Lean Sigma: The New Wave of Business Excellence, Literature Review and a

Framework

Majed Alsmadi1& Zulfiqar Khan2

1
Lecturer, Faculty of Engineering & Computing, Coventry University, UK .(aa6577@coventry.ac.uk).
2
Senior Lecturer, Coventry Business School, Coventry University, UK. (z.khan@coventry.ac.uk).

ABSTRACT
In order to improve and sustain competitive advantage, organisations across the world have embraced different tools and
techniques that they hope will keep them alive within the cutthroat market place. Currently, Lean Management LM and Six
Sigma SS are the most widely recognised continuous improvement CI initiatives accessible by organisations with faddish
characteristics. At the same time they are considered a subject of a growth body of literature which lacks consensus
regarding their origins and their association with their predecessor that is the TQM philosophy. This paper introduces
evidence which proposes that LM and SS are not dizzying array of management fads rather the normal extension of TQM
as evolved from the theories of Adam Smith.
Finally, this paper develops an integrative Lean Sigma framework for SMEs based on research gaps and actual needs, the
framework was formulated using a triangulation methodology consisting of literature review, Delphi survey and structured
interviews.
Keywords Total Quality Management, TQM, Lean Management, Six Sigma, Business Excellence, Continuous
Improvement, SMEs.

1. INTRODUCTION misconceptions that usually surrounds the philosophy. On

In the current world of manufacturing, due to global
competitive environment, most manufacturing
organisations are striving to produce high quality
products at reduced cost in a short time. In order to
improve their operations and enhance competitive
advantage organisations across the world have embraced
different tools and techniques that they hope will keep
them alive within the cutthroat market place.
Currently, Lean Management LM and Six Sigma SS are
the most widely recognised and spread continuous
improvement initiatives accessible by organisations.
Nowadays, anyone can not attend a conference or read a
journal without seeing literature referring to these
concepts. In addition, they have been marketed as
effective methodologies that can dramatically improve
the performance of business organisations [1]. Despite
their popularity, the jury is still out as to whether LM and
SS will become a significant and lasting component of
management, or just another management vogue.
LM has evolved form Toyota Production System TPS
into a managerial philosophy that focuses on eliminating
non value added activities from the value chain
throughout eliminating waste. Even with the wide spread
consideration that LM has received during the last decade
and in spite of the abundant number of articles published
over the years, research findings so far has failed to spell
out the philosophy. Papadopoulou and Ozbayrak [2]
argued that while LM was and still the focal point of
literature all these years, yet part of the literature
succeeded in providing awareness of its potential and the
rest of literature lead to more confusion and
the contrast, SS has been launched by Motorola in mid
1980s as a method that reduces cost by eliminating
variability in the processes which leads to improved
process capability and enhanced process throughput [3].
It can be considered an emerging concept, and research
related to SS is at explanatory stage. The published
academic articles focus on developing a definition that
establishes its boundaries and discriminates it from other
closely related concepts [4], [5], [6] and [7]. In the same
direction, Antony [8] accentuated the fact that SS will
survive only when it has a strong theoretical supporting
and link with other management theories. Shah et al. [6]
has highlighted the urgent need to scholars' research that
investigates the trend of LM and SS in order to help to
separate fact from fiction and rationalise the potential
benefits of each philosophy. Recently, integrating LM
and SS has gained massive interest in the literature and
viewed as the new wave of business excellence. Without
a unifying conceptual framework LM and SS risk being
fragmented into ambiguous and isolated slogans.
However, when supported by the right theoretical
foundation and focused on the highest value, the
integration of LM and SS can produce remarkable results
and is the most robust vehicle available today to gain and
sustain competitive advantage.
There are two objectives of this study. The first objective
is to find a concrete theoretical underpinning and linkage
for SS and LM with other management theories. The
second objective is to integrate LM and SS into a more
powerful and coherent effective hybrid, tackling many of
the weaknesses and retaining most of the strengths of
each strategy through matching their DNA with concepts 3. PROBLEM DEFINITION
of TQM as evolved from the contribution of Adam Although LM and SS are becoming the most popular
Smith. continuous improvement methodologies, they are still
lacking consensus regarding their origins and their
2. METHODOLGY association with the management theory. Without a
unifying conceptual framework LM and SS risk being
fragmented into confusing and isolated slogans. The
In this paper a combination of research methodologies
theory of both LM and SS is deficient and there is no
has been employed. This encompasses a systematic
origin for research other than best practices. Thus,
literature review, a two round Delphi survey and
academics have an important responsibility in bridging
structured interviews. The systematic literature review
was beneficial in bringing to the light the nature of the the gap in the theory of LM and SS and in understanding
the mechanisms by which SS can be integrated with LM
subject under studying which has entails an equally
into a comprehensive, scientifically established and
comprehensive review of related literature to TQM, LM
integrative framework. This study suggests that both
and SS. It is believed when critically reviewed, these
programs need to be fully integrated into a consolidated
topics could be boiled down to an integrative approach.
Furthermore LM and SS philosophies, concepts and tools framework that builds on TQM theory as well as LM and
should not be treated as mutually exclusives rather as a SS structured approaches when embarking to the journey
to business excellence.
complementary to those of TQM.
The presented theories and philosophies have served as a 4. LITERATURE REVIEW
foundation for the development of problem and the
proposed framework also the previous work of other 4.1 The Evolution of TQM from Adam Smith
researchers was discussed. The analysis from the Organising labour power in order to enhance operations
structured interviews was decisive in formulating the can be traced back to Adam Smith in 1776; however
proposed framework as it highlighted actual requirements Industrial Engineering (IE) played a primary role in the
of SMEs for a successful framework. development of Operational Excellence [9]. Rooted from
The results of the structured interviews support the the scientific management approach IE with operations
researchers' pre understanding of the need to a simple, research and managerial accounting trimmed the concept
cost effective, culture friendly, unambiguous, digestive of operational excellence.
and practical framework that helps SMEs in developing
countries in their journey to achieve competitive
advantage, SMEs primary centre of attention is to
undertake such applicable model and to be able to
recover the initial costs of the project by the completion
of the project.
Based on the interviews, TQM, LM, and SS success
factors, misconceptions, and previous efforts, the
developed framework was formulated and validated
using two round iterative Delphi method technique, the
process of selecting experts underwent many criteria;
first the experts were chosen from both the academic and
the industrial sector, the academics were chosen
according to their publications in TQM, LM and SS, it
has been decided to select those who published at least
Figure (1) Evolution of TQM
two refereed articles in this field, while practitioners were
After Second World War and due to the rapid growth of
selected from companies that participated in King
industrialisation especially in the 1950’s and 60’s, the
Abdullah II Excellence Award that achieved the
general manufacturing attitude was to try to produce as
minimum requirements to compete in the 2008
much as possible of products without paying attention to
competition.
waste or the cost of waste [10].
The result of the first round has shown that all activities
In 1951, Juran who was one of the experts of quality
of the proposed framework derived from the systematic
control published his book Quality Control Handbook,
literature review and the actual needs of Jordanian SMEs
which is considered one of the important references for
were selected by all Delphi panel members as having
the quality movement [11]. Juran introduced the concept
high importance. The main purpose of the second round
of ‘waste’ for the first time as a core concept in quality
was to confirm the modified framework based on the first
management as quality cost (the cost which would
round feedback.
disappear if no defects where produced), and later in
1989 Juran refined the definition of ‘waste’ as the cost of
poor quality ( the sum of all costs that would disappear if
there were no quality problems)[12].
By balancing these definitions between 1951 and 1989
one can perceive the difference between quality control
QC as a slender technical discipline where the main
interest is focused on the product testing in order to
conform to standards and TQM as a comprehensive
management philosophy that deals with the continuous
improvement of all processes.
4.1.1 Areas of Agreement among TQM literature
Even though the precise definition of TQM is not
obvious, there are some areas of agreement found among
the vast TQM literature can be summarized as follows:
Customer defines quality; quality in turn creates
customer satisfaction, using statistical tools to analyse
defects, improve and control quality and long term top
management commitment and employee involvement.
4.1.2 What makes TQM fail?
Recently, many researchers who introduced TQM as a
critical source of competitive advantage have begun to
argue on the reasons behind its failure while
implemented in some cases . In this area some reasons
can be easily found within TQM literature like: lack of
universally accepted framework, variation in national
cultures, incompatibility with organisational culture [13],
resistance to change by employees [14] and
ineffectiveness of top management leadership [15].
4.2 From TQM to Lean
The economic success of Japanese companies in the
eighties can be attributed to the customised integrated
application of TQM [9]. Toyota as one of the leading
companies of Japanese industries attended statistical
quality control course and started adopting statistical
quality control since 1949 [12].
The visit of Eiji Toyoda to USA to benchmark the
automobile manufacturing industry had changed the
trend of quality movement in Japan. Toyoda and his
engineer Ohno found during their three months visit to
Detroit that the way in which cars are produced under
Ford mass production system could never work in Toyota
or in Japan in general [16].
The magic word they captured from their visit is muda
(waste). Muda became one of the most well known
concepts in production philosophy and formed the DNA
of Toyota Production System (TPS). It has been realised
that there was too much muda in USA manufacturing
system and can be classified as : Muda of workers, Muda
of over production, Muda of inventories and excess
processing, Muda of defects, Muda of waiting, Muda of
movements of materials around factory and Muda of
facility.
Japan economy was too poor that time to have such types
of waste either in human resources or in available
materials, and as a result Japan can not afford copying
and implementing Ford production system. Ohno led a
team in order to perform the best way of operations; this
team can be considered as the first quality circle in the
quality movement.
The team suggested ways to cope with problem of waste
and to improve processes like:
5Ss: One of the improvement suggestions and it stands
for: Sort, Straighten, Shine, Standardise, and Sustain,
[17].
Kanban system: Kanban is a Japanese word that means
signal or card that used for communication between
different production lines. Japanese experts utilised this
system when they saw similar system in USA modern
supermarkets. Through this system a card is used to
trigger the production system to respond to real needs.
Three types of cards are usually used [18]: Withdrawal
kanban, production ordering kanban and Supplier kanban
[19].
By housekeeping or 5Ss and eliminating muda and
coordinating the flow of a product by kanban; a product
would be only produced to supply the demand of each
production stage starting from the customer, in other
words, a product is produced in the shortest cycle time
and streamline the flow of processes. JIT is evolved from
this production context, controlling resources in
accordance to customers’ needs and eliminating waste.
Lean manufacturing has been evolved by adding some
refinements and modifications to JIT that have not been
proposed by original Toyota pioneers. The term Lean
Thinking is considered the universal generic term to
describe Lean manufacturing while lean management is
coined not only as a waste eliminating techniques but
also as all the activities that creates value for customer by
identifying value as the first principle. According to Shah
et al. [6] the lean concept was clustered in literature into
three categories; a philosophy, a set of principles and
bundles of practices. On the contrast, Davis [20] argues
that these principles and practices can not be looked upon
as a smorgasbord of items that can be picked and chosen
from to fit the particular taste of an operation. There is an
order in digesting these tools.
Figure (2) From TQM to LM
4.2.1 Areas of Agreement among Lean Literature align customer requirements and demand with
organisational business objectives.
Apart from the disagreement among researchers
Employee Empowerment Approach. On the shop floor
regarding the definitions and the practices of lean
level, when quantifying root causes of problems,
management, there is a consensus on the following
understanding and controlling variations, the game of
aspects of lean management [21], [22] and [23]: Lean is
exchanging blames between employees will have an end.
associated with continuous improvement practices, with
By eliminating fire fighting tasks that occupy most of
human resources management, with quality management,
floor managers time and replacing it by logical
and with pull production as a customer oriented
procedures to uncover variation causes, knowledge will
approach.
be created and translated into business growth for the
By comparing the previous simplification of lean
organisation.
management with the definition of TQM as proposed by
Top Management Commitment. One of SS definition is
Smadi and Alkhawaldeh [24] as a managerial philosophy
given by Pande et al. [26] as a sweeping culture change
for continuously improving firms business throughout
effort to position a company for greater customer
stetting vision and plan statement focusing on customer
satisfaction, profitability and competitiveness. This
, leading toward employee empowerment and zero
definition is an effort to organisational change urge top
defect mentality, benchmarking best practices, adopting
managers to commit to lead this change.
flexible manufacturing , instituting evaluation and
By comparing the definition of TQM as given by Smadi
measurements, and education and training, it is clear that
and Alkhawaldeh [24] with the previous concepts it may
there is no any inconsistency between the core concepts
look like that there are no differences in these concepts, if
of TQM and LM, on the contrary LM can be considered
there any differences they seem especially related to the
as an extension of TQM, figure(2) shows this process.
structured training deployment plan in devoting full time
4.3 From TQM to Six Sigma specialists such as Black Belts and Green Belts.
Six Sigma began back in 1985 when Motorola analysed
the external threats of losing market share as a leading
company of the market in its field. Bill Smith the father
of SS, an engineer in Motorola, realised that Japanese
high quality products is the main reason behind this loss.
Visits to manufacturing companies to Japan were
arranged in order to analyse the levels of product quality
and operations. It has been concluded by Motorola
experts that Motorola’s product is not a customer driven
and the operating costs are high compared with Japanese
products.
To cope with this threat Motorola adopted a strategy to
reduce operating costs and improve customer satisfaction
by incorporating statistical methods with business
process improvement methodologies [25]. This strategy
Figure(3) From TQM to SS
puts customer as the first priority and utilises facts and
On the other hand, when considering DMAIC process
measures to find solutions to his needs. To meet these
one can conclude that this improvement process is PDCA
needs near perfection statistical slogan is set; 3.4 defects
cycle in a new look.
for every million opportunity.
4.3.1 PDCA against DMAIC
If the aforementioned concepts of this strategy are
Deming Cycle
merged we can simply define SS as a customer focused,
PDCA was introduced by Deming to the Japanese as
data driven, process improvement and problem
Shewart cycle and known afterwards as Deming cycle,
identification strategy which utilises statistics as well as
this cycle has its origin in the scientific method
scientific method to achieve bottom line results.
developed from the contribution of Bacon(hypothesis-
However, considering the definition of SS from a holistic
experiment- evaluation) or ( plan, do, check). Schneier et
approach will clarify its relation to TQM and LM:
al. [27] argued that this cycle has evolved from Dewey's
Customer Focused. One of the most important
learning cycle DIPO which involves
characteristics of SS is its customer driven focus, the
Discover new insights, Invent new options for action,
people who lead SS program chooses metrics that attract
Produce new action and Observe the consequences of
customer requirements. When targeting Critical To
those actions which lead to new discoveries.
Quality issues CTQs this will not only delight customer
The Deming cycle took DIPO cycle one step further
on the short run but also will help the organisation to
saying in organisations it is often wise to differentiate
minor actions from comprehensive adoption of new
practices , so Do phase became as a pilot test from which
data can be collected and analysed (checked):
Plan: Define and establish the objectives and processes
necessary to deliver results consistent with the expected
output, justify the reasons for choosing these objectives,
assess as is situation, identify root causes and set
corrective measures.
Do: implement the plan, if possible on a small scale (pilot
test).
Check: evaluate and assess results by measuring the new
processes and comparing the results against the expected
results to determine any differences.
Act: Analyze the differences to determine their cause.
Determine where to apply changes that will include
improvement, standardise, check remaining problems
then plan for the future.
Figure (4) PDCA versus DMAIC: Same Roots, Same
Destination.
The DMAIC Improvement Process
The DMAIC improvement process is an acronym for five
phases: Define Measure, Analyse, Improve and Control.
These phases are mentioned either implicitly or explicitly
in the above discussed PDCA cycle.
Define the customer, the products that require
improvements, the project boundary, and processes
involved by mapping the flow.
Measure the key attributes for the core process involved
and collect relevant data throughout data collection plan.
Analyze the data collected to determine root causes of
variations, identify gaps and opportunities for
improvement.
Improve. Choose the target process that needs
improvement and deploy creative solutions to eliminate
and prevent problems.
Control. Monitor the new improvements to keep the
processes on the new track, define any requirements for
development and institutionalise the progress through the
adjustment of organisation by staffing, training, etc.
In arguing the relation between SS and LM one should
consider Motorola’s six steps to SS as seen by Dahlgaard
and Park [12];
1. Identify the product you create or the service you
provide to external or internal customers
2. Identify the customer for your product and service, and
determine what the customer considers important
3. Identify your needs to provide product/ service that
satisfies the customer
4. Define the process for doing the work (process
mapping).
5. Mistake- proof the process and eliminate wasted effort
and delays.
6. Ensure continuous improvements by measuring
analysing and controlling the improved process (establish
quality and cycle time measurements and improvement
goals. The common quality metric is number of defects
per unit of work).
These steps are consistent with LM principles given by
Womack and Jones [28]:
1. Specify value by specific product.
2. Identify the value stream for each product.
3. Make the value flow without interruptions
4. Let the customer pull value from the producer;
and
5. Pursue perfection.
The core concepts of LM which can be summarised as
identifying value and making it flow without
interruptions by a pull signal from customer is embedded
in the fifth step of Motorola’s SS which states that''
mistake- proof the process and eliminate wasted effort
and delays''. Also these concepts are similar to one of
Deming’s fourteen points ''Break down barriers between
departments''. Workforce in the supply chain from
research until production must work as a team, to predict
problems of production and in use that may be
encountered with the product.
5. INTEGRATING LM & SS; THE NEW WAVE
In the previous section it has been argued that LM and SS
is the normal extension of TQM philosophy, thanks to
LM and SS pioneers who provided organisations with a
structured approaches when embarking to the journey to
business excellence that the traditional TQM lacks, but
the big question remains in mind; What is the best model
to follow if a company wants to achieve excellence?
The concept of merging LM and SS can be traced back to
1997 when BAE Systems tried to combine LM principles
with SS .The Company called their program Lean Sigma
strategy to protect market share in aerospace industry
[29]. They blended the Kaizen team with Black Belts
aiming at reducing variation within their processes. As a
result BAE systems achieved tangible improvements in
productivity, lead time, savings and reliability.
In 1999 an effort to combine LM and SS was carried out
by Maytag Corporation. The corporation basically
reengineered one of its production lines utilising the core
concepts of LM and SS, by this approach the corporation
reduced down manufacturing cost and achieved savings
in million dollars [30].
Smith and Adams [31] presented the experience of TBM quality program [35].
Consulting Group in implementing Lean Sigma. The These misconceptions are consistent with the results of
company first implemented Lean principles to expose the structured interviews with Jordanian companies, all
waste and then Six Sigma principles were adopted to these misconceptions can be figured out when LM and
reduce variation. The company claimed that over one SS were analysed within the evolvement of TQM theory.
million dollar savings in scrap and manpower has been By incorporating the main concepts of TQM, LM and SS
achieved annually. as well as the concerns of Jordanian SMEs managers who
Rockwell Automation Power System has combined the were interviewed in the preliminary study a
structured problem solving and training structure of SS comprehensive framework can be formulated. The
programs with the Lean concepts and Kaizen teams and proposed initial framework consists of five main phases
called the program Power Lean. The approach used value in which the principles of LM techniques, DMAIC and
stream mapping and Kaizen events to categorise PDCA cycles are merged as shown in figure (5).
improvement opportunities while SS problem solving
structure and Black Belt leader concept have been used
to ease larger improvement opportunities and to
implement Lean flow [32].
Another case study of using SS and LM took place in a
company that converted paper documents to electronic
copies. The company used a modified DMAIC process
where the principles of Lean were introduced during
every phase of the DMAIC process [33]. The
implementation of this process resulted in reduction of
error rate, increased productivity and reduced production
cost.
Another aerospace company named Northrop Grumman
tried to integrate a problem solving tool developed by GE
called Workout with Kaizen and Lean Thinking events.
The company used also SS statistical tools to validate
solutions and to treat with the harder quality problems
[34].
While reviewing the previous efforts in combining LM
with SS conclusions can be summarised as follows: All
these efforts took place in western countries and in large
fortune companies, the best practices are leading
literature in this field, theory is lacking and it is the role
of academics to find the linkage of these approaches
within the other managerial theories, finally, there have Figure (5) The Proposed Framework
been two implementation approaches to combine LM
and SS; the first is solving less complex problems using
Lean tools then applying SS to harder problems to 6. FRAMEWORK VALIDATION
control variation, and the second is applying DMAIC The study has utilised Delphi method to validate the
using some Lean tools in every phase. framework. Delphi method has proven as a popular tool
in business research for identifying, prioritizing and
5.1 LM and SS Misconceptions validating issues for managerial decision-making by
achieving consensus among panelists. Panelists were
Before considering any integrative model of LM and SS chosen from both industrial and academic sector.
misconceptions of both philosophies should be taken into
First round Delphi Survey. The panel members were
consideration. Despite of LM popularity and success all
asked to judge the importance of every activity of the
over the world it has the following misconceptions [19];
proposed framework using a five-point Likert-type scale.
It involves employee dismiss, it is successful only in the
The result of the first round has shown that all activities
Japanese environment and it is suitable for manufacturing
of the proposed framework derived from the systematic
sector.
literature review and the actual needs of Jordanian SMEs
On the other hand, SS is claimed to have similar
were selected by all Delphi panel members as having
misconceptions such as: It is no more than the catchword
high importance. Samples of the qualitative responses
of the month, it has an absolute goal (3.4 DPM) and
should be applicable to every opportunity, it is only a
regarding research importance and quality are listed
below:
- This is a well developed and comprehensive study.
- This is a suitable model for overall business
planning and execution in Jordanian SMEs.
- I hope this study will serve SMEs in their
struggle to achieve excellence beyond the
narrow minded focus on short term outcomes.
- The study is among the comprehensive studies
that I have ever seen in my career as an
academic, it integrates best practices with the
evolving theory of TQM in an original manner,
another advantage is validating the literature
throughout academics and practitioners at the
same time, I liked this idea.
According to these results, some of the activities have
been modified, rearranged, refined or added. Most of the
members recommended additional steps, for example:
Kaizen events, Tackt time and integrating the change to
company knowledge base. These activities have been
added to the modified previous phases in order to be
validated in the next round.
Second round Delphi Survey. After receiving and
reviewing the feedback from the second round, the
overall modified model was confirmed by all the
participants as follows:
All the members agreed the overall structure of the
proposed model and, the logic of implementation steps
and their contents, the fitness of the proposed tools to use
in Jordanian SMEs, the integrative nature of the model,
the feasibility of the proposed model and the practical
value. All the members agreed to refer to the proposed
model whenever having an opportunity and agreed the
compatibility of the proposed model to Jordanian
business environment. All the members agreed that the
proposed model has the capability that aligns itself with
the specific needs and requirements of Jordanian SMEs
and can be hooked to the strategic and operational
frameworks of the SMEs. Finally the members agreed
that the proposed model has the potential to provide a
step by step process toward achieving competitive
advantage and could provide managers with the
necessary toolsets that could be used to achieve any
particular step.
7. CONCLUSIONS
The current literature divulges growing interest in the
theory and practice of LM and SS from critical
perspective academic writings to those based on
practices. The purpose of this paper is to clear up some
misconceptions that surround LM and SS. It has been
argued that LM and SS is the normal extension of TQM
philosophy, thanks to LM and SS gurus who provided
organisations with structured approaches when
embarking to the journey to business excellence that the
1990s version of TQM lacks. Hence, LM and SS
philosophies, concepts and tools should not be treated as
mutually exclusives rather as complementary to those of
TQM. The new wave of business excellence will be the
integration of LM and SS. The strength of this wave
stems from the fact that the integration entails tools that
have been proven to yield dramatic results in previous
waves. The paper proposes an integrative LSS
framework which was developed and validated among
SMEs from Jordan as a developing country. The
framework has been agreed by experts in term of
structure, fitness to use, compatibility, feasibility,
practical value and capability to be implemented within
Jordanian SMEs when interpreted into a step by step road
map. The findings of the study could be used in a future
longitudinal case study to assess the impact of
implementing the framework on competitive advantage.
REFERENCES
[1] G. Hu, L. Wang, S. Fetch and B. Bidanda, ''A multi-
objective model for project portfolio selection to
implement lean and Six Sigma concepts,'' International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No.23, pp.6611-
6625, 2000.
[2] T. Papadopoulou, and M. Ozbayrak, Lean Enterprise:
Evolution and Critical Review, School of Engineering &
Design, Brunel University, London, Working Paper.
2005.
[3] D. Naslund, ''Lean, six sigma and lean sigma: fads or real
process improvement methods?'' Business Process
Management, Vol.14, No3, pp. 269-287, 2008.
[4] G. Hahn, and W. Hill, ''The Impact of Six Sigma
Improvement-A Glimpse into the Future of Statistics,''
The American Statistician, Vol. 53, 1999.
[5] J. McClenahen, ''New World Leader,'' Industry Week Vol.
53, pp. 197-222, 2004.
[6] R. Shah, A. Chandrasekaran and K. Linderman, ''In
Pursuit of Implementation Patterns: the Context of Lean
and Six Sigma,'' International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 46, No. 23, pp. 6679-6699, 2008.
[7] R. Schroeder, K. Linderman, C. Liedtke and A. Choo, ''Six
Sigma: Definition and Theory,'' Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 26, pp. 536-554, 2008.
[8] J. Antony, ''What is the Role of Academic Institution for
the Future Development of Six Sigma,'' International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol.57, No.1, pp. 107-110, 2008.
[9] R. Basu, ''Six Sigma to Fit Sigma: The Third Wave of
Operational Excellence,'' IIE Solutions, June-2001.
[10] R. F. Piciacchia and C. Bergsten, ''The History of Lean
and Agile Manufacturing,'' Expansion Management, July
2002.
[11] H. Dershin, ''Business Process Design- Completing the
DNA,'' Supply Chain Management Review, Vol.4, No.2,
pp. 74-83, 2000.
[12] J. Dahlgaard, and S. Park, ''Lean production, Six Sigma,
 TQM and Company Culture,'' The TQM Magazine, Vol. Penton Media, Inc. 2000.
18, No.3, pp. 263-281, 2006. [30] Dubai Quality Group. The Birth of Lean Sigma, The
[13] R. Mann and D. Kehoe, ''Factors Affecting the Manage Mentor, Dubai. 2003.
Implementation and Success of TQM,'' International [31] B. Smith and A. Adams, LeanSigma SM: Advanced
Journal of Quality& Reliability Management, Vol.12, Quality, ASQ’s 55th Annual Quality Congress
pp.11-23, 1995. Proceedings, 2001.
[14] L. Fok, S. Hartman, A. Patti and J. Razek, ''Human [32] J. Illing, Seamless Integration of Lean Enterprises and
Factors Affecting the Acceptance of TQM,'' International Six Sigma. Automotive Manufacturing and Production,
Journal of Quality& Reliability Management, Vol.17, pp. Vol.113, No.2,p 66, 2001.
714-729, 2000. [33] N. Goyal, Applying Lean Manufacturing to Six Sigma –
[15] M. Hides, T. Irani, I. Polychrorakis and J. Sharp, A Case Study, ISixSigma website, Six Sigma Article
''Facilitating Total Quality Through Effective Project Spotlights www.isixsigma.com, 2002.
Management', International Journal of Quality& [34] J. McIlroy and D. Silverstein, Six Sigma Deployment in
Reliability Management'', Vol. 17, pp. 407-422, 2000. One Aerospace Company, Six Sigma Forum website
[16] J. Womack, D. Jones and D. Roos, The Machine that www.sixsigmaforum.com, 2002.
Changed the World, New York: Rawson Associates, [35] E. Arnheiter and J. Maleyeff, ''The Integration of Lean
Maxwell Macmillan, , 1990. Management and Six Sigma,'' The TQM Magazine, Vol.
[17] M. George, Lean Six Sigma for Service, New York: 17, No.1, pp. 5-18, 2005.
McGraw-Hill, 2003.
[18] J. Vatalaro and R. Taylor, Implementing a Mixed Model
Kanban System: The Lean Replenishment Technique for
Pull Production, Portland, OR: Productivity Press, 2003.
[19] Y. Monden, Toyota Production System: An Integrated
Approach to Just In Time, Norcoss, GA: Engineering &
Management Press,1993.
[20]J. Davis, Lean Manufacturing, Implementation Strategies
That Work, New York: Industrial Press Inc. 2009.
[21] K. Cua, K. McKone and R. Schroeder, ''Relationships
between Implementation of TQM, JIT and
Manufacturing Performance,'' Journal of Operations
Management ,Vol. 19, pp. 675-695, 2001.
[22] K. McKone, R. Schroeder, and K. Cua, ''The Impact of
Total Productive Maintenance Practices on
Manufacturing Performance,'' Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 19, pp. 39-58, 2001.
[23] R. Shah, and P. Ward, ''Lean Manufacturing: Context,
Practice Bundles, and Performance,'' Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 21, pp. 129-49, 2003.
[24] M. Smadi and K. Al-Khawaldeh, ''The Adoption of Total
Quality Management (TQM) in Dubai Manufacturing
Firms,'' Jordan Journal of Business Administration, Vol.
2, No.4, pp. 627-642, 2006.
[25] P. Pande and L. Hopp, What is Lean Six Sigma? New
York: McGraw- Hill, 2002.
[26] P. Pande, S. Robert, P. Neuman and R. Roland, The Six
Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola and other Top
Companies Are Honing Their Performance?, New York;
McGraw – Hill, 2000.
[27] C. Schneier, C. Russell, and R. Beatty, The Training and
Development Sourcebook. 2nd Edition, Human Resource
Development Press, 1994.
[28] J. Womack, and D. Jones, ''From Lean Production to the
Lean Enterprise,'' Harvard Business Review, March-
April: 93-103,1996.
[29] J. Sheridan, Aircraft-Controls Firm Combines Strategies
to Improve Speed, Flexibility and Quality, Gale Group,