International Journal of Lean Six Sigma

Lean Six Sigma implementation: multiple case studies in a developing country

Mohamad Reeduan Mustapha, Fauziah Abu Hasan, Mohd Shaladdin Muda,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Mohamad Reeduan Mustapha, Fauziah Abu Hasan, Mohd Shaladdin Muda, (2018) "Lean Six Sigma
implementation: multiple case studies in a developing country", International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-08-2017-0096
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-08-2017-0096
Downloaded on: 24 November 2018, At: 12:37 (PT)
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 38 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 19 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:178665 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-4166.htm

Lean Six
Lean Six Sigma implementation: Sigma
multiple case studies in a
developing country
Mohamad Reeduan Mustapha
School of Maritime Business and Management,
Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Nerus, Malaysia Received 8 August 2017
Revised 16 March 2018
1 April 2018
Fauziah Abu Hasan Accepted 15 May 2018
Centre for Transformation, Strategic Planning and Risks,
Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Nerus, Malaysia, and
Mohd Shaladdin Muda
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

School of Maritime Business and Management,

Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Nerus, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to report the results of a study on the implementation of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) in
a developing country. The purpose of this paper is to determine the barriers, critical success factors (CSFs)
and implementation strategy of LSS.
Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative approach was taken, in which a multiple-case study
designed to gather data on the LSS implementation process was used.
Findings – The literature and interviews show that any organization can customize these methodologies
according to their needs. This also indicates that there are no stringent rules to follow, and that the process of
adoption and implementation is quite flexible. The findings from the multiple-case study identify that the
CSFs for implementing LSS are management support and commitment, communication, culture change,
education and training and a recognition and reward system. The salient features which serve as barriers are
lack of top management commitment, lack of knowledge, lack of training, and internal resistance.
Practical implications – The findings have implications for consultants and practitioners with regard to
the implementation of LSS within organizations and to focus on the selection LSS tools for implementation.
Originality/value – This paper reports on the implementation of LSS in Malaysia can be valuable to
consultants, practitioners and researchers of LSS in developing countries.
Keywords Malaysia, Lean Six Sigma, Business improvement, Quality initiatives
Paper type Case study

1. Introduction
Lean and Six Sigma have a complementary relationship that is widely accepted today, and
more companies are establishing those programs, especially after the proven capability of
Lean and Six Sigma in leading companies such as Toyota and Motorola (Salah et al., Rahim,
and Carretero, 2010). However, there are some fundamental differences between both
approaches to process management and improvement, such as the application of Six Sigma
methodology requires more intense training compared to Lean methodology, and Lean is International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma
fundamentally used to tackle process inefficiency, whereas Six Sigma is primarily used to © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-4166
tackle process effectiveness issues (Antony, 2011). Thus, there are many different definitions DOI 10.1108/IJLSS-08-2017-0096
 IJLSS of Lean Six Sigma (LSS). However, the founder and President of The George Group, the
largest LSS consulting practice in the USA, George (2002) defines LSS as “A methodology
that maximizes shareholder value by achieving the fastest rate of improvement in customer
satisfaction, cost, quality, process speed and invested capital.”
Lean and Six Sigma are two methodologies that can work both separately and together
to deliver real, measurable, operational and financial improvements. Although there is
significant overlap between these two approaches, the focus of Lean is about speed,
efficiency and taking waste out of a process, whereas Six Sigma focuses on effectiveness and
removal of errors.
Consequently, the business literature had extensively discussed the implementation of
LSS by various organizations around the globe. The literature has discussed various
indicators to show up performance improvement resulting from LSS implementation. The
most discussed performance improvement indicators include increased productivity,
improved sales, increase in profitability, reduced defects, reduced scrap rates, reduced
delivery times, reduced work in progress, increased employee satisfaction and increased
customer retention. However, is the implementation of LSS in developing countries present a
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

real dilemma?

2. Lean Six Sigma implementation

In the recent years, LSS programs have been a center of focus among the practitioners and
researchers in the area of quality and continuous improvement to gain greater competitive
advantage, improve customer satisfaction, gain operational and business success and
ensure sustainable or consistent improvement.
Once an organization chooses to practice LSS, its next step is implementation or asking
itself how to effectively apply LSS. There are distinct practices that are crucial in
implementing LSS as described by O’Rourke (2005), Khurshid (2012) and Rathilall (2014).
These are the role structure and LSS tools and techniques.

2.1 The role structure

The team responsible for LSS implementation is up against its own unique challenges,
mainly the special classification, focused training for team members and specific tasks. In
fact, the concept of LSS is incomplete without addressing the structure and nomenclature of
its team of implementers. The specialist LSS implementation team will have a hierarchy
containing the Champion, the Master Black Belt, Black Belts, Green Belts, Yellow Belts and
White Belts. Each classification is assigned by various training or consulting firms and is
relative to the total training hours the members have had and the number of LSS projects
that they have completed, either in teams or individually. These titles also can be awarded to
those who achieve professional certification through external assessment. Today, different
certification services are offered by various quality associations and other providers.
American Society for Quality (ASQ), International Association for Six Sigma Certification
and APMG have introduced global standards for Six Sigma and/or LSS certification
(Dimitroulakis, 2014).
In the LSS role structure, there is a hierarchical coordination mechanism on work for
quality improvement through multiple organizational levels (Zu et al., 2008). For instance,
the senior executive serves as Champion for making the organization’s strategic
improvement plans and Black Belts (or a Green Belt for a simple project) to lead the project
team in problem-solving. This mechanism helps to coordinate and control work across
organizational levels to ensure that the tactical tasks match with the overall business
strategy (Zu et al., 2008).
 According to Khurshid (2012), the titles of the implementation hierarchy represent some Lean Six
unique experience and skills; thus, a strong infrastructure of training is required. The Sigma
training is usually conducted in-house; but, third-party consultants may also train
employees on their training centers or premises. Training is a very important component of
the LSS methodology. LSS creates a powerful infrastructure for training, and this is because
LSS requires support from human resource to achieve the desired objectives (Snee, 2010).
Therefore, training is necessary for all employees of the organizations, regardless of their
position when organizations implement LSS as a program or initiative.

2.2 Lean Six Sigma tools and techniques

LSS uses the DMAIC or DMADV phases similar to that of Six Sigma. The DMAIC or
DMADV toolkit of LSS comprises all the Six Sigma and Lean tools. One of the success
factors of LSS is their ability to use the toolbox in a systematic and disciplined manner. The
success of any technique is highly dependent on its implementation strategy. Antony (2011)
differentiated between tools and techniques, stating “A tool has a clearly defined role and is
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

often narrow in focus whereas a technique has a wider application and requires specific
skills, creativity, and training.”
Usually, tools are used to collect and analyze different types of data (Khurshid, 2012).
According to Andersson et al. (2006), the literature may discuss different schemes of tools,
but a large portion of contribution lies with the seven basic quality and management tools.
This statement supported by Ishikawa (1985) describes that the strength of the Japanese
industry lies in the extensive use of these seven basic quality tools, as every worker is the
expert in their use. Thus, it is recommended that a thorough effort is made to educate
everyone in the use of the seven basic quality tools (Table I).
Therefore, the tools used in Lean and in Six Sigma were not all developed for LSS
programs, but they were used in a structured approach to form each methodology. Both can
be thought as “tool boxes” in which certain tools might be more suitable than others
depending on opportunity faced and/or the nature of the problem. According to Salah et al.
(2010), a lot of tools are interchanged between Lean and Six Sigma.
Further, LSS is flexible about the selection of available tools or techniques. According to
Khurshid (2012), both academic and practitioner literature discusses various tools to be used

Tools Description

Cause-and-effect diagram (also called Identifies many possible causes for an effect or problem and sorts
Ishikawa or fishbone chart) ideas into useful categories
Check sheet A structured, prepared form for collecting and analyzing data; a
generic tool that can be adapted for a wide variety of purposes
Control charts Graphs used to study how a process changes over time
Histogram The most commonly used graph showing frequency distributions,
or how often each different value in a set of data occurs
Pareto chart Shows on a bar graph which factors are more significant
Scatter diagram Graphs pairs of numerical data, with one variable on each axis to
look for a relationship
Stratification A technique that separates data gathered from a variety of sources
so that patterns can be seen (some lists replace “stratification” with
“flowchart” or “run chart”) Table I.
Seven basic
Sources: Andersson et al., 2006; Tague, 2012 quality tools
 IJLSS for activities such as data collection and data analysis under DMAIC, DMADV and,
perhaps, any other customized LSS implementation strategy. The implementation strategy
allows the implementation teams to decide which tool or set of tools they want to use to
produce the desired results.
Chapman (2012) explained that the Define phase contributes in the identification of the
foundations for the LSS effort by defining the problem, developing a goal statement,
mapping the processes to be conducted and positioning the effort into a designated customer
segment. The first stage is very critical as this will be the core basis for the efforts that will
be conducted along the process. According to Chapman (2012), this could be done through
the use of tools such as SIPOC, VOC translation matrix, three diagrams, etc.
The Measure phase assists the practitioners in determining the appropriate tools, actions
and plans to be undertaken to materialize the goals and objectives mentioned earlier through
the use of reliable data. These will be used in scrutinizing the points-of-improvement on the
company’s operations through the Analysis phase in hopes of identifying the root cause of
the problem. After this, once the core issue has been singled out, the Improve phase will take
charge in the brainstorming of possible solutions, selecting the most appropriate course of
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

action, implementing the selected solution and measuring the development of the applied
improvement efforts. This will be possible through the use of tools such as creating
matrices, brainstorming with focus groups and weighing down possible solutions (Nave,
2002; Chapman, 2012).
As the use of LSS is for the primary purpose of continuously improving system
processes and minimalizing output variations, the Control phase will be in-charge of
monitoring the solutions applied and determining if the strategy requires redeveloping or
expanding in the long-run. Once the strategy needs to be updated, the process loops again to
the first phase until better strategies were defined (Sokovic et al., 2010).

3. Critical success factors for Lean Six Sigma implementation

There have been many studies on critical success factors (CSFs). Table II shows CSFs that
were identified by previous researchers. Some of the predominant CSFs are discussed in this
section.
Most studies on CSFs in LSS implementation have predominantly found senior
management involvement and commitment as a CSF in the implementation of LSS projects.
Delgado et al. (2010) note that the role of management is influencing the aspect of structured
practice and guiding organizational culture to help the organization in closing the gap and
proposing ideas for improvement. Usually, most company activities are directly or indirectly
connected to senior management supports as key elements that are seen as the most vital
institutional factors which enable implementation of the LSS framework. Carleysmith et al.
(2009) also identified senior support as a critical factor that enables the process of LSS
implementation. According to Carleysmith et al. (2009), senior management involvement
ensures the benefit of the program to the company by facilitating trust and communication
for the goals of all team players for the long-term cultural changes. Senior management
stimulates the motivation of team members, enabling them to use procedures and methods
for better quality and also ensure recognition, which leads to effective and quicker change
toward greater innovation. Zu et al. (2008) note that management decisions on the
company’s strategic goals will influence the objectives and metrics established for the LSS
projects.
Organizational infrastructure: Rathilall (2014) argues that particular organizational
infrastructure should be present before commencing on LSS project in a company. For
instance, a company project must have enough investment and resources to implement an
 CSFs
Management support and commitment
(i.e. leadership/top management commitment and
involvement in the deployment and implementation
processes)
Organizational infrastructure
(i.e. Strategic direction and alignment; fusing
business strategy with continuous improvement
strategy)
Process improvements
(i.e. Integrated people and systems approach;
effective use of technology)
Customer focus
(i.e. customer satisfaction; commitment to quality)
Culture change
(i.e. change in organizational culture and structure)
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)
Author(s)
Lean Six
Sigma
Fornari and Maszle, 2004; O’Rourke, 2005; Kumar
et al., 2006; Carleysmith et al., 2009; Delgado et al.,
2010; Lertwattanapongchai and Swierczek, 2014;
Rathilall, 2014
Fornari and Maszle, 2004; O’Rourke, 2005; Delgado
et al., 2010; Lertwattanapongchai and Swierczek,
2014; Rathilall, 2014
O’Rourke, 2005; Kumar et al., 2006; Carleysmith
et al., 2009; Delgado et al., 2010; Rathilall, 2014
Lertwattanapongchai and Swierczek, 2014; Rathilall,
2014
Fornari and Maszle, 2004; Carleysmith et al., 2009;
Delgado et al., 2010

Employee involvement and empowerment Kumar et al., 2006; Carleysmith et al., 2009; Delgado
(i.e. involvement and participation of the project) et al., 2010; Lertwattanapongchai and Swierczek,
2014; Rathilall, 2014
Education and training O’Rourke, 2005; Carleysmith et al., 2009; Delgado
(i.e. integrated training and development; the use of et al., 2010
consultants that are proficient and experienced)
Communication Fornari and Maszle, 2004; Kumar et al., 2006;
(i.e. information, communication and knowledge Carleysmith et al., 2009
sharing)
Recognition and reward systems Kumar et al., 2006; Carleysmith et al., 2009; Delgado
(i.e. reward and recognition for project; measuring et al., 2010
the success in terms of financial benefits)
Table II.
Source: Prepared by the authors LSS CSFs

LSS project. According to Kumar et al. (2006), to ensure members’ interest in LSS project,
short-term successes are important in the initial stages and afterwards stress on overall
program success, which demands more time, cost and efforts. Thus, apart from the belt
system, LSS projects also need champions or sponsors who provide direction to the
implementation team, find resources and plan for the project. The readiness or timing of the
company is also critical as LSS effort requires the commitment of both management and
team members.
Fusing business strategy with continuous improvement strategy: According to O’Rourke
(2005), linking business strategy with continuous improvement strategy is important. He
argues that a clear and solid fusing of LSS with the company’s corporate strategy is the
most vital factor for successful implementation, especially in the service industry. Fornari
and Maszle (2004) notes that incorporation of the organizations and LSS success could be
enhanced only when continuous improvement elements are integrated into the business
strategy. LSS alignment with an organization’s strategic initiative provides a connection
between strategic goals and selected projects (Lertwattanapongchai and Swierczek, 2014).
More so, Fornari and Maszle (2004) state that LSS should be incorporated as part of the
business strategy development so that the process of building long-term change can be
accepted and taken seriously in the organization.
Customer focus: Lertwattanapongchai and Swierczek’s (2014) views improved customer
satisfaction as the central goal of LSS; thus, customer focus and satisfaction is vital to an
 IJLSS LSS project’s success. LSS has the potential to increase the capacity of the organization to
identify the actual reasons for customer’s defection and dissatisfaction, and thus, creating
organizations that are quicker and more sensitive to customers’ needs is equally important.
According to Rathilall (2014), to achieve short- and long-term goals, the LSS project selection
process must be carried out by a thorough technique focused on the needs and satisfaction
of customers. Furthermore, successful deployment of any quality management process
requires the organization to focus on customer needs via the process of continuous
improvement that later enhances changes in corporate culture (Delgado et al., 2010).
Cultural change: An effective introduction and deployment of LSS demand adjustments
to the organizational culture and a transformation of attitudes of the employees (Fornari and
Maszle, 2004; Kumar et al., 2006; Carleysmith et al., 2009; and Delgado et al., 2010).
Successful cultural change demands a clear communication strategy, motivating team
players to overcome resistance and training various stakeholders on the importance of the
LSS project. Communicating the short results or successes of the LSS projects including
challenges and obstacles is also helpful in ensuring a change in attitude (Carleysmith et al.,
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

2009). To enhance the LSS culture, the organization management must gather implementers’
feedback and concerns, design a cultural change plan via an appropriate LSS strategy,
divide and allocate tasks and empower team members in problem-solving.
Education and training: Kumar et al. (2006) argue that today, the implementation team
needed for LSS is distinct with its own distinct features. Such classification, together with
the form of continuous training needed to provide the teams with relevant skills and
knowledge tasks, also has its uniqueness compared to other management and
implementation methodologies. The LSS implementation group hierarchy involves the
White Belts, Yellow Belts; Green Belts, Black Belts, Master Black Belts and Champions. The
respective belts are given by various consultancy and training organizations, especially
based on the overall training period spent and the number of LSS programs handed over or
completed (Kumar et al., 2006). To ensure successful implementation, Kumar et al. (2006)
suggests the need to use a less complex or single hierarchy consisting a white belt process
only to handle the primary training needs of management and statistical tools. This would
help to reduce costs involved together with minimizing resource deficiencies.
According to Thawani (2004), successful or productive teamwork is the key element for
the effective implementation of LSS programs. It is more beneficial to have groups in any
problem-solving activities because various team members have varying talents, knowledge,
skills and experience. Kumar et al. (2006) argue that in the LSS working groups, duties and
responsibilities of team players such as Green Belts, Black Belts, Master Black Belts and
Champions are explicitly defined. Because the LSS team players have profound capacity
and information of LSS strategies, Gutiérrez et al. (2009) claim that teamwork will expand
the probability of LSS project success.
Rathilall (2014) further identified other significant factors that appear to influence LSS
implementation equally. Among them is the prior implementation of other quality
management programs such as the European Foundation for Quality Management and ISO,
among others. It provides the needed experience for the team players concerning quality
management. Also, the report of all the processes, needed by prior processes, such as ISO,
appears to promote LSS. Thus, it appears that this system provides the required information
and experience for LSS implementation. Another factor is the incorporation of LSS with the
performance management process, which was found to enhance the implementation
process. This incorporation triggers employees and managers to increase the level of
support and commitment.
 For LSS implementation, many elements must be considered, aligned and acted upon. Lean Six
Snee (2010) claims that it should include the integration of human and process elements of Sigma
improvement, a clear focus on getting bottom line results and a method that sequences and
links improvements tools into the overall structured approach. Snee (2010) also believes that
when these elements are combined with other aspects of LSS, it would produce its successful
implementation in an organization.

4. Research method
This study used a multiple-case study designed to gather data on the LSS implementation
process. The companies selected for this study were limited to those that have or were in the
process of implementing an integrated LSS methodology. The primary data were collected
through interviews with the Black Belts.
The qualitative researcher used intentional and judgmental testing strategies in the
choice of cases studies, as opposed to the efficient sampling methods used as a part of
quantitative studies (Patton, 1990). Consequently, the case was chosen to take into account
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

the following criteria:

The preliminary survey helped to short-list the organizations. This organization is
located and operations in Malaysia.

This organization had implemented Six Sigma or LSS and, at the time of the
interview, was running this program successfully.

To study the LSS implementation in Malaysia, large and/or multinational companies were
chosen because of the limitation that small and medium companies have. Multinational and
large-size companies are being focused on because many small- and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) fail to use Six Sigma due to its costs of deployment and implementation
(Tran, 2006). In addition, large multinational companies were chosen for this study because
of the existence of an internal audit function that plays an important assurance and its
consulting roles in the organization.
In total, 20 companies located in Johor, Penang and Klang Valley were identified in the
major industrial areas in Malaysia. From the chosen companies, Black Belt and/or Master
Black Belt practitioners were contacted to participate, out of that only four Black Belts and
one Master Black Belt were interested in participating in the case study.
In this study, the primary interview was carried out with the Black Belt and/or Master
Black Belt practitioners. Yin (2003) described interviews that are open-ended and
conversational in nature but follow a certain line of questioning derived from case study
protocol and the interview guide. The deliberate methodology of setting up the conventions
for open-ended questions for semi-structured interviews demonstrates the objectivity of the
exploratory nature of the study. The structured method for information gathering is through
semi-structure interviews that helped the analyst to understand the method and its
consecutive steps.
Khurshid (2012) portrayed the qualities of interviews and explained that as the
interviewees give their own opinions on the topic, the researcher has the capacity to remain
focused and permit the facts to emerge. The semi-structured interview likewise mostly
prepares the respondents for the areas of discussion. Therefore, they are informed of what
will be discussed during the interview. Further, the semi-structured interview allows for
anecdotes and stories to emerge, which in the dominant part of cases give a wealthier
answer or understanding into a topic area than a basic quantitative survey (Yin, 2009).
However, Yin (2009) likewise highlighted a few weaknesses, for example, interviewees have
a high degree of freedom in their responses, and in many cases, the interviewees float from
 IJLSS the point. Additionally, the interviewer requires a lot of practices and needs to be watchful to
cover the entire range of area in a predefined time.
A semi-structured method for interviewing was used as a part of this study to explore
facts. This gave the interviewer the flexibility to explore the experiences of the companies.
The semi-structured method was attempted in a casual manner by encouraging the
interviewee to share more information. As the interviewees are qualified quality
practitioners, a detailed interview arrangement and structured interview questions (refer to
Appendix) was developed. The interview occurred for about 30-45 min. After receiving
consent, the interview was recorded and notes were taken throughout the interview. Due to
confidentially, the names of the companies cannot be disclosed, and therefore, several codes
were subsequently developed from interviewees’ responses (Table III).

5. Results and discussion

The interview questions sought to identify the key issues involved with the execution of LSS
implementation and strategy. This study focused on evaluating the following questions:
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

Q1. What is the overall process for conducting and implementing an LSS project?

Q2. What was the timeline of your implementation?

Q3. What is the normal size of the execution team?

Q4. What were, and are, the barriers faced during its implementation?

Q5. What are the CSFs highlighted by the interviewee?

(1) The overall process for conducting and implementing an LSS project.
The LSS implementation process at Company A began with the initiatives of plan
manager introducing LSS within the company. After completing the initial awareness and
training sessions, the challenge was to gain the support from top management and
stakeholders. BB-01 explained that the involvement of the top management in the execution
of LSS appears to be mandatory and is arguably the most important factor in a continuous
improvement initiative’s success.
According to BB-01, the initial implementation design was created through a
combination of consultant recommendations, internal knowledge of lessons learned from
similar experiences, benchmarking with other companies that had succeeded in
implementing LSS. Thus, Company A, Company B, Company C and Company E follow the

Annual financial
Participant Company label Industry/business No. of employees turnover

BB-01 Company A Chemicals 150þ Over RM150m

BB-02 Company B Semiconductors 5,000þ Over RM4.5
Table III. BB-03 Company C Electronics manufacturing services 500þ Over RM200m
Summary of the MBB-01 Company D Computer storage devices 1,500þ Over RM15bn
interviewees BB-04 Company E Plantation 30,000þ Over RM10bn
 standard design for LSS, which is DMAIC methodology, to implement an LSS project. Lean Six
Meanwhile, Company D has used their module, and MBB-01 explained that: Sigma
We do not use DMAIC. That’s why we have a module; we introduce seven basic modules [. . .] as
requirements, all engineers have to find their problem as well as objectives for them to tackle the
problem. (MBB-01. Line 149-152).
MBB-01 argued that:
We do not have to start from D-M (i.e. Define to Measure). Let’s say you are in the production and
suddenly you have a problem with the evaluation part, and you want to do the comparison with
the current. So you can decide to do an evaluation without following the sequence of steps DMAIC
[. . .] and the process D-M can interchange, when the problem is there, we need to take care. (MBB-
01. Line 157-163).
On the other hand, the primary differences in Company B compared to the other
companies is the LSS belting system, as they do not rely on colors but instead use
medals. Currently, they have Bronze, Silver and Gold. Using this model, the company
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

recognizes all their staff (indirect level) as a Bronze level, with the engineers and
managers being required to become Bronze-certified. Silver is for those who complete
the level beyond Bronze Certification. The LSS training modules set by the Company B
are unique from the other industry practices, whereas the training modules incorporate
three different bodies; ASQ, Shingo (practices from Japan) and the Association for
Manufacturing Excellence. BB-02 explained that:
We push improvement activities through Bronze and also the Silver training. Silver training is a
bit different; it consists of six weeks training for the employees [. . .] We allocated six weeks to the
Bronze certified employees for Silver training. This Silver training is where we tie back to the
target set by the top management to drive cost savings through transformation. Transformation
means how we are doing it now, and how can we do it better. For example, if there is a better way
flow instead of a single line, we can transform to cell concept; there’s an opportunity for us to
encourage the improvements and also achieve the targets set by the management (BB-02. Line
147-159).

The difference between the Bronze and Silver training is the duration. I conduct Silver class at
nine o’clock and finish at 4.30pm, so in between the class sessions, we have a theory and also a
practical session for six weeks. It’s not going to be a continuous six weeks, so we spread it across
to about a six months program (BB-02. Line 179-182).

We have two paths, after Bronze, you can either attend a Silver training or you can attend Black
Belt training. So if you go for Silver it’s more for the site work. So that’s why we have LSS. Lean is
where you go to Silver; Six Sigma is when you go to Black Belt. So we have two paths (BB-02.
Line 233-235).
BB-02 further explained that:
For those who are attending the Black Belt section, they were also given a task to come out with a
cost savings project. So it is a win-win situation, whether you go for Silver or to Black Belt
certification, both help you to come out with a cost saving project (BB-02. Line 240-242).
According to MBB-01, as a Master Black Belt, she has to play a role in both the adoption and
implementation of LSS at Company D. In the beginning, she has to train and coach Black
Belt populations in formulating the overall approach that they should take. She added that
once these people were in place, these Black Belts are expected to operate in this role for two
 IJLSS to three years and then return to the business operation in similarly significant roles to the
roles they left or roles with increased responsibility.
While Company E recognizes their Yellow Belt as White Belt, this does not change
the meaning. According to BB-04, White Belt is for non-executive or operator.
Regarding the overall process for conducting an LSS project in Company E, BB-04
explained that:
Before we can start this project, we have what we call project mining. It means that we have to
identify the project potential. Normally, we do this at the end of financial year. For example,
our financial year is from July until June. So in April or May, we’ll start to identify the
potential projects for the next financial year. There are two ways to identify the project; the
first way is to locate the operations or business where there is an issue or problem (BB-04.
Line 138-144).
According to BB-04, he explained that:
When we do a project; we need project charter. The project should be approved by the Champion,
as well as the Black Belt or Master Black Belt. And then we have a finance person as one of a
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

team member. For a project, we will have a process owner, (Champion) and then, of course, a
project leader (Black Belt or Master Black Belt). So, this project leader or coordinator will sign off
during the initial phase to do the project (BB-04. Line 124-128).
Moreover, the overall process for conducting and implementing an LSS project in
Company E was managed centrally, whereby they had responsibility for centralize
their training, project tracking, financial and communications. The operations were
responsible for selecting the right projects, selecting the right Black Belt and to lead
the projects, identifying teams, supporting project requirements and capturing the
financial benefits for the completed projects.
(2) The timeline of LSS implementation.
All the interviewees agreed that three-six months is a standard timeline for executing a
project. However, in some cases, the timeline for the project may take a bit longer. Below is
the feedback from the interviewees concerning the timeline of LSS implementation:
Normally for Green Belt, we allocate for three months. For Black Belt project is about six months
to complete (BB-01. Line 156-157).

When we submit a project, the DMAIC project will take about three months (BB-02. Line 300-302).

Three months. Our project cannot take longer than three months. Otherwise, it will turn to a
different project (BB-03. Line 151-152).

Half a year can be completed (MBB-01. Line 298).

That depends on the project, normally an LSS project takes about six months to one year (BB-04.
Line 271-272)
(3) The normal size of the execution team for an LSS project.
According to the interviewees, five-six people are the normal size of the execution team
for a project. However, this team may have fewer or more people, depending on the project
scope, and normally it will be indicated in the project charter.
According to BB-04, the size of the team depends on the project, but basically for a
project, they need one project leader. However, in some cases, for core or critical projects,
they need two project leaders who are Black Belt or Master Black Belt.
 (4) The barriers faced during LSS implementation. Lean Six
BB-01 considers the reliability of the data and data analysis as crucial in earlier stages Sigma
of LSS implementation. He explained that at first, the employees considered LSS as
complicated or as simply more work. This situation was created by the lack of ownership
by the employees, who demanded a revisit to the whole LSS implementation strategy. He
said:
By explaining the process mapping and the outcome, I have managed to get all the projects in and
working people to the projects (BB-01. Line 53-55).
According to BB-02, during LSS implementation, the participation is very important. He
said:
So far we have about 90% attendance. Not for the first week, but the weeks throughout the
training. So if I have a group of 10 people for the first week of training, then I’ll get roughly about
nine people at the end of the sixth week of training. So the first challenge is the attendance.
Secondly, they need to run the production; they need to achieve the production output before they
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

can commit themselves to attend the training (BB-02. Line 165-172).

He explained that:
The only barrier is the commitment from the Managers for the Silver training. The requirement,
for me I feel that it’s a bit too long – six weeks of training – just imagine, getting these people off
from the normal production floor for only a week is very difficult. We are not talking about one
week; we are talking about six weeks. So the training time taken is a factor (BB-02. Line 217-221).
BB-01 argued that:
Silver certification that requires six weeks of training put some pressure on the site work
Managers. The team needs to come out from their daily routine and attend this training not only
to learn theory but also they need to do the improvements on the production floor. So, six weeks
training requirement for me is a bit long (BB-02. Line 217-221).
According to MBB-01, the challenge about training and coaching the engineers or potential
Black Belts is when these people complete the training; several of them will resign because
of the high demand for those who are certified. She said that her company did not agree to be
bound by a contract because they believed that learning LSS is common knowledge for
those who are working in a manufacturing industry. She also believed that top management
is the most critical barrier to LSS implementation. She said:
It is because to make help people accept the idea, is not easy. We must do a lot of communication,
presentation and the ability to explain in a simple way (BB-02. Line 281-282).
MBB-01 also opinioned that to get the right technique, to develop the culture is not easy
because not all people are willing to change. The barriers that were experienced to some
degree in a few areas were getting the right people identified as Black Belts and developing
adequate management skills to analyze and examine the business.
BB-04 considered cost is one of the barriers during LSS implementation; he said:
It’s easy to find the project, but to find a project then we’ll give a big cost impact. That one is
difficult because it’s hard to fit the existing budget. To do a project we require the support from
the management for funding, that one is the thing (BB-04. Line 206-210).
(5) CSFs highlighted by the Interviewee.
The interviewees considered management support and commitment, culture change,
communication, education and training and recognition and reward systems as the most
 IJLSS important CSFs. Table IV presents a summary of the most important CSFs by each
interviewee in their organization.
From the interview, the interviewees have identified the important CSFs and their
importance for the successful implementation of LSS (Table IV). In their opinion, factors
such as management support and commitment, culture change, communication, education
and training and recognition and reward systems are very important for a successful
endeavor.

5.1 Implementation strategy

The strategy adopted by the manager was mostly based on using internal resources rather
than external consultants to drive LSS implementation. This strategy serves many purposes
such as reduced cost and culture change, which help to create ownership of the project.
Hence, it facilitated the addressing of the cultural issues. It also helped the employee to fully
use their skills in the organization for completing any LSS projects.
Many discussions in the literature reveal that many organizations used the conventional
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

DMAIC strategy to initiate the projects. However, later on, it was revealed by the
interviewees that there were some concerns about using the DMAIC methodology. Thus,
several companies had done several modifications to DMAIC to meet the requirements of the
organization to implement LSS.
5.1.1 Role structure. A multiple-case study revealed that it is quite difficult for a
company to establish a classically designated LSS implementation team exclusively to look
after LSS affairs. Therefore, Companies B and D established a role-based LSS
implementation team that executed LSS projects under their company adaptation. The
formation of the team kept on changing according to the requirements of the project. Even
the roles of the Master Black Belts, Black Belts and the Green Belts were modified according
to the work demands.
5.1.2 Tools and techniques. As Companies A, B and D were familiarized with various
other quality management methodologies, the interviewees acknowledged that they did not
follow a specific pattern to use any specific tools and techniques under the banner of LSS.
However, the choice of tools or techniques is up to the team, and they were quite flexible in
their choices. On top of that, according to an interviewee who is a Master Black Belt, she
trained and coached the Black Belts, as well as the Green Belts, to use the correct tools or
techniques to be applied for them to analyze and get results. This part is very important for
the practitioner because when a Black Belt or team leader makes the wrong choice of tools or
techniques to be applied, the result of implemented LSS is not as effective. This is because
Nash et al. (2006) and Singh and Khanduja (2015) found that the most common mistake in an
LSS project is choosing wrong tools and techniques. Corbett (2011) argues that the choice of
LSS tools by project teams was decided more by the complexity of the project rather than
following the rules taught. However, according to Assarlind and Aaboen (2014), it is an

Interviewee/CSFs BB-01 BB-02 BB-03 MBB-01 BB-04

Management support and commitment X X X X X

Table IV. Communication, knowledge sharing X X X X
LSS CSFs Culture change, use facts to show need for change X X X
highlighted by the Education and training X X X X X
interviewees Recognition and reward systems X X X X
 increased knowledge of LSS throughout the organization that now prevents the process Lean Six
from moving in the opposite direction. Sigma
6. Managerial implications
This analysis of the benefits derived by Malaysian companies through LSS can assist other
companies in Malaysia, as well as those in other developing countries, especially in
Southeast Asia, i.e. Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and Philippines, that have not yet
experimented with LSS, to become more focused regarding their expectations from this
improvement drive.
Clearly, much of LSS is production-based. The changes that LSS brings result in
amendments to processes and products and how the factory operates. However, LSS is
much more than this: it is a “business improvement” methodology, whereby the success of
any project is highly dependent on its technique and implementation strategy. For example,
there is no point in production having top-quality products if the aftersales service is of poor
quality and discourages customers from purchasing. The idea of LSS is to ensure less waste
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

and enhanced quality at each step of the process. This practice is believed to change the
behavior and thinking of an organization. A transformation in perspective ensures that
people are doing better and bigger. This methodology can also help in other important
projects such as manufacturing, construction, mining and plantation.
As explained above, LSS has complex and wide-ranging implications for the entire
organization. The effect of LSS implementation on managers can be both short-term and
long-term, and this makes it important for the company to be fully aware of what LSS is and
how its arrival can change what the company does. Companies pursuing LSS
implementation programs need to carefully examine how the proposed initiatives relate to
each other and other initiatives before fully committing, or at least to review the program,
which allows reasonable design and management programs to be implemented. For
instance, tools and techniques cannot be used effectively without proper training. According
to Arumugam et al. (2012), it is all the more critical to use techniques such as observation,
which not only depends on basic skills and knowledge of the observation process but also
the observer’s interpersonal skills and prior knowledge about the process, which will affect
the outcome of the observation. The proper selection of tools, techniques and competency in
their application will enhance the overall effectiveness of the problem-solving process.
This study provides strong practical implications for researchers and industry
practitioners, whereas the industry professionals must deliberately focus on the identified
LSS more conservatively during LSS implementation, and the top management should plan
strategically to avoid any implementation failure (Yadav and Desai, 2017). The findings of
the study provide evidence of the practical benefits of LSS and justification for the adoption
and implementation of LSS principles and techniques in Malaysia, with possible similar
benefits for similar companies in developing nations.
According to Lakhe and Mohanty (1994), developing nations are synonymous with poor-
quality products. Some countries have limitations due to severe economic constraints, lack
of political will, lack of commitment and lack of education and training. Studies carried out
indicate that the concepts of LSS are not understood by businesses and are often considered
as an optional extra. One of the major problems faced by developing countries is a lack of
expertise and inadequate training facilities. Inviting LSS consultants from outside and
sending managers abroad for training may sound good in the initial stages of
implementation. However, in the long run, the responsibility for training everyone in the
organization and maintaining a continuous effort has to be assumed by managers. However,
the findings show that Malaysian companies are more focused on education and training,
 IJLSS whereas increased top management support is required for proper LSS implementation to
inform, involve and influence different sets of stakeholders at different phases of the DMAIC
flow.
Compared with developed nations that have implemented LSS for over 20 years, the
methodology is something that is already applied in all sectors, including some government
departments in few but hybridizing it with agile powered with different technology
platforms (Chakraborty, 2017). Therefore, the framework recommended by authors for
developing countries is a hybridized version that leverages the best tools and techniques to
tailor for specific needs and scenarios of implementation, for example, making changes or
replacing LSS basic tools and techniques with a more robust and scalable technique, along
with understanding how to motivate workers in various jobs, locations environments and
cultures.

7. Conclusion
The focus of this paper was to explore the successful implementation of LSS in Malaysia,
and the findings from the survey were compared with the findings in the literature. These
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

were then further analyzed by data gathered from several companies under focus. In the
interview, the most common reasons for not implementing LSS were the absence of top
management commitment and a lack of knowledge or understanding of the system.
Additionally, as there is currently no centralized body to oversee the affairs of LSS, such as
ISO in the case of the ISO 9000 standard series, this situation provides ample opportunity for
freelance consultants to modify or propagate the basic concepts of LSS. Khurshid (2012)
highlighted that the role of consultants in Six Sigma has resulted in uncertainties, as well as
a rise in the overall implementation cost, which is unaffordable for most organizations due
to their resource constraints. However, the absence of a centralized controlling body for LSS
allows organizations to tailor the methodology according to their needs.
Many researchers believe that majority of the tools used in LSS are the same as those
used in total quality management (Baldinini, 2008; Odoh, 2015). However, Kumar et al.
(2008) argue that not only types of tools important but also the objective use of the tools
make LSS different. However, the literature and interview responses indicate that any
organization can customize these methodologies according to its needs (Yang et al., 2007).
Hence, it is perceived that organizations can modify the implementation strategies according
to their needs. This also indicates that there are no stringent rules to follow, and that the
process of adoption and implementation is quite flexible.
This study also highlights the need to develop a new LSS adoption–implementation
framework exclusive to companies in Malaysia. When comparing the findings in the UK
and Australia, factors such as conceptual unawareness and a lack of knowledge are
common areas of concern (Khurshid, 2012). However, this state of unawareness could be
minimized through building strong communication channels between top management and
all employees at any level.
Moreover, the findings from the multiple-case study identify the CSFs for implementing
LSS are: management support and commitment, communication, culture change, education
and training and a recognition and reward system. On the other hand, the interviewees also
highlighted the salient features which serve as barriers against the successful
implementation of LSS in Malaysian companies. They are lack of top management
commitment, lack of knowledge, lack of training and internal resistance. These findings are
similar to those reported in literature.
The authors believe that the most important conclusion extracted from the five case
studies is affirmation that LSS can be implemented in Malaysia not only in international or
 multinational companies but also domestic companies. Despite the fact that the companies Lean Six
were under-focused, for several of them, it was part of a multinational setup, and developing Sigma
countries could enjoy various benefits and assistance from the parent group regardless of
the industry.

References
Andersson, R., Eriksson, H. and Torstensson, H. (2006), “Similarities and differences between TQM, six
sigma and lean”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 282-296.
Antony, J. (2011), “Six sigma vs lean: some perspectives from leading academics and
practitioners”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 60
No. 2, pp. 185-190.
Arumugam, V., Antony, J. and Douglas, A. (2012), “Observation: a lean tool for improving the
effectiveness of lean six sigma”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 275-287, doi: 10.1108/
17542731211226781.
Assarlind, M. and Aaboen, L. (2014), “Forces affecting one lean six sigma adoption process”,
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 324-340.

Baldinini (2008), “Six sigma vs. Total quality management”, available at: https://baldinini.wordpress.
com/2008/12/08/six-sigma-vs-total-quality-management/
Carleysmith, S.W., Dufton, A.M. and Altria, K.D. (2009), “Implementing lean sigma in
pharmaceutical research and development: a review by practitioners”, R&D Management,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 95-106, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00542.x.
Chakraborty, U. (2017), “Solving the problems of the developing countries with technology
and methodology”, Becoming Human: Artificial Intelligence Magazine, available at:
https://becominghuman.ai/solving-the-problems-of-the-developing-countries-with-technology-
methodology-4aa1257cf416
Chapman, B. (2012), “Lean six sigma: Step by step (DMAIC info graphic)”, 16 December 2015, available
at: https://goleansixsigma.com/lean-six-sigma-step-by-step/
Corbett, L.M. (2011), “Lean six sigma: the contribution to business excellence”, International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 118-131.
Delgado, C., Ferreira, M. and Castelo, B.M. (2010), “The implementation of lean six sigma in financial
services organizations”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 512-523.
Dimitroulakis, N. (2014), “Lost in certification: Deconstructing lean six sigma”, September 11, 2015,
available at: www.itpreneurs.com/blog/lost-certification-deconstructing-lean-six-sigma/
Fornari, A. and Maszle, G. (2004), “Lean six sigma leads xerox”, ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine,
Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 11-16.
George, M.L. (2002), Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six Sigma Quality with Lean Production Speed, 1st ed.,
McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, NY.
Gutiérrez, L.J., Lloréns-Montes, F.J. and Bustinza, Ó.F.B. (2009), “Six sigma: from a goal-theoretic
perspective to shared-vision development”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 151-169.
Ishikawa, K. (1985), What Is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way, Prentice-Hall, United States.
Khurshid, K.K. (2012), Implementation of Six Sigma in Australian Manufacturing Small and Medium
Enterprises, (Master thesis), available at: http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30052953/khurshid-
implementation-2012A.pdf
Kumar, M., Antony, J., Madu, C.N., Montgomery, D.C. and Park, S.H. (2008), “Common myths of Six
Sigma demystified”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 25 No. 8,
pp. 878-895.
 IJLSS Kumar, M., Antony, J., Singh, R.K., Tiwari, M.K. and Perry, D. (2006), “Implementing the lean sigma
framework in an Indian SME: a case study”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 407-423.
Lakhe, R.R. and Mohanty, R.P. (1994), “Total quality management: concepts, evolution and
acceptability in developing economies”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 11 No. 9, pp. 9-33.
Lertwattanapongchai, S. and Swierczek, F.W. (2014), “Assessing the change process of lean six sigma: a
case analysis”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 423-443.
Nash, M.A., Poling, S.R. and Ward, S. (2006), Using Lean for Faster Six Sigma Results: A Synchronized
Approach, 2nd ed., Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Nave, D. (2002), “How to compare six sigma, lean and the theory of constraints: a framework for
choosing what’s best for your organisation”, Quality Progress, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 73-78.
O’Rourke, P. (2005), “A multiple case comparison of lean six sigma deployment and implementation
strategies”, ASQ World Conference on Quality and Improvement, 59, 581-591.
Odoh, M. (2015), “Application of information technology in total quality management”, Journal of
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

Software Engineering and Simulation, Vol. 2 No. 8, pp. 9-15.

Patton, M.Q.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 8th ed., Sage Publications, United
States.
Rathilall, R. (2014), “A lean six sigma framework to enhance the competitiveness in selected automotive
component manufacturing organisations”, available at: http://ir.dut.ac.za/bitstream/handle/
10321/ (1175), /RATHILAL_2014.pdf?sequence=1.
Salah, S., Rahim, A. and Carretero, J.A. (2010), “The integration of six sigma and lean management”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 249-274.
Singh, B.J. and Khanduja, D. (2015), Wrap the Scrap with DMAIC: Strategic Deployment of Six Sigma in
Indian Foundry SMEs, Imprint der Diplomca Veriag GmnH, Germany.
Snee, R.D. (2010), “Lean six sigma – getting better all the time”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-29.
Sokovic, M., Pavletic, D. and Pipan, K. (2010), “Quality improvement methodologies – PDCA cycle,
RADAR matrix, DMAIC and DFSS”, Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing
Engineering, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 476-483.
Tague, N.R. (2012), The Quality Toolbox, 2nd ed., ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Thawani, S. (2004), “Six sigma – strategy for organizational excellence”, Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, Vol. 15 Nos 5/6, pp. 655-664.
Tran, D. (2006), “Factors in the Successful Implementation of Six Sigma in Canadian Manufacturing
Firms” (MBA Thesis thesis).
Yadav, G. and Desai, T.N. (2017), “Analyzing lean six sigma enablers: a hybrid ISM-fuzzy MICMAC
approach”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 488-511, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/
TQM-04-2016-0041
Yang, H.M., Choi, B.S., Jin, P.H., Soo, S.M. and Chae, B.K. (2007), “Supply chain management six sigma:
a management innovation methodology at the Samsung group”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 88-95.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zu, X., Fredendall, L.D. and Douglas, T.J. (2008), “The evolving theory of quality management: the role
of six sigma”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 630-650.
 Appendix. Interview questions (Interview questionnaire guide) Lean Six
The questions are categorized into three sections: adoption, implementation, and post- Sigma
implementation.
Question 1: How did you begin using Lean Six Sigma methodologies in your
organizations?
a) What was the motivation to implement Lean Six Sigma?
b) Why did you select Lean Six Sigma methodology from amongst other quality
management methodologies?
c) Did you get any external assistance for implementing Lean Six Sigma?
Question 2: How was “Lean Six Sigma” implemented within your organization?
a) What is the overall process for conducting and implementing a Lean Six Sigma project?
b) What was the timeline of your implementation?
c) What is the normal size of the execution team?
d) What were, and are, the barriers faced during its implementation?
Downloaded by INSEAD At 12:37 24 November 2018 (PT)

e) What are the Critical Success Factors?

Question 3: How was the implementation of your organization’s Lean Six Sigma was
managed?
a) What is the status of implementation on a five-point Likert scale, where one (1)
represents “not implemented” and five (5) is “fully implemented”?
b) What is the overall feedback of employees after implementing Lean Six Sigma?
c) What benefits does the company consider are due to Lean Six Sigma?
d) What lessons were learned that you consider are important for other to follows?

Corresponding author
Mohamad Reeduan Mustapha can be contacted at: reeduan@terengganu-inc.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com