This case study demonstrates how the combination
of strategic planning, project management, and Lean
Six Sigma tools can be used to assess and improve an
organization’s ability to fulfill its mission and goals.
Integrating Strategic
Planning and Quality
Improvement Methods
to Create Sustainably
High Performance
Soma Grover, Jamison V. Kovach, and Elizabeth Cudney
T he challenge that many organizations
face regarding developing and main-
taining their competitiveness involves
balancing sustainability and perfor-
mance consistently over time;1 hence,
organizations often struggle with how
to use limited resources wisely in order
to deliver high-quality products and
services.2 To address these challenges,
organizations typically develop a strategy
to identify critical focus areas and key
priorities, which, in turn, aids in the opti-
mal utilization of available resources.3,  4
The case study presented in this article
illustrates how strategic planning and
quality improvement methods can sup-
port organizational realignment efforts
and generate higher performance within
an organization’s resource constraints.
This project was conducted for the
ASQ Education Division, which aims to
improve the overall quality of education
CASE
STUDY
in all learning environments and help its
members, their organizations, and other
customers understand how to apply the
concepts and tools of quality assurance/
management to the educational process.
Most of the Education Division’s current
offerings were meeting members’ needs
effectively, but the leaders believed that
others could be improved to provide
more value. The division’s biggest issue,
however, is scarcity of resources, and the
challenges it faces are relatively com-
monplace—especially among small- and
medium-sized organizations. The process
used for this project can be utilized by
other organizations faced with similar
issues. The case study provides an over-
view regarding how project management
and Lean Six Sigma (LSS) methodolo-
gies were integrated to help clarify the
strategic direction of the division and
support the realignment of its processes
www.asq.org/pub/jqp 23
 to effectively fulfill the needs of the division’s three
primary market segments.
The ASQ Education Division is more than 24 years
old and currently has approximately 1,300 members.
This division is divided into three educational market
segments—K-12, higher education, and workforce
development, as described below:
• K-12 is the segment that includes public and
private educational institutions (e.g., educators,
administrators, etc.), as well as students from
kindergarten through grade 12.
• The higher education segment includes edu-
cators, administrators, board members, and
students at community colleges, technical col-
leges, and colleges/universities.
• The workforce development segment is associ-
ated with education and training for current
members of the workforce, those who are unem-
ployed, or those who need rehabilitative skills
when pursuing new careers. Most of these mem-
bers are subject matter experts who are employed
by a specific manufacturing, service, not-for-
profit, or government organization, as well as
those who work for organizations that provide
adult-learning short courses, workshops, etc.
The concepts of strategic planning, project
management processes, and the LSS methodology
were used to refine the elements of the Education
Division’s strategic plan related to several key prod-
ucts and services. The article concludes with a brief
discussion regarding how organizations can use this
approach to support their strategic planning devel-
opment and deployment efforts.
Strategic Planning
Strategic planning is a powerful approach that
many organizations use to adapt to unexpected
changes in the business environment and achieve
desired business results.5 This approach typically
involves formulating organizational strategies
through strategic thinking and/or planning activi-
ties aimed at defining clear organizational goals
and policies.6, 7 This work often includes the devel-
opment of the organization’s vision, mission, and
goals, which can be measured against established
performance targets and objectives.5 The strategic
planning process, therefore, typically involves mak-
ing decisions about allocating resources effectively
to achieve strategic objectives.4 This approach also
can be used to develop, document, and/or refine
the key business processes to which resources are
24 The Journal for Quality & Participation July 2016
allocated to ensure the timely delivery of high-
quality products and/or services.8 The Education
Division undertook these activities to help clarify
its strategic direction and overcome the challenges
its leaders faced in wisely investing the division’s
limited resources.
Project Management Processes
This project was conducted in accordance with
the process provided in The Project Management Body
of Knowledge (PMBOK®),9 which defines a project as
an endeavor undertaken for a given period of time
to create a unique outcome. The field of project
management encompasses 10 knowledge areas, as
shown in the sidebar, “The 10 Knowledge Areas of
Project Management.” Additionally, the life cycle of
any project generally follows these five stages:
• Initiating Stage. Processes are performed to define
the need for the project, create a project charter,
and obtain authorization to start the initiative.
In this stage, the initial scope of work is defined,
and the needed financial resources are estimated.
• Planning Stage. A detailed scope of work is estab-
lished for the project, the objectives are defined,
and a course of action is developed to achieve
those objectives.
• Execution Stage. Processes performed for guid-
ing completion of the work defined in the
planning stage are put into place. These efforts
involve coordinating work tasks and available
resources, as well as documenting the work that
is completed.
• Monitoring and Controlling Stage. Tracking,
reviewing, and measuring the progress and per-
formance of the project is the focus of this
stage, which includes identifying areas in which
changes to the project plan are required and ini-
tiating the corresponding changes.
• Closing Stage. All project activities are concluded
and steps are taken to ensure all elements of
the project have been documented properly for
future reference.
Lean Six Sigma Methodology
As mentioned previously, this project was man-
aged in a way that integrated the five project
management stages and the five phases of the
LSS process for problem solving—define, mea-
sure, analyze, improve, control (DMAIC).10 The
LSS methodology helps organizations improve
the quality of existing products and/or services
by changing the way work has been
performed within the organization.11 It
focuses particularly on root cause iden-
tification and elimination. When using
this approach to support the Education
Division’s efforts to realign its strategic
plan, each phase of this methodology
was adapted as follows:
• Define Phase. The project team was
formed, and the division’s current struc-
ture and activities were documented.
• Measure Phase. Division leaders
identified the customers and key stake-
holders, and interviews/surveys were
conducted to determine expectations
related to products and services that
the division provides. Additionally,
information on competitive offerings
was collected.
• Analyze Phase. The findings of the sur-
veys and interviews were organized
into similar categories and prioritized.
Two products, which customers valued
greatly, were selected for in-depth analy-
sis, their “as is” processes were mapped,
and their existing missions, objectives,
and strategies were documented.
• Improve Phase. Solution ideas were
proposed and evaluated. The solu-
tions addressed the highest-priority
10
customer and stakeholder needs.
Goals and strategies were developed
for the selected products’ future
states, and key business processes
were established to support the achievement
those goals.
• Control Phase. Additional metrics and targets
were developed in order to hold the gains
achieved during the improve phase.
Table 1 demonstrates how the five project man-
agement stages and the five phases of the DMAIC
process were integrated. The integration proved
effective, merging the strengths of these two well-
recognized approaches. Also, the time dedicated
to each of the stages is shown in this table. It
is important to note that this timeline reflects
the pacing of a project team that was composed
entirely of volunteers, who had other full-time
professional commitments, and a project man-
ager, who was a full-time master’s student in the
The 10 Knowledge Areas of Project Management
1 Time management. Defining the project activities, sequencing activities
according to their dependencies, and providing resource as well as dura-
tion estimations for the activities to create a project schedule, which is
then monitored according to the project management plan.
2 Scope management. Describing the work required to complete a project,
which clearly specifies the project’s requirements and deliverables.
3 Cost management. Planning and estimating the costs, both direct and
indirect, involved in a project, which is monitored to help ensure the
project is completed within budget.
4 Quality management. Fulfilling a project’s requirements and supporting
a focus on continuous improvement through a process of plan, do, check,
and act.
5 Risk management. Identifying, analyzing, and mitigating risk throughout
the project life cycle using a structured, fact-based approach.
6 Procurement management. Developing and maintaining relationships
with suppliers as well as purchasing the products and services needed to
support a project.
7 Human resources management. Utilization and management of the
human resources involved in a project, including ensuring that the people
involved have the correct skills to do their assigned project tasks and
facilitating the development of interpersonal relationships between proj-
ect team members.
8 Communication management. Generating, collecting, and sharing
project-­related information periodically/frequently using transparent and
appropriate methods to ensure that stakeholders understand the project
needs and that communication is effective between project team members.
9 Integration management. Identifying, combining, and coordinating vari-
ous project management activities between the groups involved in a project
through the development of a project charter, administration of a project
management plan, and management of the control of project changes.
Stakeholder management. Engaging stakeholders, e.g., people who are
affected by the project in some way, in the project work through meetings,
reports, and/or other communications.
of
supply chain and logistic technology program at
the University of Houston.
Project Tasks and Results
Initiating Stage
The initiating stage of this project involved
defining the project by obtaining the support of
the division leadership team, establishing a proj-
ect charter, and identifying the division’s current
structure and activities. This stage aligned with
the define phase of the LSS DMAIC process. To
determine a baseline for the project, a survey was
conducted, based on the organizational assess-
ment profile included in the Baldrige criteria.12 The
detailed survey instrument and survey findings are
www.asq.org/pub/jqp 25
 Table 1: Integration of Project Management and Lean Six • The current organizational design and
Sigma Methodologies operations associated with specific
products/services may need modifica-
Project Management Lean Six Sigma Project Time tion to generate higher performance.
Stages DMAIC Phases Invested
• The publications’ portfolio has strong
Initiating stage Define phase 40 days elements, but it is not well-balanced
Planning stage— Analyze phase 41 days in regard to the market segments and
identification of key associated processes do not optimize
opportunities use of the division’s limited resources.
Planning stage— Measure phase 21 days • Low-cost alternatives need to be identi-
documentation Analyze phase fied for providing products/services to
of QAHE current members and customers.
Improve phase
situation and
(through identification
opportunities for Planning Stage—Identification of
of actionable improve-
improvement Key Opportunities
ments within QAHE)
The planning stage involved develop-
Execution stage Improve phase 46 days
ing a detailed project management plan
(implementation of
that specified the course of action to
improved process)
achieve the goals of this project. This stage
Monitoring and Control phase 20 days
also included identifying appropriate
controlling stage
measurement systems and documenting
Closing stage Control phase 30 days the current-state processes for two of
(project close-out) the division’s products in line with the
measure and analyze phases of the LSS
DMAIC methodology.
included in the online supplement to this article. All Follow-up interviews with members of the
members of the division leadership team and key leadership team and a second survey assisted in
stakeholders who were involved in the provision determining the vital few products/services that
of the division’s products and services were invited were most highly valued and that should be the
to respond to the survey, and 16 of the 22 poten- focus of the division’s initial improvement efforts.
tial participants submitted feedback (a 73 percent The division’s publication, Quality Approaches in
response rate). Higher Education (QAHE), and its annual Quality
The survey included three demographic ques- Education Conference and Workshops (QECW)
tions that were used to classify the respondents, were selected for the project, and the remainder
18 scalar questions, and two open-ended questions. of this article describes the specific work that was
The following statements summarize the key chal- accomplished for QAHE. Similar information was
lenges that emerged from the input: generated for QECW, but is not specifically pre-
• Fostering a shared mission, vision, goals, strate- sented in this article.
gies, and values among the leadership team. The interview questions (see the online
supplement to this article to review the actual
• Establishing an appropriate balance of focus and
questionnaire) pinpointed the division leaders’
resources among the three primary market seg-
and key stakeholders’ perceptions regarding key
ments represented by division members.
considerations to take into account for the division
• Providing the most valued products/services
to realign its direction and establish appropriate
to division members/customers despite lim-
policies, processes, and procedures. An affinity
ited resources.
diagram was used to organize the responses, as
In addition, key improvement opportunities shown in the online supplement. This informa-
were identified, as described below, which became tion depicted the main categories of information
the basis for the project charter: provided about current members, potential target
• The division is a small organization with many members, customers, competitors, stakeholders,
large competitors. resource prioritization and capability, and other

26 The Journal for Quality & Participation July 2016

comments. The responses were summarized and
aligned by category. Analyzing the diverse feedback
in this manner was very beneficial for guiding the
next steps in this project.
The list below summarizes the key findings from
the interviews: • Competitors. Many competitors were identified at
• Current/target members and customers. Differen-
tiation among the market segments was not
completely clear; the constituencies of the mar-
ket segments appeared to overlap according to
many of the respondents. For instance, many • Stakeholders. The differentiation/overlap among
members of the workforce development seg-
ment also are involved in the higher education
segment because they have full-time positions
in non-education-related organizations but
also work as adjunct staff at local colleges/
Table 2: Current Education Division Products and Services
Product/Service Target Audience Description
QED Newsletter Target audience is all division
members and nonmembers.
Quality Approaches Target audience is higher education;
to Higher Education journal is released with open access
(electronic journal) for higher education division
members and those outside the
division including nonmembers.
Workforce Target audience is the workforce.
Development
Brief (electronic
publication)
Quality Education Targeted to all division members and
Conference nonmembers who are interested in
and Workshops improving education in K-12, higher
education, and workforce development.
Webinars Some are targeted to K-12 specifically;
others include topics for all members
and nonmembers.
Advancing Target audience is anyone interested
the STEM in STEM (K-12, higher education,
LinkedIn Group workforce development), members
and nonmembers.
Education Division Target audience is all division
LinkedIn Group members and nonmembers.
Education Division Target audience is all division
Twitter members and nonmembers.
Education Division Target audience is all division
Website members, and some areas are open
to nonmembers.
universities. Information on membership trends,
product/service preferences, and other pertinent
decision-making areas, as well as who should be
considered members versus customers, also was
not clearly established.
the overall member and market-segment levels.
Advantages and disadvantages of competitors’
products/services were based on anecdotal infor-
mation rather than formal research.
members, customers, competitors, and stake-
holders had not been defined clearly. This is a
common issue among ASQ divisions and sections,
where sometimes these member units are viewed
as sources of potential members or partners, and
at other times, they are regarded as com-
petitors. The lines of differentiation are
not as clear as many organizations prefer,
but in a situation such as that faced by the
Education Division, a broader perspective
is appropriate. The Education Division
had begun efforts to explore partnerships
with other divisions and sections for
the QECW, and more effort in that area
would seem worthwhile.
• Processes for setting resource utilization
priorities. Clearly established processes
for determining satisfaction ratings
are not deployed uniformly for all
products/services. Some voice-of-the-
customer survey data was available,
but it did not offer the level of detail
that was necessary to provide thor-
ough direction to product/service
improvement efforts.
The second survey (see the online
supplement to this article for details)
probed more deeply into the specific
current state of all the division’s nine key
products and services and generated the
following findings:
• Recognition of the intended purpose
for each product/service was generally
high. The three highest-rated current
products and services were QECW,
QAHE, and the division’s website.
• The value of the nine current prod-
ucts and services to potential target
members and customers was aligned
www.asq.org/pub/jqp 27
 well with their overall value ratings for existing
members. This finding helped to clarify where
the improvement project should focus.
• The leaders who worked on providing specific
products and services had a general understand-
ing of their missions, visions, goals, strategies,
and processes; however, there was little evidence
that formal documentation existed; therefore, this
was identified as an improvement opportunity.
Recommendations based on the interview and
survey findings, as well as a review of historical and
existing documentation, which aligns well with the
first half of the improve phase of the LSS DMAIC
methodology, were presented to the leadership
team for consideration and included the three strat-
egies detailed below:
• Consolidation and repositioning. Instead of trying
to provide differentiated products and services
for each of the three market segments, it was
proposed that the division follow the model of
the QECW. In this case, market segments are
represented; however, their combined expertise
provides a highly valuable body of knowledge
that can be applied by any practitioner who is
involved in education/training—regardless of the
associated institution. Furthermore, the division’s
ability to foster quality and improvement could
be expanded greatly if it viewed the knowledge
and experience of its members as a deployable
resource for almost all other ASQ members, as
well as customers and other stakeholders.
By merging the individual products/services
associated with specific market segments, the
division could optimize resources and still main-
tain high quality. For instance, it was suggested to
combine QAHE with the Workforce Development
Brief (an electronic publication of the division),
along with articles developed for those working
in K-12 education. The division leaders agreed
to rename this publication Quality Approaches in
Education, integrating the three market segments
into one periodical.
• Partnerships. Partnership development was
raised to a higher priority. The initial efforts
involved with the QECW were setting a bench-
mark for future endeavors. Other potential
partnership ideas included having the division
leverage partnerships with local ASQ sections
to create connections with K-12 institutions
to establish a more profound influence on
28 The Journal for Quality & Participation July 2016
the application of quality concepts and tools.
Division-generated resources could be provided
for local sharing, and these resources would
represent the work performed by leaders in the
K-12 quality field. Similarly, by partnering with
other not-for-profit organizations associated
with higher education, including instructors
and administrators, the division could fulfill the
same role. This approach can be accomplished
at a comparatively low investment cost because
it relies on the inherent knowledge and skills of
the division members in conjunction with the
product/service deployment options available
from the partners.
Planning Stage—Documentation of QAHE Current
Situation and Opportunities for Improvement
This portion of the planning stage explored the
current state process for QAHE, as well as its mis-
sion, goals, and strategies. The intent was to have
a clear understanding of the current situation and
to be able to identify the most critical opportuni-
ties for improvement, addressing issues related to
raising member and customer satisfaction, reducing
waste and increasing efficiency, and enhancing the
value of the journal to members and customers.
Table 3 provides an overview of the guiding
framework that was in place for QAHE when
this project commenced. Although the publication
had been distributed since 2010, there still were
opportunities to document its guidelines in more
detail. This was identified as an area that could be
improved, based on discussions with the journal’s
team, as well as the division’s leadership team. The
issues listed in the final block were included in the
plan to determine root causes.
A high-level view of the “as is” process appears in
Figure 1, a supplier-input-process-output-customer
(SIPOC) diagram. A more detailed version, por-
trayed as a functional deployment process map, is
included in the online supplement to this article.
In general, the existing process was found to be
efficient when the steps for obtaining, reviewing,
and selecting articles were considered—particularly
when compared to similar publications. On the
other hand, the production process had required
more cycles of rework than typically occurred for
other ASQ publications; therefore, it was identified
as requiring improvement.
Overall, however, it became apparent that
QAHE’s greatest opportunity was to align with the
Table 3: QAHE Guiding Framework
Products/Service Quality Approaches in Higher Education
(QAHE) publication.
Brief description QAHE is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
that is published twice a year.
Organizational The publication team is composed of
structure an editor, four associate editors, and 13
reviewers who are selected based on their
experience in higher education, the quality
field, and scholarly publications.
Mission (purpose The purpose of QAHE is to engage the
and intended higher education community and the
members/ ASQ Education Division members in a
customers) discussion of topics related to improving
quality and identifying best practices in
higher education, as well as expanding
the literature specific to quality in higher
education topics. The publication is
offered at no charge as a benefit to division
members and also is available to customers
who visit the division website.
Values No formal values exist at this time.
Key performance No key performance indicators have
indicators been established.
(metrics, targets,
and tolerances)
Objectives (three No formal objectives have been established
to five years) for this timeframe.
Strategies (three No formal strategies have been established
to five years) for this timeframe.
Key action plans No formal action plans have been
(one to two years) established for this timeframe.
Estimated annual A budget has been established to provide a
budget (revenue, small stipend for the editor and to contract
expenses, and net with a professional copy editor. Production
balance) services are provided by ASQ staff.
Other QAHE has experienced some challenges
consideration/ with the following areas:
issues Editor transitions have not always
been smooth.
Submissions have not provided acceptable
articles steadily enough to maintain a firm
production schedule.
The desired approaches for production
and distribution of the publication are not
currently available at a cost that fits within
the division’s budgetary constraints.
The ASQ model for publication websites
is quite different than that used for many
scholarly journals.
newly proposed division strategy—
repositioning and consolidation. As
previously mentioned, a decision was
made to combine the division’s sepa-
rate technical publications into one
overarching journal, Quality Approaches
in Education (QAE), that would repre-
sent all three market segments. The
focus of the execution stage, therefore,
involved finding ways to move in
that direction while simultaneously
addressing the improvement oppor-
tunities that were discovered during
this phase.
Execution Stage
During this stage, the actions that
were necessary to shift to the new
publication, QAE, were planned and
put into place. This process included
revising the guiding framework docu-
ment and completing its strategic
and tactical portions. The future-state,
functional-deployment process map
shown in Figure 2 was generated.
Once those changes were approved,
the following steps were taken to
prepare for implementing the new
approach in the next issue of QAE:
• Additional associate editors and
reviewers were recruited and selected
to fulfill roles specifically associated
with the three market segments.
• A new model was developed to
reflect the integration of the three
market segments into one overarch-
ing publication. That model became
the basis for a new cover design that
would be used for future issues.
• A recognition process was proposed
and approved by the Society’s award
board to acknowledge annually the
work of the authors who had sub-
mitted the most worthy articles.
• The production process was stream-
lined to reduce the number of
rework cycles.
• Supporting documentation, includ-
ing forms, were updated to reflect
the new publication’s name and
requirements.
www.asq.org/pub/jqp 29
 Monitoring and Controlling Stage
Four specific metrics were established for track-
ing the performance of QAE—number of articles
submitted for consideration, number of articles
accepted for publication, number of articles not
accepted for publication, and number of citations
for published articles. The editorial team selected
these metrics after benchmarking other similar
publications. These metrics generally are consid-
ered to best reflect the performance, reputation,
and sustainability of scholarly journals, and they
are acknowledged as the key factors in promoting
the submission of worthwhile articles, as well as
increasing reader satisfaction.
The control plan shown in the online supple-
ment to this article was developed, and the processes
for tracking these metrics were established. Because
complete historical data was not available, it was
determined that this information would be gath-
ered for the first publication year to determine the
baseline performance. Then specific targets would
be set. During the initial data-collection period, the
editorial team would fine-tune the associated pro-
cesses and determine if any changes to the control
plan were necessary.
Closing Stage
The project was concluded by the project man-
ager presenting its work to the oversight team at the
University of Houston. Additionally, a summary of
the project was prepared for the division’s archives,
and this article was developed.

Figure 1: QAHE Current State SIPOC Diagram

Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers

• Authors • Papers 1. Author submits paper to editor via email • Desk-review • Education
• Editor submitted for 2. Editor conducts desk review of the paper decision Division
consideration and determines if it meets the scope of • Review members
• Associate
editors • Editor’s desk the journal and adheres to the guidelines summary • Other
review 3. Editor transmits paper to selected • Decision on readers,
• Reviewers
• Reviewers’ associate editor paper’s final including
• Production researchers
feedback 4. Associate editor reviews the paper status
staff
• Associate 5. Associate editor selects two reviewers • Selected
editor’s papers
6. Reviewers follow review process and
summary • Compiled
submit feedback to associate editor
• Editor’s papers in
7. Associate editor submits summary
decision on layout
to editor
paper’s status • Issue is
8. Editor considers feedback, assigns final
• Papers made and
status to the paper, and notifies author
selected for posted on
of decision and required revisions
publication the division
9. Author makes required revisions and website
resubmits paper to editor
10. Editor reviews paper for compliance with
required revisions, and other reviews are
conducted, as appropriate
11. Paper is scheduled for publication
12. Production staff copy edits selected
papers, compiles papers into
standard layout
13. Author reviews copy edited article
14. Editor and copy editor review layout with
content and authorize distribution to
division members

30 The Journal for Quality & Participation July 2016

Figure 2: QAE Future-State, Functional-Deployment Process Map

Future State Process Map Quality Approaches in Education

Author(s)

Revise paper
Submit paper
Write paper according to
via email
feedback

Notify author that Compile selected Authorize

paper has been papers for issue
accepted for publication assigned issue distribution

Yes, Yes,
Editor

with without
revisions revisions

Yes Paper No Paper No Notify author

Assign market Return paper
meets accepted for that paper has
segment to author
guidelines? publication? not been accepted
associate editor with feedback
for publication
Associate
Segment

Assign two
Market

Editor

Summarize
market segment
feedback
reviewers
Reviewers
Segment

Conduct reviews
Market

and provide
feedback
Education Production

Copy edit papers

and prepare
issue layouts
Members
Division

Publish issue

Conclusion and Application Potential
for Other Organizations
It is challenging for all organizations to establish
appropriate product/service strategies that simul-
taneously meet customers’ needs and minimize
resources required; however, this issue is even
more prevalent in situations faced by organizations
such as ASQ’s Education Division, where volun-
teers carry out the processes and the resources are
extremely limited. The improvements generated by
this project support the adoption of this process
by other organizations that are addressing issues
with strategy development and improvement. The
specific tools used worked quite well for improving
­product/service direction and operations.
The integration of the project management and
LSS DMAIC approaches was highly successful. The
new direction demonstrated by the merger of the
division’s separate publications into QAE clearly
represent application of the identified strategies
that will result in improved division performance.
Furthermore, this approach was carried out in a
relatively short timeframe, given that most of the
participants had very little time to devote to the proj-
ect despite their agreement that its results would be
beneficial. Coordinating the work of an international
group of volunteers is difficult, but the project man-
agement process provided definitive tasks that were
used to ensure the project was completed on time.
Similarly, application of the DMAIC process and
associated tools escalated the value of the findings by
ensuring they were based on careful data gathering
and analysis. The results were shaped to incorporate
the inputs of a very diverse set of perspectives because
the information obtained could be summarized
effectively and used to identify reasonable solutions.

www.asq.org/pub/jqp 31
 More Online
To see other documentation related to this project,
take a moment to read the supplemental online article at
www.asq.org/pub/jqp/.

References Soma Grover

1. Nastja Tomsic, Stephan Bojnec, and Blaze Simcic
“Corporate Sustainability and Economic Performance in Soma Grover’s industrial experience includes more than
Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises,” Journal of Cleaner six years as a senior quality engineer in manufacturing
Production, September 2015, pp. 603-612. industries, and she has worked on several projects
in quality, project management, and supply chain
2. António Ramos Pires, Aliona Cociorva, Margarida
management. Grover is certified in Lean Six Sigma Green
Saraiva, Jorge Casas Novas, and Álvaro Rosa
Belt training by the University of Houston. She can be
“Management of Quality-Related Costs. The Case of
contacted at somabhasin@gmail.com.
Portuguese Companies,” Total Quality Management,
August 2013, pp. 782-796.
3. Arvind Chopra and Bikram Jit Singh, “Unleashing a
Decisive Approach to Manage Quality Costs Through
Behavioural Investigation,” Business Process Management
Journal, February 2015, pp. 1,206-1,223.
4. Liu Yang and Liang Liting, “Evaluating and
Developing Resource-Based Operations Strategy for
Jamison V. Kovach
Competitive Advantage: An Exploratory Study of Finnish
Jamison V. Kovach is an associate professor at the
High-Tech Manufacturing Industries,” International
University of Houston. Her industrial experience includes
Journal of Production Research, February 2015,
more than five years as a process engineer in the
pp. 1,019-1,037.
U.S. textile industry, and she is certified in Six Sigma
5. Calvin London, “Strategic Planning for Business Black Belt training. Kovach was awarded the 2010 ASQ
Excellence,” Quality Progress, August 2002, p. 26. Feigenbaum Medal and was promoted to full academician
6. Robert Blair, “Strategic Planning for Economic in the International Academy for Quality in 2015.
Development—A Suggested Model for Program Kovach’s research focuses on applications of improvement
Evaluation,” Public Administration Quarterly, Fall 1998, techniques to generate better organizational performance
p. 331. and has been published in nearly 50 journal articles.
7. Loizos Heracleous, “Strategic Thinking or Strategic Contact her at jvkovach@uh.edu.
Planning,” Long Range Planning, June 1998, pp. 481-487.
8. K. Sivakumar, Mei Li, and Beibei Dong, “Service
Quality: The Impact of Frequency, Timing, Proximity,
and Sequence of Failures and Delights,” Journal of
Marketing, January 2014, pp. 41-58.
9. PMI, A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (5th edition), Project
Elizabeth A. Cudney
Management Institute, 2013, pp. 3, 5, 61.
Elizabeth A. Cudney, is an associate professor in the
10. Vijaya Sunder, “Lean Six Sigma Project Engineering Management and Systems Engineering
Management – A Stakeholder Management Perspective,” Department at Missouri University of Science and
The TQM Journal, February 2016, pp. 132-150. Technology. In 2014, Cudney was elected as an ASEM
11. Atkinson Philips, “DMAIC: A Methodology for Fellow. In 2013, Cudney was elected as an ASQ Fellow.
Lean Six Sigma Business Transformation,” Management She was inducted into the International Academy for
Services, Spring 2014, pp. 12-17. Quality in 2010. She received the 2008 ASQ Feigenbaum
12. Baldrige Excellence Framework 2015-2016, Medal and the 2006 SME Outstanding Young Manufacturing
“Organizational Profile,” National Institute of Standards Engineering Award. Cudney has published six books
and Technology (NIST), p. 5. and more than 55 journal papers. She holds eight ASQ
certifications, which include ASQ Certified Quality Engineer
(CQE), Manager of Quality/Organizational Excellence
(CMQ/OE), and Certified Six Sigma Black Belt (CSSBB),
among others. Contact her at cudney@mst.edu.

32 The Journal for Quality & Participation July 2016