1.1 Shah et al., (2008). In pursuit of implementation patterns: the
context of Lean and Six Sigma
Lean production: evolved from Toyota Production System (TPS), considered to improve firm
performance through elimination of waste.
4 main aspects of Lean production: quality management, pull production, preventive
maintenance, HR management.
Six Sigma (SS): a performance target of operating within 3.4 defects per million
opportunities.
Practices of SS, like statistical process control, process capability analysis and error proofing
are used to understand and manage variation.
DMAIC: define, measure, analyse, improve, control. To structurally reduce unwanted
variation.
Both Lean and SS embrace quality management and apply advanced statistical
methods, but there are also differences:
Lean SS
Streamlining processes Use of techniques to identify + eliminate
root causes of problems
Focus on process flow Focus on process defects
Visible problems (material flow) Less visible problems (variation in
performance)
Directly engages workers involved in the Deploys practices through parallel
process to also improve it. organizational structure using belts
Bottom-up, management = supportive, self- More active management, selecting
directed work teams. projects based on strategic/financial goals
Main findings:
1. Based on the theory of prior knowledge -> When a company already implemented
Lean, they are more likely to implement SS.
2. Practices commonly bundled under quality management predict and distinguish the
group of plants implementing Six Sigma extensively from non-implementers.
3. Performance levels of SS implementers are significantly higher than non-
implementers. The variance for SS implementers can often be explained, whilst the
variance of non-implementers can’t.
Lean can benefit when implemented with SS. They should be viewed as complementary.
Although they share similar practices, the SS deployment structure appear to positively
influence performance.
,1.1 Lameijer et al., (2020). The role of organizational motivation and
coordination in continuous improvement implementations
Process improvement (PI): embedded by methodologies like Lean, TQM, SS, Kaizen, LSS.
Organizations that commence CI implementation commonly form a portfolio of PI projects
that are selected and initiated based on their impact on corporate strategic objectives.
Continuous Improvement (CI) outcome is determined by two levels:
- Organizational level: senior management focuses on creating motivation for change,
setting adequate goals and coordinating change processes.
- PI Project level: continuously seek and exploit process improvement opportunities,
where actual improvements are delivered, both statistical and non-statistical tools
are used – project leaders are trained and take the leading role of change agents.
Purpose paper: to understand how motivation and coordination at the organizational level
affect PI project outcome (with 3 mediators). How do organizational level activities affect
operational level PI project results?
Organizational motivation: clarity of the need for CI implementation and the degree of
understanding and acceptance in the organization.
Embedding: process whereby organizational staff is empowered and provisioned with the
appropriate PI methodologies and tools to be used in an empowered manner – the degree
of acceptance and adoption.
The gradual embedding of PI (philosophies, principles and routines) drives a change from an
old way of working to a new way of working where PI methodologies are part of everyday
work at the process level. Thereby, a growing number of regular staff involved in the CI
implementation has gone through multiple learning cycles of how to apply PI methodology.
H1: Organizational motivation for CI implementation is positively related to the
degree of embeddedness of PI methodology in organizational operations. V
o H2: Which is positively related to the degree of organizational routinization in
PI methodology application. X
Organizational coordination: the degree of central coordination in CI implementation
processes (like central corporate training programmes, communication strategies, leadership
and development), manifested by the amount and centrality of coordinating staff.
Organizational alignment: the degree of PI methodology dissemination throughout the
organization in terms of business units involved, organizational staff trained and perceived
importance of CI for the organization.
H3: Organizational coordination of the CI implementation is positively related to the
degree of organizational alignment to the CI implementation. V
o H4: Which is positively related to the degree of organizational routinization in
PI methodology application. V
Experience with PI affects ability and willingness of staff to contribute: they possess a degree
of accumulated learning and knowledge on how to effectively execute PI projects.
, H5: Organizational routinization in PI methodology application is positively related to
the degree of PI project success. V
Conclusion
Positive effects of strong organisational motivation and central coordination on PI project
success resulting from organizational alignment to, and experience with, PI methodology.
- The need for change is recognized as first step for implementing change.
- First create a degree of management attention and perceived importance
(alignment), leading to acceptance and consecutive routinization or experience of
organizational staff with PI methodology.
- When there is little motivation to implement CI, the effect of a core-team leading the
implementation becomes insignificant.
Implications
1. Ensure strong organizational motivation and support for implementation (need for
change).
2. Installation of a central core-team directing and overseeing the CI implementation
process; keep emphasizing the need for change.
3. Focus on embedding PI methodology influences in the level of experience with PI
methodology application, to support PI project goal achievement.
When the degree of embeddedness increases, the effectiveness of central core-team
decreases. Focus on gradually shifting the responsibility to drive and lead further CI
implementation from a central core-team to regular business management.
, 2.1 Koning & De Mast, (2007). The CTQ Flow down as a Conceptual
Model of Project Objectives
1. Potential quality improvement projects like SS are usually identified and defined by
program management, project leaders and project owners.
2. Project selection results in a definition of the project objectives, that can be precise (e.g.,
metrics) but are often vague/completeness (e.g., customer perspective).
Step 1: set measurable objectives. (In SS, this is the Define and Measure phase)
Critical to Quality (CTQ): objectives made operational in the form of measurements.
CTQ Flow down: tool that is at the core of the definition phase of most quality improvement
projects. It relates high-level strategic focal points to project objectives. These objectives are
linked to and decomposed (downwards) into CTQs.
CTQ Flow down describes relations between strategic focal points, project objectives,
one-dimensional CTQs and their constituents.
Example:
- Strategic focal point = customer satisfaction.
- Project objectives = service quality of this process.
- One-dim. CTQ = 1) total throughput time in min/claim, and 2) accuracy in nr/day.
- Decompose one-dim CTQ into constituents: (of accuracy nr/day): 1) nr. Of lost files,
2) reloops to eternal parties 3) nr. Of claims for which the result is not accepted by
client.
CTQ flow downs consist of various canonical layers of nodes / relationships.
Figure of layer is visible on the next page.
Layer 1
Strategic focal points: guide and focus action at the level of business and characterize its
strategy. E.g., when strategy = cost leadership, one focal point = improvement of operating
efficiency.
Layer 2
Project objectives: delineate improvement project and serve as yardstick of project success.
related to the focal point, e.g., reduce number of defective products.
Action planning: translate the focal point into a project objective, with goal of
before-the-act specification of behaviour. Because in many cases objectives are not
delineated so clearly – relationship to strategic focal point is not clearly articulated.
Then project leader reconstructs:
o Rationale of a project: how do objectives link to bigger scope/focal points?
o Precise definition of objectives: articulate what and why of project to
communicate exact goal.
Layer 3
One-dimensional variables (CTQs): decompose aggregate concepts of project objectives into
their constituting dimension. E.g., objective = increase service quality, and CTQ = fitness for
use, timeliness, professionalism and courtesy. The objective is made more precise.
context of Lean and Six Sigma
Lean production: evolved from Toyota Production System (TPS), considered to improve firm
performance through elimination of waste.
4 main aspects of Lean production: quality management, pull production, preventive
maintenance, HR management.
Six Sigma (SS): a performance target of operating within 3.4 defects per million
opportunities.
Practices of SS, like statistical process control, process capability analysis and error proofing
are used to understand and manage variation.
DMAIC: define, measure, analyse, improve, control. To structurally reduce unwanted
variation.
Both Lean and SS embrace quality management and apply advanced statistical
methods, but there are also differences:
Lean SS
Streamlining processes Use of techniques to identify + eliminate
root causes of problems
Focus on process flow Focus on process defects
Visible problems (material flow) Less visible problems (variation in
performance)
Directly engages workers involved in the Deploys practices through parallel
process to also improve it. organizational structure using belts
Bottom-up, management = supportive, self- More active management, selecting
directed work teams. projects based on strategic/financial goals
Main findings:
1. Based on the theory of prior knowledge -> When a company already implemented
Lean, they are more likely to implement SS.
2. Practices commonly bundled under quality management predict and distinguish the
group of plants implementing Six Sigma extensively from non-implementers.
3. Performance levels of SS implementers are significantly higher than non-
implementers. The variance for SS implementers can often be explained, whilst the
variance of non-implementers can’t.
Lean can benefit when implemented with SS. They should be viewed as complementary.
Although they share similar practices, the SS deployment structure appear to positively
influence performance.
,1.1 Lameijer et al., (2020). The role of organizational motivation and
coordination in continuous improvement implementations
Process improvement (PI): embedded by methodologies like Lean, TQM, SS, Kaizen, LSS.
Organizations that commence CI implementation commonly form a portfolio of PI projects
that are selected and initiated based on their impact on corporate strategic objectives.
Continuous Improvement (CI) outcome is determined by two levels:
- Organizational level: senior management focuses on creating motivation for change,
setting adequate goals and coordinating change processes.
- PI Project level: continuously seek and exploit process improvement opportunities,
where actual improvements are delivered, both statistical and non-statistical tools
are used – project leaders are trained and take the leading role of change agents.
Purpose paper: to understand how motivation and coordination at the organizational level
affect PI project outcome (with 3 mediators). How do organizational level activities affect
operational level PI project results?
Organizational motivation: clarity of the need for CI implementation and the degree of
understanding and acceptance in the organization.
Embedding: process whereby organizational staff is empowered and provisioned with the
appropriate PI methodologies and tools to be used in an empowered manner – the degree
of acceptance and adoption.
The gradual embedding of PI (philosophies, principles and routines) drives a change from an
old way of working to a new way of working where PI methodologies are part of everyday
work at the process level. Thereby, a growing number of regular staff involved in the CI
implementation has gone through multiple learning cycles of how to apply PI methodology.
H1: Organizational motivation for CI implementation is positively related to the
degree of embeddedness of PI methodology in organizational operations. V
o H2: Which is positively related to the degree of organizational routinization in
PI methodology application. X
Organizational coordination: the degree of central coordination in CI implementation
processes (like central corporate training programmes, communication strategies, leadership
and development), manifested by the amount and centrality of coordinating staff.
Organizational alignment: the degree of PI methodology dissemination throughout the
organization in terms of business units involved, organizational staff trained and perceived
importance of CI for the organization.
H3: Organizational coordination of the CI implementation is positively related to the
degree of organizational alignment to the CI implementation. V
o H4: Which is positively related to the degree of organizational routinization in
PI methodology application. V
Experience with PI affects ability and willingness of staff to contribute: they possess a degree
of accumulated learning and knowledge on how to effectively execute PI projects.
, H5: Organizational routinization in PI methodology application is positively related to
the degree of PI project success. V
Conclusion
Positive effects of strong organisational motivation and central coordination on PI project
success resulting from organizational alignment to, and experience with, PI methodology.
- The need for change is recognized as first step for implementing change.
- First create a degree of management attention and perceived importance
(alignment), leading to acceptance and consecutive routinization or experience of
organizational staff with PI methodology.
- When there is little motivation to implement CI, the effect of a core-team leading the
implementation becomes insignificant.
Implications
1. Ensure strong organizational motivation and support for implementation (need for
change).
2. Installation of a central core-team directing and overseeing the CI implementation
process; keep emphasizing the need for change.
3. Focus on embedding PI methodology influences in the level of experience with PI
methodology application, to support PI project goal achievement.
When the degree of embeddedness increases, the effectiveness of central core-team
decreases. Focus on gradually shifting the responsibility to drive and lead further CI
implementation from a central core-team to regular business management.
, 2.1 Koning & De Mast, (2007). The CTQ Flow down as a Conceptual
Model of Project Objectives
1. Potential quality improvement projects like SS are usually identified and defined by
program management, project leaders and project owners.
2. Project selection results in a definition of the project objectives, that can be precise (e.g.,
metrics) but are often vague/completeness (e.g., customer perspective).
Step 1: set measurable objectives. (In SS, this is the Define and Measure phase)
Critical to Quality (CTQ): objectives made operational in the form of measurements.
CTQ Flow down: tool that is at the core of the definition phase of most quality improvement
projects. It relates high-level strategic focal points to project objectives. These objectives are
linked to and decomposed (downwards) into CTQs.
CTQ Flow down describes relations between strategic focal points, project objectives,
one-dimensional CTQs and their constituents.
Example:
- Strategic focal point = customer satisfaction.
- Project objectives = service quality of this process.
- One-dim. CTQ = 1) total throughput time in min/claim, and 2) accuracy in nr/day.
- Decompose one-dim CTQ into constituents: (of accuracy nr/day): 1) nr. Of lost files,
2) reloops to eternal parties 3) nr. Of claims for which the result is not accepted by
client.
CTQ flow downs consist of various canonical layers of nodes / relationships.
Figure of layer is visible on the next page.
Layer 1
Strategic focal points: guide and focus action at the level of business and characterize its
strategy. E.g., when strategy = cost leadership, one focal point = improvement of operating
efficiency.
Layer 2
Project objectives: delineate improvement project and serve as yardstick of project success.
related to the focal point, e.g., reduce number of defective products.
Action planning: translate the focal point into a project objective, with goal of
before-the-act specification of behaviour. Because in many cases objectives are not
delineated so clearly – relationship to strategic focal point is not clearly articulated.
Then project leader reconstructs:
o Rationale of a project: how do objectives link to bigger scope/focal points?
o Precise definition of objectives: articulate what and why of project to
communicate exact goal.
Layer 3
One-dimensional variables (CTQs): decompose aggregate concepts of project objectives into
their constituting dimension. E.g., objective = increase service quality, and CTQ = fitness for
use, timeliness, professionalism and courtesy. The objective is made more precise.
