summary

Please read the article and write a one page summary including your understanding of the article

InternationalJournal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 2, Issue 1, January 2012 1

ISSN 2250-3153

www.ijsrp.org

Understanding the Benefits and Limitations of Six Sigma

Methodology

Nilesh V Fursule, Dr. Satish V Bansod, Swati N. Fursule

Abstract- Six Sigma is both a philosophy and a methodology

that

improves quality by analyzing data with statistics to find the

root cause of quality problems and to implement controls.

Statistically, Six Sigma refers to a process in which the range

between the mean of a process quality measurement and the

nearest specification limit is at least six times the standard

deviation of the process.

Despite the pervasiveness of Six Sigma program

implementations, there is increasing concern about

implementation failures. One reason many Six Sigma programs

fail is because an implementation model on how to effectively

guide the implementation of these programs is lacking. While Six

Sigma is increasingly implemented in industry, little academic

research has been done on Six Sigma and its influence on quality

management theory and application. There is a criticism that Six

Sigma simply puts traditional quality management practices in a

new package. To investigate this issue and the role of Six Sigma

in quality management, this study reviewed both the traditional

quality management and Six Sigma literatures. Quality

professionals are aware that the six-sigma methodology employs

existing, well-known tools developed in quality sciences and are

based on the works of Deming, Juran, Ishikawa, Taguchi, and

others. Nevertheless six sigma, a Motorola innovation, has been a

positive force. A good presentation – black belts and green belts

honoring six-sigma experts – can make statistical process

improvement, and the systematic six-sigma methodology taste

good, and do good work.

Index Terms- lean manufacturing, six sigma, DMAIC, SCM

I. INTRODUCTION

ix Sigma is both a philosophy and a methodology that

improves quality by analyzing data with statistics to find the
root cause of quality problems and to implement controls.
Statistically, Six Sigma refers to a process in which the range
between the mean of a process quality measurement and the
nearest specification limit is at least six times the standard

deviation of the process. The statistical objectives of Six Sigma

are to centre the process on the target and reduce process

variation. A Six Sigma process will approach ‘zero defects’ with

only 3.4 defects per million opportunities (DPMO) for a defect to

occur. In comparison, the goal of many quality initiatives

throughout the 1980s and early 90s was to obtain a process

capability index (Cpk) of at least 1.0, which roughly translates to

3 Sigma. However, this level of quality still produces a defect

rate of 66,810 DPMO. Six Sigma differs from other quality

programmes in its ‘top-down’ drive and its rigorous methodology

that demands detailed analysis, fact-based decisions, and a

control plan to ensure ongoing quality control of a process.

However, despite the immense popularity and the wide-spread

adoption of Six Sigma, there is an increasing concern across

industries regarding the failure of Six Sigma programs. One

reason many Six Sigma programs fail is because an

implementation model detailing the sequence of Six Sigma

elements/activities is not available. The existing literature

identifies many elements of Six Sigma which does enhance our

understanding of Six Sigma programs. However, the success of

Six Sigma programs hinges on the sequence of many Six Sigma

elements/activities or a model for implementation. Many

characterize Six Sigma programs as the latest management fad of

improvement tools and techniques (Watson, 2006). It is well

known that Six Sigma programs involve a host of critical

decisions and many researchers have contributed to the existing

literature. For example, Schroeder et al. (2008) have identified

many critical decisions or elements of Six Sigma programs such

as management involvement, improvement specialists,

performance metrics, a systematic procedure, and project

selection and prioritization. Six Sigma programs improve

operational performance in order to enhance customer

satisfaction with a company’s products and services

(Rajagopalan et al., 2004). Over the years, many companies, such

as General Electric, Allied Signal, Raytheon, and Delphi

Automotive have implemented Six Sigma programs (Treichler et

al., 2002), and claimed that these programs have transformed

their organizations. Six Sigma programs are heavily promoted in

practitioners’ books on Six Sigma (e.g., Harry and Schroeder,

2000) A survey of aerospace companies concluded that less that

50% of the respondents were satisfied with their Six Sigma

programs (Zimmerman and Weiss, 2005). Another survey of

healthcare companies revealed that 54% do not intend to

embrace Six Sigma programs (Feng and Manuel, 2007).

Companies such as 3M and Home Depot were not satisfied with

their implementation of Six Sigma programs (Hindo, 2007). The

real question is not whether Six Sigma programs have value, but

why do so many Six Sigma programs fail? One reason for Six

Sigma program failure is because we lack a model on how to

effectively guide the implementation of the perfect efficient Six

Sigma program (Wurtzel,

2008).

This paper is part of a wider and critical research project work

aimed at exploring and analyzing strategies and supporting

concepts used to improve the level of stability within a supply

chain , probably combining various tools and techniques used in

TQM and supply chain. First part of the paper focuses mainly on

the literature review comprising of six sigma and other QM

techniques. Next part of the paper systematically focuses on six

sigma methodology i.e. how six sigma works, the positives of

implementing six sigma , the negatives of six sigma and last part

of the paper throws some light on what future work is required to

S

International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 2, Issue 1, January 2012 2

ISSN 2250-3153
www.ijsrp.org

be done by quality professionals in order to achieve the goals set

by Japan’s Quality gurus.

II. LITERATURE OVERVIEW

A. Six Sigma: A Thorough Understanding

“Six Sigma is a long-term commitment. It won’t work well

without full commitment from upper management. Six Sigma

changes the way a company thinks by teaching fact-based

decision making to all levels. The programme changes the ‘DNA’

of a company by changing the way the leaders think and by

improving the management pipeline by developing management

and communication skills in people.”

Over the years, many researchers have studied Six Sigma

programs and identified many critical decisions of these

programs. For example, previous research of Antony and

Banuelas (2002), Coronado and Antony (2002), Lakhavani

(2003), Lynch et al. (2003), Mcadam and Evans (2004), Gijo and

Rao (2005), Szeto and Tsang (2005), Ladani et al. (2006),

Savolainen and Haikonen (2007), Davison and Al-Shaghana

(2007), recently being Zu et al. (2008) studied the evolving

theory of quality management and the role of Six Sigma. While

defining Six Sigma programs and uncovering the underlying

theory, Schroeder et al. (2008) identified five elements of these

programs. One of them is management’s involvement in

performing many Six Sigma functions, such as selecting

improvement specialists, identifying project selection, and

facilitating Six Sigma implementation (Gitlow and Levine, 2005;

Snee and Hoerl, 2003). Antony et al. (2007) emphasized as

Firstly, management’s involvement in on-going projects for

sustainability of Six Sigma programs need to be defined .

Improvement specialists are trained or hired at different Six

Sigma competency levels (e.g., Black Belt or Green Belt). Their

primary responsibility was to provide technical expertise and

leadership in facilitating a specific Six Sigma implementation

(Pyzdek, 2003). Third, as Keller (2005) pointed out, Six Sigma

programs have performance metrics facilitating Six Sigma

implementation (Gitlow and Levine, 2005; Snee and Hoerl,

2003). Fourth, Six Sigma implementation uses a systematic

procedure; a five-step DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze,

Improve, and Control) methodology. A detailed description of

DMAIC methodology can be referenced from many papers.

Pyzdek (2003) or Keller (2005) focused mainly on DMAIC.

Fifth, project selection and prioritization is an important element

of Six Sigma programs. The prioritization of projects is

determined by many criteria, such as a cost benefit analysis or

the Pareto Analysis (Banuelas et al., 2006). While Considering

effective implementation of Six Sigma and the cost associated

with this, many authors question the return on investment of Six

Sigma programs (e.g., Gupta, 2008). The real question is not

whether Six Sigma programs have value, but why do so many

Six Sigma programs fail? One reason could be because we lack a

model on how to effectively guide the implementation of Six

Sigma programs (Wurtzel, 2008). Secondly, we lack an

understanding of the sequence of these elements/activities, or a

model for effectively guiding the implementation of these

programs. Because there is no implementation model,

practitioners have encountered tremendous difficulty in

implementing these programs, and there are reports of wide-

spread Six Sigma failures. Zimmerman and Weiss (2005)

specifically focused on the failure of Six Sigma Program for

aerospace industry and found that less than 50% of the survey

respondents from aerospace companies expressed satisfaction

with their Six Sigma programs. Mullavey (2005) described the

top 10 reasons why Six Sigma implementations fail. Berg (20 06)

reported that their Six Sigma program was expensive and did not

yield expected results. Sutton (2006) described nine ways to get

the best out of Six Sigma programs. A national survey of Six

Sigma programs in healthcare companies revealed that 54% do

not intend to embrace Six Sigma programs (Feng and Manuel,

2007). At 3M, a Six Sigma program that was not structurally

implemented almost satisfied creativity and innovation of

workforce (Hindo, 2007). Home Depot’s Six Sigma program

negatively affected employee performance, and yielded Home

Depot’s worst Consumer Satisfaction Index ranking (Hindo and

Grow, 2007). Angel and Pritchard (2008, p. 41) reported that

‘‘nearly 60% of all corporate Six Sigma initiatives fail to yield

desired results’’. According to Gupta (2008, p. 22), at times, Six

Sigma ‘‘improvement programs cost more than the improvement

they drive because of incorrect application’’. While reporting

cash flow problems of Six Sigma programs in small companies,

Foster (2007, p. 19) claims that if these programs are not

‘‘skillfully implemented; the benefits of Six Sigma may be

marginal’’. According to Chandra (2008), one reason Six Sigma

programs fail is because these programs are not correctly

implemented. The existing literature research related to Six

Sigma and other improvement initiatives e.g. Lean or Theory of

Constraints are utilized to isolate steps of implementation.

Although suggested in different studies, these steps can connect

with each other to hypothesize an implementation model. In

describing a successful lean (e.g., manufacturing cells)

implementation, Chakravorty and Hales (2004) found that the

first step in implementing an improvement plan was to perform a

customer and market driven strategic analysis. The purpose of

this analysis was to direct the operational improvement effort to

gain a competitive position in the market. According to Keller

(2005), Six Sigma programs have many tools for improvement

including Histograms, Pareto Charts, Statistical Process Control

(SPC), and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Foster (2007)

claimed that a common process for implementing improvement

tools in Six Sigma is nothing but structured DMAIC

methodology, which is similar to Edward Deming’s ‘‘Plan-Do-

Check-Act’’ problem solving approach. Lee-Mortimer (2006)

considered the DMAIC methodology to be essential to Six Sigma

programs and appropriate for delivering business improvements.

According to Chakravorty and Franza (2009), a form of DMAIC

methodology, Define-Measure-Analyze-Design-Verify

(DMADV), was central to a new product development

experience. Mast and Bisgaard (2007) considered DMAIC

methodology as the scientific method in Six Sigma programs.

Keller (2005) points out that the objective of Six Sigma programs

is to create a higher perceived value of the company’s products

and services in the eyes of the customer. Antony et al.(2005)

indicated that linking Six Sigma to business strategy and

customer needs is critical for successful implementation. Pande

et al. (2000)point out that a cross-functional team is necessary to

implement Six Sigma programs and the purpose of the team is to

provide an on-going involvement of management in the

International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 2, Issue 1, January 2012 3

ISSN 2250-3153
www.ijsrp.org

implementation process. According to Harry and Linsenmann

(2007), the CEO of DuPont committed complete management

support for implementing Six Sigma programs, and ensured that

management learned Six Sigma methodology by requiring that

managers themselves become Green Belt certified. At DuPont

the Six Sigma program was not merely a methodology to get

results, but was a management culture created to ensure long-

term transformation of the business units. Study revealed that one

reason Six Sigma implementation failed in many companies was

due to the lack of commitment from management (Gopal, 2008).

Management simply pushed Six Sigma programs out to

employees, and did not become personally involved in the

implementation process. As Mullavey (2005) points out, in order

to successfully implement Six Sigma programs, management

must understand Six Sigma methodology, must provide

leadership, and must guide the implementation process. Mast and

Bisgaard (2007) considered DMAIC methodology as the

scientific method in Six Sigma programs. Keller (2005) pointed

out the objective of Six Sigma programs as to create a higher

perceived value of the company’s products and services in the

eyes of the customer. On the other hand, Antony et al. (2005)

indicated that linking Six Sigma to business strategy and

customer needs was critical for successful implementation of Six

Sigma.

Jack Welch in GE’s 1997 AGM provided a detailed

description of each step of DMAIC methodology, and of various

levels of training (e.g., Black Belt or Green Belt). Six Sigma

implementation begins not inside the business, but outside it,

focusing on answering the questions, ‘How can we make the

customer more competitive? What is critical to the customer’s

success?’ Learning the answer to the question and then learning

how to provide the solution is the only focus we need(Harry and

Schroeder (2000, p. 39).

In order to implement Deming’s style of quality management,

Hales and Chakravorty (2006) also found that after identifying

the tools for improvement to be used, the next step was to

understand the overall operations, and to set priorities for the

project. One way to understand overall operations is by

developing a process map. There are several important points

worth discussing about the implementation model. The first step

of the model is to perform Strategic Analysis, which needs to be

market/customer driven. Various implementation experience

shows that the reason for Six Sigma implementation was to

improve customer expectations through operational excellence.

Many Six Sigma programs are implemented to gain operational

efficiency. Unfortunately, many of these operational gains do not

directly provide enhanced customer satisfaction or value. Bendell

(2006) claims that Six Sigma is a strategic approach and

improvement projects should be selected based on improving

customer satisfaction and operational efficiency. In reality, a

majority of the improvement projects are selected based on cost

perspective and, therefore, the approach becomes suboptimal,

diverting from basic purpose of improving quality of the goods

and services to Cost effectiveness. According to Andel (2007, p.

1) the cost minimization approach usually translates into a

cutting headcount exercise. It is important to learn more about

how to identify projects and how to prioritize them. This could

be scope for future work.

One reason many Six Sigma improvement programs fail is

because improvement projects are not correctly identified and

prioritized (Zimmerman and Weiss, 2005). Over the years, many

researchers have worked on prioritizing improvement projects by

mixing tools such as Six Sigma, Quality, Lean, or Theory of

Constraints tools. For example, Chakravorty and Atwater (1998)

showed how to prioritize quality improvement projects using

Theory of Constraints. Chakravorty and Sessum (1995) showed

how to prioritize Lean improvement projects using Theory of

Constraints. Chakravorty (1996) mixed Lean and Theory of

Constraints concepts to improve the performance of

manufacturing operations. Recent empirical research (e.g.,

Banuelas et al., 2006) found that companies prioritize

improvement initiatives by mixing these tools. More research is

necessary on how to mix these tools to correctly identify and

prioritize improvement projects. Lean thinking is part of the

culture right across operational domains, coupled with Six Sigma

approaches in quality (e.g., Banuelas et al., 2006,Nave, 2002).

There is growing concern that Six Sigma or other process

improvement programs fail because they do not consider the

human side of implementation. For example, Six Sigma

implementation negatively affected employee morale at Home

Depot and studied creativity and innovation at3M (Hindo, 2007;

Hindo and Grow, 2007). According Angel and Pritchard (2008,

p. 41) examples like Home Depot and 3 M show that companies

cannot focus on implementing Six Sigma in isolation. Clearly Six

Sigma is not a set of process tools that should be part of a more

holistic process improvement strategy. For any of these TQM

tools viz. Six Sigma to be used effectively, employee behavior

change must be an integral part of the programs. A behavior-

focused approach makes change sustainably. Further, it keeps us

ever aware that a technically sound change designed by Six

Sigma, lean or similar applications could be at risk of failing

unless supported by the appropriate behavior change.

TABLE 1.1 Sigma Table

Sigma Defects Per Million Yield

6 3.4 100.00%

5 233 99.977

4 6,210.00 99.379

3 66,807.00 93.32

2.5 158,655.00 84.1

2 308,538.00 69.1

1.5 500,000.00 50

1.4 539,828.00 46

1.3 579,260.00 42.1

1.2 617,911.00 38.2

1.1 655,422.00 34.5

1 691,462.00 30.9

0.5 841,345.00 15.9

0 933,193.00 6.7

Initially Six Sigma practice was developed considering in view

the yield as shown in table 1.1. Note that above yield can only be

International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 2, Issue 1, January 2012 4

ISSN 2250-3153
www.ijsrp.org

achieved if processes monitored and improved on continual

basis. Six Sigma deployment need to be monitored strictly.

Zimmerman and Weiss (2005) point out companies need to

pay attention to the human side of Six Sigma implementation.

The human side of Six Sigma implementation is an important

area for future research. This research will be greatly helpful for

practicing managers wanting to effectively implement Six Sigma

programs to achieve sustained results in their business

environment.

Due to an increasing pace and complexity of business

environments, organizations no longer compete on processes but

the ability to continually improve processes (Teece, 2007). At the

same time numerous organizations that have deployed

continuous improvement initiatives have not been successful in

getting what they set out to achieve.

Results of a 2007 survey of US manufacturers showed that

while 70% of plants had deployed lean manufacturing

techniques, 74% of these were disappointed with the progress

they were making with lean (Pay, 2008). An earlier study found

that only 11% of companies considered their continuous

improvement initiatives to be successful. Although operations

management executives realize the importance of continually

improving processes, they have found that managing continuous

improvement is a challenging task (Kiernan, 1996; Pullin, 2005).

The challenge lies in creating an infrastructure to coordinate

continuous improvement projects (Choo et al., 2004; Wruck and

Jensen, 1998). Dynamic capability is defined as ‘‘a learned and

stable pattern of collective activity through which the

organization systematically generates and modifies its operating

routines in pursuit of improved effectiveness.’’ (Zollo and

Winter, 2002, p. 340). The implementation of dynamic

capabilities involves repeated cycles of organizational learning

(Cyert and March, 1963; Mahoney, 1995; Scho¨ n, 1975).

Similarly, process improvement involves organizational learning

to make changes in operating routines. Continuous improvement

(CI) is an ongoing activity aimed at raising the level of

organization-wide performance through focused incremental

changes in processes (Bessant and Caffyn, 1997; Wu and Chen,

2006). A CI initiative provides a planned and organized system

for the continual discovery and implementation of such process

changes. CI initiatives consist of two broad areas of action

required for sustained improvements, namely the execution and

the coordination of process improvement projects. Continuous

improvement thus fits into Helfat et al.’s (2007, p. 5) notion of

dynamic capability as patterned activity, in contrast to ‘‘a one-

time idiosyncratic change to the resource base of an

organization.’’ When appropriately implemented, continuous

improvement initiatives help to integrate operations processes

and enhance the organization’s ability to make cohesive and

quick process changes to improve performance. For continuous

improvement to create and support dynamically changing

operational capabilities it is critical that it include a coherent

infrastructure (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Garvin, 1993b).

However, existing studies tell us little about the constituent

elements of such an infrastructure. In seeking these elements for

CI infrastructure we rely on the theoretical relationship between

organizational learning and dynamic capability (Zollo and

Winter, 2002). CI infrastructure can add a dynamic dimension to

CI initiatives by institutionalizing organizational learning,

manifested in the form of process improvements (Linder-

manetal., 2004; Molinaetal., 2007). It can serve as the right

context for dynamic capability by facilitating the involvement of

middle and lower levels of management in strategy deployment

and creating a culture for organizational learning (Neilson et al.,

2008).

Even though the fruitful results of Six Sigma appeared quickly

,The 1990s decade was one of economic decline and malaise for

Japan (Stieglitz, 2003). When an economy turns sour,

manufacturing’s helpful reaction would be to pull in and reach

out: work force lay-offs, plant closures, production and inventory

reductions, and aggressive use of global best practices. In Japan

industry did not help. Specially, Japan was

1. late to restructure,

2. late to outsource off-shore,

3. late to learn and implement design for manufacture and

assembly,

4. late to employ modular deliveries from suppliers, and

5. Japan had been bulking up on inventories, its lean/JIT

heritage seemingly losing ground.

This suggests that six sigma, even though most popular, could

not help the country like Japan to recover fast and smooth from

economic slowdown, which opened the fresh doors for other QM

techniques either individually or collectively (Stieglitz, 2003).

Finally, late in the decade, Japanese companies reacted. In

1999 Sony announced that it would slash 17,000 jobs; Mitsubishi

Electric would trim 10% of its 146,000 global employees; Nissan

would close three assembly plants and two engine facilities, and

reduce employment by 21,000. These three companies ‘‘barely

represent the tip of the iceberg of major Japanese companies that

have announced restructuring plans’’ (Ostram, 2000). So much

for the lifetime-employment aspect of Japanese management.

Resistance to mergers, acquisitions, and other alliances with

foreign companies also was melting. Ford took a major stake in

Mazda, Daimler-Chrysler the same in Mitsubishi automotive,

and Renault in Nissan . With Renault’s help, a lot of it in the

DFMA (Bremner et al., 2004) arena, Nissan emerged in 2004 as

the world’s highest operating-margin automaker—after losing

money nearly every year of the 1990s (Bremner et al., 2004). As

the New York Times puts it (Belson, 2004), ‘‘The qualms are

gone. Now even Japan’s pride and joy, its top-end electronics

manufacturers are coming to China.’’ More accurately, Japan,

like other industrialized countries, is selectively moving

production to developing countries – especially of products

involving a lot of touch labor – and successfully exporting to the

developing countries its higher-end products, such as machine

tools (Economist, 2004).

B. Implementing Six Sigma

Implementing a typical Six Sigma programme begins at top

management level with training in fact-based decision making

and evaluation of a company’s strategic goals. The objective

behind training is to define what process variables are critical to

product quality and to define the gaps between goals and current

performance that will become Six Sigma projects. Black Belts

and Master Black Belts are chosen to become Six Sigma experts

and be dedicated full-time to run Six Sigma projects. Green

Belts, who keep their regular jobs while they work part-time on

Six Sigma projects, are also chosen. Six Sigma uses a group of

International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 2, Issue 1, January 2012 5

ISSN 2250-3153
www.ijsrp.org

improvement specialists, typically referred to as champions,

master black belts, black belts, and green belts (Henderson and

Evans, 2000; Linderman et al., 2003). Those specialists receive

intensive differentiated training that is tailored for their ranks and

is designed to improve their knowledge and skills in statistical

methods, project management, process design, problem-solving

techniques, leadership skill, and other managerial skills (Barney,

2002a; Gowen and Tallon, 2005; Linderman et al., 2003; Snee

and Hoerl, 2003). Same has been tried to summarize the six

sigma deployment in fig.1.1 as shown below. With assigning the

improvement specialists to take different levels of roles and

responsibilities in leading the continuous improvement efforts,

the organization builds a Six Sigma role structure for quality

improvement. In the Six Sigma role structure, there is a

hierarchical coordination mechanism of work for quality

improvement across multiple organizational levels (Sinha and

Van de Ven, 2005). For example, the senior executives serve as

champions for making the organization’s strategic improvement

plans and black belts under them lead Six Sigma projects and

mentor green belts in problem solving (Barney, 2002a,b; Sinha

and Van de Ven, 2005). This mechanism helps to coordinate and

control work across organizational levels to ensure that the

tactical tasks match with the overall business strategy (Sinha and

Van de Ven, 2005).

Six Sigma structured improvement procedure is as explained

below.

Six Sigma applies a structured approach to managing

improvement activities, which is represented by Define–

Measure–Analyze–Improve–Control (DMAIC) used in process

improvement or Define–Measure–Analyze–Design–Verify

(DMADV) used in product/service design improvement

(Linderman et al., 2003). Both of these procedures are grounded

in the classic Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) cycle, but Six Sigma

specifies the QM tools and techniques to use within each step,

which is unique to Six Sigma (Linderman et al., 2003). The Six

Sigma structured improvement procedures provide teams a

methodological framework to guide them in the conduct of

improvement projects

Figure 1: Six Sigma Deployment

The Six Sigma structured improvement procedure is expected

to support product/service design and process management. Both

product/service design and process management practices

involve using different managerial and technical tools and their

effectiveness is dependent on how well teams actually use these

tools (Ahire and Dreyfus, 2000). The DMAIC/DMADV

procedures offer a standardized approach for the teams to follow,

and prescribe appropriate tools to use at each step, as well as

systematic project management tools, which enhances their

problem-solving ability (Antony and Banuelas, 2002; Choo et al.,

2004; Kwak and Anbari, 2004). In addition, these structured

procedures guide the teams search for solutions to complicated

problems by breaking complex tasks into elementary components

to reduce task complexity so that the teams can be focused,

which will increase their productivity (Linderman et al., 2003,

2006). Likewise, the use of Six Sigma metrics is more effective

and efficient when teams follow the structured procedures in

conducting Six Sigma projects. These procedures not only entail

a ‘measure’ step to identify measurable customer requirements

and to develop baseline defect measures, but also request using

metrics throughout the project, e.g., from determining project

goals in the ‘define’ step to establishing on-going process

measures to continuously control the key processes in the

‘control’ step (Pande et al., 2002). Linderman et al. (2006) found

that when teams strictly follow the DMAIC steps and faithfully

complete each step, they are more likely to meet the project

goals, especially those challenging goals, and to achieve

improved project performance.

C. Involving Lean Manufacturing

Many companies are now combining implementation of Six

Sigma and Lean Manufacturing programmes. Lean

Manufacturing is a method for reducing lead-time across the

value chain, which improves cash flow, eliminates waste,

reduces inventory and increases on-time delivery. In process

industries, such as the chemical and plastics industries, key Lean

Manufacturing tools are reduction in setup time and Total

Productive Maintenance (TPM), comments Bonnie Smith,

managing director at the Time Based Management Consulting

Group (TBM). Reducing set-up time allows a company to run

smaller batches cost-effectively or make more frequent

transitions, which is necessary for reducing inventory. TPM

focuses on improving machine maintenance to decrease

downtime. “While Six Sigma alone improves firsttime yield and

eliminates some waste in a manufacturing process, Lean

significant, breakthrough waste elimination,”. Applying both

Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma tool sets results in far better

improvements than can be obtained with either method alone.

III. BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING SIX SIGMA

Quality management (QM) has developed into a mature field

with sound definitional and conceptual foundations (Sousa and

Voss, 2002), but new QM methods continue to grow. For

example, Six Sigma, which is ‘‘an organized and systematic

method for strategic process improvement and new product and

service development that relies on statistical methods and the

scientific method to make dramatic reductions in customer

defined defect rates’’ (Linderman et al., 2003, p. 194), generates

intense interest in industry. Since its initiation at Motorola in the

1980s, many companies including GE, Honeywell, Sony, rpillar,

and Johnson Controls have adopted Six Sigma and obtained

substantial benefits (Pande et al., 2000; Snee and Hoerl, 2003).

Six Sigma emphasizes using a variety of quantitative metrics in

continuous improvement, such as process Sigma measurements,

critical-to-quality metrics, defect measures, and traditional

quality measures like process capability (Breyfogle et al., 2001;

Dasgupta, 2003; Linderman et al., 2003; Pyzdek, 2003). Six

Sigma metrics are used to set improvement goals (Linderman et

International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 2, Issue 1, January 2012 6

ISSN 2250-3153
www.ijsrp.org

al., 2003; Pande et al., 2002). Objective data helps in reducing

corporate use of political agendas to drive solutions (Brewer,

2004). As suggested by Linderman et al. (2003), using explicit,

challenging goals in Six Sigma projects can increase the

magnitude of improvements, reduce performance variability of

the projects, and increase employees’ improvement efforts and

commitment to quality. Moreover, Six Sigma integrates

business-level performance, process measures, and project

metrics into a systematic review process so that managers can

manage the organization quantitatively and translate the business

strategy into tactical tasks (Barney, 2002a).

When the buying firm involves its suppliers in the

product/service design process, the suppliers can provide inputs

about product or component simplification and standardization

and the capabilities of prospective materials and parts (Flynn et

al., 1995; Forza and Flippini, 1998; Kaynak, 2003). Also, an

improved supplier relationship enhances process management

through timely delivery of high quality materials and parts

(Kaynak, 2003). By selecting suppliers based on quality

encourage the suppliers to continuously improve their quality and

thus provide high quality parts, which helps to reduce process

variability due to purchased materials and parts (Flynn et al.,

1995).

Garvin’s (1984) quality performance model suggests that

quality performance affects business performance through two

routes—the manufacturing route and the marketing route (Sousa

and Voss, 2002). In the manufacturing route , improved quality

performance results in fewer defects, lower scrap and rework

rates, less waste, and more dependable processes, which lead to

lower manufacturing costs, lower warranty and liability costs,

higher efficiency and productivity, and increased return on assets

and profitability (Handfield et al., 1998; Kaynak, 2003; Reed et

al., 1996). In the marketing route, improved quality increases

customer satisfaction that leads to increased sales and larger

market share (Ahire and Dreyfus, 2000; Choi and Eboch, 1998;

Handfield et al., 1998). By providing high quality products and

services, the firm has less elastic demand and can charge higher

prices, which brings about more profits (Kaynak, 2003; Sousa

and Voss, 2002).

The QM literature has unanimously emphasized the

importance of top management support for QM (Beer, 2003).

This study once again confirms that top management support is

critical for traditional QM and it is also important for Six Sigma.

Top management support directly supports the Six Sigma role

structure in an organization. The success of executing substantial

changes required for Six Sigma deployment relies on whether top

management understands and accepts Six Sigma principles and

whether they are willing to support and enable the restructuring

of the organization’s policies (Antony and Banuelas, 2002; Lee

and Choi, 2006).

IV. LIMITATIONS OF IMPLEMENTING SIX SIGMA

The main hurdles in successful implementation of Six Sigma ,

in the views of researchers are , One organization’s own

management and employees , two active supplier participation

and three active customers participation. The same are explained

in detail in continued discussion.

Neither quality information nor the Six Sigma structured

improvement procedure has a direct effect on product/service

design or process management, but those two practices are found

to have a significant effect on the Six Sigma focus on metric

which in turn directly affects product/service design and process

management (Linderman et al.2003, 2006). Six Sigma is

criticized as offering nothing new and simply repackaging

traditional QM practices (Clifford, 2001; Stamatis, 2000). It is

argued that the large returns from Six Sigma at some companies

were due to the initial quality level of these companies being so

low that anything would have drastically improved their quality

(Stamatis, 2000). Although there have been numerous case

studies, comprehensive discussions, books and websites

addressing Six Sigma, very little scholarly research has been

done on Six Sigma and quality management theory and

application (Goffnett, 2004; Schroeder et al., 2005).

Top management support is crucial in Six Sigma

implementation, as demonstrated by chief executives such as

Jack Welch of GE, Bob Galvin of Motorola, and Lawrence

Bossidy of AlliedSignal, who each led Six Sigma

implementation in their firm (Henderson and Evans, 2000; Slater,

2000). Top management makes the strategic decisions required

for Six Sigma adoption (Lee and Choi, 2006). Six Sigma role

structure can only be established if top management uses its

authority and power to integrate the Six Sigma black and green

belt system into the organization’s human infrastructure, to

adjust the performance appraisal and compensation policy to

incorporate Six Sigma performance, and to provide resources for

Six Sigma training (Antony and Banuelas, 2002; Bhote, 2003;

Breyfogle et al., 2001; Hendricks and Kelbaugh, 1998).

Execution of the Six Sigma focus on metrics also requires

support from top management. Top management sets its

organization’s strategic visions and objectives. This puts

restriction on implementation and achieving six sigma goals. It

has been observed that the ultimate aim of top management is

always to earn healty profits even in falling market scenario. Six

sigma aims at achieving highest quality standards. (Ahire and

O’Shaughnessy, 1998). The creation of a partnership with key

suppliers is one major intervention that companies should make

to realize continuous improvement (Hackman and Wageman,

1995).

Six Sigma connects employees’ promotion and rewards with

the level of their Six Sigma certifications and their involvement

and achievement in Six Sigma projects (Henderson and Evans,

2000; Lee and Choi, 2006), which ignites the employees’ interest

in quality improvement and increases their commitment to the

organization’s goal of high quality (Linderman et al., 2003). But

at the same time the negative effect of employees

misunderstanding about this comes into picture i.e. if he or she

fails to deliver expected quality product their promotion and

reward will be low.

The Six Sigma structured improvement procedure is expected
to support product/service design and process management. Both
product/service design and process management practices
involve using different managerial and technical tools and their
effectiveness is dependent on how well teams actually use these

tools (Ahire and Dreyfus, 2000). Also from the entire study , we

can easily conclude that

1. Quality information is positively related to supplier

relationship.

International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 2, Issue 1, January 2012 7

ISSN 2250-3153
www.ijsrp.org

2. Quality information is positively related to

product/service design.

3. Quality information is positively related to process

management.(Ahire and Dreyfus,2000; Flynn et al.,

1995; Forza and Flippini, 1998; Kaynak, 2003; Gowen

and Tallon, 2005; Kwak and Anbari, 2004; Lee and

Choi, 2006 ;X. Zu et al.,2008).

Six Sigma is simply a repackaging of traditional QM methods or

provides a new approach to improving quality and organizational

excellence. This question has created some confusion about Six

Sigma (Goffnett, 2004), and also put managers in a dilemma: on

one hand, if they do not adopt Six Sigma because it is considered

to be the same as traditional QM methods, their company may

lose the opportunity to gain substantial benefits as GE and other

companies practicing Six Sigma have achieved from their Six

Sigma efforts; on the other hand, if Six Sigma is different, there

lacks solid answer to what are the new practices that the

company needs to implement to improve the current QM system

(Schroeder et al., 2008).

V. CONCLUSION AND SCOPE

Academics need to better understand Six Sigma so that they do

not overhype it or too quickly dismiss it as nothing new. By

better defining and adequately understanding Six Sigma, scholars

can develop a deeper and richer knowledge of this phenomenon.

The implementation of QM in an organization requires two types

of decisions: what to do and how to do it (Sousa and Voss,

2002). The findings of this study suggest that Six Sigma

implementation requires three key practices to work with other

QM practices in order to enhance the organization’s ability of

improving quality. Further research exploring how these Six

Sigma practices are adopted in different organizational contexts

is needed, since different organizations have different maturity

levels of QM implementation and the strengths and weakness of

their existing QM systems vary. It is desirable to explore the

critical contextual factors influencing the integration of Six

Sigma practices into an organization’s existing QM system.

Six Sigma is an effective approach to a broad-based quality

control program. It is far more than the traditional approach, in

which internal teams are created to reduce production

defects, solve problems within one department, and address

problems in isolation. Six Sigma is more than a quality

control program with another name; it is a quality-based system

for reorganizing the entire approach to work in every aspect:

productivity, communication, involvement at every level, and

external service.

Despite the limitations discussed above, this study contributes

to the scholarly research beginning to examine Six Sigma.

Schroeder et al. (2008) started with a definition of Six Sigma and

its underlying theory to argue that although the Six Sigma tools

and techniques appear similar to prior QM approaches, Six

Sigma provides an organizational structure not previously seen.

Still further study is deeply required to find solutions to the

following questions

� How does internal and external system variation and

uncertainty impact supply chain?

� How and why does the trade-off concept support the

strategy development process?

� How and why do different strategies limit such variation

and uncertainty?

� How can a company use investments in inventory and

capacity to provide greater stability in the internal and

external phases of a delivery system?

Another area suggested for further study and research is the

investigation on how Six Sigma works with other improvement

methods such as lean manufacturing. There are common

characteristics between lean manufacturing and Six Sigma in

reducing waste and improving process ( Breyfogle et al., 2001 ).

As mentioned earlier, many plants sampled in this study have

implemented lean manufacturing in addition to TQM or Six

Sigma. Lean Six Sigma is becoming a new continuous

improvement approach in industry (Devane, 2004; George,

2003). Based on the results of this study, researchers may explore

how the QM/Six Sigma practices interact with lean

manufacturing practices in creating a unique approach to

organizational excellence. (X. Zu et al.,2008)

Finally, Six Sigma be viewed as an organization change

process. This might provide improved ways for implementation

of the Six Sigma process and a more enlightened analysis of

what needs to be changed. It might also improve management of

the change management process itself. There is certainly ample

literature about organizational change that could be used as a

starting point (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995).

REFERENCES

[1] Ahire, S.L., Dreyfus, P., 2000. The impact of design management and

process management on quality: an empirical examination. Journal of

Operations Management 18, 549–575.
[2] Ahire, S.L., O’Shaughnessy, K.C., 1998. The role of top management

commitment in quality management: an empirical analysis of the auto parts

industry. International Journal of Quality Science 31, 5–37.
[3] Andel, T.,2007.Lean & Six Sigma Traps to Avoid. Material Handling

Management, March /http://www.mhmonline.com/viewStory.asp?

nID=5423S.
[4] Angel, D.C.,Pritchard,C.,2008.BehaviortestsSixSigma.Industrial Engineer

(August),41.

[5] Antony,J.,Banuelas,R.,2002. Key in gredients for the effective
implementation of Six Sigma program. Measuring Business Excellence

6(4), 20–27.

[6] Banuelas, R., Tennant, C.,Tuersley, I.,Tang, S., 2006. Selection of Six
Sigma projects in the UK. The TQM Magazine 18(5), 514–527.

[7] Barney, M., 2002a. Macro: Six Sigma. The Industrial Organizational

Psychologist 39 (4), 104–107.
[8] Barney, M., 2002b. Motorola’s second generation. Six Sigma Forum

Magazine 1 (3), 13–16.

[9] Beer, M., 2003. Why total quality management programs do not persist: the
role of management quality and implications for leading a TQM

transformation. Decision Sciences 34, 623–642.

[10] Belson, K., 2004. Japanese capital and jobs flowing to China. New York
Times, February 17, C, p. 1.

[11] Bendell, T.,2006.Are view and comparison of Six Sigma and the lean

organizations. The TQM Magazine18(3), 255–262.
[12] Berg, M., 2006. Six Sigma shortcomings. Industrial Engineer(October), 45.

[13] Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., 1997. High-involvement innovation through

continuous improvement. International Journal of Technology Management
14 (1), 7–28.

[14] Bhote, K.R., 2003. The Power of Ultimate Six Sigma: Keki Bhote’s Proven

System for Moving Beyond Quality Excellence to Total Business
Excellence. AMACOM American Management Association, New York,

NY.

International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 2, Issue 1, January 2012 8

ISSN 2250-3153
www.ijsrp.org

[15] Bremner, B., Edmondson, G., Dawson, C., Welch, D., Kerwin, K., 2004.

Nissan’s boss: Carlos Ghosn saved Japan’s no. 2 carmaker. Now he’s taking
on the world. Business Week, October 4, 50–58.

[16] Brewer, P.C., 2004. Six Sigma helps a company create a culture of

accountability. Journal of Organizational Excellence 23 (3), 45–59.
[17] Breyfogle,F.,Cipello,J.,Meadows,B.,2001.ManagingSixSigma.Wiley Inter

Science, New York, NY.

[18] Chakravorty,S.S.,Atwater,J.B.,1998.Implementingqualityimprovement
programs using the focusing steps of the array of constraints. International

Journal of Technology Management 16 (4/5/6/), 544–555.

[19] Chakravorty,S.S., Atwater, J.B., 2006. Bottleneck management : theory and
practice. Production & Planning Control17 (5), 441–447.

[20] Chakravorty, S.S., Sessum,J.L., 1995. Developing effective strategies to

prioritize setup reduction in multi machine production system.
[21] Cheng, J.L., 2006. DMAIC integration necessary for success. ASQSIX

Sigma Forum Magazine5(4),22–28.

[22] Choi, T.Y., Eboch, K., 1998. The TQM paradox: relations among TQM
practices, plant performance, and customer satisfaction. Journal of

Operations Management 17, 59–75.

[23] Choo, A.S., Linderman, K.W., Schroeder, R.G., 2004. Method and context
perspectives on learning and knowledge creation in quality management.

Journal of Operations Management 25 (4), 918–931.

[24] Clifford, L., 2001. Why you can safely ignore Six Sigma. Fortune January,
140.

[25] Coronado, R.B.,Antony,J., 2002. Critical success factors for the successful

[26] implementation of Six Sigma projects in organisations. The TQM
Magazine 14(2),92–99.

[27] Cyert, R.M., March, J.G., 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

[28] Dasgupta, T., 2003. Using the six-sigma metric to measure and improve the

performance of a supply chain. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence 14 (3), 355–367.

[29] Davison,L.,Al-shaghana,K.,2007. The link between Six Sigma and quality

culture — an empirical study. Total Quality Management 18(3), 249–265.
[30] Economist, 2004. (Still) made in Japan, April 7.

[31] Eisenhardt, K.M., Martin, J.A., 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they?

Strategic Management Journal 21 (October–November Special Issue),
1105–1121.

[32] Feng, Q.,Manuel,C.M.,2007.Under the knife: an ational survey of Six

Sigma programs in US health care organizations. International Journal of
Health Care Quality Assurance 21(6),535–547.

[33] Flynn, B.B., Sakakibara, S., 1995. Relationship between JIT and TQM:

practices and performance. Academy of Management Journal 38 (5), 1325–
1360.

[34] Forza, C., Flippini, R., 1998.TQMimpact on quality conformance and

customer satisfaction: a causal model. International Journal of Production
Economics 55, 1–20.

[35] Foster,S.T.,2007.Does Six Sigma improve performance? The Quality

Management Journal14(4),7–20.
[36] Garvin, D., 1988. Managing Quality: The Strategic and Competitive Edge.

Free Press, New York, NY, p. 22.

[37] Garvin, D.A., 1993b. Manufacturing strategic planning . California
Management Review 35 (4), 85–106.

[38] Gijo,E.V.,Rao,T.L.,2005. Six Sigma implementation— hurdles and more

hurdles. Total Quality Management 16(6),721–725.
[39] Goffnett, S.P., 2004. Understanding Six Sigma: implications for industry

and education. Journal of Industrial Technology 20 (4), 1–10.

[40] Gopal, R.,2008. 10 ways to failure for a new Six Sigma program.
/http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c071203a.aspS.

[41] Gowen III, C.R., Tallon, W.J., 2005. Effect of technological intensity on the

relationships among Six Sigma design, electronic-business, and competitive
advantage: a dynamic capabilities model study. Journal of High Technology

Management Research 16 (1), 59–87.

[42] Gupta, P.,2008. Reducing the cost of failures. Quality Digest 47 (1), 22.
[43] Hackman, J., Wageman, R., 1995. Total quality management: empirical,

conceptual, and practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (2),

309–343.
[44] Hales, D.N., Chakravorty,S.S., 2006.Implementation of Deming’s style of

Quality management : an action research study. International Journal of

Production Economics 103,31–148.
[45] Handfield, R ., Ghosh, S., Fawcett, S., 1998. Quality driven change and its

effects on financial performance. Quality Management Journal 5 (3), 13–30.

[46] Harry,M.J., Linsenmann, D.R.,2007. The Six Sigma Field book : How Du

Pont Successfully Implemented the Six Sigma Breakthrough Strategy.
Double day Business of Random House, Inc.,NewYork, NY.

[47] Helfat, C.E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M.A., Singh, H., Teece,

D.J., Winter, S.G., 2007. Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic
Change in Organizations. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.

[48] Henderson, K.M., Evans, J.R., 2000. Successful implementation of Six

Sigma: benchmarking general electric company. Benchmarking: An
International Journal 7 (4), 260–281.

[49] Hendricks, C.A., Kelbaugh, R., 1998. Implementing Six Sigma at GE. The

Journal of Quality and Participation 21 (4), 48–53.
[50] Hindo, B.,2007.At3M, a struggle between efficiency and creativity.

Business Week,June11.

[51] Hindo, B.,Grow,B.,2007. Six Sigma: so yesterday. BusinessWeek, June 11.
[52] Kaynak, H., 2003. The relationship between total quality management

practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of Operations

Management 21 (4), 405–435.
[53] Keller,P.,2005. Six Sigma: Demystified.

McGraw-Hill, NewYork, NY.

[54] Kiernan, M.J., 1996. Get innovative or get dead. Business Quarterly 61 (1),

51–58.
[55] Kwak, Y.H., Anbari, F.T., 2004. Benefits, obstacles, and future of Six

Sigma approach. Technovation 26 (5/6), 708–715.

[56] Ladani, L.J.,Das,D., Cartwright,J.L., Yenker,R., Razmi,J.,
2006.Implementation of Six Sigma system in celestica with practical

examples. International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage

2(1), 69–88.
[57] Lakhavani,S.T.,2003. Six Sigma implementations: trials, tribulations, and

lessons learned. ASQ’s Annual Quality Congress Proceedings 57, 643–647.
[58] Lee , Choi ,2006. Six Sigma: a vital improvement approach when applied to

the right problems, in the right environment. Assembly Automation26(1),

10–18.
[59] Lee-Mortimer, A., 2006. Six Sigma: a vital improvement approach when

applied to the right problems, in the right environment. Assembly

Automation26(1),10–18.
[60] Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Choo, A.S., 2006. Six Sigma: the role of

goals in improvement teams. Journal of Operations Management 24 (6),

779–790.
[61] Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S., Choo, A.S., 2003. Six Sigma: a

goal-theoretic perspective. Journal of Operations Management 21 (2), 193–

204.
[62] Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S., Liedtke, C., Choo, A.S., 2004.

Integrating quality management practices with knowledge creation

processes. Journal of Operations Management 22 (6), 589–607.
[63] Lynch,D.P., Bertolino,S., Cloutier,E., 2003. How to scope DMAIC projects.

Quality Progress36(1),37–41.

[64] Mahoney, J.T., 1995. The management of resources and the resource of
management. Journal of Business Research 33 (2), 91–101.

[65] Mast, J.D., Bisgaard,S., 2007. The science in Six Sigma. Quality Progress

40 (1),25–29.
[66] Mcadam, R., Evans, A., 2004. Challenge to Six Sigma in a high technology

mass-manufacturing environments. Total Quality Management 15 (5/6),

699–706.
[67] Mullavey,F., 2005. Shack led by bad Six Sigma. Quality Digest, September

/http://www.qualitydigest.com/sept05/articles/03_article.shtmlS.

[68] Neilson, G.L., Martin, K.L., Powers, E., 2008. The secrets to successful
strategy execution. Harvard Business Review 86 (6), 60–70.

[69] Ostram, D., 2000. Corporate Japan’s restructuring efforts: a progress report.

Japan Economic Institute Report, 20, May 19.
[70] Pande, P. S., Robert, P. N., & Roland, R. C. (2002). The Six Sigma way

team field book. New York: McGraw-Hill.

[71] Pande, P.S., Neuman,R.P., Cavanagh,R., 2000. The Six Sigma Way: How
GE, Motorola, and Other Top Companies are Honing their Performance.

McGraw-Hill, NewYork, NY.

[72] Pullin, J., 2005. Room for improvement. Professional Engineering 18 (15),
38–138.

[73] Pyzdek, T.,2003. The Six Sigma Handbook: A Complete Guide for Green

Belts, Black Belts, and Managers at All Levels. McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.

[74] Rajagopalan,R.,Francis,M.,Suarez,W.,2004.Developing novel catalysts with

Six Sigma. Research Technology Management 47,13–16.
[75] Reed, R., Lemak, D.J., Montgomery, J.C., 1996. Beyond process: TQM

content and firm performance. Academy of Management Review 21, 173–

202.

International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 2, Issue 1, January 2012 9

ISSN 2250-3153
www.ijsrp.org

[76] Savolainen,T., Haikonen,A., 2007. Dynamics of organizational learning

and continuous improvement in Six Sigma implementation. The TQM
Magazine 19(1), 6–17.

[77] Scho¨ n, D.A., 1975. Deutero-learning in organizations: learning for

increased effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics 4 (1), 2–16.
[78] Schonberger, R.J., 2008. Best Practices in Lean and Six Sigma Process

Improvement. John Wiley & Sons, Hobokon, NJ.

[79] Schroeder,R.G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C., Choo, A.S., 2008. Six Sigma:
definition and underlying theory. Journal of Operations Management 26

(4),536–554.

[80] Sinha, K.K., Van de Ven, A.H., 2005. Designing work within and between
organizations. Organization Science 16 (4), 389–408.

[81] Slater, R., 2000. The GE Way Fieldbook: Jack Welch’s Battle for Corporate

Revolution. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
[82] Snee, R.D.,Hoerl,R.W.,2003.Leading Six Sigma. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

[83] Sousa, R., Voss, C.A., 2002. Quality management re-visited: a reflective

review and agenda for future research. Journal of Operations Management
20, 91–109.

[84] Stamatis, D.H., 2000. Who needs Six Sigma, anyway? Quality Digest May.

Available at http://www.qualitydigest.com/may00/html/sixsigmacon.html.
[85] Sutton, C., 2006. Getting the most out of Six Sigma. Quality Management

(March), 46–48.

[86] Szeto, A.Y. T., Tsang, A.H.C., 2005.Antecedent to successful
implementation of Six Sigma. International Journal of Six Sigma and

Competitive Advantage1(3),307–322.

[87] Teece, D.J., 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and micro
foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management

Journal 28 (11), 1319–1350.
[88] Treichler,D., Carmichael,R., Kusmanoff,A., Lewis,J., Berthiez,G., 2002.

Design for Six Sigma: 15 lessons learned. Quality Progress 35, 33–42.

[89] Watson,G.,2006. Building on Six Sigma effectiveness. AS Q Six Sigma
Forum Magazine 5(4), 14–15.

[90] Wruck, K.H., Jensen, M.C., 1998. The two key principles behind effective

TQM program. European Financial Management 4 (3), 401–423.

[91] Wu, C.W., Chen, C.L., 2006. An integrated structural model toward

successful continuous improvement activity. Technovation 26 (5/6), 697–
707.

[92] Wurtzel,M., 2008. Reasons for Six Sigma deployment failures. BPM

Institute. June /http://www.bpminstitute.org/articles/article/article/reasons-
for-six-sigma-deployment-failures.htmlS.

[93] Zimmerman, J.P., Weiss,J., 2005. Six Sigma’s seven deadly sins. Quality

44,62–66.
[94] Zollo, M., Winter, S.G., 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of

dynamic capabilities. Organization Science 13 (3), 339–351.

[95] Zu, X., Fredendall, L.D.,Douglas,T.J., 2008. The evolving theory of quality
management: the role of Six Sigma. Journal of Operations Management

26,630–650.

First Author- Nilesh Vijay Fursule, M.E.( Prod. Tech & Mgnt) , Ph.D.(
Appeared) is working as Sr. SAP Logistics MM/SRM Consultant with iGATE

Patni Ltd., Mumbai, Maharashtra, India and has more than 8 Years of Industrial

Experience in studying and improving supply chain . He can be reached at
nileshfursule@gmail.com

Second Author- Dr. Satish V Bansod, M.E., (Ph.D.) is working as
Professor,Dept. of Mechanical Engineering at V.Y.W.S’s Prof. Ram Meghe

Institute of Technology & Research, Anjangaon Bari Road, Badnera, Amravati,

Maharashtra India PIN 444701. He can he reached at
satishbansod@rediffmail.com

Third Author- Swati N. Fursule, B.E.( Com. Sci. & Engg.),is working as Sr.
Tech. Lead with iGATE Patni Ltd., Mumbai, Maharashtra, India , is (PMP)®

certified Project Management Professional and has more than 10 Years of

Industrial Experience in studying and improving Product development using
latest technologies .She can be reached at Swati.Fursule@igatepatni.com