Business Process Management Journal

Project selection and its impact on the successful deployment of Six Sigma
Maneesh Kumar Jiju Antony Byung Rae Cho
Article information:
To cite this document:
Maneesh Kumar Jiju Antony Byung Rae Cho, (2009),"Project selection and its impact on the successful
deployment of Six Sigma", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 Iss 5 pp. 669 - 686
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637150910987900
Downloaded on: 23 February 2015, At: 06:47 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 35 other documents.
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2247 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Ricardo Banuelas Coronado, Jiju Antony, (2002),"Critical success factors for the successful
implementation of six sigma projects in organisations", The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 Iss 2 pp. 92-99 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09544780210416702
U. Dinesh Kumar, Haritha Saranga, José E. Ramírez-Márquez, David Nowicki, (2007),"Six sigma project
selection using data envelopment analysis", The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 Iss 5 pp. 419-441 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09544780710817856
Ricardo Banuelas, Charles Tennant, Ian Tuersley, Shao Tang, (2006),"Selection of six sigma projects in the
UK", The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 Iss 5 pp. 514-527 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09544780610685485

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 172684 []
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 at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm

Project selection
Project selection and its impact and its impact on
on the successful deployment Six Sigma
of Six Sigma
669
Maneesh Kumar
School of Management and Law, Edinburgh Napier University Business School,
Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK
Jiju Antony
Department of Design Manufacture and Engineering Management,
Strathclyde Institute for Operations Management,
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK, and

Byung Rae Cho
Department of Industrial Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson,
South Carolina, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on the importance of the project selection process and
its role in the successful deployment of Six Sigma within organizations.
Design/methodology/approach – A review of the literature is presented, highlighting the
importance of project selection in Six Sigma deployment, which is an area of extreme importance that
has been less researched in the past. The paper, through a real-life case study, proposes a hybrid
methodology, which combines the analytical hierarchy process and the project desirability matrix to
select a project for Six Sigma deployment.
Findings – The paper demonstrates the efficacy of proposed methodology by its application in a
small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) manufacturing die-casting product. The example provided
is a real-life case study conducted by the authors in an organization embracing the Six Sigma business
strategy within their day-to-day functioning.
Research limitations/implications – The proposed methodology is tested only in a case study SME,
which is the limitation of the paper. The robustness of the methodology can be tested by conducting
several case studies in organizations and comparing the results with other existing methodologies for
project selection such as project prioritisation matrix or the failure mode and effect analysis.
Practical implications – The paper accentuates the importance of the project selection process for
Six Sigma deployment, which can have a tremendous effect on the business profitability of an
organization. The paper is relevant to both industry practitioners and researchers.
Originality/value – The paper presents a methodology linking the project selection process to
successful deployment of Six Sigma within organizations, an important topic that has been neglected in the
past. The paper will enable managers and practitioners to emphasize the importance of project selection
and to identify and focus on the critical success factors in successful deployment of Six Sigma projects.
Keywords Six Sigma, Analytical hierarchy process, Project planning
Paper type Research paper
Business Process Management
Journal
Vol. 15 No. 5, 2009
Introduction pp. 669-686
Six Sigma is a well-established approach that seeks to identify and eliminate defects, q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-7154
mistakes, or failures in business processes or systems by focusing on those process DOI 10.1108/14637150910987900
 BPMJ performance characteristics that are of critical importance to customers (Snee, 2004).
15,5 Ever since its conception at Motorola in 1988, the Six Sigma program has grown in
leaps and bounds world-wide (Antony et al., 2005). At the time of its conception, it was
envisioned to be a quality improvement program that sought to deliver near-perfect
(3.4 defects per million opportunities) quality for Motorola. Six Sigma
define-measure-analyze-improve-control (DMAIC) provides an excellent framework
670 for thinking about a problem in a linear way, where a team will finish one phase and
then smoothly and easily coast into the next (Smith and Phadke, 2005).
The success or failure of Six Sigma deployment in an organization hinges on
selecting the right project that can be completed within a reasonable time span (four to
six months) and that will deliver tangible (quantifiable) business benefits in financial
terms, or will enhance customer satisfaction (Jackenthal, 2004). Projects are the core
activity driving changes in Six Sigma organizations. It can be best reflected in the
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

following quote from Jack Welch (Chief Executive Officer, General Electric):
The best Six Sigma projects begin not inside the business but outside it, focused on
answering the question: How can we make the customer more competitive? What is critical to
the customer’s success? Learning the answer to that question and learning how to provide the
solution is the only focus we need.
Project selection is one of the critical factors in the success of any business change
program, whether short-term or long-term. Identification of high-impact projects at the
initial stage of a program will result in significant breakthroughs in a rapid timeframe
(Noble, 2004). This can induce confidence in management as well as in employees
about the efficacy of the Six Sigma initiative, thus promoting future investment and
efforts in the initiative and thereby winning the hearts and minds of everyone involved.
Projects cost money, take time, and disrupt normal operations and standard routines.
For these reasons, projects must be focused on the strategic goals of any business. It is
the responsibility of senior management to designate cross-functional responsibilities
and to allow access to interdepartmental resources (Pyzdek, 2003).
Antony (2004) views Six Sigma as a “business strategy initiative.” Projects which
align with the strategic objectives of the business should therefore be selected. These
projects should meet or exceed the expectations of the ever-changing demands of
customers and should be a greater focus on the stakeholders of Six Sigma. A critical
point for sustainability of Six Sigma efforts is to select the right project from the outset,
as this determines the success or failure of the deployment of Six Sigma.
Problems arising in organizations can be classified into two categories: problems
with known solution and that with unknown solution (Snee, 2001; Pandé et al., 2000;
Pyzdek, 2003). Problems having a known solution are generally assigned to the project
manager who is provided with the required resources, and has the project management
skills to undertake the project. For an “unknown solution,” the problems are
ill-structured and Six Sigma methodology may be needed to solve them. This would
require the use of technical specialists who may be certified as black belts (BBs) or
green belts (GBs) in Six Sigma (Snee and Rodebaugh, 2002).
The next section focuses on the key ingredients, based on a review of the literature,
for the selection of a Six Sigma project.
 Project selection in organizations: a review Project selection
A clear and accurate definition of a project is the first step towards ensuring a project’s and its impact on
success. The clearer the project goal, the more likely you are to achieve it. According to
BS 6079 (2000), a project is defined as: Six Sigma
[. . .] a unique set of co-ordinated activities, with defining starting and finishing points,
undertaken by an individual or organization to meet specific performance objectives within
defined schedule, cost and performance parameters. 671
The results from the informal poll conducted by Pandé et al. (2000) identified project
selection as the most critical and most commonly mishandled activity in launching Six
Sigma. The iSixSigma Magazine (2005) benchmark study of project selection sought to
characterize how companies identify, prioritize, and approve projects in their Six
Sigma programs. Results of the study showed that companies at any stage of
deployment prioritize Six Sigma projects that have high-financial savings. Survey
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

findings also showed that the existence of formal project selection processes, process
documentation, and rigorous requirements for project approval are all elements of a
highly successful program. In another survey, conducted by Brice (2002), 75 percent of
the respondents admitted that they did not have a project selection methodology that
assured on-time completion of the project.
Project selection is one of the most critical and challenging activities faced by
Six Sigma companies (Chaki, 2004). Selecting the right project in a Six Sigma program
is a major factor in the early success and long-term acceptance within any organization
(Antony, 2004). A review of literature facilitated in identifying the guidelines suggested
by the authors for selecting any Six Sigma project:
.
Projects must be aligned with a strategic business plan and organizational goals
(Antony, 2004; Davies-Catalani and Vieth, 2000).
.
A sense of urgency must be created based on the priority of the project (Antony,
2004).
.
The Six Sigma team should start with a meaningful and manageable project that
can keep the assignment small and focused to enhance the probability of success,
i.e. the project may be delivered within four to six months (Antony, 2004; Pandé
et al., 2000; Pyzdek, 2003; Goldstein, 2001; Davies-Catalani and Vieth, 2000).
.
Project objectives must be clear, succinct, specific, achievable, realistic, and
measurable with a high probability of success (Antony, 2004; Pandé et al., 2000;
Goldstein, 2001; Chaki, 2004). The best project selection is based on identifying
the projects that match the organizations current needs, capabilities and
objectives (Davies-Catalani and Vieth, 2000).
.
The project must have the approval and support of the senior manager (Snee and
Rodebaugh, 2002). It is imperative for the success of any Six Sigma project to
train executives/leaders to identify and select the right Six Sigma project, a topic
that often gets edited out of the executive development plans in most
organizations (Antony, 2004; Pandé et al., 2000).
.
The project selection process may start by creating a simple customer
expectations-process matrix that focuses on critical business process
performance characteristics (critical-to-quality, critical-to-cost, critical-to-
delivery, and critical-to-responsiveness) (Antony and Fergusson, 2004;
 BPMJ Goldstein, 2001). This would assist the organizations in selecting the best or
optimal Six Sigma projects that would have significant impact on the bottom-line.
15,5
. Project selection criteria must be established and should be based on realistic and
good metrics that are easily measurable (defect per million opportunities, yield,
process capability, cost of poor quality, cycle time, net cost savings, customer
satisfaction, etc.) (Harry and Schroeder, 2000; Jackenthal, 2004; Snee, 2001; Pandé
672 et al., 2000; Goldstein, 2001). Selecting metrics to monitor the project in progress
is perhaps the most critical aspect of a Six Sigma project and provides
measurable benefits in terms of cost, quality, and timing.

Pyzdek (2000) highlighted the importance of a project charter and mission statement
while selecting a Six Sigma project. The author focused on the attributes of project
charter (specific enough to help the team identify the project’s scope and major
stakeholders. The project charter should include a statement indicating the mission of the
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

project team and linking the project to the larger organization’s mission via the charter);
pitfalls to avoid in developing mission statements; and steps involved in chartering
process (obtain a problem statement; identify the principal stakeholders; create process
map; select team members; identify the training to be received by the team; and select the
team leader); project review at the end of each phase of DMAIC methodology.
Six Sigma is not a magic bullet that solves problems automatically by having some
data entered into software and analyzing the results. It requires people who are good
thinkers with creativity and strong analytical skills (Goldstein, 2001). A project chosen
for Six Sigma implementation can be the right project for the organization to work on
and still be a failure because the wrong people were assigned to the project (Snee, 2001).
The personnel assigned the job of project identification and selection should include
managers who have been trained as Six Sigma champions, as well as other key
Six Sigma knowledge resources, such as master black belts (MBBs), BBs, GBs, and
yellow belts, who bring experience in determining the feasibility and management of
projects under consideration (Pyzdek, 2003; Pandé et al., 2000; Snee, 2001). These
change agents play a key role in project selection and execution. However, the Six
Sigma project selected by the agents, in consensus with top management is not always
successful. Some of the reasons for project failure are discussed in the next section.

Reasons for Six Sigma project failure

An organization becomes frustrated with the Six Sigma initiatives if the projects do not
deliver the expected bottom-line results. This causes management to shift their
attention and resources on other initiatives (Snee, 2001). Surprisingly, poor project
selection continues to happen even in the best-managed and best-performing
organizations that can have a huge impact and undermine the success and credibility
of the Six Sigma program (Noble, 2004). Brice (2002) stated that most of the projects fall
behind schedule or fail due to a tenuous linkage of these projects (selected by the
executive leadership and forwarded by MBB) to the organization’s strategic business
goals. Other reasons for project failure are:
.
Persistent focus on bottom-line results with less emphasis on the voice of customers
(VOC). The focus on short-term savings only sends the wrong signal and reduces the
organization’s chance of boosting customer satisfaction and loyalty.
.
Over-emphasis on quick fix.
 .
When launching a new Six Sigma initiative, the first goal is to create excitement Project selection
by demonstrating potential for success. During this phase the management team and its impact on
usually brainstorms project ideas based on current problems and how quickly
they should be addressed. It is seldom that projects are identified through the Six Sigma
building of a strong business case that links the problem to the organization’s
overall goals (Brice, 2002; Davies-Catalani and Vieth, 2000).
.
No real assessment on where Six Sigma should be deployed and why the 673
management should be directing their efforts to a particular area.
.
Selection of too many projects without taking into account the availability of
current resources and existing capabilities (Pandé et al., 2000).
.
Selection of too big and complex project at the start that has high probability of
getting delayed and abandoned. It is always better to start with small project
that can be completed within a short duration of three to four months and that
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

have a measurable bottom-line impact.

Similar findings were reported by Snee (2001), who draws attention to barriers in
project success and concluded that common theme of these barriers is that they are all
management related. Table I focuses on the barriers to success of a Six Sigma project,
as reported by Snee (2001).

Barriers to Six Sigma project execution

Team not supported by management
Project scope too large
Project objectives not important to
organization
Fuzzy objectives and poor process
performance metrics
No cross-functional team formation
BB and team not given sufficient time to Though BBs are recommended to work full-time, they
work on the project
Team too large
No champion and BB assigned
Champion not meeting with BB/GB (in some cases)
Few or poor management reviews
Attainable in the three to six month time frame
An unrealistic scope (such as boiling the ocean) is probably
the most commonly encountered cause of project failure
Project selected is not tied to the strategic business goal
Estimated savings from the project is minimal to gain
management attention
Objectives of the project not clearly defined
Problem statement is vague, with multiple objectives
No existing data to establish the performance metrics for
the process or the project
No involvement of functional groups, such as personnel
from finance, information technology, human resources,
engineering, R&D, etc. in the team
Many projects have failed because this support was
lacking due to personnel shortages
should at least be able to spend 80 percent of their time on
a project
GBs should be able to spend at least 20 percent of their
time on the project
Six Sigma project team should have not more than four to
six members
As the size of the team increases, it becomes difficult to Table I.
find mutually agreeable meeting times and to reach group Barriers to success
consensus of Six Sigma project
 BPMJ The next section presents a methodology, proposed by authors, for Six Sigma project
15,5 selection that undermine the subjective decision-making process and emphasize on the
usage of objective and robust methodology for project selection.

Research methodology
This study focuses on developing an objective methodology for Six Sigma/continuous
674 improvement project selection. Given the nature of research, a case study-based
approach seemed appropriate. Yin (2003) defines a case study as an empirical inquiry
that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially
when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.
It focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings (Eisenhardt,
1989). Case study research is one of the most powerful research methods in operational
management, particularly in the development of new theory (Voss et al., 2002).
This research project employed following steps to achieve the objective-literature
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

review on project selection methodology, success factors and barriers to Six Sigma
project; observation of company’s approach to project selection and execution; and
finally conducting a pilot case study in the die-casting unit of the company to develop
an objective methodology for project selection. The literature review facilitated in
identifying different methods for project selection and understanding the existing gap
in quality management literature on the project selection methodology used for
undertaking continuous improvement projects. Primary data collection methodologies
used in this case study company were observations, informal meetings at senior and
middle management level, and past reports on CI projects. The secondary data
collected through literature review process were analyzed in parallel with primary data
collected on CI projects to develop an objective methodology for project selection.
The next section gives an introduction to proposed hybrid methodology using
analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and project desirability matrix (PDM) for project
selection.

Six Sigma project selection: a hybrid approach using AHP and PDM
Company background
In this section, we present a case study conducted in a die-casting unit, established in
1978 with 150 employees. The organization is engaged in designing and
manufacturing various types of precision machined components using pressure and
gravity die-casting processes. The main customers of the company are automobile
industries, textile machine manufacturers, and ordinance factories. The company
focuses strongly on customer satisfaction as the main driver for its success. In order to
maintain the confidentiality agreement made between the authors and the company,
the name of the firm cannot be revealed in this paper. We will address the case study
company as “Company X” in the discussion which follows.
At the advent of the twenty-first century, Company X was confronted with an
increased demand for their product due to globalization and a boom in the automobile
sector. Company X was facing stiff challenges from its competitors and consequently
felt the necessity to improve customer satisfaction and achieve a loyal customer base
for the continued growth of the business. The wish to maximize the return on
investment (ROI) and the fear of not meeting customer demand compelled management
to concentrate more on production rather than on the quality of the product. There was
 much hidden waste embedded in the manufacturing process, which was ignored by the Project selection
company because their manufacturing capacity was higher than their production and its impact on
requirements. Problems were tackled by increasing the in-process inventory, leading to
higher inventory costs. Six Sigma
The company was struggling to identify the areas for improvement and prioritizing
projects that were aligned to the strategic goals of the business. There was no formal,
established decision-making procedure or criteria for evaluating the importance of 675
different projects within the company. As a result, many projects failed to achieve the
desired results and were terminated before completion due to the change in
management focus and priority. Top management realised the threat the company
from its competitors and thus accentuated the identification of projects that could have
a higher impact on the business financially and strategically, with minimum efforts.
To assess the current status of the company on decision-making methodology,
semi-structured interviews were scheduled with the top management and middle
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

management personnel. It was found that projects were selected based on the “gut
feeling” and experience of the team involved in the project execution. It was also found
that middle managers were promoting their “pet” projects, even though they had weak
strategic alignment with business goals. During the interview with top management, a
common consensus was reached to start a pilot project based on the objective
decision-making methodology proposed by authors.
One of the questions raised during the interview was related to the selection of
continuous improvement method from a range of existing quality improvement
program. The team decided to implement the Six Sigma business strategy to eliminate
defects, reduce variation, inventory and the overall complexity of the system. The next
section will focus on selecting projects using a PDM and AHP.

Project selection using PDM and AHP

For Company X, authors of this paper proposed an efficient and simple methodology
for selecting a project that would have the highest impact with the lowest effort. In the
proposed methodology, a PDM is integrated with AHP to mitigate the decisions based
on subjective judgement. A PDM has two components for comparison: effort required
and impact from the project. The “effort” criteria encompass a list of variables that are
key inputs to projects and are limited in availability. In the context of Six Sigma
deployment, the project champion should evaluate the effort in terms of the resources
they deploy (human, technical, financial, etc.) and the time it takes until those resources
produce some quantifiable or measurable results or benefits. It is also imperative to
consider the “impact factor” while selecting the project. The impact factor includes
variables such as ROI, on-time delivery, customer satisfaction, etc. that may be
considered as the output from the individual project. These output variables should be
clearly defined, measured, and improvement communicated to top management so that
know how well the project is going to enlist their support.
AHP was developed by Saaty (1980) to determine the relative priorities or weights
to be assigned to different criteria and alternatives that characterize a decision. The
AHP can be used to measure the relative degree of importance of each customer
requirement by comparing each pair of customer requirements to see how much more
important one member of each pair is than the other (Chuang, 2001). The strength of
the AHP lies in its ability to resolve multi-objective problems, where it is difficult for
 BPMJ the decision maker to select objectively between alternatives (Tiwari and Banerjee,
15,5 2001; Chuang, 2001; Liang, 2003; van de Water and de Vries, 2006).
There are a myriad papers on the issue of quality management and AHP modeling
techniques that are mostly technical in nature and not concerned with the strategic
management decisions of an organization and the implementation of quality systems
in companies (van de Water and de Vries, 2006). Ahire and Rana (1994) proposed a
676 multiple-criteria decision-making model using AHP for a pilot project selection for total
quality management implementation in a hospital environment. We further
accentuated the application of the model to any type of organization or project.
Singh et al. (2006) further show how a fuzzy-logic-based multi-preference, multi-criteria
(AHP), and multi-person decision-making heuristic can be applied for the selection of a
value-stream mapping tool.
Despite the fact that AHP has been used as a decision-making technique for the last
two decades, its integration within the Six Sigma DMAIC model is still at its inception.
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

Banuelas and Antony (2003) used AHP model for the evaluation of Six Sigma projects
in order to determine when the Six Sigma approach becomes a priority over design for
Six Sigma. Another work from Banuelas and Antony (2007) focused on the application
of stochastic AHP model in world-class domestic appliance manufacturing company.
The aforementioned work did not address the issue of identification of potential
projects for Six Sigma deployment from the project hopper.
A general rule of thumb is to select a project that requires minimum effort and
generate the maximum impact, i.e. a low ratio of effort to impact. In other words, the
benefits should outweigh the cost and effort required to make it happen (Brue, 2006).
In the proposed methodology, projects identified by Six Sigma teams are mapped with
effort criteria (EC) and impact criteria (IC), resulting in creation of a project-effort
matrix and a project-impact matrix, respectively. Variables within EC and IC are rated
by utilising the AHP concept. This eliminates the subjectivity in the decision-making
process.
The integration of a PDM with AHP can be an invaluable brainstorming tool to
assist a team in selecting projects that will entail minimum effort and maximum
impact. It is a very simple and easy tool to use for identifying the critical projects in an
organization. The steps involved in selecting a project using the proposed methodology
are shown in Figure 1.
The next section discusses the application of project selection methodology in a
die-casting unit. A real-life example of selecting a Six Sigma project from the list of
projects in the project hopper is discussed next.

Application of proposed methodology in real-life scenario

Step 1
The purpose of a Six Sigma project is to tackle a problem that has an unknown solution.
The first step towards identification of any project is to determine the selection criteria
that are strongly aligned with company’s strategic objectives. Early work into project
success criteria assumed that the main criteria for success were the so-called golden
triangle of time, budget, and required quality (Westerveld, 2003). However, there are
often more competing criteria that can be identified when selecting a project.
In the proposed methodology, the selection criteria are classified into two categories:
EC and the IC. The variables within EC and IC (referred as effort variables (EVs) and
 Project selection
and its impact on
Step 1: Select the variables for PDM Six Sigma
Identify the ‘effort’ variables (EV) and ‘impact’ variables (IV) by
- Brainstorming with senior management team and black belts
- Multi-voting to select the important variables
677

Step 2: Identify the Six Sigma projects

Identify projects linked to the strategic business goals by

Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

- Brainstorming with cross-functional team and black belts

- Supported by senior management team and champions
- Selecting strategically important Six Sigma projects

Step 3: Determine weights of variables using AHP

The EVs and IVs are ranked relative to one another by using AHP
- Pair-wise comparison for EVs and IVs
- Evaluating weight for each variable using AHP concept
- Creating two separate matrices for EVs and IVs
- Titled as project-effort matrix and project-impact matrix

Step 4: Map each project against EC and IC

The importance of each project with respect to EVs and IVs are mapped
- Using forced ranking method: 1 (low), 4 (medium), and 9 (high)
- Forced ranking done to prioritize projects with respect to EC* and
IC* (EC and IC include EVs & IVs respectively)

Step 5: Evaluate prioritization ratioq for project selection

For each row, the sum-product is calculated by

- Multiplying the cell rating (from step 4) by the relative weights of
EVs and IVs in that column (from step 3)
- The products across each row are added together and placed in last
column, titled ‘summation’
- Project with minimum effort to impact ratio selected
Figure 1.
Flowchart for Six Sigma
project selection
 BPMJ impact variables (IVs), respectively), shown in Table II, were identified and selected
15,5 from brainstorming sessions with the top management and senior managers from
different departments. These sessions were led by authors of this study because of
their previous experiences in project selection and to ensure that the important
variables linked to strategic business goals were selected within the EC and IC. The
idea underlying selection criteria bifurcation into two categories is to identify a project
678 that can generate maximum impact with minimum effort required for its execution.
Knowing where to start looking, using the right selection criteria and thinking
about broad categories of project types will allow the organization to focus on projects
with the greatest potential for success and measurable business impact. With some
preparation and thought, the process can work smoothly, enabling the organization to
deliver near term results with long-term business benefit.
The aforementioned variables within EC and IC will differ from industry to industry
depending on a number of issues, such as size, uniqueness, and complexity. The key
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

point is to link the variables to the business objectives and customer satisfaction.
However, a universal clustering of criteria can be formulated to cover the whole issue
of project success (Lim and Mohamed, 1999).

Step 2
In this step, select the list of potential projects that are strategically aligned with the
business goals. The objective of the team members was selecting a pilot project that
has high probability of success and gives maximum benefits to the organization. For
our real-life scenario, a brainstorming session was organised with the top and middle
level management personnel to identify a potential project from the project hopper.
After a thorough brainstorming session with the senior managers of different
departments, management generated a list of 15 possible projects that could enhance
customer satisfaction and were strategically linked to business goals.
Multi-voting was then used among a cross-functional team to narrow down the
projects list to a smaller list of the top priorities and make a final selection. Multi-voting
allows the item that is favoured by all, but not the top choice of any, to rise to the top
(Tague, 2004). Further, the outcomes from multi-voting were debated by team
members to avoid errors from incorrect information or understanding about each
project.
The die-casting unit under consideration had recently embraced the Six Sigma
business strategy within their organization. The first step towards the implementation
process was the identification and selection of the right project from the project hopper.
Projects that were identified in consultation with the process owners of different units
were:

Effort variables Impact variables

Resource Cost reduction

Project duration On-time delivery
Capital required Work capital reduction
Table II. Risk Return on invested capital
Variables identified Special skills/tools required Financial payback (time taken to realise the benefit)
for the EC and IC Data availability
 .
waste reduction (Project 1); Project selection
.
unnecessary inventory (Project 2); and its impact on
.
inappropriate design (Project 3); Six Sigma
.
energy (Project 4);
.
defects in die-casting product (Project 5);
.
delivery failure (Project 6); and 679
.
supplier selection (Project 7).

A common consensus was reached to identify a pilot project from the list of
aforementioned projects to test the application of Six Sigma within the company.

Step 3
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

In this paper, the relative weights of EVs and IVs were assigned using AHP. The
priority weights for variables (criteria for selection) were obtained using a pair-wise
comparison matrix. AHP uses an underlying scale with values 1-9 to rate the relative
preferences for two items (Saaty, 1980). Table III shows the numerical ratings
recommended for the verbal judgement of preferences expressed by the decision
maker.
In this case study, the authors and three members from the senior management
team, along with quality manager in the company, were involved in performing the
pair-wise comparison. The authors derived the pair-wise comparison matrix for EVs
and IVs, with respect to a criterion element at the higher level (in this case, EC and IC,
respectively) as shown in Table IV. If the variable X receives a score of “a” in a pair
wise comparison with variable Y, the score for variable Y with respect to X would be
“1/a”. In this example, the capital required variable receives a score of 1/3 in a pair wise
comparison with the resource variable, and thus the score for resource with respect to
capital required would be reciprocal, i.e. 1/3. If we compare like with like (e.g. resource
with resource) a score of one is allocated, as it is equally preferred.
In this way, the entire matrix for EVs with respect to EC (similarly for IVs and IC) is
constructed. Each element in the matrix indicates how much more important one
variable is against other for constructing the column vector of importance weighting of
EC and IC.
The relative weights of all variables with respect to EC and IC are evaluated, as
shown in Table V, respectively. Once the relative weights are calculated, it is

Verbal judgement of preference Numerical rating

Extremely preferred 9
Very strongly to extremely 8
Very strongly preferred 7
Strongly to very strongly 6
Strongly preferred 5
Moderately to strongly 4
Moderately preferred 3 Table III.
Equally to moderately 2 Saaty’s 1-9 scale for
Equally preferred 1 pair-wise comparison
 BPMJ
Efforts criteria
15,5 Project Capital Special skills/tools Data
Resource duration required Risk required availability
Resource 1 1 1/3 1/5 3 1/7
Project duration 1 1 3 1/5 5 1/5
Capital required 3 1/3 1 1/3 3 1/3
680 Risk 5 5 3 1 1/3 1/7
Special skills/tools
required 1/3 1/5 1/3 3 1 1/3
Data availability 7 5 3 7 3 1
Impact criteria
Cost On-time Work capital ROI
reduction delivery reduction capital Financial payback
Cost reduction 1 2 3 1/5 1/5
On-time delivery 1/2 1 5 1/3 1/3
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

Table IV. Work capital

Pair-wise comparison reduction 1/3 1/5 1 1/7 1/9
matrix for effort variables ROI capital 5 3 7 1 1/3
and variables within IC Financial payback 5 3 9 3 1

Efforts criteria (CI ¼ 0.08308, CR ¼ 0.067)

Project Capital Special skills/ Data Priority
Resource duration required Risk tools required availability weights
Resource 1 1 1/3 1/5 3 1/7 0.07
Project duration 1 1 3 1/5 5 1/5 0.14
Capital required 3 1/3 1 1/3 3 1/3 0.11
Risk 5 5 3 1 1/3 1/7 0.19
Special skills/
tools required 1/3 1/5 1/3 3 1 1/3 0.09
Data
availability 7 5 3 7 3 1 0.39
Impact criteria (CI ¼ 0.094, CR ¼ 0.084)
Cost On-time Work capital ROI Financial Priority
reduction delivery reduction capital payback weights
Cost reduction 1 2 3 1/5 1/5 0.113
On-time
delivery 1/2 1 5 1/3 1/3 0.118
Work capital
Table V. reduction 1/3 1/5 1 1/7 1/9 0.035
Priority weights for ROI capital 5 3 7 1 1/3 0.282
variables within EC Financial
and IC payback 5 3 9 3 1 0.451

imperative to measure the consistency of the pair-wise comparison judgements

provided by the decision maker. The consistency index (CI) is evaluated and a value of
random index (RI) is obtained from Table VI; thereafter the consistency ratio –
CR ¼ CI/RI is determined. RI is the CI of a randomly generated pair-wise comparison
matrix whose value depends upon the number of elements being compared. A CR of
0.10 or less is considered to be a reasonable level of consistency in the pair wise
comparisons (Saaty, 1980). To see the calculation, please refer to the Appendix.
 As depicted in Table V, the degree of consistency exhibited in the pair-wise Project selection
comparison matrix for EC and IC are acceptable. and its impact on
Six Sigma
Step 4
Once the relative weights of EVs and IVs have been determined, a central relationship
matrix is created to link the relationship between different projects and EC or IC. In this
study, seven different projects identified by team members were mapped against the 681
EC an IC. Putting these project ideas through a selection matrix tool enabled the
management team to rank them against EC and IC. Each project was scored against
the EVs and IVs on the predefined scale of low (L ¼ 1, weak relationship), medium
(M ¼ 3, moderate relationship), high (H ¼ 9, strong relationship), and blank (B ¼ 0,
no relationship). A correlation table (Table VII) was constructed to show the linguistic
relationship (i.e. L, M, H) between the project and selection criteria. The linguistic
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

relationship between project and variables aided in determining the correlated weights.
These correlated weights were multiplied by the relative weights of EVs and IVs to get
a total score for each project. On the basis of the final score, a project was selected for
execution.

Matrix order (n) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Table VI.

Random index (RI) 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 Values for RI
Matrix order (n) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 – for corresponding
Random index (RI) 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.48 1.56 1.57 1.59 – matrix order (n)

Effort criteria
Resource Project Capital Risk Special skills/ Data Summation
(0.07) duration required (0.19) tools availability score
(0.14) (0.11) required (0.39)
(0.09)
Project 1 M H M M H H 6.69
Project 2 L M H L H H 5.71
Project 3 H H H H H M 6.57
Project 4 H H M M L H 6.39
Project 5 L M M L L H 4.61
Project 6 L M M H H H 6.85
Project 7 L L M H M H 6.33
Impact criteria
Cost On-time Work ROI Financial Summation
reduction delivery capital capital payback score
(0.113) (0.118) reduction (0.282) (0.451)
(0.035)
Project 1 H L H M H 6.355
Project 2 L L H L L 1.279
Project 3 H L L L H 5.511
Project 4 H B M H H 7.719
Project 5 H H M H H 8.781 Table VII.
Project 6 H H L L M 3.749 Selection matrix for
Project 7 L M L B L 0.953 project-EC and project-IC
 BPMJ Step 5
15,5 On the basis of the final score for each project in the project-effort matrix and the
project-impact matrix, a prioritisation ratio (PR) was calculated as depicted in
Table VIII. The project that had a minimum value of PR is selected based on the
proposed methodology. The scores of PR for each project are presented in Table VIII.
It was concluded from Table VIII that “Project 5” is to be preferred above the other
682 projects for the pilot study due to the lowest value of PR. By applying the proposed
model, we have shown that both the objective as well as subjective knowledge
regarding the ultimate choice can be incorporated into the decision-making process for
project selection.

Some tips for effective project selection in a Six Sigma program

Six Sigma provides a road map for breakthrough results by aligning the organization
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

with the right metrics and the right projects. In a Six Sigma organization, champions,
MBBs, BBs, and GBs are deployed to facilitate change and to improve the
organization’s performance. The Six Sigma program focuses on core business and
customer needs, and is aimed at breakthrough improvements in financial performance
and customer satisfaction.
Project selection is the one of the factors critical to the success of Six Sigma
implementation. Six Sigma projects must be carefully reviewed, planned, and selected
based on the VOC, the voice of stakeholders, the voice of business and the voice of
processes to maximize the benefits of implementation. A project review should be done
periodically, involving the team members and project champion in order to select the
right project, and to evaluate the status of currently running projects and the resources
required for their successful completion.
The review process should focus on mapping the core processes in detail,
conducting value analysis, identifying scrap, rework, unnecessary management layers,
non-value added activities, and the cost of poor quality, to name a few. This review will
result in the identification of elements critical to the customer’s processes, thereby
populating a project hopper. The prioritisation of these projects will then be much
easier to achieve when the whole picture is clear across an entire operation or business,
and this can be tied to the organization’s strategic goals. The project constraints,
mainly costs, schedule and scope should be properly tracked and well documented.
A clear set of measures and metrics to incorporate customer requirements is essential.
The selection of a project should be based on criteria that best matches with the
organizations strategic goals, current needs, and capabilities. The project selected

Summation score for Summation score for

Projects project-effort matrix project-impact matrix PR

P1 6.69 6.36 1.05

P2 5.71 1.28 4.46
P3 6.57 5.51 1.19
P4 6.39 7.72 0.83
P5 4.61 8.78 0.53
Table VIII. P6 6.85 3.75 1.83
PR for each project P7 6.33 0.95 6.64
 should be balanced between projected financial benefits and external customer Project selection
satisfaction. Companies embracing Six Sigma within their organizations should never and its impact on
choose too many projects at a time or projects that are too big. It is always advisable to
start with a small project that has a high probability of success. This can facilitate in Six Sigma
winning the loyalty of top management and employee to the Six Sigma program. It is
important to keep the following adage in mind while selecting projects: “Eating an
elephant, one bite at a time.” Successful deployment of Six Sigma and achieving 683
tangible results are possible only by taking one project at a time. The journey towards
ultimate success consists of individual steps, taken one after another, after another.
The number of projects launched is far less important than their impact on the
bottom-line. A handful of successful, completed projects outweigh a multitude of
never-ending works in progress.
The following guidelines can be summarized for effective project selection:
.
directly impact key strategic business objectives and goals;
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

.
contribute to bottom-line performance;
.
directly benefit key customers and stakeholders;
.
directly benefit the organization; and
.
be accomplished in a four to six month time frame.

Conclusion
Identifying and selecting the right project within the Six Sigma initiative still remains a
challenge and many businesses still continue to struggle. Poor project selection continues
to happen surprisingly often even in the best-managed and best-performing organizations
and this can undermine the success and credibility of the Six Sigma program.
This paper presents a hybrid methodology combining AHP with the PDM for Six Sigma
project selection. This hybrid technique integration within Six Sigma DMAIC
methodology may prove useful in selecting projects more objectively. The advantages
of using the approach proposed by authors are as follows:
.
The integrated approach mitigates the subjectivity involved in project selection
and makes the selection process more objective and robust.
.
Such an approach uses an expert-system concept to involve all the top
management to establish priorities for the variables in the effort/impact matrix,
and to reach a dynamic group decision for obtaining final weights. It does not
involve statistics or probability theory, thus giving the user a better sense of
reality.
.
The selection of project by the proposed method takes both the quantitative and
qualitative factors into consideration.
.
Non-quantified elements, after group evaluation and a mathematical process can
be quantified into numerical values to indicate a decision’s priority. The team can
make the final selection of the project in a very short time without resorting to
precise data.

References
Ahire, S.L. and Rana, D.S. (1994), “Selection of TQM pilot projects using an MCDM approach”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 61-81.
 BPMJ Antony, J. (2004), “Six Sigma in the UK service organisations: results from a pilot survey”,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 1006-13.
15,5
Antony, J. and Fergusson, C. (2004), “Six Sigma in the software industry: results from a pilot
study”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 1025-32.
Antony, J., Kumar, M. and Tiwari, M.K. (2005), “An application of Six Sigma methodology to
reduce the engine overheating problem in an automotive company”, IMechE – Part B,
684 Vol. 219, B8, pp. 633-46.
Banuelas, R. and Antony, J. (2003), “Going from Six Sigma to design for Six Sigma”, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 334-44.
Banuelas, R. and Antony, J. (2007), “Application of stochastic analytic hierarchy process (SAHP)
within a domestic appliance manufacturer”, Journal of Operational Research Society,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 29-38.
Brice, Z. (2002), “The importance of project selection: why Six Sigma project falters, how to
assure success and sustainability”, White Paper, Six Sigma Qualtec, Princeton, NJ,
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

available at: www.ssqi.com/breakthroughs/whitepaper-pdfs/Project_selection_WP.pdf

(accessed October 5, 2007).
Brue, G. (2006), Six Sigma for Small Business, CWL Publishing Enterprises, Madison, WI.
BS 6079 Part 1 (2000), Guide to Project Management, British Standards Institute, Milton Keynes.
Chaki, A. (2004), Three Steps to Successful Six Sigma Project Selections, available at: www.isixs
igma.com/library/content/c041213a.asp? (accessed October 5, 2007).
Chuang, P.T. (2001), “Combining the analytic hierarchy process and quality function deployment
for a location decision from a requirement”, International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 18, pp. 842-9.
Davies-Catalani, W. and Vieth, C. (2000), Guidelines for Six Sigma Healthcare Project Selection,
available at: http://healthcare.isixsigma.com/library/content/c040218a.asp (accessed
October 5, 2007).
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Goldstein, M.D. (2001), “Six Sigma program success factors”, Six Sigma Forum Magazine, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 36-45.
Harry, M. and Schroeder, R. (2000), Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy
Revolutionizing the World’s Top Companies, Currency/Doubleday, New York, NY.
iSixSigma Magazine (2005), Six Sigma Project Selection, available at: www.isixsigma.com/library
/content/dfss.asp (accessed October 5, 2007).
Jackenthal, E. (2004), Six Sigma Project Selection: Don’t Follow – “Ready, Fire, Aim!”, available
at: www.staffing.org/articles/edjackenthal_arco0007ej.asp (accessed November 2, 2005).
Liang, W.Y. (2003), “The analytic hierarchy process in project evaluation”, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 445-56.
Lim, C.S. and Mohamed, M.Z. (1999), “Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 243-8.
Noble, A. (2004), “Selecting the right projects first time”, Six Sigma Today, February/March,
pp. 42-3.
Pandé, P.S., Neuman, R.P. and Cavanagh, R.R. (2000), The Six Sigma Way, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Pyzdek, T. (2000), Defining Six Sigma Projects, available at: www.qualitydigest.com/Oct00/
html/sixsigma.html (accessed October 5, 2007).
 Pyzdek, T. (2003), The Six Sigma Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Project selection
Saaty, T.L. (1980), The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. and its impact on
Singh, R., Kumar, S., Choudhury, A.K. and Tiwari, M.K. (2006), “Lean tool selection in a die
casting unit: a fuzzy-based decision support heuristic”, International Journal of Production
Six Sigma
Research, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 1399-429.
Smith, L.R. and Phadke, M.S. (2005), “Some thoughts about problem solving in DMAIC
framework”, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1 No. 2, 685
pp. 151-66.
Snee, R.D. (2001), “Dealing with the Achilles heel of Six Sigma initiatives”, Quality Progress,
Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 66-72.
Snee, R.D. (2004), “Six Sigma: the evaluation of 100 years of business improvement
methodology”, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 4-20.
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

Snee, R.D. and Rodebaugh, W.F. Jr (2002), “The project selection process”, Quality Progress,
Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 78-80.
Tague, N.R. (2004), The Quality Toolbox, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI, pp. 359-61.
Tiwari, M.K. and Banerjee, R. (2001), “A decision support system for the selection of a casting
process using analytic hierarchy process”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 12 No. 7,
pp. 689-94.
van de Water, H. and de Vries, J. (2006), “Choosing a quality improvement project using the
analytic hierarchy process”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 409-25.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. and Frohlich, M. (2002), “Case research in operations management”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 195-219.
Westerveld, E. (2003), “The project excellence model: linking success criteria and critical success
factors”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, pp. 411-18.
Yin, R.Y. (2003), Case Study Research, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA.

Appendix
Evaluating weights of variables
Step 1. Sum the values in each column of the pair wise comparison matrix.
Step 2. Divide each element in the pair wise comparison matrix by its column total; the
resulting matrix is referred to as the normalized pair wise comparison matrix.
Step 3. Compute the average of the elements in each row of the normalized matrix; these
averages provide an estimate of the relative priorities of the elements being compared.
Estimating the consistency ratio
Step 1. Multiply each value in the first column of the pair wise comparison matrix by the relative
priority of the first item considered. Perform the similar operations for the other columns of the
pair wise comparison matrix by multiplying each value in 2, 3, 4, . . . , nth column with the
relative weights of the variable 2, 3, 4, . . . , nth. Sum the value across the rows to obtain a vector
of “weighted sum.”
Step 2. Divide the element of “weighted sums” obtained in Step 1 by the corresponding
priority value.
Step 3. Compute the average of the values in Step 2 and denote it by lmax.
Step 4. Compute the consistency index (CI), which is defined as follows:
lmax 2 n
CI ¼
n21
 BPMJ Step 5. Compute the CR, defined as:
15,5 CI
CR ¼
RI
where RI is the CI of a randomly generated pair-wise comparison matrix and its value depends
upon the number of elements being compared.
686
Corresponding author
Maneesh Kumar can be contacted at: maneesh28@gmail.com
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

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

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Ravi S. Reosekar, Sanjay D. Pohekar. 2014. Six Sigma methodology: a structured review. International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma 5:4, 392-422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Saja Albliwi, Jiju Antony, Sarina Abdul Halim Lim, Ton van der Wiele. 2014. Critical failure factors of
Lean Six Sigma: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
31:9, 1012-1030. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Louis Kirkham, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, Vikas Kumar, Jiju Antony. 2014. Prioritisation of operations
improvement projects in the European manufacturing industry. International Journal of Production
Research 52, 5323-5345. [CrossRef]
4. Wagner Cezar Lucato, Milton Vieira Júnior, José Carlos da Silva Santos. 2014. Eco-Six Sigma: integration
of environmental variables into the Six Sigma technique. Production Planning & Control 1-12. [CrossRef]
5. Camila Costa Dutra, José Luis Duarte Ribeiro, Marly Monteiro de Carvalho. 2014. An economic–
probabilistic model for project selection and prioritization. International Journal of Project Management
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)

32, 1042-1055. [CrossRef]

6. Min Zhang, Wei Wang, Thong Ngee Goh, Zhen He. 2014. Comprehensive Six Sigma application: a case
study. Production Planning & Control 1-16. [CrossRef]
7. Michael Donauer, Paulo Peças, A.L. Azevedo. 2014. Nonconformity tracking and prioritisation matrix:
an approach for selecting nonconformities as a contribution to the field of TQM. Production Planning
& Control 1-19. [CrossRef]
8. Anupama Prashar. 2014. Process improvement in farm equipment sector (FES): a case on Six Sigma
adoption. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 5:1, 62-88. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Gijo E.V., Antony Jiju, Kumar Maneesh, McAdam Rodney, Hernandez Jose. 2014. An application of Six
Sigma methodology for improving the first pass yield of a grinding process. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management 25:1, 125-135. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Fu-Kwun Wang, Chen-Hsoung Hsu, Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng. 2014. Applying a Hybrid MCDM Model for
Six Sigma Project Selection. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2014, 1-13. [CrossRef]
11. Dr Djoko Setijono, Ruben Pinedo‐Cuenca, Pablo Gonzalez Olalla, Djoko Setijono. 2012. Linking Six
Sigma's critical success/hindering factors and organizational change (development). International Journal
of Lean Six Sigma 3:4, 284-298. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Jiju Antony, Netasha Krishan, Donna Cullen, Maneesh Kumar. 2012. Lean Six Sigma for higher education
institutions (HEIs). International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 61:8, 940-948.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Brett Duarte, Douglas Montgomery, John Fowler, John Konopka. 2012. Deploying LSS in a global
enterprise – project identification. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 3:3, 187-205. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
14. S. Karthi, S. R. Devadasan, R. Murugesh, C. G. Sreenivasa, N. M. Sivaram. 2012. Global views on
integrating Six Sigma and ISO 9001 certification. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 23,
237-262. [CrossRef]
15. Bilge Bilgen, Mutlu Şen. 2012. Project selection through fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and a case
study on Six Sigma implementation in an automotive industry. Production Planning & Control 23, 2-25.
[CrossRef]
 16. Mohamed Gamal Aboelmaged. 2011. Reconstructing Six Sigma barriers in manufacturing and service
organizations. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 28:5, 519-541. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Howard University At 06:47 23 February 2015 (PT)