The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0401.htm
IJPPM
71,4
1164
Received 31 August 2020
Revised 3 December 2020
Accepted 6 December 2020
International Journal of
Productivity and Performance
Management
Vol. 71 No. 4, 2022
pp. 1164-1187
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0401
DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-08-2020-0423
Implementing a Lean Six Sigma
standardized toolset in a
manufacturing company:
a case study
Nikolaos A. Panayiotou and Konstantinos E. Stergiou
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens,
Zografos, Greece, and
Vassilis Chronopoulos
MEU Senior Project Engineer, Athens, Greece
Abstract
Purpose – The first purpose of this paper is the implementation of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) in a manufacturing
company operating in South East Europe in order to understand the importance of critical success factors
(CSFs) in LSS adoption and to find out the benefits that the company gained. The second purpose is to propose a
standardized toolset based on DMAIC phases, for the application of LSS in small scale projects, in order to
facilitate LSS adoption by more manufacturing companies.
Design/methodology/approach – This case study is based on the interlacement of the Yin’s method about
case studies and the DMAIC method for the improved deployment of LSS.
Findings – The analysis of this case study shows that the company attained to benefit financially,
operationally and organizationally from the implementation of LSS. The already existing mentality of CI inside
the company helped the project procedure and the application of changes and improvements fulfilling LSS
adoption CSFs.
Practical implications – The paper constructs a toolset and studies the role of CSFs in order to achieve the
desirable benefits in a manufacturing environment, constituting a guide for future LSS initiatives.
Originality/value – As stated by literature reviews, even though there are several papers concerning LSS
implementation in the manufacturing sector, there is a need for more case studies papers, such as this one, in
order to enrich the literature. In this paper, it is also the first time that a specific toolset for small scale projects is
proposed based on to DMAIC which can be implemented in further LSS projects.
Keywords Lean Six Sigma, Manufacturing sector, Case study, CSFs, Tools, DMAIC
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
The continuous improvement (CI) mentality leads to higher quality, operational efficiency
and enhanced performance (Thomas et al., 2009; Assarlind et al., 2012), while it diminishes
waste and product variation (Kalashnikov et al., 2017) in the processes of an organization.
This is the reason why the popularity of CI as a concept, applied through the Lean Six Sigma
methodology, has increased over the last decade (Timans, 2012). The approach of Lean Six
Sigma is a quicker way to implement CI in an organization (Albliwi et al., 2015).
Lean Six Sigma (LSS) is an integrated framework that comes from combining the
principles of Lean and Six Sigma. The term was proposed into the literature for the first time
around 2000 (Albliwi et al., 2015). The aim of this framework is to profit from the benefits of
the Lean concept and the Six Sigma principles as well (Anthony et al., 2016). Specifically, the
goal of Six Sigma is to minimize defect and variation, while Lean’s goal is to achieve an
ongoing incremental waste reduction, environmental and economic sustainability,
accelerating the pace of the process and delivering the value (Muganyi et al., 2019; Gijo
et al., 2018; Thortorella et al., 2018; De Freitas and Gomes Costa, 2017; Marques and Matthe,
2017; Thomas et al., 2016; Bamford et al., 2015; Piercy and Rich, 2015; Choi et al., 2012;
Hilton and Sohal, 2012; Manville et al., 2012). As Snee (2010) stated, LSS is “a business Implementation
strategy and methodology that increases process performance resulting in enhanced of standardized
customer satisfaction and improved bottom line results.” The target of the LSS approach is to
decrease production costs while improving organization efficiency (Lee and Wei, 2009; Chen
LSS toolset
and Lyu, 2009) and to raise the value for shareholders by enhancing quality (Laureani and
Antony, 2012).
In fact, the isolated deployment of Six Sigma is not able to remove all types of waste from the
process and the isolated deployment of Lean cannot control the process in terms of statistics 1165
and eliminate variation (Corbett, 2011). The adaptability of LSS was the driving force for
becoming the most popular CI business strategy in manufacturing and service sectors (Albliwi
et al., 2015). LSS is also recognized as leading total quality management (TQM) tool for
performance improvement in organizations with appropriate infrastructure that is built on
leadership and change of culture (Shamsuzzamana et al., 2018; Vijaya Sunder et al., 2016; Shokri
et al., 2016; Habidin et al., 2016; Dora and Gellynck, 2015; Assarlind et al., 2013; Wang and Chen,
2012; Choi et al., 2012; Hilton and Sohal, 2012; Atmaca and Girenes, 2013). It is considered as one
of the most effective and disciplined top-down business transformation initiatives (Gijo et al.,
2018; Antony et al., 2016; Knapp, 2015; Isa and Usmen, 2015; Bhat et al., 2014; Algasem et al.,
2014; Biranvand and Khasseh, 2013).
The DMAIC (define; measure; analyze; improve; control) method is the most characteristic
one, concerning LSS implementation in organization processes. It can be used in all sectors
owing to its not standardized procedure (Psychogios and Tsironis, 2012). DMAIC is applied
with a mix of appropriate tools from the Lean toolkit and Six Sigma at each step (Kumar et al.,
2006; Vinodh et al., 2011).
DMAIC project stages in a generic form, as described by De Koning and De Mast
(2006), are:
(1) Define: Problem selection and benefit analysis. Definition of the CTQ or CTQs (critical
to quality characteristics). A CTQ is a key measurable characteristic of a product or
process.
(2) Measure: Translation of the problem into measurable data and measurement of the
current situation.
(3) Analyze: Identification of influence factors and causes that determine CTQ behaviors.
(4) Improve: Design and implement adjustments and changes to the process to improve
the performance of the CTQs.
(5) Control: Adjustment of the process management and control system in order to
sustain improvements.
As referred by Tenera and Pinto (2014), the incorporation of DMAIC in LSS projects helps not
only in the effectiveness but also in the achievement of innovative results, arguing that
several benefits can be provided:
(1) Proper statistical process knowledge to better understand and improve future results;
(2) A solid step by step method and a toolset for process improvement;
(3) Decisions based on facts and concrete quantitative analysis.
Hence, DMAIC is the appropriate method to follow for the successful implementation of an
LSS project as also mentioned by Chakravorty and Shah (2012).
LSS is a methodology that has started from the manufacturing sector since the origins of
both Lean and Six Sigma are detected in companies from the particular sector. As a result, there
IJPPM is a big proportion of papers and studies concerning LSS coming from the manufacturing
71,4 sector. The existence of a large number of publications about LSS implementation in
manufacturing reveals its usefulness and effectiveness in this sector.
There is significant growth observed in the number of publications, from the year 2003 until
now, regarding LSS coming from different countries such as the USA, the UK, the Netherlands,
Australia, China and India (Singh and Rathi, 2019). According to the literature review of Singh
and Rathi (2019), LSS implementation in manufacturing sectors is about 42%; percentage that
1166 according to the authors should be increased through more case studies and through more
research concerning the successful LSS implementation in the manufacturing sector.
According to Panayiotou and Stergiou (2020), who have analyzed the implementation of LSS
in European organizations as a representative sample of LSS implementation worldwide, the
35% of cases were coming from the manufacturing sector with a range of applications in
automotive industry, food industry, electronics industry and pharmaceutical/medical industry.
Thus, there is one more piece of evidence that the percentage of LSS case studies in
manufacturing sector companies should be enriched.
Nevertheless, LSS strategy is being adopted by various manufacturing organizations
worldwide. An increased pressure from customers and competitors for greater value based on
quality, delivery on time and low cost has appeared in contemporary organizations of both
manufacturing and service sectors (Basu, 2001; Ben Romdhane et al., 2017). This has encouraged
many industries to adopt LSS in order to achieve excellence (Desai et al., 2012; Tomelero et al.,
2017). It is necessary for manufacturers to incorporate quality and business excellence
methodologies, such as LSS, in a strategic and operational level to meet competitiveness via
increased customer satisfaction, improved product quality, financial enhancement and reduced
cost (Shokri and Li, 2020). The application of analysis tools and techniques for the elaboration of
the data within a standardized framework and toolset of LSS in the manufacturing sector brings
breakthrough results (Gijo et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2016; Thomas et al., 2016; and Sharma, 2014).
From the study of LSS literature concerning implementation in the manufacturing sector,
certain benefits were observed. The major benefits are: (Chakravorty and Shah, 2012; Desai
et al., 2012; Habidin et al., 2016; Timans et al., 2016; Yuen et al., 2016; Juliani and Oliveira, 2019)

(1) Reduction in inventory;

(2) Reduced costs of poor quality;
(3) Improved customer upmost satisfaction;
(4) Reduced cycle time and lead time;
(5) Defect-free processes and elimination of rework and
(6) Improvement in productivity.
The same benefits were also presented by Adina-Petruta and Roxana (2014), who argued
that LSS leads to sustainable improvement with high productivity levels and accelerated
results, while many more scholars have also stated that the operational benefits of LSS can
be summarized in reduced process variability, improved product quality, waste and defect
reduction (Singh and Rathi, 2019; Thomas et al., 2016; Tlapa et al., 2016; Chaneski, 2016;
Dragulanescu and Popescu, 2015).
At an operational level within the manufacturing sector, LSS aims to identify
opportunities in order to reduce variability and improve the quality of the manufacturing
process (Muganyi et al., 2019; Holmes et al., 2015). This can be achieved with the utilization of
DMAIC so that manufacturers can tackle their own problems (Walter and Paladini, 2019;
Sreedharan and Sunder, 2018; Marques and Matthe, 2017; Tenera and Pinto, 2014; Gupta
et al., 2012), starting from the identification of the customer demand or voice of the customer Implementation
(VOC) and translate it to specific critical to quality (CTQ) characteristics (Tenera and Pinto, of standardized
2014; Lighter, 2014) that constitute the outcome variable.
Apart from benefits, there are also critical success factors (CSFs) on which the LSS
LSS toolset
implementation is based. Any LSS project success depends on many organizational and
leadership aspects that act as essential ingredients. Formal management involvement
mechanisms, appropriate project selection, project review, goal setting, training, cultural
transformation, understanding the methodology and tools, product/process design and 1167
improvement and linking LSS to business strategy and customers are considered to be
crucial (CSFs) for the successful LSS implementation (Walter and Paladini, 2019; Tlapa
et al., 2016; Khawar et al., 2016; Aldowaisan et al., 2015; Abu Bakar et al., 2015; Antony, 2014;
Sabry, 2014). A cultural perspective of LSS CSFs for manufacturing sector was introduced
by Geier (2011), who stated that team reinvigoration with employees’ involvement and
simpler flexible use of LSS guarantee implementation success.
Apart from the CSFs which play a key role in LSS implementation, the creation of a
standardized toolset following DMAIC phases could help manufacturing, as well as other
organizations, adopt and execute LSS initiatives in an easier manner (Panayiotou and
Stergiou, 2020). This facilitation could increase the number of manufacturing companies that
decide to apply LSS techniques in order to improve their processes and be benefited from the
improvements.
The aim of this paper is the implementation of LSS in a manufacturing company in order to
improve the production process and to investigate whether the benefits of LSS that are
described in the literature also appear in practice and how CSFs determine the success of LSS
implementation. This implementation is presented in the form of a case study in which a set of
selected tools was used in order to be tested and proposed for future manufacturing case studies
as a guide of successful implementation for entry level projects. Case study was chosen as
research methodology since “it allows investigators to retain the holistic and meaningful
characteristics of real-life events such as organizational and managerial processes” according to
Yin (2003). Case studies are also a common research strategy in business (Ghauri and Grønhaug,
2002). The literature indicates that there are many case study publications in the scientific area
of LSS across several sectors in order to test LSS implementation and effectiveness. According
to Panayiotou and Stergiou (2020), case studies are the second larger category in publications
found in the literature concerning LSS adoption in European organizations.
The case study was conducted in order to find out whether LSS through selected tools can
help a manufacturing company of South East Europe to overcome the negative impact of the
financial crisis by exploiting the benefits and the positive financial impact of LSS in
organizations (Brue and Howes, 2006; Snee, 2010). The structure of the paper is adjusted
according to Neale et al. (2006) pattern, which has been proposed for the presentation of stand-
alone case studies. Initially, the methodology that is followed in the case study along with the
research questions and the objectives are presented. Then, the case study is analyzed with
details about the LSS project that took place. Furthermore, a comprehensive presentation of the
results is apposed based on the data collected and analyzed during the project. The validation
of the case study is the next step in terms of trustworthiness, credibility, conformability and
data dependability (Yin, 2009) and finally, the conclusions of the analysis are listed.

2. Methodology
2.1 Objectives of the case study
In order to define the objectives of the LSS application in the specific manufacturing
company, research questions should be initially formulated. Research questions will guide
the whole process of the case and will lead to the correct interpretation of the results and the
IJPPM extraction of conclusions that will have a useful meaning and will offer valuable insights
71,4 about LSS implementation in a manufacturing company. The analysis of the literature
revealed that LSS can help companies achieve their goals. Its implementation depends on
critical success factors (CSFs) and brings several benefits to organizations. Based on this
information, the research questions (RQs) set are:
RQ1. How can a manufacturing company benefit from LSS implementation during the
1168 crisis period?
RQ2. How do CSFs affect LSS initiatives?
RQ3. How can LSS implementation be facilitated and utilized in a standardized way for
small scale projects?
RQ4. Why is LSS important for process improvement in a manufacturing company?
Based on the RQs, the objectives of this case study can be defined and constitute the drivers of
the LSS implementation success. With the LSS project that took place in the manufacturing
company of this case study and the evaluation of the results, the authors will try to come up
with inferences about the benefits that LSS brought in the company and how these results
come in accordance with the theory. Reduced process variability, improved product quality,
waste and defect reduction will be the goals of the LSS implementation through the steps of
DMAIC and the utilization of both qualitative and quantitative tools. The application of the
appropriate changes according to LSS principles is accompanied by CSFs. In the context of
this study, the CSFs that played the crucial role will be examined. The final objective will be
the identification of the needs that led to the adoption of LSS initiatives by the company of the
case and as extension to the companies of the manufacturing sector.
The analysis of the case will attempt to answer the RQs and fulfill the objectives that have
been described. In order to check whether the changes that were proposed to the company led
indeed to significant improvement, the results will be evaluated through indicators that
measure the financial and the operational positive impact of the LSS initiative that was
managed to be adopted.

Define

Measure

Data Collection Analyze Data Analysis

Improve
Figure 1.
Methodology followed
in the present
case study Control
2.2 Case study methodology Implementation
The analysis of the case that tested the benefits of LSS in practice will follow the steps of DMAIC of standardized
method combined with the steps that Yin (2009) proposed for case studies which include the
phase of data collection and data analysis. The integrated methodological framework is
LSS toolset
presented in Figure 1, where DMAIC steps are matched with data collection and data analysis.
The company of the case is the subsidiary of a large multinational manufacturing company. The
case study can be characterized as descriptive, and the analysis of the data is based on the logic
models pattern, as studying the chain of events occurred in a linear way, taking under 1169
consideration inputs, results and cause-effect relationships between them, as well as the
comparison between theory and practice in order to evaluate the case (Yin, 2003).

3. Case study
3.1 Unit of analysis
LSS implementation took place in the subsidiary of one of the world’s largest manufacturing
companies whose activities are detected in the production of food and beverage products. The
subsidiary has the production of specific products under its responsibility for the region of
South Eastern Europe. The company has already deployed a large number of LSS initiatives
worldwide in order to achieve cost reduction and, at the same time, increased product quality
and as a result, the expansion in the market share. That’s why the mentality of the company is
the adoption of continuous improvement initiatives throughout all its business processes.
The already existing mentality and the experience of LSS initiatives into the company was a
favorable factor in striving for a toolset creation that can be generally used in small scale LSS
projects in the manufacturing sector. The implementation of LSS in this case study was held
in the production line of food and more specifically in the production of chocolate in order to
reduce the rejection rate of the products and to improve the quality standards. The project
was based on DMAIC method, whose steps are presented in the next subsections integrated
with the data collection and data analysis procedures which Yin (2003, 2009) stated as basic
components in a case study. The team from the academic institution that participated in this
project was made up by three members who coordinated the DMAIC and tools utilization and
had an active consulting role. The company’s team was constituted by the senior project
engineer for South Eastern Europe and two more engineers trained in CI projects along with
all the employees who work in the production line and helped in the data collection.

3.2 Data collection and analysis

DMAIC method was interlaced with the procedures of data collection and data analysis in
order to combine the most classic LSS method with the approach proposed by Yin (2003,
2009) for the conduction of case studies.
3.2.1 Define phase. The purpose of this stage is to clearly identify the problem, the
requirements, the objectives of the project, as well as the scope of the project. To determine the
goals, the tool to be used is “The Voice of the Customer”, VOC (voice of the customer), as shown
in Table 1. Subsequently, the team, coordinated by the project manager, is asked to identify the
CTQ characteristics (critical to quality, as discussed above) in order to seek the appropriate
solutions, separating the “vital few” characteristics from the others that may be partially or
completely insignificant for this process (trial many). Studying the historical data of the line, the

Voice of customer (VOC) Specific need Characteristic for measurement Table 1.

Voice of customer
Rework reduction Efficiency increase First pass yield analysis
IJPPM administration found that one of the largest “sources” of losses is the production line of
71,4 chocolate bars. The Voice of the Customer is the basic parameter that we are called to
decipher in order to set measurable goals. With the brainstorming method, the main issue that
arose for the management and the continuous improvement department of the factory is the
desire to reduce “rework” on the line. In the chocolate industry, the term “rework” represents
chocolate mass or unfinished and unwrapped product which for any non-quality reason, such
as mechanical disposal during the production process, is reindustrialized (melted and refed into
1170 chocolate casting heads). Thus, as the expression that dominated the brainstorming was the
“Reduction of rework” on the line, the team decided to move on to a more targeted and specific
need, that of increasing efficiency. Efficiency can be expressed with several indicators, but that
of the first pass yield (FPY) shows its connection to quality, which in this case is exactly what
the team wanted to measure. FPY calculated as follows: {[(Total production in Kg) – (Total
rework quantity in Kg)]/(Total production in Kg)} * (%). In industry, this indicator is
particularly useful and important, as it emphasizes the quantity (or number of units) produced
without any problem from the set of steps of a production process. SIPOC (supplier-input-
process-output-customer), in Table 2, along with the product flow map, in Figure 2, were the
next tools which were utilized in order to separate the process into its parts and detect the points
where rejection happened and led to waste and rework. According to the product flow map,
positions 1–3 relate to rejection due to “defective” unmouldering by the machine that “casts” the
chocolates. Positions 4 and 5 result from “bad serving” of chocolates, i.e. from a possible
blockage of the station or other technical problem so that the movement of the serving is not
completed properly. Rejection occurs in position 6 if neither station “receives” a batch of
chocolates. Positions 7–9, for each of the two packaging machines, concerns problems
occurring during chocolates alignment on the belts.

Supplier Input Process Output Customer

Casting head Chocolate Printing in Unfinished product Conveyor belts

mold (mold)
Conveyor Unfinished product Transfer Unfinished product Feed station
belts (chocolate) (chocolate)
Feed Station Unfinished product Alignment Unfinished product Alignment belts
(chocolate) (chocolates in a row)
Table 2. Alignment Unfinished product Wrapping Unfinished product Vertical packaging
SIPOC analysis Belts (chocolates in a row) (packaged chocolates) machine

Packaging Machine 1
6

5 7–2 8–2 9–2

Packaging Machine 2

4 7–1 8–1 9–1

Figure 2.
Product flow map
3 2 1 Production Flow
 Implementation
FPY / Shift of standardized
Output Characteristic
LSS toolset

Specific need
(Ttl Kg produced-Kg reworked)/Ttl

Efficiency Increase
Kg produced (%) Project output metric

1171
94%
Target

0.5%
Tolerance

Figure 3.
FPY < 93.5% CTQ tree
Defect definition

Following the analysis that has been done up to this point, in the phase of the definition of the
problem and with the help of the tools that were used by investigating the needs of the case
company, we can construct the arboretum of critical quality – CTQ – characteristics as
presented in Figure 3. This will help achieve the basic objective of the define phase, that is, the
translation of the “customer’s voice” VOC into specific measurable characteristics. The target
of the company is to increase the FPY from 89% that was before the improvement project to
94%, and to reduce rework from 600 to 300 kg. This is a world class performance, as it will
strive to surpass the performance of 91% FPY, above which – and according to studies
conducted in the industry (AberdeenGroup, 2007) – 2 out of 10 high-level companies in the
field move. The internal goal, in fact, goes a step further by stipulating that the company has
set the bar even higher and wants “Best-in-Class” performance by touching FPY performance
of 95%. Thus, the increase of 5% points in the FPY level was not only entered deliberately but
was also a substantial move, if achieved, which would bring this production line within the
manufacturing elite performance in terms of the FPY index.
3.2.2 Measure phase. The CTQ tree showed that the basic measurement in order to
determine the FPY is the rework kg per shift. This means that the team should use an
appropriate and reliable measurement method to determine where the discharges come from
and whether there is a concentration at some point or they are smoothly distributed. This
information will contribute significantly to achieving the goal of finding the problem’s root
causes that become visible to process customer.
The team prepared an information collection form, which was given to the operators of the
line to be filled out. The aim of this form was the identification of rejection positions. To
complete the information collection form (I), the operator is asked to record the quantity (in
Kg) of the product discarded during his shift. The way this is done is by using a precision
balance, which is located near the operator and within his area of responsibility. Thus, by
taking the container, in which the discarded products are “collected”, and by weighing it, the
indication of the balance can be transferred directly to the corresponding field of the ticket.
With the help of the Minitab statistical software and using a one-sample t-test, the team
can determine the size of a sample, the smallest difference between the average sample and
the average of the population that should be distinguished as well as the probability (power)
to find a difference between the two averages, if there is one. The values used are 0.08 for SD (a
value taken from historical measurements), 0.05 for the difference and the team “requested”
by the program to give results for powers (level of certainty) of 99, 95 and 90%.
IJPPM Table 3 shows that with a sample of 29 observations, the team will be able to identify
71,4 differences of 5% between the averages of the sample with a real probability of 90.1%.
Similarly, with a sample of 36 observations, the team will be at a real probability of 95.4% and
with 50 observations, in certainty of almost 99.1% to identify differences of 5% between the
averages. Given the fact that within one year the production line works in about 167 shifts, the
sample size that is finally chosen is that of 31 shifts. The data from 31 shifts were collected in
1172

Difference Size Power Actual power

0.05 50 0.99 0.991138

0.05 36 0.95 0.954034
0.05 29 0.90 0.901175
Note(s): Sample size
1-Sample t-Test
Testing mean 5 null (versus ≠ null)
Table 3. Calculating power for mean 5 null þ difference
1-Sample t-test α 5 0.05 Assumed standard deviation 5 0.08

Rejection position
Shift 6 7.1 8.1 9.1 7.2 8.2 9.2 Total production FPY

1 430 220 30 4 80 26 3 5,928 0.866

2 1,220 210 60 5 125 30 4 6,198 0.701
3 213 137 15 3 126 5 4 5,862 0.914
4 150 135 20 2 30 5 2 5,808 0.941
5 155 36 19 4 20 5 5 2,508 0.903
6 120 12 10 3 14 12 3 576 0.698
7 275 180 30 2 190 20 3 6,600 0.894
8 138 306 8 4 40 10 8 5,094 0.899
9 140 290 15 7 60 20 20 5,568 0.901
10 60 98 5 3 12 5 4 2016 0.907
11 200 151 7 3 30 5 3 2,994 0.867
12 65 160 10 5 40 15 3 5,472 0.946
13 90 120 20 10 120 20 10 5,328 0.927
14 155 127 8 4 32 16 4 4,896 0.929
15 125 60 15 2 30 3 1 696 0.661
16 90 55 15 3 45 20 2 5,184 0.956
17 60 35 6 2 34 5 2 4,863 0.970
18 200 110 20 3 55 15 3 3,318 0.878
19 289 92 12 4 60 21 4 4,968 0.903
20 125 130 20 5 100 20 2 4,320 0.907
21 113 116 17 4 75 9 3 5,130 0.934
22 34 73 10 2 26 13 2 4,794 0.967
23 135 70 15 3 20 15 2 5,502 0.953
24 210 65 25 5 35 15 3 5,184 0.931
25 123 64 12 2 28 8 2 5,484 0.956
26 120 20 5 1 15 5 2 1,440 0.883
27 150 60 15 3 25 10 2 5,760 0.954
28 248 91 10 2 20 10 2 4,530 0.915
Table 4. 29 445 175 20 5 100 25 5 4,560 0.830
Data collection forms 30 51 94 10 3 22 19 4 3,312 0.939
results (before) 31 165 80 20 5 65 50 25 1,950 0.790
data collection forms and are presented in Table 4, taking under consideration that rejection Implementation
positions are: of standardized
6: Due to Machine Stops
7.1, 7.2.: Alignment Lines (Belts)
LSS toolset
8.1, 8.2: Blower Line (Belts)
9.1, 9.2: Packaging Line
3.2.3 Analyze phase. Using the Excel file, which was compiled from the data collection
form, Minitab was used in order to apply the appropriate analysis tools to effectively interpret 1173
our measurements. The Pareto chart in Figure 4 presents the average rework per rejection
position.
The inference of the Pareto Chart is that almost 80% of the problem of rework on the
production line (in particular 77.3%) comes from just two positions, 6 and 7–1. Thus, in the
end we have a clear direction that points to 6 and 7 which need to be analyzed further and the
team should focus on the “root cause” that creates the large amounts of rework we have seen.
In order to check the assumption, according to the historical data, that FPY is 89% and SD is
0.08, the team used an I-MR chart to find out the FPY and the SD of the shifts that were
measured. In Figure 5, the chart confirms the assumption with FPY: 89.09% and SD: 0.0781.
The identification of the causes which led to the rejection and rework of chocolate products
in positions 6 and 7 were investigated through a Fishbone Diagram as shown in Figure 6.
In the “Cause-Effect” diagram above, using the brainstorming method, the possible causes
leading to the creation of rework from this production process were identified and placed
accordingly in the corresponding category that subjected to. From the causes that were listed,
it was observed by the team that belts cleaning and roll change, the alignment of chocolate
bars and station blocking were the three main problems (96.5% of the causes) that lead to
machine halt based on measurements taken by employees of the company. For this reason,
the project team decided to use the five-whys tool, which is presented in Table 5, in order to
specify the exact reason for the occurrence of these three problems.

Pareto Chart of AVG Rework per rejection position

1 00
400

80
AVG rework (Kg)

300
Percent

60

200
40

1 00
20

0 0
Rejection Position 6-0 7-1 7-2 8-1 8-2 Other Figure 4.
AVG Kg rejected 1 96.6 1 21 .7 54.0 1 6.3 1 4.7 8.2 Pareto chart of average
Percent 47.8 29.6 1 3.1 4.0 3.6 2.0 rework per rejection
Cum % 47.8 77.3 90.5 94.4 98.0 1 00.0 position (before)
IJPPM I-MR Chart of FPY (Before)
71,4 1.1 UCL = 1.0987

1.0
Individual Value

_
0.9 X = 0.8909

0.8

1174 0.7
1
LCL = 0.6831

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31
Observation

1
0.3 1
UCL = 0.2553
Moving Range

0.2

0.1 __
MR = 0.0781
Figure 5.
I-MR chart of FPY 0.0 LCL = 0

(before) 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31
Observation

Machine/Equipment Methods
Supply Station
Roll Cutting Blocking
Supply Station Alignment of
Blocking Chocolate bars
Belts Cleaning
Roll Change

Rework

Previous or Next
Step Problems Roll Cutting
Figure 6.
Fishbone diagram of
rework causes
Environment Materials

3.2.4 Improve and control phases. The definition of the problems and their analysis guided the
actions for the improvement plan of the chocolate bars production process. The first and
simplest step is none other than the optimization and definition of the correct quality cleaning
instructions, as well as the time period during which the “deep cleaning” and the restoration of
the packaging machines to their original conditions will be required. To do this, the proposal,
which was put in place and implemented, was the pilot deployment of operations – maintenance
employee in packaging machines, who was trained and took responsibility of doing preventive
maintenance work when the machine is not running and operating the machine when it
produces. The framework, on which the team’s proposal was based, was a pilot application of
autonomous maintenance on the line with an operator, who will have the technical background
to undertake the lubrication, cleaning and good operation control of the two machines and will
be accountable for their good condition before each production cycle. Then, the second and
again relatively easy step was the installation of small blowers along the belts and specifically
“below” them to cool them down and keep the temperature as low as possible on their surface.
This improvement also has to do with the optimization of cleaning and more specifically with
 Implementation
Category: Category:
Category:
Category: Category: of standardized
Method
Method Method
Problem:
Machine Machine LSS toolset
Problem: Belt Problem: Roll Problem: Supply Problem: Supply
Chocolates
Cleaning Change Station Blocking Station Blocking
Alignment
Why? The machine
Chocolate Chocolate discards Stopping a station Stopping a station
staining of staining of chocolates that are means stopping a means stopping a 1175
conveyor belts conveyor belts not in perfect machine machine
alignment
Why? High speed If the chocolates If the chocolates
Chocolate There are points
combined with are not channeled are not channeled
melts at where more than
friction into the machines into the machines
temperatures of one chocolates are
increase they are they are
>20ο C in a row
temperature "discarded" "discarded"
Why? Synchronization
The frequency
Conveyor belts of alignment There is no
and quality of
move at high conveyor belts There is no buffer appropriate stop
cleaning is not
speeds does not have response plan
sufficient
Why? fixed settings
High speed There is no
combined with recorded
friction Cleaning
increase Direction for
temperature machines Table 5.
5-Whys analysis

minimizing the “dirt” on conveyor belts from the feed stations to the packaging machines. This
observation led us to the conclusion that because of the extremely high speeds developed in the
conveyor belts(wrapping speeds of 770 pieces per minute each machine) the temperature rises
more than 208C, which is the right one for chocolate, resulting in the melting of chocolates and
the “staining” of the belts. Of course, the simple method that has been proposed did not solve the
problem to an absolute extent, but it significantly reduced it.
In addition, to keep the “dirt” to a minimum and consequently to clean the films, a third
step was taken. This was the experimental replacement of the conveyor belts, in one of the
two packaging, with others with lower roughness and consequently a lower friction factor.
This measure’s aim was to reduce friction and temperature and to contribute to maintaining
the good condition of the conveyor belts of the line during the production process. To reduce
costs, the team, in collaboration with the maintenance department, chose the most used belts
from the two machines (per position) to replace them. The conveyor belts that were in better
condition were set in one machine and the new, lower-roughness belts were set in the other
machine. For the fourth step, the contribution of an external partner was required; in
collaboration with the programmable logic controller (PLC) programming-trained staff of the
company, they were invited to modify the synchronization between stations and conveyor
belts and between stations and chocolate feed. So, with the trial and error method and
operating conditions, the “sharing” logic of the two feed stations was programmed, reduced
the “dead” time and changed the angle and/or sensitivity of certain photocells to get the best
possible performance of the machines.
In order to evaluate the improvements, the project team measured the FPY using data
collection forms after the changes in 37 shifts. The results are presented in Table 6.
The data that were collected after the improvement actions are shown in Figures 7 and 8,
where they are compared to the previous set of data in the Box Plot and in the I-MR chart,
respectively. In the Box Plot, we sequentially list the graphical illustration “After” and
“Before” for kg of rework per rejection position. The team paid more attention to the positions
IJPPM Rejection position
71,4 Shift 6 7.1 8.1 9.1 7.2 8.2 9.2 Total production FPY

1 75 50 10 2 50 8 2 2,478 0.921
2 65 25 8 2 20 8 2 1,398 0.907
3 168 – – – 20 10 4 3,744 0.946
4 90 40 10 3 15 10 4 3,372 0.949
1176 5 107 75 15 1 20 15 4 3,456 0.931
6 60 80 30 2 30 20 2 5,958 0.962
7 180 180 20 3 120 25 2 6,192 0.914
8 200 60 10 3 60 10 3 5,832 0.941
9 250 150 70 3 50 20 2 6,552 0.917
10 209 105 35 4 56 37 5 6,024 0.925
11 75 40 10 3 20 5 2 2,304 0.933
12 250 104 16 4 143 24 5 6,462 0.916
13 194 80 34 2 50 10 4 5,598 0.933
14 310 130 20 3 55 15 4 6,036 0.911
15 230 150 25 3 55 15 2 5,472 0.912
16 130 150 20 4 85 15 5 5,832 0.930
17 196 174 22 4 54 11 3 5,754 0.919
18 213 137 15 3 126 5 4 5,862 0.914
19 150 135 20 2 30 5 2 5,808 0.941
20 60 98 5 3 12 5 4 2,016 0.907
21 65 160 10 5 40 15 3 5,472 0.946
22 90 120 20 10 120 20 10 5,328 0.927
23 155 127 8 4 32 16 4 4,896 0.929
24 30 55 15 3 45 20 2 5,184 0.956
25 60 35 6 2 34 5 2 4,863 0.970
26 125 130 20 5 100 20 2 4,320 0.907
27 113 116 17 4 75 9 3 5,130 0.934
28 34 73 10 2 26 13 2 4,794 0.967
29 135 70 15 3 20 15 2 5,502 0.953
30 210 65 25 5 35 15 3 5,184 0.931
31 123 64 12 2 28 8 2 5,484 0.956
32 150 60 15 3 25 10 2 5,760 0.954
33 248 91 10 2 20 10 2 4,530 0.915
34 51 94 10 3 22 19 4 3,312 0.939
Table 6. 35 200 190 16 5 60 19 5 5,760 0.914
Data collection forms 36 110 54 20 5 39 17 5 5,472 0.954
results (after) 37 100 120 15 5 90 25 5 3,864 0.907

which had problems before the improvement. In position “6”, before the improvements, the
average rejection kg were 196.6 as opposed to the 142.5 kg after the implementation of the
measures proposed, revealing an improvement of 27.5%. In position “7–1”, the average of
121.7 kg before and 96.9 kg after indicates a reduction of 20.4%, while in position “7–2” there
was an improvement of 5.7% (54 kg on average before and 50.9 kg after). The I-MR chart
shows that the changes that have occurred had an impact on the overall picture of the
production process, reducing its deviation and making it, at the same time, more predictable.
Moreover, the FPY index shows a significant improvement. Thus, FPYbefore was almost
89.1% and now FPY after has been increased to 93.2% improving the percentage for about
four percentage points (actually, it is 4.1%). At the same time, it is obvious that an “out of
control” process was “received”, where there were observations outside its control limits, and
an “under control” process was “delivered”, which – as it should be – remains within its
control limits. From the I-MR chart, it is also apparent that the control limits of the process are
now tighter, which means that the SD of the process has been significantly reduced.
 Implementation
Boxplot of Rejection Position (Before vs After)
of standardized
400
LSS toolset

300

1177
Rework (Kg)

200 196.581

142.459
121.677
1 00 96.9459 54
50.8649

17.2703 14.7419
4.58065
16.2581 3.64516 14.2973
3.32432
3.2973
0
Phase
t er re t er re r
te for
e r
te fo r
e
t er re t er re t er re Figure 7.
Af fo Af fo Af Af Af fo Af fo Af fo
Be Be Be Be Be Be Be Boxplot of rework in
6 1 1 1 2 2 2 rejection positions
7- 8- 9- 7- 8- 9-
(before and after)

I-MR Chart of FPY by Phase

Before After
1.1
Individual Value

1.0 UCL = 0.9935

_
X = 0.9321
0.9
LCL = 0.8707
0.8

0.7
1

1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64
Observation

Before After
1
0.3 1
Moving Range

0.2

0.1
UCL = 0.0754
__
MR = 0.0231
0.0 LCL = 0 Figure 8.
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64
I-MR chart of FPY
Observation
(before and after)

The results of Figures 7 and 8, apart from the “Improve” phase, were also used as a first
picture of the “Control” phase by the team in order to inspect the outcome and have a
reference point for the retainment of the improvements. More specifically, in the “Control”
phase, tools and continuous measurements are utilized to ensure that the key variables
remain within acceptable limits over time, so that the gains resulting from the improvement
of the process are maintained. Thus, the team delivered detailed cleaning instructions to the
main interested stakeholders (head of the line), the specifications of the new films installed in
IJPPM the procurement officer and informed the head of maintenance for them, in order to update the
71,4 relevant file (with the conveyor belts per machine) and for those involved – autonomously – to
be able to replace, at the first opportunity, any film required with a new one of suitable
specifications.
In addition, for the typical “closure”/completion of the project and its delivery in
production, a presentation was made to all those directly involved (Key Stakeholders) with
the before and after results, in order to document the actions required and to assure the good
1178 operation of the machines from now on.

4. Results and discussion

The result of LSS implementation in the company that was described in the case study was
the yield of several benefits owing to the changes that were introduced in the production
processes. The benefits of the continuous improvement/Lean Six Sigma project can be
divided into two categories: material/tangible benefits and intangible benefits. The intangible
benefits are:
(1) Moral empowerment and increased employee engagement with the logic that their
opinion counts and their proposals are taken under consideration.
(2) Reduction of the different points of view in the management of the same object by
different operators.
(3) Reduce stress and increase quality operator time, as the “production” rework
decreases.
(4) Stability of production process and safer provision of production plan and supply
segment.
(5) Improved cost and expense management.
(6) Improved safety of workers, who are not called to operate with intensity and stress,
but have a more methodal approach.
The majority of these benefits indicate the mentality that was developed within the company as
a consequence of the LSS implementation. The engagement of employees and managers in the
changes was a key enabler for CSFs concerning LSS adoption. The crucial CSFs according to
the literature played an important role in the acceptance of changes, beginning from the
selection of the right project and goal setting. This was the first step in the case of this paper.
The team, in order to confront a real problem, to achieve practical results and to prove that the
project will indeed have a positive impact and the improvement will be tangible, has set the
goals from the beginning and the right project was selected. Top management involvement,
cultural transformation and training were the CSFs that helped during the adoption of LSS, and
not only did they determinate the project success but they also brought intangible benefits by
positively changing the culture of the company and its operation along with the permanent
adoption of new production processes and techniques. The fact that LSS and CI improvement
projects had already been completed in other processes of the company was a favorable factor
which revealed the significance and the contribution of the company culture in the completion
of the project. Linking LSS to business strategy and customers was also a CSF that the project
team had to cope with for the successful completion of LSS implementation. There was the
advantage of previous experience of the company in CI and LSS initiatives as part of its
strategy. Thus, the presentation of the results to all key stakeholders by the project team and
the interaction with top management enhanced the LSS mentality within the company, as the
positive results started to appear owing to the improvement of production process. The
analysis of the intangible benefits revealed that the CSFs fulfillment should be taken under Implementation
consideration for the accomplishment of a successful LSS project. The already existing of standardized
background of similar improvement projects was of high importance for the understanding
of the need for the LSS initiative concerning the improvement of the chocolate bars production.
LSS toolset
The tangible benefits are concentrated firstly in the reduction of time and effort in the
production process and secondly in the reduction of cost. The reduction of time and effort,
and as a result the increase of productivity, is translated in the Availability of production line
as shown in Table 7. 1179
The availability of the line is calculated as follows: initially, the value of FPY that the team
has from the data collected was deployed. Then, the theoretical performance of the line in
kilos (output) and the available hours per shift (Prd Hours) were taken under consideration. A
simple calculation based on output and hours per shift showed that the production in kilos per
hour (Kg/hr) was 750 Kg before and 785 Kg after. Dividing these results by the given quantity
that is produced per hour in a normal productive day (which is our benchmark), it appears
that on each shift 21 min of the hour were “released”. Using this number and with a reference
number of 1,000 tons of demand for this product, Table 8 represents the result.
Table 8 shows that 1,000 tons of products were required before to produce 167 shifts, while
on an annual basis, after the changes made to the process, 159 are required. These eight (8)
shifts can be seen both as a purely economic benefit, since the same quantity now requires a
smaller number of shifts and therefore resources, as well as line availability – giving the
opportunity to use the same resources and employees to produce another product on the line.
The reduction of cost was calculated along with the evaluation of the investment for the
export of a completed inference. The total amount of the project cost was V7,000. For the
estimation of cost reduction, a comparative table (Table 9) was drawn up with the ultimate
aim of quantifying the shifts won, first in the number of FTEs (full time equivalent) and
calculating a cost of V30,000 per FTE to convert the difference “Before”–“After” into euro.
The term FTE is used here to equate the occupation of employees in the unit of time for the

Before After

FPY 0.891 0.932

Output (Kg) 6,000 6,276
Prd Hours 8 8
Kg / hr 750 785 Table 7.
Hrs needed 8 7.6 Before and after
Availability (mins) – 21 availability

Before After

Yearly prd (tns) 1,000 1,000 Table 8.

Shifts required 167 159 Shifts reduction

Before After Difference

Shifts 167 159 7.3

FTEs 3.33 3.19 0.1 Table 9.
Processing Cost V100,000 V95,601 V4,399 Cost reduction
IJPPM production/processing of a specific number of units (or tons here) of product. In a straight
71,4 translation, the term means the number of hours worked by a normal worker over a year.
The 7.3 shifts which were “saved” are translated into 0.1 FTEs, which gives something
less than V4,400 in annual financial benefit from the improvement actions carried out on the
line by the project. To understand whether it is advantageous for the company to carry out
projects like this, the total cost of investments which the company pays once (in the execution
of the project) was equated with the annual benefit resulting from the project. As shown in
1180 Table 10, the investment of V7,000 is amortized in 1.5 years, a return particularly attractive
for any investment. In addition, after the end of the year and a half, profits continue to come
for the business in perpetuity.
The total analysis shows that there is a significant cost reduction, even though a small
scale project was conducted, and the investment was advantageous for the company. Hence,
the cost reduction and lead time reduction which are of the main LSS benefits were brought in
by the specific LSS initiative. It is also revealed that even a small scale LSS project can have a
positive impact and can constitute the base for next improvement projects in the production
process of the manufacturing company that was studied.
Quality improvement of products and production process was the last but not least benefit.
The corrective actions contributed in the reduction of process variation and defects as the
rework and the products that were out of specifications were decreased. The quality
improvement is one more of the LSS benefits that was achieved in practice through this case for
a manufacturing company and leads to customer satisfaction increase. This satisfaction
increase is not only detected in the final customer that buys the product but in the customers
(next steps) of the chocolate bars production process within the company as well, for whom the
input of their process is less problematic and easier to be processed. In this way, the employees
can spend more time in value-added activities. The above benefits of LSS implementation in
business process contributes to the improvement of value for money perception of customers,
as stated by Lokkerbol et al. (2012), leading to a more functional and robust macro-economic
operation.
The utilization of DMAIC as the method of LSS implementation was a selection that
resulted in the complete analysis of the data. The retainment of steps sequence and the
analysis of the case in both a qualitative and quantitative manner were the pillars for the
better understating of the process for the definition of problems and for the proposal and
application of improvements. The flow of DMAIC phases facilitated the standardization of
the project conduction and helped in avoiding deviations from the project plan. A specific
toolset was used for the conduction of the project by the team, in order to exploit the potential
of LSS in the best possible way. The utilization of several tools permits the collection and
analysis of data in detail and the proper detection of problems. The toolset is presented in
Table 11, separated in DMAIC phases in order to be clear that tools selection depended on the
stage of the project. Classic LSS tools were used in all phases along with the data collection
form which is a tool that was created for the needs of this project. This toolset can be used in
every LSS project in the manufacturing sector, as it can facilitate and standardize the
application of LSS which is an existing need that should be satisfied for organizations
(Panayiotou and Stergiou, 2020). This simple toolset can be utilized as an entry level guide of

Investment performance analysis

Table 10. Investment cost V7,000

Amortization of Financial benefits/year V4,399
investment Amortization (years) 1.5
DMAIC phase Tools
Implementation
of standardized
Define Voice of customer (VOC) LSS toolset
Product flow map
SIPOC
CTQ Tree
Measure One-sample t-test
Data collection form 1181
Analyze Pareto cart
I-MR chart
Fishbone diagram
five-whys
Improve and control Data collection form Table 11.
Boxplot Tools used in DMAIC
I-MR chart phases

basic tools by manufacturing companies which have not previous experience and desire to
conduct basic projects as a first contact with LSS methodology.

5. Case study validation and limitations

Case study analysis and results presented a clear view of the LSS implementation in a
manufacturing company. However, the correctness and quality of the case study should be
checked in terms of construct validity, external validity and reliability, which are the criteria
for descriptive case studies according to Yin (2009). Construct validity is achieved by
gathering both real-time and archived data by the company in order to conduct the project
and confirm the statement of the need for change. External validity is achieved by
interpreting the results of the case study which revealed that the benefits that the theory
describes are indeed the outcome from an LSS application in manufacturing companies and
that the implementation of LSS can bring the same positive impact on companies from the
manufacturing sector. Through the case study, it was also revealed that the fulfillment of
CSFs is crucial for the completion of LSS projects in manufacturing companies and should
always be taken under consideration, confirming the theory. Reliability is achieved as the
methodology which was followed used the most common LSS method (DMAIC) and clear
techniques and tools for data collection and analysis. More specifically, the data collection
procedure that was followed helped in the development of a database of data for the analysis
of before and after improvement situation and the analysis was conducted using tools for the
best elaboration of data. Hence, the study was set up in order to be able to be repeated with
similar results.
Even if the quality of case study presented is validated, there were two limitations, as well.
The first limitation was that the case study conducted was a single one. This means that the
analysis of LSS implementation was tested in a specific manufacturing company under certain
conditions. Although single case studies represent a large number of papers concerning LSS
implementation in manufacturing companies, the addendum of more companies adopting the
same LSS initiative for a cross-case analysis will be useful as it will give a more spherical and
comparable view of the results. The second limitation is that the case study was conducted in a
company who already had experience in CI and LSS projects. Hence, the environment of this
company was more receptive and ready for LSS implementation. It will be interesting to test
how an organization with no previous experience in such kind of projects can be functional and
ready to adopt LSS initiatives in its mentality, in order to overcome the difficult and negative
IJPPM consequences of the financial crisis. This study will be expanded to other sectors, apart from
71,4 manufacturing sectors, for the evaluation of the adaptability of each sector.

6. Conclusions and further research

Conducting this case study revealed many insights about LSS adoption in a manufacturing
company. Based on the analysis of the results, RQ1 is answered by concluding that the
1182 benefits that were gained by the company from a small case project following the DMAIC
method were encouraging and constitute a pillar for more LSS initiatives. All the categories of
benefits – financial, operational, organizational, quality increase and waste reduction – were
an outcome of the project completion and confirm the promising positive impact of LSS,
especially for a company which needs operational improvements in order to overcome the
negative financial crisis consequences.
Concerning RQ2, the case study also showed that for the application of LSS and the adoption
of changes are crucial for CSFs to be fulfilled. The mentality of CI and LSS should follow a top-
down rationale starting from top management to employees of the company through training.
The usage of LSS culture for a business is one of the ways to be able to create value in the
products or services it offers. It is, in fact, a very basic method of developing both the level of
human resources and the level of the “products provided”, making the implementation of this
strategy a competitive advantage in progress. In the case of the manufacturing company that
was studied, a small investment through a small-scale improvement initiative gave multiplied
benefits, as the implementation was carried out following all the rules and the steps of LSS
adoption.
The conduction of this small-scale project was also a great opportunity for the development
and testing of a toolset that acted as a facilitator of LSS implementation, answering in practice
RQ3. This toolset can be used as a standardized guide in further studies by manufacturing
companies with limited LSS knowledge for entry level projects, which will be subsequently
followed by more complex applications. The success of this toolset deployment based on
DMAIC phases was an encouraging outcome for the company which decided to execute more
LSS projects concerning the studied process.
The overall inference of this study answers RQ4, as the result of the case was beneficial for
the company and indicated the importance of LSS in the improvement of a manufacturing
company. This positive impact of a small scale LSS project in a manufacturing company
leads to a proposal for further research concerning LSS implementation in more
manufacturing companies in order to find out whether the benefits can be enhanced by
larger projects and in companies with no previous experience in CI initiatives. Thus, the
prompt of the literature for more LSS case studies can be covered. In addition, the creation of
standardized toolsets (for all levels and scales of projects) based on DMAIC should be the
future goal in order to make the methodology more easily accessible, understandable and
applicable to manufacturing companies and organizations of every sector in general which,
by fulfilling CSFs, can improve their processes through LSS.

References
AberdeenGroup (2007), The Cost of Quality, MA.
Abu Bakar, F., Subari, K. and Mohd Daril, M.A. (2015), “Critical success factors of Lean Six Sigma
development: a current review”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 339-348.
Adina-Petruta, P. and Roxana, S. (2014), “Integrating Six Sigma with quality management systems for
the development and continuous improvement of higher education institutions”, Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 143, pp. 643-648.
Albliwi, S.A., Antony, J. and Halim Lim, S.A. (2015), “A systematic review of Lean Six Sigma for the Implementation
manufacturing industry”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 665-691.
of standardized
Aldowaisan, T., Nourelfath, M. and Hassan, J. (2015), “Six Sigma performance for non-normal
processes”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 247 No. 3, pp. 968-977.
LSS toolset
Algasem, F., Yang, Q.P. and Au, J. (2014), “Application of Lean Six Sigma principles to food
distribution SMEs”, American Academic and Scholarly Research Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 251-258.
1183
Antony, J. (2014), “Readiness factors for Lean six Sigma journey in higher education sector”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 257-264.
Antony, J., Rodgers, B. and Gijo, E. (2016), “Can Lean Six Sigma make UK public sector organisations
more efficient and effective?”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 65 No. 7, pp. 995-1002.
Antony, J., Setijono, D. and Dahlgaard, J.J. (2016), “Lean Six Sigma and Innovation – an exploratory
study among UK organisations”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 27
Nos 1-2, pp. 124-140.
Assarlind, M., Gremyr, I. and Backman, K. (2012), “Multi-faceted views on a Lean Six Sigma
application”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 21-30.
Assarlind, M., Gremyr, I. and Ba€ckman, K. (2013), “Multi-faceted views on a Lean Six Sigma
application”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 387-402.
Atmaca, E. and Girenes, S. (2013), “Lean Six Sigma methodology and application”, Quality and
Quantity, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 2107-2127.
Bamford, D., Forrester, P., Dehe, B. and Leese, R.G. (2015), “Partial and interactive Lean
implementation: two case studies”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 702-727.
Basu, R. (2001), “New criteria of performance management: a transition from enterprise to
collaborative supply chain”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 7-12.
Ben Romdhane, T., Badreddine, A. and Sansa, M. (2017), “A new model to implement six sigma in
small - and medium-sized enterprises”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55
No. 15, pp. 4319-4340.
Bhat, S., Gijo, E.V. and Jnanesh, N.A. (2014), “Application of Lean Six Sigma methodology in the
registration process of a hospital”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 63 No. 5, pp. 613-643.
Biranvand, A. and Khasseh, A.A. (2013), “Evaluating the service quality in the regional information
Centre for science and technology using the Six Sigma methodology”, Library Management,
Vol. 34 Nos 1/2, pp. 56-67.
Brue, G. and Howes, R. (2006), Six Sigma, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Chakravorty, S.S. and Shah, A.D. (2012), “Lean Six Sigma (LSS): an implementation experience”,
European Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 118-137.
Chaneski, W.S. (2016), “Lean and Six Sigma: synergy at work”, Modern Machine Shop, Vol. 88 No. 11,
pp. 42-44.
Chen, M. and Lyu, J. (2009), “A Lean Six-Sigma approach to touch panel quality improvement”,
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 445-454.
Choi, B., Kim, J., Leem, B., Lee, C.Y. and Hong, H.K. (2012), “Empirical analysis of the relationship
between Six Sigma management activities and corporate competitiveness”, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 528-550.
Corbett, L.M. (2011), “Lean Six Sigma: the contribution to business excellence”, International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 118-131.
IJPPM De Freitas, J.G. and Gomes Costa, H. (2017), “Impacts of Lean Six Sigma over organizational
sustainability”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 89-108.
71,4
De Koning, H. and De Mast, J. (2006), “A rational reconstruction of Six-Sigma’s breakthrough
cookbook”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 23 No. 7,
pp. 766-787.
Desai, D.A., Antony, J. and Patel, M.B. (2012), “An assessment of the critical success factors for six
sigma implementation in indian industries”, International Journal of Productivity and
1184 Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 426-444.
Dora, M. and Gellynck, X. (2015), “Lean Six Sigma implementation in a food processing SME: a case
study”, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 1151-1159.
Dragulanescu, I. and Popescu, D. (2015), “Quality and competitiveness: a Lean Six Sigma approach”,
New Trends in Sustainable Business and Consumption, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 1167-1182.
Geier, J. (2011), “Embedding Lean Six Sigma into everyday use ensures sustainable culture change at
xerox”, Global Business and Organizational Excellence, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 17-26.
Ghauri, P. and Grønhaug, K. (2002), Business Research Methods in Business Studies: A Practical Guide,
Pearson Education Harlow, England.
Gijo, E.V., Palod, R. and Antony, J. (2018), “Lean Six Sigma approach in an Indian auto ancillary
conglomerate: a case study”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 761-772.
Gupta, V., Acharya, P. and Patwardhan, M. (2012), “Monitoring goals through Lean Six Sigma insures
competitiveness”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61
No. 2, pp. 194-203.
Habidin, N.F., Salleh, M.S., Latip, N.A.M., Azman, M.N.A. and Fuzi, N.M. (2016), “Lean Six Sigma
performance tool for automotive suppliers”, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 215-235.
Hilton, R.J. and Sohal, A. (2012), “A conceptual model for the successful deployment of Lean Six
Sigma”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 54-70.
Holmes, M.C., Jenicke, L.O. and Hempel, J.L. (2015), “A framework for Six Sigma project selection in
higher educational institutions, using a weighted scorecard approach”, Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 30-46.
Isa, M.F.M. and Usmen, M. (2015), “Improving university facilities services using Lean Six Sigma: a
case study”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 70-84.
Juliani, F. and Oliveira, O.J.D. (2019), “Synergies between critical success factors of lean six sigma and
public values”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 30 Nos 15-16,
pp. 1563-1577.
Kalashnikov, V., Benita, F., Lopez-Ramos, F. and Hernandez-Luna, A. (2017), “Bi-objective project
portfolio selection in Lean Six Sigma”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 186,
pp. 81-88.
Khawar, N., Misbah, U., Adnan, T., Shahid, M., Rehman, A., Rashid, N. and Iftikhar, H. (2016),
“Optimisation of steel bar manufacturing process using Six Sigma”, Chinese Journal of
Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 332-341.
Knapp, S. (2015), “Lean Six Sigma implementation and organisational culture”, International Journal
of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 855-863.
Kumar, M., Antony, J., Singh, R.K., Tiwari, M.K. and Perry, D. (2006), “Implementing the lean sigma
framework in an Indian SME: a case study”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 407-423.
Laureani, A. and Antony, J. (2012), “Standards for Lean Six Sigma certification”, International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 110-120.
Lee, L. and Wei, C. (2009), “Reducing mold changing time by implementing Lean Six Sigma”, Quality
and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 387-395.
Lighter, D.E. (2014), “The application of Lean Six Sigma to provide high-quality reliable pediatric Implementation
care”, International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 8-10.
of standardized
Lokkerbol, J., Does, R., de Mast, J. and Schoonhoven, M. (2012), “Improving processes in financial
service organizations: where to begin?”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
LSS toolset
Management, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 981-999.
Manville, G., Greatbanks, R., Krishnasamy, R. and Parker, D.W. (2012), “Critical success factors for
Lean Six Sigma programmes: a view from Middle management”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 7-20. 1185
Marques, P.A.A. and Matthe, R. (2017), “Six Sigma DMAIC project to improve the performance of an
aluminium die casting operation in Portugal”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 307-330.
Muganyi, P., Madanhire, I. and Mbohwa, C. (2019), “Business survival and market performance
through Lean Six Sigma in the chemical manufacturing industry”, International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 566-600.
Neale, P., Thapa, S. and Boyce, C. (2006), Preparing a Case Study: A Guide for Designing and
Conducting a Case Study for Evaluation Input, Pathfinder International, Watertown, MA.
Panayiotou, N.A. and Stergiou, K.E. (2020), “A systematic literature review of lean six sigma adoption
in European organizations”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma. doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-07-
2019-0084.
Piercy, N. and Rich, N. (2015), “The relationship between lean operations and sustainable operations”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 282-315.
Psychogios, A.G. and Tsironis, L.K. (2012), “Towards an integrated framework for Lean Six Sigma
application: lessons from the airline industry”, Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, Vol. 23 Nos 3-4, pp. 397-415.
Sabry, A. (2014), “Factors critical to the success of Six Sigma quality programme and their influence
on performance indicators in some Lebanese hospitals”, Arab Economic and Business Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 93-114.
Shamsuzzamana, M., Alzeraifa, M., Alsyoufa, I. and Boon Chong Khooa, M. (2018), “Using Lean Six
Sigma to improve mobile order fulfilment process in a telecom service sector”, Production
Planning and Control, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 301-314.
Sharma, R.K. and Sharma, R.G. (2014), “Integrating Six Sigma culture and TPM framework to
improve manufacturing performance in SMEs”, Quality and Reliability Engineering
International, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 745-765.
Shokri, A. and Li, G. (2020), “Green implementation of Lean Six Sigma projects in the manufacturing
sector”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 711-729.
Shokri, A., Shirley Waring, T. and Nabhani, F. (2016), “Investigating the readiness of people in
manufacturing SMEs to embark on Lean Six Sigma projects: an empirical study in the German
manufacturing sector”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 850-878.
Singh, M. and Rathi, R. (2019), “A structured review of Lean Six Sigma in various industrial sectors”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 622-664.
Snee, R.D. (2010), “Lean Six Sigma – getting better all the time”, International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-29.
Sreedharan, R. and Sunder, V.M. (2018), “A novel approach to Lean Six Sigma project management: a
conceptual framework and empirical application”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 29
No. 11, pp. 895-907.
Tenera, A. and Carneiro Pinto, L. (2014), “A Lean Six Sigma (LSS) project management improvement
model”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 119, pp. 912-920.
IJPPM Thomas, A., Barton, R. and Okafor, C. (2009), “Applying Lean Six Sigma in a small engineering
company – a model for change”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 20
71,4 No. 1, pp. 113-129.
Thomas, A.J., Francis, M., Fisher, R. and Byard, P. (2016), “Implementing Lean Six Sigma to overcome
the production challenges in an aerospace company”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 27
Nos 7-8, pp. 591-603.
Thortorella, G.L., Fettermann, D., Frank, A. and Marodin, G. (2018), “Lean manufacturing
1186 implementation: leadership styles and contextual variables”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1205-1227.
Timans, W., Antony, J., Ahaus, K. and van Solingen, R. (2012), “Implementation of Lean Six Sigma in
small- and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises in The Netherlands”, Journal of the
Operational Research Society, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 339-353.
Timans, W., Ahaus, K., van Solingen, R., Kumar, M. and Antony, J. (2016), “Implementation of
continuous improvement based on lean six sigma in small-and medium-sized enterprises”, Total
Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 27 Nos 3-4, pp. 309-324.
Tlapa, D., Limon, J., Garcia-Alcaraz, J., Baez, Y. and Sanchez, C. (2016), “Six Sigma enables in Mexican
manufacturing companies: a proposed model”, Industrial Management and Data Systems,
Vol. 116 No. 5, pp. 926-956.
Tomelero, R.L., Ferreira, J.C.E., Kumar, V. and Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2017), “A lean environmental
benchmarking (LEB) method for the management of cutting tools”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 13, pp. 3788-3807.
Vijaya Sunder, M., Ganesh, L.S. and Marathe, R.R. (2016), “A morphological analysis of research
literature on Lean Six Sigma for services”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 149-182.
Vinodh, S., Gautham, S.G. and Ramiya, R.A. (2011), “Implementing Lean Sigma framework in an
Indian automotive valves manufacturing organisation: a case study”, Production Planning and
Control, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 708-722.
Walter, O.M.F.C. and Paladini, E.P. (2019), “Lean Six Sigma in Brazil: a literature review”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 435-472.
Wang, F.K. and Chen, K. (2012), “Application of Lean Six Sigma to a panel equipment manufacturer”,
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 23 Nos 3-4, pp. 417-429.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed., Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Yuen, K.F., Thai, V.V. and Wong, Y.D. (2016), “The effect of continuous improvement capacity on the
relationship between of corporate social performance and business performance in Maritime
transport in Singapore”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
Vol. 95, pp. 62-75.
Zhang, A., Luo, W., Shi, Y., Chia, S.T. and Sim, H.X. (2016), “Lean and Six Sigma in logistics: a pilot
survey in Singapore”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 36
No. 11, pp. 1625-1643.

About the authors

Nikolaos A. Panayiotou (M.Eng., Ph.D. (National Technical University of Athens), MBA (Lancaster
University)) is an Associate Professor in the School of Mechanical Engineering at the National Technical
University of Athens, Section of Industrial Management and Operational Research and the Director of
the Operational Research Study Laboratory of the School of Mechanical Engineering. He is also
Assistant Programme Director of the Hellenic Open University’s MBA Programme. His main academic
interest is the improvement of business processes in organisations (private and public), utilizing the
benefits of appropriate enabling technology. He has completed more than 70 Business Process
Improvement and Continuous Improvement projects. Nikolaos A. Panayiotou is the corresponding Implementation
author and can be contacted at: panayiot@central.ntua.gr
Konstantinos E. Stergiou (M.Eng., University of Patras) is a Ph.D. Candidate in the School of of standardized
Mechanical Engineering at the National Technical University of Athens, Section of Industrial Management LSS toolset
and Operational Research. His main research interest concern the scientific area of Business Process
Improvement in organisations using Lean Six Sigma methodology. He has participated in 4 projects of
Business Process Improvement and Continuous Improvement until now, which included the exploitation
of Lean Six Sigma methodology and process modeling techniques, along with the utilization of digital 1187
transformation and Industry 4.0 technologies.
Vassilis Chronopoulos, (M.Eng. (National Technical University of Athens), MBA (National Technical
University of Athens–Athens University of Economics and Business)) is Senior Project Engineer in a
large multinational organisation having under its responsibility the area of South East Europe. He has
participated in a large number of Lean Six Sigma and Continuous Improvement projects in the
manufacturing sites of organization across different countries and different product categories. He and
his team have successfully promoted several Continuous Improvement initiatives and operational
changes within their organisation.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com