Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 63 (2017) 113 – 118

The 50th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems

Assessment Of The Implementation Of Manufacturing Excellence In A

Fiber Based Packaging Manufacturing Environment
Shawn Castroa, Chris Riedel, Ph.Db
a
Lawrence Technological University, 21000 W 10 Mile Rd, Southfield, MI 48075
b
Lawrence Technological University, 21000 W 10 Mile Rd, Southfield, MI 48075

* Chris H. Riedel, Ph.D. Tel.: 248-204-2570; fax: 248-204-2576. E-mail address: criedel@ltu.edu

Abstract

The paper industry is facing continuous decline due to a combination of input costs and competition. In addition to these concerns of input costs
and competition, product quality has been an ongoing problem as customer complaints have been translating to cumulative increases to
operational costs as observed by Evergreen Packaging. In a survey conducted by Evergreen Packaging in the year 2014 of customer complaints,
these product quality issues materialized as an area of concern. As such, Evergreen Packaging felt the need to implement an improvement
program with the goal of improving quality to increase customer satisfaction. The goal of the improvement program was to reduce the
operating costs of the company through the reduction of the top five complaints, and the top five dollars lost due to complaints, in each facility
by 90%. The improvement program followed the principles of Manufacturing Excellence, with the company working with external consultants
who are experts in Manufacturing Excellence. Statistical tests were then conducted to determine the improvements of the improvement
program following a set period of time after its implementation

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The 50th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The 50th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
Keywords: Manufacturing Excellence; Lean; Six Sigma

1. Introduction and fundamental improvement that enables packaging

In today’s manufacturing world, companies are faced
with ways of reducing cost in order to be competitive. In a
global market, companies are competing with competitors on
price, wages, benefits, safety, throughput, and quality. Cost is
a trigger that can drive profitability or kill all other efforts
related to profit. Cost helps companies settle in on a price
structures for their product. In addition, cost determines
whether some products will be discontinued or whether other
products are worth being initiated. The strategic system that
will be implemented in this fiber based manufacturing
environment is the concept of Manufacturing Excellence.
Manufacturing Excellence utilizes the tools and techniques of
the Lean Six Sigma methodology.
The goal of the project is the implementation of
Manufacturing Excellence in a fiber based packaging
environment, and in doing so, create a competitive advantage
companies to remain competitive in the marketplace. The
fundamental improvement was tracked using quality claims
and quality claim dollars.
A generally accepted factor that is crucial in the
manufacturing business product quality, with quality defined
as the fulfilment of customer requirement or specification
with no defect in the product.[1] Quality management has
been the general term utilized for all methods that translate to
quality. Quality management consists of three processes:
quality planning, quality control, and quality improvement.[2]
Quality planning involves all procedures spanning from
determining the needs and requirements of the customer to the
development of the products, and the processes essential to
meet these needs.[2] Quality control involves the
examination of the reaction to flaws or irregularities in the
manufacturing process.[2] Quality improvement, as defined
by,[2] is the “organized creation of beneficial change; the

2212-8271 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of The 50th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.104
114 Shawn Castro and Chris Riedel / Procedia CIRP 63 (2017) 113 – 118
attainment of unprecedented levels of performance”.
Achievements in quality management, specifically the third
process, quality improvement, are stated to be best reached
through projects.[2]
Some firms have elected to develop strategies that will
enable them to obtain a competitive advantage in the global
market by improving their quality of product and process.
The most common of these strategic methods are Six Sigma
and Lean Manufacturing. These two strategies are powerful
philosophies which are supported by extensive tools for the
improvement of quality, productivity, profitability, and
market competitiveness in a holistic manner.[12] The Six
Sigma methodology is focused on eliminating process
variation through the use of problem solving approach and
statistical tools, while Lean Manufacturing is focused on
eliminating waste and the improvement of process flows.[12]
Following the success of Six Sigma and Lean
Manufacturing, a merging of the two methodologies was
proposed, of which the integration of the philosophy was then
called the Lean Six Sigma.[9, 10] The goal of the integration
of the two methodologies is for organizations to be able to
target every type of opportunity for improvement.[11] The
philosophy of Lean Manufacturing is complemented by Six
Sigma, with Six Sigma providing the necessary tools and
knowledge to address specific problems that are identified in
the process of implementing the Lean Manufacturing
philosophy.[4]
1.1 Methodology
The main deliverable of this project is an applied case
study in several fiber-based manufacturing facilities upon the
utilization of the Manufacturing Excellence intervention. To
aid the instruction of Manufacturing Excellence for the fiber-
based manufacturing industry, a case study was constructed
that focuses on reduction of customer complaints due to low
product quality.
Manufacturing Excellence is a systematic approach
to improve quality of process and product by making data
driven decisions through the use of Kaizen events focused on:
DMAIC process, 5S programs, employee involvement/ideas,
standardized work, and analysis & improvement tools. Based
on Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing improvement
methodologies, Manufacturing Excellence adapts the
following tools from both methodologies: a.) quality
maps/process maps, b.) check sheet, c.) Pareto diagram, d.)
cause & effect diagram, e.) histogram, f.) run chart, g.) scatter
diagram, h.) affinity diagram, i.) force field analysis, j.)
selection matrix, k.) spaghetti mapping, h.) single minute
exchange of dies (SMED), i.) failure mode effects analysis
(FMEA), j.) root cause analysis (8D problem solving, is/is not
analysis, 5 whys, fault tree analysis), k.) layered process
audits, and l.) team leader skills. The teams involved in each
facility were educated and trained to use the tools enumerated
above, after which, they were tasked to address the processes
related to the top five number of complaints, and top five
dollars lost due to complaints, using the Manufacturing
Excellence tools, adapted from Six Sigma and Lean
Manufacturing.
2. Objective
This study was guided by the following research
questions and hypotheses:
RQ: Does implementation of a continuous
improvement method, specifically, Manufacturing Excellence,
improve factory performance in terms of number of
complaints and dollars lost from complaints?
H1O: The implementation of Manufacturing
Excellence in (location) did not reduce the number of
complaints from the top 5 number of complaints of the factory.
H1A: The implementation of Manufacturing
Excellence in (location) significantly reduced the number of
complaints from the top 5 number of complaints of the factory.
H2O: The implementation of Manufacturing
Excellence in (location) did not reduce the dollars lost from
complaints from the top 5 complaints with highest dollars lost
of the factory.
H2A: The implementation of Manufacturing
Excellence in (location) significantly reduced the dollars lost
from complaints from the top 5 complaints with highest
dollars lost of the factory.
H3O: Implementation of Manufacturing Excellence
does not significantly reduce the total dollars lost from
complaints for the company.
H3A: Implementation of Manufacturing Excellence
significantly reduces the total dollars lost from complaints for
the company.
This proposed research is an applied study with the
implementation of Manufacturing Excellence in select
Evergreen Packaging facilities. A quantitative method
involving a comparative, pre/post quasi-experimental design
and analyzed using unpaired samples t-test was utilized for
data analysis. Multiple linear regressions will also be used to
determine whether the total dollars lost from complaints for
the company will be significantly reduced. Quantitative
methodologies are used when the objective of the study is to
measure variables and analyze variables using statistical
analysis in order to explain the phenomena.[13] The data for
the variables of this study are numerical, and are collected
from existing data before the experiment, and data from when
the experiment is implemented. In this proposed study, the
objective is to determine the effect of the implementation of
Manufacturing Excellence on the performance of fiber based
manufacturing factories with regards to the DVs of number of
complaints and dollars lost from complaints.
Table 1
Kalamazoo facility complaints of interest
Top five number of Top five dollars lost due to
complaints complaints
Bowed carton / nip lean / Side seam defect
fluff
Poor print Bowed carton / nip lean /
fluff
Incorrect copy / product Carton damage - sealer /
shipped / product ID packer / stretch wrap
Side seam defect Incorrect copy / product
shipped / product ID
Carton damage - sealer / Bias
 Shawn Castro and Chris Riedel / Procedia CIRP 63 (2017) 113 – 118
packer / stretch wrap
Table 2
Athens facility complaints of interest
Top five number of Top five dollars lost due to
complaints complaints
Side seam defect Blocking / saw toothing
Poor print Side seam defect
Carton damage - sealer / Carton damage - sealer /
packer / stretch wrap packer / stretch wrap
Transit damage / truck seal Bowed carton / nip lean /
broken in transit fluff
Blocking / saw toothing Incorrect copy / product
shipped / product ID
Table 3
Olmstead facility complaints of interest
Top five number of Top five dollars lost due to
complaints complaints
Incorrect copy / product Incorrect copy / product
shipped / product ID shipped / product ID
Transit damage / truck seal Transit damage / truck seal
broken in transit broken in transit
Side seam defect Blocking / saw toothing
Poor print Side seam defect
Carton damage - sealer / Short bottoms
packer / stretch wrap
3. Manufacturing Excellence Intervention
To implement Manufacturing Excellence, multiple teams
were developed at each facility. Each of the selected facilities
were assigned to provide the data showing the top customer
complaints with regards to the number of complaints and
dollar amount of complaints. Small teams were established
consisting of the following members: a.) a process expert, b.)
a member new to the process, c.) a member from maintenance,
d.) a member of management, and e.) a member that is new to
the facility and with seniority status. The small teams also
consist of members across several shifts. The diversity allows
the group to promote different ways of thinking and allows
for great idea generation on how to fix the issues.
Each team then receive small team training to be
conducted by a consulting company. The teams completed a
fish bone diagram, a 5 why diagram, and generated a
corrective action list. Each team meet frequently in order to
review the progress of corrective actions. Once corrective
actions were complete, carton service technicians proactively
inspected customers in the field to investigate whether
corrective actions would be needed. The results of the field
inspections were then reported back to the small groups. A
review of the small groups’ progress was made by a steering
committee, of which the steering committee consisted of the
consultant, the director of manufacturing, the division
manufacturing engineer, the division quality manager, and the
carton technical service manager. The review of results and
group progress were performed monthly with the steering
committee. This process continues continued throughout the
115
six months, and data was gathered from these six months and
was determined to be post-test data.
4. Operationalization of Variables
Top five number of complaints – From the data from the
twelve months prior to the Manufacturing Excellence
implementation, the mean value of the number of complaints
for each complaint category (i.e., side seam defect, poor print,
bias, etc.) for the twelve months was computed. The
categories with the top five mean values and was considered
as the top five categories for number of complaints. And the
variable top five number of complaints with the monthly total
of the top five complaints. This was different for each factory
as the complaints did vary.
Top five dollars lost from complaints - From the data from the
twelve months prior to the Manufacturing Excellence
implementation, the mean value for the dollars lost from
complaint from each complaint category (i.e., side seam
defect, poor print, bias, etc.) for the twelve months was
computed. The categories with the top five mean dollar
values were considered as the top five categories for dollars
lost from complaints. And the variable top five dollars lost
from complaints were the monthly total of the top five dollars
lost from complaints. This was different for each factory as
the complaints and dollar values lost vary for each category.
5. Data Analysis Plan
Data will be encoded into a spread sheet program for
computation and initial analysis as detailed in the
operationalization of variables section. After which, the
computed monthly data will be exported into the SPSS v22.0
software for analysis.[3] Data for the three factories may be
encoded on a single spread sheet, but will be analyzed
independent of each other. Data will be summarized using
descriptive statistics, with continuous variables to be analyzes
using measures of central tendency such as the mean, standard
deviation, and range.
To address the first hypothesis, unpaired samples t-test
were conducted to compare the pre-test and post-test data on
the top five numbers of complaints. The unique identifiers
were the months (Month, Year). To test this hypothesis, the
independent or grouping variable (IV) is the Manufacturing
Excellence intervention (pre-implementation (0), post-
implementation (1)), while the dependent variable (DV)
would be the top five number of complaints per month. To
address the second hypothesis, unpaired samples t-test will be
conducted to compare the pre-test and post-test data on the
top five dollars lost from complaints. The unique identifiers
were the months (Month, Year). To test this hypothesis, the
independent or grouping variable (IV) is the Manufacturing
Excellence intervention (pre-implementation (0), post-
implementation (1)), while the dependent variable (DV) were
the top five dollars lost from complaints per month. These
tests would be conducted for the data from each factory
independently. All statistical tests were considered a
significance level of .05. If p < .05, there will be sufficient
evidence to reject a null hypothesis.
The formula for the computation of the t statistic for the
independent samples t-test, and the degrees of freedom (df) to
find the p value of the test are presented below:
116 Shawn Castro and Chris Riedel / Procedia CIRP 63 (2017) 113 – 118
‫ܯ‬ଡ଼ െ ‫ܯ‬ଢ଼
‫ ݐ‬ൌ
ሺσ ሻଶ ሺσ ሻଶ
൬σ  ଶ െ ൰ ൅ ൬σ  ଶ െ ൰ ͳ ͳ
ܰଡ଼ ܰଢ଼
ඩ൦ ൪ήቂ ൅ ቃ
ܰଡ଼ ൅ ܰଢ଼ െ ʹ ܰଡ଼ ܰଢ଼
݂݀ ൌ  ܰଡ଼ െ ͳ ൅ ܰଢ଼ െ ͳ
where:
∑ = sum the following scores
MX = mean for first group
MY = mean for second group
X = score in first group
Y = score in second group
NX = number of scores in first group
NY = number of scores in second group
To address the third hypothesis, multiple linear
regressions was conducted to determine whether
implementation of the Manufacturing Excellence intervention
in the different factories statistically significantly reduced the
total dollars lost due to complaints for the company. The
predictor variables (IVs) were the implementation of
Manufacturing Excellence in the different companies, while
the outcome variable (DV) was the total dollars lost due to
complaints for the company. Multiple linear regression
analysis assumes a linear relationship with the equation of the
straight line: Y= b0+b1X1+…+bpXp+e, and is used to examine
the relationships between predictors (IVs) and the outcome
variable (DV).[8] In the equation, the dependent variable is
denoted as Y, while the independent variables are denoted as b.
In the case of this study, the dependent variable is the total
dollars lost due to complaints (monthly), while the
independent variables are the implementation of
Manufacturing Excellence in the different factories.
6. Data Analysis Model
For the data analysis to compare the performance before
and after the intervention, two models can be considered:
comparison of means (t-test) and analysis of variance
(ANOVA).[5] Both of these statistical testing methods
compare group means. The t-test can only compare the means
of two groups, while the ANOVA, specifically one-way
ANOVA, can compare the means of more than two groups.
Given that, the t-test as according to Park[5] can be
considered a special case of ANOVA, which includes only
two groups. The current study follows a pre-/post-test, quasi-
experimental design without a control group. Using this
design, only two groups of data are considered data-collected
before the implementation of Manufacturing Excellence and
data-collected after the implementation of Manufacturing
Excellence. As such, it was more appropriate to use the t-test
rather than ANOVA because data for only two groups are
being compared. Previous case studies have used independent
samples t-test to compare pre-/post-test design data in quality
improvement projects.[6, 7] Dewa, Naicker, and Singh
implemented a root cause analysis procedure, specifically
Pareto analysis, to reduce waste on bottle filling and crowning
operations in a factory in South Africa.[6] To test the impact
of the improvement methodology, data was collected before
and after the implementation of the procedure. An
independent samples t-test was then performed to determine
whether there were improvements to the bottle filling and
crowning operations. Venkatachalam et al. implemented a
lean manufacturing improvement intervention on an
engineering procurement and construction company, and
utilized independent samples t-test to determine whether there
was any waste reduction before and after the intervention.[7]
Venkatachalam et al. used a control group design; however,
independent samples t-test was used to compare the waste
reduction, in terms of reduced response time and cycle time,
for the experimental group.[7]
6.1 Description of Study Variables
The outcome/dependent variables used for analysis were top
five number of complaints, top five dollars lost from
complaints, and total dollars lost from complaints. Each
dependent variable was measured using customer complaint
information gathered from seven different categories; mixed
product, side seams, print defects, bowed cartons, blocked
cartons, carton damage, and transit damage (data for carton
damage and transit damage only available at Athens). For
hypotheses one and two, the dependent variables were the top
five number of complaints and top five dollars lost from
complaints. For hypothesis three, the dependent variable was
the total dollars lost from all seven complaints.
The independent variable used for analysis was
implementation of Manufacturing Excellence (pre-
implementation, post-implementation). For each company, the
Manufacturing Excellence intervention was implemented in
2016. Therefore, all data collected twelve months prior to
2016 was considered pre-implementation, and the data
collected in 2016 was considered post-implementation. The
pre-implementation data was gathered on a yearly level (one
total for each complaint for all of 2015), and the post-
implementation data was gathered on a monthly level (totals
from January to August, for each complaint in 2016).
Therefore, for the hypotheses observing the top five number
of complaints and top five dollars lost from complaints, there
were 5 observations in the pre-implementation group, and 40
(top 5 complaints times data for 8 months) in the post-
implementation group. For the third hypothesis observing
total dollars lost from all complaints, there were 7
observations in the pre-implementation group, and 56 (all 7
complaints times data for 8 months) in the post-
implementation group. It should be noted that Kalamazoo and
Olmstead only contained data for 5 of the 7 complaints.
Therefore, for these two facilities, results of hypothesis two
will be identical to those for hypothesis 3.
Table 4 shows a summary of the three dependent
variables, overall, and within each of the pre-implementation
and post-implementation groups, for each company. At
Kalamazoo, the average number of complaints, when only
observing the top five complaints, was 6.1 (SD = 12.7).
Within the pre-implementation group, the average top 5
number of complaints was 37.2 (SD = 19.0), and 2.3 (SD =
2.3) within the post-implementation group. When observing
dollars lost, the average was $6,236.30 (SD = 18667.4).
Within the pre-implementation group, the average dollars lost
was $36,803.80 (SD = 47895.1), and $2,415.40 (SD = 4807.1)
within the post-implementation group. At Athens, the average
number of complaints, when only observing the top five
complaints, was 6.1 (SD = 12.7). Within the pre-
 Shawn Castro and Chris Riedel / Procedia CIRP 63 (2017) 113 – 118 117

implementation group, the average top 5 number of complaints at Kalamazoo, Athens, and Olmstead, at pre and
complaints was 37.2 (SD = 19.0), and 2.3 (SD = 2.3) within post, where a decline is seen for each location.
the post-implementation group. When observing dollars lost,
the average was $6,236.30 (SD = 18667.4). Within the pre- Table 5
implementation group, the average dollars lost was
$36,803.80 (SD = 47895.1), and $2,415.40 (SD = 4807.1)
within the post-implementation group. At Olmstead, the T-test Results for Top 5
average number of complaints, when only observing the top Complaints at Each Company
five complaints, was 6.1 (SD = 11.6). Within the pre- df p-
implementation group, the average top 5 number of t value
complaints was 36.6 (SD = 10.6), and 2.3 (SD = 2.3) within Kalamazoo 4.11 4.01 0.015
the post-implementation group. When observing dollars lost, Athens 3.26 4.01 0.031
the average was $6,236.30 (SD = 18667.4). Within the pre- 7.19 4.05 0.002
implementation group, the average dollars lost was Olmstead
$36,803.80 (SD = 47895.1), and $2,415.40 (SD = 4807.1)
within the post-implementation group. Overall, at each
company, the average values for each outcome.

Table 4

Summary of Study Variables, Overall and Within Pre/Post Implementation Groups

Pre Post Overall
N N N
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Kalamazoo
Top 5 Number of Complaints 5 37.2 19.0 40 2.3 2.3 45 6.1 12.7
Top 5 Dollars Lost 5 36803.8 47895.1 40 2415.4 4807.1 45 6236.3 18667.4 Figure 1. Summary of Pre and Post Top 5 Number of
Total Dollars Lost 5 36803.8 47895.1 40 2415.4 4807.1 45 6236.3 18667.4 Complaints for Each Facility

Athens For Hypothesis 2, results of the t-tests showed that there

was no significant difference in the top 5 dollars lost from pre
Top 5 Number of Complaints 5 29.4 18.8 40 1.9 1.9 45 5.0 10.6
to post at Kalamazoo (t = 1.60, p = 0.184), Athens (t = 1.47, p
Top 5 Dollars Lost 5 24905.3 35786.7 40 1437.3 3387.1 45 4044.9 13499.1
= 0.216), or Olmstead (t = 1.87, p = 0.135) (Table 3).
Total Dollars Lost 7 18046.8 31483.7 56 1026.7 2926.4 63 2917.8 11514.9
Although the average values look to be decreasing from pre to
post (Figure 2), there was probably too much variability in the
Olmstead data to detect a significant difference. Therefore, the null
Top 5 Number of Complaints 5 36.6 10.6 40 2.3 2.3 45 6.1 11.6 hypothesis fails to be rejected, concluding that the
Top Five Dollars Lost 5 51603.7 59998.6 40 1478.4 3739.8 45 7047.8 24360.8 implementation of Manufacturing Excellence did not reduce
Total Dollars Lost 5 51603.7 59998.6 40 1478.4 3739.8 45 7047.8 24360.8 the dollars lost from complaints from the top 5 complaints
with highest dollars lost from the factory.
7. Results Table 6
The research question asked, does implementation of a
continuous improvement method, specifically, Manufacturing T-test Results for Top 5 Dollars Lost
Excellence, improve factory performance in terms of number at Each Company
of complaints and dollars lost from complaints? To examine df p-
the hypotheses, unpaired samples t-tests were used to observe t value
the top five number of complaints (hypothesis 1), top five Kalamazoo 1.60 4.01 0.184
dollars lost from complaints (hypothesis 2), and total dollars Athens 1.47 4.01 0.216
lost from complaints (hypothesis 3), for each company, before 1.87 4.00 0.135
and after implementation of Manufacturing Excellence. Olmstead
For Hypothesis 1, results of the t-tests showed that the
top 5 number of complaints were significantly lower in the
post-implementation group at Kalamazoo (t = 4.11, p = 0.015),
Athens (t = 3.26, p = 0.031), and Olmstead (t = 7.19, p =
0.002) (Table 2). Therefore, the null hypothesis can be
rejected, concluding that the implementation of
Manufacturing Excellence significantly reduced the number
of complaints from the top 5 number of complaints of the
factory. Figure 1 shows a summary of the top 5 number of
118 Shawn Castro and Chris Riedel / Procedia CIRP 63 (2017) 113 – 118

complaints in packaging factories. Results of the statistical

analyses showed that although there seemed to be a decrease
in top 5 dollars lost and total dollars lost from pre to post
implementation of Manufacturing Excellence practices, we
could not confirm the decrease was significant. There was
statistical data that showed a significant decrease in the top 5
number of complaints at each facility.

10. References

[1] Judi, H., Jenal, R., & Genasan, D. (2011). Quality control implementation
in manufacturing companies: Motivating factors and challenges,
Figure 2. Summary of Pre and Post Top 5 Dollars Lost for
applications and experiences of quality control. Retrieved from
Each Facility http://www.intechopen.com/books/applications-and-experiences-of-
quality-control/quality-control-implementation-in-manufacturing-
For Hypothesis 3, results of the t-tests showed that there companies-motivating-factors-and-challenges
was no significant difference in the total dollars lost from pre [2] Juran, J. M. (1989). Leadership for quality: An executive handbook. New
to post at Kalamazoo (t = 1.60, p = 0.184), Athens (t = 1.43, p York, NY: The Free Press.
= 0.216), or Olmstead (t = 1.87, p = 0.135) (Table 4). Similar [3] Schroeder, R. G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C., Choo, A. S. (2008). Six
Sigma: Definition and underlying theory. Journal of Operations
to hypothesis
Management, 26(4), 536–554.
2, even though the average values look to be decreasing [4] Wheat, B., Mills, C., & Carnell, M. (2003). Leaning into Six Sigma: A
from pre to post (Figure 3), there was probably too much parable of the journey to Six Sigma and a lean enterprise. New York,
variability in the data to detect a significant difference. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Therefore, the null hypothesis fails to be rejected, concluding [5] Kudney, E., & Kestle, R. (2008). Lean Six Sigma supply chain case study:
that the Implementation of Manufacturing Excellence does Breakthrough in trailer utilization. EdNet Lean Educators Conference,
not significantly reduce the total dollars lost from complaints Boston, MA, April 24-25, 2008.
[6] Dewa, M., Naicker, A., & Singh, R. (2013). Root cause analysis for
for the company. reduction of waste on bottle filling and crowning operations. SAIIE25
Proceedings, 9th-11th of July 2013, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Table 7 [7] Marques, P., & Requeijo, J. (2009). SIPOC: A Six Sigma tool helping on
ISO 9000 quality management systems. 3rd International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Industrial Management, Barcelona-Terrassa,
T-test Results for Top 5 Dollars Lost September 2nd-4th, 2009.
at Each Company [8] Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell. L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate
df p- Statistics (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon
t value [9] George, M. L. (2002), Lean Six Sigma--Combining Six Sigma quality
with lean speed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Kalamazoo 1.60 4.01 0.184 [10] Sheridan, J. H. (2000). Lean Sigma synergy. Industry Week, 249(17),
Athens 1.43 6.01 0.203 81-82.
[11] Pepper, M. P. J., & Spedding, T. A. (2009). The evolution of lean Six
Olmstead 1.87 4.00 0.135 Sigma. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 27(2),
138-155.
[12] Cudney, B., & Kestle, R. (2008). Lean Six Sigma supply chain case
study: Breakthrough in trailer utilization. EdNet Lean Educators
Conference, Boston, MA, April 24-25, 2008.
[13] Mustafa, R. F. (2011). The P.O.E.Ms of educational research: A
beginners’ concise guide. International Education Studies, 4(3), 23-30.

Figure 3. Summary of Pre and Post Total Dollars Lost for

Each Company

8. Summary

The main purpose of this quantitative study was to

determine the effectiveness of implementing Manufacturing
Excellence in packaging factories, by examining whether the
implementation of Manufacturing Excellence practices would
reduce the number of complaints as well as dollars lost from