Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 728–735

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Identification of Lean Six Sigma barriers in automobile part

manufacturing industry
Rajeev Rathi, Mahipal Singh ⇑, Alok Kumar Verma, Rahul Singh Gurjar, Amar Singh, Bijoy Samantha
School of Mechanical Engineering, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab 14411, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of this paper is to identify the various types of barriers that an automotive component manufac-
Received 14 April 2021 turing company faces when attempting to introduce Lean Six Sigma techniques. Initially, 31 Lean Six
Received in revised form 30 April 2021 Sigma Barrier (LSSB) were selected through an exhaustive literature review which was conducted using
Accepted 6 May 2021
questionnaire survey. In the questionnaire survey, the manager’s opinions were collected with the help of
Available online 28 May 2021
online emails. The collected responses were analysed through statistical tools like Importance-indexed
and CIMTC. The internal consistency of the collected responses was 0.971 which is good and the out-
Keywords:
comes of an importance index and a CIMTC analysis indicates that most of the Indian manufacturing
Lean six sigma
LSS barrier
firms were facing the challenges from LSSB-4 and LSSB-3. The identified LSSB exhibits that it is difficult
Statistical analysis to implement LSS techniques in Auto component manufacturing industries. As said above authors have
Cronbach’s alpha researched on barriers faced by automobile industries to manufacture a unit and also going on with
Manufacturing industry LSS. But, literature limited to explore the studies on parts manufacturing industries which are responsible
for many unique parts of automotive units.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2nd International Con-
ference on Functional Material, Manufacturing and Performances.

1. Introduction
In the present serious situation, there are incredible difficulties
before associations to satisfy the client prerequisites. The present
clients need quality item at the most minimal expense on schedule
[1]. Subsequently, every association is attempting to embrace qual-
ity instruments for improving their general efficiency and nature of
item and limiting assembling cost. The quality and efficiency
assume a huge part in industry and development. The abundance
of the whole association depends on its capacity to certification
the greatest at the most minimal charge [2]. After 1987, different
large enterprises began contemplating selection of progress proce-
dure like six sigma [3]. Six sigma is an undertaking driven admin-
istration concern focused on consistently lessening offal brought
about by the ventures defect [4]. The historical backdrop of Six
Sigma is recorded, and it was presented in 1988 by Motorola [5].
Since, 1990 s associations began to consider to diminishing
wastage in term of over-creation, abandons, pausing, non-used
ability, transportation, motion, stock and extra-handling [6].
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mahip.lamboria@gmail.com (M. Singh).
Henceforth, Lean idea assumes a part to limit every one of these
kinds of wastage by Toyota [7]. Lean methodology manages expul-
sion of non-esteem added exercises, yet as an individual method-
ology, it doesn’t deliver to the issue of imperfection disposal in
measure. Simultaneously, Six Sigma lessens the variety into the
interaction and makes dismissal/deformity lower in item and
administrations, however, it can’t dispose of non-esteem added
exercises [8]. As a result, the use of both Lean logic and the Six
Sigma methodology has an effect on both non-esteem adding
activities and flaws in every Lean Six Sigma system [9]. Several
large corporations, including DuPont, Ford, Honeywell, General
Electric, American Express, and others, have reaped significant
benefits from receiving LSS in their core business [10].Plus, there
are some other huge businesses that received LSS effectively to
upgrade the general efficiency, for example, measure ventures
[11], material enterprises [38], administration businesses, that is
emergency clinic [45], coal mining industry [14], car industry
[14] Regardless of its immense achievement in huge associations,
Auto-parts producing people groups are as yet very little mindful
about the additions of LSS, and they are additionally battling with
its fruitful execution. Little and medium-sized associations have
absence of advance innovations, restricted monetary ability, poor

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.05.221
2214-7853/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2nd International Conference on Functional Material, Manufacturing and Performances.
R. Rathi, M. Singh, A. Kumar Verma et al.
overseeing capacity, asset limitations, lower creation level, help-
less observing commitments and quality [15]. Furthermore, indi-
viduals who work in the auto-parts industry have a strong
aversion to change and apprehension about making any new
improvements. No industry can make progress without embracing
fresher and powerful methodology [16]. Likewise, numerous LSS
execution systems for Auto-parts creating have existed in the writ-
ing, yet just structure isn’t adequate to make a fruitful execution.
As LSS is a major methodology and burns-through part of time
and assets during its execution, on the off chance that such
methodology comes up short, association faces colossal misfortune
as far as cash, time, and representative confidence [17]. Aside from
structure, availability estimates additionally required a far-
reaching execution. Availability estimates strategies are the com-
ponents that are thought to be considerable for the fruitful execu-
tion of LSS procedure in Auto-parts creating ventures. Barriers are
having unfaltering situations for affecting the aftereffect of any
constant change method executions in certain planning steps
[18]. Before LSS execution in an industry or before implementation
of LSS in an industry we need to know about different kind of bar-
riers to be faced by companies. Through an extensive SLR and
expert opinions, this research aims to discern the introduction of
LSS barriers in Indian auto-parts manufacturing corporations. Ini-
tially, thirty-one LSS barriers were identified and analyzed using
an applied mathematics instrument, CIMTC methodology and rel-
ative importance index analysis. The reliability check in the
Applied Mathematics Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version
27.0 yielded a finalised list of seventeen essential barriers as a
result of this applied mathematics analysis. These barriers enable
every company to evaluate its readiness to carry out an LSS project.
Simply extracting barriers isn’t enough for triple-crown LSS imple-
mentation; a rigorous relationship between them, as well as the
area unit of the driving and dependent barriers, must be defined.
Each alternative is related to the extracted LSS barriers, resulting
in a higher degree of interdependency, in such circumstances,
clearing the abstract thinking among barriers and selecting driving
barriers are difficult tasks. Without the use of powerful methods
like (SLR) and (CIMTC), as well as Cronbach’s analysis, such prob-
lems cannot be solved. These methods classify barriers based on
their driving power and dependence and create an indirect rela-
tionship between them based on their importance. There are six
parts of the research paper. Introduction is presented in Section 1
followed by the research objectives in Section 2. Section 3 summa-
rizes the literature on LSS barriers and Cronbach’s a analysis. The
research methodology adopted for extracting LSS barriers is shown
in Section 4. Section 5 shows the result and discussion through
clustering diagram with the help of CIMTC values. The overall con-
clusion of the current research work is covered in Section 6, along
with managerial implications, limitations, and potential scope fol-
lowed by the references.
2. Research objectives
The present study is carried out to accomplish the following
research objective:

To recognize the LSS barriers related to automotive component
manufacturing industry.

To validate the identified LSS barriers using statistical analysis
as CIMTC and Importance-Index analysis.

To facilitate the automobile industry to implement LSS
approach through systematic understanding of critical barriers.
729
Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 728–735
3. Literature review
3.1. Literature search methodology
The literature search methodology adopted in the present study
is systematic literature review (SLR) for identification of LSS barri-
ers in automobile part manufacturing industry. The SLR provides a
clear, inclusive, and transparent approach to literature survey to
ensure that literature review was conducted with utmost care
[9]. It is a method to identify, evaluate, and amalgamation the pub-
lished work formed by the researchers [15,95]. In SLR, three phases
associated as strategic phase, conducting and reporting phase [34].
In first phase, the barriers of LSS for automobile manufacturing
industry were identified from the article in time span of 1995 to
2021. The articles have been found using the search engine of Else-
vier, Taylor and Francis, Springer, Wiley, Emerald, Inderscience, etc.
so that no pertinent article left from the research view point. In
second phase of SLR, relevant research articles were found using
the search string LSS; barrier; automobile manufacturing industry;
statistical analysis. The exclusion criteria used for the literature
search where article before 1995, conference paper and reports,
and articles of languages other than English. In the third phase,
the article pertains to LSS barriers in the automobile sector are ana-
lyzed through to find out the barriers. The SLR of LSS barriers leads
to the identification of 31 barriers that act as hurdles in the execu-
tion of LSS in the automobile manufacturing industry.
3.2. Lean Six Sigma barriers
Over the last few decades, LSS has become well-known among
practitioners as a process creation method that can be used in
any industry to achieve service efficiency [19]. LSS can be used to
benefit over competition by using much less wasteful and value-
powerful production approaches. In different phrases, LSS is a tech-
nique to enhance performance and benefit a competitive facet [76].
Lean is a waste-reduction strategy that is implemented in a sys-
tematic manner [20]. It is a non-stop production strategy that
allows the product to flow in response to the consumer’s pull,
enabling non-value-added activities or waste to be discovered
and reduced. The Lean model was based on the Toyota production
system (TPS), which produces products in compliance with cus-
tomer requirements with minimal waste. To achieve complete sys-
tem leanness, LSS implementation necessitates an integrated
approach. [22]. Six Sigma helps to increase product quality by
reducing strategy uncertainty [23]. LSS is an fusion of lean produc-
tion and six sigma philosophies can enhance best, lessen method
versions, and eliminate non-value added activities [24], it’s been
a regular undertaking at agencies global to search for new and pro-
gressive methods to enhance their enterprise procedure to hold an
aggressive side within the market. Organizations have been drawn
to LSS because of their desire to improve on a continuous basis[75].
It is a method for improving business processes by focusing on the
best offer, a shorter time frame, improved customer service, and
reduced value, i.e. passing on the majority of profits to stockhold-
ers [25]. Lean as a manner to state cost from client’s angle, posi-
tioned the best series of cost-generate moves, carry out the ones
activities without interruption each time a person requests them
and carry out them increasingly more efficiently [26]. Lean and
six Sigma have accompanied discrete paths considering the fact
that their initiation and methodd [27]. [28] In addition defined that
LSS implementation isn’t always an smooth venture. [29] Men-
tioned the loss of physical and technical properties, such as trade
R. Rathi, M. Singh, A. Kumar Verma et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 728–735

and education, as a significant aspect of Six Sigma application in authors from whom we have identified the specific set of barriers
the United Kingdom, which is primarily found in medium and for our research.
small businesses. [30] Listed a lack of know-how and resources,
no discernible benefits, and the client’s unwillingness to pay for
the action as the primary impediment to a successful execution. 4. Research methodology
[31] at the same time as investigating in a Brazilian cosmetic man-
ufacturing facility mentioned trouble of obtaining satisfactory A systematic literature review was conducted, and the method-
facts, terrible estimation of economic benefit and insufficient size ology used to achieve the study’s purpose. is shown in Fig. 1.
abilities because the primary inhibitors of a success Six Sigma Learned Scholars contributed a lot of precious facts regarding the
implementation. [32] referred to loss of management, lack of LSSB [13]. There are majorly five different aspects of these LSSB
awareness of equipment, loss of training and remarks and absence has been figure out. In the next step, a detailed survey covering
of described goals because the foremost elements that avert a suc- these five aspects consisting of a questionnare has been prepared
cess implementation. [33–34] Mentioned data series as one of the and introduced among the mangers who are currently working
maximum extreme issues confronted via in Singaporean provider in the different manufacturing companies[69]. The data obtained
organisation throughout Six Sigma implementation. from survey was then analysed using SPSS tool to calculate terms
Management rules and day-to-day activities must be incorpo- like mean, standard deviation correlation, importance index value
rated, which is highly dependent on pinnacle-level management’s and reliability analysis as shown in Fig. 2.
mind-set, commitment, and engagement [35–38]. Effective influ- In order to navigate through this paper we firstly started with sys-
ence among decision-makers and employees encourages and moti- tematic literature review in which we studied research papers and
vates all employees to achieve excellent end results and increased articles on LSS implementation and its barriers [21] .After LSS barri-
productivity [39–41]. The new business implementation approach ers identification from SLR we created a Questionnaire for expert
is hampered by a shaky relationship between organisational goals opinion on the barriers and to create a data sheet of the opinions
and client needs; as a result, tactical planning is critical because it and reviews The mode of getting the opinion is through Google
is linked to both quality and productivity [42–46]. Furthermore, forms. With the help of data achieved from this questionnaire we
poor coordination in some divisions leads to faulty technical calculated mean and standard deviation of every barrier [92].We
records and data series errors, resulting in the company’s LSS fail- also analysed the importance index and CIMTC values of these barri-
ure [47–50]. Inner boundaries that contribute to LSS implementa- ers and with the help of CIMTC values we identified the final barriers
tion failure include poor tool selection, a loss of overall staff, a loss for further analysis .We found 17 barriers having CIMTC value in
of assessment, a flawed project selection, a loss of work plan for between (0.695–0.860) After getting these barriers we did Reliabil-
LSS implementation, a lack of understanding of LSS, an excessive ity analysis in order to achieve cronbach a value to be less than 1.
implementation price, and so on [51–54]. According to the litera- As if cronbach a value is in between 0.7 and 0.9 then the reliability
ture, top management approval is needed for the acquisition of
new strategies and equipment [55–56]. LSS execution is hampered
by a faulty correlation between organisational goals and client
requirements [57–59]. As a result, for a successful execution inside
the organisation, the strategy must be clever [60–63]. The litera-
ture mentions ‘‘ineffective project management” as a common
obstacle Management directives and day-to-day activities must
be in sync, which is highly dependent on high-level management’s
commitment, mind-set, and participation [64–67]. Fantastic
engagement between decision-makers and employees inspires
and motivates all employees to produce high-quality work and
improve their results [68–71]. Any new business implementation
method is hampered by fraud between organizational goals and
purchaser requirements; as a result, a perfect approach is critical
because it is directly linked to efficiency and quality [72–75]. The
management mind-set is crucial in adjusting policies and integrat-
ing the whole structure because of the ‘‘disparity between con-
sumer expectations and business goals” [76–77]. Fantastic
employee engagement allows for the creation of a positive atmo-
sphere and encourages them, all of which have an effect on their
job performance [78]. Implementation failures are caused by a
faulty link between organisational priorities and client needs. As
a result, organisational preparation must be completed with cau-
tion because it has a significant impact on the organization’s exe-
cution [79–82]. Furthermore, wastes like unnecessary
transportation, system time mismatches that cause delays, inven-
tory wastes [83], and even work in technique wastes that affect
glide must all be considered [84]. Auto parts manufacturing hubs’
financial reserves are limited because their turnover is lower than
that of large corporations [85–88]. As an end result, ‘‘Need for
training funds.” are distinguished barriers as some distance as Auto
parts manufacturing hubs in India are worried [89–91]. Below
(Table I) authors have listed 31 LSS barriers identified with the help
Fig. 1. Research Methodology.
of SLR and in parallel to the barriers there are the name of the

730
R. Rathi, M. Singh, A. Kumar Verma et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 728–735

Fig. 2. Average value of mean with respect to LSSB.

Table 1
Lean Six Sigma Barriers.

S. No. LSS Barriers Authors

1. Breakdown in coordination between management and employees. Jadhav et al. (2014)[425746]
2. Resistance for change in workers Abolhassani et al. (2016)[8166].
3. Less authority to employees. Jeyaraman and Kee Teo (2012)[4856]
4. Lack of determination. V. Raja Sreedharan and R. Raju (2015)[4981]
5. Insufficient supervision from line managers. Moya, Muller, & Camargo,(2019)[2539]
6. Lack of shared confidence in staff. Jeyaraman and Kee Teo (2012)[4873]
7. Satisfaction with the present state of quality control. Dora et al. (2016)[777456]
8. Scarcity of trainers and consultants in sector. Brian & Smithwick, Jake. (2017)[1252]
9. Need for training funds. Arumugam et al. (2012)[7241]
10. Poor estimation of implementation cost. Ambekar and Hudnurkar (2017)[38]
11. Defects and customer satisfaction cost and waste. Thais Alves (2016)[65]
12. Scarcity of resources. Albliwi et al. (2014)[5672]
13. Absence of logistic support. De Leeuw, S. and Dubbers, R. (2016)[53]
14. Wrong perception of LSS in terms of tools and techniques. Rathi, R., Khanduja, D and Sharma, S. (2017)[6]
15. Complexity in data analysis. Shivam gupta , Sachin Modgil (2019)[80]
16. Insufficient knowledge about LSS. Hilton and Sohal (2012)[7036],
17. Absence of knowledge about LSS benefits and needs.. Bhasin (2012)[5781]
18. Mere experience of LSS implementation in company projects. Hilton and Sohal (2012)[70 48]
19. Difficulties in collection of data for LSS deployment. Netasha & Cullen, Donna & Kumar (2012)[58]
20. Lack of interaction between supplier and customers. Upadhye et al. (2010)[7842]
21. Improper data collection and retrieval system. Shreeranga Bhat ,N.A. Jhanesh (2014)[62]
22. Alignment between the project’s purpose and the company’s strategic vision. Joanna & Le Duigou, Julien & Eynard, Benoit. (2016).
23. Difficulties to work with statistical tool. Chakravorty and Shah (2012)[3670]
24. Ineffective material handling and transportation. Kumar et al. (2015)[84]
25. Problems faced in using effective techniques for LSS implementations. Jiju Antony , Donna Cullen ,Maneesh Kumar (2012)[58]
26. Incompatibility of LSS with company’s bonus, compensation, or incentive schemes. Shiau wei chan ,Fadillah Ismail, M.F. Ahmad (2019)[60]
27. Quality problems with supplied material. Souraj Salah, Abdur Rahim (2011)[61]
28. Disproportion between customer demands and company priorities. Raval and Kant (2017)[6768 29], Mandahawi et al., 2011[37]
29. Ineffective project management. Franchetti and Yanik (2011)[79], Ambekar and Hudnurkar, 2017[38]
30. Problems with machines and plant configuration Uzorh, Augustine & Olanrewaju (2018)[63]
31. Slow response to market / Time consuming Shreeranga Bhat, N.A. Jhanesh (2014)[62]

level is termed very accurate in analysis [93]. At last there is conclu-
sion with limitations of this research paper and references of all the
papers and articles taken into account.
5. Result and discussion
LSS barriers are identified using SLR (refer to Table 1) and anal-
ysed through CIMTC analysis (refer table III) .On the basis of similar
traits shown by these barriers we have categorizes them in 5 sec-
tions (refer Table II).The five sections are management issues, cost
effects on industry, way of data collection, project management
and goals of company, and in company issues faced by managers
and practitioner of LSS.
Purification is carried out using statistical methods such as
importance-index analysis and CIMTC to obtain a cluster of
strongly correlated barriers for further analysis [94]. CIMTC
stands for corrected item minus overall correlation between
the actual item’s score and the sum of the remaining items’
scores. Prior to further study, objects with low correlation
(CIMTC significance less than 0.3) with other items must be
omitted. The comprehensive statistics and CIMTC for the LSS
barriers were calculated in Table 2. It release that CIMTC values
for all the variables of the barriers LSSB4 are higher than 0.61
and touches the highest 0.86, whereas the LSSB3 have the same
lower cut-off and reaches to 0.78, rest of the LSSB s are lower
cut-off 0.44 and reaches to highest 0.70. Therefore because of
these outcomes it was concluded that LSSB4 and LSSB3 are the
important barriers, which will be treated well.
Table 3 reveals that the highest mean were 4.21 for LSSB2 and
LSSB4. This indicates that most of the organizations managers per-
ceive these two as major barrier for the implementation of the LSS.
The lowest score was 4.15 which related to LSSB5, this reveals that
it creates hurdle but lower in comparison to the others LSSB.

731
R. Rathi, M. Singh, A. Kumar Verma et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 728–735

Table 2
Categorization of LSSB.

Sr. Barrier category Relative Barriers

No.
1. Management Issues 1. Breakdown in coordination between management and employees.2. Resistance for change in workers.3. Less authority to
employees.4. Lack of determination.5. Insufficient supervision from line managers.6. Lack of shared confidence in staff.7. Lack of
shared confidence in staff.8. Scarcity of trainers and consultants in sector.
2. Cost Effects 1. Need for training funds.2. Poor estimation of implementation cost.3. Defects and customer satisfaction cost and waste.4. Scarcity
of resources.
3. Data Collection 1. Absence of logistic support.2. Wrong perceptions of LSS in terms of tools and techniques.3. Insufficient knowledge about LSS.4.
Complexity of data analysis.5. Absence of knowledge about LSS benefits and needs.6. Mere experience of LSS implementation in
company projects.7. Difficulties in collection of data for LSS deployment.
4. Plan Management and 1. Lack of interaction between supplier and customers.2. Improper data collection and retrieval system.3. Alignment between the
its Goals project’s purpose and the company’s strategic vision.4. Difficulties to work with statistical tool.5. Ineffective material handling and
transportation.6. Problems faced in using effective techniques for LSS implementations
5. Company Associated 1. Incompatibility of LSS with company’s bonus, compensation, or incentive schemes.2. Quality problems with supplied material.3.
Issues Disproportion between customer demands and company priorities.4. Ineffective project management.5. Problems with machines
and plant configuration.6. Slow response to market / Time consuming

Table 3
Barriers: Mean, SD, Importance Index, and CIMTC analysis.

List of Barriers Mean Std. Deviation Imp. Index CIMTC

LSSB1
1. Breakdown in coordination between management and employees. 4.10 0.73 0.82 0.522**
2. Resistance for change in workers. 4.24 0.65 0.85 0.482**
3. Less authority to employees. 4.01 0.96 0.80 0.774**
4. Lack of determination. 4.10 0.78 0.82 0.743**
5. Insufficient supervision from line managers. 4.08 0.86 0.82 0.710**
6. Lack of shared confidence in staff. 4.12 0.88 0.82 0.667**
7. Satisfaction with the present state of quality control. 4.11 0.84 0.82 0.444**
8. Scarcity of trainers and consultants in sector. 4.22 0.64 0.84 0.543**
Average 4.12 0.79 0.82
LSSB2
1. Need for training funds. 4.36 0.66 0.87 0.615**
2. Poor estimation of implementation cost. 4.19 0.84 0.84 0.677**
3. Defects and customer satisfaction cost and waste. 4.15 0.81 0.83 0.754**
4. Scarcity of resources. 4.14 0.91 0.83 0.778**
Average 4.21 0.80 0.84
LSSB3
1. Absence of logistic support. 4.07 0.77 0.81 0.737**
2. Wrong perceptions of LSS in terms of tools and techniques. 4.02 0.79 0.80 0.718**
3. Insufficient knowledge about LSS. 4.17 0.51 0.83 0.656**
4. Complexity in data analysis. 4.18 0.64 0.84 0.618**
5. Absence of knowledge about LSS benefits and needs. 4.38 0.58 0.88 0.789**
6. Mere experience of LSS implementation in company projects. 4.36 0.70 0.87 0.779**
7. Difficulties in collection of data for LSS deployment. 4.21 0.86 0.84 0.695**
Average 4.20 0.69 0.84
LSSB4
1. Lack of interaction between supplier and customers. 4.29 0.67 0.86 0.860**
2. Improper data collection and retrieval system. 4.18 0.88 0.84 0.749**
3. Alignment between the project’s purpose and the company’s strategic vision. 4.15 0.81 0.83 0.659**
4. Difficulties to work with statistical tool. 4.21 0.52 0.84 0.709**
5. Ineffective material handling and transportation. 4.28 0.67 0.86 0.618**
6. Problems faced in using effective techniques for LSS implementations. 4.17 0.62 0.83 0.705**
Average 4.21 0.69 0.84
LSSB5
1. Incompatibility of LSS with company’s bonus, compensation, or incentive schemes. 4.19 0.72 0.84 0.650**
2. Quality problems with supplied material. 4.06 0.74 0.81 0.735**
3. Disproportion between customer demands and company priorities. 3.95 0.90 0.79 0.699**
4. Ineffective project management. 4.21 0.76 0.84 0.544**
5. Problems with machines and plant configuration. 4.25 0.67 0.85 0.698**
6. Slow response to market / Time consuming 4.24 0.70 0.85 0.653**
Average 4.15 0.75 0.83

Authors have used relative importance index to identify most The relative importance index is measured in a scale of 0 to 1
important barriers for LSS using the responses opted by experts. where it is categorized in 5 sections as shown below:
Experts have opted the value from (1–5) in ascending order and Most relevant 0.80  (Ix)  1.00
then they were calculated using formula below: Relevant 0.60  (Ix)  0.80
P5 Favourable 0.40  (Ix)  0.60
i¼1 piX Less relevant 0.20  (Ix)  0.40
Relative Importance Index ðIxÞ ¼ P5 i
5 i¼1 X i Not relevant 0.00  (Ix)  0.20

732
R. Rathi, M. Singh, A. Kumar Verma et al. Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 728–735

Table 4
Reliability Statistics for 17 Barriers.

Reliability Analysis
Cronbach’s a value Number of LSS barriers
0.971 17

Relative importance index is calculated using the above formula

and then analysed with the help of SPSS tool and its results are
shown in table III .On comparing the relative importance index val-
ues of all the barriers authors find the highest value to be 0.84 of
LSSB3, LSSB4 and LSSB5 which conclude that these barriers are
more crucial than LSSB1 and LSSB2.
To eradicate biasness of LSS barriers authors have used reliabil-
ity analysis and for checking the consistency between them.
Authors have used SPSS software version 27 for reliability analysis
to get cronbach a value .This analysis was discovered by Lee Cron-
bach on year 1951.Cronbach a value determines reliability of bar-
riers and validate them .According to analysis and responses by
experts, Cronbach a value for these finalized barriers is 0.971(refer
to Table 4) which shows excellent reliability.
Authors identified 31 LSS barriers at the start of the study but
after statistical analysis (CIMTC and reliability) they finalized 17
barriers which are as follows:

Finalized LSS Barriers

1. Less authority to employees.
2. Lack of determination.
3. Insufficient supervision from line managers.
4. Defects and customer satisfaction cost and waste.
5. Scarcity of resources.
6. Absence of knowledge about LSS benefits and needs.
7. Absence of logistic support.
8 Wrong perceptions of LSS in terms of tools and techniques.
9. Difficulties in collection of data for LSS deployment.
10. Mere experience of LSS implementation in company
projects.
11. Lack of interaction between supplier and customers.
12. Improper data collection and retrieval system.
13. Ineffective material handling and transportation.
14. Problems faced in using effective techniques for LSS
implementations.
15. Quality problems with supplied material.
16. Disproportion between customer demands and company
priorities.
17. Problems with machines and plant configuration.
We use CIMTC and Important index to cluster the barriers The rec-
ognized value for further analysis is from 0.695 to 0.860.Numbers
used in clustering diagram are the numbers taken from list of final-
ized barriers shown in Fig. 3 and then presented in a way in
descending order of the CIMTC value. Then these Barriers are taken
for reliability analysis.
5.1. Implication for managers and practitioners
The current research is exhibiting a vast managerial implication
in a field of LSS researchers and practitioners as they can focus on
the identified barriers presented by our work to fulfil the gap and
prevent the failure of implementing LSS in their agencies or com-
panies. With the help of present outcomes, practitioners can plan
their layout to overcome these barriers over time. To successfully
implement LSS in any organization it is necessary to know the fea-
733
Fig. 3. Cluster Diagram.
tures and changes required for controlling the quality of produc-
tion [43]. This paper help all the practitioners and managers who
wants to implement or are dealing with identification of barriers
in their firm .This paper furnish easiness to manager’s, researcher’s
and practitioners of LSS to identify barriers in their organization
and implement needed ways or methods to eliminate these
barriers.
6. Conclusion, Limitation, and future scope
This study apex the key LSS barriers responsible for the imple-
mentation of LSS in an Automobile part manufacturing Industry, to
begin with we have 31 barriers identified which were finalized into
5 categories of implementations. These barriers are identified using
survey and expert opinion using Google forms platform .in this sur-
vey authors have taken responses and then analyzed them using
statistical tools such as SPSS and CIMTC analysis used for reliability
test .At the end we are having the list of 17 finalized barriers which
are most relevant to the industry. Analysis used for this paper are
CIMTC ,important index and reliability analysis using Cronbach a.
Barriers taken for reliability test are finalized using CIMTC values
between (0.695–0.860) and after using Cronbach a method relia-
bility value is 0.971 (refer to Table 4). Furthermore study con-
cluded on the ground of the above Descriptive, Importance index,
CIMTC based analysis that barrier LSSB4 and LSSB3 are most
important barriers taken into account for successful implementa-
tion of LSS system in Different Indian Automobile parts manufac-
turing hubs in India.
The relevant limitation for this paper was identified LSS barrier
and then try to capture the gist of the problems and only the lim-
ited expert’s opinions has been included. As this study is done on
the basis of expert’s opinion and all the analysis is done on the
R. Rathi, M. Singh, A. Kumar Verma et al.
basis of responses chosen by experts there may be biasness in real
life experience of implementations of LSS in an industry. With the
help of this paper LSS researchers and practitioners can focus
directly on implementation of LSS without having any issues to
find the barrier in their firms as they can get rid of these barriers
beforehand .They can easily plan the company layouts in terms
of eradicating LSS barriers.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Rajeev Rathi: Validation, Writing - review & editing. Mahipal
Singh: Validation, Writing - review & editing. Alok Kumar Verma:
Investigation, Writing - original draft. Rahul Singh Gurjar: Writing
- original draft. Amar Singh: Data curation. Bijoy Samantha: For-
mal analysis.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] R. Rathi, D. Khanduja, S. Sharma, Six sigma project selection using fuzzy TOPSIS
decision making approach, Manage. Sci. Lett. 5 (5) (2015) 447–456.
[2] S. Taghizadegan, Introduction to essentials of lean six sigma (6 [sigma])
strategies: Lean six sigma: Six sigma quality with lean speed, Essent. Six Sigma
1 (1) (2006) 1–6.
[3] M. Hudnurkar S. Ambekar S. Bhattacharya Empirical analysis of Six Sigma
project capability deficiency and its impact on project success The TQM Journal
2019 TQM-06-2018-0078– 10.1108/TQM-06-2018-0078
[4] G. Yadav, T.N. Desai, Lean six sigma: A categorized review of the literature, Int.
J. Lean Six Sigma 7 (1) (2016) 2–24.
[5] R.G. Schroeder, K. Linderman, S. Zaheer, A.S. Choo, Six sigma: a goal-theoretic
perspective, Quality Contr. Appl. Statist. 49 (1) (2004) 49–50.
[6] R. Rathi, D. Khanduja, S.K. Sharma, A fuzzy-MADM based approach for
prioritising Six Sigma projects in the Indian auto sector, International Journal
of Management Science and Engineering Management 12 (2) (2017) 133–140.
[7] J. Henriques, J. Catarino, Motivating towards energy efficiency in small and
medium enterprises, J. Cleaner Prod. 139 (2016) 42–50.
[8] T. Bendell, A review and comparison of six sigma and the lean organisations,
The TQM Magazine 18 (3) (2006) 255–262.
[9] M. Singh, R. Rathi, A structured review of Lean Six Sigma in various industrial
sectors, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 10 (2) (2019) 622–664.
[10] M.V. Sunder, L.S. Ganesh, R.R. Marathe, A morphological analysis of research
literature on Lean Six Sigma for services, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 38 (1) (2018) 149–182.
[11] V.R. Sreedharan, M.V. Sunder, A novel approach to lean six sigma project
management: A conceptual framework and empirical application, Production
Planning and Control 29 (11) (2018) 895–907.
[12] W. Shirey K. Sullivan B. Lines J. Smithwick Application of Lean Six Sigma to
Improve Service in Healthcare Facilities Management: A Case Study Journal of
Facility Management Education and Research. 1 2017 9–18. 10.22361/jfmer/
78724
[13] R. Rathi, D. Khanduja, S.K. Sharma, Synergy of fuzzy AHP and Six Sigma for
capacity waste management in Indian automotive industry, Decision Science
Letters 4 (3) (2015) 441–452.
[14] B. Chaurasia, D. Garg, A. Agarwal, Lean Six Sigma approach: a strategy to
enhance performance of first through time and scrap reduction in an
automotive industry, International Journal of Business Excellence 17 (1)
(2019) 42–57.
[15] J. Antony, D. Setijono, J.J. Dahlgaard, Lean Six Sigma and Innovation – an
exploratory study among UK organisations, Total Quality Management and
Business Excellence 27 (2) (2016) 124–140.
[16] R. Stankalla, F. Chromjakova, O. Koval, A review of the Six Sigma belt system
for manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises, Quality Management
Journal 26 (2) (2019) 100–117.
[17] V.R. Sreedharan, S.S. Kannan, R. Trehan, Defect reduction in an electrical parts
manufacturer: A case study, The TQM Journal 30 (6) (2018) 650–678.
[18] P. Alexander, J. Antony, B. Rodgers, Lean six sigma for small-and medium-sized
manufacturing enterprises: a systematic review, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management 36 (3) (2019) 378–397.
[19] S. Ali Mithun; Hossen, Md. Anwar; Mahtab, Zuhayer; Kabir, Golam; Paul,
Sanjoy Kumar; Adnan, Zia ul Haq, Barriers to lean six sigma implementation in
the supply chain: An ISM model Computers & Industrial Engineering 149 2020
106843–
734
Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 728–735
[20] T. Thomas, S.R. Sherman, R.S. Sawhney, Application of lean manufacturing
principles to improve a conceptual238Pu supply process, J. Manuf. Syst. 46
(2018) 1–12.
[21] R. Rathi, D. Khanduja, S.K. Sharma, A fuzzy MADM approach for project
selection: a Six Sigma case study, Decision Science Letters 5 (2) (2016) 255–
268.
[22] M. Parveen, T.V.V.L.N. Rao, An integrated approach to design and analysis of
lean manufacturing system: A perspective of lean supply chain, International
Journal of Services and Operations Management 5 (2) (2009) 175.
[23] T. Costa, F.J.G. Silva, L. Pinto Ferreira, Improve the extrusion process in tire
production using Six Sigma methodology, Procedia Manuf. 13 (2017) 1104–
1111.
[24] I. Alhuraish, C. Robledo, A. Kobi, A comparative exploration of lean
manufacturing and six sigma in terms of their critical success factors, J.
Cleaner Prod. 164 (2017) 325–337.
[25] M.V. Sunder, Corporate perspectives: commonalities and differences betweenSix
Sigmaandlean,InternationalJournalofLeanSixSigma6(3)(2015)281–288.
[26] Laureani, A. (2012), ‘‘Lean Six Sigma in the service industry, advanced topics in
applied operations management”, ISBN: 978-953-51-0345-5
[27] P. Achanga, E. Shehab, R. Roy, G. Nelder, Critical success factors for lean
implementation within SMEs, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management 17 (4) (2006) 460–471.
[28] N. Nordin, B. Md Deros, D.A. Wahab, A survey on lean manufacturing
implementation in Malaysian automotive industry, International Journal of
Innovation, Management and Technology 1 (4) (2010) 374–380.
[29] J. Antony, M. Kumar, C. Madu, Six Sigma in small- and medium-sized UK
manufacturing enterprises: some empirical observations, International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management 22 (8) (2005) 860–874.
[30] R. Prakash, Six Sigma implementation in small and medium scale electronic
industries: a case study, International Journal of Innovative Research &
Development 5 (11) (2016) 169–173.
[31] R. Martins R. Mergulao L. Junior The enablers and inhibitors of Six Sigma
project in a Brazilian cosmetic factory Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Production Research – Americas’ Region (ICPR 2006 ICPR-
AM06).
[32] R. Ulewicz, R. Kuceba, Identification of problems of implementation of lean
concept in the SME sector, International Society for Manufacturing, Service
and Management Engineering 8 (1) (2016) 19–25.
[33] A. Chakrabarty, T. Chuan, An exploratory qualitative and quantitative analysis
of Six Sigma in service organizations in Singapore, Management Research
News 32 (7) (2009) 614–632.
[34] M. Kaswan, R. Rathi, Analysis and modeling the enablers of Green Lean Six
Sigma implementation using Interpretive Structural Modeling, J. Cleaner Prod.
231 (2019) 1182–1191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.253.
[35] M. Kumar, J. Antony, Comparing the quality management practices in
UK SMEs, Industrial Management & Data Systems 108 (9) (2008) 1153–
1166.
[36] S.S. Chakravorty, A.D. Shah, Lean Six Sigma (LSS): an implementation
experience, European Journal of Industrial Engineering 6 (1) (2012) 118–137.
[37] N. Mandahawi, O. Al-Araidah, A. Boran, M. Khasawneh, Application of Lean Six
Sigma tools to minimise length of stay for ophthalmology day case surgery,
International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage 6 (3) (2011)
156–172.
[38] S. Ambekar, M. Hudnurkar, Factorial structure for Six Sigma project barriers in
Indian manufacturing and service industries, The TQM Journal 29 (5) (2017)
744–759.
[39] Md. Rajib, Atm Adnan, Improving Ready-Made Garment Productivity by
Changing Worker Attitude, European Scientific Journal. 12 (2016) 1857–7881,
https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n4p436.
[40] T. Waterbury, C. Bonilla, A lean six sigma execution strategy for service
sectors: what you need to know before starting the journey, International
Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage 4 (4) (2008) 395–408.
[41] D. Seth, N. Seth, D. Goel, Application of value stream mapping (VSM) for
minimization of wastes in the processing side of supply chain of cottonseed oil
industry in Indian context, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
19 (4) (2008) 529–550.
[42] J.R. Jadhav, S.S. Mantha, S.B. Rane, Exploring barriers in lean implementation,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 5 (2) (2014) 122–148.
[43] R. Rathi, D. Khanduja, S.K. Sharma, Efficacy of fuzzy MADM approach in Six
Sigma analysis phase in automotive sector, Journal of Industrial Engineering
International 12 (3) (2016) 377–387, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-016-
0143-0.
[44] M. Singh, P. Kumar, R. Rathi, Modelling the barriers of Lean Six Sigma for
Indian micro-small medium enterprises: An ISM and MICMAC approach, The
TQM Journal 31 (5) (2019) 673–695, https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2018-
0205.
[45] J. Hill, A. Thomas, R. Mason -Jones, S. El Kateb, The implementation of a Lean
Six Sigma framework to enhance operational performance in an MRO facility,
Production and Manufacturing Research 6 (1) (2017) 26–48, https://doi.org/
10.1080/21693277.2017.1417179.
[46] W.Timans,J Antony , K Ahaus and R van Solingen .Implementation of Lean Six
Sigma in Small- and Medium-Sized Manufacturing Enterprises in the
Netherlands March 2012Journal of the Operational Research Society 63(3)
DOI: 10.1057/jors.2011.47
[47] M.S. Kaswan, R. Rathi, Investigating the enablers associated with
implementation of Green Lean Six Sigma in manufacturing sector using Best
R. Rathi, M. Singh, A. Kumar Verma et al.
Worst Method, Clean Technology Environment Policy 22 (2020) 865–876,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01827-w.
[48] K .Jayaraman ,Teo Leam kee , Keng Lin soh .The perceptions and perspectives of
Lean Six Sigma (LSS) practitioners ,August 2012TQM Journal 24(5):433-446
[49] V. Raja Sreedharan R. Raju systematic literature review of Lean Six Sigma in
different industries July 2016International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 7 4
(2015).A 430 466
[50] Singh, M., and Rathi, R., (2020), Investigation of critical success factors
associated with Lean Six Sigma implementation in MSMEs using Best Worst
Method, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 2020
Vol.12 No.2/3, pp.209 – 233.
[51] M. Kaswan, R. Rathi, D. Khanduja, Integration of Green Lean Six Sigma: A Novel
Approach for Sustainable Development, Int. J. of Six Sigma and Competitive
Advantage 12 (4) (2020) 389–405, https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJSSCA.2020.10034341.
[52] Bhim Singh , S.K. Garg , S.K. Sharma ,Chandandeep Grewal .Lean
implementation and its benefits to production industry ,May
2010International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 1(2)
[53] Gutiérrez Gutiérrez, L.J.; De Leeuw, S. and Dubbers, R. (2016): ‘‘Logistics
services and Lean Six Sigma implementation: a case study‘‘. International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 7, n.3, pp.324-342. ‘‘Highly Commended paper
2016” Emerald Publishing Group.
[54] Rathi, R., & Khanduja, D. (2019), Identification and Prioritization Lean Six
Sigma Barriers in MSMEs. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1240,
No. 1, p. 012062). IOP Publishing.
[55] M. Kaswan, R. Rathi, Green Lean Six Sigma for Sustainable Development:
Integration and Framework, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 83 (2020), https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106396 106396.
[56] Saja Al Balawi Jiju Antony Serina Abdul Halim Lim Ton van der Wiele , (2014),
‘‘Critical failure factors of LeanSix Sigma: a systematic literature review”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 31 Iss 9 pp.
1012 - 1030
[57] Sanjay Bhasin, Prominent obstacles to lean, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management. 61 (2012) 403–425, https://doi.
org/10.1108/17410401211212661.
[58] Jiju Antony, Netasha Krishan, Donna Cullen, Maneesh Kumar, Lean Six Sigma
for higher education institutions (HEIs): Challenges, barriers, success factors,
tools/techniques, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management. 61 (2012) 940–948, https://doi.org/10.1108/1741040121
1277165.
[59] M. Singh, R. Rathi, Lean Six Sigma imperatives for casting quality improvement
of automotive components: A Case, International Journal of Six Sigma and
Competitive Advantage (accepted) (2020).
[60] Chan, Shiau Wei & Ahmad, M. & Zaman, Izzuddin & Ismail, Fadillah. (2019).
Factors and Barriers Influencing Lean Production System Adoption in
Manufacturing Industries. 8. 939-946.
[61] Souraj Salah, Abdur Rahim, Juan Carretero, Implementation of Lean Six Sigma
(LSS) in supply chain management (SCM): an integrated management
philosophy, Int. J. of Transitions and Innovation Systems. 1 (2011) 138–162,
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTIS.2011.039622.
[62] Shreeranga Bhat, N.A. Jnanesh, Application of Lean Six Sigma methodology to
reduce the cycle time of out-patient department service in a rural hospital,
International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management. 14 (2014)
222, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHTM.2014.064257.
[63] Augustine Uzorh Engr Olanrewaju Innocent Nnanna Integration of Lean
Manufacturing And Six Sigma Using Statistical Methods 2018 10.9790/1684-
1504026376
[64] R. Rathi, C. Prakash, S. Singh, G. Krolczyk, C.I. Pruncu, Measurement and
analysis of wind energy potential using fuzzy based hybrid MADM approach,
Energy Rep. 6 (2020) 228–237.
[65] Heet, Mohammad & Alves, Thais & Lakrori, Nensi. (2020). Investigation of the
Use of Lean Construction Practices in Transportation Construction Projects.
541-552. 10.24928/2020/0121.
[66] Ruben Pinedo-Cuenca, Pablo Olalla, Djoko Setijono, Linking Six Sigma’s critical
success/hindering factors and organizational change (development): A
framework and a pilot study, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma. 3
(2012), https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461211284752.
[67] Shruti Raval Ravi Kant Study on Lean Six Sigma frameworks: a critical
literature review International Journal of Lean Six Sigma. 8 2017 00 00
10.1108/IJLSS-02-2016-0003
[68] Manisha Lande, Rakesh Shrivastava, Dinesh Seth, Critical success factors for
Lean Six Sigma in SMEs (small and medium enterprises), The TQM Journal. 28
(2016) 613–635, https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2014-0107.
[69] R. Rathi, V. Ammar, M. Kaswan, Grey Relational Analysis of Green Lean Six
Sigma Critical Success Factors for Improved Organizational Performance,
International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage (accepted)
(2021).
[70] Roger Hilton, Amrik Sohal, A conceptual model for the successful deployment
of Lean Six Sigma, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.
29 (2012) 54–70, https://doi.org/10.1108/02656711211190873.
[71] M. Singh, R. Rathi, J.A. Garza-Reyes, Analysis and Prioritization of Lean Six
Sigma Enablers with Environmental facets using Best Worst Method: A Case of
735
Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 728–735
Indian MSMEs, J. Cleaner Prod. 239 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.123592 123592.
[72] V. Arumugam, Jiju Antony, Alex Douglas, Observation: A Lean tool for
improving the effectiveness of Lean Six Sigma, The TQM Journal. 24 (2012)
275–287, https://doi.org/10.1108/17542731211226781.
[73] Gijo Ev, Jiju Antony, Reducing Patient Waiting Time in Outpatient Department
Using Lean Six Sigma Methodology, Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. (2014), https://doi.
org/10.1002/qre.1552.
[74] S.A. Albliwi, J. Antony, S.A.h. Lim, A systematic review of Lean Six Sigma for the
manufacturing industry, Business Process Management Journal 21 (3) (2015)
665–691, https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-03-2014-0019.
[75] M. Singh, R. Rathi, Investigation and modeling of lean six sigma barriers in
small and medium-sized industries using hybrid ISM-SEM approach,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma (2021), https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-
09-2020-0146.
[76] M. Singh, R. Rathi, J. Antony, J.A. Garza-Reyes, Lean Six Sigma Project Selection
in a Manufacturing Environment Using Hybrid Methodology Based on
Intuitionistic Fuzzy MADM Approach, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. (2021),
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3049877.
[77] Manoj Dora, Xavier Gellynck, Lean Six Sigma Implementation in a Food
Processing SME: A Case Study, Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 31 (2015), https://doi.org/
10.1002/qre.1852.
[78] S.G. Nitin Upadhye Deshmukh & Suresh Garg, Lean manufacturing system for
medium size manufacturing enterprises: an Indian case International Journal
of Management Science and Engineering Management 5 5 2010 362 375
10.1080/17509653.2010.10671127
[79] Matthew Franchetti, Megan Yanik, Continuous improvement and value stream
analysis through the lean DMAIC Six Sigma approach: A manufacturing case
study from Ohio, USA, Int. J. of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage. 6 (2011)
278–300, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCA.2011.040676.
[80] Shivam Gupta, Sachin Modgil & Angappa Gunasekaran ,Big Data in Lean Six
Sigma: A Review and Further Research Directions March 2019International
Journal of Production Research 58(3).
[81] Amir Abolhassani ky Layfiels Bhadkaran Gopalkrishnan, Lean and US
manufacturing industry: popularity of practices and implementation
barriers, September 2016International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management 65 (7) (2016) 875–897.
[82] A.G. Psychogios, J. Atanasovski, L.K. Tsironis, Lean Six Sigma in a service
context: a multi-factor application approach in the telecommunications
industry, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 29 (1)
(2012) 122–139.
[83] Hector Cortes Joanna Daaboul Le Duigou Julien & Eynard, Benoit. Strategic
Lean Management: Integration of operational Performance Indicators for
strategic Lean management IFAC-PapersOnLine. 49 2016 65 70 10.1016/j.
ifacol.2016.07.551
[84] Maneesh Kumar, Jiju Antony, Ritesh Singh, Manoj Tiwari, Daniel Perry,
Implementing the Lean Sigma framework in an Indian SME: A case study,
Production Planning & Control - production planning control. 17 (2006) 407–
423, https://doi.org/10.1080/09537280500483350.
[85] Saja Ahmad, Jiju Amthony Albliwi, Sarina Abdul, Halim Lim, A systematic
review of Lean Six Sigma for the manufacturing industry June 2015, Business
Process Management Journal 21 (3) (2015) 665–691.
[86] P. Singh, K.S. Sangwan, Employee involvement and training in environmentally
conscious manufacturing implementation for Indian manufacturing industry,
in: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management, 2014, pp. 1317–1321.
[87] S. Shingo, Quick changeover for operators: The SMED system, Productivity
press, 1996.
[88] S. Khaba, C. Bhar, Analysing the barriers of lean in Indian coal mining industry
using integrated ISM-MICMAC and SEM, Benchmarking 25 (7) (2018) 2145–
2168.
[89] Lee J. Cronbach (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. , 16
(3), 297–334. doi:10.1007/bf02310555.
[90] Moya, Galvez, Muller, & Camargo, 2019), A new framework to support Lean Six
Sigma deployment in SMEs ,December 2018International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma.
[91] M. Singh, R. Rathi, M.S. Kaswan, Capacity utilization in industrial sector: a
structured review and implications for future research, World Journal of
Engineering (2021), https://doi.org/10.1108/WJE-09-2020-0447.
[92] M.S. Kaswan, R. Rathi, M. Singh, Just in time elements extraction and
prioritization for health care unit using decision making approach,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 36 (7) (2019)
1243–1263, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-08-2018-0208.
[93] M.S. Kaswan, R. Rathi, D. Khanduja, M. Singh, Life Cycle Assessment
Framework for Sustainable Development in Manufacturing Environment. In
Advances in Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, Singapore, 2020, pp. 103–113.
[94] M. Singh, R. Rathi, D. Khanduja, G.S. Phull, M.S. Kaswan, Six sigma
methodology and implementation in indian context: A review-based study,
Advances in Intelligent Manufacturing (2020) 1–16.
[95] Kaswan, M.S. and Rathi, R. (In press) ’An inclusive review of Green Lean Six
Sigma for sustainable development: readiness measures and challenges’, ‘‘Int.
J. Advanced Operations Management”.