Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Industry 4.

0: Developing a Design Science

Research-Based LSS4.0 Framework for Operational Excellence

a
Dounia Skalli, b Anass Cherrafi, a Abdelkabir Charkaoui, c Andrea Chiarini,
d
Alireza Shokri, d Jiju Antony, e Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, d Monika Foster

a Faculty of sciences and Technique, Hassan First University of Settat, Morocco

E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

b
EST-Safi, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech-Safi, Morocco

E-mail: [Link]@[Link]
a
Faculty of sciences and Technique, Hassan First University of Settat, Morocco

E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

c
Department of Management, University of Verona, Verona, Italy

E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

d
Faculty of Business and Law, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK

E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

d
Faculty of Business and Law, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK

E-mail : [Link]@[Link]

e
Centre for Supply Chain Improvement, University of Derby, Derby, UK

E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

d
Faculty of Business and Law, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK

Email : [Link]@[Link]
 Synergy between Lean Six Sigma and Industrie 4.0: A framework for
achieving operational excellence

Abstract

Acknowledging the potential benefits of integrating Industry 4.0 techniques into Lean
Six Sigma-oriented process improvement initiatives, the current literature lacks a
comprehensive guideline for the systematic incorporation of Industry 4.0 within Lean Six
Sigma practices. To fill this gapd, we have developed the LSS4.0 framework, employing
a design science research approach. This framework serves as a structured integration
model for Industry 4.0 and Lean Six Sigma, aimed at assisting organizations in their
journey toward LSS4.0 implementation. Through iterative development and
collaboration with experts in both Lean Six Sigma and Industry 4.0, the framework and
its associated 14-step implementation process underwent evaluation using action research
based semi-structured interviews and demonstrations, featuring case studies from the
automotive (F2) and mining (F3) industries. The outcomes demonstrated substantial
operational enhancements, including reduced defects, improved on-time delivery, a 95%
first-pass yield in F2, a 20% boost in energy efficiency, an increase in equipment
effectiveness from 75% to 85% in mining operations, and a notable 30% decrease in
unplanned downtime incidents, contributing to improved productivity and operational
efficiency while reducing maintenance costs. This research significantly advances
knowledge in Industry 4.0 and Lean Six Sigma, offering valuable insights and making a
meaningful contribution to the broader field of quality management.

Keywords: Industry 4.0; LeanSix Sigma; Operational Excellence; manufacturing

industry; Design science research , implementation framework.

1. Introduction

Lean Six Sigma (LSS) is a well-established business process improvement strategy that combines Lean
principles for efficiency and waste reduction with Six Sigma's statistical methodologies for defect
elimination and problem-solving (Snee 2010; George et al. 2004). LSS offers various benefits, including
improved customer satisfaction, increased profitability, operational efficiency, and a culture of
continuous improvement (Alexander, Antony, and Cudney 2021; Persis et al. 2022) . Its data-driven
approach has proven effective across manufacturing, healthcare, and services, providing a robust
framework for operational improvements(Ahmed, Abd Manaf, and Islam 2018; Dossou et al. 2020;
Persis et al. 2022; Jiju Antony et al. 2020). Consequently, LSS has gained widespread adoption
showcasing its effectiveness in diverse sectors like manufacturing (Andrea Chiarini 2015; Sharma et al.
2021) and healthcare(Sunder M, Mahalingam, and M 2019; Ahmed, Abd Manaf, and Islam 2018; Persis
et al. 2022). In manufacturing and healthcare, LSS principles play a pivotal role in enhancing processes
and ensuring quality. Its impact extends to supply chain management (Abideen and Mohamad 2021; Ali
et al. 2020), where LSS methodologies optimize and streamline intricate processes. Furthermore, LSS
finds application in education (Lu, Laux, and Antony 2017; Jiju Antony et al. 2020),enhancing
efficiency in educational processes. The adaptability and effectiveness of LSS make it a valuable
approach for organizations committed to operational excellence across various industries, emphasizing
its versatility in addressing challenges.

In the context of the contemporary business landscape characterized by the advent of Industry 4.0 and
the unprecedented challenges posed by interconnected machines and digital systems generating massive
data volumes and process complexity, LSS encounters several challenges(Arcidiacono and Pieroni
2018; Skalli, Charkaoui, Cherrafi, et al. 2023). In one hand, the traditional principles of LSS, while
effective in addressing specific operational issues, may face limitations in navigating the complexities
introduced by Industry 4.0 technologies and the sheer scale of data involved(Pongboonchai-Empl et al.
2023). In other hand, while LSS employs statistical methods to reduce variations, manual data collection
and subjectivity, coupled with its significant resource demands and time-consuming nature, make it a
challenging endeavor (Johannsen, Leist, and Zellner 2011; Arcidiacono and Pieroni 2018; S. Park,
Dahlgaard-Park, and Kim 2020). However, its standalone application may not always suffice for
organizations striving to maintain competitiveness in today's rapidly evolving business environment,
marked by the proliferation of advanced technologies stemming from the Fourth Industrial Revolution
(Jiju Antony et al. 2022; Arcidiacono and Pieroni 2018).

As businesses increasingly embrace digital transformation and automation, the rigid structures of
traditional LSS methodologies may find it challenging to seamlessly integrate with the dynamic and
technologically advanced processes associated with Industry 4.0. The adoption of digital technologies
becomes imperative for organizations aiming to maintain competitiveness and proactively navigate the
evolving landscape of the market. I4.0 incorporates cutting-edge technologies, such as the Internet of
Things (IoT), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Big Data Analytics (BDA)(Liao et al. 2017). These
technologies empower organizations to harness real-time data, facilitating optimized operations and
informed decision-making (Calabrese, Levialdi Ghiron, and Tiburzi 2021). Embracing I4.0 allows
companies to streamline processes, elevate data-driven decision capabilities, and significantly enhance
operational efficiency.

The need for real-time data analytics, artificial intelligence, and interconnected cyber-physical systems
demands a more adaptive and technologically sophisticated approach, prompting a reevaluation of how
LSS aligns with and responds to the evolving demands of the contemporary business environment(S. H.
Park, Dahlgaard-Park, and Kim 2020). Therefore, recognizing the potential challenges and exploring
innovative adaptations of LSS in the face of Industry 4.0 becomes imperative for organizations aiming
to stay at the forefront of operational excellence.

Recognizing the imperative for transformative measures, the combination of Industry 4.0 with LSS,
denoted as LSS4.0, emerges as a distinctive approach that not only addresses these challenges but also
forms a potent synergy for achieving operational excellence in the manufacturing industry(Gupta,
Modgil, and Gunasekaran 2020; S. H. Park, Dahlgaard-Park, and Kim 2020; Sodhi 2020). The
integration, therefore, serves as a strategic response to the evolving industrial landscape, aligning
traditional methodologies with cutting-edge technologies to achieve a comprehensive and sustainable
approach to operational excellence in the context of modern manufacturing.

This integration has gained significant attention in academia as an emerging trend (Skalli, Charkaoui,
Cherrafi, et al. 2023; Pongboonchai-Empl et al. 2023). The literature underscores an intrinsic
relationship between LSS and I4.0, converging on the common objectives of enhancing efficiency,
reducing waste, and improving quality (Tortorella, Giglio, and van Dun 2019; Buer et al. 2021; Gupta,
Modgil, and Gunasekaran 2020; A. Chiarini and Kumar 2020; Skalli, Charkaoui, Anass, et al. 2023).
The synergy derived from integrating these approaches enables organizations to harness both established
process improvement methodologies and cutting-edge technologies, fostering long-term growth and a
competitive advantage within today's challenging business landscape(A. Chiarini and Kumar 2020).
Notably, while the benefits of this integration often referred to as LSS4.0, have been acknowledged, a
research gap exists concerning its applicability. This growing interest has led to various theoretical and
empirical studies, focusing either on theoretical aspects or delving into the integration of specific I4.0
technologies (Gupta, Modgil, and Gunasekaran, 2020) or LSS tools (Wang et al. 2021). However, a
comprehensive and integrated understanding of LSS4.0, which encompasses the holistic integration of
various I4.0 technologies with the complete LSS framework, is still limited. Thus, there is a need for
further research and empirical studies to explore and develop a cohesive LSS4.0 approach that leverages
the synergies between I4.0 and LSS in a comprehensive and practical manner (Calabrese et al. 2021).
Moreover, the successful implementation requires a framework that is adaptable to different
organizational cultures, processes and sectors, with a simple design and easier implementation.

Therefore, this study proposes to address these gaps and examine the following research questions:

RQ1. How can Lean Six Sigma 4.0 be effectively implemented?

RQ2. What are the practical benefits of integrating LSS with I4.0 technologies in a real manufacturing
context?

By addressing the above research questions, the study can provide valuable insights into best practices
for integrating these approaches and achieving long-term success. Within this context, the research
objectives are as follows: (1) to propose a framework for LSS4.0 implementation; (2) to empirically
validate this framework through its deployment in three organisations from different industries; and (3)
to identify future research directions and generic proposals from the case study. In accordance with the
Design Science Research (DSR) methodology employed in this study, our central artifact is the
conceptual LSS4.0 framework, a holistic integration of Lean Six Sigma and Industry 4.0 methodologies.
This framework stands as a pivotal outcome of our research, addressing the identified gap and providing
a practical solution for organizations aiming to implement LSS4.0 initiatives [Link] framework
could represent an important tool for businesses looking to stay competitive in an ever-changing world.
It provides a structured approach to developing solutions that can be tailored to individual business
needs, allowing companies to move towards a more efficient and effective operation model. by
optimizing their processes and maximizing value for their customers.

This paper is organized into eight sections, including the introduction in Section 1. Section 2 is devoted
to literature review conducted to explore the existing framework and inventory gaps in the literature.
The proposed theoretical integration model of I4.0 and LSS is presented in Section 3. Section 4 defines
the research methodology adopted for this research work. The details of the framework development
and case description are presented in Section 5. Section 6 presents the results of the framework
implementation in case organizations. Section 7 highlights the discussion of the results and implications.
The final section presents the conclusions, limitations and future research opportunities.

2. Conceptual background
Constructing a robust Lean Six Sigma 4.0 framework within the framework of DSR necessitates
the incorporation of a thorough literature review, which serves as a foundational imperative.
This section assumes a pivotal role in systematically exploring existing knowledge, theories,
and methodologies associated with LSS4.0. Through a structured systematic literature review
methodology (section 2.1), the review not only identifies gaps and opportunities (section 2.5)
but also ensures the proposed framework is firmly rooted in a theoretical foundation. The
synthesis of relevant literature (section 2.4) contributes to the overall rigor and scholarly depth
of the research, providing a nuanced understanding of the evolving LSS4.0 landscape. This
approach enables the research to align with current best practices, address challenges, and
contribute innovative insights to the field.

2.1 Literature Review

The systematic literature review (SLR), stands as a scientific methodology employed to systematically
explore and analyze existing literature within a specific field (Briner and Denyer 2012; Tranfield,
Denyer, and Smart 2003). What distinguishes the SLR method is its effectiveness in enabling researchers
to establish a robust evidence base and foundational knowledge through the implementation of a
predefined protocol, ensuring a systematic extraction of knowledge from prior studies(Tranfield,
Denyer, and Smart 2003). In this study, the SLR was executed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) method, illustrated in Figure 1 and organized into
three pivotal steps: locating studies, screening, and inclusion for analysis. This methodology ensures a
meticulous and transparent process for extracting insights from prior studies based on a predefined
research protocol. The SLR was employed to delve into the existing literature concerning integration
models, frameworks, and roadmaps associated with the convergence of Industry 4.0 and Lean Six Sigma
(LSS), with a focus on identifying notable gaps in previous research (Page et al. 2021).The initiation
phase involved crafting precise research questions and formulating the SLR protocol (Table 1), serving
as a comprehensive guide throughout the review. A systematic search was then conducted across
reputable databases—Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, and Emerald—utilizing finely tuned
search strings derived from literature and refined through consultations with experienced researchers.
The inclusion criteria specifically targeted peer-reviewed indexed journal papers in English,
encompassing empirical, conceptual, and review articles relevant to the integration model of Industry
4.0 and Lean Six Sigma. The selection period, spanning from 2011 to 2022, aligned with the inception
of the Industry 4.0 evolution. The screening process meticulously applied inclusion/exclusion criteria
(Table 2), initially identifying 88 articles. Following the removal of duplicates, the screening steps
analyzed titles, abstracts, and keywords, resulting in the exclusion of 29 papers not aligned with the
study scope. A second criterion, focusing on the unavailability of full text, led to an additional 9
exclusions. A detailed full-text assessment then ensued, resulting in the exclusion of 2 papers.
Subsequent content analysis of the 28 retained articles extracted key information on study design,
methodology, key findings, and limitations, ensuring a comprehensive and robust evaluation of the
selected literature.

Table 1: SLR protocol

Unit of analysis Peer reviewed articles presenting roadmaps, frameworks,

, models, methods or approaches integrating LSS and I4.0
Analysis type Qualitative
Time frame 2011–2022
 Search field Title, Abstract, Keywords
Keywords DMAIC, Six sigma, Lean, Lean six sigma, Lean 4.0, Lean six
sigma4.0, Industry 4.0, Digital Transformation, Big data,
Smart Manufacturing, Internet of Things, Cyber Physical
System, model, framework, roadmap, using Boolean operators
(i.e. AND and OR)
Databases SCOPUS, Science Direct, Emerald, Web of Science
Total articles included 28

Table 2 : List of Inclusion/ Exclusion criteria for the SLR

Inclusion criteria Indexed Journal papers written in
English
Exclusion criteria Conference papers, chapters books
and White papers, reports
Non-peer-reviewed articles
Articles not relevant to the research
objectives
No Full text accessibility.

Figure 1: Review process

2.2 Background on Industry4.0

 Industry 4.0 signifies a pivotal transformation in the manufacturing landscape, constituting the
fourth industrial revolution(Liao et al. 2017). Though lacking a universally agreed-upon definition, this
paradigm shift emphasizes the integration of cutting-edge technologies across the entire organizational
value chain. The core principles of Industry 4.0 include the convergence of real and virtual production
realms, facilitated by the Internet of Things (IoT), cyber-physical systems, Big Data Analytics (BDA),
additive manufacturing, autonomous robots, cloud computing, cybersecurity, augmented reality, and
horizontal /vertical integration(Butt 2020; Piccarozzi, Aquilani, and Gatti 2018; Ghobakhloo 2018). The
essence of Industry 4.0 lies in its ambition to foster autonomous and dynamic production, leveraging
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to enable the mass production of highly
customized products. This transformative approach not only enhances the production process through
intelligent automation but also presents a spectrum of opportunities for increased productivity,
efficiency, and flexibility(Calabrese, Levialdi Ghiron, and Tiburzi 2021; Ghobakhloo 2018) while
concurrently posing unique challenges in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. As companies
navigate this dynamic and unpredictable environment, innovative approaches become imperative to
harness the full potential of Industry 4.0 and maintain a competitive edge in the evolving industrial
landscape(Shahin et al. 2020; M. Sony 2018).

2.3 Background on LSS4.0

LSS4.0 refers to the integration of LSS methodologies with I4.0 practices(Jiju Antony et al. 2022). LSS
is a process improvement approach that combines Lean manufacturing principles, focusing on efficiency
and waste reduction (J. Antony et al. 2020), with Six Sigma, which aims to minimize defects and
variations in processes(Belhadi et al. 2021). When combined with Industry 4.0, which involves the
integration of advanced digital technologies into manufacturing processes, LSS4.0 seeks to leverage
data, automation, and connectivity to enhance the efficiency, flexibility, and quality of production
processes(A. Chiarini and Kumar 2020). This integration often involves the application of smart
technologies, real-time data analytics, and cyber-physical systems to optimize operations and achieve
continuous improvement in a manufacturing environment. LSS4.0 is the amalgamation of Lean Six
Sigma principles with the transformative technologies of Industry 4.0, aiming to achieve higher levels
of operational excellence, quality, and productivity in modern manufacturing (Bag et al., 2020). LSS4.0
empowers organizations to optimize resource utilization while consistently delivering high-quality
products and services. Nevertheless, this initiative is still in its earliest phase and organizations face
challenges in the absence of a shared roadmap. Prior studies has highlighted the difficulties in identifying
suitable metrics and tools throughout LSS projects combined with I4.0 ((Skalli, Charkaoui, and Anass
2022). Additionally, while there are frameworks available in the literature that focus on either I4.0
technologies or LSS methodologies individually, or even combinations of specific I4.0 technologies
with specific LSS tools, there is still a gap when it comes to a comprehensive framework for an
integrated LSS4.0 approach. This gap suggests that the existing literature lacks a holistic framework that
combines both LSS and I4.0 seamlessly(Pongboonchai-Empl et al. 2023; Skalli, Charkaoui, Cherrafi, et
al. 2023).

2.4 Review of existing LSS4.0 integration models

Previous research has recognized both the complementary and synergistic relationship between the
fusion of Lean, Six Sigma or LSS technologies and I4.0 technologies (Anass et al. 2021; Skalli,
Charkaoui, Cherrafi, et al. 2023; Arcidiacono and Pieroni 2018). This integration has been highly valued
by researchers due to its ability to effectively address a wide range of production problems. The
reviewed research work consistently demonstrates that the relationship between these approaches is
mutually beneficial, creating a comprehensive framework to enhance operational efficiency and drive
continuous improvement across various aspects of production management.

LSS4.0, the integration of LSS with I4.0 technologies, represents a significant advancement in the
pursuit of operational excellence(Joshi et al. 2022). This hybrid approach leverages the principles of
Lean and Six Sigma to streamline processes, eliminate waste, and enhance quality, while simultaneously
harnessing the transformative power of I4.0 technologies such as the IoT, Big Data analytics, and AI.
LSS4.0 aims to create a synergistic framework that not only addresses operational inefficiencies and
defects but also capitalizes on real-time data analytics for intelligent decision-making(Joshi et al. 2022).
By combining the proven methodologies of LSS with the cutting-edge capabilities of I4.0, organizations
can achieve a responsive and adaptive operational environment, fostering efficiency, reducing costs, and
ultimately ensuring sustained competitiveness in the ever-evolving landscape of modern
industry(Pansare, Yadav, and Nagare 2022; A. Chiarini and Kumar 2020).

To achieve LSS and I4.0 integration, organizations need to adopt an implementation LSS4.0 framework
that incorporates both concepts. The framework should include strategies for continuous improvement,
employee engagement, technology integration, and data-driven decision-making. It should also involve
a culture of innovation, collaboration, and agility that enables organizations to quickly adapt to changing
business conditions and customer needs.

LSS has maintained its position as the prevailing approach for enhancing operational efficiency and
quality in various industries for several decades (Sony, Antony, and Naik 2020), and more recently, it
has been linked with I4.0 as an emerging research field(Jiju Antony et al. 2022). The research in this
field has attracted a great interest from both researchers and professionals worldwide, generating both
theoretical and empirical studies. Although there are several review articles on the integration of LSS
and I4.0, few empirical studies proposing a framework or roadmap were found dealing with the
integration of I4.0 technologies with either specific LSS tools or the integration of specific I4.0
technologies with LSS tools. For example, an innovative real-time VSM system facilitated by Radio
Frequency Identification (RFID) technology was presented by (Chen and Chen 2014) .This system
enables automated tracking of material flows (Koppel and Chang 2021; Belhadi et al. 2021) illustrated
positive impact of integrating BDA with LSS by showcasing improvements across several factors, such
as worker efficiency, logistics management, environmental sustainability and resource use. Table 3
presents a summary of prominent LSS 4.0 frameworks and models.
Table 3: Summary of prominent LSS 4.0 frameworks and models

N° Study Lean/ I4.0 Validation Validation Country/ Contributions Limitations

reference six technology mode Regions
sigma
1 (Arcidiaco LSS I4.0 Yes Case study - This paper applies Conceptual framework
no and engineering approaches

Pieroni within the healthcare

environment to optimize the
2018)
service supply process,
reduce resource waste, and
enhance the Quality of
Experience (QoE) for
patients.
2 Belhadi et LSS BDA Yes Survey North africa The integrated effect of Framework concern the
al. (2021) Big Data Analytics, LSS integration of one selected
and Green Manufacturing I4.0 technologies with Six
on the environmental Sigma/LSS.
performance of
manufacturing companies
3 (Calabrese, - Industry4.0 Yes Literature US and A framework linking The framework centered
Levialdi review and Switzerland technologies, barriers, and on industry4.0
Ghiron, multiple Case goals is then developed
and Tiburzi study together with a web
2021) application based on its
contents.
4 (Chen and Lean Radio- Yes Case study China Te ORFPM system can The framework centered
Chen 2014) frequency successfully track on the integration of a
identificati performance variations chosen I4.0 technology
on (RFID) when production has low with Lean principles.
time consumption
requirements and is labor
intensive.
5 (A. LSS I4.0 Yes Interviews Italy Development of a new Conceptual framework
Chiarini pattern for Operational
and Kumar Excellence through the
2020) grounded theory
methodology.
6 Chiarini LSS I4.0 Yes Case study Italy Framework to integrate Framework concern
and Kumar (single-case) LSS methods and develped economy.
(2021) DMAIC with Industry 4.0
 technologies
7 (Graafman Six Process Yes Interviews Across the Process Mining for Six Framework concern the
s et al. Sigma mining world Sigma (PMSS) guideline integration of one selected
2020) has been developed to I4.0 technologies with Six
support organizations in Sigma/LSS.
systematically using
process mining techniques
aligned with the DMAIC
(Define-Measure-
Analyze-Improve-
Control) model of Six
Sigma.
8 (Gupta, LSS BDA No Literature - Contacts point between Conceptual framework
Modgil, review LSS and BDA Absence of real-world
and validation
Gunasekar
an 2020)
9 (Kaswan et Green I4.0 Yes Practitioner Across the A generic, conceptual Use of one case study
al. 2023) and experts world framework of an Lack of generability
LSS integrated Green
LSSIndustry 4.0 approach
 is proposed using the
application of different
tools and techniques of
Green LSS and Industry
4.0 at different stages of
the realization of a project.
10 (Koppel Six BDA Yes Case study MDAIC as novel and Framework concern the
and Chang Sigma renovated DMAIC integration of one selected
2021) framework integrating Big I4.0 technologies with Six
Data Sigma/LSS.
11 (Kregel et Six Process Yes Case study Ireland Method for Integrating Framework centered on
al. 2021) Sigma Mining Process Mining into Six the integration of a chosen
Sigma’s DMAIC I4.0 technology with Six
Sigma.
12 (Laux et al. Six Big Data No Conceptual US A framework for utilizing The framework developed
2017) Sigma research Six Sigma (SS) principles specifically for
design and Big Data analytics at a application within a U.S.
US public university for public university context
the improvement of
student success
13 (M. Sony Lean Automatio No Literature - An integration model of Conceptual framework
2018) n; cyber- review Industry 4.0 and Lean Absence of real-world
physical management validation
systems
14 (Pansare, LSS I4.0 Yes Experts panel - Industry 4.0 technologies Conceptual framework
Yadav, and were the most prominent
Nagare for improving
2022) organizational
performance. As a result,
integrating Industry 4.0
technologies with OPEX
strategies can assist in
improving the
performance of
manufacturing
organizations.
15 (Park et al., LSS Big Data, No Literature The characteristics of the Conceptual framework
2020) AI and IoT review 4th Industrial Revolution Framework applicability
are investigated, and not verified/tested.
desirable new paradigm of
LSS is presented.
16 (Pongboon LSS I4.0 No Literature - DMAIC based Conceptual Conceptual framework
chai-Empl review framework for LSS4.0 Framework applicability
et al. 2023) not verified/tested.
17 (Ramires LSS process Yes Case study Portugal This paper provides Framework concern the
and mining insights for six sigma and integration of one selected
Sampaio process mining I4.0 technologies with Six
2021) practitioners on the Sigma/LSS.
benefits of combining
both methodologies
within the DMAIC
structure. Implementing
this blended approach
bring visibility to
operations and accelerate
process improvement
initiatives.
18 (Shahin et Lean cloud Yes Case study Thailand and A cloud-based Kanban Framework concern the
al. 2020) (Kanb computing Brazil decision support system is integration of one selected
an) presented as a real-world Lean with one I4.0
demonstrator for technologies
integration of an Industry
 4.0 technology (cloud
computing) and a major
Lean tool (Kanban).
19 (Shanshan, LSS BDA No Literature - A method to improve the Conceptual framework
Wenfei, reveiw curriculum system in
and Lijuan higher education
2021) institutions by taking use
of the Lean Six Sigma
(LSS) framework
incorporated with big data
analysis.
20 (Sen 2015) Six ANN Yes Case study India A new technique using A Method using ANN for
Sigma artificial neural network sis sigma
(ANN) as a tool in Six
Sigma.
21 (Skalli, LSS I4.0 No Literature - Conceptual framework for Conceptual framework
Charkaoui, review LSS4.0 Framework applicability
Cherrafi, et not verified/tested.
al. 2023)
22 (Sordan et LSS I4.0 No Literature - Conceptual framework Conceptual framework
al. 2022) review for the implementation of Framework applicability
contact points not verified/tested.
between LSS practices
and I4.0 technologies
23 (Tissir et al. LSS I4.0 No Literature - Conceptual framework for Conceptual framework
2022) review LSS4.0 Framework applicability
not verified/tested.
24 (Tripathi et Lean I4.0 Yes Case study India An innovative agile model Framework concern
al. 2021) using the lean, smart, and emerging economy.
green approach to improve
operational performance
within limited constraints
in Industry 4.0.

25 An open innovation method

to achieve sustainability in
Framework tested using a
(Tripathi et shop floor management
Lean I4.0 Yes Case study India single case study
al. 2022) systems in industry 4.0 by
Lack of generalizability
using lean and smart
manufacturing concepts
26 (Uluskan Six Artificial Yes Experiments - An ANN-based structure Framework concern the
2020) Sigma Neural is proposed to detect the integration of SS with one
Networks( refrigerators not selected I4.0 technologies
ANN) complying with power
specifications through
thermal camera readings
to enhance Six Sigma
toolbox.
27 (Wang et Lean I4.0 Yes Case study China A framework of VSM to Framework concern the
al. 2021) (VSM) rejuvenate traditional lean integration of one selected
tools is proposed. lean tool with I4.0
Framework of automated technologies
value stream mapping for
lean production under the
Industry 4.0 paradigm.
28 (Zgodavov LSS ANN Yes Case study - Lean Six Sigma Small The framework is
a et al. (Artificial (single case) Mixed Batch developed to solve a
neural
2020) production system method specific problem in bakery
networks)
sector and is in general not
and machine
applicable to other sectors.
learning
2.5 Research gaps

The SLR identified several notable gaps in the existing research landscape. Firstly, there is a notable
bias towards the integration of LSS with big data (Belhadi et al. 2021; Laux et al. 2017), process
mining(Kregel et al. 2021; Graafmans et al. 2020; Ramires and Sampaio 2021), or data mining(Ghosh
and Maiti 2012), with less attention given to other Industry 4.0 technologies. Additionally, the majority
of validated frameworks rely on single-case studies(Tripathi et al. 2021), necessitating more extensive
case studies for broader applicability. Furthermore, the focus primarily revolves around integrating a
specific DMAIC steps or lean tools with one technology, often catering to specific industry sectors,
introducing potential biases(Koppel and Chang 2021; Ghosh and Maiti 2012). This highlights a critical
need for more comprehensive, holistic, and simplified frameworks that combine LSS and I4.0 tools
across multiple sectors. In response to these findings, there is a compelling call for the development of
a more accessible and integrated LSS4.0 framework, which serves as the motivation for the forthcoming
study.

3. Proposed theoretical integration model of LSS with I4.0

After the SLR presented in the previous section contributed to identifying a gap in the literature,
this section presents the proposed theoretical integration model which fills such gap. The
integration of LSS with I4.0 is a concept that has been gaining significant attention in recent years
(Arcidiacono and Pieroni 2018; Sodhi 2020; Pongboonchai-Empl et al. 2023; Tissir et al. 2022). The
proposed theoretical integration model aims to leverage the best practices of both methodologies to
achieve maximum efficiency and productivity in manufacturing and other industries.

At a high level, the integration model involves the use of LSS principles to identify and eliminate waste
and defects in manufacturing processes, while I 4.0 technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT),
Big Data analytics, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) are used to collect and analyze data in real-time to
optimize production processes. In this context, our study employs a DSR approach to advance the
theoretical integration model, seeking to amalgamate the best practices of LSS and I4.0. The proposed
theoretical LSS4.0 model (Figure 2) places a great emphasis on understanding the drivers, barriers and
benefits that affect the integration of LSS with I4.0. The drivers of the LSS4.0 model support and
facilitate the integration of LSS with I4.0. Drivers stimulated the integration of LSS and I4.0 and
increased the willingness of organizations to implement this new approach. On the other hand, barriers
prevented the successful implementation of the approach and therefore provided valuable insights into
the factors that could affect the successful implementation of LSS4.0. By identifying and understanding
these barriers, organizations could have taken steps to mitigate them and increase the chances of success
of this approach.

Common barriers to LSS and I4.0 included resistance to change from employees or management, lack
of support or commitment from top management, insufficient resources or funding, as well as cultural
or organizational barriers. Additionally, the shared objectives of LSS 4.0 were to improve operational
efficiency, reduce waste, enhance quality, and achieve sustainable success. By integrating these
approaches, organizations could create a powerful methodology for achieving operational excellence
and gaining a competitive advantage. Table 4 depicts the various LSS4.0 drivers and barriers factors.
This understanding is critical for the successful implementation of the integration model. The LSS-I4.0
approach leverages the strengths of both methodologies to create a more comprehensive and effective
approach to operational excellence. Overall, the LSS4.0 approach represents an innovative and powerful
approach to manufacturing optimization that can help organizations improve quality, reduce costs, and
increase productivity (S. H. Park, Dahlgaard-Park, and Kim 2020).

Figure 2: Proposed theoretical integration model for I4.0 and LSS integration inspired by (Skalli,
Charkaoui, Cherrafi, et al. 2023)

Table 4: Key drivers and barriers for integrating I4.0 and LSS

Key drivers factors Key barriers factors

Process optimization Technological challenges
Cost reduction Skill gaps
Improved corporate image Data integration and interoperability
Market competition Security and privacy concerns
Consumers requirements Cultural challenges
Improved Operational Efficiency Resistance to change
Data-driven Decision Making Resource constraints
Enhanced agility and flexibility Complex integration

Source: Adapted from (Skalli, Charkaoui, Cherrafi, et al. 2023)

4. Research methodology

To investigate the proposed theoretical integration model, a multi-methodological research approach

has been applied in two distinct phases, rooted in the Design Science Research principles (DSR). DSR
is particularly suited for addressing practical problems by generating novel knowledge and artifacts
intended for real-world application(Jiju Antony et al. 2023; Antunes, Thuan, and Johnstone 2022; Land
et al. 2021). DSR is characterized as a set of research approaches driven by practical problems
encountered in the field(Dresch, Lacerda, and Antunes Júnior 2014). It differs from traditional research
methods by adopting a participatory observation perspective, aiming for solutions rather than pure
observation (van Aken, Chandrasekaran, and Halman 2016; Peffers et al. 2007). DSR becomes
especially valuable when neither purely inductive nor deductive methods are sufficient(Chandrasekaran,
DeTreville, and Browning 2020; Naik et al. 2023). It acts as a relay between academic research and real-
world applications, with the ultimate goal of creating practical artifacts or recommendations for
addressing real-life problems. It represents a rigorous problem-solving process(Land et al. 2021). DSR
is an iterative and collaborative process that involves working closely with stakeholders and end-users
to ensure that the artifacts developed are relevant and useful. It emphasizes the importance of rigor and
evaluation in the development of new artifacts, which is essential in the context of LSS4.0 where the
framework needs to be evaluated and refined based on empirical evidence and feedback from industrial
professionals. Overall, the use of DSR in the study of the framework of LSS4.0 can help to ensure that
the resulting framework is relevant, useful, and effective in practice. Prior studies have successfully
employed similar appoach for framework development(Naik et al. 2023; Land et al. 2021; Graafmans
et al. 2020).

The study adopts a cyclic approach that encompasses intelligence and conception, following the
guidance of (Hevner et al. 2004; Holmström, Ketokivi, and Hameri 2009)) and the five stages of Design
Science Research (DSR) proposed by (Peffers et al. 2007). The initial cycle involves a comprehensive
analysis of existing literature to identify models and pinpoint gaps in the knowledge. Subsequently, the
identified gap, specifically the absence of an LSS4.0 integration model, is translated into the first stage
of the conception cycle. This includes the identification of the problem and formulation of a solution.
The subsequent stages involve the design and development of a preliminary framework (stage 2) and
the refinement of solutions through demonstration and evaluation (stages 3 and 4), as illustrated in
Figure 3. Phases 3 and 4 are executed within the context of a case study organization (F1), followed by
replication in two other organizations (F2-F3), contributing to the continuous improvement of the
artifact. This iterative process, involving three organizations during the design cycle, enhances the
pragmatic validity of the proposed framework. The resultant solution, comprising the LSS4.0 framework
and related 14 implementation steps processes, not only addresses a known problem but also contributes
theoretically relevant explanations.

4.1 Cycle 1 (Intelligence): a SLR was conducted to analyze existing frameworks. This review delved
into the theoretical components that underpin the fusion of LSS and I4.0, encompassing factors such as
drivers, obstacles, advantages, and difficulties. The outcome of this phase is the theoretical integration
model, which is elaborated upon in Section 3.

4.2 Cycle 2 (Conception): This phase involves the following five stages of our DSR model as depicted
in Figure 3, drawing inspiration from (Land et al. 2021; Peffers et al. 2007), including: (1) and
formulation of an objective solution, (2) the design and development phase, (3) the demonstration stage,
(4) the evaluation phase, and (5) the communication of findings

4.2.1 Stage1: Problem identification and formulation of an objective solution

Solution formulation involves recognizing the problem, defining objectives for a resolution, and
crafting the fundamental elements of a potential solution design(Holmström, Ketokivi, and Hameri
2009; Peffers et al. 2007). Our design science process followed a problem-centered approach, as outlined
by (van Aken, Chandrasekaran, and Halman 2016). This methodology underscores the importance of
addressing identified problems, ensuring a deliberate and purposeful advancement throughout the design
and development [Link] the literature gaps revealed the lack of a well-defined and validated
integrated LSS4.0 model to embrace this integration in a rigorous manner, understanding how to
integrate LSS with I4.0 couldn't have been solved using existing literature knowledge alone. Hence,
recognizing the need to approach this issue from an abductive perspective, (Chandrasekaran et al., 2020)
acknowledged the importance of utilizing theory, evidence, and insight to formulate a solution. In this
context, DSR has facilitated the incorporation of both a descriptive and explanatory aspect. This
approach aims to foster a more profound comprehension of the field problem while concurrently crafting
an artifact (van Aken et al., 2016). Reviewing, analyzing, and comparing the existing frameworks
(Section 2) has helped to determine the building blocks and structure of the framework. The overall
structure of the proposed framework has been derived from existing frameworks by Pongboonchai-Empl
et al. (2023) and Kaswan et al. (2023), which has been built around the DMAIC five stages of Define-
Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control.

4.2.2 Stage 2: Design and development

A first draft of the framework has been elaborated based on the interactive experts' panel sessions. 45
industry experts have been approached via emails and direct contact to take part in the study including
senior executives, black belts, PMO project managers, and 20 academic experts meeting the following
criteria to provide feedback on the proposed preliminary framework drawing on their expertise and in-
depth knowledge of this field:

• Minimum of 15 years of academic or industry experience.

• Good knowledge of OpEx methods and/or Industry 4.0 technologies

Overall, 25 industry senior experts and academic experts have agreed to participate. The demographic
details of the experts are given in Table 5.

Expert feedback substantiated the robustness of the initial framework and prompted recommendations
for minor adjustments. Practitioners advocated for the inclusion of supplementary tools like BDA, 7S,
SWOT analysis, and fishbone diagrams at various stages of the [Link] also commented on the
synergy between LSS and I4.0 methods, to improve adaptability. According to practitioners, the refined
framework would have improved operational [Link] detailed suggestions of experts can be
provided on demand.

4.2.3 Phase 3 : Demonstration

During the stage of solution demonstration and refinement, the preliminary framework design
underwent empirical testing, following the approach recommended by (Akkermans et al. 2019). The
initial artifact, which included the Lean Six Sigma 4.0 framework and the step-by-step implementation
process, was subjected to examination at Company F1. Three researchers conducted semi-structured
interviews involving 16 employees to explore and understand production issues. The interviews allowed
for flexibility in questioning, enabling a thorough investigation into responses.

The use of semi-structured interviews was crucial for capturing nuanced information and enhancing the
depth of understanding to align the solution more closely with the specific challenges and requirements
of the [Link] process addressed issues directly and resulted in adjustments to the 14
implementation steps, contributing significantly to the refinement of the artifact, as detailed in Section
5.1.

4.2.4 Stage 4: Evaluation

Subsequent to the solution refinement in Company F1, our research methodology incorporated a
 multiple case study approach to enhance the pragmatic validity of our design. This iterative process, as
advocated by(Akkermans et al. 2019; van Aken, Chandrasekaran, and Halman 2016; Peffers et al. 2007),
involved revisiting and further refining the solution. In order to diversify our insights, we intentionally
selected two additional companies for inclusion in the study. The choice of these cases was guided by a
combination of theoretical and literal replication, with a particular focus on Hayes and Wheelwright's
(1979) volume/variety spectrum of production types. For reasons of data confidentiality, a code has been
assigned to each company (from F2 to F3). Table 6 summarizes the profile of the selected
[Link] deliberate selection strategy ensures a robust examination of the refined solution across
a spectrum of organizational contexts, enriching the generalizability and practical applicability of our
findings.

4.2.5 Stage 5 : Communication and knowledge sharing. The experience is reported in the form of best
practice and lessons learned.

Intelligence
Conception

Cycle 1: SLR- Theoretical insights Cycle 2 : Development of conceptual LSS 4.0

on integrated LSS 4.0 integration framework (DSR methodology)

Stage 1: Problem Review of different existing

Theoretical elements (Drivers, frameworks of LSS and I4.0
identification and
Barriers, Benefits, Challenges)
Solution formulation

First draft of framework based

Stage 2 : Design and on inputs from the expert
development panel (academia and
industries)
Existing frameworks and models of
integrated LSS 4.0 Stage 3 : Demonstration Action Research based

iteration
semistructured interviews within
16 practitioners from automative
industry

Stage 4: Evaluation Implementation- testing and

Literature gaps validation of the Final version of
the proposed LSS4.0 framework
using multiple case studies

Step 5 : Communication Lessons learned and

and knowledge sharing adjustements of the
framework

Figure 3. Research approach

Table 5. Expert profiles

Expert Affiliation Experience Role Country

ID
 Expt1 University 25 Associate professor Morocco
Expt 2 University 18 Associate professor Brazil
Expt 3 University 29 Associate professor UK
Expt 4 University 27 Associate professor UK
Expt 5 University 21 Associate professor India
Expt 6 University 31 Associate professor Spain
Expt 7 University 22 Associate professor Canada
Expt 8 University 16 Associate professor Morocco
Expt 9 Industry 16 Information system management director Morocco
Expt 10 Industry 20 Lean six sigma black belt leader Morocco
Expt 11 Industry 22 Continuous Improvement Manager KSA
Expt 12 Industry 18 Head of Operations Department Portugal
Expt 13 Industry 15 Core Business Operations Leader Germany
Expt 14 Industry 19 Transformation and Operational Morocco
Excellence Manager
Expt 15 Industry 17 Digital transformation leader Malaysia
Expt 16 Industry 17 Operations Transformation Leader Morocco
Expt 17 Industry 30 CEO Morocco
Expt 18 Industry 25 Business Transformation & Operational KSA
Excellence director
Expt 19 Industry 18 Digital Transformation Project Manager France
Expt 20 Industry 16 Quality and Operational Excellence France
Manager
Expt 21 Industry 22 Operational Excellence Project Manager Morocco
Expt 22 Industry 30 OpEx consultant Morocco
Expt 23 Industry 16 Project Lead- Operational Excellence South Africa
Expt 24 Industry 25 Global Operational Excellence Director Canada
Expt 25 Industry 21 Quality & Methods Manager UK

This validation approach aligns with prior research, which similarly validated conceptual frameworks
through the utilization of multiple case studies within the manufacturing sector (Naik et al. 2023;
Cherrafi et al. 2017).

Table 6. Profile of selected companies

Company Sector Size Concepts Country

F2 Automotive Large LSS and I4.0 Morocco
F3 Mining Large LSS and I4.0 Morocco
 5. Design and development: The proposed LSS4.0 framework and its implementation
process

The proposed multi-phase comprehensive framework, developed through the lens of DSR, comprises
five principal phases: initiation, planning, root cause analysis, solutions design, execution, and sharing
knowledge, supported by 14 detailed steps that elucidate the transformative journey of Lean Six Sigma
with Industry 4.0 (LSS4.0). Figure 4 visually represents the structured architecture of this innovative
framework, which is expounded upon in the subsequent discussion. This approach ensures a robust and
methodologically sound foundation for the integration model, aligning with the principles of DSR that
emphasize utility, effectiveness, and the development and validation of artifacts to address real-world
problems.

5.1 Phase 0: Initiation

It is suggested that training, awareness-raising and education on digital transformation, LSS concept and
I4.0 advanced technologies should be the starting step. This preliminary phase ensures that those trained
can effectively lead and facilitate the implementation of the LSS 4.0 initiative within the organization,
as well as transfer this know-how to their teams and the wider workforce. AR (Augmented Reality) and
VR (Virtual Reality) technologies can support training and skill development, allowing employees to
practice new processes or procedures in a virtual environment. Furthermore, demonstrating managerial
involvement is a crucial factor that can determine the success of the LSS4.0 initiative. When the
leadership at the highest level is firmly behind the initiative's implementation, it sends a clear message
to the employees that the initiative is important and worth investing time and effort in. Such commitment
plays a pivotal role in fostering a culture of ongoing improvement that engages every member within
the organization. Top management can also provide the appropriate input, support and advice to ensure
that the initiative is successfully implemented.

5.2 Phase 1: Project Planning

(1) Project selection: Prioritizing the accurate identification and selection of projects is vital for LSS and
I4.0 project effectiveness. Attention is devoted to this phase. Projects can stem from internal or
external sources, like Voice of the Customer or benchmarking studies. I4.0 technologies enhance
decision-making and project selection. Using Virtual Reality (VR) or Computer-Aided Design (CAD)
modeling helps simulate scenarios and evaluate potential improvements, simplifying the selection of
projects aligned with organizational objectives. Digital collaboration platforms enable real-time
teamwork, irrespective of location, providing a centralized space for project evaluation, information
sharing, and collaborative decision-making. After identifying quality issues or improvement
opportunities, prioritize them based on impact using criteria and a scoring system (Appendix 1). The
project selection scoring system considers alignment with goals, financial viability, resource
availability, and risk assessment. Assign a final score to each project, determining priorities. The
appropriate project is the highly-rated one at this stage.
(2) Elaborate project charter: the next step involves creating a project charter, which serves as a
foundational document that formally authorizes the initiation of the project and provides a clear
definition of its objectives, timeline, potential constraints, and key tools and technologies used to
ensure its successful execution. A project charter model is provided in Appendix 2.
(3) Assess the present state of the project: Organizations need to assess their readiness for the selected
LSS4.0 project by evaluating their current practices, knowledge and level of adoption of digital
 technology. The use of an assessment tool helps to identify strengths and weaknesses, enabling g
efforts to be prioritized for successful LSS4.0 implementation. The proposed maturity assessment tool
(Appendix 3) comprises seven factors and 20 measurement items, making it possible to assess (1)
people and leadership (2) knowledge and awareness of digital transformation (3) management support
and commitment (4) organizational structure and culture (5) processes and value chain (6) LSS tools
and Industry 4.0 technology (7) relations with the external environment... This tool was developed by
examining existing models of Quality4.0, LSS and I4.0 readiness, based on the LSS and I4.0 readiness
factors and elements validated in previous studies . (Wagire et al. 2021; Cherrafi et al. 2021; Kocaoglu
and Demir 2019; Jiju Antony, Sony, and McDermott 2021; Jiju Antony et al. 2021; Zulfiqar et al.
2023) in consultation with industry experts, to ensure its effectiveness The maturity assessment
enables a roadmap for successful implementation to be drawn up, based on the LSS4.0 maturity level
(LSS4.0 ML) obtained by the Likert scale scores for each measurement item within the seven
dimensions.

5.3 Phase 2: Root cause analysis

This phase centers on investigating the root cause of waste and reduced productivity. This could involve
various LSS tools and I4.0 technologies to gain a deeper understanding of the root causes of the problem.
It is a critical phase in driving change. It includes the following:

(4) Gather Data: Collect relevant data about the current company’s processes and operations. This can
include process performance metrics, customer feedback, employee feedback, and any other data
sources available. BDA can be employed to collect and analyze relevant data about the current
processes and operations. These technologies can handle large volumes of data, identify patterns and
correlations, and extract insights that might not be apparent through manual analysis alone. Digital
VSM tools can also leverage real-time data from connected devices to provide a more dynamic,
efficient and accurate mapping of the value stream. Virtual brainstorming sessions through
collaboration platforms and virtual meeting tools may enable remote participation and real-time idea
sharing fostering a collaborative environment for generating creative ideas. Use tools like FMEA
(Failure Mode and Effect Analysis), 5 Whys, and Cause-and-Effect diagrams to facilitate the
brainstorming process.
(5) Root Cause Analysis: Determine the root causes of waste and inefficiencies by digging deeper into
the identified NVA (Non value added) activities. Use various problem-solving techniques like the 5
Whys or Fishbone Diagram (Ishikawa Diagram) to identify the underlying causes driving the waste
and inefficiencies. I4.0 technologies can assist in this step such as data Analytics to collect and analyze
large volumes of data from various sources (production machines, sensors, and quality control
systems) to uncover patterns, trends, and correlations that may not be apparent through manual
analysis alone. This enables a deeper understanding of the root causes driving waste and inefficiencies.
Also, automation allows for data capture and analysis helping in eliminating manual effort and
reducing human error. This allows for real-time monitoring and analysis of NVA activities, providing
immediate insights into their causes and facilitating faster decision-making.
(6) Prioritize and validate: the project team may prioritize the identified root causes based on their
impact and frequency (table 13).

5.4 Phase 3: Solutions design

(7) Identify solutions: These solutions may involve generating a range of solutions ideas including
process redesign, automation and standardization, enhanced communication, training, or adopting new
 technologies among others. Involving stakeholders and project team members in this process to
leverage their knowledge and expertise is crucial. Several LSS tools and I4.0 technologies may be
used like brainstorming sessions, idea boards, or concept/mind maps to encourage creativity and idea
generation. I4.0 technologies like machine learning, robotic process automation (RPA) and AI can be
employed to automate repetitive or manual tasks, streamline processes, and reduce human error. This
can lead to improved efficiency and reduced waste. Digital Twin can be useful at this step as creating
a digital twin, a virtual replica of a physical system or process may allow organizations to simulate
and test potential solutions before implementing them in the real world. This helps to reduce risks and
optimize the effectiveness of the developed solutions.
(8) Prioritize solutions: Organizations can use tools like impact-effort matrix, cost-benefit analysis, or
multi-criteria decision-making techniques to aid in prioritization and focus on the opportunities that
provide the highest value and have a reasonable effort-to-impact ratio. The solution with the highest
total score is the one that is most likely to be effective and feasible. Using the table in Appendix 4, we
assign a weight to each criterion based on its importance and a score to each solution based on how
well it meets each of the criteria. For example, a company could use a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is poor
and 10 is excellent. The scores should be based on objective information and evidence. The total score
for each solution is calculated by multiplying the score for each criterion by its weight and then adding
up the scores for all criteria.
(9) Develop action plans: Develop detailed action plans for each prioritized improvement opportunity.
These action plans should outline the specific steps, timelines, responsibilities, and resources
required for implementing the improvement strategies. Consider involving cross-functional teams to
ensure a comprehensive approach and coordination.

5.5 Phase 4: Execution and Monitoring

This phase involves executing solutions and measuring the results.

(10) Implement solutions: This may involve making changes to process steps, improving process controls,
or implementing new tools and technologies..
(11) Monitor process performance: The project team should monitor the performance of the process to
ensure that improvements are sustained and customer requirements are met. This may involve
collecting data on process metrics, evaluating KPIs, conducting process audits, or performing
statistical process control. Implementing real-time monitoring and control systems using sensor
technologies and data visualization tools allows for rapid identification of issues or deviations,
enabling timely corrective action and reducing waste.

5.6 Phase 5: Refining and success sharing

The final phase involves:

(12) Review results and refine processes: The project team should regularly review and refine the
processes to ensure they remain efficient and effective. This may involve making small changes or
introducing new technologies.
(13) Communicate and diffuse results The project team can use various digital technologies to
communicate and diffuse results. Email and online collaboration tools such as Microsoft Teams
facilitate sharing updates and reports with stakeholders.
(14) Sharing the results of the project with key stakeholders within the organization and with other
organizations that may benefit from the lessons learned.
Figure 4: Main implementation phases and the steps involved at each stage.

6. Demonstration and evaluation

6.1 Framework demonstration in F1

This section employs the initial LSS4.0 framework and the corresponding 14 steps outlined
earlier to apply them to Company F1 through an action research. The integration of these steps
in the context of F1 allows for a targeted and systematic examination of the Lean Six Sigma
4.0 framework within the specific dynamics of this case.

This refinement stage involved the collection of data through semi-structured interviews with
16 individuals from diverse roles within an automotive manufacturing company situated in
Morocco, denoted as F1. These interviewees included one CEO, three executive managers,
and twelve senior engineers. Importantly, all participants possessed extensive experience,
with over two decades of involvement in management and operational positions. The
company stands as a prominent automobile equipment manufacturer. The organization holds
International Organization for Standardization ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certifications,
demonstrating its commitment to quality management and environmental standards. F1's core
objective centers around achieving robust customer satisfaction by delivering precision-
engineered components.
 The case study highlighted several operational challenges, including underutilization of
available machinery, an elevated defect rate surpassing desired levels, and a notable
deficiency in automation levels. Concurrently, the industry endeavors to reduce emissions and
establish a method for evaluating social sustainability considerations. This demonstration
method has been consistent with previous studies (Cherrafi et al. 2017). Significant
enhancements have been incorporated into the initial framework based on the feedback
received. Experts proposed the selection of projects based on specific criteria. Also they have
recommended categorizing all underlying causes into a number of important groups in order
to identify the main reasons for poor performance. These categorized groups can then be
systematically evaluated to identify the one that contributes most to the organization's
declining operational excellence. In response to the experts' recommendations, additional
tools were integrated during phase 3, which concerned the development of solutions to
optimize operational performance. In particular, the implementation of synergistic tools from
both LSS and I4.0 was introduced to enhance operational benefits.

The section culminates in the formulation of an enhanced framework that synthesizes the
insights gained from the application in Company F1. This refined framework serves as the
basis for further exploration in the subsequent two cases, ensuring a coherent and
progressively developed approach to address the challenges identified in the research.

6.2 Framework evaluation in F2 and F3

To test the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed framework in a real-world setting. Company
F2 was chosen as the pilot testing site. Table 7 outlines the F2 characteristics.

Table 7: F2 characteristics

Sector Automotive
Size Large
Readiness level * 1. People and leadership 62%
2. Digital transformation knowledge and 71%
awareness
3. Organisational structure, strategy and culture 67%
4. Process and Value chain 76%
5. Management support and commitment 80%
6. LSS tools and I4.0 technology 72%
7. Stakeholders integration 57%
Main operational issues Production efficiency
Technology integration
 Project timeline March 2022– April 2023
*Calculation relies on the maturity-assessment tool (see Appendix 3).

Phase 0: Initiation

The company F2 is a large-sized manufacturing company specializing in the production of personal use
cars. The automotive industry is one of the most structured and productive sectors in Morocco. The
company has been in operation for over 20 years and has a workforce of approximately 1500
employees. The company operates on a 24/7 basis and has a production capacity of approximately 500
units per month. The company has a strong focus on quality and continuous improvement and has
previously implemented LSS to improve its processes. The top management of F2 is strongly
committed to LSS4.0 implementation by providing all necessary financial and resource requirements.
According to F2’s long-term strategy and vision, the digitalisation of the key operational and
organisational processes is a priority and is part of the company’s directives since 2018. Digital tools
are used to communicate and disseminate knowledge about the project across all levels of the
organization. The help of the project team and the CEO ensures that information regarding the project
reaches all employees in a timely and efficient manner. This also helped generate awareness,
understanding, and engagement among employees regarding the goals, progress, and impact of the
project and fosters a sense of inclusivity and transparency which are essential for the success of the
LSS4.0 project. The management members also introduced incentives and recognition programs to
motivate employees and reward outstanding performance to create a sense of ownership and
responsibility among the staff, inspiring to achieve the targets.

F2 also embraced employees with smartphones and tablets to facilitate online learning. The LSS4.0
training program typically focuses on three key elements:

• LSS Principles
• I4.0 Technologies implementation
• Change Management

Phase 1: Project Planning

Step 1: Project selection

Through digital process mapping, Gemba walks with managers and collaborative brainstorming
sessions, the painting process and its related steps have been identified as the main activities
responsible for higher production time and lower productivity on the production shop floor. It involves
5 units namely in order U1, U2, U3, U4 and U5 each designed to perform a different treatment on the
finished product's structure. There were bottlenecks and delays at various stages of the production
cycle, leading to longer lead times and lower output. This impacted the company's ability to meet
customer demand and fulfil orders on time. Top management realized that the organization was falling
short in meeting its goals and objectives and identified productivity as a key area that needed
improvement. The project team carried out SIPOC, VOC and SWOT analyses, based on data collected
from devices embedded with sensors, and software to identify potential projects that aligned with F2's
strategic organizational objectives. This selection process also considered factors such as the projects'
financial viability, their potential impact on customer satisfaction and the availability of resources
within the organization. This comprehensive approach ensures that the projects selected are in line
with the organization's objectives and have the potential to succeed. F2 uses IoT devices for
performance monitoring of equipment, machinery and production lines helping with inefficiencies,
bottlenecks, and deviation detection.

Three projects were chosen and ranked using the LSS4.0 project selection matrix, as displayed in
Appendix 1. The main operational issues in the production chains of the F2 firm were low productivity,
high maintenance costs and low supply chain resilience in disruptions. The company was interested
also in reducing defects and improving quality by identifying and eliminating embedded waste in the
production process. Improving productivity was the highly rated project related to ‘Improve takt time’
to address the low productivity (Table 8)

Table 8: Project selection results

Project Total
Project 1 : Improve productivity 7,6
Project 2 : Delivery Performance 6
Project 3 : Customer Satisfaction 5,8

Step 2: Project charter

The project charter (Table 9) outlines the purpose, objectives, scope, timeline, and tools/technlogies
required for a LSS4.0 project. The U3 comprises three sub units namely SU1, SU2 and SU3. The project
consists in reducing the cycle time (CyT) of the various installations making up the SU3, to increase
their production rates and reduce downtime due to saturation.

The main objectives are :

• Eliminate the causes of downtime in the SU3.

• Increase the output of the SU3 installations to reach the target of 65 cases/hour.
• Improve operational efficiency.

At present, the SU3's operating efficiency varies between [82% - 86%], and the target is to reach 94%.
F2 adopted digital documentation and version control management systems to streamline the process
of drafting, reviewing, and updating any document including the project charter. These technologies
ensure that all stakeholders have access to the most up-to-date version of the document, reducing the
risk of miscommunication or working with outdated information.

Table 9: Project charter for company F2

1. Project goals - Eliminate the causes of downtime in the SU3 unit.

 - Increase the output of the SU3 installations to reach
the target of 65 cases/hour.

-Improve operational efficiency.

2. Project scope Subunit SU3 of U3 from the Painting process

3. Stakeholders Customers

4. Timeline December 2021– April 2023

5. Budget Not communicated

6. Constraints Skills, resources availability, data privacy

7. Technologies, VSM, 5M, Just-in-Time, Pareto chart, TPM, SPC, 5S, ,

techniques and tools Visual control, BDA, Robots

Step 3: Readiness assessment

To assess F2 readiness for implementing the LSS4.0 initiative, a series of interview sessions were
conducted with top management and employees, along with on-site visits. These interactions provided
valuable insights that were used to complete a self-assessment. The assessment scores were then
plotted on a radar chart, as depicted in Figure 5.

People and
leardership
80%
Stakholders 60% Digital
integration 40% transformation…
20%
0%
LSS tools and I4.0 Organisational
technology structure, strategy…

Management Process and Value

support and… chain

Figure 5. F2 readiness results

In accordance with the assessment results (as shown in Figure 5), it was determined that company F2
demonstrated a high level of readiness to begin phase 1 of the LSS4.0 initiative. The assessment
specifically highlighted that management support and commitment towards the initiative were strong.
One of the key operational issues identified through the assessment was the need to improve
production efficiency in the company's production processes. Additionally, there was a recognized
concern regarding the digital training of workers, indicating a potential area for improvement in terms
of technological readiness and employee skill development. These findings provide valuable insights
for company F2 to address and prioritize as they embark on their LSS4.0 journey. Table 10 outlines the
key F2 key motivations, barriers, risks and benefits of the LSS4.0 project.

Table 10: F2 Key motivations, barriers, risks and benefits

Motivations/objectives Reduce costs and time savings

Improve corporate image
Barriers/challenges Lack of skilled workforce, lack of government
support and commitment.
Drivers Customers' and stakeholders' demand
Risks Failure, Cultural risks, Cybersecurity risks,
Technology risks.
Benefits Competitive advantage, high customer satisfaction

Phase 2: Root cause analysis

When investigating the root causes of low productivity in a LSS4.0 project, the Pareto analysis, the
fishbone diagram and the 5 Whys were employed. The main problem at the root of low productivity
was the saturation of the SU2 subunit on the subunit, due to desynchronization of the production rates
of the various installations (tables/lifts) making up the U3 and significant difference between the
production cadences of the different workstations making up SU1, which affected the efficiency of the
overall process, the department's output and the company's performance.

F2 uses Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES) to monitor and manage its manufacturing operations
in real-time, in particular, to track production progress and identify potential problems. F2 tracks the
following metrics: production cycle time, takt time, machine uptime, and defect rates. Cycle time is an
important business indicator for measuring process efficiency. By reducing cycle time, the company
can increase productivity, reduce costs and improve customer service. Company F2 uses cycle time as
a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) to monitor process progress and identify areas for improvement.

An analysis of the history of breakdowns and of the rates recorded by the MRP (Monitoring Production
Resources) software helps to define the bottlenecks. Figure 6 shows the variation in the operational
output of the SU3 installations from Week 10 to Week 13 of 2023. The Pareto diagram has given us a
clear view of the critical stations that account for 80% of total downtime. The PARETO analysis shows
that measurement failure account for 77.03% of the downtime caused by faults in the SRV. The
Ishikawa diagram was used to highlight the various possible sources of this defect that are:

• Poor cleaning of rollers on SRV station.

• Sled storage environment was not insulated against humidity and dust.
• Damage to belts and rollers.
• Sled deformation
• Measuring method
• Measuring sensor
 120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
40%
24%
17%
20%
3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%
0%

Figure 6. PARETO analysis

The criticality of the causes was determined by ranking them using a decision matrix. The criteria index
utilized for calculating criticality are provided in tables 11, 12, 13 and 14. Additionally, the causes were
categorized based on their occurrence frequencies. This ranking process allowed for a comprehensive
assessment of the causes' significance in the context of the study.

Table 11: Cause Frequency Index

Cause type Cause frequency per Frequency value

day
Low rate of occurrence 0< f <2 1
Medium rate of occurrence 2< f< 4 2
Regular rate of occurrence several times a day 3

The causes are classified according to the duration of the failure (downtime) using the following
scale.

Table 12: Cause Severity Index

Cause type Cause severity Gravity value

Minor failure F < 2 min 1
Medium failure 2min < F < 4min 2
Major failure F> 4 min 3

To identify the most critical causes, we used the following scoring grid: C = G x F

Table 13: Criticality Index

Criticality Threshold
 Low C<3
Medium 3<C<5
High C>6

Table 14: Causes classification results

N Causes Cotation
F G C
1 Poor cleaning of rollers on SRV 2 2 4
station.
2 Sled storage environment was not 2 1 2
insulated against humidity and dust.
3 Measuring sensor 2 2 4
4 Damage to belts and rollers. 2 1 2
5 Sled deformation 1 3 3
6 Measuring method 3 2 6

Phase 3: Development of improvement strategies

After identifying the main causes, the team developed potential solutions to tackle the root causes
presented in table 15.

Table 15: Proposed solutions

Root causes and proposed solutions

1. Poor cleaning of rollers on SRV station:

• Develop a standard operating procedure (SOP) for regular cleaning and

maintenance of rollers.
• Provide training to operators on proper cleaning techniques and the importance of
maintaining clean rollers. Use of mobile Learning devices to deliver training content
to employees anytime, anywhere.
• Implement a visual management system to ensure operators are consistently
performing the cleaning tasks.

2. Sledge storage environment not insulated against humidity and dust

• Improve the storage environment by implementing humidity and dust control

measures such as installing air filters, dehumidifiers, or dust containment systems.
• Develop a protocol for proper storage and covering of sleds when not in use.
• Regularly inspect and clean the storage area to prevent the accumulation of dust
and debris.
 3. Damage to belts and rollers

• Implement predictive maintenance.

• Establish clear guidelines for using equipment and handling sleds to minimize the
risk of damage.
• Provide training to operators on proper handling techniques and the importance of
avoiding excessive force or misuse.

4. Sled deformation

• Integrate IoT devices into the sledge to collect data at different stages, and forwarded
them to a central system for further analysis.
• Use advanced analytics techniques to analyze data from IoT devices. Machine
learning algorithms can serve to identify patterns or anomalies associated with
deformities in the sleds. By training the algorithms with existing data on deformed
sleds, they can learn to recognize similar characteristics in real time.
• Computer vision technologies to capture images or videos of the sleds as they move
along the manufacturing line. Advanced image processing algorithms can then be
utilized to detect any deformities, such as cracks, uneven surfaces, or faulty
connectors. This can be done by comparing the captured images with reference
images of properly manufactured sleds.
• Integrated Quality Control Systems: Implement quality checks during the
manufacturing process to identify and reject deformed sleds.

5. Measuring method

• Review and improve the current measuring method for accuracy, efficiency, and
reliability.
Incorporate AR guidance to minimize human error in measurements.

6. Measuring sensor:

• Consider upgrading to a more advanced sensor that provides more accurate and
reliable measurements.
• Implement predictive maintenance for measuring equipment to ensure accuracy.
• Integrate predictive maintenance systems with IoT and automation systems, to
enable seamless monitoring and control of sensors.

When selecting solutions, the team considered the costs and benefits associated with each proposed
solution. The projected benefits are compared to the estimated implementation costs. The team looks
for solutions where the benefits outweigh the costs. This analysis helped to prioritize the most cost-
effective solutions that provide the greatest value to the organization. Based on the cost-benefit
analysis, the team selects the solutions that provide the highest potential return on investment and
are economically feasible. After selecting and prioritizing the solutions, the team developed a detailed
improvement plan involving the specific actions, timelines and responsibilities required for successful
implementation.

Phase 4: Solutions implementation and monitoring

One of the ultimate goals of F2 within the implementation of LSS4.0 was to achieve a state of complete
automatic synchronization of processes; termed "Autonomous Process Synchronisation" This indicates
a high level of process coordination, where different aspects of the organization's operations work
seamlessly together without manual intervention. The implementation of LSS4.0 in F2 Company
necessitated substantial operational transformations, encompassing both vertical and horizontal
integration strategies. Vertical integration, as articulated by Kangermann (2013), involves linking
various IT systems at different hierarchical levels, such as actuators, sensors, control, production
management, manufacturing execution, and corporate planning, to achieve end-to-end solutions. In
this context, F2 strategically deployed sensors across the production line, exemplifying vertical and
end-to-end integration. Simultaneously, horizontal integration emphasized seamless collaboration and
synchronization of processes across different departments. These sensors can detect anomalies,
variations, or defects that might impact the quality of the sleds. The BDA's algorithms enabled quick
pattern, trend and anomaly identification, providing information that was previously difficult to
discern by manual inspection. By combining IoT, data analytics, computer vision, and integrated quality
control systems, F2 implemented real-time quality checks to identify and reject deformed sleds. Real-
time quality checks not only reduced manual inspection efforts but also enabled timely identification
and rectification of quality issues, ultimately improving the overall product quality and customer
satisfaction. The Integrated Quality Control helped to monitor the entire process, starting from the
raw material intake to the final product including quality control checkpoints at various stages, where
the data collected from IoT devices and computer vision are analyzed in real-time. If any potential
deformities or quality issues are detected, the system triggers an alert indicating that the particular
sled needs to be rejected for further inspection or corrective action. This helps improve the overall
quality and productivity. By integrating predictive maintenance systems with IoT and automation
systems, F2 have achieved seamless sensor monitoring and control. IoT devices transmit sensor data
in real-time to the central predictive maintenance system, and automation systems are programmed
to respond to system alerts or triggers, primarily the adjustment of production parameters in the event
of faulty sensors. Figure 7 provides a visual overview of the before, after and estimated production
rates of the targeted plants. The results show improvements in the cadence of critical equipment
affecting the overall cycle time of the painting process and, consequently, the efficiency of the
production line. The firm observed a 25% reduction in the Cost of Quality, achieved a 40% reduction
in product defects, significantly improved on-time delivery performance by 12%, and achieved a first-
pass yield of 95%, indicating fewer rejections and less rework. These improvements contributed to
increased customer satisfaction, reduced costs, and a competitive edge in the automative industry.
The improvements implemented have been monitored by plans to maintain the results achieved
during the project. The positive outcomes achieved serve as a driving force for the project team to
extend the implementation of the framework to additional companies. The pilot testing revealed
promising outcomes providing evidence for the practicality of the LSS4.0 Framework and its essential
requirements. Additionally, the study corroborated the theoretical observation that LSS4.0 tools play
a significant role in enhancing operational performance. Following the successful results in company
F2, the project team was motivated to expand the implementation of the developed artiflact
represented in LSS4.0 framework to one other company. This led to the launch of the rollout phase in
collaboration with companies F3. It is important to note that this company was from different sector
and faced distinct operational challenges. In this phase, the identical framework introduced in Section
5 was applied. Table 16 offers an outline of the fundamental attributes of F3, while the results are
succinctly outlined in Table 17. The deployment stage of the framework has proven highly successful,
reaffirming the outcomes achieved in the Pilot Test phase. These results lead to the conclusion that
the LSS4.0 framework serves as a suitable strategy for enhancing long-term business performance.

Figure 7: Pilot project’s results.

Table 16: F3 characteristics

Sector Mining
Size Large
Readiness level * 72%
Actual I4.0 technologies Advanced sensors, data analytics,
machine learning algorithms, data
analytics and IoT sensors
Project timeline December 2021– April 2023
*Calculation is based on the self-assessment (see Appendix 3).

Table 17: Opportunities for improvement and identified results for F3

Improvement implemented Reducing energy consumption by adopting energy-efficient

technologies and practices. The firm replaced outdated
machinery with newer models designed to consume less
energy while maintaining productivity. They also
implemented an automated system that optimized energy
usage based on production demand, reducing unnecessary
consumption during low-demand periods. Furthermore, they
 invested in renewable energy sources’ solar panels to power
certain operations.
Improving OEE: implementation of advanced monitoring
systems that provided real-time data on equipment
performance, enabling proactive intervention. Training
programs for employees to enhance their operational skills
and proficiency.
Reduced Machine Downtime: Adopting predictive
maintenance for anomalies, unusual patterns, or early
warning signs of equipment failure early detection. The firm
installed advanced sensors on critical mining equipment, such
as excavation machines and conveyor belts. These sensors
continuously monitored various parameters, including
vibration, temperature, and lubrication status.
Performance enhanced Reduced machine downtime. Improving overall equipment
effectiveness (OEE) and energy efficiency.
Savings Achievement of a 20% improvement in energy efficiency rate,
reducing both costs and the environmental impact of their
mining operations.
The equipment effectiveness rate increased from 75% to
85%, indicating improved equipment availability,
performance, and quality.
Unplanned downtime incidents decreased by 30%, leading to
increased productivity, improved operational efficiency, and
reduced maintenance costs.

Phase 5: Refining and success sharing

The project team collected, organized and shared valuable insights and recommendations to guide
future LSS4.0 projects. Notable lessons were learned, highlighting the need for careful planning, strong
leadership, effective change management, employee engagement, clear objectives and continuous
progress monitoring for successful Industry 4.0 and LSS initiatives. Integrating I4.0 and LSS offers the
opportunity to significantly improve organizational performance, which requires a strategic and
collaborative approach. In the final stages of the framework, it is crucial to recognize early
achievements, however modest. The team celebrated this milestone with a lunch. The successful
deployment phase demonstrates that the LSS4.0 framework effectively improves operational
excellence by reducing cycle times and product defects. Positive results include reduced energy
consumption, cost savings and improved overall productivity for participating companies.

Examining the implementation of LSS4.0 in two divergent industries, F2 and F3, unveils distinctive
patterns and outcomes that enrich our understanding of the integration's impact within varied
operational contexts. In F2, a prominent automotive company, the results are meticulously detailed
step by step, providing a granular insight into the transformation process unique to automotive
manufacturing. In contrast, F3, a mining firm, presents its outcomes in a succinct manner outlined in
Table 17. The mining industry, marked by, complex processes, introduces nuances that impact the
presentation style. Recognizing the unique challenges and priorities in the mining sector, the concise
representation in Table 17 captures key highlights and overarching outcomes without delving into the
same level of detail as the automotive case.

Table 18 highlighs the key industry-specific aspects and divergences between F2 and F3 which serve as
a visual aid, offering a succinct yet comprehensive overview of the industry-specific implications in the
LSS4.0 implementation experiences across the two cases.

Table 18 : Comparative Analysis between F2 (Automotive) and F3 (Mining)

Aspect F2 F3
Industry Characteristics Highly dynamic, complex Capital-intensive, resource
supply chain, customer- extraction, geographically
focused dispersed
Implementation Approach Implemented a phased Adopted a modular
approach with cross-functional implementation with
teams specialized teams
Results Presentation Style Detailed breakdown of each Succinctly outlined in Table 17
phase and outcome
Key Success Factors Executive leadership Robust communication
commitment, employee protocols, automation
training technologies
Notable Challenges Resistance to change in Integration challenges due to
production line restructuring remote mining locations
Industry-Specific Nuances Stringent quality standards, Safety regulations,
just-in-time manufacturing environmental impact
considerations
Key Results Achieved a 25% reduction in the Cost of 20% improvement in energy
Quality, 40% reduction in efficiency rate. Decreased
product defects and achieved a unplanned downtime incidents
first-pass yield of 95% by 30%.

7. Discussion

This study introduced an innovative framework that provides organizations with a new approach to
attain operational excellence by combining two distinct yet complementary methodologies: LSS and
[Link] results were consistent with the initial literature, which suggests that the LSS4.0 offers a
promising platform for achieving favourable outcomes and operational excellence(A. Chiarini and
Kumar 2020; S. H. Park, Dahlgaard-Park, and Kim 2020; Buer et al. 2021; Skalli, Charkaoui, Cherrafi, et
al. 2023). This alignment indicates that the research's efforts in developing and validating the LSS4.0
framework have yielded positive results that reinforce the potential benefits of this integrated
approach. The study demonstrates substantial enhancements in operational performance, including a
40% reduction in product defects, a 12% improvement in on-time delivery, and a first-pass yield of
95%. Moreover, a 20% boost in energy efficiency was achieved in mining operations, accompanied by
an increase in equipment effectiveness from 75% to 85%. Notably, a 30% decrease in unplanned
downtime incidents contributed to heightened productivity, improved operational efficiency, and
reduced maintenance [Link] preliminary literature discussed the theoretical basis and potential
advantages of LSS4.0. The results of the study serve to practically confirm these theoretical claims by
demonstrating that the LSS4.0 framework indeed contributes to effective outcomes and enhances
operational excellence. This alignment between the study's results and the preliminary literature
underscores the significance of our research and its contribution to advancing the understanding and
application of LSS4.0 in the manufacturing context. The study fills a critical gap in the existing literature
and adds practical insights to the theoretical concepts discussed in previous research.

This pioneering research is structured into three distinct phases, each contributing to the innovative
nature of the study. Firstly, a rigorous SLR is undertaken to meticulously analyze existing models and
frameworks, effectively identifying gaps and unexplored fields. The SLR, conducted as the initial phase,
served as the foundation for the subsequent development and validation of the LSS4.0 framework.
Through a meticulous analysis of existing models and frameworks, the SLR identified gaps and
unexplored facets in the integration of Lean Six Sigma and Industry 4.0. The insights gleaned from this
literature review not only guided the conceptualization of the LSS4.0 framework but also informed the
selection of the most relevant and effective components. Thus, the findings presented in the results
section are inherently linked to the SLR, showcasing how the LSS4.0 framework addresses identified
gaps and builds upon existing knowledge. By explicitly connecting the insights gained from the SLR to
the subsequent phases of the research, we underscore the significance of this foundational phase in
shaping the innovative nature of our study and its contribution to the evolving landscape of operational
excellence research within the manufacturing context. Secondly, an intricately structured and
encompassing LSS4.0 framework is meticulously developed and proposed. This framework offers
robust support for achieving operational excellence and is exemplified through a meticulous five-step
process, aiding in its practical application. In the third phase, the developed framework is subjected to
a comprehensive evaluation, refinement, and validation process. This validation takes place across two
diverse industrial sectors - namely, automobile and mining.

The process of demonstrating and evaluating the design is conducted within the context of Company
F1. This phase of our DSR project involves a practical application and assessment of the proposed
solution within the specific operational environment of Company F1. By implementing the designed
solution in this real-world setting, we aimed to gather valuable insights into its functionality,
effectiveness, and potential impact on addressing the identified problem. The evaluation phase l
involve rigorous analysis and assessment criteria to ensure a thorough understanding of the design's
performance, paving the way for informed conclusions and recommendations based on empirical
results obtained from Company F1.

The outcomes from these industrial trials underscore the versatility and applicability of the proposed
LSS4.0 integrated framework within the context of the fourth industrial revolution. Manufacturers
stand to benefit from this innovative approach as it empowers them to harness a competitive edge
and enhance their overall operational landscape. Importantly, our study also demonstrates the
triumphant implementation of LSS4.0 in attaining operational excellence, further cementing its
significance. This study assumes a pioneering role in both conceptualizing and empirically testing a
holistic LSS4.0 framework, thereby contributing novel insights and practical guidelines to the evolving
landscape of operational excellence research.
 7.1 Implications

The pioneering nature of this research, which addresses the integration of LSS and I4.0 technologies,
establishes it as a valuable contribution to both academic research and practical industry applications.
The study not only offers perspectives for achieving operational excellence but also lays the
foundations for further advances in this field. Researchers can build upon our findings and delve
deeper into specific aspects, thereby enriching the body of knowledge in operational excellence. The
characterization of our study aligns with the classification of an "improvement" Design Science
Research (DSR) project, as outlined by Gregor and Hevner in 2013. This categorization is apt, as our
research endeavors to introduce a novel solution to a recognized problem, thus contributing to the
advancement of existing methodologies. This alignment with the established framework provides a
conceptual foundation for understanding the nature and significance of our study within the broader
context of DSR.

Our study introduces a groundbreaking contribution to the field by presenting a comprehensive

framework that innovatively integrates I4.0 technologies with LSS, thus addressing an emerging area
within the realm of operational excellence research. It stands apart from prior research in numerous
aspects. Firstly, it introduces a unique approach to the integration of I4.0 technologies with LSS, a facet
that has not been extensively explored in the existing literature. This amalgamation offers a novel
perspective that extends beyond traditional paradigms. Secondly, this research advances the field by
presenting a comprehensive and structured LSS4.0 framework, which serves as a roadmap for
organizations aiming to synergize these two methodologies. This framework is a departure from
previous approaches that may have focused solely on either LSS or I4.0 individually. Additionally, this
study not only formulates the framework but also demonstrates its practical implementation across
diverse industrial sectors, reaffirming its applicability in various contexts.

The theoretical implications of this research are significant in advancing the understanding of
operational excellence through the integration of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) and Industry 4.0 (I4.0)
methodologies. By introducing a comprehensive LSS4.0 framework, this study contributes to bridging
the gap in existing literature by presenting a structured and innovative approach to synergizing these
two distinct yet complementary paradigms. The theoretical underpinnings of this integration provide
a conceptual foundation for researchers and scholars to explore the intricate interplay between
traditional quality improvement methods and cutting-edge digital technologies. Furthermore, the
study enriches the theoretical discourse by emphasizing the importance of organizational culture in
the context of digitalization and I4.0 adoption. The incorporation of real-world empirical validation
enhances the credibility of the proposed framework, offering a valuable case for scholars to draw upon
in future research endeavors. Overall, the theoretical implications underscore the evolving nature of
operational excellence research, urging scholars to consider the dynamic interrelationships between
LSS and I4.0 for a more nuanced understanding of organizational improvement processes in the era of
the fourth industrial revolution.

Furthermore, the study's empirical validation of the LSS4.0 framework through real-world deployment
adds a layer of authenticity that distinguishes it from predominantly theoretical contributions in the
field. Overall, this study's multi-faceted approach, from conceptualization to empirical validation, sets
it apart from preceding endeavors in the realm of operational excellence research. The LSS4.0
framework can guide organizations in implementing a holistic approach that harnesses the benefits of
LSS and I4.0. Manufacturers and companies can use the research findings to make informed decisions
about adopting the LSS4.0 framework. This can potentially lead to greater operational excellence,
streamlined processes, improved quality and enhanced competitiveness. However, it is important to
note that some organizations may excel in certain technologies while lagging in others. The
implementation framework is based on the concept that Lean processes will reduce waste, and Six
Sigma methodologies will systematically eliminate variations, aligning with I4.0 technologies like real-
time monitoring, reduced energy consumption, lower rework and maintenance costs, and increased
revenues. This makes the initiative a viable long-term proposition.

7.2 Limitations and future research perspectives

Previous research has underscored the necessity for a generic LSS4.0 implementation framework
adaptable to various organizational contexts and sectors, and this study aims to fill this gap this gap by
proposing empirically testable [Link] study has introduced a comprehensive LSS4.0
implementation framework with versatile applicability across diverse industrial sectors, but it is not
without limitations. Primarily, this research centered on the manufacturing industry, with a specific
focus on automotive and mining sectors. To enhance the framework's adaptability, future studies
should expand their horizons to encompass other manufacturing sectors like chemistry, food, oil and
gas and aerospace among others. Additionally, extending this framework's application to the service
sector, particularly in education and healthcare, is vital(Jiju Antony et al. 2020; Laux et al. 2017; Jiju
Antony and Sony 2019; Ahmed, Abd Manaf, and Islam 2018), even though LSS4.0 implementation in
services presents distinct challenges.

This research's geographical context was Morocco, where socio- cultural and economic factors may
have influenced LSS4.0 implementation within organizations. Subsequent research should explore
diverse economies and cultural landscapes to estimate the framework's relevance in developed
economies. While this study primarily targeted large enterprises, SMEs face unique economic
challenges, warranting further investigation into the framework's applicability(Jiju Antony, Kumar, and
Madu 2005).

Future research should specifically target SMEs, where longitudinal analysis can be conducted to
understand the influence of organizational size on the adoption of LSS4.0 technology (Kumar et al.
2006). Such case studies will reveal effective strategies for implementing LSS4.0 and assessing the
impact of organizational size. Additionally, qualitative studies can explore the drivers and barriers to
LSS4.0 implementation. The methodology for effectively integrating LSS tools with I4.0 technologies to
reduce defects, costs, waste, and increase economic revenues is still in its infancy, requiring systematic
research for practical implementation within organizations of varying sizes, sectors, and economies.

8. Conclusion

LSS remains the dominant business process improvement methodology for many years. However,
what is emerging as a new trend is its combination with I4.0 technologies. While there have been
numerous literature studies exploring, this study stands out for several [Link] main objective of
this study is to address the research question concerning the implementation of an LSS4.0 initiative
within an organization. This research presents an innovative LSS4.0 model integrating lean six sigma
and industry 4.0 methodologies to attain operational excellence in manufacturing. Developed through
design science research, the model underwent validation in real production scenarios in the mining
and automotive industries. The framework takes advantage of the principles and methodologies of
both LSS and Industry 4.0 to maximize the benefits and synergies between the two approaches. By
critically analyzing previous literature, the researchers have developed an implementation framework.
Additionally, the framework has been practically implemented through case studies conducted in
automotive and mining factories in Morocco, with a focus on quality and productivity. The positive
outcomes in Morocco highlight the potential of the LSS4.0 framework in diverse industrial settings,
transcending geographical boundaries. As the manufacturing sector universally embraces digital
transformation and operational excellence, the insights gained from the Moroccan context can serve
as a blueprint for other industries seeking to harness the synergies between LSS and I4.0.

This study stands out as the pioneering effort to create and empirically assess a generic
implementation framework for LSS 4.0. An integrated LSS4.0 approach has been proposed to help
manufacturing companies improve productivity, quality and reduce costs by automating, streamlining
and making processes more responsive which ultimately translates into improved operational
performance.

The proposed framework for integrating LSS- 4.0 is a five-phase process that begins with staff training
and top management commitment to the transformation and ends with the communication and
diffusion of the results. The framework was test in company F1 and implemented in companies F2 and
F3. The implementation of the framework requires significant resources and financial investment.
which could pose a challenge for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with limited resources,
making it difficult for them to implement the proposed framework. The LSS4.0 framework, as
implemented in the research project, has been found to be a suitable strategy for achieving operational
excellence. Therefore, it can be considered as a viable solution for organizations aiming to attain and
sustain high operational standards. As part of the future research agenda derived from the paper, the
next step is to extend the proposed framework to other sectors. This indicates the intention to further
investigate and expand the implementation of the framework beyond individual organizations,
considering the broader operational context.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank all the respondents in the participating companies and top management for the
permission to carry out the research. We also thank the reviewer and editors for constructive
suggestion which have improved the paper.

References

Abideen, A.Z., and F.B. Mohamad. 2021. ‘Advancements in Industrial Supply Chain through Lean
Implementation - a Review’. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 38
(1): 45–64. [Link]
Ahmed, Selim, Noor Hazilah Abd Manaf, and Rafikul Islam. 2018. ‘Effect of Lean Six Sigma on Quality
Performance in Malaysian Hospitals’. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance
31 (8): 973–87. [Link]
Aken, Joan van, Aravind Chandrasekaran, and Joop Halman. 2016. ‘Conducting and Publishing Design
Science Research’. Journal of Operations Management 47 (July).
[Link]
Akkermans, Henk, Willem Oppen, Finn Wynstra, and Chris Voss. 2019. ‘Contracting Outsourced
Services with Collaborative Key Performance Indicators’. Journal of Operations Management
65 (March). [Link]
Alexander, Paul, Jiju Antony, and Elizabeth Cudney. 2021. ‘A Novel and Practical Conceptual
Framework to Support Lean Six Sigma Deployment in Manufacturing SMEs’. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, July, 1–31.
[Link]
Ali, Syed Mithun, Md. Anwar Hossen, Zuhayer Mahtab, Golam Kabir, Sanjoy Kumar Paul, and Zia ul
Haq Adnan. 2020. ‘Barriers to Lean Six Sigma Implementation in the Supply Chain: An ISM
Model’. Computers & Industrial Engineering 149 (November): 106843.
[Link]
Anass, C., B. Amine, E.H. Ibtissam, I. Bouhaddou, and S. Elfezazi. 2021. ‘Industry 4.0 and Lean Six
Sigma: Results from a Pilot Study’. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, 613–19.
[Link]
Antony, J., E. Psomas, J.A. Garza-Reyes, and P. Hines. 2020. ‘Practical Implications and Future
Research Agenda of Lean Manufacturing: A Systematic Literature Review’. Production
Planning and Control. [Link]
Antony, Jiju, Stephanie Ashby, Dr Abhijeet Ghadge, and Elizabeth Cudney. 2020. ‘Lean Six Sigma
Journey in a UK Higher Education Institute: A Case Study’, August, 171–94.
[Link]
Antony, Jiju, Maneesh Kumar, and Christian Madu. 2005. ‘Six Sigma in Small- and Medium-Sized UK
Manufacturing Enterprises: Some Empirical Observations’. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management 22 (October): 860–74.
[Link]
Antony, Jiju, Olivia McDermott, Daryl Powell, and Michael Sony. 2022. ‘The Evolution and Future of
Lean Six Sigma 4.0’. The TQM Journal, May. [Link]
Antony, Jiju, and Michael Sony. 2019. ‘An Empirical Study into the Limitations and Emerging Trends
of Six Sigma in Manufacturing and Service Organisations’. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management 37 (3): 470–93. [Link]
Antony, Jiju, Michael Sony, Bart Lameijer, Shreeranga Bhat, Raja Jayaraman, and Leopoldo Gutierrez.
2023. ‘Towards a Design Science Research (DSR) Methodology for Operational Excellence
(OPEX) Initiatives’. The TQM Journal, October. [Link]
Antony, Jiju, Michael Sony, and Olivia McDermott. 2021. ‘Conceptualizing Industry 4.0 Readiness
Model Dimensions: An Exploratory Sequential Mixed-Method Study’. The TQM Journal, July.
[Link]
Antony, Jiju, Michael Sony, Olivia McDermott, Raja Jayaraman, and David Flynn. 2021. ‘An
Exploration of Organizational Readiness Factors for Quality 4.0: An Intercontinental Study
and Future Research Directions’. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
40 (2): 582–606. [Link]
Antunes, Pedro, Nguyen Hoang Thuan, and David Johnstone. 2022. ‘Nature and Purpose of Visual
Artifacts in Design Science Research’. Information Systems and E-Business Management 20
(June). [Link]
Arcidiacono, G., and A. Pieroni. 2018. ‘The Revolution Lean Six Sigma 4.0’. International Journal on
Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology 8 (1): 141–49.
[Link]
Bag, S., L.C. Wood, L. Xu, P. Dhamija, and Y. Kayikci. 2020. ‘Big Data Analytics as an Operational
Excellence Approach to Enhance Sustainable Supply Chain Performance’. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 153. [Link]
Belhadi, Amine, Sachin S. Kamble, Angappa Gunasekaran, Karim Zkik, Dileep Kumar M., and Fatima
Ezahra Touriki. 2021. ‘A Big Data Analytics-Driven Lean Six Sigma Framework for Enhanced
Green Performance: A Case Study of Chemical Company’. Production Planning & Control,
August, 1–24. [Link]
Briner, Rob B., and David Denyer. 2012. ‘Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis as a Practice and
Scholarship Tool’. In The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management, edited by Denise
M. Rousseau, 1st ed., 112–29. Oxford University Press.
[Link]
Buer, S.-V., M. Semini, J.O. Strandhagen, and F. Sgarbossa. 2021. ‘The Complementary Effect of Lean
Manufacturing and Digitalisation on Operational Performance’. International Journal of
Production Research 59 (7): 1976–92. [Link]
Butt, J. 2020. ‘A Strategic Roadmap for the Manufacturing Industry to Implement Industry 4.0’.
Designs 4 (2): 1–31. [Link]
Calabrese, A., N. Levialdi Ghiron, and L. Tiburzi. 2021. ‘“Evolutions” and “Revolutions” in
Manufacturers’ Implementation of Industry 4.0: A Literature Review, a Multiple Case Study,
and a Conceptual Framework’. Production Planning and Control 32 (3): 213–27.
[Link]
Chandrasekaran, Aravind, Suzanne DeTreville, and Tyson Browning. 2020. ‘Editorial: Intervention‐
based Research (IBR)—What, Where, and How to Use It in Operations Management’. Journal
of Operations Management 66 (May). [Link]
Chen, Joseph C., and Kuen-Min Chen. 2014. ‘Application of ORFPM System for Lean Implementation:
An Industrial Case Study’. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
72 (5–8): 839–52. [Link]
Cherrafi, Anass, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, Amine Belhadi, Sachin S. Kamble, and Jamal Elbaz. 2021. ‘A
Readiness Self-Assessment Model for Implementing Green Lean Initiatives’. Journal of
Cleaner Production 309 (August): 127401. [Link]
Chiarini, A., and M. Kumar. 2020. ‘Lean Six Sigma and Industry 4.0 Integration for Operational
Excellence: Evidence from Italian Manufacturing Companies’. Production Planning and
Control. [Link]
Chiarini, Andrea. 2015. ‘Improvement of OEE Performance Using a Lean Six Sigma Approach: An
Italian Manufacturing Case Study’. International Journal of Productivity and Quality
Management 16 (January): 416–33. [Link]
Dossou, P.-E., P. Rafael, S. Cristiane, and C.J. Joao. 2020. ‘How to Use Lean Manufacturing for
Improving a Healthcare Logistics Performance’. In , 51:1657–64.
[Link]
Dresch, Aline, Daniel Lacerda, and José Antonio Valle Antunes Júnior. 2014. Design Science Research:
A Method for Science and Technology Advancement. Design Science Research: A Method for
Science and Technology Advancement. [Link]
George, Michael L., Dave Rowlands, Bill Kastle, and Mike George. 2004. What is Lean Six Sigma? New
York,NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ghobakhloo, Morteza. 2018. ‘The Future of Manufacturing Industry: A Strategic Roadmap toward
Industry 4.0’. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 29 (6): 910–36.
[Link]
Ghosh, Sushovan, and Jhareswar Maiti. 2012. ‘Data Mining Driven DMAIC Framework for Improving
Foundry Quality – a Case Study’. Production Planning & Control - PRODUCTION PLANNING
CONTROL 25 (July): 1–16. [Link]
Graafmans, T., O. Turetken, H. Poppelaars, and D. Fahland. 2020. ‘Process Mining for Six Sigma: A
Guideline and Tool Support’. Business and Information Systems Engineering.
[Link]
Gupta, Shivam, Sachin Modgil, and Angappa Gunasekaran. 2020. ‘Big Data in Lean Six Sigma: A
Review and Further Research Directions’. International Journal of Production Research 58 (3):
947–69. [Link]
Hevner, Alan, Alan R, Salvatore March, Salvatore T, Park, Jinsoo Park, Ram, and Sudha. 2004. ‘Design
Science in Information Systems Research’. Management Information Systems Quarterly 28
(March): 75.
Holmström, Jan, Mikko Ketokivi, and Ari-Pekka Hameri. 2009. ‘Bridging Practice and Theory: A Design
Science Approach’. Decision Sciences 40 (February): 65–87. [Link]
5915.2008.00221.x.
Johannsen, Florian, Susanne Leist, and Gregor Zellner. 2011. ‘Six Sigma as a Business Process
Management Method in Services: Analysis of the Key Application Problems’. Information
Systems and E-Business Management 9 (September). [Link]
0128-2.
Joshi, Sudhanshu, Manu Sharma, Shalini Bartwal, Tanuja Joshi, and Mukesh Prasad. 2022. ‘Critical
Challenges of Integrating OPEX Strategies with I4.0 Technologies in Manufacturing SMEs: A
Few Pieces of Evidence from Developing Economies’. TQM Journal, October.
[Link]
Kaswan, Mahender Singh, Rajeev Rathi, Jennifer Cross, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, Jiju Antony, and
Vishwas Yadav. 2023. ‘Integrating Green Lean Six Sigma and Industry 4.0: A Conceptual
Framework’. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 34 (1): 87–121.
[Link]
Kocaoglu, Batuhan, and Ezgi Demir. 2019. ‘Maturity Assesstment in the Technology Business within
the Mckinsey s 7S Framework’. Pressacademia 6 (3): 158–66.
[Link]
Koppel, Siim, and Shing Chang. 2021. ‘MDAIC – a Six Sigma Implementation Strategy in Big Data
Environments’. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 12 (2): 432–49.
[Link]
Kregel, I., D. Stemann, J. Koch, and A. Coners. 2021. ‘Process Mining for Six Sigma: Utilising Digital
Traces’. Computers and Industrial Engineering 153.
[Link]
Land, Martin J., Matthias Thürer, Mark Stevenson, Lawrence D. Fredendall, and Kirstin Scholten.
2021. ‘Inventory Diagnosis for Flow Improvement—A Design Science Approach’. Journal of
Operations Management 67 (5): 560–87. [Link]
Laux, Chad, John Springer, Corey Seliger, and Na Li. 2017. ‘Impacting Big Data Analytics in Higher
Education through Six Sigma Techniques’. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management 66 (June). [Link]
Liao, Yongxin, Fernando Deschamps, Eduardo de Freitas Rocha Loures, and Luiz Felipe Pierin Ramos.
2017. ‘Past, Present and Future of Industry 4.0 - a Systematic Literature Review and Research
Agenda Proposal’. International Journal of Production Research 55 (12): 3609–29.
[Link]
Lu, Jing, Chad Laux, and Jiju Antony. 2017. ‘Lean Six Sigma Leadership in Higher Education
Institutions’. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 66 (June).
[Link]
Naik, Subhash, Michael Sony, Jiju Antony, Olivia McDermott, Guilherme Luz Tortorella, and Raja
Jayaraman. 2023. ‘Operational Excellence Framework for Sustainability in the Organisation: A
Design Science Approach’. Production Planning & Control 0 (0): 1–17.
[Link]
Page, Matthew J, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick M Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C Hoffmann,
Cynthia D Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, et al. 2021. ‘The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated
Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews’. BMJ, March, n71.
[Link]
Pansare, Rajesh, Gunjan Yadav, and Madhukar Nagare. 2022. ‘Integrating Operational Excellence
Strategies with Industry 4.0 Technologies through Reconfigurable Manufacturing System
Practices’. The TQM Journal, September. [Link]
Park, Sung, Su Dahlgaard-Park, and Dong-Chun Kim. 2020. ‘New Paradigm of Lean Six Sigma in the
4th Industrial Revolution Era’. Quality Innovation Prosperity 24 (April): 1.
[Link]
Park, Sung Hyun, Su Mi Dahlgaard-Park, and Dong-Chun Kim. 2020. ‘New Paradigm of Lean Six Sigma
in the 4th Industrial Revolution Era’. Quality Innovation Prosperity 24 (1): 1.
[Link]
Peffers, Ken, Tuure Tuunanen, Marcus Rothenberger, and S. Chatterjee. 2007. ‘A Design Science
Research Methodology for Information Systems Research’. Journal of Management
Information Systems 24 (January): 45–77.
Persis, D. Jinil, Anjali S., Vijaya Sunder M, Rejikumar G, V. Raja Sreedharan, and Tarik Saikouk. 2022.
‘Improving Patient Care at a Multi-Speciality Hospital Using Lean Six Sigma’. Production
Planning & Control 33 (12): 1135–54. [Link]
Piccarozzi, Michela, Barbara Aquilani, and Corrado Gatti. 2018. ‘Industry 4.0 in Management Studies:
A Systematic Literature Review’. Sustainability 10 (10): 3821.
[Link]
Pongboonchai-Empl, Tanawadee, Jiju Antony, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, Tim Komkowski, and
Guilherme Luz Tortorella. 2023. ‘Integration of Industry 4.0 Technologies into Lean Six Sigma
DMAIC: A Systematic Review’. Production Planning & Control 0 (0): 1–26.
[Link]
Ramires, Francisco, and Paulo Sampaio. 2021. ‘Process Mining and Lean Six Sigma: A Novel Approach
to Analyze the Supply Chain Quality of a Hospital’. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma
ahead-of-print (August). [Link]
Sen, Parag. 2015. ‘Application of ANN in Six Sigma for CO Modeling and Energy Efficiency of Blast
Furnace: A Case Study of an Indian Pig Iron Manufacturing Organisation’. International
Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage 9 (January): 109–25.
[Link]
Shahin, Mohammad, F. Frank Chen, Hamed Bouzary, and Krishnan Krishnaiyer. 2020. ‘Integration of
Lean Practices and Industry 4.0 Technologies: Smart Manufacturing for next-Generation
Enterprises’. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 107 (5–6): 2927–
36. [Link]
Shanshan, Shang, Lyv Wenfei, and Luo Lijuan. 2021. ‘Applying Lean Six Sigma Incorporated with Big
Data Analysis to Curriculum System Improvement in Higher Education Institutions’.
International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management 13 (September).
[Link]
Sharma, A., N. Bhanot, A. Gupta, and R. Trehan. 2021. ‘Application of Lean Six Sigma Framework for
Improving Manufacturing Efficiency: A Case Study in Indian Context’. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management. [Link]
Skalli, Dounia, Abdelkabir Charkaoui, and Cherrafi Anass. 2022. ‘The Integration of Industry 4.0 in
Operations Management: Toward Smart Lean Six Sigma’. In , 3–11.
[Link]
Skalli, Dounia, Abdelkabir Charkaoui, Cherrafi Anass, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, Alireza Shokri, and Jiju
Antony. 2023. ‘Analyzing the Integrated Effect of Circular Economy, Lean Six Sigma, and
Industry 4.0 on Sustainable Manufacturing Performance from a Practice-Based View
Perspective’. Business Strategy and the Environment, August.
[Link]
Skalli, Dounia, Abdelkabir Charkaoui, Anass Cherrafi, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, Jiju Antony, and
Alireza Shokri. 2023. ‘Industry 4.0 and Lean Six Sigma Integration in Manufacturing: A
Literature Review, an Integrated Framework and Proposed Research Perspectives’. Quality
Management Journal 0 (0): 1–25. [Link]
Snee, Ronald D. 2010. ‘Lean Six Sigma – Getting Better All the Time’. International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma 1 (1): 9–29. [Link]
Sodhi, Harsimran. 2020. ‘When Industry 4.0 Meets Lean Six Sigma: A Review’. TORT 13 (1).
[Link]
Sony, M. 2018. ‘Industry 4.0 and Lean Management: A Proposed Integration Model and Research
Propositions’. Production and Manufacturing Research 6 (1): 416–32.
[Link]
Sony, Michael, Jiju Antony, and Subhash Naik. 2020. ‘How Do Organizations Implement an Effective
LSS Initiative? A Qualitative Study’. Benchmarking: An International Journal ahead-of-print
(May). [Link]
Sordan, Juliano Endrigo, Pedro Carlos Oprime, Marcio Lopes Pimenta, Sérgio Luis da Silva, and Mario
Orestes Aguirre González. 2022. ‘Contact Points between Lean Six Sigma and Industry 4.0: A
Systematic Review and Conceptual Framework’. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management 39 (9): 2155–83. [Link]
Sunder M, Vijaya, Sanjay Mahalingam, and Sai M. 2019. ‘Improving Patients’ Satisfaction in a Mobile
Hospital Using Lean Six Sigma – a Design-Thinking Intervention’. Production Planning &
Control 31 (August): 1–15. [Link]
Tissir, Siham, Anass Cherrafi, Andrea Chiarini, Said Elfezazi, and Surajit Bag. 2022. ‘Lean Six Sigma and
Industry 4.0 Combination: Scoping Review and Perspectives’. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, March, 1–30. [Link]
Tortorella, Guilherme Luz, Ricardo Giglio, and Desiree H. van Dun. 2019. ‘Industry 4.0 Adoption as a
Moderator of the Impact of Lean Production Practices on Operational Performance
Improvement’. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 39 (6/7/8):
860–86. [Link]
Tranfield, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. ‘Towards a Methodology for Developing
Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review’. British Journal
of Management 14 (3): 207–22. [Link]
Tripathi, Varun, Somnath Chattopadhyaya, Alok K. Mukhopadhyay, Shubham Sharma, Jujhar Singh,
Danil Yurievich Pimenov, and Khaled Giasin. 2021. ‘An Innovative Agile Model of Smart Lean–
Green Approach for Sustainability Enhancement in Industry 4.0’. Journal of Open Innovation:
Technology, Market, and Complexity 7 (4): 215. [Link]
Uluskan, Meryem. 2020. ‘Artificial Neural Networks as a Quality Loss Function for Six Sigma’. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence 31 (15–16): 1811–28.
[Link]
Wagire, Aniruddha Anil, Rohit Joshi, Ajay Pal Singh Rathore, and Rakesh Jain. 2021. ‘Development of
Maturity Model for Assessing the Implementation of Industry 4.0: Learning from Theory and
Practice’. Production Planning & Control 32 (8): 603–22.
[Link]
Wang, Hao-nan, Qi-qi He, Zheng Zhang, Tao Peng, and Ren-zhong Tang. 2021. ‘Framework of
Automated Value Stream Mapping for Lean Production under the Industry 4.0 Paradigm’.
Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A 22 (5): 382–95.
[Link]
Zgodavova, K., P. Bober, V. Majstorovic, K. Monkova, G. Santos, and D. Juhaszova. 2020. ‘Innovative
Methods for Small Mixed Batches Production System Improvement: The Case of a Bakery
Machine Manufacturer’. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12 (15).
[Link]
Zulfiqar, Maryam, Jiju Antony, Vikas Swarnakar, Michael Sony, Raja Jayaraman, and Olivia
McDermott. 2023. ‘A Readiness Assessment of Quality 4.0 in Packaging Companies: An
Empirical Investigation’. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 0 (0): 1–19.
[Link]
Appendices

Appendix 1: Project selection scoring system

Criteria (Cr) Weight Cr assessement Cr Score= 1. Evaluate each project against each
(Scale from 1 to 10) Cr*weight criterion and assign a score ranging
[Link] alignment with 40% from 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest
organizational goals score and 1 being the lowest score.
[Link] viability 20% 2. Multiply the score for each criterion by
[Link] impact on 20% its assigned weight.
customer satisfaction 3. Add up the weighted scores for each
[Link] availability 20% criteria to arrive at an overall score.
Total 100% 4. Rank the projects based on their overall
scores, with the project with the highest
score being given the highest priority.

Appendix 2 : Project charter

Project charter : The organisation should clearly outline :
1. Project goals The objectives of the project, including the desired outcomes and benefits.
2. Project scope The boundaries of the project, including what is in and out of scope.
3. Stakeholders All stakeholders involved in the project, including the project sponsor, project manager, team members, and other
key stakeholders.
 4. Timeline a high-level timeline for the project, including key milestones and deadlines
5. Budget The budget for the project
6. Constraints Refer to limitations, such as time, budget, and resources, that may impact the project's execution and completion.
7. I4.0 Technologies I4.0 technologies and LSS tools required for the project.
and LSS tools

Appendix 3 : Proposed LSS 4.0 maturity assessement tool

Readiness factors Measurement items Evaluation Level Item Factor score

1 2 3 4 5 Score (FSi)=∑𝑗1 𝐼𝑆𝑗
Initial Weak Good Very Excellent (ISj)
good
1. People and leardership 1. Skills and qualifications
2. Training plan and
education program
3. People involvement
4. Communication
5. Innovation,
experimentation, and
creative thinking
2. Digital transformation 6. Awareness of digital
knowledge and awareness transformation success
factors
7. Knowledge of
organizational change
management
8. Understanding of digital
technologies
3. Organisational structure, 9. Digital Strategy and
strategy and culture vision
10. Continuous
improvement culture
11. Collaboration
12. New digital culture and
mindset
13. Transformation
structure and
insfrastructure
4. Process and Value chain 14. Use of I4.0 for assets
and operations tracking
 15. Use machine-to-
machine
communication
16. Use predictive
maintenance
17. Use of Real-time
monitoring and control
5. Management support and 18. Financial ressources
commitment 19. Top management
committment
20. Continuous
improvement support
6. LSS tools and I4.0 21. Lean Culture
technology 22. Six Sigma statistical
tools
23. Industry4.0
technologies
7. Stakholders integration 24. Customers integration
25. Suppliers integration
Total Maturity Level : TRL= ∑𝑚
1 𝐹𝑆𝑖

where ISj is the score for item j and ‘j’ is the total number of items by factors . FSi is the maturity score for factor ‘i’.
 TML is the overall maturity score for the case company. m = number of dimensions (in our case, m= 7 )
The scales used to assess TRL was adopted from (Cherrafi et al. 2021) :
0-20% No readiness
21-40% Limited readiness
41-60% Moderate readiness
61-80% Advanced readiness
81-100% Fully ready

Appendix 4 : Solution scoring system

Criteria Weight Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3

Effectiveness 30%

Feasibility 25%

Cost 20%

Alignment with
problem
requirements 25%
Total 100%