The Effective of Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma
Implementation
(presented at the 6th IESM Conference, October 2015, Seville, Spain) © I4e2 2015
Ibrahim Alhuraish, Christian Robledo, Abdessamad Kobi
University of Angers, LARIS systems engineering research
Laboratory, ISTIA engineering school, France
Ibrahim.alhuraish@univ-angers.fr
Abstract— In this paper, we study the performance outcomes
for industries practicing lean manufacturing and six sigma.
Findings indicate that company size has no influence on
operational performance outcomes. Also we found that lean
manufacturing and six sigma practices such as DMAIC,
Kaizen team, Visual Control, SMED, 5S, etc. support to
increases companies performance. Investigation results
indicate that an increase in the number of years in terms of
implementing lean manufacturing and/or six sigma,
corresponds with an increase in financial and operational
performance. The results also of this study specifically
revealed that use six sigma in all departments supportive of
improving quality; whereas companies that implemented lean
manufacturing in all departments created a safe environment
and improved employee involvement within the organization.
Moreover, findings illustrate that the use of a belt system
supported the improvement in quality, reduced costs and
reduced variation. The implementation of lean manufacturing
and six sigma are important areas of study as there are few
studies reported in the literature on implementing lean
manufacturing and six sigma within French industries.
Keywords—lean manufacturing; six sigma; evaluation of the
operational performance; quality control
I. INTRODUCTION
Lean origins are linked to the Toyota production system,
which was a manufacturer’s principle, attributed to engineers
from Japan. In adopting this principle, Toyota adopted a
system in which the main management focus was the
reduction of waste [1]. Six sigma origins in Motorola and is
based on the identification and measurement of variances
within a process [2]. Six sigma is governed by a philosophical
maintaining that the reduction of variation will aid in the
resolution of problems in processes and business operations.
Ultimately, statistical evaluations can lead to understanding of
process problems and therefore allow managers to predict and
prevent difficulties arising in the process [3]. Companies that
integrated lean and six sigma, did so, as a means of
compensating for the limitations in each method and this
technique is referred to as lean six sigma [4, 5, 11]. Lean and
six sigma are promoted as techniques for change and quality
improvement in organizations [7].
Empirical data was collected through a survey distributed
among companies in France. The aim of this study was to find
out which of the methodologies lean manufacturing, six sigma
or a combination of lean manufacturing and six sigma was
implemented by French industries. The study sought to find
out the impacts that were associated with the implementation
of the methodology. This study also identifies the status of
lean manufacturing and six sigma implementation within
French industries, such as tools and techniques, and range in
the implementation of lean and six sigma and whether
organizations employed a belt system or not.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Six sigma is related to 3.4 Defects Per Million Opportunities
(DPMO) with the intention that identifying and eliminating
the defects, the organization can significantly improve quality
of production [2]. Six sigma methodologies are applied in an
organization as a means of solving quality problems and
designing new and improved processes. The framework for
implementing six sigma is Define, Measure, Analysis,
Improve and Control (DMAIC) [2]. On the other hand, lean
manufacturing is a method that focuses on reducing cost
through the elimination of the seven types of waste in all
aspects of the organization, such as motion, overproduction,
wait time, transportation, over-processing, defects, and
inventory excess [1]. Lean manufacturing includes various
tools and techniques supportive of the elimination of waste
such as Value Stream Map, 5S, Total Productive Maintenance
and Kaizen, Kanban, etc [1]. The essential steps in lean are
identification of features that create value include
identification of value stream sequence of activities, making
the activities flow, letting customer pull the product or service
through the process and making the process perfect [9]. The
implementation of lean and six sigma can produce more
efficient and effective outcomes if there was an emphasis on
human beings or organizational culture as opposed to a single
focus on training staff in techniques and tools [10]. Lean and
six sigma methodologies are ideal for cutting cost, improving
innovation and efficiency with improved quality [11].
Combining lean and six sigma resulted in improvements in
innovation in products, process reforms and a significant
increase in revenue [14]. There is also a growing trend toward
combining both lean and sigma or combining components of
those two methodologies. However, studies in the literature do
not generally reveal details about the implementation of lean
and six sigma in France [19]. This research will therefore
focus on the implementation of lean and six sigma in French
industries.
The main purpose of this paper is to determine the status
of implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma. This
paper’s main contribution is the heightening of awareness of
implementing lean manufacturing and six sigma. Specifically,
this paper’s contribution to current knowledge is in
determining the status of these methods, the potential benefits
and the relationship between performance outcomes and
extent of practicing and implementing lean and six sigma
implementation within varies industry in France
The structure of this paper begins with an introduction.
The second section of this paper contains a review of literature
on lean and six sigma. The third section describes the research
methodology, including research design, data collection,
sample technique, reliability and validity test. The third
section, relates the research findings and analysis of lean
manufacturing and six-sigma implementation such as the
situations of lean and six sigma, the impact of the extent and
practicing level of lean manufacturing, six sigma, belt system
which is also investigated. The final section presents the
researcher’s concluding remarks as well as recommendations
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The research instrument used in this research was an online
survey administered. The survey was designed as a Likert-type
scale as follows: 1 representing ‘’strongly disagree’’; 2
representing “disagree’’; 3 representing “neutral’’; 4
representing ‘’agree’’; and 5 representing ‘’strongly agree’’. A
higher score for benefit was 5, and therefore implied stronger
agreement of the respondents, and a lower score for benefit
was 1 implying stronger disagreement. The objective of the
data collection via a survey method was to identify the impact
of an implemented lean manufacturing and/or six sigma
methodologies within French industries. Therefore the survey
measured variables indicative of lean and six sigma
performance outcomes such as lean manufacturing or a
combination or variation of the two methodologies within
French industries.
Sampling Technique
A purposive sampling technique was used and as such
qualified practitioners functioning in various categories of
quality responsibilities were take on. Purposive sampling is
based on the employment of participants on the basis of their
knowledge and information about lean manufacturing and six
sigma. The names, contact information, company profile and
positions held by the qualified practitioners were obtained. A
total of 173 experts specializing in quality and excellence were
identified from a list provided by the department of quality
system engineering.
Data Collection
The survey was prepared and distributed in both French and
English and was distributed among a number of French
industries. Initial contact was made by email containing a link
to the survey. The email contact was established with 173
French organizations involved in a number of industries in
France. Twenty-seven of the emails were unsuccessful as
some were returned undelivered due to email address errors or
it was determined that the recipient had not qualified for
inclusion in the study as they had not implemented lean
manufacturing or six sigma methodologies within their
organizations. The respondents were also informed of the
nature of the study. The form in the first page has explained
the purpose of the study and asked the respondents to
complete to questionnaire in the study via the linked online
survey. However, 33 valid questionnaires had been received
by the companies.
Reliability and validity test
The survey was only dispatched after conducting a pilot study.
The pilot study involved four experts: two academics and two
experts on lean and six sigma. Relying on the experts advice
an additional question was inserted in the survey and minor
items were modified prior to distributing the survey. The
internal consistency reliability consistency for the
performance outcome variables in the survey was tested using
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
tests the internal reliability consistency in a research
instrument [15]. Any score above 80 is renders the research
instrument reliable. The results of Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient indicated a reliability coefficient at 0.902, and
therefore the internal reliability consistency is satisfactory.
Data Analysis
Despite measuring all variables on an ordinal scale, a
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used for verifying the
normality (Kolmogorov–Smirnov=0.030). In this regard, a
non-parametric test was used. A statistical analysis was
conducted using Mann-Whitney test, Kruskal Wallis One Way
ANOVA test, and Spearman's rho. SPSS version 20 was used
to calculate and analyze the results using the various tests. A
linear regression analysis was used to find out the impact of
lean manufacturing and six sigma practices implementation on
operational performance.
IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND
ANALYSIS
Profiles of the respondent enterprises
A total of 33 experts specializing in quality and excellence
were answered the survey. The response rate was 19%. A
majority of the companies were certified by various types of
certification. (78.8%) majority of the companies were certified
by various type of certification. In this regard, 23 out of the 33 from between three and six years, (6.1%) from six to nine
companies representing 69.7% are ISO 9001 quality years, and (18.2%) for a period of nine years or more. So a
management systems certified; 14 out of the 33 companies or majority of the sample have an experience of 3 years in these
42.4%, are ISO 14001 Environmental Management Standard kind of methods.
certified, 7 out of the 33 companies or 18.2%, are
OHSAS18001 Occupational Health and Safety Assessment IMPACT ON LEAN MANUFACTURING AND SIX
certified, and 5 out the 33 companies or 15.1 % are ISO13485 SIGMA
International organization for standardization certified. In the
Lean and six sigma practices
other hand, there were seven companies (21.2%) had not
Table II shows the tools and technique that were relevant to the
certified any type of these certification. However, a majority
implementation of lean manufacturing and six sigma within the
of the companies participating in the study have quality
French organizations participating in this study. Lean
management stander. A majority of the organizations,
manufacturing and six sigma practices were analyzed
specifically, 63.6%, did not employ a classification of belt
according to their implementation within their respective
systems: champions, master black belts, black belts and green
organizations. The purpose of the data collection and analysis
belts. Only 36.4 % of the participating organizations employ
was to identify how different companies practice these tools.
belts systems. Based on the European Commission definition
Each item was measured using a five point Likert scale.
of SME (a company or business employing no more than 250
Relative scales ranged from 1 = no implementation to 5 =
workers) and large companies or businesses (an organization
complete implementation. This is adopted by Shah and Ward
that employs at least 250 workers). Thus the sample used in
(2007). A higher percentage for implementation demonstrates
this study consisted of 12 SMEs and 21 large companies.
that lean manufacturing and six sigma techniques are used
Table I. Profile the respondents more extensively (Where these tools and techniques were
Type of industry Frequency Percent implemented and used more commonly). On the other hand, a
Electronic Industry 10 30.3 lower percentage indicates that lean manufacturing and six
Automotive Industry 7 21.2 sigma tools are not used extensively. In calculating
Health Industry 4 12.1
Service 6 18.2 percentages, the total mean score was divided into five. For
Transport 2 6.1 example, by dividing the mean score 4.44/5, brainstorming as
Other 4 12.1 presented in the first line of the table received 88%. All of the
Age of the companies
Less than 5 years 1 3.0 tools and techniques of lean manufacturing and six sigma have
Between 5 and 10 Years 4 12.1 been implemented at a variety of levels by the participant
Between 10 and 15 years 3 9.1 companies. PDCA and cause and effect diagram had a higher
More than 15 Years 25 75.8
Method implemented
score and common use of PDCA and cause and effect diagram
Lean Manufacturing 20 60.6 inferring that companies look for continuous improvement
Lean and six sigma 9 27.3 through continuous evaluation, problems and continuous
Don’t chosen either lean or six sigma redesigning of processes.
but companies practices various lean 4 12.1
and six sigma practices
Number of years Companies implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma
Less than 3 years 16 48.5 practices more extensively, either of the lean manufacturing or
Between 3 and 6 years 9 27.3
Between 6 and 9 years 2 6.1
six sigma such as DMAIC, Design of experiment, regression
9 years and more 6 18.2 analysis, VSM, GEMBA and Kaizen team, Takt time and
Size of companies VOC, as opposed to other companies, additionally the
SME 12 36.4
resulting percentage reveals a higher practicing of
Large companies 21 63.6
brainstorming that aids in performance areas such as creating
new ideas, defining and solving the issues in the process.
Table I above presents the general profile of the companies However, it can therefore be concluded that these companies
participating in the survey. Nine companies representative of frequently implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma
27.3% had implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma. practices. This practices demonstrated that these companies
Twenty companies representing 60.6% of the participants had were intent on achieving continuous improvement within their
implemented lean manufacturing only, even though that many organizations. Where companies that implemented lean
of these companies had been implementing six sigma practices manufacturing only, also use the tools and techniques of six
such as Design of experiment (DOE), Defect per million sigma such as DMAIC, and Design of Experiment, but only
opportunities (DPMO), and DMAIC. Also the fact that there slightly practiced of these tools. On the other hand, the results
are four companies or 12.1%, implemented many of the lean show more extensive practicing with tools and techniques
and six sigma practices, although they do not describe them as such as 5S, TPM and Kanban, and Standardized Work.
lean and six sigma methods with their organizations. (48.5%) Additionally where the companies that have not reported
of French organizations in our sample have implemented lean implementing lean manufacturing or six sigma methods, have
and six sigma or elements of one or other method for less than the lowest extensive practice involving lean six sigma
three years, but (27.3%) had implemented the methodologies practices within their respective organizations. This indicates
that these lean six sigma practices were impplemented, but not Fig. 2 shows the effectivenesss of implementing lean and six
used usually or were not commonly used. Hoowever, the results sigma practices for increasing profits.
p Specifically, illustrates a
do reveal some measure of achievement in thhe improvement of comparison between companies that implemented lean and six
company performance outcomes, as shown in i the mean scores sigma, and companies that hadd not implemented. Companies
for performance outcomes in Table III. A linear regression implementing lean and six siigma practices show increased
analysis and spearman rho correlation weree used to find out profit with each of the tools and techniques used in these
the impact of all lean manufacturing and siix sigma practices methodologies, compared to thhe companies that did not utilize
implementation on operational performancce. Findings were lean six sigma practices.
statistically significant (p-value= 0.00 and R square = 0.222).
The results also showed significant correlatioon (p-value= 0.00,
R= 0.423*), meaning that lean manufacturiing and six sigma
practice influenced the operational performaance. Therefore, it
can be concluded that the more extensiively a company
implements these practices, the greater the performance
outcomes.
Table II. Range Lean and Six Sigma praactices
Companies Companies Companies
implemented lean implemented lean utilization of lean and
manufacturing and manufacturing six sigma tools
six sigma
Practices % Practices % Practices %

Brainstorming 88.8 PDCA 80 PDCA 75

PDCA 82.2 Visual Control 77 5S 70

Cause and Standardized Cause and
Figure 2: Comparison the effective of lean six sigma practices on increase profit
effect 80 Work 76 effect 65

Pareto chart 77.8 5S 74 Flow chart 60 Clearly, lean manufacturingg and six sigma practices
Cause and demonstrate best practices for improving performance
VSM 77.8 effect 73 VOC 55
outcomes, it is shown each of the
t tools and techniques used in
Kaizen team 75.6 Flow chart 70 Brainstorming
B 55 these methodologies such as Kaizen team, visual control,
Standardized SMED, 5S, takt time, Kanbann, One Piece Flow, Design of
Visual Control 73.4 Pareto chart 70 Work 55
Standardized Experiment, VSM, Gemba, ettc, support to increase financial
Work 73.4 Brainstorming 69 Control chart 50 performance.
5S 73.4 Check sheet 65 Pareto chart 50
Measure companies performaance
VOC 71.2 VSM 63 Check sheet 50
Descriptive statistics were useed in analyzing and interpreting
Gemba 71.2 Gemba 61 V
Visual Control 50 the survey results. In order to measure
m companies performance
DMAIC 68.8 Kaizen team 60 TPM 45 of implementing lean manufaacturing and/ or six sigma in
France, each of these variable was
w measured within a five-point
Flow chart 60 VOC 60 Kaizen team 45
likert scale to indicate the mainn effect. Each item was measured
Takt time 57.8 TPM 58 DPMO 40 using a five point Likert scale. Relative scales ranged from 1 =
Check sheet 53.4 Kanban 57 Kanban 40 strongly disagree to 5 = strrongly agree. Companies were
categorized also into three grroups commensurate with their
Poka-yoke 53.4 Poka-yoke 55 Poka-yoke 40
implementation methods as a means of analyzing the
TPM 53.4 SMED 55 SMED 40 participants operation perform mance outcome variables (Table
Once piece
Control chart 51.2 DPMO 52 flow 40
III). In this regard, A=C Companies implemented lean
manufacturing and six sigma, B=Companies
B implemented lean
DPMO 48.8 Takt time 51 DOE 35 Manufacturing, and C=Com mpanies have not reported
DOE 48.8 Control chart 50 Takt time 30 implementing lean or six sigm ma method, even though these
Once piece Regression companies has been impleementing many of the lean
Kanban 48.8 flow 45 analysis 25
Cellular lay-
manufacturing and six sigmaa practices. In order to verify
SMED 48.8 out 44 DMAIC 25 whether there are significant difference
d respondent by groups
Once piece on the impact on the operationnal performance. Kruskal Wallis
flow 48.8 DOE 42 VSM 25
test was used to analyse whetherw groups A & B & C
Cellular lay-out 42.2 DMAIC 41 Gemba 25 significantly differed or not onn the impact on the operational
Regression Regression performance at a 5% significcant level. The results of the
analysis 33.4 analysis 29 C
Cellular lay-out 25
Kruskal Wallis test indicated thhat there were no statistically (P-
N=9 N=20 N=4 value > 0.05) significant differeences existing between the three
groups in terms of all variables except reduce turnover rate.
Therefore, with the exception of reduced tuurnover rates there
are no significant differences between three groups.
g for greater employee involveement and participation in the
Observation reflected in Table III sugggest that French
companies implementing lean manufacturinng and six sigma
achieved better mean performance levels than French
companies that implemented only lean manufacturing
m and
companies that implemented only lean manuufacturing and six
sigma tools in terms of increased profit (4.12), improved
quality (4.63), reduced variation (4.25) and reeduced cost (4.50).
These average scores reveal that companies implementing
i lean
and six sigma achieve greater benefits alongg several important
variables indicative of efficiency and qualityy, relative to other
companies choosing only to implem ment either lean
manufacturing or utilize lean and six siggma alone. It can
therefore be concluded that companies improve business
performance when using a combination of lean and six sigma
methodologies. While companies that im mplemented lean
manufacturing achieved better performance such as improved
productivity (4.38), reduced lead-time (4.33), increased
customer satisfaction (4.10), improved emplloyee involvement
(4.00) and suggestions (3.90) and at the sam me time created a
safer environment (4.10) within the organizaation. These results
are remarkable because the combination of leanl and six sigma
produced greater efficiency and effecctiveness through
improving process speed, reducing recycled time, added value
among other improvements.
Permitting employees suggestiions and input is an opportunity
company. Continuous improveement will laid to improve the
performance of quality by coollecting employess suggestion
that can reflect to eliminate soource of waste, improve quality,
and reduce level of inventoryy [12]. As well the process of
identification of value stream innvolves distinguishing activities
that add value and should be retained, activities that do not
add value but cannot be avoided by a company and those
activities that do not add vaalue and the company should
eliminate them [1]. The processs of value identification should
involves the employs, experts, manger that focus to solve the
issue however, Involvement annd suggestion of the employees
are complemented each other, and we asked these two factors,
in order to determine whether employees had job satisfaction
and contributed to performannce within the organization in
terms of implementing lean and/or six sigma, employees
participation/involvement andd suggestions were measured.
Results show moderate to exteensive agreement by employees
in the implementation of lean and/or
a six sigma with exception
to these companies that practiicing only the tools. Therefore,
lean and six sigma enhance sugggestion and involvement of the
employees. However, Fig. 1 was w established as a means of
only providing an overview of o the 3 performance outcomes
categories through the implem mentation of lean manufacturing
and/or six sigma.

Table III. Comparing companies performances thhat are linked to the

implementation of the chosen methodoology
Companies Companies Companies using
implemented lean implemented lean the tools but not
manufacturing and manufacturing referring as lean
six sigma and six sigma
methods with their
organizations
Benefit Mean Benefit Mean Benefit Mean
Increase Increase Increase
4.12 3.90 3.25
profit profit profit
Improve Improve Improve
4.63 4.19 4.00
quality quality quality
Reduces Reduces Reduces
4.25 3.95 3.75
variation variation variation
Reduces Reduces Reduces
4.50 4.00 3.75 Figure 1: Performance Outcomes for Lean,
L Six Sigma.
cost cost cost
Improves Improves Improves
productivity
4.13
productivity
4.38
p
productivity
3.50 Size
Reduces Reduces Reduces Mann Whitney U test was condducted to identify whether or not
4.13 4.33 3.50
Lead-time Lead-time Lead-time there is a significant statisticaal difference between SME and
Increases Increases Increases
suggestions suggestions s
suggestions
large companies on operatioonal performance. The results
3.50 3.90 2.75 indicate (P value > 0.05) no sttatistically significant difference
from the from the from the
employees employees employees between SME and large companies c on all operational
Involves Involves Involves performance, such as improoved quality, increased profit,
3.63 4.00 2.75
employees employees employees
Increase Increase Increase improved productivity etc. Alll indications are that company
Customer 3.50 Customer 4.10 Customer 3.75 size had no influence to operrational performance outcomes.
satisfaction satisfaction s
satisfaction Therefore, in French industries,, size is not an effective factor in
Decreases Decreases Decreases
Inventory
3.13
Inventory
4.24
Inventory
3.75 the implementation of lean manufacturing
m and six sigma on
Reduce Reduce Reduce operational performance outcom mes.
turnover 2.88 turnover 2.95 turnover 2.00
rate rate rate
Creates Creates Creates Period of implementation
safety 2.88 safety 3.48 safety 2.50 Additionally, performance wass also measured by reference to
environment environment e
environment the period of time utilized in
i the implementation of lean
manufacturing and/or six sigma. Thus companies were
classified by virtue of three categories for a period of less than
three years, between three to six years and more than 6 years of Table V. Extending lean and six sigma methods
practicing lean manufacturing and/or six sigma. The range of Extending method Lean Six sigma
Not to any department 12.1% 72.7%
mean score for period less than 3 years was 2.69 to 4.06, the Some departments 48.5% 21.2%
range of mean score for 3 to 6 years was 2.67 to 4.22 and the All departments 36.4% 6.1%
range of mean score for more than 6 years was 3.25to 4.75 of All departments including supplier 3% 0%
practicing lean manufacturing and/or six sigma. The longer
these practices were in place, the greater the outcomes for Table V illustrates the percentages of how French companies
financial and operational performance. In order to emphasis extended lean manufacturing and six sigma. The results show
that we have used spearman correlation to identify the that 36.4% of the French companies embraced lean in whole
association between the number of years and companies departments and 48.5% of the French companies extended lean
performance. Spearman’s rho data analysis revealed positive to at least some departments. 12.1% of the participating French
and significant correlation between companies performance companies had not extended lean to any departments and one
and number of years for implementing lean manufacturing companies representing 3%, extended lean to all departments
and/or six sigma (r = 0.385*, P-value < 0.01). including the supplier department. On the other hand, 72.7% of
the companies, representing a majority that had not implemented
Table IV. Mean on performance outcome across period of time
six sigma to any department. 21.2% of the participating of these
Benefit across More than 6
period
Less than 3 years Between 3 to 6 years
years companies implemented six sigma in some departments. Another
Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D 6.1% of the companies extended six sigma to whole departments
Increase profit 3.50 .966 4.00 .707 4.50 .534 and no companies applied six sigma to all departments including
Improve suppliers. Further analyses were conducted determine the impact
4.06 .772 4.22 .441 4.75 .463
quality
Reduces of extending lean manufacturing and six sigma methodologies on
3.87 .885 3.56 .882 4.75 .463
variation performance outcomes. Therefore we compared the mean score
Reduces cost 3.75 1.183 4.33 .707 4.50 .535 for lean method across companies using lean method to all
Improves
productivity
4.00 1.211 4.22 .833 4.63 .518 departments and those that had not implemented to lean. A
Reduces Lead- similar criterion was followed for six sigma. As shown in the
3.94 1.237 4.22 .667 4.63 .518
time Table VI, there were two extending levels in the results:
Increases extending to all departments and no extending to any department.
suggestions
from the
3.50 1.033 3.67 1.225 4.00 .535 A score of 1 referred to no extending to any department and a
employees score of 4 referred to extending to all departments. It shows
Involves
3.50 1.033 3.78 1.202 4.25 .463 increasing of extending lean manufacturing and six sigma
employees
Customer
reflected to rise company operational performance such as
3.94 .929 3.33 1.225 4.50 .535 improve quality, reduce variation, reduce cost, improve
satisfaction
Decreases
4.00 .816 3.67 1.581 4.00 .535
productivity, reduce lead time, increases suggestions from the
Inventory employees, involves employees. It shows that implementing lean
reduce turnover
rate
2.69 .704 2.67 1.118 3.25 .463 to all department assistants more to decreases inventory
Creates safety compared to six sigma, it may cause that lean contain various
3.00 1.03 3.00 1.225 3.88 .835
environment tools such as value stream mapping, 5s, TPM etc, that may more
advantage to decrease inventory. Where six sigma that contain
As demonstrated in Table IV, the average values increased in advance statistical tools that specifically apply it only when the
virtually all items the longer lean manufacturing and/or six issue are vague that help to diagnose the complex problem in
sigma method have been practices. Specifically, values improving decrease inventory [16]. Additionally, lean emphasis
increase over 4 where these methodologies have been in to attack the seven type of waste, one of these wastes concerns
practice for more than 6 years. on reducing inventory. Therefore, implementing lean to all
departments may get surplus positive to decrease inventory.
Range level for lean and six sigma Mann Whitney U test was used for measuring differences in
The respondents were asked to identify the extending level for operational performance between two sample companies that had
lean and six sigma implementation within their organization not implemented either lean or six sigma methods in any
using a five-point ordinal scale, choosing from 1= “not department and those that implemented lean manufacturing and
implemented to any department” to 5= “Implemented in all six sigma methods in all departments. This was a non-parametric
departments including supplier”. As indicated in table V, a test for abnormal distributions. The distinguished analysis was
majority of the enterprises have not extended six sigma to any conducted to define whether or not any statistically significant
department due to larger portions of the organizations not differences were observed in the level of extension for lean
implementing six sigma even though most of these companies manufacturing as well for six sigma sigma. Table VI illustrates
in the sample had implemented six sigma practices such as (p-value) the comparative differences between companies that
DMAIC, DPMO and DOE. implemented the method in all department and companies that
did not implement the method at all, against the level of environment in the enterprise. It can be interpreted, based on
extending for lean manufacturing and six sigma. The result of the results that through implementing and practicing lean
the study considers significant if the p value < 0.05. This finding manufacturing in all departments, employees become more
that there are significant differences in improved quality involved and are more likely to make suggestions for problem
between companies not implementing six sigma to any solving and improving performance outcomes. Consequently, it
department and those implementing six sigma in all departments can be inferring that implementing and practicing lean results in
(P-value < 0.05). The differences were indicated in the range of higher job satisfaction by the employees. While implemented
a mean value from 4.17 to 5. As well for lean manufacturing, lean method in all department enhance to reduce turnover rate,
there was a significantly higher differences in the creation of a inferring that more agreement to reduced turnover rate for
safe environment and employee involvement and reduce companies that implemented lean manufacturing to all
turnover rate within the organization. Companies implementing department. On the other hand, implementing and practicing six
lean manufacturing in all departments compared to companies sigma in all departments serves to improve quality. The main
not implementing lean in any department (P-value < 0.05). The achievement linked to the implementation of lean and six sigma
differences were in the range of a mean value of 2.50, 2,75 and in all departments is increased companies performance.
2.00 to 3.67, 4.08 and 2.83.
Belt system
Table VI. Mean on performance outcome and Mann Whitney test
Finally, in order to identify the effected side of belt system of
Impact Extending level Lean six Lean Six
performance sigma P-Value sigma six sigma, Participants were also asked, organizations have
P- employs any type of belt system such Green or Black belt or
Value MBB? However, non-parametric test was used to compare
Not to any 0.139 0.562
Increase profit department
3.25 3.82 between the companies used of belt system and those are not
All department 4.00 3.50 across companies performance, The level of performance
Improve
Not to any
4.00 4.17
0.256 0.044* outcome was found to be significantly different between
department companies that employed belt systems and those that did not for
quality
All department 4.25 5.00
Not to any 0.657 0.362
three attribute, these attribute are improved quality, reduced
Reduces 3.75 3.87 variation and reduced cost. These findings support that belt
department
variation
All department 3.92 4.50 systems produce a higher average of improved quality (4.67),
Not to any 0.319 0.473 reduced variation (4.42), and reduced cost (3.76) compared to
3.75 4.00
Reduces cost department
All department 4.33 4.50 companies that had not employed belt systems within their
Not to any 0.205 0.833 organization. The results indicate that belt systems can function
Improves 3.50 4.30
department to improve and increase companies performance. There is
productivity
All department 4.50 4.50
Not to any 0.205 0.873
evidence that belt systems contain in this sample that have
Reduces Lead-
department
3.50 4.30 positive impact to increase operational performance. Belt
time
All department 4.42 4.50 system considered as a key success factor for the six sigma
Increases Not to any 0.055 0.645 implementation and these include belt categories such as green
2.75 3.74
suggestions department
from the All department
belt, black belt, master black belt [6].
3.92 3.50
employees
Not to any 0.034* 0.795 Table VII. The results of a comparison between companies that implemented
Involves 2.75 3.83
department belt systems & not implement belt systems
employees
All department 4.08 4.00 Benefit Belt system Mean P-value
Increase Not to any 0.402 0.684 Improve quality Yes 4.67 0.006**
3.75 4.13
Customer department No 4.05
satisfaction All department 4.00 3.50
Yes 4.42 0.048*
Not to any 0.134 0.129 Reduces variation
Decreases 3.75 4.22 No 3.76
department
Inventory Yes 4.67 0.008**
All department 4.17 2.50 Reduces cost No 3.76
Not to any 0.014* 0.548
Reduce 2.00 2.83 Note: 2 tailed Significance level on Mann–Whitney test: *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01
department
turnover rate
All department 2.83 2.00
Creates safety Not to any
2.50 3.39
0.031* 0.548 The test show a statistically significant difference between
environment department
in the
companies in terms of improved quality (p-value= 0.0006),
All department
3.67 2.50 reduced variation (p-value=0.048) and reduced cost (p-
enterprise
Note: 2 tailed significant level of extending level on Mann–Whitney test: *P < 0.05 value=0.008) (See Table VII). The utility of the belt system is
confirmed by a study that revealed that using a belt system
Gunasekaran and Lyu [18], found that implementing (JIT) realized significant savings and profits [11,17]. The remaining
lean tools supports improvement in the safety environment factors (P-value > 0.05) such as reduced cost, decreased
and the quality within the enterprise. For example, deploying inventory, improved productivity etc. do not show significant
the 5S system, visual controls supported cleaning up and difference between companies executing belt system or not.
organizing the workplace through removing all unnecessary Thus, it can be concluded that the belt system is useful for
items for making the workplace clean and creating a safe improving quality and reducing variation, and reducing cost
but shows no other effect in the French industry. This is
suggested that belt systems are related to six sigma
methodology, which is focused more sharply on reducing
variation and improving quality.
V. CONCLUSION
Lean manufacturing and six sigma ensure that an organization
achieves superior performance. This leads to satisfaction for
customers, qualities, shareholders and society. Based on the
results of this study, it can be concluded that French
companies are implementing lean manufacturing and/or six
sigma with significant performance outcomes. These
companies show improved performance and profits using
elements of six sigma. It appears that many companies within
the French industry have recently implemented lean
manufacturing and/or six sigma. Even so, these companies
have shown positive outcomes when using these methods. The
duration of lean manufacturing and/or six sigma
implementation methodologies correspond with a more
positive impact on financial and operational performance. In
other words, the longer a company implements and practices
lean and/or sigma methodologies, the more positive the
company outcomes in financial and operational performance.
Company performs PDCA cycle on implementing lean and six
sigma in order to support continuous improvement and a
majority of the companies studied were committed to
continuous improvement since PDCA was the most frequently
prioritized. The results of this study therefore suggest that
companies can improve quality and performance with the
implementation lean and six sigma practices. Therefore
companies should aware and understand of lean and six sigma
practices, since these tools and techniques enhance to increase
company performance. Furthermore, The results reveal that
companies implementing lean manufacturing alone are unable
to avoid using six sigma tools such as DMAC, DPMO, etc.
This demonstrates that lean and six sigma are complementary
tools. The set of the retained companies is sufficiently
repersentive because the set size of sample enough to perform
statistical analysis (33 companies). The number of 33
companies have concentrated from one region (Pays de la
Loire), which can sufficiently representative the status various
industry in this regions. However, the belt system appears to
be supportive for ensuring that implementation of six sigma is
effective. Additionally, practicing lean manufacturing to all
department support to make the employees more involvement,
raise the suggestion from the employees, creates safety
environment in the enterprise and reduce turnover rate where
implements six sigma to all departments reinforced to improve
quality and this help to solve the difficulties that are usually
associated with implementation in promoting organizational
change for the successful implementation. Therefore, this
study realized a negative and a positive side relative to
implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma. The negative
side that it showed of implementing lean to all department
increase of reduce turnover rate. In the other side, the positive
sides are employee involvement. Where six sigma support to
improve quality. However, it can be concluding that
implementing and practicing lean manufacturing and six
sigma results in improve company performance. The
effectiveness of implementing lean and six sigma practices is
manifested in increased profits, improved efficiency and
improved quality. Each of these performance outcomes are
accomplished through improvements in reduction of cost,
reduction of variances, improved employee involvement, the
creation of a safe environment, improved customer
satisfaction, improvements in lead times and all other
important aspects of total quality management. It is proposed
that in future, researchers seek to identify the cause of the
eight variable on the impact of implementing lean
manufacturing only such improve productivity, reduce time,
decrease inventory that show highest result compared to
companies implemented lean manufacturing and six sigma.
This is because, a review of literature indicates that both
methods, lean manufacturing and six sigma leads to significant
benefits in increasing companies performance.
REFERENCES
[1] L. Wilson, How to implement lean manufacture. McGraw_Hill companies Inc,
2010.
[2] F.W. Breyfogle, Implementing six sigma: smarter solutions using statistical
methods. John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
[3] R.B. Projasek, “Lean, six sigma, and the systems approach: management Initiatives
for Process Improvement,” Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 13, pp. 85-
92, Winter 2003.
[4] E.D. Amheiter and J. Maleyeff, “The integration of lean management and six
sigma,” The TQM Magazine, vol. 17, pp. 5-18, 2005.
[5] G. Muthukumaran, V.S.K. Venkatachalapathy and K. Pajanira, “Impact on
integration of lean manufacturing and six sigma in various applications-a review,”
Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering vol.6, pp. 98-101, 2013.
[6] Y.H. Kwka and F.T. Anbari, “Benefits, obstacles, and future of six sigma
approach.” Tecnhovation, vol. 26, pp. 708-715, 2006.
[7] D. Näslund , “Lean, six sigma and lean sigma: fads or real process improvement
methods?” Business Process Management, vol.14, pp. 269-287, 2008.
[8] B. Klefsjo, H. Wiklund, and R.L. Edgeman, “Six sigma seen as methodology for
total quality management,” Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 5, pp. 31-35,
2001
[9] D. Nave, “How to compare six sigma, lean and the theory of constraints,” Quality
Progress, vol. 35, pp. 73-80, 2002.
[10] J.J. Dahlgaard and S. Mi Dahlgaard-Park, “Lean production, six sigma quality,
TQM and company culture,” The TQM Magazine, vol. 18, pp. 263-281, 2006.
[11] M.L. George, “Lean six sigma- combining six sigma quality with lean speed,”
McGraw-Hill, New York, 2002.
[12] D. Powell, E. Alfnes and J.O. Strandhagen, “The Concurrent Application of Lean
Production and ERP: Towards an ERP-Based Lean Implementation Process,”
Computers in Industry, vol. 64, pp.324-335, 2013.
[13] R. Shah and P.T. Ward, “Defining and developing measures of lean production. ,”
Journal of operations management, vol. 25, pp. 785-805, 2007.
[14] G. Byrne, D. Lubowe and A. Bliz, A, “Using a lean six sigma approach to drive
innovation,” strategy & leadership, vol. 35, pp. 5-10. 2007.
[15] J.C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory, McGraw Hill, New York. 1978
[16] R.D. Snee, “Lean six sigma-getting better all the time,” International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, vol. 1, pp. 9-29, 2010.
[17] M.J. Harry, “Six sigma: a breakthrough strategy for profitability,” Quality
Progress, vol. 31, pp.60-64, May 1998.
[18] A. Gunasekaran and J. Lyu, “ Implementation of just-in-time in a small company:
a case study,” Production planning & control, vol. 8, pp. 406-412,1997.
[19] E. Leseure-Zajkowska, “Contribution à l'implantation de la méthode lean six sigma
dans les Petites et moyennes entreprises pour l'amélioration des processus,”
Doctoral dissertation, Ecole Centrale de Lille, Université Technique de Gdansk,
February,2013.