The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm
IJQRM
29,1
122
International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management
Vol. 29 No. 1, 2012
pp. 122-139
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-671X
DOI 10.1108/02656711211190909
Lean Six Sigma in a service context
A multi-factor application approach in the
telecommunications industry
Alexandros G. Psychogios
Business Administration & Economic Department, City College,
International Faculty of the University of Sheffield, Thessaloniki, Greece
Jane Atanasovski
Network Development Department, Makedonski Telekom, Skopje,
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and
Loukas K. Tsironis
Management Systems Laboratory,
Department of Production Engineering and Management,
Technical University of Crete, Crete, Greece
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate issues related to the application of Lean
Six Sigma (L6s) in a service industry. By adopting a case-study approach this paper analytically
explores the critical success factors that affect L6s implementation.
Design/methodology/approach – The study adopts a qualitative approach attempting to explore
the nature of L6s application in a service context. In particular, two case studies from the
telecommunications industry have been selected. Secondary data were collected through an analysis of
companies’ documents, written procedures and quality assurance policies. Moreover, primary data
were collected through a number of interviews with managers and quality experts.
Findings – There are particular factors that influence the implementation of L6s in organizations,
that can be distinguished in facilitators like Top Management Involvement & Support, Quality-driven
Organizational Culture, Quality-driven Training, Top Down & Bottom Up Project Selection, Customer
Satisfaction, Prior implementation of other quality improvement programs and Supportive
Performance Management & IT Systems, and inhibitors such as Lack of Awareness for L6s, Lack
of Awareness for the Need of Continuous Quality Improvement Programs & L6s, Lack of Strategic
Orientation, Working Mentality & Habits.
Research limitations/implications – The main limitation of the study is the fact that in both cases
only managers and top administrators were approached. Frontline employees who are directly involved in
L6s approach may offer a clearer view on issues related to the impact of critical factors on L6s application.
Originality/value – This study has four major advantages. First, it expands our understanding
regarding the implementation of L6s in a service industry, in which the application of management
models is more complex and problematic. Second, it focuses on the responses of managers, who always
play the most significant role in the adoption of such techniques. Third, it explores the quality
management initiatives in the telecommunications industry. Finally, it provides future studies with a
L6s multi-factor application approach that can be further tested and developed.
Keywords Six Sigma, Lean production, Lean Six Sigma, Critical success factors, Managers,
Quality assurance, Services, Telecommunications industry
Paper type Research paper
Introduction L6s in a service
Since quality is considered to be one of the most important factors for differentiation context
and competitive advantage in the global marketplaces (Ehigie and McAndrew, 2005),
companies are keen to adopt quality management tools and practices for continuous
improvement in order to achieve higher performance and business excellence. Of the
tools, total quality management (TQM) (Powell, 1995; Idris and Zairi, 2006;
Sureshchandar et al., 2002), Six Sigma (6s) (Antony, 2004; Allen and Davenport, 123
2009) and recently Lean Six Sigma (L6s) (Altria and Carleysmith, 2009), are among the
most widely adopted and implemented.
Some authors support the view that L6s is a methodology that is a product of a
combination, or blending between two methodologies, 6s and Lean manufacturing/
management (LM), in order to improve quality, reduce variation and eliminate waste
(Furterer and Elshennawy, 2005; Jing, 2009; Antony et al., 2003). Others, suggest that it is
more a systematic approach to redesign business operations (Altria and Carleysmith, 2009;
de Koning et al., 2008), while others argue that it is an integration of two strategies that leads
to higher quality and productivity, faster delivery and reduction of costs (Antony et al.,
2004). Finally, there are scholars suggest that L6s is business strategy that establishes a
culture and environment for creating innovation (Lubowe and Blitz, 2008).
Since the success or failure of quality management initiatives is associated more with
their implementation process than their content (Moosa and Sajid, 2010), the same issue
arises regarding L6s and its implementation in different organizations and industries.
While there are many cases from different industries where L6s was applied,
few authors have attempted to consolidate the set of critical success factors (CSFs) for
L6s implementation. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analytically investigate issues
related to the implementation of L6s, attempting to understand the critical factors for
successful application (CSFs). The study focuses on service industries, and in particular
telecommunications, which seems to set specific challenges for the application of L6s
rhetoric and practices. In this respect, the present paper is structured in five sections.
The first section, through reviewing the literature, explores the theoretical framework
of the CSFs for L6s implementation. The second section explains the research
methodology implemented while the third analyses and discusses the data gathered.
Finally, the last section suggests the proposed framework for L6s implementation.

The emergence for L6s

It is generally accepted that General Electric (GE) was the first company that applied
L6s. After successful adoption of 6s in the 1990s GE introduced LM attempting to
achieve high success from deployment of the integrated approach (Kamensky, 2008).
For many years both approaches, 6s and LM existed in parallel and had separate
developments. 6s development was driven by the need for quality improvement in
manufacturing complex products since there was a high probability of defective final
products, while the elimination of waste was the main motive for LM development
(Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005).
At the beginning the combination of both concepts was categorized as no more than
“philosophical” as in some cases incompatibility between the approaches led to
suboptimization of processes with LM removing all sources of waste thus creating
major problems for the control phase of 6s DMAIC methodology (Bendell, 2006). Later,
the integration emerged from the practitioners’ experience in process improvement,
IJQRM who realized that actually both concepts were complementary. Arnheiter and Maleyeff
29,1 (2005) have claimed that L6s organizations would capitalize on the strengths of both
LM and 6s by applying the primary tenets from each approach. LM would bring
integration of its overriding philosophy to optimize the value-adding components of all
processes, constant evaluation of the incentive systems in order global optimization to
be assured, and optimization of decision-making process to be based on a customer’s
124 impact. Scientific decision making using data-driven methodology that strives to
minimize variations of quality characteristics and company-wide introduction of a
structured training and education regime would be the major tenets brought by 6s.
L6s brings additional value to process improvement, as it integrates 6s focus on
elimination of defects and reduction of variation with LM focus on waste and cycle time
elimination (Furterer and Elshennawy, 2005; Chen and Lyu, 2009; Kumar et al., 2006;
Harbert, 2006; Bahensky et al., 2005; Su et al., 2006). LM provides a set of standard
solutions to common problems and optimizes processes across the entire value chain,
but lacks organizational structure, analytical tools and quality control (de Koning et al.,
2008). The strength of 6s lies in the organizational framework for deployment
accompanied by structured and analytical tools for problems resolution. On the other
hand, 6s’s complex methodology could bring inefficiency in relatively simple problem
resolution and suboptimization of processes at the value chain as a result of inadequate
project management (de Koning et al., 2008; Breyfogle, 2008). According to Snee (2010)
reduction of waste, cycle time and non-value-added steps are common objectives both
approaches can effectively face and resolve. This is a strong argument for the
integration of 6s and LM and applying tools regardless of their originating method.
While LM tools are most effective in detecting non-value-adding parts in the process
flow of material and information, 6s tools provide improvements in the value-adding
transformations inside the process steps (Snee, 2010). Poor process performance can
either be caused by problems in the flow or the process itself. Therefore, according to
Snee (2010) since the goal is to detect the root cause of poor process performance and not
to focus on symptoms it is more effectively to use LM and 6s simultaneously in order to
get maximum benefit. Beyond the above arguments in favor of L6s, what is much more
significant for companies is the factors determining their application in practice.

A framework of L6s application

Rockart (1979) defines the term “critical success factors” as particular areas in the
organizational and business environment that should have special and constant
attention from the management as their results are crucial in order for an organization’s
competitive performance to be guaranteed. In terms of classification, CSFs that have a
positive impact and enhance the implementation process and are classified
as facilitators, while the ones that present barriers to successful implementation are
considered inhibitors. Current the L6s literature supports the view that there are both
institutional and contextual factors that affect its application. Also, these factors could
be categorized into generic ones applied in all types of organizations and sectors, and
specific ones that are applied in particular organizations (corporate culture, national
mentality and working habits, particular PMS, and quality system) or industries
(services or manufacturing).
Basically all factors are directly or indirectly linked to top management support as
core elements which are recognized as the most important institutional factors that
facilitate implementation of the TQM holistic framework (Psychogios, 2010a; Wali et al., L6s in a service
2003), 6s approach (Laosirihongthong et al., 2006; Antony and Fergusson, 2004; context
Antony, 2005), and L6s integrated concept (Lubowe and Blitz, 2008; Antony et al.,
2003; Carleysmith, 2009). Top management support ensures the importance of the
initiative to be organization-wide (Antony et al., 2003; Kamensky, 2008) by building
trust and communication of the vision of all stakeholders (Maleyeff, 2007; Carleysmith,
2009; Ladhar, 2007; Kumar et al., 2006) in order for the application of management 125
practices and long-term cultural changes to occur (Laosirihongthong et al., 2006;
Maleyeff, 2007; Stuenkel and Faulkner, 2009; Carleysmith, 2009; Ladhar, 2007). Top
management support seems to trigger employees’ motivation to deploy procedures and
techniques for high quality achievement and brings recognition (Psychogios and
Priporas, 2007), enabling effective and fast transformation towards a higher degree of
innovation (Lubowe and Blitz, 2008; de Koning et al., 2006).
There are two aspects of the quality-driven strategic orientation, a clear and strong
linking of L6s initiatives with the existing business strategy and integration of L6s
with the organization’s corporate strategy. Antony et al. (2007) have found linking 6s
with business strategy to be the most important factor for successful deployment in
service organizations. Moreover, integration of the organizations and L6s success
could be possible only if continuous improvement principles are incorporated into the
business strategy (Fornari and Maszle, 2004). L6s alignment with an organization’s
strategic programs provides link between selected projects and strategic goals.
Moreover, according to Psychogios et al. (2009), a quality-driven organizational
strategy aims to bind quality improvement initiatives with strategic efforts, which is
evident through human resources and operations departments’ strategy, not to
penalize, but to improve, and the strategic aspect of the employees’ performance
evaluation. Furthermore, Lubowe and Blitz (2008) state that L6s must be integrated as
part of the corporate strategy development in order for the process of making
long-term change to be treated seriously and to be accepted by the organization.
Successful implementation of any quality management systems demands focusing on
customer satisfaction through the process of continuous improvement that eventually
enforces changes in corporate culture (Furterer, 2004; Maleyeff, 2007). Since the level of
integration of all employees in all organizational aspects directly influences the success
of quality management initiative implementation, quality-driven organizational culture is
a prerequisite for successful implementation (Psychogios, 2010a; Psychogios et al., 2009).
Organizations with a developed quality-driven corporate culture have the ability to
conquer implementation barriers (O’Rourke, 2005) and direct the system and changes
towards innovation (Lubowe and Blitz, 2008; de Koning et al., 2006, 2008). In addition,
Zu et al. (2010) have found that both group and rational types of cultures facilitate top
management’s support sustainability in organizations that is represented through setting
strategic goals for quality improvement and participation in quality improvement
activities. While group culture promotes participation, trust and concern for human
development as core values, rational culture emphasizes productivity and achievement in
the context of external competitiveness objectives (Zu et al., 2010).
Furthermore, there are two aspects that support that training is another important
factor. Successful deployment of L6s requires employees to pass through systematic
L6s methodology training (Ladhar, 2007; Neuhaus and Guarraia, 2007), intensively
managed and mentored in multiple phases (Ladhar, 2007). The other aspect that
IJQRM is related to gaining benefit from L6s is the use of practical application examples in the
29,1 training program from the beginning (Antony et al., 2003; Caldwell, 2006). This aspect
provides focus on the need for L6s implementation and expected timelines (Antony et al.,
2003). Allocation of major budgets for this kind of training programs (Antony et al., 2004;
Delgado et al., 2010) is usually seen as inhibitor of the implementation process.
If the organization is about to gain immediate benefits and effects from L6s,
126 the program has to be accepted and recognized within the organization in the early
phase of deployment. In this context, Selection and Management of the Right Project
can be considered as playing a major role (Antony et al., 2004; Laosirihongthong et al.,
2006). In order for short- and long-term results to be achieved, the project selection
process has to be conducted by a rigorous approach focused on business customers’
needs satisfaction (Ladhar, 2007). The significance of this factor is additionally
supported by failure cases where inadequate selection of L6s projects did not improve
processes, but led to an even poorer outcomes (Breyfogle, 2008). Moreover, project
selection is considered to be the most critical factor for using 6s and LM in a more
effective way in order sustainable improvement to be accomplished. The project
selection process identifies the right improvement approach, personnel and tools before
the project starts (Snee, 2010). Snee and Hoerl (2007) proposed a powerful approach to
project selection in L6s that includes elements from both approaches.
In addition, Snee (2010) claims that all project are in effect L6s projects that use a
common toolbox comprised of tools that have been kept apart in the past and that is
the reason why this project category is absent from the above presented framework
which is seen as part of the overall holistic improvement methodology. The main point
in this project selection framework is that business goals (top-down) or performance
gaps (bottom-up) can directly generate 6s projects or LM project (Snee, 2010).
Furthermore, since improved customer satisfaction is the central goal of L6s, this
factor is considered to be critical in a program’s success. Service organizations
practicing L6s have reported that L6s has increased their ability to identify the real
reasons for customer’s dissatisfaction and defection (Lubowe and Blitz, 2008), and
moreover L6s has created organizations that are faster and more responsive in the
delivery of customer’s demands (Antony et al., 2003).
In sum, it can be argued that the factors briefly examined above can be considered
as major starting points for the L6s implementation process. According to the
literature, these CSFs seem to be the key aspects of accomplishing a companies’ visions
to improve customer satisfaction and delivery of quality outcomes. In particular, these
factors concentrate on both macro (overall organization change towards continuous
improvement), and micro (particular service quality improvement and problem
resolution on a project level) aspects of the implementation process.

The rationale and context of the study

The majority of the above factors have emerged from studies conducted mainly in
manufacturing industry where there are clearer and more comprehensive processes of
quality improvement practices. Less things have been investigated for services. Given
that service industry are dominant in the world economy today, comprising more
than 80 percent of GDP in the U SA (Wang and Chen, 2010) and employing more than
90 percent of the USA and European workforce, means that more holistic and
integrated quality management practices must hit the business agenda in services
as well (Psychogios, 2010a). Therefore, it seems that L6s needs to turn towards service L6s in a service
driven organisations (de Koning et al., 2008; Su et al., 2006). context
In this respect, one particular service industry that is of great importance, in terms
of technology, regulations, customer demand and competitive actions, is the
telecommunications industry. The quality of service has remained as the only source
of competitive advantage, since price cuts and keeping pace with the latest technology
are no longer “enough for survival” (Shukla and Srinivasan, 2007). There is a growing 127
literature referring to the application of L6s in services. For example, de Koning et al.
(2008) demonstrate breakthrough results from the application of L6s in financial
services in four case studies from Dutch multinational insurance companies. At the same
time, Carleysmith (2009) states that L6s could be beneficial if applied in pharmaceutical
research and development. However, there is I, however, still limited spread of L6s in
services since its use is relatively unexplored (Delgado et al., 2010) and only few attempts
for consolidation of L6s implementation CSFs. In this manner, it seems that
telecommunication services have been equally unexplored although they present a
significant component of today’s economy.
Moreover, it seems that the current L6s literature has neglected to investigate the
CSFs as part of an integrated framework of its implementation. Therefore, the aim of this
study is to analytically investigate issues related to the implementation of L6s in the
telecommunications industry. It seeks to explore the CSFs for successful application of
L6s in telecommunication services. In particular, the present study explores a series of
significant factors that seem to affect the implementation of quality management
initiatives like top management support, quality-driven strategic orientation,
quality-driven organizational culture, training, Project Selection & Management, and
customer satisfaction. In conclusion, this study attempts to expand our understanding
regarding the implementation of L6s in service industry. It is based on the responses of
managers, who always play the most significant role in the adoption of such techniques.

Research methodology
A case study research approach was adopted as the most appropriate methodology for
the exploratory nature of the study (Voss et al., 2002; Nonthaleerak and Hendry, 2008;
Meredith, 1998). Its purpose was to investigate, through a gathering qualitative data,
the development of a conceptual framework (Voss et al., 2002). In particular, a multiple
case study was deployed since comparison of events and data across cases mitigates
usual case research risks, augments external validity and provides opportunity for
bringing more generic conclusions (Voss et al., 2002; Nonthaleerak and Hendry, 2008).
Moreover, a qualitative approach was preferred over a quantitative since it is a tool for
capturing complex relationships (Delgado et al., 2010), it is suitable for exploration of
the impact of different institutional and contextual factors on operations management
tools and techniques (Psychogios and Priporas, 2007) and reconciles complexity,
details and context (Mangen, 1999). In addition, taking into consideration the nature of
services, qualitative research methods are considered as more suitable (Gilmore and
Carson, 1996).
The site of investigation were two telecommunication companies operating in the
same national market, one providing fixed telephony and IP-based data services
(Telecommunication A) and other providing mobile services (Telecommunication B).
Both companies have deployed L6s. Primary data were collected by conducting
IJQRM face-to-face in-depth interviews with managers at a variety of managerial levels
29,1 and involved employees since this method provides more value, quality, depth,
and efficiency (Palmerino, 1999) and it is more likely accepted by the top management
in comparison to answering survey questionnaire (Coldwell, 2007). The interview
questionnaire was a semi-structured one with open-ended questions, and consisted of
four major parts. First part collected general information regarding the position of the
128 respondent in the organizations’ hierarchy and the relation to quality management
system, L6s concept understanding and the actual phase of implementation.
The second part covered more specific questions regarding different CSFs for
implementation and identified particular processes and actions performed within each
factor. The third part concentrated on a series of other issues and/or factors that
according to research participants were critical in L6s implementation. These
consisted of questions that tried to explore if there are some new organization- or
industry-specific factors that influence implementation such as, working mentality,
previous experience in quality management program (e.g. ISO, TQM, etc),
quality-driven management processes (e.g. performance management, training, etc).
The fourth part obtained information about the difficulties faced and lessons learned
during deployment process and when undertaking L6s projects.
The sample within the cases was based on the position that respondents held in the
organization and their functional involvement in the implementation process. Managers
from a variety of business areas (administration, quality assurance, human resources,
sales, marketing, operations, and IT) were interviewed. All of them were directly
responsible for coordinating, providing and managing resources for the implementation
process of L6s. Also, some of the managers interviewed were experts in 6s (Black Belts
and Green Belts). They provide valuable information about the implementation process
at a micro level. In total 28 interviews were conducted, 15 in Telecommunication A and
13 in Telecommunication B. Hand written notes and digital voice recorder after prior
approval from respondents, were used during sessions. Company’s documentation
related to quality programs, such as procedures and quality management policies were
used as secondary data. The analysis of the secondary data contributed to the interview
questionnaire design.
Afterwards, the interviews discussions were transcribed, responses were coded,
and then forwarded to the respective respondents for review and approval. Case data
analysis was performed by designing a matrix from the interview questions and
respondents’ answers. Since another key step in a case study research was searching
for cross-case patterns, the most simple, but very effective method of constructing an
array was applied, in order for similarities and differences per category to be identified
and analyzed across cases (Voss et al., 2002).
Nevertheless, a limitation of this approach is the potential bias (Voss et al., 2002;
Delgado et al., 2010) over the validity of the information received from the respondents,
as some of them attempt to protect their personal interest and position. In order to
minimize this disadvantage, a data triangulation methodology was applied.
Data triangulation was supported by interviews, direct observation, content analysis
of documents and archival research as different methods for studying the same
phenomenon (Voss et al., 2002), which increased the validity of the research results
(Nonthaleerak and Hendry, 2008; Delgado et al., 2010). The next section analyses the
findings of this study.
Research findings L6s in a service
Research findings are organised in two sections. The first section briefly presents context
company’s profile and areas were L6s was deployed. The second one analyses the
in-depth interviews in order to explore the CSFs of L6s application.

Case studies
Telecommunication A is an incumbent telecommunication operator, recognized as one 129
of the largest service providers of voice, internet and data services for residential and
business customers in South Eastern Europe. It counts around 150.000 residential
internet and around 350.000 fixed-line voice customers. Telecommunication B is a
leader in the mobile market providing mobile voice and data services for more than
1.3 million subscribers in the same region.
In Telecommunication A, L6s application improved service quality from two
aspects: provisioning of time optimization and reduction of fault clearance time.
In Telecommunication B, L6s application improved the incident management process
in fault clearance operations. In both organisations unnecessary procedural steps were
improved by the application of well-known lean tools, while data-driven 6s diagnosis
and root cause analysis identified the real reasons for delays in service provisioning.
Moreover, 6s tools provided for a reduction of faults, through the identification of
faults root cause and reduction of faults variations, while lean tools decreased faults
repair time through optimization of steps in both companies. Therefore, it can
be supported that in both cases L6s was successfully applied and brought positive
outcomes. Therefore, what it is more important to explore and understand are the
critical factors that contributed to its successful implementation.

CSFs of L6s
The analysis of qualitative data gathered through in-depth interviews with managers
in both organizations resulted in the emergence of two major categories of CSFs
regarding L6s implementation process, namely facilitators and inhibitors. The most
indicative statements the supporting specific facilitators in L6s implementation are
presented in Table I.
Determination for L6s implementation and top management involvement and
support were identified as two subcategories that facilitate the process. They are closely
related to the top management support CSF that is recognized as the most important one.
This finding seems to be in line with findings from previous studies (Lubowe and Blitz,
2008; Antony et al., 2003; Carleysmith, 2009 and is present in the role of a project sponsor,
participation in the project top management involvement and support kick-off meeting
with speech on the subject’s importance and results expectations, promotion through
teamwork, newsletter and internal corporate magazine, providing budget for training
and providing commitment from middle management and first-line management for
team members’ participation in project activities and prioritization of those activities
over functional unit activities. Top management’s intensity of involvement
proportionally increased with project results, but at the same time results increased
proportionally with the intensity of involvement from the top management.
A high level of awareness for the importance iof quality was recognized among the
top management and employees in both companies. Mindset change towards
customer-supplier relations, improvement of the information flow and knowledge
IJQRM
Qualitative evidence Factors identified
29,1
“The sponsor is actively participating in all phases of the L6s Top management involvement and
project. He is present on the initial kick-off project meeting and support
gives an overview of the topic importance and the expected
results” (quality assurance manager – Black Belt)
130 “It is not very clear what comes first the benefit from the project
or the top management’s support. Top management’s
involvement becomes more intensive when they see results”
(operations management – Black Belt)
“Chief Officers are project sponsors and they have responsibility
to achieve results in definite period and with defined level of
quality improvement. Top management has targets related to
revenue, customer satisfaction and they support L6s in order
their targets to be achieved” (sales manager)
“First key factor in every large company is the determination of
the top management to implement the program” (marketing
manager)
“Telecommunication B is a company that was established Quality-driven corporate culture
recently. Therefore, it was opportunity to select the best experts
and employees who know that quality and customer satisfaction
are most important. In this context it was easier to implement
TQM and nowadays L6s.” (assistant quality assurance
manager – Green Belt)
“Besides already mentioned problem with low level of internal
information sharing, Telecommunication A has problem with
knowledge management also. L6s project help the company to
change the culture in direction of improving the information
flow and knowledge transfer. This kind of projects have
political meaning” (HR manager)
“The idea is to have a ‘critical’ level of trained Green Belts who Quality-driven Training
will ‘talk’ the same language, the language of L6s. When you
add L6s trained managers to this, the company will reach the
state where the mindset is led by customer’s demands. That
means that everyone in the company will know who his
customer is” (quality assurance manager – Black Belt)
“The training is important and that is why the L6s program
begins with training. L6s tools application knowledge is
important, but education for soft skills facilitation, project
management, presentation skills, managing expectations and
change management are very important” (operations
management – Black Belt)
“First that project has to be important, to treat a process from Top-down and bottom-up project
the practice, a real process. That process should be important selection
for the company from financial aspect, to contribute to the
business plan achievement, to be measurable and to have high
probability that process to be improved quickly and
efficient”(HR manager)
“Two independent consulting companies were engaged to make
analysis of the processes. Our company has defined the criteria,
Table I. and how these will contribute to strategic goals achievement”
Facilitators of L6s (IT manager)
implementation (continued)
Qualitative evidence Factors identified
L6s in a service
context
“Customer satisfaction is a key factor. The customer is ‘the Customer satisfaction
king’, someone we all work for. L6s itself puts the customer
satisfaction on the first place. All these methodologies for
process improvement exist to make the customer more satisfied,
the customer to get more service quality and at the same time
our processes to become value adding. All non-value-adding
131
process should be minimized in order customer to have benefit
at the end”(assistant quality assurance manager – Green Belt)
“Our company has implemented the ISO standard, performance Prior implementation of other
management, project management training, PRINCE quality improvement program
methodology. Those programs are good ground for L6s
implementation. The employees get the necessary experience
about the quality management” (operations manager – Green
Belt)
“Telecommunication B has implemented the ISO standard and
TQM. Those programs are good ground for L6s
implementation. Most of the processes were designed with high
level of optimization. It prepares people for changes and
establishes positive attitude towards quality improvement”
(assistant quality assurance manager – Green Belt)
“In order to have full quality management in the company, the Supportive performance
company needs integrated system for performance, service management and IT systems
quality and process management with all employees involved”
(operations manager – Green Belt)
“For sure it will facilitate L6s implementation. Every team
member will be motivated to give more into the project. We need
additional education for all employees in order to establish
awareness that L6s will make everyday work easier for all of
us” (HR manager) Table I.

management, definition of the quality in terms of service quality level, internal processes
efficiency level and employees’ qualifications, and acceptance of the inevitable
transformation and changes were the most important identified aspects of the
quality-driven corporate culture. These quality-driven organizational changes seem to
facilitate the process of overcoming barriers for successful implementation, which is
aligned with the suggestion that quality management systems demand organizational
culture change (Furterer, 2004; Maleyeff, 2007). It is also important to mention that in
both companies, managers see L6s as a useful means that facilitates mindset change
towards systematic approach in the work and continuous improvement.
Training has provided knowledge for L6s tools application, project management,
change and expectations management, and development of soft skills, thus creating
positive effect from three main aspects, namely organizational, individual and micro
environmental. The importance of these aspects is in accordance with claims from
previous studies in the field (Antony et al., 2003; Caldwell, 2006; Ladhar, 2007; Neuhaus
and Guarraia, 2007).
It was identified that both approaches for project selection (both bottom-up and
top-down), already recognized in the literature (Snee, 2010), co-exist in practice. In the
bottom-up method, selection is made by internal managers (quality assurance manager)
IJQRM who also act as a 6s specialist (Black Belt). In the top-down method independent
29,1 consulting companies are engaged to analyze the processes. In project selection process,
initially, strategic teams in both companies, defined two groups of criteria that
contributed to strategic objectives achievement. Next, processes that were closely
related to those strategic goals were selected and prioritization established. According to
the research participants, although there were two different approaches used for project
132 selection, the most important was the existence of established criteria for project
selection. The significant issue here is that L6s project needs to be recognised as
important by the management of companies. Also, it needs to be important financially as
well as for the achievement of the business plan. In other words, it needs to be directly
linked with the overall organisational strategy.
Customer satisfaction is considered to be the guiding principle for implementation
of L6s which is in line with previous findings by Antony et al. (2003), Antony et al.
(2007) and Lubowe and Blitz (2008). L6s projects start with the translation of voice of
customer (VoC) to voice of process and the correlation between VoC and voice of
business. It is well-understood that customer satisfaction is a strategic goal of both
companies and this principle is integrated in the corporate culture. Processes that are
closely related to the customers are subject of L6s improvement.
Prior implementation of other quality management initiatives, such as ISO series of
standards, imposes service quality, documents all processes and procedures and
provides the necessary experience for the employees regarding quality management.
Therefore, it seems that this experience provides the appropriate knowledge and
experience that are critical in successful L6s application. It is interesting to mention
that most of the interviewees suggested that it would have been better first to deploy
L6s in the organization and then ISO standards, because in that case ISO standards
implementation would have been more formal. In other words, prior deployment of
TQM practices seems to facilitate L6s implementation.
Similarly, almost all interviewees from both companies agreed that integration of
L6s and variety of management systems (performance management, IT, etc) would
facilitate L6s implementation process, because it would motivate managers and
employees to increase the level of commitment and involvement. For instance,
the evidence of the present study supports the view that independent arbitrage (of the
current company’s state in terms of working processes efficiency evaluation) is another
important CSF of L6s. It is pointed out as such by a group of managers. In particular,
they claimed, that it is necessary in order to minimize subjective performance
evaluation of individuals that leads to wrong results. In addition, the existence
of supportive IT systems and databases for data analysis was emphasized as an
important factor that could significantly influence improvement results since
measurement and control phases are directly dependent on data from the IT systems.
Beyond the above positive factors that seem to facilitate L6s implementation, the
study’s evidence has shown that there are also factors that inhibit the process. Table II
demonstrates the most indicative statements suggesting the emergence of inhibitors in
L6s implementation.
Lack of awareness for the need of continuous quality improvement programs and
L6s was identified as an additional subcategory that inhibits the process. In addition,
integration of L6s with business strategy is considered to be a very important
factor for successful L6s implementation which is lined up with the suggestions
 L6s in a service
Qualitative evidence Factors identified
context
“Critical success factor is establishment of awareness for the Lack of awareness of continuous
need of quality improvement and process optimization and quality improvement programs and
presentation of results from L6s. It has to be shown that this is L6s
not just another top-down cascaded idea” (HR manager)
“Factor that is closely related to the top management support 133
is management’s awareness for L6s. It is very important
management to understand what is L6s and what is the
strength of L6s and how could L6s resolve problems they are
faced with since only support from top management is not
enough” (quality assurance manager – Black Belt)
“We do not need L6s and large investments in that program at Lack of strategic orientation
the moment because many processes could be improved and
optimized by using simple logic of the involved employees and
managers. At the moment I can say L6s program is bringing
more costs than benefit” (marketing manager)
“Top management is still oriented towards ad hoc resolution
of the critical issues” (quality manager)
“Employee’s working habits have amorphous nature. When Employee working mentality and
our people go to work abroad in other environment with habits
different culture, they change themselves and adjust to the
new conditions very fast. This fact suggests that if we manage
to change the working environment and culture, people will
change their mindset very fast. It is true that characteristics of
our national mentality towards working habits are weak
planning, suboptimization, doing things not systematically,
leaving work for tomorrow, etc. Mentality could be changed
through practical work” (HR manager)
“Employee’s working mentality influences negatively a lot of
attempts to implement new things. First, our people have
doubts about everything that is new. Second, the monopoly
position in the past has influenced the attitude that the
customer must use the services from the company and it is not
important if he stops using our services. Third, everyone
thinks he is the best expert for everything and does not accept
someone else to tell him that there is a ‘room’ for improvement
in the process he is involved in. Black Belts have the challenge
to deal with these issues” (operations manager – Black Belt)
“In my opinion working mentality has a significant influence.
It is affected though by people’s character and individual Table II.
perception of the responsibility However, I strongly believe Inhibitors of L6s
that still we have very good results” (sales manager) Implementation

by Antony et al. (2007). The study’s evidence has shown that a lack of a clear strategic
link between L6s priorities and a companys’ strategic plans can lead to the emergence of
problems during the application of the former. Therefore, according to interviewees, the
selection of quality improvement processes should be closely related to strategic goals.
In relation to corporate strategy orientation toward development of quality-driven
culture, interviewees’ arguments show a weak relation that inhibits L6s
implementation. There is no additional stimulation for team members for successful
realization of the L6s projects and their performance is not evaluated by their
IJQRM contribution in project activities. According to them, in order for L6s to be successfully
29,1 implemented quality improvement activities must be integrated in the internal
management processes. Also, it seems that top management is more prone to ad hoc
resolution of the critical issues than using a systematic approach. Moreover, it appears
that there is no strategic orientation toward company-wide deployment of L6s. Finally,
there is no alignment in the top management structure regarding strategic orientation
134 toward L6s.
Furthermore, it seems that another inhibitor of L6s implementation is related to
employees’ working habits. In particular, it seems that there is negative influence of the
current working habits. According to the interviewees who participated in the study,
some characteristics of the national mentality of work such as weak individual planning,
suboptimization, less systematically organized job, resistance to change, being skeptic
about everything new, not easily accepting suggestions for improvement, etc. can create
serious problems in L6s implementation. Other important issues that seem to negatively
affect L6s are employees’ perceptions regarding their responsibility and level of
involvement in quality improvement initiatives as well as how these practices will affect
their day-to-day work (Psychogios et al., 2009, 2010b).

Conclusion: towards an integrated L6s multi-factor application approach

The present study addressed a series of CSFs for implementation of L6s in two
telecommunication companies. CSFs can be categorized as facilitators and inhibitors of
L6s, according to what research participants experienced during its application
process. The major factors in each category are summarized in Table III.
Moreover, this study suggests a specific approach for L6s that is based on key
factors that emerged from the current literature as well as from the analysis of
qualitative research findings. This integrated framework seems to influence the
effective implementation of L6s (Figure 1).
The proposed approach has been developed in order to enhance facilitators of L6s
application and effectiveness. At the same time, it targets to minimize the negative
influence of inhibitors of L6s. Therefore, in the following we will briefly explain how
the identified CSFs are interrelated, in order to facilitate L6s implementation. Initially,
respondents confirmed that customer satisfaction should be the leading principle for
L6s deployment. In particular, it is suggested that customer satisfaction should be the
guiding principle for two main factors: quality-driven strategic orientation

L6s facilitators L6s inhibitors

Top management involvement and support Lack of awareness for the need of continuous
quality improvement programs and L6s
Quality-driven organizational culture Lack of strategic orientation
Quality-driven training Employee working mentality and habits
Top-down & bottom-up project selection
Customer satisfaction
Prior implementation of other quality
Table III. improvement programs
Categorization of Supportive performance management and IT
Major L6s CSFs systems
 Customer Satisfaction
L6s in a service
context
Top
Quality-Driven Quality-Driven
Management
Corporate Culture Organizational Strategy
Commmitment
& Support
Quality-
Driven
135
Employees’ Performance Training
Working Habits Prior Management Programs
Implementation of L6σ & IT Systems
Other Quality Concepts &
Improvement Practices
Initiatives

Project Selection Criteria:

Top-Down • Importance for
External management,
Consultants • Financial aspects,
• Opportunties for
improvement

Bottom-Up: Selection
Operations trigger by of L6σ
internal quality Project Figure 1.
management & L6σ Proposed L6s
specialists implementation
multi-factor approach

and quality-driven corporate culture. In turn, these two elements should be enforced by
strong top management commitment and support.
A quality-driven corporate culture is necessary to be established, since it has the
potential to minimize the negative influence of the inhibitors shown above. In particular,
elements like the negative characteristics of employees’ working habits or their
perceptions regarding their working conditions, can be suppressed by the domination
of an organizational culture that supports, among else, customer satisfaction, employee
involvement and quality-driven organizational processes. At the same time, the
establishment of such a culture can be enhanced by prior implementation of other
quality improvement initiatives such as TQM and ISO standards.
In addition, research findings regarding the strategic orientation towards L6s, have
suggested that a clear alignment between management decisions and strategic goals
should be made. In turn, this alignment should provide support for the integration of
L6s with a variety of management practices and systems like, IT systems,
performance and reward management (bonus targets for L6s projects team members),
training and development of employees towards L6s concepts, as well as prioritization
towards project management. In particular, IT systems and databases that provide
data needed for analysis in measurement and control phases must be developed in
order to support the whole process and the expected results. Training is the essential
element that can develop employees’ awareness, knowledge, and both hard and soft
skills associated with L6s tools and practices.
Furthermore, according to research findings, top management support is very
critical for the development of both quality-driven culture and strategy.
IJQRM Top management support consists of several elements and phases. First top
29,1 management should become aware of the need for process optimization and continuous
quality improvement and become aware that L6s with its strengths and benefits could
satisfy those needs. After the decision is made, determination and commitment to
implementation process is needed. Top management involvement is the final logical
step in this process.
136 The final aspect of the proposed L6s approach refers to the integration of another
significant element namely, project selection. Based on the research findings an
approach for project selection in several steps is also developed. First, criteria for project
selection are defined taking into consideration company’s strategic goals. In particular,
criteria like project’s importance for management, financial aspects, opportunities for
improvement, and clear alignment with company’s strategic goals, should be placed for
the selection of the project. Afterwards, two approaches for project selection that take
into consideration defined criteria co-exist. First is the top-down one, which is based
on independent arbitrage by engaging external consulting companies, and the second
is bottom-up that uses operations trigger by internal quality management and L6s
specialists. In addition, research findings suggest that L6s projects should be centrally
coordinated, controlled, monitored and related to each other. Moreover, it is suggested
that L6s specialists should try to manage resistance and expectations of team members
while top management should always support this process.
To sum up, the present study developed a multi-factor application approach for
L6s. It needs to be mentioned, that this approach has been developed by the analysis of
the qualitative findings from the two case studies investigated. Without a doubt,
more research is needed attempting to confirm and enhance the proposed approach.
Future research, should give more emphasis on other service industries and sectors.
Also, it would be important to explore not only managers’ behaviours towards L6s,
but front line employees as well. The latter are most of the times directly involved in
quality management initiatives, and thus, may offer a more clear view on issues related
to the impact of critical factors on L6s application. Moreover, it would be critical to
attempt measuring the CSFs identified. In other words, more combined methodologies
need to be applied targeting to widely explore the influence of the factors on L6s
application as well as to investigate in depth the hidden agenda of its implementation.

References
Allen, I. and Davenport, T. (2009), “Six Sigma: tune up”, Quality Progress, Vol. 42 No. 9, pp. 16-21.
Altria, K. and Carleysmith, S. (2009), “Learning from Lean Sigma”, Pharmaceutical Technology
Europe, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 16-24.
Antony, J. (2004), “Six Sigma in the UK service organisations: results from a pilot survey”,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 1006-13.
Antony, J. (2005), “A perspective on the future”, Manufacturing Engineer, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 12-13.
Antony, J. and Fergusson, K. (2004), “Six-Sigma in the software industry: results from a pilot
study”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 1025-30.
Antony, J., Escamilla, J.L. and Caine, P. (2003), “Lean Sigma”, Manufacturing Engineer, Vol. 82
No. 2, pp. 40-2.
Antony, J., Foutris, F., Banuelas, R. and Thomas, A. (2004), “Using Six Sigma”, Manufacturing
Engineer, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 10-12.
Antony, J., Kumar, M. and Cho, B.R. (2007), “Six Sigma in service organizations: benefits, L6s in a service
challenges, difficulties, common myths and success factors”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 294-311. context
Arnheiter, E. and Maleyeff, J. (2005), “The integration of lean management and Six Sigma”,
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Bahensky, J.A., Roe, J. and Bolton, R. (2005), “Lean Sigma: will it work for healthcare”, Journal of
Healthcare Information Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 39-44. 137
Bendell, T. (2006), “A review and comparison of Six Sigma and the Lean organisations”,
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 255-62.
Breyfogle, F. III (2008), “Better fostering innovation: 9 steps that improve Lean Six Sigma”,
Business Performance Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 16-20.
Caldwell, C. (2006), “Lean-Six Sigma tools for rapid cycle cost reduction”, Healthcare Financial
Management, Vol. 60 No. 10, pp. 96-8.
Carleysmith, S. (2009), “Implementing Lean Sigma in pharmaceutical research and development:
a review by practitioners”, R&D Management, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 95-106.
Chen, M. and Lyu, J. (2009), “A Lean Six-Sigma approach to touch panel quality improvement”,
Production Planning & Control, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 445-54.
Coldwell, D. (2007), “Is research that is both causally adequate and adequate on the level of meaning
possible or necessary in business research? A critical analysis of some methodological
alternatives”, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Delgado, C., Ferreira, M. and Branco, C.M. (2010), “The implementation of Lean Six Sigma in
financial services organizations”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 512-23.
de Koning, H., Verver, J.P.S., van den Heuvel, J., Bisgaard, S. and Does, R.J.M.M. (2006),
“Lean Six Sigma in healthcare”, Journal of Healthcare Quality, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 4-11.
de Koning, H., Does, R.J.M.M. and Bisgaard, S. (2008), “Lean Six Sigma in financial services”,
International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Ehigie, B. and McAndrew, E. (2005), “Innovation, diffusion and adoption of total quality
management (TQM)”, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 925-40.
Fornari, A. and Maszle, G. (2004), “Lean Six Sigma leads xerox”, Vol. 2004, available at:
www.xerox.com/downloads/usa/en/n/nr_SixSigmaForumMag_2004_Aug.pdf
Furterer, S. and Elshennawy, A.K. (2005), “Implementation of TQM and Lean Six Sigma tools in
local government: a framework and a case study”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 16
No. 10, pp. 1179-91.
Gilmore, A. and Carson, D. (1996), “Integrative qualitative methods in a services context”,
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 21-6.
Harbert, S.T. (2006), “Lean, Mean Six Sigma machines”, Design News, Vol. 61 No. 18, pp. 64-8.
Idris, M. and Zairi, M. (2006), “Sustaining TQM: a synthesis of literature and proposed research
framework”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 1245-60.
Jing, G. (2009), “A Lean Six Sigma breakthrough”, Quality Progress, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 24-31.
Kamensky, J. (2008), “Is Lean Six Sigma cool”, PA Times, Vol. 31 No. 4, p. 9.
Kumar, M., Antony, J., Singh, K.R., Tiwari, K.M. and Perry, D. (2006), “Implementing the Lean
Sigma framework in an Indian SME: a case study”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 407-23.
Ladhar, H. (2007), “Effective Lean Six Sigma deployment in a global EMS environment”,
Circuits Assembly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 40-5.
IJQRM Laosirihongthong, T., Rahman, S. and Saykhun, K. (2006), “Critical success factors of Six-Sigma
implementation: an analytic hierarchy process based study”, International Journal of
29,1 Innovation & Technology Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 303-19.
Lubowe, D. and Blitz, A. (2008), “Driving operational innovation using Lean Six Sigma”,
Business Performance Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 10-15.
Maleyeff, J. (2007), Improving Service Delivery in Government with Lean Six Sigma, IBM Center
138 for The Business of Government, Washington, DC.
Mangen, S. (1999), “Qualitative research methods in cross-national settings”, International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 109-24.
Meredith, J. (1998), “Building operations management theory through case and field research”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 441-54.
Moosa, K. and Sajid, A. (2010), “Critical analysis of Six Sigma implementation”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 745-59.
Neuhaus, K. and Guarraia, P. (2007), “Want more from Lean Six Sigma”, Harvard Management
Update, Vol. 12 No. 12, pp. 3-5.
Nonthaleerak, P. and Hendry, L. (2008), “Exploring the Six Sigma phenomenon using multiple
case study evidence”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 279-303.
O’Rourke, P. (2005), “A multiple-case analysis of Lean Six Sigma deployment and
implementation strategies”, unpublished MEd dissertation, Air University.
Palmerino, M. (1999), “Take a qualitative approach to qualitative research”, Marketing News,
Vol. 33 No. 12, pp. 35-6.
Powell, T. (1995), “Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical
study”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Psychogios, A. (2010a), “A four-fold regional specific approach to TQM: the case of South Eastern
Europe”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 1036-53.
Psychogios, G.A. (2010b), “Restructuring the employment relationship in South-Eastern Europe?
Total quality-based changes on managers’ careers and job security”, Employee Relations,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 310-27.
Psychogios, A.G. and Priporas, C.V. (2007), “Understanding total quality management in context:
qualitative research on managers’ awareness of TQM aspects in the Greek service
industry”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 40-66.
Psychogios, G.A., Wilkinson, A. and Szamosi, L. (2009), “Getting to the heart of the debate: ‘hard’
versus ‘oft’ side effects of TQM on middle manager autonomy”, Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 445-66.
Rockart, J. (1979), “Chief executives define their own data needs”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 238-41.
Shukla, A. and Srinivasan, R. (2007), “Six Sigma implementation at Bharti Infotel”, Asian Case
Research Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 367-84.
Snee, R. (2010), “Lean Six Sigma – getting better all the time”, International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-29.
Snee, R. and Hoerl, R. (2007), “Integrating Lean and Six Sigma – a holistic approach”, Six Sigma
Forum Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 15-21.
Stuenkel, K. and Faulkner, T. (2009), “A community hospital’s journey into Lean Six Sigma”,
Frontiers of Health Services Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 5-13.
Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Anantharman, R.N. (2002), “The relationship between L6s in a service
management’s perception of total quality service and customer perceptions of service
quality”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 69-88. context
Su, C., Chiang, T. and Chang, C. (2006), “Improving service quality by capitalising on an
integrated Lean Six Sigma methodology”, International Journal of Six Sigma and
Competitive Advantage, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. and Frohlich, M. (2002), “Case research in operations management”, 139
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 195-219.
Wali, A., Deshmukh, G.S. and Gupta, D.A. (2003), “Critical success factors of TQM”, Production
Planning & Control, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Wang, F. and Chen, K. (2010), “Applying Lean Six Sigma and TRIZ methodology in banking
services”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 301-15.
Zu, X., Robbins, T.L. and Fredendall, L.D. (2010), “Mapping the critical links between
organizational culture and TQM/Six Sigma practices”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 123 No. 1, pp. 86-106.

About the authors

Dr Alexandros G. Psychogios is a Senior Lecturer on Management & HR and Research Director
in the Department of Business Administration & Economics of City College, International
Faculty of the University of Sheffield. Moreover, he is Adjunct Lecturer at the Hellenic Open
University and Associate Researcher in GNOSIS Research Group of the Management School at
University of Liverpool. His research interests are associated with quality management
programmes/total quality management and their impact on HR, HRM & business strategy,
knowledge management, organizational complexity, change, learning and development, and
public services management. Alexandros G. Psychogios is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: a.psychogios@city.academic.gr
Mr Jane Atanasovski has a Master degree in Industrial Engineering and Management and
currently he is finishing his MBA studies with specialization in Quality Management & Quality
Assurance at the University of Sheffield. He currently works as a Head of IP Network
Development Department in Makedonski Telekom. The area of research focus is related to issues
associated with services management, quality management and production systems.
Dr Loukas K. Tsironis is a Lecturer in Management Systems, in the Technical University of
Crete. He holds a first degree in Forestry and Natural Environment (Aristotelian University of
Thessaloniki) MSc and PhD degrees in Engineering Management Systems from the Technical
University of Crete. He is a Scientific & Project Manager in the Management Systems
Laboratory. His research interests extended in the enhancement of TQM methodology with new
technologies such as machine learning (ML) and knowledge discovery from databases (KDD), on
which he recently published several articles in journals and refereed conferences.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints