See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224687175

Six Sigma and Software Development Process: DMAIC Improvements

Conference Paper · August 2006

DOI: 10.1109/PICMET.2006.296875 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
11 1,343

3 authors:

Antonio Carlos Tonini Mauro de Mesquita Spinola

University of São Paulo University of São Paulo
15 PUBLICATIONS   36 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fernando José Barbin Laurindo

University of São Paulo
159 PUBLICATIONS   436 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

IT Business strategic alignement: actual criticics and View project

Data governance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Antonio Carlos Tonini on 20 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Six Sigma and software development process: DMAIC improvements
Antonio Carlos Tonini1, Prof. Dr. Mauro de Mesquita Spínola 1
Prof. Dr. Fernando José Barbin Laurindo1
1
University of São Paulo, Polytechnic School, Production Engineering Department
Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, 531 – 1. andar, Cidade Universitária,
São Paulo, SP, CEP 05508-900, Brazil

ABSTRACT

Six Sigma increases quality by reducing process variability and aligning customer’s
expectations, providing high financial returns. First applied in manufacturing
companies, it also becomes very effective on finance, management and service in
general, including software development.
DMAIC (Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control) has been widely used as the
method for Six Sigma implementation projects in manufacturing, once its procedures
are based on the well known PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) principles. However, it does
not fulfill appropriately all software development requirements, which leads to
researches for introducing new practices in the DMAIC method or developing other
methods and techniques.
Based on a research performed through a multiple cases study, it is possible to suggest
improvements in the DMAIC method. Some of the considered issues are: cost
evaluation, time and customer satisfaction impact on business; the improvement
processes verification; organizational standardization and learning achieved from Six
Sigma projects.
The main result is a proposal of a specific roadmap for Six Sigma projects application in
software development process improvement, which includes the treatment of the aspects
found.

INTRODUCTION

Software development companies have looked for excellence in their product quality
due to growing pressure of their customers. So, they have developed strategies that
make them unique in comparison to their competitors. One strategy is continuous
improvement of software development process.
Six Sigma is a methodology that increases quality by reducing process variability and
aligning customer’s expectations, providing high payback. First applied in
manufacturing companies, it also has shown to be very effective on other businesses,
such as finance and management, mainly where customer service presence is relevant.
DMAIC (Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control) has been the most used method
for Six Sigma projects. Nevertheless, it was designed for industrial environment, where
production processes are much more predictable than service. For that reason, the
method needs some alterations, which represents an opportunity to develop and create
new methods.
Based on a research performed through a multiple cases study, this paper suggests some
improvements on the DMAIC method and proposes a specific roadmap for Six Sigma
projects on software development process improvement.
SIX SIGMA

Six Sigma is an organized methodology that guides continuous improvement on

manufacturing or service processes, through operations optimization, systematic defects
elimination, flaws and faults, considering all important business aspects that can make
the company stand out to their customers [14]. It provides the necessary discipline to
guarantee that one will work on the right problem, the root-cause will be identified and
the best solution will be determined and implemented [16].
Six Sigma was launched by Motorola in the late 70’s and, in 1985, a quality engineer,
Bill Smith, proposed the use of the sigma capacity as a common metric of quality
measurement performance. Therefore, the name Six Sigma, based on the sigma capacity
of a process, became a standard used in the organization as a goal for quality and as a
guide for all improvement processes. Along ten years after implementing the method,
Motorola has tripled its productivity and reduced the production costs in US$ 11
million. This fact made other organizations also interested in knowing Six Sigma, such
as Kodak, Asea Brown Boveri, Texas Instruments, Allied Signal, General Electric (GE),
HP-Hewlett-Packard, Polaroid and Citibank [13].
However, it was through GE that Six Sigma got known internationally. Between 1996
and 1997, GE invested US$ 450 million on its implementation and in 1999 obtained
productivity gains around US$ 1.5 billion [16].
Six Sigma concepts are the same considered in the many quality movements and models
and it is based on Total Quality Management (TQM), and Plan-Do-Check-Action
(PDCA) model concepts [11]. Several authors understand that Six Sigma can be applied
to any business, because there is always a chance of improving the product (an add-
value project and process mix), making it cheaper (a quality and speed proper mix) and
offering it quicker (also a quality and speed proper mix). Regarding quality, any
customer will notice when a product shows better quality and, many times, will pay for
that [04].
Six Sigma offers two approaches, one administrative and another technical. The first is
addressed to problem solution, process improvement, objectives and goals, projects
execution, and people with the required abilities to execute all improvement projects.
The objective of this approach is obtaining significant financial gains through business
activities control, minimizing waste and increasing customers satisfaction [12].
The technical approach focuses on process improvement by increasing the average
performance level and reducing variability [16]. The first step is to achieve a process
under control (statistically stable or predictable), what will be reached when the
variability depends on common causes only. Statistically, this means that process data
should be between high and low control limits (HCL = µ + 3σ) and (LCL = µ – 3σ)
[13]. The second step is to get process under capable level. The process capacity reflects
its capacity in producing goods according to engineering and customer specifications
[11] [05]. In statistical terms, this means that process data should be between high and
low specification limits, and contained between control limits.
Six Sigma can be noticed within organizations in two instants: launching and
implementation. Launching corresponds to the adoption of a set of organizational
principles and happens when company underrstand Six Sigma by accepting its
principles for process improvement. Implementation refers to starting a new project,
single and specific, and always happens when a new Six Sigma project is executed.
DMAIC METHOD

Motorola developed the first Six Sigma implementation method in order to solve some
already known quality problems. The method was developed by Dr. Mikel Harry and
was called MAIC (acronym of Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control). It was
constituted by four stages [11]:
• Measurement: data gathering regarding the as-is picture of the process, including
input variables, output and defects (out of compliance);
• Analysis: understanding of current process performance causes;
• Improvement: elaboration of improvement alternatives for process performance;
• Control: procedures and rules to maintain the obtained improvements, making them
maintainable and durable.
GE, unlike Motorola, didn't exactly know its quality problems and, therefore, first
needed to map the real quality problems in order to solve them. Besides that, GE
intended to use Six Sigma for new problems, as soon as they appeared, so the method
should also contain the problem identification task. Dr. Mikel Harry took advantage of
the acquired experience in Motorola and elaborated a new method that got known as
DMAIC (acronym of Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control). Nowadays, it is
the most acquainted and used Six Sigma implementation method [11]. This method is
composed by five stages that should be accomplished in a sequential way for any Six
Sigma project:
• Definition: identification of problems and situations to improve, remarking what is
critical to quality (CTQ);
• Measurement: selection of critical characteristics to quality (CTQ) through
necessary measures in the process;
• Analysis: identification of the root-causes that are responsible for the identified
problems;
• Improvement: specification of process characteristics to be improved;
• Control: documentation and follow-up of the new process conditions.

OTHER METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION

The increase of Six Sigma use unchained two new implementation method needs: the
attention to Six Sigma philosophy diffusion into the organizations that were adopting it
[13] and incorporation of management tasks on its own model [16].
Thus, in consequence, several methods appeared, such as Breakthrough Strategy,
Roadmap, New Six Sigma, Eckes method, Six Sigma Roadmap, DMADV, IDOV and
DMEDI.

Breakthrough Strategy (BS)

This method, proposed by Dr. Mikel Harry and Dr. Richard Schroeder in 2000, is a
problem driven method in three organizational basic levels: business, operation and
process. It obliges organization to maintain constant innovation strategy (breakthrough
strategy driven) [12].
At business level, it is guided to increase profitability and keep the organization running
in the long term; in the operation level, it is driven to increase process efficiency,
eliminate non quality costs and reduce waste; in process level, it is used to reduce
defects and variation, increasing process capacity and keeping operational and strategic
goals aligned.
Table 1 – Breakthrough Strategy structure
Stages Activities Description
Identification Recognition Six Sigma benefits understanding
Definition Definition of projects to be executed
Characterization Measurement Process as-is picture
Analysis Root-cause problems identification
Implantation Improvement Identification of variables that improve the
process capacity
Control Improvement effectiveness verification
Institutionalization Standardization Alignment of all improvement projects with
learning replication
Integration Diffusion through the company of the good
practices learned
The method consists of eight activities grouped in four stages, as shown on Table 1.

Roadmap method

This method, developed by John M. Gross in 2001 is only guided to Six Sigma
launching, and helps to estimate efforts and costs on Six Sigma projects and inform
them to the whole enterprise [10].
The stages of this method are the following:
• Management training on objectives establishment, possible benefits mapping and
the necessary resources availability;
• Identification of a support consultancy to prepare an internal specialist team (black
belts and green belts) for selection and operation of Six Sigma projects;
• Definition of a top executive to be the Six Sigma program champion and establish
goals and implementation plans;
• Establishment of quantified goals so that Six Sigma implementation can be
compared to something at the end of the process.

New Six Sigma method (NSS)

This method was developed by Matt Barney and Tom McCarty in 2003 and it is based
on the learning at Motorola University, also aimed to launch Six Sigma philosophy in
the organization. It assumes that the organization integrates Six Sigma with their main
business metrics (scorecards) [01].
This method proposes three stages:
• Evaluation of current organizational performance through the SWOT (Strengths,
Weakness, Opportunities and Threats) technique, involving analysis of enterprise
image to customers and the establishment of objectives and of performance driver
metrics;
• Training concerning Six Sigma for the responsible teams and main sponsor
executives;
• Project management with constant revision by senior leadership.
ECKES method

This method was proposed by George Eckes in 2001 and is also oriented for Six Sigma
launching. It was built with business process concepts and takes the following actions
[09]:
• Business objectives determination and agreement among all personal involved;
• Essential process creation, Six Sigma projects targets, detailing of other key-process
levels and process-drivers identification;
• Process leaders and owners identification;
• Process measurement creation and validation and publication in collective panels;
• Six Sigma projects selection criteria definition;
• Six Sigma projects selection;
• Continuous process management.

Six Sigma Roadmap method (SSR)

This method was developed by Peter Pande, Robert Neuman and Roland Cavanagh in
2001 and enables its adoption through three strategies, individually or concomitantly
used: current process improvement, process reengineering and process management
[18].
It is a quite complete method that includes the Six Sigma implementation and
management. It is composed by five stages:
• Identification of the main customer-key processes, which allow to create a customer
vs. process table;
• Customer needs definition through direct customer research (VOC), benchmarks
establishment, requirements description that allow to analyze and prioritize business
needs and strategies;
• Current performance measurement, to know the current process capacity and the
defective points;
• Prioritizing, analyzing and implementation of improvements, in a way that
maximizes returns;
• System expansion and integration, through actions to maintain improvements, define
responsibilities and control improvement process.

DMADV method

This method was developed by Thomas Pyzdekis and is a DMAIC variation that has
been applied to developing new products. According to this method, when activities are
unique (specific projects), there is no way of improving or controlling. For this reason,
the DMAIC improvement and control stages were, respectively, substituted by the
design and verification stages. The method was known as DMADV (acronym of
Define, Measure, Analyze, Design and Verify). The stages are the following [20]:
• Definition: customer's needs definition on order to set project scope and plan;
• Measurement: customer’s needs understanding and CTQ definition;
• Analysis: development of high level design concepts;
• Design: detailed project, control and test plans development;
• Verification: design tests and implementation of the processes in operational scale.
IDOV method

The method IDOV (acronym of Identify, Design, Optimize and Validate) was created
by David Woodford in 2003 for the Institute iSixSigma. This method is oriented to the
Six Sigma projects regarding new products release. It contains the following stages
[22]:
• Identification: customer's requirements obtaining and CTQ establishment;
• Design: transformation of the customer's requirements in functional specifications
and solution alternatives;
• Optimization (improvement): product quality and process performance prediction
through use of statistical projection tools;
• Validation: checking that all requirements were attended.

DMEDI method

This method (acronym of Define, Measure, Explore, Develop and Implement) is a tool
kit to guarantee the necessary strictness to release a new product or service. This
method was elaborated by Kimberly Watson-Hemphill for Pricewaterhouse & Coopers
and it considers the following stages [21]:
• Definition: identification of the true problem and its unfolding;
• Measurement: knowledge of each detail of the new product;
• Exploration (analysis): evaluation of all possible development alternatives for the
new product;
• Development (improvement): development of the new product through the most
appropriate solution;
• Implantation: execution of the chosen solution.
• Verification: design tests and processes implementation in operational scale.

SIX SIGMA AND SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

In goods production capacity depends substantially on the equipment used in the

manufacturing process and, therefore, the specifications are previously known and only
change with some equipment function modification due to wear down or modernization.
In services installment processes, specifications are not always available and can suffer
alterations more frequently, demanding constant control reformulating, mainly in
activities in which answers to customer’s demands should be given in a fast and
dynamic way [07].
The concept that software development can be understood as an industrial activity has
been used for a long time and the jobbing type characteristics of production are
highlighted (one-to-one or one-off) [08], [02].
On the other hand, it should be considered that software development is at the same
time an activity that generates a physical product for customers (software) and intensive
in service installment before and after the activity itself. For this reason, some factors
should be considered [19]:
• Value to the customer: customer perception and satisfaction are formed by a group
of services (understanding of functional and non functional needs, installation,
training, service installment, maintenance etc.) besides the software itself (physical
good);
• Work fronts alignment: software development activities are performed in two
environments, front office – more contact and proximity to the customer – or back
office – less contact and proximity to the customer. This factor brings along a new
variable, the customer's presence in several development instants, which many
times, cannot be controlled. The closer to the customer, the less predictable are the
results, meaning greater variability and uncertainty.
• Non tangibility of services: decisions are more subjective; service realization is
mixed up with its effective use, causing the impression that the work never ends and
also that positive results only happen with the executioner's presence.
There are several process improvement opportunities with Six Sigma and they are
related to [17]:
• The final product: size, customer’s satisfaction, faults after delivery, duration etc;
• The intermediate products of work: size, faults, understandings, revision etc.;
• The resources used: time use pattern and development stage (production, rework,
alterations etc.);
• The work processes: standardization, doubts, complexity, abilities, technology
domain, management, risk management etc.
The main Six Sigma restrictions are due to the following reasons [04] [03]:
• Variety of demands from different customers for the same software functionality;
• Countless opportunities of defects in the same development process;
• Abnormal statistical distributions of defects and resources used;
• Impossibility of expressing accurately when the software is correct. Neither all the
anomalies are defective nor all the flaws are caused by the application; in many
cases, the flaw is in another system, in the infrastructure, the operating system or the
user interface, among other possible causes;
• Several causes for the variability in many processes, such as: technology changes,
processing degradation due to the equipment, communication networks, data
volume etc;
• Lack of business maturity, mainly in small organizations that believe investments in
process improvement are superfluous;
• Lack of practice in the staff in statistical techniques application;
• Exacerbated resistance to changes in the development processes.
Six Sigma use in software development is still limited and restricted to large
organizations of this industry. However, due to the popularization of maturity models,
like the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) of Software Engineering
Institute (SEI), and to quality evidence demands by software consumer market, an
increase of Six Sigma use can be expected [05].
Brazil is internationally responsible for US$ 25 million in software business, an
insignificant figure when compared with the main economical potencies. Even so, the
Brazilian software industry enjoys international reputation thanks to the product quality
and their software engineers [06]. Besides, great part of the production is consumed
internally, what guarantees the survival of approximately three thousand software
companies.
There are few software organizations that use Six Sigma for process improvement, fact
that sensibly restricts the determination of the universe for statistic data gathering as
support to quantitative researches.
CASE STUDY

A field research was accomplished with the intention of knowing and understanding
some aspects related to the Six Sigma implementation in software organizations, as well
as process improvement projects implementation. The research was conducted by the
Multiple Case Study method, with an empiric, qualitative and explanatory character,
emphasizing the individual's perspective and examining the phenomenon in its natural
environment through multiple evidence sources [23].
In order to doing so, the research protocol was elaborated containing the general view of
the study, the selection of information sources, the analysis units adopted criteria, the
subjects, the propositions, the analysis variables and the field procedures. [23].
Three analysis units were chosen, constituted by software companies that use Six Sigma
in their software process improvement. A support questionnaire was elaborated for the
interviews, containing subjects related to Six Sigma implementation in the organization
and the methods used in the execution of specific projects. Regarding the data
gathering, at least three workers were interviewed in each organization, one of them
from the process improvement department, one of the software development area and an
executive. The data gathering was completed after semi-structured interviews and
observation of registrations and documents. The results, as expected, were affected
intensely by the organization context, highlighting its influence.
The following cases report the analyses related to each one of the three analysis units,
identified in this work as unit 1, unit 2 and unit 3.

Case 1

The unit 1 is a branch of a great international telecommunications organization. The

mapping was concentrated on the embedded software development area. This software
type corresponds to more than 75% of the value of delivered products. This area is
certified by SW-CMM level 3 and is looking for level 4 certification by the CMMI
model.
Six Sigma is part of the managerial techniques group involving all organizational areas
related to the core business. All the managers are expert in statistical techniques. The
managerial decisions are controlled and always related to the business strategies,
avoiding wrong decisions.
The Six Sigma projects are recommended due to the results of each process (such as a
systematic reduction of mistakes in code development) or they are ad-hoc, motivated by
some occurrence not foreseen. Each project team has the autonomy to just execute the
processes that are strictly necessary.
Table 2 - Six Sigma implementation method at unit 1
Stage Process Details
Planning Viability Determination of scope and deadlines
Problem Definition Evidence verification for the problem and
root causes confirmation
Execution Team For the project execution
Detail Problem detailing
Measurement Detailed problem and effects data mapping
Analyze Analysis of the root-cause, secondary
Stage Process Details
causes and identification of alternatives
Simulation Test of the new solution, validation and
verification
Pilot execution Production with the new process to adjust
the new solution in the context
Implementation Training of those Training and evaluation of personal in the
involved new solution
Finalization Definitive implantation of the solution and
revision of the project documentation
Control Observation of the new results
Institutionalization Standardization Adoption of the improvement for the
process in itself, expansion of the training
Integration Adoption of the improvement for new
processes (learned lessons)
At the project start, a framework with all processes is initiated automatically, according
to the display on table 2.
All new technology is treated initially by the research and development team. Only
when this group acquires this new technology proficiency and domain, the production
areas are trained in the new technology and then, made available for the new products.
Six Sigma specific projects for the new products were not registered.
This unit of analysis showed great influence of the Breakthrough Strategy method, even
though the terminology of each stage and process had been customized.

Case 2

The unit 2 is an international software development group subsidiary, present in more

than 50 countries. It is one of the Brazilian organizations certified in the CMMI level 5.
Nowadays, it is going after competencies in other models such as the Control
Objectives for Information and Related Technology (COBIT) and the Information
Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL). All the project managers show certification
PMP.
Six Sigma is an instrument of the corporate management model and it is monitored by a
Quality Management System. All the accomplished projects are originated in this
System and all the data regarding the involved resources, inputs and work requirements,
work products and delivery products are gathered by it. The System contains
frameworks for several business processes and software engineering, what reduces the
engineers' effort significantly.
The organization has long maintained a report of projects measurements, which support
a very well structured group of metrics, providing a series of indicators to accompany
possible deviations in software development.
Table 3 – Six Sigma implementation method at unit 2
Stage Process Details
Project selection Viability analysis Scope, Cost, Dead line and Capacity
analysis (Voice of the Process-VOP)
Approval of the Customer's needs analysis (Voice of the
Customer Customer-VOC)
Stage Process Details
Approval of the Importance and payback analysis (VOM-
Senior manager Voice of the Manager)
Project execution Details definition Detailed study of the problem scope and
necessary resources determination
As-is measurement Detailed problem and effects data mapping
Analysis Analysis of the root-cause, secondary
causes and identification of alternatives
Test Test of the new solution, validation,
verification and simulation of the new
situation
Finalization Approval of those involved and elaboration
of change planning
Implantation Implantation of the new solution
Implementation Registration and Revision of all project documentation and
Documentation analysis of the indicators
Control Attendance of the effectiveness of the
solution
Institutionalization Communication Popularization of the good practices,
mainly close to suppliers (third parts)
The Six Sigma projects implementation method is composed by the stages and
processes shown in the table 3.
The Six Sigma implementation spreads to new project managers through a structured
training on the corporate metrics and statistical techniques. It is a sine qua non condition
for carrier ascension that every project manager has the domain of these disciplines and
the approval in the internal exams. Periodically, managers and engineers must update in
these disciplines, through distance training such as e-learning.
The Six Sigma projects are executed whenever the indicators show a tendency below
the stipulated standards or in the occurrence of new situations not previously faced by
the company. All results of the Six Sigma projects are followed and the lessons learned
are emphatically broadcasted to all the interested parties, as a way of solving problems
locally.
Unit 1 is quite aware of the difficulty in adapting the organization modus operandi to
the Six Sigma control demands following tightly the model DMAIC. Thus this company
had already began the implementation process using the largest possible amount of
recommendations of Six Sigma to the existent management process, instead of worrying
excessively with defects reduction, what would demand more frequent data gathering.
Besides, it adopted the process improvement view.
As for the new technology, a new expert engineering team is hired for the new project.
After the project conclusion, engineers of other teams are absorbed by the team that
started the new technology, allowing training and proficiency acquiring. No specific Six
Sigma project was detected in these cases.
Regarding the implementation method, there is quite a big similarity with the original
DMAIC, of which they substituted the improvement for the change stage, expanded the
definition stage for the initial approvals of the process, customer and management and
furthermore, inserted a final stage that corresponds to the institutionalization of good
practices and lessons learned.
Case 3

The unit 3 is a great Brazilian insurance company that develops software for its own
use. It doesn't show any quality certification, neither maturity in its software
development area.
The adoption of Six Sigma for software process improvement happened after positive
experiences in the use of this methodology in the business processes.
The Six Sigma projects execution is conditioned to improvements that result in return
on investments regarding the consumer market. The first projects happened in existent
work processes and were related to the administrative, managerial and technical
structure of the software development department.
With the acquired experience, the company understands that the new Six Sigma projects
should be related to the launching of new products that involve information technology
(IT), and result in new technologies adoption. In these projects the participation of third
parties are relevant, a fact that, besides Six Sigma, has led the company to implement
ITIL.
Table 4 - Six Sigma implementation method at unit 3
Stage Process Details
Initiation Definition Project needs definition
Recruiting Suppliers recruiting and training
Execution Measurement Understanding of customer needs together with
CTQ definition
Analysis Conceptual development of the project and the
standards of the new technology
Project Detailed project development, control planning
and test elaboration
Validation Coverage of all project details
Verification Test of the design and implementation of the
processes in operational scale
Finalization Project delivery, training and implantation
Closing Documentation Acquired knowledge registration
The method adopted in Six Sigma implementation was inspired in the method
DMADV. The processes are listed in the table 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Each model explores better some Six Sigma aspects.

Table 5 –Six Sigma implementation methods comparison
↓ Processes Methods Units
Roadmap

DMADV
ECKES
DMAIC

DMEDI
IDOV

1 2 3
BS

NSS

SSR

Orientation for launching X X X X

Orientation for implementation X X X X X X X X X
 Possibilities X
Recognition
As-is picture mapping X
Launching
Managers Training X X
Managers alignment X
Support of X
Consultancy
Choose of the leader X X X
Goals establishment X X X
Processes definition X X X X X X X X
Priority setting X X X
Customer Viability X X
Manager Viability X X
Process Viability X
Team selection X
Suppliers Recruiting X
Measurement X X X X X X X X
Implementation

Analysis X X X X X X X
Design X X X
Improvement X X X X X
Implementation
Validation X X X X
Verification X X X X X
Finalization X X X
Control X X X X
Registration and X
Documentation
Standardization X X
Integration X X X X
Mngt Continuous X X
management

The table 5 compares the pointed processes in the methods and those practiced by the
researched organizations.
Roadmap, New Six Sigma and ECKES methods are based on a group of
recommendations for the adoption of Six Sigma philosophy. DMADV, IDOV and
IMEDI methods show punctual variations to DMAIC method, especially when referring
to processes related to new products and larger attention on the tests of implemented
improvements: validation (if all the requirements were considered) and verification (if
each one of the requirements is in accordance with what was requested).
The Six Sigma Roadmap method adds the Customer's dimension to the improvement
process, as well as the prioritization for improvement projects and integration of the
improvement results (synergic effect).
The Breakthrough Strategy method is really an evolution of DMAIC, since it separates
Six Sigma philosophy launching activities and the processes from each improvement
project.
At the three units studied, Six Sigma philosophy was implemented either externally
(units 1 and 2) or in function of other processes (unit 3).
Nevertheless, summed up to the implementation methods are the processes related to
financial feasibility evaluation, under the business (cost) and customer (satisfaction)
points of view, and also studies on process capacity (technological condition, schedule
and readiness).
They also emphasize the importance of some subjects that are not listed in the methods:
• Tests of suggested improvements (validation and verification) to better know
problems and root causes
• Implementation team training
• Lessons learned spread in the enterprise and close to the third party teams that might
come along in the software production
• Standardization of improvement processes.
As for the Six Sigma philosophy implementation, there is no evidence that can justify a
specific method for software companies.
Some of the considered issues are: costs evaluation, time and customer satisfaction
impact on business; improvement processes verification; organizational standardization
and learning achieved from Six Sigma projects.
Table 6 –Six Sigma implementation suggested roadmap

Stages Processes Description

Planning Definition of the problems and the improvements
Evaluation in relation to business and customers
expectations to restrictions of the process
(capacity and readiness)
Alignment of the interests of all involved
Proposition Detail of the problem to be solved
Measurement to show the current situation or desired
communication, review and return

situation (in the case of new processes)

Analysis to identify the causes and the solution
alternatives
Execution Improvement elaboration or construction of the
improvement
Test to guarantee the correctness of the
improvement
Training preparation of the involved for the new
situation
Implementation of the solution
Control to guarantee the effectiveness of the
solution
Institutionalization Registration finalization of the documentation of the
project
Standardization to systematize the improvements
Integration of the problems and the improvements
However, as for Six Sigma project launching, features of productive process must guide
the decision regarding processes to be executed. Thus, based on the literature review
and in the case studies, this article suggests the detailed process roadmap shown in the
table 6.
The suggested roadmap represents an evolution to the existent methods by considering
the software processes characteristics that they refer to, besides allowing the review and
return to previous steps, just in case some irregularity is detected.
The logical linkage proposed among the stages, in which each stage or the following
process is executed only after the finalization of the previous one, allows a better
understanding of the project as a whole, facilitating the path to problem solving or
process improvement.
Future researches should encompass the analysis of this roadmap use in different kind
companies that develop software as a business or for their own utilization.

REFERENCES

[01] Barney, M. and T. McCarty. The new six sigma: a leader’s guide to achieve
rapid business improvement. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 2003.
[02] Basili, V. R., G. Caldiera and G. A. Cantone. “Reference archiecture for the
component factory”. ACM Transaction on Software Engineering and
Methodology. Vol 1. nº 1, January 1992. pp 53-80.
[03] Biehl, R. E. “Six Sigma for software”. Quality time. IEEE Software. V. 21. n.2.
mar-apr, 2004. p-68-70.
[04] Blakeslee Jr., J. A. “Achieving Quantum Leaps in Quality and Competitiveness:
Implementing the Six Sigma Solution in your Company” in: Proceedings of the
53th Annual Quality Congress. American Society for Quality, Anaheim:
Califórnia, pp. 486–496, May 1999.
[05] Card, D. N. “Managing Software Quality with defects”. 26th COMPSAC:
Computer Software and Applications Conference. Proceedings. IEEE Computer
Society. Aug, 2002. p.472-474.
[06] Carmel, E. “Offshoring, Software Exports and the Place of Brazil”. I DO 2004 –
Desafios e Oportunidade. São Paulo. Dez.2004.
[07] Carvalho, M. M. “Medindo o Sigma do Processo” in: Seis Sigma: Estratégia
Gerencial para a Melhoria de Processos, Produtos e Serviços. Roberto G.
Rotondaro (Coord). São Paulo: Atlas, 2002.
[08] Cusumano, M. A. “Software Factory: a historical interpretation”. IEEE
Software, Washington, p. 999, março 1992.
[09] Eckes, G. A revolução Seis Sigma. Rio de Janeiro, Campus, 2001.
[10] Gross, J.M. “A road map to Six Sigma quality”. Quality Progress, Milwaukee,
v.34, n.11, p.24-29, Nov.2001.
[11] Harry, M, J. Six Sigma: “A Breakthrough Strategy for Profitability”. Quality
Progress. v.31, n 5, May 1998.
[12] Harry, M. J. and R. Schroeder. Six Sigma: the breakthrough management
strategy revolutionising the world’s top corporations. London: Currency
Publishers, 2000.
[13] Hoerl, R.W. “Six Sigma and the Future of the Quality Profession”. Quality
 Progress. v.31, n 6, June 1998.
[14] Hunter, D. and B. Schmidt. “Six sigma: benefits and approaches”. Chemical
Week, v.161, n.37, p.35-36, out, 1999.
[15] Infantini, S., F. J. B. Laurindo and M. S. P. Pessôa. “Six sigma and information
technology: a case study in an insurance company” in: EUROMA-POMS
JOINT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, 1., Como, Italy, 2003.
Proceedings. Padova: SGEditoriali, 2003.. v.3, p. 591-600.
[16] Marash, S. A. “Six Sigma: Business Results Though Innovation” in:
Proceedings of the 54th Annual Quality Congress of the American Society for
Quality. Indianapolis: Indiana, pp. 627–630, May 2000.
[17] Murugappan, M. and G. Keeni. “Quality Improvement: The Six Sigma Way”.
Proceedings Asia Pacific Conference Quality Software, IEEE CS Press, Los
Alamitos, California, 2000, pp. 248–257.
[18] Pande, P.S., R. P. Neuman and R. R. Cavanagh. Estratégia Seis Sigma. Rio de
Janeiro: Qualitymark, 2001.
[19] Parasuramam, A., V. A. Zeithmal and L. L. Berry. Delivering service quality:
balancing customer perceptions. New York: The Free Press, 1990.
[20] Simon, K. “DMAIC versus DMADV”. Retrieved 08/21/2005,
http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c001211a.asp.
[21] Watson-Hemphill, K. “Design financial services with DMEDI”. Retrieved
08/21/2005, http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c040101b.asp.
[22] Woodford, D. “Design for Six Sigma: IDOV Methodology”. Retrieved
09/05/2005, http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c020819a.asp.
[23] Yin, R.K. Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos. São Paulo: Bookman, 2001.

View publication stats