. In Figures 1 (proposed model) and 2 (revised
model), we combine into one model the decision to adopt an innovation and the
implementation of that innovation and its subsequent effect on performance.
This research also investigates the combined consequences of the climate for
innovation and the innovation-values fit as posited by Klein and Sorra (1996). This case
study research shows strong, but not complete, support for this model. As shown in
Figure 2, it is interesting to note that normative isomorphic pressure did not impact the
decision to adopt but did play a role in the implementation of the innovation. Perhaps, it is
prudent to suggest a modification to the Klein and Sorra (1996) model to include
normative isomorphic mechanisms. That is the use of consultants in the implementation
of an innovation may have a normative effect on the implementation. As evidenced by
one of the case studies (Company D), they did not retain the original Six Sigma
consultant as they were not a proper fit with the organization. Thus, the fit between the
organizations values and the consultant may be an important consideration. It is
important for managers to recognize that fostering a climate for innovation is necessary
but not sufficient for the successful implementation of an innovation.
The innovation-values fit must also be addressed. By addressing both of these issues,
managers can avoid a “compliance versus commitment” conflict.
In addition, the link between Six Sigma adoption and implementation and
organizational performance was investigated. In all cases, some dimensions of
performance of the organization were positively impacted. Although different
measures of performance were used by the studied organizations, each of them
reported improvements, in many cases significant improvements, in the measures they
employed. Thus, our findings are consistent with the practitioner literature and several
studies in the academic literature.
Through the lens of performance improvement, this case study research also
explored the relationship between Six Sigma and customer satisfaction. Again, evidence
was found to support the notion that organizations that adopt and implement Six Sigma
are able to satisfy their customers. Six Sigma enabled the studied companies to solve
previously unsolvable problems, provide additional services at no additional cost and
demonstrate to their customers their commitment to improve in a systematic fashion.

7.1 Future research and limitations

This case study research represents the beginning of a relatively new stream of research
aimed at investigating the adoption, implementation and the impact of Six Sigma on
IJOPM organizational performance and competitive advantage. Six Sigma has been applied
31,4 globally to both manufacturing processes and service processes (often referred to as
transactional Six Sigma) (Raisinghani et al., 2005; Antony, 2004). While the focus of these
case studies has been primarily on the manufacturing sector, it is hoped that more case
studies of service industries can be conducted in the future. With respect to the data
collected in these case studies, an in-depth analysis of the contextual and environmental
448 factors must be conducted. Of particular interest is the interaction between lean
initiatives and Six Sigma.
Upon completion of this work, we anticipate conducting survey research so that a
large-scale empirical analysis can be completed. Through the use of structural equation
modeling techniques such as AMOS or PLS-Graph, it is hoped to explore the causal
relations introduced in this study in a more formal and theoretically exacting manner.
Another important limitation is that institutional theory may not completely explain
all of the motivations for the adoption of Six Sigma. Two examples from our case studies
indicate that other factors may need to be considered. Unfortunately our data do not
allow us to tease out these issues but may provide areas for further investigation. The
first example involves Company A. In conversations with the master black belt, he
indicated that his firm was under tremendous pressure from the investment community
(coercive pressure) to improve performance. He also made an interesting comment when
asked as to why his organization adopted Six Sigma. He stated that the CEO wanted to
“change the game.” This may indicate that a motivation to adopt Six Sigma may be to
change the culture or the organization in some way. The second example involves the
fact that coercive pressure does not necessarily imply a weak implementation climate.
Company B was forced by its customer to formally adopt Six Sigma. Initially they
resisted indicating that they were already employing all the tools of Six Sigma. In order
to retain this customer they formally adopted Six Sigma. In firm B, the implementation
climate was strong in that training was readily available for employees and
management set the expectations that it was to be used in the daily activity of
the organizations. The engineering department of Company B was so intrigued by the
Six Sigma initiative that a DSS program was in the process of being launched at the time
of our interviews.
It is also important to understand the lack of independence among the isomorphic
pressure types. As DiMaggio and Powell (1983, p. 150) state “the typology is an analytic
one; the types are not always empirically distinct” and the three types may intermingle
in an empirical setting. Some interesting points to consider are: does the presence of all
three types of isomorphic pressure during the decision to adopt, lead to a more
committed management thus creating a strong implementation climate? Does the
presence of only the coercive mimetic pressure lead to a compliant implementation
versus a committed implementation? If an organization is being coerced into adopting
Six Sigma, what effect does this have on the implementation climate? While we did not
observe this in any of the case studies, how would the presence of normative pressure
effect the implementation of Six Sigma? Unfortunately our data set does not allow us to
tease out these issues. However, this limitation is also an opportunity for future research.
Case study research is a valuable tool to help researchers develop new theoretical
understanding and explore new topics (Meredith, 1998; Eisenhardt, 1989). However, like
other research techniques, it is not without its limitations. Cases study research trades
breadth for depth. While only seven data points were analyzed in this study, in-depth
investigations through the use of a focused interview technique were used to understand Six Sigma
and delve into the implementation of Six Sigma. Understanding of this topic is important adoption
to researchers and practitioners alike as they seek to improve the performance and
competitive advantage of organizations.

References
Amheiter, E.D. and Maleyeff, J. (2005), “The integration of lean management and Six Sigma”, 449
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17, pp. 5-18.
Antony, J. (2004), “Some pros and cons of Six Sigma: an academic perspective”, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 16, pp. 303-6.
Bala, H. and Venkatesh, V. (2007), “Assimilation of interorganizational business process
standards”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 18, pp. 340-62.
Blakeslee, J.A. Jr (1999), “Implementing the Six Sigma solution”, Quality Progress, Vol. 32, p. 77.
Bushe, G.R. (1988), “Cultural contradictions of statistical process control in American
manufacturing organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 14, pp. 19-31.
Choo, A.S., Linderman, K.W. and Schroeder, R.G. (2007), “Method and context perspectives on
learning and knowledge creation in quality management”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 25, pp. 918-31.
Damanpour, F. (1991), “Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 555-90.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48,
pp. 147-60.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case research”, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14, pp. 532-50.
Fleischer, M., Liker, J. and Arnsdorf, D. (1988), Ettective Use of Computer-Aided Design and
Computer-Aided Engineering in Manufacturing, Industrial Technology Institute,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Goeke, R.J. and Offodile, O.F. (2005), “Forecasting management life cycles: a comparative study
of Six Sigma and TQM”, The Quality Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 34-46.
Goh, T.N., Low, P.C., Tsui, K.L. and Xie, M. (2003), “Impact of Six Sigma implementation on stock
price performance”, TQM & Business Excellence, Vol. 14, pp. 753-63.
Gutiérrez, L.J.G., Lloréns-Montes, F.J. and Sánchez, Ó.F.B. (2009), “Six Sigma: from a
goal-theoretic perspective to shared-vision development”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 29, pp. 151-69.
Hahn, G.J., Hill, W.J., Hoeri, R.W. and Zinkgraf, S.A. (1999), “The impact of Six Sigma
improvement – a glimpse into the future of statistics”, The American Statistician, Vol. 53,
pp. 208-15.
Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J.H. (1977), “The population ecology of organizations”, American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82, pp. 929-64.
Harry, M.J. and Schroeder, R. (2000), Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy
Revolutionizing the World’s Top Corporations, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Hawley, A. (1968), “The population ecology of organizations”, American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 82, pp. 929-64.
Klein, K. and Sorra, J.S. (1996), “The challenge of innovation implementation”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 21, pp. 1055-80.
IJOPM Klein, K., Hall, R.J. and Laliberte, M. (1990), “Training and the organizational consequences of
technological change: a case study of computer-aided design and drafting”,
31,4 in Larwood, U.E.G.L. (Ed.), Technological Innovation and Human Resources: End-User
Training, de Gruyter, New York, NY.
Klein, K., Ralls, R.S. and Carter, P.O. (1989), The Implementation of a Computerized Inventory
Control System, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
450 Lawler, E.E. and Mohrman, S.A. (1991), “Quality circles: after the honeymoon”, in Staw, B.M. (Ed.),
Psychological Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G. and Choo, A.S. (2006), “Six Sigma: the role of goals in
improvement teams”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24, pp. 779-90.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S. and Choo, A.S. (2003), “Six Sigma: a goal-theoretic
perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, pp. 193-203.
McAdam, R. and Lafferty, B. (2004), “A multilevel case study critique of Six Sigma: statistical
control or strategic change?”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 24, p. 530.
Meredith, J.R. (1998), “Building operations management theory through case and field research”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, pp. 441-54.
Nonthaleerak, P. and Hendry, L. (2008), “Exploring the Six Sigma phenomenon using multiple
case study evidence”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 28, pp. 279-303.
Pagell, M. (2004), “Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration of
operations, purchasing and logistics”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 459-87.
Pande, P.S., Neuman, R.P. and Cavanagh, R.R. (2000), The Six Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola,
and Other Top Companies Are Honing Their Performance, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Perreault, W.D. and Leigh, L. (1989), “Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative
judgments”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, pp. 135-48.
Raisinghani, M.S., Ette, H., Pierce, R., Cannon, G. and Daripaly, P. (2005), “Six Sigma concepts,
tools and applications”, Industrial Management þ Data Systems, Vol. 105, pp. 491-505.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989), “Managing the change to an automated office: lessons from five case
studies”, Office: Technology & People, Vol. 4, pp. 31-52.
Rust, R.T. and Cooil, B. (1994), “Reliability measures for qualitative data: theory and
implications”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, pp. 1-14.
Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Schroeder, R.G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C. and Choo, A.S. (2008), “Six Sigma: definition and
underlying theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp. 536-54.
Teo, H.H., Wei, K.K. and Benbasat, I. (2003), “Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational
linkages: an institutional perspective”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 19-49.
Thawani, S. (2004), “Six Sigma – strategy for organizational excellence”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 15, pp. 655-64.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. and Frohlich, M. (2002), “Case research in operations management”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22, pp. 195-219.
Westphal, J.D., Gulati, R. and Shortell, S.M. (1997), “Customization or conformity? An institutional
and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 366-94.
Yin, R.K. (1999), “Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research”, Six Sigma
Health Services Research, Vol. 34, pp. 1209-24.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
adoption
Zsidisin, G.A., Melnyk, S.A. and Ragatz, G.L. (2005), “An institutional theory perspective of
business continuity planning for purchasing & supply management”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43, pp. 3401-20.
Zu, X., Fredendall, L.D. and Douglas, T.J. (2008), “The evolving theory of quality management: 451
the role of Six Sigma”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp. 630-50.
Zuboff, S. (1988), In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power, Basic Books,
New York, NY.

Corresponding author
James W. Hamister can be contacted at: james.hamister@wright.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints