Towards an Integrated Framework for Lean Six Sigma Application:

Lessons from the Airline Industry

December 2010

Alexandros G. Psychogios*
Senior Lecturer on Management & HR – Academic Research Coordinator
City College, International Faculty of the University of Sheffield
The University of Sheffield
E-mail: a.psychogios@city.academic.gr

Loukas K. Tsironis
Lecturer in Management Systems
Technical University of Crete
E-mail: loukas@dpm.tuc.gr

Alexandros Galiatatos,
Quality Systems Expert
City College, International Faculty of the University of Sheffield
The University of Sheffield
E-mail: agaliatatos@city.academic.gr

*Corresponding Author

1
 Towards an Integrated Framework for Lean Six Sigma Application:
Lessons from Airline Industry

Abstract
By following a qualitative methodological approach, this article aims to investigate the
critical factors influence the application of Lean Six Sigma (L6σ) in an airline company.
Secondary data were collected through an analysis of company’s written procedures
and quality assurance policies. In addition, primary data were collected through a
number of interviews with managers. Findings suggest that there are particular factors
that influence the implementation of L6σ like Leadership & Strategic Orientation,
Quality-Driven Organizational Culture, Continuous Training, Teamwork, Customer
Satisfaction, and Technical Systems. This study supports the view that the above factors
are not only significant for L6σ application but, also, can be seen as a useful
investigation tool in potential application of it. This article has four major contributions.
Firstly, it expands our understanding regarding the implementation of L6σ in service
industry, by exploring the interrelationship of both positive and negative factors
affecting its application. Secondly, it focuses on the responses of managers, who always
play the most significant role in the adoption sophisticated management practices.
Thirdly, it explores L6σ application in an airline service industry, which seems to be
neglected by the current literature. Finally, it provides future studies with an integrated
framework of L6σ application that can be further tested and developed.

Type of Article: Research Paper

Key words: Lean Six Sigma, Organizational Factors, Managers, Quality Assurance, Airline
Industry

2
 Introduction
It is argued that traditional management tools and mentalities cannot cope effectively
and efficiently with current business demands (Itkin, 2008; Chee, 2008). This is the
reason that large industrial entites continuously develop and implement management
tools and systems (Saravanan, 2006; Chang, 2006). However, whether organizations in
different sectors and different places with different cultures can really adopt promising
quality management practices is still under investigation. A prime example of such
promisng practices is Six Sigma (6σ) and Lean Manufacturing/Management (LM). After
its first application and success in Motorola during the 1990s, 6σ seems to be
considered as one of the most well-recongnized and successful management tools
(Industrial Engineer, 2008). In addition LM was adopted by many companies as it
focused on eliminating waste in production for a better flow of the manufacturing
process (McManus, 2008).
6σ and LM have different orientations and practices and for many years were
seen apart. Nevertheless, during the last decade the Lean Six Sigma (L6σ) concept
appeared as a synthesis of the two. According to Vince (2008) L6σ is a nessesity in order
to cope with globalization demands and modern market needs. It can be considered
another evolution of management tools in order to face increased competition and
market shifts (Caldwell, 2006). However, similarly to other management tools, the main
question for L6σ is related to its liabilities and/or constrains regarding its
implementation in different organizational and sector contexts. It has been confirmed
that the application of operations management techniques is not only based on
technical factors, but it is mainly associated with organisational factors such as culture,
previous polices and procedures, etc (Tata and Prassad, 1998; Hope and Mϋhlemman,
2001; Noronha, 2002 and 2003; Psychogios & Wilkinson, 2007). Therefore, this article
seeks to investigate issues related to the application of L6σ. In particular, this paper
analytically explores the factors that seem to influence L6σ implementation in an airline
company. In this respect, the article is structured in five sections. The first section,
reviews the current literature related to L6σ emergence and application while the

3
second one focuses on the airline industry. The third section, explains the research
methodology applied while the fourth one analyses the main findings. A discussion of
results is occurred in the fifth section.

Lean Six Sigma: from emergence to application

Emergence
LM involves the speed of the process and how products can be delivered quicker to
customers by eliminating waste involved in manufacturing and also by using fewer
materials in the actual assembly of the products (Cooper, 2008; Lane, 2008). LM focuses
primarily on speed and diminishing the materials used in the process of manufacturing
(Ferguson, 2007). It provides a set of tools in order to distinguish which part of the
production process creates value and which does not. Afterwards, it attempts to
eliminate the non-value adding parts or to reduce waste in all of the production
processes (Lane, 2008; Ferguson, 2007). On the other hand, 6σ is a quality assurance
programme that seeks to eliminate variations in the production process and, thus
delivering better outcomes. The method implies that the manufacturing process can be
measured, controlled and improved also by applying statistical process control. The
involvement of the whole company is extremely important in 6σ especially from the top
of the organization (Chang-Tseh, 2007). 6σ focuses on eliminating defects as defined by
the customers and creating a significant infrastructure in the company, based on
decision making, for efficient problem solving. It also creates a strong cultural
infrastructure as people are involved in the process of obtaining sustainable results
(Martin, 2007; Nash et al, 2006).
Beyond the positive results that can be achieved in each case, LM cannot bring a
process under statistical control, while 6σ alone cannot dramatically improve the speed
of the production process and reduce invested capital (Carreira, 2005). A combination
between the two methods is required, as by adopting them separately does not
response entirely effective to the problems that today’s companies (Kumar et al, 2006).
The two concepts are complementary since a company cannot be focused just on the
speed or on quality assurance (Ferguson, 2007). In this respect, L6σ concept emerged as

4
a balanced approach between the two concepts, attempting to create a synergy
between their functionalities (Arnheiter et al, 2005; Ferguson, 2007) and create extra
value to organizations. In other words, L6σ integrates 6σ and LM processes, where lean
aims on cycle time and waste elimination while 6σ seeks to eliminate defects and
reduce variation (Thompson, 2005 and Lubowe and Blitz, 2008). As figure 1 shows while
6σ and LM use different methodologies and principles, at the same time they have
complementary effects. In other words, both can be integrated under the notion of L6σ,
which emphasises the production/service delivery improvement as well as the
transactional processes of an organization.
Take in Figure 1
Moreover, L6σ seems to directly related to TQM rhetoric, since suggests an
ongoing management of quality process in order to achieve continuous improvement
(Ulrich and Smallwood, 2007; Schonberger, 2008). As George (2002) argues L6σ is a
continuous business improvement methodology that maximizes shareholder value by
achieving the fastest rate of improvement in customer satisfaction, cost, quality, process
speed, and invested capital. It is a very rigorous and strict process that needs to be
followed and it has a strong influence on the people using it. Similarly, Brett and Queen
(2005) support the view that L6σ takes the most while operating with less.
Characteristics of this methodology are taking full advantage of value added essence
(Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005), boosting rapidity, diminishing waste, developing
eminence and executing changes (Brett and Queen, 2005). Finally, according to Arthur
(2006), the main goals of the model is: to double the speed without working harder; to
double quality by reducing defects and variation by 50% and more; and to cut cost and
boost profits. Beyond these views though, what is more interesting is the application of
such a practice.

Application
L6σ methodology is not a standardized procedure so it can be used in various sectors.
Also, according to the literature (Pande, et al. 2000; Cross, 2007; Dreachslin, 2007;
Froehling, 2008) there are variety of methods used in order to apply the L6σ, but the

5
most characteristic is the DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) model.
There are several sectors and industries where L6σ has been applied. Most of the
examples are coming from the private sector, but there are some benchmarking cases in
the public one as well (Naslund, 2008; Byrne et al, 2007; Brett and Queen, 2005; Welty,
2004).
The pioneer of the application of L6σ was General Electic (GE). Firstly through
different departments and after through the whole company making it a way of thinking
(Kamensky, 2008), GE achieved a high success rate in applied such a synthesised
approach. Another company implementing the system is Xerox, which has made
tremendous cost and waste cuts increasing profits (Xerox, 2008). Same resluts can be
seen in Solectron, since the waste from 16% reduced to 9% (Solectron, 2008). Also,
according to Lubowe and Blitz, (2008) through the adoption of L6σ, Catepillar Inc
created a strategic vision for transformations based on fact-analysis; BOSCO, a Korean
steel maker, placed itself into the global market providing improved steel goods and
services; and Scottish Power discovered its problems and reorganized the customer
service process. Moreover, Celestica, a company in Mexico has applied L6σ in the
equipment selection process making, which affected possitvelly its operations overall
(Harbert, 2006).
Furthrmore, there are few examples from the application of L6σ in service
industry, both public and private. For example, there are evidence of the succesfull
application of L6σ in military organizations, like the US Army (Cross, 2007; Furterer and
Elshennawy, 2005). Also, there are examples of health-care services (Al-Aomar, 2007) as
well as local government organisations that applied L6σ (Furterer and Elshennawy
2005). In airline services while there are many examples of companies applying 6σ (Us
Airways Group, Air Canada, British Airways, Japan Airlines, Emirate Airlines, etc), there
less of L6σ implementation. According to Hamilton (2007) in airline industry 6σ which is
oriented on statistcs and data analysis fits better in mainntenance and baggage handling
wile LM is a more focused on actually improving processes. However, there are some
examples of airline companies that applied L6σ, like Southwest Airlines (Hamilton,

6
2007). However, there are not enough evidence form this industry. Beyond the above
cases, where L6σ have been applied, few authors explored the critical factros (CFs) that
influence L6σ implemetnation.

Critical Factors in L6σ Application

Cfs of L6σ application could be categorized as facilitators or inhibitors, according to their
impact on the implementation process itself. While facilitators have positive impact and
enhance the process, the inhibitors are considered as barriers to successful
implementation. Also, CFs could be grouped as institutional or contextual, according to
their structure and characteristics. Though institutional factors are very important and
usually applied in all types of organizations and sectors, this study will focus on
contextual factors, which are organization-oriented (culture, procedures, other
management practices applied) and industry-specific (services or manufacturing).
Moreover, in exploring the literature of CFs influence L6σ implemetnation, two major
aspects can be distinguished. The management-oriented aspect and the HR-orineted
one. The former is associated with factors like organisation strategy, customer
satisfaction and selection and management of projects. The latter is related to issues
like leadership, quality-driven culture, training and teamwork.

Management-oriented CFs
Lubowe and Blitz (2008) state that L6σ must be integrated as part of the corporate
strategy development in order the process of making long-term change to be treated
seriously and to be accepted by the organization. Therefore, L6σ application should be
strategically-driven. The scope of the L6σ application needs to be strong and widely
adopted since L6σ system can align separate business units and influence relationships
between customers and suppliers (Lubowe and Blitz, 2008). The need of binding L6σ
with corporate strategy will be reflected on the adoption of significant changes.
Incorporating the principles of the continuous improvement into the business strategy

7
links the success of the entire organization and initiative together (Fornari and Maszle,
2004). Antony et al (2007) link L6σ with business strategy as the most important factor
for successful deployment in service organizations. In order organization’s strategic
goals to be supported by the selected projects, L6σ should be aligned with the
organization’s strategic programs. Moreover, according to Kamensky (2008) a successful
application of L6σ system based on three major principles: creating an infrastructure;
implementing the technical approaches on separate projects; and ensuring application.
By developing a L6σ infrastructure, managers must understand the importance of the
initiatives and include the staff in the procedure. They must concentrate on being more
data-driven and outcomes-oriented and empower the whole company involvement with
trained leaders for each business unit.
Also, in order L6σ to be recognized and accepted within the organization in the
early stages and the immediate effects from successful implementation to be felt, the
process of selection and management of the right project is considered to be very
important (Antony et al, 2004; Laosirihongthong et al, 2006). Breyfogle (2008)
emphasized the importance of this factor using failure cases where L6σ led to process
sub-optimization and poorer outcomes due to not adequate selection of L6σ projects
that did not take into account overall enterprise constraints, usually done by an entity
separate from involved operation and business units. In addition, significance is
supported by the fact that business customers needs must be in the focus of the project
selection process conducted by a rigorous approach if the company is about to achieve
short- and long-term results (Ladhar, 2007).
The third management-oriented CF of L6σ is customer satisfaction. The increase
of the responsiveness to customer’s needs and faster delivery of customer’s demands
(Antony et al, 2003), are the real reasons behind customer’s dissatisfaction and
defection (Lubowe and Blitz, 2008). These are also reported as the most important
benefits from L6σ application in service organizations (Antony et al, 2007). In addition,
Andel (2007) supports the view that organizations in order to implement into their
systems the L6σ approaches must change their way of thinking and pay more attention

8
in any customer related issues. In particular, he supports the view that there is a need,
firstly, to analyze the data according to customers’ opinion; secondly, to concentrate on
incomes and not on costs; and thirdly, instead of looking for outside solutions, they
should try to their own problem-solving abilities.

HR-oriented CFs
Committed leadership is considered to be one of the most important factor for
successful implementation of a TQM-oriented holistic framework (Psychogios, 2010;
Psychogios and Priporas, 2007; Wali et al, 2003), 6σ approach (Laosirihongthong et al,
2006; Antony and Fergusson, 2004), and L6σ integrated concept (Lubowe and Blitz,
2008; Anthony et al, 2003; Carleysmith, 2009). For instatnce, Lubowe and Blitz (2008)
claim that companies by aiming to apply L6σ into their systems should emphasise
leadership by the top-management of the organization, which needs to be highly
engaged and committed in the L6σ change process. This factor could be defined as a
core element, as it is directly and indirectly connected to all other factors, categorized as
facilitator and institutional factor, recognized as a basic ‘driving force’. Strong leadership
towards L6σ application could successfully initiate and manage the inevitable long-term
cultural changes (Laosirihongthong et al, 2006; Maleyeff, 2007; Stuenkel and Faulkner,
2009; Carleysmith et al, 2009; Ladhar, 2007), through providing and ensuring
organization-wide perception of the initiative importance and keeping ‘the energy’
(Anthony et al, 2003), bringing recognition and motivation of the employees to apply
procedures and techniques that guarantee high level of quality (Psychogios et al, 2009),
and supporting more effective and much faster transformation towards higher degree
of innovation (Lubowe and Blitz, 2008; De Koning et al, 2006). Committed leadership
should be introduced through company-wide deployment (Kamensky, 2008),
accompanied by building trust and communication of the vision to all stakeholders
(Maleyeff, 2007; Carleysmith et al, 2009; Ladhar, 2007; Kumar et al, 2006).
Committed leadership is also related to Quality-driven Organizational Culture,
which is a prerequisite for implementation of any quality philosophy, approach or

9
methodology as a quality systems implementation success is directly dependable on the
level of integration of all employees in all organizational aspects (Psychogios et al,
2009). Furthermore, quality systems require cultural change that emphasizes
continuous improvement and customer satisfaction (Furterer and Elshennawy, 2005;
Maleyeff, 2007). Moreover, it inclines the changes of the system towards innovation
(Lubowe and Blitz, 2008; De Koning et al, 2006; De Koning et al, 2008) and supports the
ability of the organization to overcome the barriers and challenges they face during the
deployment and implementation phases (O’Rourke, 2005).
Other group of authors emphasised the need for HR practices in implementing
L6σ, such as training and teamwork. Anthony et al (2003) state that advanced level of
education and training is required for implementing L6σ. Moreover, L6σ training has to
be provided in several stages in order everything to be understood properly (Ladhar,
2007; Caldwell, 2006). These kind of specific training programs require allocation of
major budgets (Antony et al, 2004; Delgado et al, 2009).Moreover, education and
training is related to peoples’ involvement as well. According to Neuhaus and Guarraia,
(2007) companies by putting strong players, on the L6σ application process, that are
trustworthy and reliable can have more proper outcome. Also, by implementing simple
metrics and checking often the progress, any issues or opportunities can be identified
faster and easier. Finally, according to the same authors in order organizations to ensure
that the high-value opportunities are taking into account should promote teamwork in
their boundaries.
In conclusion, there is some literature that suggests factors like leadership,
strategic orientation, teamwork, technical approaches (metrics-systems), and training
will probably affect L6σ application. All the above are complemented by a strong
organizational culture which emphasises on quality improvement and customer
satisfaction. However, the in-depth exploration of the interrelationship of these CFs
seems to be neglected by the literature. In other words, there is not yet an attempt to
develop an integrated framework that can contribute to our understanding regarding
the implementation phase of L6σ. Therefore, there is a need to remove the blinkers, and

10
to explore the existence of such a framework in an organizational context. In this
respect, the present study attempts to expand our understanding regarding the CFs
influence the application of L6σ in a particular organization. Its major purpose is to
develop an integrated framework that can be used as initial guide for L6σ application.
Research Methodology
Previous studies have demonstrated that the exploration of the impact of soft
management issues like leadership and organizational culture on operations
management tools and techniques can be better achieved through qualitative
approaches (Christy and Wood, 1999; Goodman, 1999; Psychogios and Priporas, 2007)
in relation to quantitative ones that cannot easily capture people’s opinion over the
adoption of management practices (Silverman, 1997). In addition, as Gilmore and
Carson (1996) point out qualitative research methods are well suited for the nature of
services. Finally, managers are more likely to participate in a qualitative process of
investigation (e.g. interview) rather than response to questionnaires (Coldwell, 2007).
Therefore, since the aim of the article was to explore a list of CFs potentially affect the
adoption of L6σ, a qualitative approach was more appropriate (Creswell, 2003).
For the purpose of this study, a case-study approach was adopted. The particular
case under investigation was an airline company that recently adopted L6σ. The
particular case is interesting for three main reasons. Firstly, it belongs to the service
sector where our knowledge regarding L6σ is limited in relation to manufacturing where
such practices can be widely applied. Secondly, in the specific industry both competition
and market demands are high, requiring the application of sophisticated management
practices. Thirdly, company’s headquarters are in South Eastern European periphery,
which a rather unexplored business environment in terms of application of promising
international management concepts.
Since the airline industry is highly based on procedures and safety plans, some of
the specific concepts in avionics were investigated. Secondary data were provided by
the company in the form of documents related to adopted programs in quality
assurance and the management of quality of services that company delivers. However,

11
these documents cannot be presented as appendixes due to company’s regulations, but
data has been extracted from them as it is permitted. Also, there is specific airline
software that has been examined for the purposes of this study, but again company’s
regulations are against its presentation as well. Secondary data has been properly
analysed and contributed in the interviews’ design.
The primary data has been collected through in-depth interviews with
company’s managers. The target was to thoroughly understand the full process of
quality assurance and management (Coldwell, 2007; Bell, 2003) in the particular case.
The interviews were semi-structured, examining two major issues: the actual knowledge
of the L6σ concept and its application process. In particular, the first part of the
interview process was aiming to explore the extent interviewees were aware and
familiar with L6σ. In the second part of the interview the factors affecting L6σ
implementation process were discussed. The main target was to discuss with them both
management-oriented and HR-oriented CFs, as they have been identified by previous
research that either constrain or facilitate the adoption of L6σ. The ‘free’ and open
discussion with the interviewees on these issues resulted two things: First, each
interviewee had the opportunity to express his/her opinion in any way he/she wished.
Second, this discussion provided researchers a better understanding of the subjects’
attitudes towards issues under investigation.
The sample of participants that has been chosen based on their position in the
hierarchy as well as their involvement in main functions of the organization. According
both to Ladhar (2007) and Caldwell (2006) implementation of L6σ starts from training
managers and then spreads around the all other company levels. Therefore, with
regards to other levels of hierarchy (first line managers and employees), a thorough
investigation of managers’ responses to the adoption of L6σ, would show what kind CFs
occurred. More specifically, 21 interviews were conducted with managers from variety
of different fields like operations, IT, logistics, HR, marketing, and Finance. The
researchers contacted the managers via scheduled appointments. All interviews were
face-to-face and took place at their offices. Each interview lasted approximately 1,5

12
hours. Throughout the discussions a tape recorder was used after the approval of the
respondents in order to avoid any ethical concerns and dilemmas (Malhotra and
Peterson, 2001). The researchers also took hand written notes during the sessions.
Afterwards, the interviews discussions were transcribed, responses were coded, and
then forwarded to the respective respondents for review and approval. For the purpose
of data analysis, open–ended answers were subjected to content analysis.
Although, the researchers attempted to organize and develop an appropriate
empirical article, some limitations occurred that need to be mentioned. First, although
classified documents were taking into consideration for serving the final outcome of the
research topic, these documents cannot be copied or reproduced. Second, the fact that
this article was focused only on managers and not on middle and front line employees
raises an issue of whether we can have a clear view on issues related to the impact of
factors like leadership and culture on the application of L6σ. The response to these
limitations comes from the main argument that the implementation of L6σ starts from
training managers and then spreads around the all other company levels Ladhar, 2007;
Caldwell, 2006). Therefore, the major strength of this article which is related to the
development of a framework regarding the implementation of L6σ in service industry,
comes from the responses of managers, who always play the most significant role in the
adoption of such techniques, especially in South Eastern European periphery
(Psychogios and Wilkinson, 2007; Psychogios et al., 2009, Psychogios, 2010).

13
 Research Findings
Research findings are organised in two sections. The first section briefly presents
company’s profile and mainly focuses on its current quality assurance system
(secondary data). The second one analyses the in-depth interviews with the company’s
top-managers attempting to explore the CFs of L6σ application (primary data).

The Case-Study
The airline company is a medium one based in South-Eastern European country and it
considered, according to their management, as one of the strictest companies on issues
concern quality assurance and safety. The company flights into several European
countries, on over 24 airports, with 17 aircrafts. They are also the world’s largest owners
of SAAB airplanes as they have 14 of these. They are involved into handling, catering,
and maintenance. Recently the company decided to apply L6σ, by adopting a series of
practices through which management targeted to achieve high standard of quality
outcome by eliminating waste and useless processes. This decision made the particular
case as an interesting one in terms of exploring the CFs affecting L6σ application in
service sector. Therefore, it is important to briefly present some of the main L6σ
practices and policies applied.
First of all, according to quality standards adopted the company needs to follow
specific rules as well as to nominate a department responsible for coordinating and
monitoring the correct implementation of the quality system. Also, a specific quality
plan (quality assurance program) was developed, which continuously monitored. They,
also, have an internal audit process which occurs every month and verifies whether the
procedures are correctly followed and documented. The important issue is that this
internal audit implies a direct control of quality assurance of the company itself. The
company itself has the direct responsibility to organize, coordinate and apply the audit
process. Moreover, sine every year the company is assessed by the abbreviation body’s
assessors, they need to take the internal audit plans and they choose one particular case

14
that should be investigated in terms of appropriate documentation and implementation
of rules and regulations. The audit and the spot check can be applied to different
operations such as pilots flying time tables, maintenance checkups, security check ups,
etc. This method is extremely time efficiency and it reduces the authority costs to a
minimum. On the other hand, implies that the company has a significant responsibility
in meeting these requirements. Moreover, since one of the most important issues in
aviation is maintenance assurance, which is directly related to the safety of flights, it
receives high importance and priority. Therefore, the company itself assures
maintenance in 75% while the rest 25% is outsourced. However, outsourcing of
maintenance has to be continuously monitored by the company as well.
The above internal audit process of the company is coordinated and controlled
by the quality manager. However, each of the different departments and functions are
also involved. This implies a decentralized process, which reduces unnecessary
procedures and create more lean operations. The combination between lean operations
and high quality assurance can be also observed in stock management. The company
has adopted Just in Time methods. For example, a contract is made between the
company and the aircraft manufacturer, against a monthly fee, to have every broken
part, in no more than 24-hours, in all over the world. Also, they have a series of other
practices that guarantee quality outcome such as 30-days payment credit (up to 60
days); the ability to rent some parts (The Pool Method); technical assistance; and total
care agreement for the engines as well as 24-hours assistance for the aircraft engines.
The maintenance department has also a consumable inventory which is updated every
time that a critical point is passed. This system applies for lights, breaking parts, etc.

15
 All the above L6σ policies and practices adopted and developed recently by the
company can be reflected in its strategic vision that is highly oriented into customer’s
expectations, dependability and professionalism. In addition, as it is argued below, a
strong and committed leadership as well as a supportive organizational culture seem to
play a significant role in the company’s attempt to introduce promising quality
management models. Nevertheless, it seems that still the company needs to deal with a
series of issues constraining the full integration of L6σ.

Understanding L6σ in Context

The following table (table 1) shows indicative statements from interviews with
managers of the airline company, which are linked to particular CFs emerged from the
literature. According to the managers of our sample all of them played a significant role
in the application of L6σ.
Take in Table 1
The first factor identified is related to the quality-driven culture. There is a wider
recognition of the necessity of total quality programmes from the top-management. The
generic quality awareness has been observed in all managers, who supported the view
that quality assurance is critical for air line services. As expected the most informed
manager about L6σ was the quality assurance one. He claimed that one of the most
important organizational-cultural aspects of the company is the well-trained personnel.
Therefore, as the majority of the managers claimed, it is critical a quality-oriented
system to be integrated in all the organizational aspects, from the top to the bottom of
the organization, involving all the people employed in every single position. This attitude
confirms, at least, a top-down quality driven culture within the case under examination,
which is also substantial toL6σ adoption.
A quality-driven culture can be also confirmed through the emphasis on
continuous training. The quality assurance manager, for example, has been trained on
management models in order to enhance his knowledge and to be aware of the new
trends in quality assurance techniques. This seems to be a general practice within the
organization, since a lot of other managers responded positively when they have been

16
asked about their involvement in training programmes. Although, according to a lot of
our interviewees’ opinion, training always is an expensive and difficult procedure for the
company, there is a strong belief that it is absolutely necessary for airline services,
especially when this training are directly linked with passengers safety.
Training is also important when there is a need for application of technical aspects
of L6σ. For example, the use of statistical tools is closely related to the operation of
many functions in the organization. Moreover, the company’s operations department is
directly responsible for the airplane operations and the whole infrastructure. Also, this
department is responsible for flight safety as well as for the correct applications of all
safety measures. There is a wide number of rules and procedures, beyond these applied
by the international flights standards, that seem to guarantee a high level of safety. It is
characteristic that the majority of our research participants emphasise the importance
of such systems and additional techniques for the company. Furthermore, statistical
measurement is analysed with the use of variety of methods like prioritization matrix,
which can be observed in some parts of the marketing function as well. An interesting
finding, related to the human side of technical systems, is the generic belief identified
among managers that people tend to be more careful when they are monitored. This
has been realized when they implemented the software system in operations. All pilots,
for instance, need to follow specific rules and regulations and they are not allowed to
overcome the set targets. This system of monitoring resolved a critical issue of high
differences between flights. Flying is not that much depended on talent and skills but of
numbers and data. This resembles partially the levelling tool adopted by L6σ in the
production process in order not to stress the whole chain. The emphasis on technical
approaches and application of systems confirms once again a quality-driven culture that
is based on the rationale that actual quality improvement will come through a given
attention to details.
The attention to detail can be also concluded from the frequency of the meetings
taking place in order to solve potential problems and/or to take decisions regarding
operations. These meetings support the view that decision making is mainly team-

17
oriented. For instance, since safety is an important element of quality assurance within
the company, a specific team has been established. This team is called the Flight Safety
Committee, which is responsible for the airplanes’ and passengers’ safety. The
application of very strict safety regulations requests the continuous gathering of data
that will provide the additional valuable information. The committee is responsible for
the analysis of the data through the use of specific software that focuses on every
mistake that has occurred in every single flight in every single airplane. The most
important of the data gathered are presented at the board of directors and the middle
managers involved in the process. Moreover, there is a lot of teamwork observed in
other operations as well such as the marketing one. The emphasis on teamwork and
collective decision-making process, has sort of resemblance to the DMAIC diagram of
L6σ. For instance, in the define phase the proposed route is taken into consideration
based on tools like customer demands analysis and brainstorming. Techniques like these
are used by the marketing department in a regular basis.
The application of team-oriented behaviour within the organization needs a
strong leadership that links the human with the operations’ side of the company. The
leadership aspect can widely be observed in all of interviewees’ responses. Indicative of
a committed leadership is the fact that the majority of functions are coordinated by the
Chief Operations Officer who directly reports to the CEO of the company. The second
person in charge is the President of Operations who is directly linked with the CEO as
well. He is dedicated in safety assurance. The direct involvement of the CEO seems to
support the DMAIC model, which argues that top management is directly involved in the
implication of L6σ. Moreover, the same person is responsible to decide upon immediate
actions in case of crisis. However, this is occurred after the additional advises from other
specialists involved in the process. This responds to the Improvement phase of L6σ
(DMAIC methodology), in which managers can be involved and set the aspects under
consideration.
The importance of leadership can be further supported by the fact that the there
is a strong effort by employees and managers to correct the majority of mistakes

18
occurred and are related to human behaviour. For instance, there are incidents related
to harsh landing, which applies pressure to the breaks or the hydraulics of the plane.
Pilots are enhanced to undertake a training programme every time that these incidents
happen three times. A strong leadership from the middle and top of the organization
attempts to reduce the possibility of waste which is basic on similar to the notion of L6σ,
since it tries to convince them apply procedures and techniques in order to guarantee a
level of quality.
The research evidence also demonstrates a quality-driven organizational strategy
that aims to bind quality improvement initiatives with strategic efforts. For example, the
whole strategy of human resources and operations departments is not designed to
negative reinforce, but to improve and to avoid other unnecessary mistakes and costs
provoked by employees. This is strongly related to an organizational culture of
continuous improvement that is also reflected in L6σ rhetoric. In addition, a strategic
oriented aspect adopted with L6σ concept, can be observed in the performance
evaluation of employees. This system is designed to handle human mistakes with
confidentiality. According, to our interviewees’ view this is necessary in order to
maintain employees’ morale. The only person directly responsible for human mistakes is
the Flight Safety Officer. The information that provided to him/her is directly coming
from the software programme directly linked with the airplanes.
The strategic emphasis on quality improvement can also be seen by company’s
effort to satisfy customers. It is indicative that for the majority of the interviewees the
most important staff members are those directly involved in customers’ satisfaction like
pilots, stewards and front desk employees. Also, one of the main responsibilities that
the Marketing department has is to analyse customers’ demand regarding specific
routes. Therefore, as L6σ methodology requires, the marketing tries to define quality
outcome according to what customers need. Furthermore, the decisions associated with
customers’ satisfaction are highly related to marketing research. The resemblance with
L6σ represents the actual statistical analysis driven from demand where consumers
drive the need and then the processes involved provide the solution.

19
 Beyond the above positive CFs, there is a group of negative ones have been
emerged from the analysis of interviews. These factors are shown in table 2.
Take in Table 2
The first negative factor is related to the lack of clear awareness of L6σ with the
additional belief that is just another statistical tool. Although, there was a wider
familiarity and recognition of the necessity of total quality programmes, at the same
time there is a limited awareness and familiarity with the use of L6σ from the
management of the organization. For example, although the Fleet manager, who is the
vice-president of the company as well, was quite sure of the usefulness of quality
assurance systems, he has a poor understanding of L6σ applied in the company.
Moreover, a lot of managers claim that the implementation of new management
methods has requirements like training of employees. Nevertheless, although all
managers recognise the strong necessity of training, they also support the view that the
cost of it is a major issue. According to their opinion, the company although has the
necessary infrastructure that helped to the adoption of L6σ, there is also human
“infrastructure” that the organization cannot ignore. For the fully application of such a
system people need training and this implies a lot of cost that may be forbidden for
company’s budgets.
The limited awareness and the high implementation cost seem to support
management’s scepticism whether L6σ is appropriate in service industry in general and
for their company in particular. According to the respondents, the situation in services is
even more demanding in comparison to manufacturing. For instance, a lot of them
although recognize that there are positive cultural aspects in the company that well-
come L6σ application, at the same time they think that there are other that seem to
inhibit its implementation. According to their opinion, manufacturing companies may
find the procedures very useful but in airline service industry the situation is not so clear
whether these kind of systems would bring valuable results.
Another CF negatively-related to L6σ is that of resistance of employees. This study
offers two evidences toward this argument. The first comes from a group of particular

20
managers that seems to be aware about L6σ, but at the same time they argue against its
application in the particular organization. According to their view, the traditional quality
assurance system was very important at this moment for the company and therefore, it
is quite risky the staff to be trained again into another quality programme. In addition,
managers seem to concern employees’ morale and motivation since they claim that
they are highly subjective, especially when it comes to standardization that L6σ
attempts to implement. According to their view, this system depends on statistics and
standardized procedures that some people may find non-motivating.

Conclusions
The present paper attempts to address the CFs that integrated in the application of L6σ
in organizations. Analysing current L6σ literature and investigating the particular
organization, we can support the view that these factors can be classified in two main
categories: The L6σ facilitators and inhibitors. Table 3 shows the major factors included
in each category. The major argument regarding the case under examination is that
managers seem to recognize both aspects. In other words, it seems that there is a
general scepticism about L6σ application, which mainly influenced from major
inhibitors, but at the same there are strong evidence of L6σ facilitators as well.
Take in Table 3
Current investigation confirmed that the CFs above are not consist only a
significant framework of L6σ application, but also a good investigation tool in potential
application of such a system. In particular, an integrated framework can be emerged
from the synthesis of these factors integrated with the concept of 6σ and LM. Figure 2
depicts a proposed L6σ framework.
Take in Figure 2
The above framework presents the main CFs affected L6σ application in the
specific organization. In particular, the framework consists of three major parts. The
WHAT part includes the main goals of the organization in order to produce competitive
and acceptable results. The WHO part is related to the quality-driven culture supported
by a committed leadership, which is responsible of the management of change within

21
the organization. Finally, the HOW part is related to the specific areas that include
appropriate tools the use of which can guarantee quality outcomes. Just like Deming
cycle, this framework encircled, in a spiral fashion, from the DMAIC cycle. The
foundations of the framework consist of the two synergetic methodologies. The central
idea is to organize and work with lean philosophy and to standardize our actions within
the 6σ boundaries.
There is no doubt that more research is needed in order to examine the
application of such a framework. Future research should focus on the potential
exploration of the application of the above framework in other industries and sectors.
Also, a critical point on the future research agenda would be the quantification of each
of the dimensions of the framework. This would enhance a wider survey that could
provide rich quantitative data towards the support of such a model.

References
Andel, T. (2007) Lean and Six Sigma Traps to Avoid. Material Handlin Management,
62(3), 23-28.
Antony, J. and Fergusson, K. (2004) Six-Sigma in the software industry: Results from a
pilot study. Managerial Auditing Journal, 19(8), p.1025–1030.
Antony, J. et al., (2003) Lean Sigma. Manufacturing Engineer, 82(2), 40-42.
Antony, J. et al., (2004) Using Six Sigma. Manufacturing Engineer, 83(1), 10-12.
Antony, J. et al., (2007) Six Sigma in Service Organizations: Benefits, challenges,
difficulties, common myths and success factors. International Journal of Quality
and Reliability Management, 24(2), 294-311.
Al-Aomar, R. (2007) Simulation, Lean, and Six Sigma Ease Business Process
Management. Industrial Engineer: IE, 39(12), 32-42.
Arnheiter, E and Maleyeff, J. (2005). The integration of lean management and Six Sigma.
The TQM Magazine , 17(1), 5-18.
Arthur J., (2006), Lean six sigma demystified: a self teaching guide, McGraw-Hill
Bell, J. (2003). Doing your Research Project: A Guide for First Time Researchers in
Education and Social Science. Open University Press.
Brett, C. and Queen, P. (2005) Streamlining Enterprise Records Management with Lean
Six Sigma. Information Management Journal, 39(6), 58-62.
Breyfogle III, F. (2008) Better Fostering Innovation: 9 Steps That Improve Lean Six Sigma.
Business Performance Management, 6(3), p.16-20.
Byrne, G. et al (2007) Using a Lean Six Sigma approach to drive innovation. Strategy &
Leadership, 35(2), 5-10.

22
Caldwell, C. (2006) Lean-Six Sigma tools for rapid cycle cost reduction. Healthcare
Financial Management, 60(10), 96-98.
Carreira, B. (2005). Lean Manufacturing that works, New York, Amacom.
Carleysmith, S. (2009) Implementing Lean Sigma in pharmaceutical research and
development: a review by practitioners. R&D Management, 39(1), p.95-106.
Chang, H. (2006). An Empirical Evaluation of Performance Measurement Systems for
Total Quality Management. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence ,
17(8), 1093-1109.
Chang-Tseh, H. (2007). Information technology and Six Sigma implementation. Journal
of Computer Information Systems , 47(4), 1-10.
Chee, C. S. (2008). Measuring success. Enterprise Innovation, 4(1), 16-17.
Christy, R and Wood, M. (1999). Researching possibilities in marketing. Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal. 2(3), 189-196.
Coldwell. (2007). Is Research that is Both Causally Adequate and Adequate on the Level
of Meaning Possible or Necessary in Business Research? A Critical Analysis of
some Methodological Alternatives. Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methods, 5(1), 1-9.
Cooper, R. (2008). Maximizing productivity in product innovation. Research Technology
Management, 51(2), 47-58.
Creswell, J.W.(2003). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches, 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cross, C. (2007). Business in special forces. Industrial Engineer: IE , 39(10), 26-30.
De Koning, H. et al (2006) Lean six sigma in healthcare. Journal of Healthcare Quality,
28(2), p.4-11.
De Koning, H. et al (2008) Lean Six Sigma in financial services, International Journal of Six
Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 4(1), p.1-17.
Delgado, C. et al (2009) The implementation of Lean Six Sigma in financial services
organizations. [online]. Available from:
http://www.euroma2009.org/Proceedings/Papers/FCXST-09068951-1564752-
3.pdf.
Dreachslin, J. (2007). Applying Six Sigma and DMAIC to Diversity Initiatives. Journal of
Healthcare Management, 52(6), 361-367.
Ferguson, D. (2007). Lean and six sigma: The same or different? Management Services ,
51(3), 12-13.
Fornari, A. and Maszle, G. (2004) Lean Six Sigma leads Xerox. [online]. Available
from:http://www.xerox.com/downloads/usa/en/n/nr_SixSigmaForumMag_2004
_Aug.pdf.
Froehling, H. (2008), Lean Six Sigma, White paper,
[http://www.chisolutionsinc.com/images/cmsupload/file/Froehling_Lean%20Six
%20Sigma%20Overview%20White%20Paper_final_June%202008.pdf.]
Furterer, S. and Elshennawy A. (2005) Implementation of TQM and Lean Six Sigma Tools
in Local Government: A Framework and a Case study. Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence, 16(10), 1179-1191.

23
George M. L., (2002) Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six Sigma Quality with Lean Speed. New
York:McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Gilmore, A., and Carson, D. (1996). Integrative qualitative methods in a services context.
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 14(6), 21-26
Goodman, M. (1999). The pursuit of value through qualitative market research.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 2(3), 111-120.
Hamilton, S. (2007). Frontier Airlines cuts costs. Commercial Aviation Report .
Harbert, T. (2006). LEAN, Mean Six Sigma Machines. Design News , 61(18), 64-68.
Hope, C. and Muhlemann, A. (2001) The Impact of Culture on Best Practice Production/
Operations Management. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(3),
199-217
Industrial engineer. (2008). Ask the Expert. Industrial Engineer, 40(5), 55-57.
Isixsigma. (2008). Six Sigma- What is Six Sigma? Retrieved July 2008, from ISixsigma:
http://www.isixsigma.com/sixsigma/six_sigma.asp
Itkin, D. (2008). The effect of business ownership change on occupational employment
and wages. Monthly Labor Review , 131(9), 3-23.
Kamensky, J. (2008) Is Lean Six Sigma Cool? PA Times, 31(4), 9.
Kumar, M., et al (2006). Implementing the Lean Sigma framework in an Indian SME: a
case study. Production Planning & Control , 17(4), 407-423.
Ladhar, H. (2007) Effective Lean Six Sigma Deployment in a Global EMS Environment.
Circuits Assembly, 18(3), 40-45.
Laosirihongthong, T. et al (2006) Critical Success Factors of Six-Sigma Implementation:
An Analytic Hierarchy Process based study. International Journal of Innovation &
Technology Management, 3(3), 303-319.
Lane, G. (2008). Lean made your way. Industrial Engineer , 40(2), 34-38.
Lubowe, D. and Blitz, A. (2008) Driving Operational Innovation Using Lean Six Sigma.
Business Performance Management, 6(3), 10-15.
Malhotra, N. K., and Peterson, M. (2001). Marketing research in the new millennium:
emerging issues and trends. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 19(4), 216-235
Maleyeff, J. (2007) Improving Service Delivery in Government with Lean Six Sigma. IBM
Center for The Business of Government.
Martin, W. (2007). Quality Models: Selecting the Best Model to Deliver Results.
Physician Executive , 33(3), 24-29.
McManus, K. (2008). So long Six Sigma? Industrial Engineer , 40(10), 18.
Naslund, D. (2008) Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Sigma: Fads or Real Process Improvement
Methods. Business Process Management, 14(3), 269-287.
Nash, M., et al (2006), Six Sigma speed. Industrial Engineer, 38(11), 40-44.
Neuhaus, K. and Guarraia, P. (2007) Want More From Lean Six Sigma. Harvard
Management Update, 12(12), 3-5.
Noronha, C. (2002) Chinese Cultural values and Total Quality Climate, Managing Service
Quality, 12(4), 210-223.
Noronha, C. (2003) National Culture and Total Quality Management: Empirical
Assessment of a Theoretical Model, The TQM Magazine, 15(5), 351-356.

24
O’Rourke, P. (2005) A Multiple-case Analysis of Lean Six Sigma Deployment and
Implementation Strategies. Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation, Air University.
Pande, P.S., Neuman R. P. and Cavanagh, R.R. (2000) The Six Sigma Way: How GE,
Motorola, and Other Companies are Honing their Performance, McGraw Hill, NY.
Psychogios, A. (2010) A four-fold Regional Specific Approach to TQM: The Case of South
Eastern Europe, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 27(9),
1036-1053
Psychogios, G. A. and Wilkinson A. and Szamosi, L. (2009), Getting to the Heart of the
Debate: 'Hard' Versus 'Soft' Side Effects of TQM on Middle Manager Autonomy,
TQM & Business Excellence , 20(4), 445-466
Psychogios, G. A. and Wilkinson A. (2007) Exploring TQM awareness in the Greek
national business context: between conservatism and reformism cultural
determinants of TQM, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 18(6), 1042 – 1062
Psychogios, G. A. and Priporas, K. (2007) Understanding Total Quality Management in
Context: Qualitative Research on Managers' Awareness of TQM Aspects in the
Greek Service Industry, The Qualitative Report, 12(1), 40-66
Saravanan, R. (2006). Development and validation of an instrument for measuring Total
Quality Service. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence , 17(6), 733-
749.
Schonberger, R. (2008) Bearings are on a Mission. Works Management, 61(8), 12.
Silverman, D. (1997). Qualitative research: theory, method and practice. London: SAGE.
Solectron. (2008). Lean Six Sigma. Retrieved July 2008, from Solectron - Company - Lean
six sigma: http://www.solectron.com/about/lean.htm
Soltan, E., et al (2004). Challenges Posed to Performance Management by TQM Gurus:
Contributions of Individual Employees Versus Systems-Level Features. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence , 15(8), 1069.
Stuenkel, K. and Faulkner, T. (2009) A Community Hospital's Journey into Lean Six Sigma.
Frontiers of Health Services Management, 26(1), 5-13.
Tata, J. and Prasad, S. (1998) Cultural and Structural Constrains of Total Quality
Management Implementation. Total Quality Management, 9(8), 703-710
Thompson, L. (2005) Organization Improvement. Strategic Finance, 86(12), 27.
Ulrich, D. and Smallwood, N. (2007) Building a Leadership Brand. Harvard Business
Review, 85(7&8), 92-100.
Vince, G. (2008). Lean Six. Management Services, 52(1), 22-23.
Wali, A. et al (2003) Critical Success Factors of TQM. Production Planning & Control,
14(1), 3-14.
Welty, R. (2004) Using` Lean Six Sigma` Principles To Create Increased Profitability. The
Central New York Business Journal, 18(42), 14-15
Xerox. (2008). Xerox Lean Six Sigma and Quality Go Hand in Hand . Retrieved August
2008, from Xerox Uses Lean Six Sigma to Enhance Quality:
http://www.xerox.com/about-xerox/citizenship/news/lean-six-sigma-
quality/enus.html

25
 Appendix

Figure 1 : Lean six sigma dimensions

Table 1: Evidence Towards the Positive Factors Affecting L6σ

Qualitative Evidence Factors Identified
“In order to fly we need to adopt very concrete and specific flight standards. We do not
have any other choice” [Fleet Manager] Quality-Driven
Organizational
“All modern management tools are strongly related to culture and in our case it may
be an over involvement of our company into this concept” [Quality assurance Culture
manager]
“I am trying to be informed all the time about the new trends in quality management
either by participating in training seminars or by reading related sources of
information” [Quality Assurance Manager] Training
“The costs of implementing training programmes for our employees may be high, but I
wonder who will claim against the need of training in our industry?” [Fleet manager]
“Statistics and other management tools and systems play a significant role in the
decision whether to fly on a route or not” [Marketing Manager] Technical Systems
“Operations and procedures are extremely significant for us. We try to do anything (Tools & Techniques)
needed in order to guarantee a level of effective operations. For example, we currently
operate under Flight Data Monitoring (FDM) based on Flightscape software that is
currently used by the world’s leading flight data analysts and accident investigators.”
[Chief Operations Officer]
“We have regular meetings and also spontaneous ones when we observe that some
things go wrong” [Logistics Officer]
“Whenever the software shows us that there are irregularities that need to be Teamwork
examined and analysed we confront a meeting to resolve this issue.” [Chief Operations Process &
Officer] Problem solving
“If the flight safety officer decides whether an incident is important for the board or
not, he confronts the meeting. An incident like a hard landing may be of no importance
at the first instance but, a further analysis is made and necessary actions are
undertaken” [Flight Safety Officer]
“We try to be as much committed as we can in all the procedures that need to be
followed in order to demonstrate to our people, first of all, that these are very serious
and important things to be left alone” [Marketing Manager] Committed Leadership
“There is a resemblance with L6σ when talking about reducing waste as we try to

26
eliminate it with fewer mistakes from the employees. We also know that employees
need to be motivated in order to actually be involved in elimination of errors ” [Human
Resource Manager]
“Our goal is to resolve all the issues that rose. For example, if a pilot lands an airplane
in the wrong way, implies cost for the company. We try to see why he landed like that;
if there were natural reasons involved like weather, we analyze the conditions. If it is Quality-Driven
his fault we send him to training and will not penalize him as this would bring negative Organizational
results to his motivation. ” [Chief Operations Officer] Strategic
“At the core of our strategic vision is the customer satisfaction and safety. We do know
that quality management programmes contribute a lot in achieving this goal” [Chief
Operations Officer]
“Customers are the only ones that decide whether the quality and the route where
accordingly to their needs. There is constant feedback from them and we are trying to
respond to all of them” [Logistics Officer] Customer Satisfaction
“We highly rely on statistics and data when we decide to fly on a route or not. If there
is a demand, we try to mobilize the fleet manager to make the necessary
preparations” [Marketing Manager]

Table 2: Evidence towards the Negative Factors Affecting L6σ

Qualitative Evidence Factors Identified
“Six-Sigma is a concept much more oriented in tangible products, not service Lack of awareness -
industries” [Fleet Manager] Yet another
“If a person has a bad day he perceives quality differently and we cannot apply statistical tool
his/her feelings as being objective and translate them simply in statistics” [Chief
Operations Officer]
“The costs of implementing training programmes for our employees is very high, and
some times a serious obstacle in applying new methods” [Human Resource Manager] High Cost of
“We know that procedures is of high importance into Six Sigma and Lean implementation
Management and we may not implement it that easily” [Fleet Manager]
“In order to fly we need to adopt very concrete and specific flight standards. We do
not have any other choice” [Quality assurance manager]
“Mostly are human errors. The company has a strict policy over flight safety and Appropriateness of
through this software we can control better the real life mistakes or happenings.” L6σ in Service
[Chief Operations Officer] Industry
“L6σ is a new management fad especially in western companies. I think that we
implement a quite similar quality management programme with great success so far”
[Marketing Manager]
“L6σ is a new trend in business schools but in order for a company to operate under a Employee
specific standard and under strict regulations it needs to implement an E.U. standard” Resistance Aspects
[Quality assurance manager]
“Our core employees are pilots and stewards. They are the ones in direct contact with Industry-Specific
the customers and they are the ones responsible for the quality of the service” Issues
[Marketing Manager]

27
 Table 3: Classification of Major Factors
L6σ Facilitators L6σ Inhibitors
Quality-Driven Organizational Culture Lack of awareness - Yet another statistical tool
Committed Leadership High Cost of implementation
Training Appropriateness of L6σ in Service Industry
Teamwork Process & Problem Solving Employee Resistance Aspect s (Management
Tools & Techniques Change)
Quality-Driven Strategy Industry-Specific Issues
Customer Satisfaction,

Figure 2: The Lean Six Sigma Integrated Framework

28