Six Sigma: Literature Review and Key Future Research Areas

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/245526480
Six Sigma: Literature review and key future research areas
Article in International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage · January 2006

DOI: 10.1504/IJSSCA.2006.010111
CITATIONS READS
92 1,883
2 authors:
Preeprem Nonthaleerak Linda Hendry

Dhurakij Pundit University Lancaster University
3 PUBLICATIONS 263 CITATIONS 64 PUBLICATIONS 2,065 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Supply Chain Uncertainty Research View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Preeprem Nonthaleerak on 23 June 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2006 105
Six Sigma: literature review and key future research

areas
P. Nonthaleerak and L.C. Hendry*

Department of Management Science,
Lancaster University Management School,
Lancaster, Lancashire, LA1 4YX, UK
Fax: 00 44 1524 844885 E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
*Corresponding author
Abstract: It is a timely point to extensively review the literature on Six Sigma

given the recent increased research interest. This paper reviews more than
200 Six Sigma papers, classifying them according to their research content and
the research methodology employed. A comprehensive list of future research
areas is given. Key examples are further development of a scientific foundation
for the methodology; integrating Six Sigma with other methodologies such as
adding Lean Tools; considering implementation issues in areas other than
North America and Europe and furthering the debate on how to adapt the
approach for use in a service context.
Keywords: Six Sigma; quality management; process improvement.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Nonthaleerak, P. and

Hendry, L.C. (2006) ‘Six Sigma: literature review and key future research
areas’, Int. J. Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.105–161.
Biographical notes: Preeprem Nonthaleerak completed her doctoral studies at

Lancaster University Management School, UK. Her areas of research interests
are Six Sigma, process improvement and service operations. Prior to
commencing her studies, she had gained extensive experience of using
Six Sigma in practice, having worked as a Business Leader in a US
manufacturing company in Thailand.
Linda C. Hendry is a Professor of Operations Management in the Department

of Management Science, Lancaster University Management School, UK.
Her main research interests are in manufacturing planning and control systems,
especially as related to Make-To-Order (MTO) companies; the interface
between production and marketing functions; the investigation of the
application of Six Sigma quality improvement programmes in manufacturing
and service industries; manufacturing strategy and World class manufacturing
principles and practices. She is a member of two professional societies – the
European Operations Management Association and The Institute of Operations
Management. She has published extensively in a wide variety of journals,
including those that focus on production, operational research, operations
management and Six Sigma.
Copyright © 2006 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

106 P. Nonthaleerak and L.C. Hendry
1 Introduction
In the business world, quality management has long been established as an important
management strategy for achieving competitive advantage. The traditional quality
initiatives, including Statistical Quality Control (SQC), Zero Defects and Total Quality
Management (TQM), have been key players for many years, whilst Six Sigma is one of
the more recent quality improvement initiatives to gain popularity and acceptance in
many industries across the globe. Its popularity has grown as the companies that have
adopted Six Sigma claim that it focuses on increasing the wealth of the shareholders
by improving bottom-line results and achieving high quality products/services and
processes. Thus, it is claimed that the implementation of Six Sigma brings more
favourable results to companies in comparison with traditional quality initiatives in terms
of turning quality improvement programmes into profits. Success stories of big
corporations that have adopted Six Sigma, such as Motorola and General Electric (GE),
have been reported in various papers (Denton, 1991; Hendricks and Kelbaugh, 1998).
However, such claims lead to a number of key questions for the academic community,
such as whether the success is attributable to the Six Sigma methodology, and if so, what
particular aspects of the methodology are key to its success.
Interest from the academic community has increased in recent years, however to date
only one paper can be identified as a literature review regarding Six Sigma focusing on
the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) of Six Sigma implementation (Coronado and Antony,
2002). Thus it provides a valuable review in this area but does not give a full picture of
research to date. Therefore, there is a timely need for a more extensive review of the
literature, particularly given that over 200 papers have now been published with the
annual number of papers having increased substantially since 1998. This paper fills this
gap, specifically aiming to:
• comprehensively review the Six Sigma literature to identify and summarise key
research issues that have been explored so far
• categorise the literature based on its subject related content to understand trends
in the research regarding Six Sigma and identify research gaps
• investigate the research methodologies employed in the literature
• suggest future research areas for Six Sigma.
The rest of this paper is organised in a further five sections. It begins with Section 2,
which briefly describes the key characteristics of Six Sigma and some of the associated
key assumptions. Section 3 explains the categorisation of the literature, showing how the
number of publications has increased in recent years. Two main categories of literature
are identified – that with a methodology focus and that with an implementation focus.
These groups of papers are reviewed in detail in Sections 4 and 5 respectively,
identifying research gaps throughout the discussion. Finally, Section 6 summarises the
areas of future research that have been identified.
Six Sigma: literature review and key future research areas 107
2 Six Sigma: key characteristics
The Six Sigma methodology was introduced by Motorola Inc. in the USA in the late
1980s. Its aim is to achieve lower levels of defects than had been previously considered
necessary or realistic. Specifically, Six Sigma achievement relates to 3.4 Defects Per
Million Opportunities (DPMO) (Linderman et al., 2003). To achieve this goal, a
deployment process and two data-driven methodologies have been developed.
The Six Sigma deployment process focuses on ensuring a successful, continuous
implementation through effective Top Management leadership and the introduction of
various new roles/job titles to support the improvement activities. For example, the title
of ‘Champion’ is given to the senior manager who is responsible for the success of a
particular Six Sigma project. The project team leader is given a martial arts title such as
Black Belt (BB) or Green Belt. Each belt level is given appropriate training and has a
different scope of work, including specific targets.
The Six Sigma methodologies are DMAIC and DFSS. DMAIC is an acronym
covering five phases of the implementation process: Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve,
Control and is used for improving a current process or improving existing product/service
performance, which does not meet customer expectation. Design For Six Sigma (DFSS)
is used to design/develop a new product/service and/or new processes for existing
products. DMAIC and DFSS both rely on the use of statistical tools with a particular
assumption of a 1.5 sigma shift in the process mean when measuring the process
capability of Six Sigma.
For full details regarding the methodologies, the deployment process, the assumption
regarding the shift in the process mean and other key characteristics of Six Sigma,
readers are referred to Breyfogle (2003), Tennant (2001) and Eckes (2001).
3 Classifying the literature
The Six Sigma literature reviewed focuses on papers published in journals and excludes
papers published on the websites of the Six Sigma community, such as isixsigma.com, as
they aim to share ideas and best practices among members of the community but are
vague from an academic point of view. Types of published papers reviewed concentrate
on those in academic journals and conference proceedings, but also include a number of
papers in industrial peer-reviewed journals. There are two main reasons why we included
industrial peer-reviewed journals. Firstly, it was considered important to gain an
understanding of some of the practical issues from practitioners regarding Six Sigma,
although it is well understood that much of this evidence is anecdotal and lacks academic
rigour. A second reason is that Six Sigma papers began to appear in 1991, but members
of the academic community wrote very few papers until the late 1990s. Thus to ignore all
papers from the industrial journals would be to ignore all the early evidence
of Six Sigma. Instead this literature is included, but throughout the review the type
of paper is clearly identified along with the research methodology employed, if any.
Types of methodology are discussed and categorised further in Section 3.2. Figure 1
presents the number of papers found in each year up to 2004, clearly showing that
empirical academic research is not represented well until 2000 onwards.
Figure 1 Number of papers found and types of research method by year up to 2004
Accordingly, the review identified 185 papers from 61 journals and 32 papers from two
conference proceedings, making a total of 217 papers. The remainder of this section
describes the classification of these papers, firstly according to the research content in
Section 3.1 and secondly according to research methods in Section 3.2. Figure 2
summarises the overall classification structure discussed in these sections.
Figure 2 Classifying Six Sigma literature

3.1 Classification of the literature by content

The review identifies two main areas of focus – Six Sigma methodology and Six Sigma
implementation. Each is classified into three further sub-categories in order to identify
frequently studied topics.
3.1.1 Six Sigma methodology focus

These papers attempt to explain the basic philosophy of Six Sigma and to indicate how to
improve the functionality of the associated methodology. Three main areas of study are
identified.
• Six Sigma initial concept. These papers aim to educate the readers by providing
information regarding the Six Sigma methodology. They explain the background and
evolution of Six Sigma including details of the key characteristics of DMAIC, DFSS
and the deployment process. Various tools including statistical tools employed in
Six Sigma are discussed.
• Comparison between Six Sigma and other methodologies. This category includes
papers that explain and compare Six Sigma with other quality systems and other
improvement methodologies, such as TQM and Lean. They present the similarities
and differences without suggestions for integration.
• Six Sigma enhancement. These papers aim to enhance the Six Sigma methodology
by developing a scientific or theoretical foundation for Six Sigma; by proposing new
features for Six Sigma and by widening the applicability of Six Sigma in business,
such as through the integration of Six Sigma and Lean.
3.1.2 Six Sigma implementation focus

Papers with an implementation focus attempt to explain how to successfully implement
Six Sigma in the organisation. In addition, they investigate the impact of Six Sigma on
the organisation in terms of business performance, customer service levels and employee
relationships. Four main sub-categories are identified.
• Six Sigma implementation process in the whole business. These papers describe the
process of implementing a Six Sigma programme into an organisation including
best practice studies based on a business case. The review identifies papers in
manufacturing and non-manufacturing businesses with a separate section on the
implementation issues in SME’s.
• Six Sigma implementation process in specific business functions/activities.
These papers focus on Six Sigma implementation in internal business functions or
activities, such as Human Resources (HR) and Supply Chain Management (SCM).
• Success and failure factors. This sub-category includes papers that study CSFs of
Six Sigma implementation as well as papers that report on the difficulties and
problems associated with its implementation.
• Six Sigma and business performance. These papers focus on the impact of Six Sigma
on business performance, specifically in terms of financial performance and
customer satisfaction.
Table 1 presents the number of papers found in each of the categories above. Figure 3
illustrates that approximately half of the literature is concerned with Six Sigma
methodology, at 52%, with 48% concerned with Six Sigma implementation.
Table 1 Classification of literature by research contents
No. of
papers Descriptive Empirical Others
Implementation process – in business 36 28 5 3
Implementation process – in specific business 23 16 5 2
functions/activities
Success and failures factors 36 28 7 1
Six Sigma and business performance 8 4 3 1
Six Sigma initial concept 57 43 6 8
Comparison with other methodologies 7 6 1 0
Six Sigma enhancement 50 26 4 20
Total 217 151 31 35
Figure 3 Classification of literature by research contents
3.2 Classification of research method

Research methods employed in the literature are classified into four categories:
descriptive, empirical, conceptual and literature review, as used in a previous review of
the manufacturing strategy literature (Dangayach and Desmukh, 2001). The explanation
for each category given below is adapted from the definition previously given by
Malhotra and Grover (1998) cited by Dangayach and Desmukh (2001).
• Descriptive. Papers that explain or describe various aspects of Six Sigma with or
without background business information. In this category, a business case might be
used in the study but the authors present it without a research framework.
• Empirical. Papers that use data taken from a database, secondary data source and/or
fieldwork. These studies can be case studies, experimental, exploratory, explanatory,
longitudinal, or based on a survey including a pilot survey. The work is presented
using an academic research framework. Thus case studies that are classified as
‘empirical’ use explicit research techniques, such as interviews and surveys,
representing the fieldwork that the author has undertaken. Any other paper that
refers to a business case without a research framework is classified as descriptive.
• Conceptual. Papers that employ a research framework to explain, propose or develop

any new conceptual models/ideas without testing them using empirical data.
• Literature review. Papers that focus on reviewing part of the Six Sigma literature.
A summary of the research methods employed in the Six Sigma literature is presented in
Table 2 and Figure 4. Table 2 indicates the number of papers in each category, whilst
Figure 4 illustrates that the majority, or 71%, of the literature employs the descriptive
method. For all of these papers, there are questions regarding the validity of the claims
and hence whether such claims are truly attributable to the Six Sigma methodology.
Nonetheless, such papers raise issues that can then be studied further using a more
rigorous research method. Most of the remaining 29% of papers are either empirical or
conceptual papers e.g., Echempati and White (2000), Faltin and Faltin (2003),
Linderman et al. (2003), Starbird (2002) and Wyper and Harrison (2000). As mentioned
previously, just one literature review paper was identified, which focuses on CSFs
(Coronado and Antony, 2002).
Table 2 Classification of literature by research method
No. of papers
Descriptive 153
Empirical 30
Conceptual 33
Literature review 1
Total 217
Figure 4 Classification of literature by research method
As briefly highlighted earlier in this section, Figure 1 shows that the number of empirical
studies has increased in recent years while there has been a decline in the number of
descriptive papers. This increase has been particularly marked since 2000, with almost
40% of the total papers in 2004 employing the empirical method. This reflects the
increase in academia’s attention into researching the Six Sigma methodology.
The full list of the 217 papers reviewed here is presented in Appendix 1A and 1B,
where a brief summary of the research contribution is given for each paper.
Two appendices are used: Appendix 1A lists the papers focusing on Six Sigma
methodology while Appendix 1B focuses on the Six Sigma implementation papers.
Sections 4 and 5 similarly divide the literature into these two main content related
categories so that conclusions can be drawn regarding research achieved and areas
requiring further research on a topic-by-topic basis.
4 Literature focusing on Six Sigma methodology
4.1 Six Sigma initial concept

As shown in Figure 2, there are five topics within the sub-category of Six Sigma initial
Concept: overall concept, DMAIC, DFSS, deployment and tools. Each of these topics is
discussed in turn below.
4.1.1 Overall concept

Six Sigma is considered to be a new initiative introduced by Motorola in the late 1980s
(Tennant, 2001), hence several papers from the early 1990’s concentrate on explaining
the development of Six Sigma using the Motorola case (Kumar and Gupta, 1993;
Dambolena and Rao, 1994). These authors discuss the new Motorola quality
improvement programme, namely Six Sigma, which has led to improvements in their
quality performance and consequently propose Six Sigma as a new opportunity for any
organisation that wants to improve quality. Other authors attempt to investigate and
explain the Six Sigma methodology in a descriptive manner without empirical evidence
or any related business information (Blakeslee, 1999a; Elliott, 2003a; Godfrey, 2002;
Hammer and Goding, 2001; Harry, 2000a, 2000c; Maguire, 1999; Rowlands, 2003; Snee,
1999). These papers are valuable to researchers new to Six Sigma in providing
background information, and giving evidence of the emerging importance of the
methodology.
Two key conceptual papers also consider the overall concept, attempting to analyse
the development of Six Sigma and explain its statistical foundation (Antony, 2004a;
Bothe, 2001). Bothe (2001) presents a statistically based reason for adding a 1.5 sigma
shift before estimating process capability, proposing a new capability index, called
dynamic Cpk. He also suggests future study on the impact and behaviour of the shift in
various circumstances. Antony (2004a) studies the strengths and the weaknesses of Six
Sigma in detail and links Six Sigma to statistical thinking. He suggests that Six Sigma has
a strong statistical foundation and consequently is likely to continue to be of importance
in the future.
Further papers to introduce the Six Sigma overall concept are clearly unnecessary, but
there is scope to continue to build up a solid theoretical foundation, as is discussed further
within the Six Sigma Enhancement sub-category below.
4.1.2 DMAIC
These papers focus on explaining the DMAIC contents, with some authors discussing
each phase of DMAIC in detail (Hoerl, 1998; Rasis et al., 2002, 2003; Snee, 2004).
For example, Rasis et al. (2002, 2003) present self-learning training material for DMAIC,
using a fictitious application. This paper helps the readers to learn how to carry out a
small-scale Six Sigma project, including guidance on the application of tools. It indicates
a perceived need for training material and suggests that an avenue for further research is
to develop training material to cover a wider range of applications and larger scale
projects.
Other papers concentrate on specific aspects of DMAIC, such as the project selection
process in the Define phase or process control in the Control phase, explaining some key
measures in Six Sigma, such as project metrics and Roll Throughput Yield (RTY)
(Abernathy, 2001; Breyfogle III, 2002; Caldwell, 2002; Graves, 2001; Hoerl, 1998;
Mason, 2000; Snee, 2001a). For example, Snee (2001a) emphasises the importance of the
project selection process in the Define phase for the successful implementation while
Mason (2000) suggests using multivariate statistical process control in the Control phase.
These papers tend to explain the features of DMAIC rather than critically appraising or
enhancing it. Future research should investigate whether aspects of DMAIC need to be
modified to increase its scope, for example for the service sector or non-profit
organisations. If so, research to enhance the methodology may then be needed.
4.1.3 DFSS
DFSS is potentially far more effective than DMAIC as its application is in the early stage
of new product/process development, thus the papers under this category aim to provide
an explanation of DFSS and why it is different from DMAIC (Antony, 2002; Mader,
2002, 2003; Treichler et al., 2002; Koch et al., 2004). For example, Mader (2003)
explains the DFSS methodology, its key aspects and how it enhances the design process,
improving New Product Development (NPD). Antony (2002) presents DFSS using the
Identify, Design, Optimise and Validate (IDOV) approach. Treichler et al. (2002)
discusses the use of DFSS in the design function of major US corporations and
Koch et al. (2004) explain DFSS in detail, using as an example the application of DFSS
in automotive crashworthiness under an engineering design context. All of these studies
of DFSS have been undertaken in a manufacturing context. Hence, there is a need for
more extensive study to consider new areas of DFSS application, such as how DFSS can
be applied to non-manufacturing processes.
4.1.4 Six Sigma deployment

Papers addressing Six Sigma deployment focus on people issues, with particular
emphasis on the professional role of Belts and training issues. For example, authors such
as de Feo (2000), Hoerl et al. (2001), Hyde (2000) and Caulcutt (2004) describe the role
of BBs and the required qualifications including the suggestion of a BB training
curriculum. Hahn et al. (1999) and Hoerl et al. (2004) suggest that it is a positive career
move for a statistician to take up a leadership role in Six Sigma, implying that it is
important for BB to have statistical skills. However, care is needed in selecting the right
qualities for Belts, as it is important for Six Sigma to retain an inclusive stance rather
than becoming too closely aligned with specialist skills. Caulcutt (2004) suggests the use
of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) tool to assist BBs to work effectively with
others. It is claimed that this tool helps BBs to understand the personality types of team
members and communicate more effectively, gain cooperation and overcome resistance.
However, these papers are descriptive using authors’ experience. Therefore further
research is needed to investigate the qualities required by the Belt candidates. Further
reference to training issues is given in Delsanter (1992), Hahn et al. (2001) and Snee
(2000a) who focus on the importance of providing Six Sigma training to Belts and other
employees. They also suggest curriculum for belt professionals and for employees at
lower levels in the organisation. Further rigorous research is needed to investigate
evidence for the effectiveness of the proposed training methods.
Another issue regarding deployment is the successful use of teams, given that
Six Sigma projects are accomplished through team efforts. Cooper (2003) points out
that it is important to focus on team success, rather than individual success, if Six Sigma
projects are to be successful overall. Neuscheler-Fritsch and Norris (2001) highlight the
importance of the early involvement of Finance and Accounting personnel to ensure that
they reinforce the use of appropriate guidelines to quantify project benefits. No papers
have been identified that address an individual’s reaction or resistance to Six Sigma.
Management involvement and support are essential to Six Sigma deployment, as is
the case for many other initiatives; yet the only paper found that addresses this issue in a
Six Sigma context is Haikonen et al. (2004). This paper presents a preliminary case study
on the role of management in the improvement of the deployment process in Six Sigma
and highlights its key finding that the level of management support is positively related to
how well they understand the Six Sigma methodology.
Although the deployment process involves people, few papers have been identified
that look at these issues in practice, such as the impact of Six Sigma on people in the
organisation and how to motivate employees to participate in Six Sigma. Thus, further
empirical study to identify the impact of the deployment process from a people
perspective is recommended.
4.1.5 Six Sigma tools

The study found that Design Of Experiments (DOE), a high level statistical tool to
investigate simultaneously the potential causes of variation in a process (George, 2003),
is the most frequently studied tool in the literature (Chan and Spedding, 2001; Conklin,
2004; Goh, 2001, 2002; Kowalski and Potcner, 2003; Vivacqua and Pinho, 2004).
Most of these papers explain the concept and its application. For example, Goh (2001)
explains the concept of DOE and compares it with SPC, in which SPC is viewed as a
traditional tool while DOE is considered a modern statistical tool. Chan and Spedding
(2001) conduct a case study, recommending using three tools: DOE, the ‘response
surface plot’ and a Neural Network Metamodel (NNM). These tools are used to build a
decision-support model to achieve Six Sigma quality performance without going through
the variety of other statistical tools suggested in the Six Sigma methodology. Most of
these authors explain DOE in a manufacturing context using continuous data, with the
exception of Conklin (2004) who explains the application of DOE using discrete data.
Vivacqua and Pinho (2004) present an experimental study on the production process of a
battery manufacturer to illustrate the application of DOE with actual data. Three of the
authors that have studied DOE have conceptualised the application (Chan and Spedding,
2001; Goh, 2001, 2002), whilst the remainder of these publications are descriptive.
The application of other tools in Six Sigma is also described in the literature.
For example, Breyfogle III and Meadows (2001) explain how to Calculate Cost of Poor
Quality (COPQ) and Anderson and Kraber (2002) compare two methods of Taguchi
robust design within a Six Sigma context using an empirical research approach.
In addition, Vaughan (1998) and Echempati and White (2000) study process capability.
Vaughan (1998) presents the details of how to detect non-normality in the process and
explains the importance of process control to maintain Six Sigma quality levels, while
Echempati and White (2000) conduct empirical research on process capability in a
manufacturer of wood caskets. Other tools, such as process mapping, process design and
SPC are also discussed, mainly using a descriptive approach (Amelsberg, 2002;
Friedman and Gitlow, 2002; Goh and Xie, 2003; Gourishankar, 2003; King, 2003;
Stein, 2003). For example, Friedman and Gitlow (2002) recommend that process design
should comply with good business practice regulations.
It is noted that the literature focuses on common statistical tools that have been used
in other quality management systems. None of the reviewed papers discuss the use of
tools from other methodologies, such as Lean tools, within a Six Sigma context.
In addition, the two empirical papers both address a manufacturing environment.
Therefore the research gaps are to investigate the use of common Six Sigma tools in a
service setting as well as to investigate the integration of Lean tools with other Six Sigma
tools.
4.2 Comparison with other methodologies

Given the recent introduction of Six Sigma, many authors have attempted to compare
Six Sigma with previous quality management systems as well as other methodologies.
They investigate the details of each program, and then identify their common
elements and weaknesses; such as comparing Six Sigma to TQM (McManus, 1999)
and to ISO9001:2000 (Dalgleish, 2003b). However, the review found more frequent
comparisons between Lean and Six Sigma (Antony et al., 2003; McAdam and Donegan,
2003; Nave, 2002). For example, McAdam and Donegan (2003) present a study of three
systems within a manufacturing organisation: Six Sigma, Self managed teams and Lean.
They conclude that they are compatible; however they suggest that the Six Sigma results
are more readily measurable and contribute most to the bottom line.
Other papers that compare Six Sigma include Nave (2002) who investigates
Six Sigma and Theory Of Constraints (TOC) and highlights the unique features of each.
In addition, Card (2000) investigates software process improvement by comparing Six
Sigma to the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and investigates their common features
and weaknesses. Finally, Hutchins (2002) investigates the relationship between SCM,
TQM and Six Sigma in the USA context.
It is noted that some of these papers are neither in favour of Six Sigma nor see it as
new initiative. They argue that Six Sigma is either part of an existing quality theory or an
add-on program to improve implementation. For example, McManus (1999), through the
comparison with TQM, concludes that Six Sigma is just an add-on project management
tool.
Only one of the papers discussed in this sub-category, McAdam and Donegan (2003),
employed a research framework using a longitudinal and explanatory comparative case
analysis. The rest are descriptive. Consequently, there is scope to determine the relative
success of Six Sigma through further empirical research. However, it would be very
difficult to set up reliable ‘experiments’ that would lead to rigorous results. So, although
there is scope to continue to study comparisons to Six Sigma, it is concluded here that
such study is purely academic and not worthwhile from a practitioner’s point of view.
It is unlikely to affect the take-up of Six Sigma in industry and researchers are hence
better investigating issues that will bridge the gap between theory and practice.
4.3 Six Sigma enhancement

There are 48 papers in this category that attempt to enhance and contribute to the
knowledge of Six Sigma. These papers demonstrate a recent trend to study these issues,
given that all but one of the 48 papers have been published since 2000. As shown in
Figure 2, this category is further sub-divided into the following topics, each discussed in
turn below: new Six Sigma models; Integration; theory development; widening Six
Sigma applicability; new Six Sigma tools.
4.3.1 New Six Sigma models

The review found two papers presenting an extension of the traditional Six Sigma model
(Kuei and Madu, 2003; Basu, 2004). Kuei and Madu (2003) present Customer-centric
Six Sigma Quality Management (CSSQM), which they claim presents a holistic view of
quality by focusing on achieving both product and process quality. There are many
similarities between the traditional Six Sigma and CSSQM, such as the role of leadership
and use of DMAIC. However, CSSQM emphasises engaging all stakeholders including
suppliers and customers. They suggest suppliers should be trained in CSSQM and
customers should be informed and prepared to participate in the process. Hence, the
difference is in the Six Sigma deployment process. Basu (2004) proposes FIT SIGMA, an
integrated Six Sigma and Lean model that aims to achieve all three quality dimensions of
product quality, process quality and organisational quality to provide a holistic
operational excellence programme. The two models are presented conceptually; further
study could be to investigate their implications with empirical evidence.
4.3.2 Integration with other methodologies

Within this topic, the subject of Lean philosophy is the most frequently discussed,
with various authors studying the advantage of integrating the Lean philosophy with
Six Sigma (Bane, 2002; Bossert, 2003; Sharma, 2003; Smith, 2003; Edgeman and Bigio,
2004; Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005). For instance, Bossert (2003) and Sharma (2003)
address a manufacturing operation while Bane (2002) presents the successful
implementation of Lean and Six Sigma in service settings, including education. Smith
(2003) suggests that the integration should result in the utilisation of the statistical
approach of Six Sigma to identify root causes and set targets. Both approaches are
deemed to be complimentary due to their similar goals to reduce defects or variations in
the process. While Lean increases the speed of the process, Six Sigma controls the
variation of the process.
Many authors suggest that Six Sigma can be integrated into the existing TQM
program of the company (Elliott, 2003b; Pfeifer et al., 2004; Revere and Black, 2003,
Yang, 2004a). Revere and Black (2003) suggest a framework to integrate Six Sigma into
the existing TQM program in healthcare to improve the success of the TQM program.
Similarly, Elliott (2003b) presents the initiative program of the company to combine
TQM and Six Sigma to improve the production process and product quality.
Yang (2004a) proposes the integration of TQM and GE-Six Sigma using customer
loyalty and business performance as a strategic goal of the model. While others suggest
integrating Six Sigma with a single quality programme, Kubiak (2003) proposes an
integrated approach of a multiple quality system, such as ISO9000, Baldridge, Lean and
Six Sigma for improving quality and business performance.
Some attempt to combine Six Sigma with various management initiative programmes
or tools for better results, such as the integration with process management (Hammer,
2002); business entitlement matrix (Harry, 2000d); Balanced Scorecard (BSC) for a
strategy Six Sigma deployment plan (Pyzdek, 2004); TOC (Ehie and Sheu, 2005); new
technologies (Pearson, 2000); the action workout system for performance measurement
(Biedry, 2001); the CMM and the Goal Question Measurement (GQM) for software
development (Murugappan and Keeni, 2003; Hong and Goh, 2004), and daily
management for workforce motivation (Ouellette and Petrovich, 2002). In addition,
de Feo (2002) presents a conceptual framework for integrating Six Sigma and the
Ideation/TRIZ methodology (I-TRIZ) to improve the new product design process.
Finally, Pearson (2001) discusses combining Six Sigma with measurement science,
particularly including the automated knowledge supply chain, for business advantages.
These papers all search for new perspectives of Six Sigma by combining it
with existing quality improvement programs or other management initiative programs.
However, the ideas are presented using a descriptive approach or conceptual framework
e.g., Ouellette and Petrovich (2002) without empirical evidence to verify the results
of the suggested integration. The integration of Six Sigma with other methodologies is an
important area for further study given that many companies wanting to adopt Six Sigma
will already have a variety of other initiatives in place. Hence, further empirical study is
suggested to enhance knowledge in this area by investigating the impact of potential
integrations to identify key constructs and pitfalls as well as verify whether the
anticipated results are attained.
4.3.3 Theory foundation

Two academic papers were identified that attempt to develop a scientific foundation for
Six Sigma (Linderman et al., 2003; Choo et al., 2004). Linderman et al. (2003) use a goal
theoretic perspective. They indicate that, given that the distinctive feature is to achieve a
high goal (3.4 DPMO) including the measurement of results, the main focus of Six Sigma
is more on the technical side rather than the people side. On the other hand, Goal theory
is concerned with behavioural issues and understanding how people respond to the goals
set them. Several propositions are given in the paper to explain how people react to the
Six Sigma approach. For example, it is suggested that having specific challenging goals
leads to a better magnitude of success than having vague goals. The propositions also
explain the role of the belts and of senior management leadership. They also suggest
future research areas including the expansion of our understanding of Six Sigma through
integration with other management theories. Choo et al. (2004) conduct an empirical
study on the social and method mechanisms (Psychological safety and Structured
method) of knowledge creation to build up a better understanding of both the quality and
knowledge management literature. The survey result reveals that learning behaviours and
knowledge created have direct and indirect roles in predicting performance in Six Sigma
projects.
Both of these papers are important in providing insights into the success of the
Six Sigma methodology from an academic perspective. The development of such a
scientific foundation could lead the focus of the methodology away from concentrating
on using statistical tools to reduce defects (micro view) to become more of a management
strategic tool (macro view). Further study to increase understanding of the strengths and
weaknesses of the Six Sigma approach could be carried out by bringing in other
management, behavioural theories. Testing of such theories using empirical evidence is
also an interesting area of further study.
4.3.4 Widening Six Sigma applicability

This sub category reviews papers that attempt to widen the applicability of the Six Sigma
methodology by strengthening some of its features, or describe applications in a wider
organisational context than anticipated by the initial concept. Firstly, some authors
discuss how Six Sigma can be used to improve organisational learning (Man, 2002;
Webster and Buldrini, 1998; Wiklund, 2002). For example, Wiklund (2002) describes Six
Sigma as a methodology that enables organisational improvement and organisational
learning in manufacturing organisations, such as improved leadership skills. Similarly,
Man (2002) suggests that Six Sigma can be adopted as a model that enables employees to
engage in lifelong learning in the organisation. In addition, Webster and Buldrini (1998)
use the Six Sigma methodology as part of an operator certification system to improve
product quality through operators on the shop floor.
A second area of wider applicability is the use of the Six Sigma methodology
to develop reliable and accurate financial systems to ensure corporate governance.
Phillips-Donaldson (2003) explains how Six Sigma can be used for tracking governance
metrics in the organisation. Faltin and Faltin (2003) present an empirical study on
developing corporate financial quality systems through DFSS – DMADV – using the
WorldCom company’s data to illustrate.
Other authors suggest further specific areas of application using the Six Sigma
methodology (de Brantes and Galvin, 2001; Hong and Goh, 2003; Lucas, 2002; Frank,
2003; Snee, 2002; Snee and Rodebaugh, 2002). For instance, Snee (2002) develops a new
statistical model and regression model by using the Six Sigma methodology and Snee and
Rodebaugh (2002) suggest applying the Six Sigma methodology to the management of
project portfolios and project selection. de Brantes and Galvin (2001) propose a
framework that would enable the organisation to identify key customer requirements in
an active consumer program in a healthcare business. Frank (2003) discusses using
Six Sigma methodology in revenue and pricing management, whilst Hong and Goh
(2003) use the Six Sigma methodology in software development.
Some papers are concerned with the future of the Six Sigma methodology and
attempt to propose better features to strengthen Six Sigma (Buggie, 2000; Goh and Xie,
2004; Hoerl, 2004; Keller, 2001). For instance, Goh and Xie (2004) propose an ‘eight-S’
paradigm to sustain excellence in performance.
Half of the papers under this topic heading are conceptual papers, with only one
empirical study (Faltin and Flatin, 2003). Thus there is scope for further empirical study
to investigate the impact in practice of the applications proposed. In addition, these
papers suggest there is a broad range of potential application for Six Sigma and hence the
investigation of other applications could also be argued to be worthwhile.
4.3.5 New tools in Six Sigma

These papers attempt to propose new tools for DMAIC and DFSS to improve the results
of Six Sigma (Banuelas and Antony, 2003, 2004; Fu, 2003; Koonce et al., 2003; Mader,
2004; McInerney, 2003; Rudisill and Druley, 2004; Yang, 2004b). In some cases, tools
are proposed to be used in a particular phase of DMAIC, such as Mader (2004) proposes
guidelines for managing project portfolios for effective resource allocation in the define
phase; Yang (2004b) discusses the possible roles of multivariate statistical methods to be
used in each phase of DMAIC; Rudisill and Druley (2004) propose a nomograph to be
used in the define phase to enable project prioritisation; Fu (2003) proposes computer
software to improve the measure and analyse phases whilst McInerney (2003) suggests
barcode technology for the improve and control phases. Other papers propose tools
specifically for use in DFSS. For example, Koonce et al. (2003) presents the development
of a cost estimation system to support design time cost estimation. Banuelas and Antony
(2003, 2004) propose and then empirically test the use of Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP) for prioritising DFSS and DMAIC. This tool is intended to help the user to
determine whether the Six Sigma project should be undertaken under DFSS or DMAIC.
It is noted that these tools are developed for enabling practitioners to attain better results
when projects are undertaken, implying that issues have arisen with the initial concept
that require improvement. To determine whether further enhancements to the tools are
needed, it is first necessary to carry out empirical exploratory research to determine the
weaknesses of Six Sigma for which improved or additional tools are appropriate. Again,
most of the papers in this topic are descriptive or conceptual, and hence most of the tools
proposed need further academic study to verify their effectiveness.
5 Literature focusing on Six Sigma implementation
5.1 Six Sigma implementation process in the whole business

This first sub-category for Six Sigma implementation is further divided into types of
business: manufacturing; non-manufacturing and SME’s, as shown in Figure 2 and
described in turn below.
5.1.1 Manufacturing business

Stories of successful companies that have adopted Six Sigma are presented in these
papers. The authors describe how the respective companies implement Six Sigma, giving
insights into issues of perceived best practices. In addition to the discussion on successful
implementation strategy, the tools that they have used are indicated. Many big
corporations are named, such as Motorola (Adams, 2002; Denton, 1991; Ettorre, 1995;
Waterman, 1996), Allied Signal (Zinkgraf, 1998) GE (Hendricks and Kelbaugh, 1998;
Lucier and Seshadri, 2001), Raytheon (Treichler and Carmichael, 2001), Ford Motor
(Munro, 2000) and Meyer Tool (Easton and Howe, 1999). In a more general paper, Harry
(1998) investigates Six Sigma strategy as launched by a number of leaders in American
Industry. All of these papers are categorised as descriptive papers, giving details of
business cases, but without a rigorous case study approach. In addition, two empirical
case studies were identified. Firstly, Tylutki and Fox (2002) present a case study on the
implementation of Six Sigma in a dairy farm to identify output variation and improve
feeder technical skills. Secondly, McAdam and Evans (2004) present a case study in a
high-tech manufacturing environment to investigate the practical aspects of Six Sigma
implementation and its deployment process.
As a result of Six Sigma being initiated in the USA, all the above success stories
describe US companies. Very few papers have been found regarding successful
implementation strategies for whole businesses in other parts of the world (Antony et al.,
2005; Sadagopan et al., 2005). Hence, academic study outside the USA could be a good
area of future research to determine any comparative differences in implementation
issues, such as those caused by cultural issues. In addition, issues of perceived best
practice identified in the descriptive papers above need to be verified using more
rigorous research approaches, possibly through a comparative study of these secondary
data sources to generate hypotheses followed by a large scale survey to test the
hypotheses.
5.1.2 Non-manufacturing business

Health care services are one of the major active non-manufacturing contexts in which
Six Sigma has been adopted, with the majority of papers studying implementation issues
in the USA. These papers explain how Six Sigma improves healthcare service quality by
reducing medical errors and increasing patient safety (Buck, 1998, 2001; Chaplin, 2003;
Cooper, 2002; Grim, 2001; Johnstone et al., 2003; Keim et al., 2001; Revere et al., 2004;
Sehwail and DeYong, 2003; Snee, 2000b; Snell, 2002; Thomerson, 2001, 2002; Thomson
and Lewis, 2002). In addition, Johnstone et al. (2003) propose an assessment framework
to determine the appropriateness of implementing Six Sigma in ancillary services of
healthcare in the USA. This latter paper is a conceptual paper, as is the paper by
Revere et al. (2004); all of the other papers regarding the healthcare sector are
descriptive.
A second non-manufacturing business context for Six Sigma implementation
is the financial services sector. For example, Douglas (2000) explains the implementation
of Six Sigma in Citibank to increase customer satisfaction and Taghaboni-Dutta and
Moreland (2004) present an empirical case study on Six Sigma implementation to
improve the performance of the student loan industry.
Further study into other non-manufacturing businesses is recommended, such as the
implementation in a large financial institute including the insurance business. In addition,
further empirical study to verify the findings of the descriptive papers is a potential area
for future research.
5.1.3 SME
One of the criticisms of Six Sigma is that it is a high investment and resource intensive
program that only big companies can afford (Caulcutt, 2001). Hence, it is argued that
Six Sigma seems to be an expensive program for a small company or SME. Despite this,
some authors have proposed guidelines to adapt Six Sigma in this context (Davis, 2003;
Gnibus and Krull, 2003; Gross, 2001; Wessel and Burcher, 2004). For example, Wessel
and Burcher (2004) examine a sample of German SMEs by using an online questionnaire
and propose ten requirements to adjust the Six Sigma approach in this context.
For instance, they suggest training programmes for SMEs should require less time and
focus on specific tools relevant to the needs of an SME. Such training should only be
provided for the project leader, named as the ‘SME BB’. This modification framework
could also be useful for a larger company that has a limited financial budget for
investment, especially in an emerging country. However, the level of Six Sigma
modification for SMEs has not yet been validated. Therefore it is necessary to further
study this proposed model, along with other guidelines in the papers listed above.
5.2 Implementation process in specific business functions/activities

These papers study Six Sigma implementation in internal functions, other than
production, and other business activities. Thus internal functions are defined as any
non-manufacturing functional areas, such as administrative, HRs, sales and research and
development, while the business activities include cross functional activities in the
organisation, such as SCM, training and safety. Accordingly, these papers are categorised
into three areas:
5.2.1 In administrative and other non-manufacturing functions

Human Resource Management (HR) is one of the most frequently studied
non-manufacturing functions (Foulkes and Keight, 2002; Lanyon, 2003; Wyper and
Harrison, 2000). Wyper and Harrison (2000) present an empirical case study of Six
Sigma implementation in the HR central function to improve the HR process and
develop measures of employee performance. Foulkes and Keight (2002) describe the
implementation of Six Sigma to improve the internal recruitment process in Ford, while
Lanyon (2003) explains how Six Sigma improves the HR management process in the
Raytheon Company.
Other internal functions discussed in the literature include product development
and R&D (Bentley, 1992; Johnson and Swisher, 2003; Rajagopalan et al., 2004),
Sales (Niemes, 1999), service (Benedetto, 2003; Ruller, 2004) and non-manufacturing
operations in general (Bisgaard et al., 2002; Bott et al., 2000; Does et al., 2002).
In particular, Does et al. (2002) present a comparison of eight Six Sigma projects in
non-manufacturing areas with the traditional (manufacturing) application in a case study
company in Netherlands. They used the five phase of DMAIC to discuss the differences
and similarities between the two. They concluded that Six Sigma can be applicable in
non-manufacturing with a minor adaptation. The remainder of these papers are
descriptive.
The latter paper, by Does et al. (2002), is clearly an important contribution to
the debate regarding the applicability of Six Sigma to non-manufacturing contexts.
For instance, this paper addressed difficulties in applying traditional tools, suggesting
that non-manufacturing projects should use measures of location and variation for the
baseline rather than perform capability and performance studies (Cpk) given the lack of
hard specification limits in this context. However, their conclusions arise from a single
company, hence it is necessary to use a multi-case study approach to further identify the
differences between manufacturing and non-manufacturing environments and hence to
validate their claims. In addition, there is potential to study other internal functions in the
organisation, such as Finance and IT, as well as developing empirical or theoretical
validations of the conclusions of the descriptive studies published to date. Hence, future
study could continue to explore a variety of non-manufacturing internal functions to
address the implementation issues contingent upon that context and hence to further
contribute to the debate on any differences between the use of Six Sigma is production
and non-production functional areas.
5.2.2 In business activities: Supply Chain Management (SCM)

SCM is a topic that has received much attention in the literature in recent years, and three
papers have been identified that look at the implementation of Six Sigma in this context.
Dasgupta (2003) develops conceptual ideas on the measurement of supply chain
performance using Six Sigma metrics while Anonymous (2003b) describes the
implementation of Six Sigma in the supply chain in Europe. Wang et al. (2004) develops
conceptual guidelines for the assessment, improvement and control of quality in the SCM
based on the Six Sigma methodology.
The testing out of the ideas of the two conceptual models described above would be
an obvious area for future research. In addition, studying Six Sigma in the Supply Chain
in areas other than the USA and Europe is another area of potential future research.
5.2.3 In business activities: others

These papers discuss Six Sigma implementation and how Six Sigma improves the
performance of various activities, such as safety, training, the lending process, the claim
process and public services. The application of Six Sigma in safety is presented in
descriptive papers using business cases. These papers investigate how Six Sigma could
be applied to improve Safety in various organisations, such as Honeywell, and in
food supply (Phillips-Donaldson, 2002; Rancour and McCracken, 2000; Revelle, 2004;
Ng et al., 2005). Within a public services context, Bigio et al. (2004) present a case study
on using Six Sigma DMAIC to examine strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats in and to the Service Delivery Availability Management of one of the US
government offices. Kilbey (2003) presents Six Sigma implementation in the lending
process in Australian Banks. Lipscomb and Lewis (2004) discuss the application of Six
Sigma to improve all phases of the claims process in the claims services industry,
including investigation, evaluation, negotiation, medical/disability management and
litigation management, and suggest the best practices for effective implementation in this
area. Finally, Snee (2001b) describes the use of the Six Sigma approach to improve the
training process, stressing the importance of the evaluation of training.
Given the apparent success of Six Sigma in such a variety of non-manufacturing
contexts, it is suggested that other business activities could also be explored, such as
purchasing and the warranty claim process in the sales and manufacturing industry.
Such further study would increase understanding of the application of Six Sigma and
enable companies to expand the implementation throughout their organisation, where
appropriate.
5.3 Success and failures factors in Six Sigma

Given the importance of success and failures in the context of other initiatives, such as
TQM, it is not surprising that this has attracted much attention in the Six Sigma literature,
with almost 20% of papers in this sub-category. It is sub-divided further into CSFs and
difficulties/problems below.
5.3.1 Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

Coronado and Antony (2002) have conducted a review of the literature related to the CSF
for the effective implementation of Six Sigma. They identified 12 typical CSFs from their
review of Six Sigma textbooks and other related literature. These CSFs include issues
relating to the role of management; Belts qualification; project selection techniques and
deployment strategy. It is not our purpose here to report this work in detail or list all the
papers included in it. However, it is interesting to note that since this review paper,
further papers have been published that identify similar factors. For example, there
are further studies that identify management commitment and on-going support
(Anonymous, 2002; Byrne, 2003; Caulcutt, 2001); organisational infrastructure (Kendall
and Fulenwider, 2000); organisational culture (Blakeslee, 1999b; Brewer, 2004; Carnell,
2004); cross functional team working (Knowles et al., 2004); effective internal
communication (Poole, 2000); and understanding customer’s needs (Naumann, 2000).
Some authors propose new success factors in particular areas. For example, Voehl
(2004) highlights the need for governance factors for successful implementation in public
work. Lynch et al. (2003) focus on how to define the scope of the project. Brewer and
Bagranoff (2004) stress the importance of emphasizing measurement and accountability
when implementing Six Sigma in the Finance function. In addition, Johnson (2002),
Little (2003) and Lakhavani (2003) propose CSFs of Six Sigma implementation in R&D
and product development areas, while Martens (2001) identifies three strategic elements
for successfully implementing and executing Six Sigma in the Financial Advisors Client
Services of American Express.
With the exception of Knowles et al. (2004), who use a case study approach, all
of the above papers are descriptive. However, a further three papers have been identified
that have used a research method to identify CSFs. Antony (2004b) and Antony and
Fergusson (2004) present the results of a pilot survey in the UK service organisations and
a pilot survey in the software industry, respectively. In addition, Antony and Banuelas
(2002) attempted to identify the level of importance of CSFs using a pilot survey
conducted in UK manufacturing and service operations, using the CSFs previously
identified from the literature by Coronado and Antony (2002). According to the survey
results, management commitment and involvement is the most importance element but no
conclusions were drawn on the differences in implementation between manufacturing and
service.
Another issue potentially affecting the success of Six Sigma is question of whether
Six Sigma is a global programme or needs to be adapted for national culture. The review
found one descriptive paper by Crom (2000), who examines the impact of national
culture on Six Sigma implementation in different countries in the USA and Europe.
He points out the importance of adapting Six Sigma according to geographic region.
For instance, it is easier in the USA environment to improve process performance by
competent Belts as US culture recognises individual achievement, while in southern
Europe senior managers would need to lead the change as there is more of a family feel
to the running of the organisations. This is an interesting topic, but the paper presents the
case without a research framework and thus further evidence is needed to increase the
reliability of the conclusions.
Considering the variety of CSFs suggested by these authors, it could be argued that
research into the identification of CSFs is sufficient but yet there is a need to carry out
more empirical research to verify the factors found in a variety of specific settings.
There is also scope to further study the issue of the importance of the factors, following
on from the study by Antony and Banuelas (2002). In addition, another research area
could be the development of a Six Sigma cross-cultural model that acknowledges
relevant aspects of national culture and verifies these key aspects through empirical
study.
5.3.2 Difficulties and problems in Six Sigma implementation

These papers investigate the negative side of Six Sigma and problems that occur
during the implementation process. In some cases, it is suggested that such problems
arise because Six Sigma is being implemented in an inappropriate context, arguing
that Six Sigma is more suitable for manufacturing than non-manufacturing processes.
For instance, Binder and Lawrence (1997) debate that Six Sigma is not appropriate
for a computer software design process. Other authors highlight specific behavioural
difficulties of Six Sigma implementation (Harry, 2000b; Kennett, 2001; Pylipow, 2001).
Harry (2000b) and Kennett (2001) suggest that such difficulties are caused by the
Six Sigma learning curve and issues of organisational culture, while Pylipow (2001)
investigates the negative reaction from people in the product design function to the
implementation of Six Sigma. On the technical side, Gnibus (2000) points out that a lack
of data can lead to problems in root cause analysis of business problems in the Analyse
phase, which could lead to ineffective improvement actions. McAdam and Lafferty
(2004) present an exploratory study using a multilevel case analysis from both a process
and people perspective. From the process perspective, they have found low success in
non-manufacturing areas. From the people perspective, they have found problems due to
lack of empowerment and suggest that the organisation needs to evaluate the existing
culture, empowering employees where appropriate, before adopting Six Sigma into the
organisation.
Some authors present controversial papers, focusing on key criticisms of Six Sigma
(Bajaria, 1999; Basu, 2001; Dalgleish, 2003a; Hutchins, 2000; Murdoch, 1998; Senapati,
2004). For example, Dalgleish (2003a) points out that there can be a negative impact as
there is often an overemphasis on using quality techniques rather than focusing on
improvement efforts. Senapati (2004) suggests that Six Sigma is just another process
improvement initiative, with no significant advantage over its predecessors. This latter
paper is important for firms considering moving from an alternative existing process
improvement to Six Sigma, and may provide criteria to assess whether adopting Six
Sigma will ultimately be worthwhile. However, for those firms that do choose to adopt
Six Sigma, it is more important for research to focus on how they can do so effectively.
Starbird (2002) addresses this issue by presenting an empirical study on one company to
identify causes of Six Sigma project failures (cancelled and late projects) and then goes
on to suggest guidelines for avoiding these pitfalls when undertaking Six Sigma projects.
It is of course important to gain an understanding of the difficulties and problems
associated with Six Sigma implementation in order to overcome them in the future, and
hence further case study analysis of the type undertaken by Starbird (2002) is required,
using a multiple rather a single case study approach, to determine whether these results
can be further generalised. Similarly, the case study analysis undertaken by McAdam and
Lafferty (2004) could be repeated in other contexts using a multiple case study approach,
again including studying issues regarding the deployment process (people side),
especially in the area of resistance to Six Sigma implementation, and issues regarding the
methodology (technical side). In particular, a comparison of the difficulties between
manufacturing and non-manufacturing processes is needed.
5.4 Six Sigma and business performance

Many of the published success stories of companies that have adopted Six Sigma
include details of high financial savings resulting from the implementation. For example,
GE – GE, who implemented Six Sigma in 1996, revealed company wide savings of
$2.0 billion in 1999 (Antony and Banuelas, 2002). However, doubts regarding whether
such claims savings are truly attributed to the success of Six Sigma have led to a number
of papers that assess the impact of Six Sigma. These papers can be sub-divided into those
addressing financial performance and those that consider customer satisfaction.
5.4.1 Financial performance

Four papers have been published recently, which focus on studying the relationship
between Six Sigma and company financial performance (Bisgaard and Freiesleben, 2004;
Goh et al., 2003; Harry, 2000e; Motwani et al., 2004). Goh et al. (2003) have conducted
an exploratory study on the impact of Six Sigma implementation on stock price
performance. This study presents a perspective of the impact of Six Sigma on company
financial performance using a macro view rather than a project-by-project micro view of
performance measurement. Motwani et al. (2004) propose a framework for evaluating
the impact of implementation factors on a company’s performance in a case study
at Dow Chemical. Harry (2000e) studies the relationship between quality management
and financial performance for a business in the USA. Bisgaard and Freiesleben (2004)
propose a managerial accounting framework that can be modified to a quality context to
evaluate the financial effects of Six Sigma.
A longitudinal study may give better insight into the effects of Six Sigma on
long-term company performance. However, it must be acknowledged that the overall
impact of one initiative in an organisation is extremely difficult to judge, given the many
other factors that impact performance, including other internal initiatives and the external
issues such as the economic environment which is beyond the companies control.
5.4.2 Customer satisfaction

It could be argued that the underlying focus of Six Sigma is process improvement, which
in turn should lead to increased customer satisfaction. Indeed, several papers have been
identified that explain how Six Sigma can address this strategic objective in various
settings (Behara et al., 1995; Rucker, 2000; Watson, 2000; Woodall, 2001). For example,
Watson (2000) describes how Six Sigma could lead to improvements in both
shareholders value and customer satisfaction. Rucker (2000) presents a business case
of Citibank using Six Sigma to improve total customer satisfaction through defect and
cycle time reduction. Behara et al. (1995) present a similar study in a high-tech
manufacturing company in the USA during 1991 and 1992. Woodall (2001) presents a
conceptual paper on the opportunity of deploying the Six Sigma methodology to achieve
perfect technical and functional quality, which are the principal components of service
quality within the Christian Grönroos context. There is scope to continue studies of this
type, verifying the concepts proposed. In addition, further study could be undertaken on
other aspects of improving and measuring service quality to increase customer
satisfaction, such as using Six Sigma to improve service quality dimensions based on the
model by Parasuraman et al. (1985).
6 Conclusion and future research area
Considering the research gaps identified in each topic, some common threads have been
identified. Firstly, there is the need for more empirical research into the Six Sigma
phenomenon, using rigorous research methods to validate the many uncorroborated Six
Sigma claims and to test new theories or models that have been proposed to strengthen
the methodology. This would allow the building of a sound foundation for Six Sigma
well as providing opportunities for academic researchers to work alongside industry in
striving for operational excellence. Secondly, the research territory to date has been
commonly found to focus on the implementation of Six Sigma within the North America
region with only a few studies in Europe and Asia. Given the globalisation of many
companies, including those using Six Sigma, study in other parts of the world is
needed to gain insights into cultural issues that may affect the theory and practice of
Six Sigma. Thirdly, there is an ongoing debate regarding the application of Six Sigma in
non-manufacturing. The research gaps point to the need to investigate this controversial
issue in a more rigorous manner. Finally, it is suggested that it is not worthwhile to
continue to study all of the issues identified in the literature, in particular there is no need
for further papers to define the initial concept or look at theoretical comparisons with
other methodologies. Given that Six Sigma methodology has been around in industry
for over a decade, it now seems unimportant to determine whether Six Sigma is better
than other approaches. It is more important to learn how to enhance the Six Sigma
methodology and improve implementation issues for the growing number of firms that
are choosing to adopt it as a means of process improvement. Therefore, the research gaps
identified from this literature review focus on areas that address issues of enhancement.
Under the category of Six Sigma methodology, a summary of the research gaps
identified worthy of future research is given in Table 3. The areas proposed as having
the highest potential to contribute to Six Sigma knowledge are: further developing
a scientific foundation for the methodology; integrating Six Sigma with other
methodologies that companies may already be using; widening Six Sigma applicability
and determining whether it is necessary to develop new tools to strengthen the
methodology.
Table 3 Future research issues: Six Sigma methodology
Sub-category Future research issues

Six Sigma initial concept
Overall concept Investigate the impact and behaviour of the 1.5 shift in the
process mean in different circumstances
DMAIC Development of effective DMAIC training material
Investigate the applicability of DMAIC in a wider set of contexts,
critically appraising whether it needs to be modified for sectors
such as the service sector and non-profit organisations
DFSS Investigate the application of DFSS within a non-manufacturing
process
Deployment Identify impact of deployment process from people perspective
by, for example, investigating resistance to Six Sigma
Clarify how Management support can be effectively given in a
Six Sigma context
Investigate effectiveness of proposed Belt characteristics /
training curriculum
Tools Study the integration of Six Sigma with tools or new technology
from other methodologies, such as Lean tools
Investigate the application of Six Sigma tools in a non-
manufacturing context
Comparison with other methodologies
Gather empirical evidence to compare the success of Six Sigma
with other initiatives, though this research is not recommended
Six Sigma Enhancements
New Six Sigma model Gather empirical evidence regarding the implications in practice
of using the new models proposed in the literature – CSSQM and
FIT SIGMA
Integration Investigate the impact of using Six Sigma along with other
initiatives already in place, such as other quality programs, to
identify key constructs and pitfalls as well as verify whether
anticipated results are attained. It is concluded that empirical
research in this topic is an important area for further research to
verify or otherwise the descriptive/conceptual papers published to
date
Theory foundation Develop further theories to explain the strengths and weaknesses
of Six Sigma, and gather empirical evidence to support the theory
Widening Six Sigma Further areas of application could be sought. For those already
applicability identified conceptually, further empirical evidence is needed to
look of the impact of the concepts in practice
New tools in Six Sigma Empirical research to determine the weaknesses in the current
tool set, and the development of tools to address any weaknesses
identified
Table 4 presents a similar summary of research gaps for the category of Six Sigma
implementation. In particular, it is suggested that it is essential to continue to empirically
research the implementation process in order, for example, to learn best practices from
successful companies and verify the CSFs that have been identified in the literature to
date.
Table 4 Future research issues: Six Sigma implementation
Sub-category Future research issues

Implementation process – in whole business
Manufacturing Investigate perceived successful implementations outside
the USA. Gather further empirical evidence to verify Six
Sigma success and perceived best practice issues for
manufacturing
Non-manufacturing Gather empirical evidence to verify implementation
issues in the Healthcare and Financial service sectors.
Study other types of non-manufacturing business, including
implementation issues for large financial institutes such as
insurance companies
SME Validate the level of Six Sigma modification required for
effective implementation in an SME or a larger company
that has a limited financial budget for investment, especially
in emerging countries
Implementation process – in specific business functions/ activities
Administrative and non- Validate and explore further a variety of non-manufacturing
manufacturing functions. internal functions to address the implementation issues
contingent upon that context and hence to further contribute
to the debate on any differences between the use of Six
Sigma in production and non-production functional areas
Business activities – Supply Gather empirical evidence to validate the conceptual
Chain Management (SCM) models proposed for Six Sigma implementation in the
Supply Chain. Study the Supply Chain in contexts beyond
Europe and the USA
Business activities – other Explore implementation in other business activities, such as
the warranty claim process and purchasing. Future study
would increase understanding of the application of Six
Sigma and enable companies to expand the implementation
throughout their organisation, where appropriate
Success and failure factors
CSF Validate and determine the priority of importance of the
CSFs identified to date. Develop a Six Sigma model that
incorporates CSFs in the context of national cultures
through empirical study
Difficulties and Problems Carry out multiple case study analysis in a variety of
contexts, to identify difficulties that need to be overcome in
the deployment process (people side) and the methodology
(technical side), and allowing a comparison of issues
between manufacturing and non-manufacturing
Six Sigma and business performance
Financial performance Use longitudinal case studies to further investigate the
impact of Six Sigma on company performance in the longer
term
Customer satisfaction Future study on other aspects of improving and measuring
service quality to increase customer satisfaction, such as
using Six Sigma to improve service quality dimensions
based on Parasuraman et al. (1985) model
Following these conclusions, the proposed further research of the authors was to carry out
an exploratory empirical multi case-study in both manufacturing and non-manufacturing
companies in the Asia region. The research aimed in particular to identify areas
of weakness in the Six Sigma methodology which require research into potential
enhancements to the approach; to identify difficulties and issues of comparative best
practice between manufacturing and non-manufacturing environments; to verify the
CSFs, including looking at how they impact the progress and success of a Six Sigma
implementation; and to consider cultural issues specific to Six Sigma in the Asia region.
References
Abernathy, D.P. (2001) ‘Avoiding unintended consequences: managing ‘Anti-Ys’ in a Six Sigma
project’, Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, Milwaukee, pp.561–567.
Adams, L. (2002) ‘Whom do you trust?’, Quality, Vol. 41, No. 13, p.6.
Amelsberg, J. (2002) ‘Systematic performance and cost management: a management framework
for organisational excellence’, Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, Milwaukee,
pp.487–500.
Anderson, M.J. and Kraber, S.L. (2002) ‘Cost-effective and information-efficient robust design
for optimizing processes and accomplishing Six Sigma objectives’, Annual Quality Congress
Proceedings, Milwaukee, pp.141–149.
Anonymous (2002) ‘12 Critical Success Factors for Six Sigma effectiveness’, Measuring Business
Excellence, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.68–69.
Anonymous (2003a) ‘News focus: study of Six Sigma reveals gains and missed potential’,
Strategic Direction, Vol. 19, No. 8, pp.34–36.
Anonymous (2003b) ‘Logistics at the crossroads’, Logistics and Transport Focus, Vol. 5, No. 3,
p.11.
Anonymous (2003c) ‘Software for Six Sigma contains specialized tools’, Quality Progress,
Vol. 36, No. 6, p.95.
Antony, J. (2002) ‘Design For Six Sigma: a breakthrough business improvement strategy for
achieving competitive advantage’, Work Study, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp.6–8.
Antony, J. (2004a) ‘Some pros and cons of Six Sigma: an academic perspective’, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.303–306.
Antony, J. (2004b) ‘Six Sigma in the UK service organisations: results from a pilot survey’,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19, Nos. 8–9, pp.1006–1013.
Antony, J. and Banuelas, R. (2002) ‘Key ingredients for the effective implementation of Six Sigma
program’, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.20–27.
Antony, J. and Fergusson, C. (2004) ‘Six Sigma in the software industry: results from a pilot
study’, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19, Nos. 8–9, pp.1025–1032.
Antony, J., Escamilla, J.L. and Caine, P. (2003) ‘Lean sigma’, Manufacturing Engineer, Vol. 82,
No. 2, pp.40–42.
Antony, J., Kumar, M. and Tiwari, M.K. (2005) ‘An application of Six Sigma methodology to
reduce the engine overheating problem in an automotive company’, IMechE-Part B, Vol. 219,
No. B8, pp.633–646.
Arnheiter, E.D. and Maleyeff, J. (2005) ‘The integration of lean management and Six Sigma’,
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.5–18.
Bajaria, H.J. (1999) ‘Six sigma-moving beyond the hype’, Annual Quality Congress Proceedings,
Milwaukee, pp.1–3.
Bane, R. (2002) ‘Leading edge quality approaches in non-manufacturing organisation’, Annual
Quality Congress Proceedings, Milwaukee, pp.245–249.
Banuelas, R. and Antony, J. (2003) ‘Going from Six Sigma to Design For Six Sigma:
an exploratory study using analytic hierarchy process’, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 15, No. 5,
pp.334–344.
Banuelas, R. and Antony, J. (2004) ‘Six sigma or Design For Six Sigma?’, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.250–263.
Basu, R. (2001) ‘Six Sigma to fit sigma’, IIE Solution, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp.28–34.
Basu, R. (2004) ‘Six Sigma to operational excellence: role of tools and techniques’, International
Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.44–64.
Behara, R.S., Fontenot, G.F. and Gresham, A. (1995) ‘Customer satisfaction measurement and
analysis using Six Sigma’, The International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,
Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.9–18.
Benedetto, A.R. (2003) ‘Adapting manufacturing-based Six Sigma methodology to the service
environment of a radiology film library’, Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 48, No. 4,
pp.263–280.
Bentley, J. (1992) ‘New product introduction: speed, quality and cost’, Assembly Automation,
Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.3, 4.
Biedry, J. (2001) ‘Linking Six Sigma analysis with human creativity’, Journal of Quality and
Participation, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.36–39.
Bigio, D., Edgeman, R.L. and Ferleman, T. (2004) ‘Six Sigma availability management of
Information Technology in the office of the chief technology officer of Washington, DC’,
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 15, Nos. 5–6, pp.679–688.
Binder, R.V. and Lawrence, S. (1997) ‘Can a manufacturing quality model work for software?’,
IEEE Software, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp.101–103.
Bisgaard, S. and Freiesleben, J. (2004) ‘Six Sigma and the bottom line’, Quality Progress, Vol. 37,
No. 9, pp.57–62.
Bisgaard, S., Hoerl, R.W. and Snee, R.D. (2002) ‘Improving business processes with Six Sigma’,
Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, Milwaukee, pp.701–704.
Blakeslee Jr., J.A. (1999a) ‘Implementing the Six Sigma solution’, Quality Progress, Vol. 32,
No. 7, pp.77–86.
Blakeslee Jr., J.A. (1999b) ‘Achieving quantum leaps in quality and competitiveness: implementing
the Six Sigma solution in your company’, Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, Milwaukee,
pp.486–496.
Bossert, J. (2003) ‘Lean and Six Sigma-synergy made in heaven’, Quality Progress, Vol. 36, No. 7,
pp.31, 32.
Bothe, D. (2001) ‘Statistical reason for the 1.5s shift’, Quality Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 3,
pp.479–488.
Bott, C., Keim, E., Kim, S. and Palser, L. (2000) ‘Service quality Six Sigma case studies’,
Brewer, P. and Bagranoff, N.A. (2004) ‘Near Zero-defect accounting with Six Sigma’, Journal of
Corporate Accounting and Finance (Wiley), Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.67–72.
Brewer, P.C. (2004) ‘Six Sigma help a company create a culture of accountability’, Journal of
Organizational Excellence, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.45–60.
Breyfogle III, F.W. (2002) ‘Golf and Six Sigma’, Quality Progress, Vol. 35, No. 11, pp.83–86.
Breyfogle III, F.W. (2003) Implementing Six Sigma – Smarter Solutions Using Statistical Methods,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey.
Breyfogle III, F.W. and Meadows, B. (2001) ‘Bottom-line success with Six Sigma’, Quality
Progress, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp.101–104.
Buck, C. (2001) ‘Application of Six Sigma to reduce medical errors’, Annual Quality Congress
Buck, C.R. (1998) ‘Health care through a Six Sigma lens’, Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 76, No. 4,
pp.749–754.
Buggie, F.D. (2000) ‘Beyond Six Sigma’, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 4,
p.28.
Byrne, G. (2003) ‘Ensuring optimal success with Six Sigma implementation’, Journal of
Organizational Excellence, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.43–50.
Caldwell, K. (2002) ‘Six Sigma brings control to the shop floor’, Quality, Vol. 41, No. 8, pp.28–31.
Card, D.N. (2000) ‘Sorting out Six Sigma and the CMM’, IEEE Software, Vol. 17, No. 3,
pp.11–14.
Carnell, M. (2004) ‘The Six Sigma mambo’, Quality Progress, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp.87–89.
Caulcutt, R. (2001) ‘Why is Six Sigma so successful?’, Journal of Applied Statistics, Vol. 28,
Nos. 3–4, pp.301–306.
Caulcutt, R. (2004) ‘Black Belt types’, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 20,
pp.427–432.
Chan, K.K. and Spedding, T.A. (2001) ‘On-line optimization of quality in a manufacturing system’,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp.1127–1146.
Chaplin, E. (2003) ‘The application of Six Sigma Strategies to medication administration’, Annual
Choo, A., Linderman, K. and Schroeder, R.G. (2004) ‘Social and method effects on learning
behaviors and knowledge creation in Six Sigma projects’, Academy of Management
Proceedings: 2004, pp.C1–C6.
Conklin, J.D. (2004) ‘DOE and Six Sigma’, Quality Progress, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.66–69.
Cooper, A.H. (2002) ‘Six Sigma deployment in a large integrated health system’, Annual Quality
Congress Proceedings, Milwaukee, pp.71–77.
Cooper, N.P. (2003) ‘Do teams and Six Sigma go together?’, Quality Progress, Vol. 36, No. 6,
pp.25–30.
Coronado, R.B. and Antony, J. (2002) ‘Critical Success Factors for the successful implementation
of Six Sigma projects in organisations’, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.92–99.
Crom, S. (2000) ‘Implementing Six Sigma in Europe’, Quality Progress, Vol. 33, No. 10,
pp.73–76.
Dalgleish, S. (2003a) ‘My ideal quality system’, Quality, Vol. 42, No. 7, p.14.
Dalgleish, S. (2003b) ‘Six Sigma? No thanks’, Quality, Vol. 42, No. 4, p.22.
Dambolena, I. and Rao, A. (1994) ‘What is Six Sigma anyway?’, Quality, Vol. 33, No. 11, p.10.
Dangayach, G.S. and Desmukh, S.G. (2001) ‘Manufacturing strategy: literature review and some
issues’, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21, No. 7,
pp.884–933.
Dasgupta, T. (2003) ‘Using the Six-Sigma metric to measure and improve the performance
of a supply chain’, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 14, No. 3,
pp.355–366.
Davis, A.G. (2003) ‘Six Sigma for small companies’, Quality, Vol. 42, No. 11, pp.20, 21.
de Brantes, F.S. and Galvin, R.S. (2001) ‘Creating, connecting and supporting active consumers’,
International Journal of medical Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.73–81.
de Feo, J.A. (2000) ‘Six Sigma: new opportunities for HR, new career growth for employees’,
Employment Relation Today, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.1–7.
de Feo, J.A. (2002) ‘Creating strategic change more efficiently with a new Design For Six Sigma
process’, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.60–81.
Delsanter, J.M. (1992) ‘Six sigma’, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.203–206.
Denton, D.K. (1991) ‘Lessons on competitiveness: Motorola’s approach’, Production and
Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.22–25.
Does, R., van den Heuvel, E., de Mast, J. and Bisgaard, S. (2002) ‘Comparing nonmanufacturing
with traditional applications of Six Sigma’, Quality Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.177–183.
Douglas, P.C. (2000) ‘Six Sigma’s focus on total customer satisfaction’, Journal of Quality and
Participation, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.45–50.
Easton, A.L. and Howe, M.L. (1999) ‘Improving and controlling low-volume, high-dollar jobs’,
Journal of Quality and Participation, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp.21–26.
Echempati, R. and White, C. (2000) ‘Case study of hinge alignment problems a Six Sigma quality
analysis’, Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp.1–8.
Eckes, G. (2001) Six Sigma the Revolution, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Edgeman, R.L. and Bigio, D.I. (2004) ‘Six Sigma in metaphor: heresy or holy writ?’, Quality
Ehie, I. and Sheu, C. (2005) ‘Integrating Six Sigma and Theory Of Constraints for continuous
improvement: a case study’, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 16,
No. 5, pp.542–553.
Elliott, G. (2003a) ‘The race to Six Sigma’, Industrial Engineer: IE, Vol. 35, No. 10, pp.30–34.
Elliott, M. (2003b) ‘Opening up to efficiency’, Industrial Engineer: IE, Vol. 35, No. 7, pp.28–33.
Ettorre, B. (1995) ‘How Motorola closes its books in two days’, Management Review, Vol. 84,
No. 3, pp.40–45.
Faltin, D.M. and Faltin, F.W. (2003) ‘Toe the line: no more WorldComs’, Quality Progress,
Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.29–35.
Foulkes, M. and Keight, E. (2002) ‘Consumer-driven Six Sigma applied to HR at Ford Motor Co’,
Startegic HR Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.26–30.
Frank, S. (2003) ‘Applying Six Sigma to revenue and pricing management’, Journal of Revenue
and Pricing Management, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.245–254.
Friedman, M. and Gitlow, H. (2002) ‘Six Sigma primer for CPAS’, CPA Journal, Vol. 72, No. 11,
pp.56–60.
Fu, P. (2003) ‘Computer inspection aids Six Sigma efforts’, Quality, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp.44–47.
George, M.L. (2003) Lean Six Sigma for Service, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Gnibus, R.J. (2000) ‘Six Sigma’s missing link’, Quality Progress, Vol. 33, No. 11, pp.77–81.
Gnibus, R.J. and Krull, R. (2003) ‘Small companies see the money’, Quality, Vol. 42, No. 8,
pp.48–51.
Godfrey, A.E. (2002) ‘Why Six Sigma?’, Quality Progress, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.6, 7.
Goh, T.N. (2001) ‘A pragmatic approach to experimental design in industry’, Journal of Applied
Statistics, Vol. 28, Nos. 3–4, pp.391–399.
Goh, T.N. (2002) ‘The role of statistical Design Of Experiments in Six Sigma: perspectives of a
practitioner’, Quality Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.659–672.
Goh, T.N. and Xie, M. (2003) ‘Statistical control of a Six Sigma process’, Quality Engineering,
Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.587–592.
Goh, T.N. and Xie, M. (2004) ‘Improving on the Six Sigma paradigm’, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.235–240.
Goh, T.N., Low, P.C., Tsui, K.L. and Xie, M. (2003) ‘Impact of Six Sigma implementation on
stock price performance’, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 14, No. 7,
pp.753–763.
Gourishankar, T. (2003) ‘A simple process map’, Quality Progress, Vol. 36, No. 1, p.104.
Graves, S. (2001) ‘Six Sigma rolled throughput yield’, Quality Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 2,
pp.257–267.
Grim, S. (2001) ‘Six Sigma business strategy aims at improving quality of care’, Journal of Health
Care Compliance, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.73–75.
Gross, J.M. (2001) ‘A road map to Six Sigma quality’, Quality Progress, Vol. 34, No. 11,
pp.24–30.
Hahn, G.J., Doganaksoy, N. and Stanard, C. (2001) ‘Statistical tools for Six Sigma’, Quality
Hahn, G.J., Hill, W.J., Hoerl, R.W. and Zinkgraf, S.A. (1999) ‘The impact of Six Sigma
improvement–a glimpse into the future of statistics’, The American Statistician, Vol. 53,
No. 3, pp.208–215.
Haikonen, A., Savolainen, T. and Jarvinen, P. (2004) ‘Exploring Six Sigma and CI capability
development: preliminary case study findings on management role’, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.369–378.
Hammer, M. (2002) ‘Process management and the future of Six Sigma’, MIT Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp.26–33.
Hammer, M. and Goding, J. (2001) ‘Putting Six Sigma in perspective’, Quality, Vol. 40, No. 10,
pp.58–62.
Harry, M.J. (1998) ‘Six sigma: a breakthrough strategy for profitability’, Quality Progress, Vol. 31,
No. 5, pp.60–65.
Harry, M.J. (2000a) ‘Abatement of business risk is key to Six Sigma’, Quality Progress, Vol. 33,
No. 7, pp.72–76.
Harry, M.J. (2000b) ‘Six Sigma focuses on improvement rates’, Quality Progress, Vol. 33, No. 6,
pp.76–81.
Harry, M.J. (2000c) ‘Framework for business leadership’, Quality Progress, Vol. 33, No. 4,
pp.80–84.
Harry, M.J. (2000d) ‘Six Sigma leads enterprises to coordinate efforts’, Quality Progress, Vol. 33,
No. 3, pp.70–73.
Harry, M.J. (2000e) ‘A new definition aims to connect quality with financial performance’, Quality
Hendricks, C.A. and Kelbaugh, R.L. (1998) ‘Implementing Six Sigma at GE’, The Journal for
Quality and Participation, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.48–53.
Hoerl, R.W. (1998) ‘The fundamentals of Six Sigma’, Quality Progress, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp.36–38.
Hoerl, R.W. (2004) ‘One perspective on the future of Six Sigma’, International Journal of Six
Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.112–119.
Hoerl, R.W., Montgomery, D.C., Lawson, C. and Molnau, W.E. (2001) ‘Six Sigma Black Belts:
what do they need to know?’, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.391–406.
Hoerl, R.W., Rodebaugh, W. and Snee, R.D. (2004) ‘Six Sigma and statistical leadership’, Annual
Hong, G.Y. and Goh, T.N. (2003) ‘Six Sigma in software quality’, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 15,
No. 6, pp.364–373.
Hong, G.Y. and Goh, T.N. (2004) ‘A comparison of Six Sigma and GQM approaches in software
development’, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1, No. 1,
pp.65–75.
Hutchins, G. (2000) ‘The Branding of Six Sigma’, Quality Progress, Vol. 33, No. 9, pp.120–122.
Hutchins, G. (2002) ‘Supply Chain Management: a new opportunity’, Quality Progress, Vol. 35,
No. 4, pp.111–113.
Hyde, A.C. (2000) ‘Six Sigma Black Belt: Bruce Lee as a quality management consultant?’, Public
Manager, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.57–60.
Johnson, A. (2002) ‘Six Sigma in R&D’, Research Technology Management, Vol. 45, No. 2,
pp.12–17.
Johnson, A. and Swisher, B. (2003) ‘How Six Sigma improves R&D’, Research Technology
Management, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp.12–15.
Johnstone, P.A.S., Hendrickson, J.A.W., Dernbach, A.J., Secord, A.R., Parker, J.C., Favata, M.A.
and Puckett, M.L. (2003) ‘Ancillary services in the health care industry: is Six Sigma
reasonable?’, Quality Management in Health Care, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.53–64.
Keim, E., Fox, L. and Mazza, J.S. (2001) ‘Service quality Six Sigma case studies’, Annual Quality
Keller, P.A. (2001) ‘Recent trends in Six Sigma’, Annual Quality Congress Proceedings,
Kendall, J. and Fulenwider, D.O. (2000) ‘Six sigma, e-commerce pose new challenges’, Quality
Kennett, A. (2001) ‘The international quality manager’, Quality Progress, Vol. 34, No. 7,
pp.45–49.
Kilbey, G. (2003) ‘Six Sigma’, B+FS, Vol. 117, No. 4, pp.18–20.
King, R. (2003) ‘Six Sigma and its application in healthcare’, Annual Quality Congress
Knowles, G., Johnson, M. and Warwood, S. (2004) ‘Medcated sweet variability: a Six Sigma
application at a UK food manufacturer’, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.284–292.
Koch, P.N., Yang, R.J. and Gu, L. (2004) ‘Design For Six Sigma through robust optimization’,
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 26, Nos. 3–4, pp.235–248.
Koonce, D., Judd, R., Sormaz, D. and Masel, D.T. (2003) ‘A hierarchical cost estimation tool’,
Computers in Industry, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp.293–302.
Kowalski, S.M. and Potcner, K.J. (2003) ‘How to recognize a split-plot experiment’, Quality
Kubiak, T. (2003) ‘An integrated approach system’, Quality Progress, Vol. 36, No. 7, pp.41–45.
Kuei, C.H. and Madu, C.N. (2003) ‘Customer-centric Six Sigma quality and reliability
management’, The International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 20,
Nos. 8–9, pp.954–964.
Kumar, S. and Gupta, Y.P. (1993) ‘Statistical process control at Motorola’s Austin assembly plant’,
Interfaces, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.84–92.
Lakhavani, S.T. (2003) ‘Six Sigma implementation: trials, tribulations and lessons learned’, Annual
Lanyon, S. (2003) ‘At Raytheon Six Sigma Works, too, to improve HR management processes’,
Journal of Organizational Excellence, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp.29–42.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S. and Choo, A.S. (2003) ‘Six Sigma: a goal-theoretic
perspective’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.193–203.
Lipscomb, B. and Lewis, A. (2004) ‘The principles of Six Sigma: building a quality claims
management program’, Risk Management, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp.30–34.
Little, B. (2003) ‘Six sigma techniques improve the quality of e-learning’, Industrial and
Commercial Training, Vol. 35, No. 2/3, pp.104–108.
Lucas, J.M. (2002) ‘The essential Six Sigma’, Quality Progress, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.27–32.
Lucier, G.T. and Seshadri, S. (2001) ‘GE takes Six Sigma beyond the bottom line’, Strategic
Finance, Vol. 82, No. 11, pp.40–46.
Lynch, D.P., Bertolino, S. and Cloutier, E. (2003) ‘How to scope DMAIC projects’, Quality
Mader, D.P. (2002) ‘Design For Six Sigma’, Quality Progress, Vol. 35, No. 7, pp.82–86.
Mader, D.P. (2003) ‘DFSS and your current design process’, Quality Progress, Vol. 36, No. 7,
pp.88, 89.
Mader, D.P. (2004) ‘Selecting Design For Six Sigma projects’, Quality Progress, Vol. 37, No. 7,
pp.65–70.
Maguire, M. (1999) ‘Cowboy quality’, Quality Progress, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp.27–35.
Malhotra, M.K. and Grover, V. (1998) ‘An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs
to theory’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, pp.407–425.
Man, J. (2002) ‘Six sigma and lifelong learning’, Work Study, Vol. 51, Nos. 4–5, pp.197–201.
Marash, S.A. (2000) ‘Six sigma: business results through innovation’, Annual Quality Congress
Martens, S.L. (2001) ‘Operationally deploying Six Sigma’, Annual Quality Congress Proceedings,
Mason, Y. (2000) ‘Interpretive features of a T[super 2] chart in multivariate SPC’, Quality
McAdam, R. and Donegan, S. (2003) ‘A comparative analysis of trilateral and concurrent business
improvement methodologies in the high technology sector’, International Journal of
Manufacturing Technology and Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.210–231.
McAdam, R. and Evans, A. (2004) ‘The organisational contextual factors affecting the
implementation of Six Sigma in a high technology mass-manufacturing environment’,
International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.29–43.
McAdam, R. and Lafferty, B. (2004) ‘A multilevel case study critique of Six Sigma; statistical
control or strategic change?’, International Journal of Operations and Production
McIlroy, J. and Silverstein, D. (2001) ‘Six Sigma deployment in one aerospace company’, Annual
McInerney, J.A. (2003) ‘Barcode technology produces Six Sigma labeling results’, Annual Quality
McManus, K. (1999) ‘Is quality dead?’, IIE Solution, Vol. 31, No. 7, pp.32–36.
Motwani, J., Kumar, A. and Antony, J. (2004) ‘A business process change framework for
examining the implementation of Six Sigma: a case study of dow chemicals’, The TQM
Munro, R.A. (2000) ‘Linking Six Sigma with QS-9000’, Quality Progress, Vol. 33, No. 5,
pp.47–54.
Murdoch, A. (1998) ‘Six out of six?’, Accountancy, Vol. 121, No. 1254, pp.53, 54.
Murugappan, M. and Keeni, G. (2003) ‘Blending CMM and Six Sigma to meet business goals’,
IEEE Software, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.42–48.
Naumann, E. (2000) ‘Customer centered Six Sigma’, Annual Quality Congress Proceedings,
Nave, D. (2002) ‘How to compare Six Sigma, lean and the Theory Of Constraints’, Quality
Neuscheler-Fritsch, D. and Norris, R. (2001) ‘Capturing financial benefits from Six Sigma’,
Quality Progress, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp.39–45.
Ng, E., Tsung, F., So, R., Li, T.S. and Lam, K.Y. (2005) ‘Six Sigma approach to reducing fall
hazards among cargo handlers working on top of cargo containers: a case study’, International
Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.167–187.
Niemes, J. (1999) ‘Taking sales success to new heights with Six Sigma’, National Productivity
Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.37–42.
Ouellette, S.M. and Petrovich, M.V. (2002) ‘Daily management and Six Sigma: maximizing your
returns’, Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, Milwaukee, pp.33–45.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985) ‘A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp.41–50.
Pearson, T.A. (2000) ‘Six Sigma and the knowledge revolution’, Annual Quality Congress
Pearson, T.A. (2001) ‘Measurement for Six Sigma Success’, Quality Progress, Vol. 34, No. 2,
pp.35–41.
Pfeifer, T., Reissiger, W. and Canales, C. (2004) ‘Integrating Six Sigma with quality management
systems’, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.241–249.
Phillips-Donaldson, D. (2002) ‘Readers give food for thought’, Quality Progress, Vol. 35, No. 2,
p.6.
Phillips-Donaldson, D. (2003) ‘Six Sigma: a false god?’, Quality Progress, Vol. 36, No. 1, p.6.
Poole, A. (2000) ‘Six Sigma: communication’s perfect role’, Strategic Communication
Pylipow, P.E. (2001) ‘Can it be this easy?’, Quality Progress, Vol. 34, No. 7, pp.139–141.
Pyzdek, T. (2004) ‘Strategy deployment using Balanced Scorecards’, International Journal of Six
Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.21–28.
Rajagopalan, R., Francis, M. and Suarez, W. (2004) ‘Developing novel catalysts with Six Sigma’,
Research Technology Management, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp.13–16.
Rancour, T. and McCracken, M. (2000) ‘Applying Six Sigma methods for breakthrough safety
performance’, Professional Safety, Vol. 45, No. 10, pp.29–33.
Rasis, D., Gitlow, H.S. and Popovich, E. (2002) ‘Paper organizers international: a fictitious
Six Sigma green belt case study. I’, Quality Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.127–145.
Rasis, D., Gitlow, H.S. and Popovich, E. (2003) ‘Paper organizers international: a fictitious
Six Sigma Green Belt case study II’, Quality Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.259–274.
Revelle, J.B. (2004) ‘Six Sigma’, Professional Safety, Vol. 49, No. 10, pp.38–47.
Revere, L. and Black, K. (2003) ‘Integrating Six Sigma with Total Quality Management: a case
example for measuring medication errors’, Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 48,
No. 6, pp.377–391.
Revere, L., Black, K. and Huq, A. (2004) ‘Integrating Six Sigma and CQI for improving patient
care’, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.105–113.
Rowlands, H. (2003) ‘Six Sigma: a new philosophy or repackaging of old ideas?’, Engineering
Rucker, R. (2000) ‘Citibank increases customer loyalty with defect-free processes’, Journal of
Rudisill, F. and Druley, S. (2004) ‘Which Six Sigma metric should I use?’, Quality Progress,
Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.104–104.
Ruller, D. (2004) ‘Kingsport public works uses Six Sigma to ‘do more with less’’, Annual Quality
Sadagopan, P., Devadasan, S.R. and Goyal, S.K. (2005) ‘Three Six Sigma transitions
and organisational preparedness exercise-today’s imperatives for tomorrow’s success’,
Sehwail, L. and DeYong, C. (2003) ‘Six Sigma in health care’, International Journal of Health
Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp.1–5.
Senapati, N.R. (2004) ‘Quality and reliability corner: Six Sigma: myths and realities’,
The International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 21, Nos. 6–7,
pp.683–698.
Sharma, U. (2003) ‘Implementing lean principles with the Six Sigma advantage: how a battery
company realized significant improvements’, Journal of Organizational Excellence, Vol. 22,
No. 3, pp.43–52.
Smith, B. (2003) ‘Lean and Six Sigma–a one-two punch’, Quality Progress, Vol. 36, No. 4,
pp.37–41.
Snee, R.D. (1999) ‘Why should statisticians pay attention to Six Sigma?’, Quality Progress,
Vol. 32, No. 9, pp.100–104.
Snee, R.D. (2000a) ‘Six Sigma improves both statistical training and processes’, Quality Progress,
Vol. 33, No. 10, pp.68–73.
Snee, R.D. (2000b) ‘Using Six Sigma in improving health care systems’, Annual Quality Congress
Snee, R.D. (2001a) ‘Make the view worth the climb’, Quality Progress, Vol. 34, No. 11, pp.58–61.
Snee, R.D. (2001b) ‘Dealing with the achilles’ heel of Six Sigma initiatives’, Quality Progress,
Vol. 34, No. 3, pp.66–70.
Snee, R.D. (2002) ‘Develop useful models’, Quality Progress, Vol. 35, No. 12, pp.94–97.
Snee, R.D. (2004) ‘Six-Sigma: the evolution of 100 years of business improvement methodology’,
Snee, R.D. and Rodenbaugh Jr., W.F. (2002) ‘The project selection process’, Quality Progress,
Vol. 35, No. 9, pp.78–80.
Snell, R. (2002) ‘The evolution of health care compliance’, Journal of Health Care Compliance,
Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.22–25.
Starbird, D. (2002) ‘Business excellence: Six Sigma as a management system: ‘a DMAIC approach
to improving Six Sigma management processes’’, Annual Quality Congress Proceedings,
Stein, P. (2003) ‘Keeping your charts under control’, Quality Progress, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.64, 65.
Taghaboni-Dutta, F. and Moreland, K. (2004) ‘Using Six-sigma to improve loan portfolio
performance’, Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, Vol. 5, Nos. 1–2,
pp.15–20.
Tennant, G. (2001) Six Sigma: SPC and TQM in Manufacturing and Services, Gower Publishing
Company, Hampshire.
Thomerson, L.D. (2001) ‘Journey for excellence: Kentucky’s Commonwealth Health Corporation
adopts Six Sigma approach’, Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, Milwaukee, pp.152–158.
Thomerson, L.D. (2002) ‘Commonwealth Health Corporation, the healthcare pioneer of Six Sigma:
Six Sigma intensified – is 99% good enough?’, Annual Quality Congress Proceedings,
Thomson, P. and Lewis, M. (2002) ‘UVa compliance department uses Six Sigma model to improve
performance’, Journal of Health Care Compliance, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp.19–23.
Treichler, D., Carmichael, R., Kusmanoff, A., Lewis, J. and Berthiez, G. (2002) ‘Design For Six
Sigma: 15 lessons learned’, Quality Progress, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.33–42.
Treichler, D.H. and Carmichael, R.D. (2001) ‘Lessons learned’, Quality Progress, Vol. 34, No. 7,
pp.33–37.
Tylutki, D.P. and Fox, D.G. (2002) ‘Mooooving toward Six Sigma’, Quality Progress, Vol. 35,
No. 2, pp.34–42.
Vaughan, T.S. (1998) ‘Defect rate estimation for ‘Six Sigma’ processes’, Production and Inventory
Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp.5–10.
Vivacqua, C.A. and Pinho, A.S.d. (2004) ‘On the path to Six Sigma through DOE’, Annual Quality
Voehl, F. (2004) ‘Six Sigma community improvement projects’, Annual Quality Congress
Wang, F.K., Du, T.C. and Li, E.Y. (2004) ‘Applying Six Sigma to supplier development’, Total
Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 15, Nos. 9–10, pp.1217–1230.
Waterman, B. (1996) ‘Does total quality apply to knowledge work? Absolutely!’, Journal of
Watson, G.H. (2000) ‘Toward a central tendency on Six Sigma: a reasonable middle ground is
starting to emerge’, Quality Progress, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp.16, 17.
Webster, S.E. and Buldrini, C. (1998) ‘Improving quality through operator certification systems’,
IIE Solution, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.18–23.
Wessel, G. and Burcher, P. (2004) ‘Six sigma for small and medium-sized enterprises’, The TQM
Wiklund, P.S. (2002) ‘Widening the Six Sigma concept: an approach to improve organizational
learning’, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.233–240.
Woodall, T. (2001) ‘Six Sigma and service quality: christian Grönroos revisited’, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 17, Nos. 5–6, pp.595–608.
Wyper, B. and Harrison, A. (2000) ‘Deployment of Six Sigma methodology in Human Resource
function: a case study’, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11, Nos. 4–6, pp.S720–S728.
Yang, C.C. (2004a) ‘An integrated model of TQM and GE-Six Sigma’, International Journal of
Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.97–111.
Yang, K. (2004b) ‘Multivariate statistical methods and Six Sigma’, International Journal of
Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.76–96.
Zinkgraf, S.A. (1998) ‘An overview of operational excellence and Six Sigma in AlliedSignal’,
Appendix 1A: A list of literature focusing on Six Sigma methodology

Appendix 1B: a list of literature focusing on Six Sigma implementation

View publication stats

Six Sigma: Literature Review and Key Future Research Areas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Six Sigma: Literature Review and Key Future Research Areas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Six Sigma: Literature Review and Key Future Research Areas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Six Sigma: Literature review and key future research areas

Article in International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage · January 2006

Preeprem Nonthaleerak Linda Hendry

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Supply Chain Uncertainty Research View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Six Sigma: literature review and key future research

P. Nonthaleerak and L.C. Hendry*

Abstract: It is a timely point to extensively review the literature on Six Sigma

Keywords: Six Sigma; quality management; process improvement.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Nonthaleerak, P. and

Biographical notes: Preeprem Nonthaleerak completed her doctoral studies at

Linda C. Hendry is a Professor of Operations Management in the Department

Copyright © 2006 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

2 Six Sigma: key characteristics

3 Classifying the literature

Figure 2 Classifying Six Sigma literature

3.1 Classification of the literature by content

3.1.1 Six Sigma methodology focus

3.1.2 Six Sigma implementation focus

Table 1 Classification of literature by research contents

Figure 3 Classification of literature by research contents

3.2 Classification of research method

• Conceptual. Papers that employ a research framework to explain, propose or develop

Table 2 Classification of literature by research method

Figure 4 Classification of literature by research method

4 Literature focusing on Six Sigma methodology

4.1 Six Sigma initial concept

4.1.1 Overall concept

4.1.4 Six Sigma deployment

4.1.5 Six Sigma tools

4.2 Comparison with other methodologies

4.3 Six Sigma enhancement

4.3.1 New Six Sigma models

4.3.2 Integration with other methodologies

4.3.3 Theory foundation

4.3.4 Widening Six Sigma applicability

4.3.5 New tools in Six Sigma

5 Literature focusing on Six Sigma implementation

5.1 Six Sigma implementation process in the whole business

5.1.1 Manufacturing business

5.1.2 Non-manufacturing business

5.2 Implementation process in specific business functions/activities

5.2.1 In administrative and other non-manufacturing functions

5.2.2 In business activities: Supply Chain Management (SCM)

5.2.3 In business activities: others

5.3 Success and failures factors in Six Sigma

5.3.1 Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

5.3.2 Difficulties and problems in Six Sigma implementation

5.4 Six Sigma and business performance

5.4.1 Financial performance

5.4.2 Customer satisfaction

6 Conclusion and future research area

Table 3 Future research issues: Six Sigma methodology

Sub-category Future research issues

Table 4 Future research issues: Six Sigma implementation

Sub-category Future research issues

Appendix 1A: A list of literature focusing on Six Sigma methodology