118 European J. Industrial Engineering, Vol. 6, No.

1, 2012

Lean Six Sigma (LSS): an implementation experience

Satya S. Chakravorty*
Department of Management and Entrepreneurship,
Michael J. Coles College of Business,
Kennesaw State University,
1000 Chastain Rd.
Kennesaw GA 30144, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
*Corresponding author

Aakash D. Shah
Shaw Industries, Inc.,
1061 West Ave., P.O. Box 429
Cartersville, GA 30120, USA
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to show how Lean and Six Sigma (LSS)
improvement events were implemented to improve the performance of a home
furnishing manufacturing operation. Each LSS improvement event was
conducted at the targeted shop by an experienced facilitator with a team of
workers from the shop. An improvement event consisted of a host of activities
involving five phases which were completed over an eight-week period. The
first four weeks included four phases:
1 planning and discovery
2 training and opportunity finding
3 refinement and preparation
4 implementation and changes.
The last four weeks included one phase:
5 enhancement and transfer of ownership.
The facilitator was responsible for the first phase and the workers were
responsible for all other phases, although the facilitator also played an
important role in those phases. With some variation, the workers spent 100% of
their time in activities related to phases 2 and 4, and 20% of their time in
activities related to phases 3 and 5. Important to both practitioners and
academicians, we discuss many implications of LSS event implementation and
include directions for future research.
[Received: 18 August 2009; Accepted: 01 August 2010]

Keywords: Lean; Six Sigma; operational excellence.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Chakravorty, S.S. and

Shah, A.D. (2012) ‘Lean Six Sigma (LSS): an implementation experience’,
European J. Industrial Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.118–137.

Copyright © 2012 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Lean Six Sigma (LSS) 119

Biographical notes: Satya S. Chakravorty is a Caraustar Professor of

Operations Management at Michael J. Coles School of Business at Kennesaw
State University. His expertise is in designing, training, and implementing
process improvement (Lean, Six Sigma, and Theory of Constraints) programs
in large organisations such as US Marine Corps Air Station, Shaw Industries,
Lockheed Martin, Heinz, Delta Engine Repair, Beech-Nut, 3M Corporation,
AT&T, Harlequin, Beechnut, DariGold, and Los Angeles Times. Many of his
implementation experiences can be found with the MIT Sloan Management/The
Wall Street Journal (http://sloanreview.mit.edu/business-insight/january-2010/)
and Operations Management Research (www.springer.com ); Quality
Management Journal (www.asq.org), and this journal.

Aakash D. Shah is a LSS Engineer with Shaw Industries. He is a Certified Six

Sigma Black Belt and Lean Kaizen Leader. He is responsible for designing,
training, and implementing LSS programs. He received his MBA from Michael
J. Coles School of Business at Kennesaw State University and BS in Industrial
Engineering from Southern Polytechnic State University.

1 Introduction

Lean Six Sigma (LSS) leverages synergy from both Lean and Six Sigma methodologies
(e.g., Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005; Bendel, 2006; Mader, 2008). The Lean involves
reducing all forms of waste (e.g., unnecessary movement, excess inventory) from the
processes and consists of many improvement tools as value stream mapping, Kanban
System, 5S, Single Minute Exchange of Die (SMED), and Poka-Yoke (e.g., Chakravorty,
2010b). The Six Sigma involves reducing variation from processes and consists of a host
of steps or tools such as define, measure, analyse, improve, and control (DMAIC) steps,
statistical process control (SPC), design of experiment (DOE), histograms, and Pareto
charts (e.g., Chakravorty, 2009b). Essentially, LSS utilises Six Sigma’s DMAIC steps
and embeds appropriate Lean and Six Sigma tools throughout the steps. LSS is heavily
promoted in books (e.g., George, 2003; Wedgewood, 2007; Schonberger, 2008), the
American Society of Quality1 offers LSS training or certification, and many websites2
advertise LSS solutions. To date, we have found no case study explaining how to
implement an LSS improvement event in manufacturing operations.
The purpose of this study is to show how LSS improvement events were implemented
to improve the performance of a home furnishing manufacturing operation. Each LSS
improvement event implementation consists of five phases and is completed over an
eight-week period. The first four weeks include four phases:
1 planning and discovery
2 training and opportunity finding
3 refinements and preparation
4 implementation and changes.
The last four weeks include one phase:
5 Enhancement and transfer of ownership.
120 S.S. Chakravorty and A.D. Shah

A facilitator was responsible for the first phase and the workers were responsible for all
other phases while the facilitator played an important role in those phases. With some
variation, the workers spent 100% of their time in activities related to phases 2 and 4, and
about 20% of their time in activities related to phases 3 and 5. Important to both
practitioners and academicians, we discuss many implications of LSS event
implementation and include directions for future research.
In the next section, we present LSS improvement approach. In Section 3, we discuss
case study research methodology. In Section 4, we describe our implementation
experience related to several improvement projects. In Section 5, we discuss implications
of our implementation experience. Finally, we provide conclusions and include directions
for future research.

2 LSS improvement approach

Byrne et al. (2007) claimed that DMAIC steps provide a framework to implement LSS
improvement event. According to Shah et al. (2008), DMAIC provides a solid basis for
LSS implementation in order to improve operational efficiency and effectiveness. Ingram
(2009) found that DMAIC is a continuous improvement method and appropriate for LSS
implementation. As outlined in George Group (2007), DMAIC steps were utilised as a
framework to implement an LSS improvement event. Similar to kaizen events (e.g.,
Farris et al., 2009), LSS improvement events integrate Six Sigma and Lean tools, and
usage of tools may differ from one event to another (Cveykus and Carter, 2006).

Step 1 Define
In the define step, the purpose is to develop project definition, project deliverables, and
project charter which serves as a contract between project sponsor and project teams
(Keller, 2005). According to Chakravorty and Franza (2009), defining problem rather
than simply solving them is challenging and to do this, we must understand the
importance of identifying a problem. The problem needs to be identified correctly before
any attempt is made to solve the problem. A common mistake among many problem
solvers make is to get the solution under way in a hurry, before properly identifying the
problem. According to Pyzdek (2003), many improvement tools can be applied at this
step. For example, Pareto analysis could be utilised to rank order problems in order to
determine which of many potential problems and opportunities should be pursed first.

Step 2 Measure
In the measure step, the objective is, if none exists, to establish appropriate measurement
system and more importantly validate that the system is performing accurately. In order
to validate the measurement system, unbiased data with no inaccuracies are required
(Chakravorty, 2009a). Many statistical tools could be applied to the data to detect
problems with measurement system (Pyzdek, 2003). For example, Daum (2008) showed
that SPC could be applied to detect ambiguity in the data. Other examples of statistical
tools include Gage R&R, which measures the precision of data by comparing the
variation in repeating and reproducing the same measurement value. Kappa calculates the
accuracy of measurements compared to a standard. Intra class correlation (ICC) computes
 Lean Six Sigma (LSS) 121

reliability of raters by comparing the variability of different ratings of the same subject to
the total variation (George Group, 2007).

Step 3 Analyse

In the analyse step, identify all sources of waste and prioritise solutions (Chakravorty and
Franza, 2009). Many techniques can be applied to identify sources of waste (Womack
and Jones, 2003; Liker, 2004). For example, many practitioners (e.g., Mukherjee, 2008)
have found that supplier inputs process outputs and customers (SIPOC) charting is useful
to define the boundaries of the existing conditions. Value stream map analysis is
appropriate for studying the existing conditions and pinpointing many opportunities for
improvements (Rother and Shook, 1998). This map can be further enhanced by inserting
quantitative information (e.g., takt time or setup times), storm bursts, or notes at
appropriate places (Chakravorty, 2009c). As suggested in George Group (2007), many
waste or non-value activities can be noted by walking the process (a.k.a. Muda walk)
with team members and the facilitator. These activities categorised into natural groups
and these groups could then be utilised to perform benefit and effort (B&E) analysis to
prioritise problems and solutions (Pyzdek, 2003).

Stage 4 Improve

In the improve step, the purpose is to implement solutions generated in the previous steps
(Keller, 2005). While implementing solutions, many techniques are employed (e.g.,
Pyzdek, 2003, Liker, 2004). For example, according to Chakravorty (2010b), 5S
application can be used to discard unnecessary inventory, equipment, and tools; clean up
the production and assembly floors; paint the floors and clearly designate areas; organise
inventory, equipment, and tools. Pull (or Kanban) system could be implemented to
control the level of work in process inventory and minimise unnecessary activation of
machines (Liker, 2004). According Shingo (1985), SMED techniques can be employed to
drastically reduce setup times in order to cut batch sizes and establish smooth flow. In
addition, this step could include DOEs, Regression or ANOVA analysis to fully
understand the impact of many factors and their interaction on the performance outcomes
(Pyzdek, 2003).

Stage 5 Control

In the control step, the purpose is to ensure that the improvements made in the previous
step is sustained over time. As outlined in George Group (2007), the results of the
improvement, the project deliverables, must be verified, especially the financial impacts.
According to Chakravorty (2010b), improvement results should be communicated not
only to improvement teams and their sponsors, but also to everyone in the company to
promote the improvement initiative. Keller (2005) suggests that all improvements
implemented in the previous step be documented and verified. In many situations it is
good practice to establish standard operating procedures, so that constant verification is
not necessary. While it is not necessary to have ISO 9000, Pyzdek (2003) emphasised
that it is important to have a standardised work instruction process for training current
and new employees. After the results have been verified, previous research (e.g.,
122 S.S. Chakravorty and A.D. Shah

Chakravorty and Hales, 2004) has shown that recognitions and incentives to team
members, even if small, had positive impact on the future improvement initiative.

3 Methodology

3.1 The case study

This research was conducted over a three-year period in a home furnishing industry with
multiple manufacturing and distributions operations located throughout the USA. This
redesign effort was initiated to implement continuous improvement strategies and stay
competitive in the domestic and international market. The pressure from the president
was to make drastic changes in operations in order to show positive results and to save
the sagging morale of employees, while also improving the quality of all products and of
the manufacturing operations.

3.2 Data collection

Using previous works of Chakravorty (2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d) as a basis, we
employed six sources of evidence. First, qualitative data were collected through
documentation in the form of letters, memoranda, minutes of the meeting, progress
reports of Six Sigma projects, strategic planning reports, and training manuals on
operational excellence, etc. Second, quantitative data were collected in the form of
financial data, customer complaint reports, ordering processing reports, quality control
reports, purchase orders, manufacturing operational data (e.g., machine utilisation, idle
time, setup time), routing information, and performance measurements (e.g., productivity,
Six Sigma projects reports). Third, additional qualitative data were collected through
extensive interviews with participants and stakeholders, such as managers, engineers, and
employees. We conducted the interviews in an open-ended manner, which implied that
the respondents provided objective opinions of the events, as well as insights into certain
occurrences. Fourth, qualitative data were collected in an observation mode involving
many decisions during the implementation. Fifth, since the researcher was involved with
decision making during the implementation, it was possible to collect data in a
participant-observation mode. Sixth, additional quantitative data were collected for
events such as mistakes in order processing, long setup times, and mistakes in orders.
These results provided clues to determine the reasons for requests for manual activities
which were occurring in the service operations. In addition to the thoughts and insights
gained during the process, the researcher kept a research log during the study that
documented each problem encountered during the implementation.

4 Description of LSS implementation experience

The executive committee (President, VP Manufacturing, VP Accounting, and VP Human

Resources, and VP Marketing) was interested in strengths of Lean and Six Sigma
methodologies. The committee set up a new cross functional team that included managers
and engineers from different departments, and LSS consultants3. The team approved the
LSS approach, which included a DMAIC framework embedded with appropriate Lean
 Lean Six Sigma (LSS) 123

tools. An LSS improvement event was implemented with the help of an experienced
facilitator, resulting in many important points. First, although an LSS improvement event
was competed in an 8-week period, a majority of the activities related to the event were
completed in a 2-week period. Second, before any LSS improvement was carried out, the
appropriate actions were taken to guarantee the accuracy of the data and the reliability of
the measurement system. Third, workers who were directly responsible for processes
were trained in LSS concepts and participated in all LSS events. Using workers’ inputs,
improvement opportunities related to an LSS event was correctly prioritised, so these
efforts led to results. Fourth, workers were given the opportunity to apply problem
solving skills, first with supervision, and later without supervision, so improvements were
refined, increasing the chances for ownership and sustained results. LSS implementation
involved a host of activities which needed to be correctly sequenced and are described in
five major implementation steps.

4.1 Planning and discovery – week 1

This phase of LSS implementation included define/measure steps of DMAIC steps and
consisted of many decisions. First, with the approval from the sponsor of the LSS event,
the senior manager or director, LSS improvement team members were identified from the
target shop or operations. Depending on the situation, six to 12 team members were
chosen to be process owners or to be responsible for the shop operations. Generally, no
worker was excluded because of his or her attitude (e.g., ability to get along with others).
In almost all cases, only permanent workers were included in the teams. The facilitator
met with the sponsor of the LSS event, and the sponsor then met with team members
(preferably during lunch), established informal communications, and discussed the
general status of the process (e.g., material flow, setup times, or breakdowns). These
discussions provided preliminary information about all wasteful activities in the process,
or possible opportunities for improvement. Second, working with the sponsor of the LSS
event and the manager, the facilitator worked diligently to identify the sources of
problems. Finding problems (or opportunities), rather than simply solving them, was
challenging. To do this, the importance of identifying a problem was emphasised. It was
important for those involved to understand that the problem needed to be correctly
identified before any attempt was made to solve the problem. Although rare, there was a
propensity among some facilitators to hastily get the solution underway before properly
identifying the problem. At times, the facilitator had to painstakingly go back and forth
between the manager/supervisor, and the LSS improvement team to iteratively develop a
consensus on the problem statement. Using the problem statement, the facilitator
completed the LSS improvement charter (Appendix 1). This charter was then utilised as
an instrument to communicate between the sponsor of the LSS event and the actual LSS
improvement team members.
Third, depending on the situation, the existing measurement system was modified, or
a new measurement system was added, to define the process. First, data was collected to
determine the reliability of the measurement system. As determined by the facilitator,
many tests, such Gage R&R, were performed (Appendix 2). Often, it was discovered that
the measurement system did not function properly. As a result, the progress of many past
improvements efforts was incorrectly assessed. Second, using accurate data, a baseline
for the process was established so that all improvement could be measured (Appendix 3).
Third, important for the LSS event, many administrative functions were also performed.
124 S.S. Chakravorty and A.D. Shah

For example, a conference room was secured close to the LSS event location so that the
improvement teams could conveniently meet and discuss ways to improve the process.
The room was inspected for satisfactory seating, charts, plot papers, super sticky notes,
dry erase markers, lighting, air conditioning, and properly functioning equipment (e.g.,
projectors, computers), so that the LSS improvement event could be launched without
disruptions. The facilitator also secured a digital camera to record and archive ‘before’
and ‘after’ implementation pictures, and made arrangements for catering lunch.

4.2 Training and opportunity finding – week 2

This phase of LSS implementation involving the analyse step of DMAIC steps required
many important decisions. Barring exceptions, the LSS improvement team members,
who were identified in the previous step, spent 100% of their time participating in the
LSS improvement event. The facilitator played a critical role in leading the LSS
improvement team to include upper management, to train, to analyse their existing
conditions, and to identify and prioritise improvement opportunities. There are six major
steps. First, to incorporate upper management’s involvement and to show the seriousness
of improvement objectives to the LSS team members, invitations to the kick-off meeting
were sent to the President, the VP of Manufacturing, and to senior managers. In addition,
a suggestion box was installed close to the target shop or operations to encourage workers
from different operations to give their input about the problems and their solutions for
improvements. Second, immediately following the kick-off meeting, LSS training was
provided in the conference room. The training was delivered by the facilitator, using
presentation slides with audio and video enhancements as necessary. Training content
included statistical concepts, some of which were difficult for many LSS team members
to comprehend. Many LSS team members were not used to sitting in a classroom
environment for an extended period, so giving frequent breaks to keep their attention was
very effective. Open discussions were encouraged during the training session so that LLS
improvement team members felt comfortable enough to provide their input.
Third, in order to adequately define the boundaries of the existing conditions, the
facilitator orchestrated the process of creating a SIPOC (supplier, input, process, output,
and customers) chart, which has five categories. Typically, the process involved the
facilitator and the LSS improvement team. However, many times, suppliers’
representatives and customers of the process were included to provide their suggestions.
Considering inputs from LSS improvement team members, the facilitator recorded all
ideas and developed a list under each category of SIPOC, without critiquing the ideas. If
necessary, some were rephrased, and some ideas or items were moved in order to refine
and create the SIPOC chart (Appendix 4).
Fourth, value stream mapping was performed to identify value added and non value
added activities. Sticky notes were used to describe an operation (or machine), and
Sharpies® (permanent dry markers) were used to show the flow through the target shop.
In almost all of our LSS improvement events, workers acknowledged that they were
aware of wasteful activities (e.g., wait time, transportation, and defects) in their shop, but
they were not aware that these activities could occupy the majority (e.g., 80%–90%) of
their time. We gathered qualitative data through independent surveys, interviews,
observations, and participation. We collected quantitative data through a variety of
sources, including personal observations and measurements. For example, existing shop
floor layouts were augmented with production data such as routing information, setup
 Lean Six Sigma (LSS) 125

times, machine breakdowns, quality reports, and productivity charts. Depending on the
situation, the analysis ranged from simple (e.g., histograms or Pareto charts) to
sophisticated (e.g., ANOVA, regression, or DOE).
Fifth, once the value stream map was completed, the facilitator, along with LSS
improvement team members, walked the process (a.k.a. Muda walk) to confirm all
known sources of problems or opportunities for improvement, and to identify new ones.
It was interesting to note that while each worker was very familiar with his or her job,
they still lacked an understanding of material flow through the shop. Following Muda
walks, all the problems were clearly written on sticky notes and organised into natural
groups. With inputs from LSS team members, the facilitator identified all improvement
solutions for each problem.
Sixth, in order to prioritise the implementation of all solutions, the facilitator
performed B&E analysis, which was usually a 2 μ 2 matrix. The vertical axis was defined
as ‘benefit’, which ranged from low to high, and the horizontal axis was defined as
‘effort’, which also ranged from low to high. The four quadrants were: low effort/low
benefit, low effort/high benefit, high effort/low benefit, and high effort/high benefit.
While considering inputs from LSS team members, and applying some level of
subjectivity, the facilitator categorised all the improvement solutions into one of the four
quadrants. The improvement solutions in low effort/high benefit quadrant were targeted
for implementation (in week 4) and the solutions in low benefit/low effort quadrant were
separated for implementation afterwards (in weeks 5 to 8). Since LSS team members
participated in determining the priority of implementation, there was a high level of ‘buy
in’ among them. One important point to note is that many times both the vertical axis and
the horizontal axis had three categories (high, medium, and low), making a 3 μ 3 matrix.
For implementation purposes, however, medium and high categories were treated the
same. An example of a completed B&E analysis is included in Appendix 5.

4.3 Refinements and preparation – week 3

Many important decisions were made during this phase of implementation, and fall into
three categories. First, LSS improvement team members actively participated in refining
the improvement opportunities identified in the previous phase. They redefined terms to
either broaden or shorten the scope of improvement opportunities. They eliminated some
improvement opportunities and added new ones to facilitate implementations. In a
number of instances, many of these changes were trivial and were really not needed.
Regardless, the facilitator encouraged the workers to participate in refining opportunities,
even if the progress was painfully slow. Encouragement from the facilitator had a very
positive impact on the morale of the improvement teams, which could be seen in the
subsequent phases of implementation.
Second, the facilitator developed a ‘to do’ list which included action items,
responsibilities, and deadlines to complete all tasks. The facilitator went through the list
diligently and made sure that all supporting functions were informed. Typically, many
layout changes were necessary in moving machines from one location to another. The
facilitator coordinated all activities with plant operations to ensure that machine
foundation requirements were met, machine preparations were made, availability of
electricians existed, and, if necessary, that heavy machinery movers would be available.
At times, the facilitator was frustrated because many of these decisions involved
126 S.S. Chakravorty and A.D. Shah

obtaining written permissions from plant level or division levels, which required
additional paper work and delayed implementations.
Third, the facilitator held a meeting with the entire shop to explain the forthcoming
changes or improvement initiatives. The LSS team members discussed the details of all
forthcoming changes with the objective of refining the solutions. Many workers provided
additional suggestions for improvement, and the facilitator incorporated those
suggestions, refining all solutions meant to improve the shop operations. At this time, the
facilitator started to impart all of the upcoming changes (e.g., pull system) to the shop
operations and to estimate improvements or reductions in all non-value added activities.
For example, 80% reduction in travel time, 50% reduction in inventory, 30% reduction in
transportation, and 20% reduction in machine break downs were projected. Once all of
these estimates were complete, the facilitator completed the appropriate sections of the
LSS charter.

4.4 Implementation and changes – week 4

This phase of LSS implementation included the Improve step of DMAIC steps and
consisted of two major steps. First, the facilitator orchestrated actual implementations in
the target shop. Good planning and participation by the workers in the previous stages
facilitated smooth transition to all of the changes in the shop. Since this phase involved
all aspects of a shop (machines, tools, method, materials, and personnel), there were often
last minutes glitches. The facilitator provided assistance in coordinating these activities to
make the implementation a success. If necessary, the facilitator also made sure that all
relevant personnel outside the shop (e.g., sales or suppliers) were in attendance. The
workers followed through with the changes, discussed the benefits of the changes openly,
and began to operate under the changed conditions.
Second, as the changes were introduced, the performance of the shop did not
immediately improve. In fact, the performance of the shop deteriorated as workers were
transitioning into new ways of operating. There was chaos and confusion in many areas
of shop operations as many machines were moved to new locations, tools were
rearranged, and material flow altered. However, as the workers became accustomed to
operating in the new way, their individual performance improved and, eventually, the
target shop’s performance improved. The facilitator took pictures of the shop to
document ‘after’ implementation conditions, and assisted the workers in preparing for
presentations which included all the changes. The presentations were done by the shop
workers for the VP of Manufacturing or Senior Manager.

4.5 Enhancements and transfer of ownership – weeks 5 to 8

This phase of the LSS implementation included both the Improve and Control steps
of DMAIC steps. This phase of implementation was particularly difficult for
workers because they had to perform daily production activities while conducting
improvements activities. There were four major categories of improvement activities.
First, there were some items from the ‘to do’, list, which delayed in the last phase, were
completed in this phase. Generally, implementations of these items progressed smoothly
and production activities were rarely interrupted. However, some items required
subcontractors (e.g., information technology or machine controls) and implementation of
 Lean Six Sigma (LSS) 127

these items did not proceed smoothly. The production activities were frequently
interrupted and workers struggled to meet daily production. In addition, the quality of
some products deteriorated as machines were recalibrated, and workers who were eager
to see improvements, were disappointed. Gradually, as implementations of all items were
completed, workers started performing daily productions activities while still meeting or
exceeding daily production.
Second, once daily production activities and production requirements were met,
LSS team members began to enhance improvements. While performing B&E analysis,
many improvement opportunities were identified as low effort/low benefit. These
opportunities required application of only parts of LSS approach and not all members of
improvement teams were needed to make all of these changes. For example, a 5S
application was implemented to organise a tool room area close to the target shop. The
tool room area remained largely unchanged, even though many old machines were
discarded and many new ones were installed. The purpose of the 5S application was to
discard unnecessary tools, clean up the floor, paint the floor, and designate different types
of tools for easy access. Organising the tool room enhanced productivity of the shop
because everyone needed tools to perform their daily production activities. Likewise,
many teams implemented SMED technique to reduce setup times at machines and
developed Poka-Yoke systems to eliminate/reduce mistakes from becoming quality
problems.
Third, encouraged with their initial successes of enhancing solutions, many LSS team
members applied DMAIC steps to improve High Effort/High Benefit opportunities. The
LSS improvement team often encountered difficulty in applying the DMAIC steps.
Frequently, they went back and forth and just to define the problems that remained in the
first three steps of DMAIC. They spent enormous amount of time in finalising a problem
statement and progress was painfully slow. In some instances, the production activities
were interrupted and workers struggled with production activities. Many LSS
improvement team members became frustrated because their efforts yielded dismal
results, which lowered their morale. Depending on availability, the facilitator provided
assistance in these improvement opportunities and many of these improvements were
implemented. In other instances, these improvement opportunities were retained for
future implementations, using an expert or consultant.
Fourth, as LSS improvement teams members implemented solutions, the team
members began to take pride in workmanship. The LSS improvement teams realised
that they communicated well and worked cohesively to improve all shop operations.
Some LSS team members openly bragged about their productivity improvements.
Many LSS team members from different shops compared their notes on quality
improvements, cycle time gains, and learned from the implementation. Once the
implementation neared the eight-week period, the facilitator visited the target
shops to learn and document all the improvements. The documentation included
many methods that worked and suggestions to enhance future improvement efforts. The
LSS team members were recognised for their efforts and given many incentives (e.g.,
salary increases). Despite the best efforts of LSS improvement teams, many times all
activities could not be completed. The facilitator diligently documented all unfinished
activities and developed a list that specified action items, individual responsibilities, and
a timeline to complete those activities. The facilitator followed up and made sure that all
unfinished activities were completed on time.
128 S.S. Chakravorty and A.D. Shah

5 Implications of LSS implementation

There are several important points worth discussing about the LSS which correspond
with each stage of the implementation. In the first phase of implementation, planning and
discovery, there are two important points worth mentioning. First, correctly identifying
the problem or opportunity for improvement is important for the success of LSS or any
other improvement strategy. While discussing improvement strategies, Chakravorty and
Hales (2008, p.162) wrote that:
“…significant amount of academic research…. has primarily focused on
developing mathematical (or simulation) solutions with little emphasis on
problem identification. In the real world, we often do not know the source of
problem; and therefore, we do not know which solution algorithm will work
best. Future research needs to develop heuristics to identify the problems… The
application of such heuristics could significantly shorten the time required to
solve problems. Research in this area should be very beneficial to practicing
managers to supplement the wealth of academic research (in LSS)...”
Numerous books on Lean and Six Sigma do not emphasise the importance of identifying
problems adequately. Recent books on Lean (e.g., Shook, 2008) and Six Sigma (e.g.,
Keller, 2005) overwhelmingly endorse tools, not the basics, which are to identify the
problem correctly and then develop solutions. Second, it was important to have accurate
measurements for LSS implementation. Many researchers (e.g., Deming, 1986) have
emphasised the need for appropriate measurements before initiating change in the
existing system. In fact, as demonstrated in Nelson experiments, implementing change
without correct measurements introduces unwanted variation, rendering a system
unstable (Aguayo, 1990). We need to establish measurements to guide individuals’
behaviour in all improvement initiatives. In other words, we need to install a speedometer
if we expect individuals to drive safely within the speed limits. According to Pyzdek
(2003, p.277):
An argument can be made for asserting that quality begins with measurement.
Only when quality is quantified can meaningful discussion about improvement
begin. Conceptually, measurement is quite simple: measurement is the
assignment of numbers to be observed phenomena according to certain rules.
Measurement is a sine qua non of any science, including management science.
In the second phase of implementation, training and opportunity finding, there are two
points worth mentioning. First, LSS training was very helpful to improvement team
members because team members developed a process mindset and recognised
value-added versus non value-added activities. We encountered some difficulty in
teaching statistical methods because many team members lacked formal education
beyond high school. Fortunately, as Gopal (2008) claimed, we found in our LSS
implementation that improvement projects often do not require statistical methods. LSS
training could have a positive impact on the bottom line as Bogart (2007, p.23) claimed:
“Personnel in all divisions of a company…can be trained in LSS. That training
could significantly have more impact on a company’s bottom line than
downsizing personnel. With LSS training, a company can keep the same
number of people while shifting from losing money to making money. This can
be achieved by looking at the entire production processes. Through value-
stream mapping, personnel can map out the production processes step-by-step
and determine each step’s value in reaching the defined goal. LSS trained staff
 Lean Six Sigma (LSS) 129

members can then ask such questions as, ‘Do we need that step? Is it necessary
to our business?’…”
Third, while facilitating LSS events during the third phase, implementation and changes,
our approach was to mix different tools, such as SIPOC, value stream mapping, Muda
walk, and B&E analysis to prioritise low-level improvement opportunities. This is a
significant finding because we can optimally mix different tools to generate powerful
solutions in other area of LSS programs. For example, this approach could also be
utilised to prioritise high-level opportunities and drive LSS programs from the top. It is
an important area for future research because many improvement initiatives have failed
when the priority of high-level opportunities was not correctly determined (Zimmerman
and Weiss, 2005). Other researchers (e.g., Gates, 2007) have struggled to connect
improvement strategy with tactical or actual improvements. Recent research (e.g., Hu et
al., 2008) suggests that multi-objective models could be developed to effectively guide
the implementation of LSS. Tiwari et al. (2008) recommend effective decision support in
order to implement LSS programs in manufacturing or service operations. More research
in this area will be immensely helpful to practicing managers engaged in implementing
LSS programs.
In the third phase of implementation, refinements and preparation, there are two
points worth mentioning. First, regardless of LSS tools used in an improvement event,
plenty of time should be spent in generating participation from workers realising that
there could be some initial hesitation. Over time, however, with appropriate
encouragement from the facilitator, they do participate and provide invaluable
suggestions for improvement. Previous research (e.g., O’Sullivan and Dooley, 2009)
points out that attention to the human side (e.g., worker participation, incentives to
change) are absolutely necessary for sustained improvement results. In fact, Angel and
Pritchard (2008) claim that 3M and home depot improvement initiatives failed because
these implementations did not adequately address the human side (e.g., employee
behaviour change) of improvement initiatives. More research is necessary in this area.
Second, the facilitator played an important role in implementing the LSS program.
There is not much research in terms of how to choose facilitators and what skills are
required. Previous research (e.g., Chakravorty, 2010a) suggests that organisations launch
their improvement initiatives using external facilitators. Over time, however, employees
should be trained in LSS approach and should become internal facilitators of
improvement strategies. Research in identifying skills for internal facilitators will be
helpful to practicing managers. While emphasising the importance of technical skills for
facilitators, Chakravorty (2009d, p.12) stated that:
…their human skills were more important for this role. Without performing any
formal psychological profiles, the committee looked for warehouse employees
who had been passionate about their work and committed to showing positive
results. These employees stayed focused and inspired others to work together as
a group. They worked hard, took full responsibility, and found creative ways to
attack and solve problems. In other words, they followed their passion with a
‘just do it’ spirit and encouraged others to do the same. They came with
varying levels of experience (two years to 20 years), professional qualifications
(e.g., information technology or maintenance), and education (e.g., no college
degree to Bachelors in Industrial Engineer).
In the fourth phase of implementation, implementation and changes, there is one point
worth discussing. As implementation activities are carried out on the shop floor, the
130 S.S. Chakravorty and A.D. Shah

performance of the shop does not immediately achieve its full potential until LSS
improvement teams get used to the new ways of operating. This phenomenon is well
known and a simple experiment could be performed for experiential learning. As
described in Shingo (1985), in experiment 1, write ‘production engineering’ on 15 cards
and note the time you take. With some variation, this should take approximately 12
seconds. In experiment 2, write the same word, but now skip every letter. In other words,
write the first letter, then third, and so on. In doing so, you will write ‘P O U T O E G N
E I G’, which has about half the letters of ‘production engineering’. So the expectation is
that you should take about half the time since you have half the work. This does not
happen immediately because you are unfamiliar with the word and you take longer.
Comparing experiment 2 with experiment 1, Shingo (1985, p.150) wrote:
…Even though you wrote only half as many letters as in experiment 1, writing
the letters the first four times took far more than half the time needed for the
first four repetitions in the first experiment. The fourth and fifth repetitions
took a particularly long time. Increasingly less time was needed after that, so
that the fifteenth writing took far less time (six seconds) than experiment 1.
In the fifth phase of implementation, enhancements and transfer of ownerships, there are
two points worth mentioning. First, it is important that LSS team members thoroughly
understand their existing operations and constantly experiment with new ideas for
improvement. As the team members tackle improvement opportunities, problem solving
may not always be as smooth as promoted by many LSS books (e.g., George, 2003). At
times, improvements teams may run into difficulties as they handle complicated
problems, and progress may be painfully slow (Chakravorty et al., 2008). It may also be
frustrating to the facilitator to manage such LSS teams, but the key to continuous
improvement is to apply problem solving tools and to challenge the existing conditions.
According to Liker (2004, p.224):
“The first step of any problem-solving process….is grasping the actual
situation, which requires ‘going to gemba.’ Toyota promotes and expects
creative thinking, and innovation is a must, but it should be grounded in
thoroughly understanding all aspects of the actual situation. This is one of the
behaviours that really distinguishes someone trained in the Toyota way – they
take nothing for granted and they know what they are talking about, because it
comes from firsthand knowledge.”
Second, we do not have a complete understanding of the long-term sustainability of LSS
or any process improvement [e.g. business process reengineering (BPR) or information
systems]. Many studies (e.g., Chakravorty and Dulaney, 2010) point out that such process
improvement initiatives fail over time. Longitudinal studies are necessary because we
lack an understanding of how and why so many process improvement programs fail over
time (Chakravorty, 2010a). Despite widespread adoption of many process improvements,
documented evidence of long-term quantifiable benefits from these systems are still hard
to find (Stratman, 2007). Commenting on long-term benefits of process improvement,
Rettig (2007, p.26) said:
“…companies are in for a long haul if they are to escape the tangle of
technological complexity inherent in large organisations today, and it will be a
journey fraught with cultural as well technical problems. The timeline itself for
this kind of transformations may just be too long to be realistically sustainable
and successful. The dynamic business environments of today, where whole
industries and markets can undergo radical changes in a matter a few years and
 Lean Six Sigma (LSS) 131

the horizon for corporate strategies has shrunk from 10 years to three to five,
make it questionable whether companies actually can maintain a focused
strategy long enough to align their core business process…”

6 Conclusions

Using a successful LSS program in a home furnishing operation, the purpose was to
explain how to implement LSS improvement events. We demonstrated that there is a
systematic procedure in implementing each LSS improvement event. Each LSS
improvement event was implemented at a target shop by an experienced facilitator with a
team of workers from the shop. The implementation consists of a host related activities
which can be categorised into five phases requiring eight weeks. The first four weeks
include four phases:
1 planning and discovery
2 training and opportunity finding
3 refinements and preparation
4 implementation and changes.
The last four weeks include one phase:
5 enhancement and transfer of ownership.
The facilitator was responsible for the first phase and the workers were responsible for all
other phases, although the facilitator also played an important role in those other phases.
With some variation, the workers spent 100% of their time in activities related to phases
2 and 4, and about 20% of their time in activities related to phases 3 and 5. Important to
both practitioners and academicians, we discuss many implications of LSS event
implementation and include directions for future research.
Lastly, this research shows that Lean and Six Sigma methodologies can be integrated
to effectively guide improvement efforts to reduce variation or waste from operations. In
the today’s global village, the competition is fierce, and companies need to continuously
reduce variation (waste) to exceed efficiency and responsiveness requirements of global
customers. There is increasing pressure to pursue new and innovative ways of thinking as
a source of competitive advantage. More research in this area is necessary to contribute to
the science and practice of LSS implementation or to any other process innovations
intended to reduce waste and create value.

References
Aguayo, R. (1990) Dr. Deming The American Who Taught The Japanese About Quality, Carol
Publishing, New York, NY.
Angel, D.C. and Pritchard, C. (2008) Behavior Tests Six Sigma, Industrial Engineer. August, p.41.
Arnheiter, E.D. and Maleyeff, J. (2005) ‘The integration of lean management and six sigma’ TQM
Magazine, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.5–18.
Bendell, T. (2006) ‘A review and comparison of six sigma and the lean organizations’, TQM
Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.255–262.
132 S.S. Chakravorty and A.D. Shah

Bogart, S. (2007) Learning How to Leverage Lean Six Sigma’s Power, Plant Engineering, July,
pp.23–24.
Byrne, G. Lubowe, D. and Blitz, A. (2007) ‘Using a lean six sigma approach to drive innovation’,
Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.5–10.
Chakravorty, S.S. (2009a) ‘Six Sigma failures: an escalation model’, Operations Management
Research, Vol. 2, pp.44–55.
Chakravorty, S.S. (2009b) ‘Six sigma programs: an implementation model’, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 119, pp.1–16.
Chakravorty, S.S. (2009c) ‘Process improvement: using Toyota’s a3 reports’, Quality Management
Journal, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.7–26.
Chakravorty, S.S. (2009d) ‘Improving distributions operations: implementation of material
handling systems’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 122, pp.80–106.
Chakravorty, S.S. (2010a) ‘Where process-improvement projects go wrong’, MITSloan
Management Review/Wall Street Journal, available at http://sloanreview.mit.edu/business-
insight/january-2010/).
Chakravorty, S.S. (2010b) ‘An implementation model for lean programs’, European Journal of
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.228–248.
Chakravorty, S.S. and Dulaney, R.E. (2010) ‘ERP systems: an implementation experience’,
International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.163–185.
Chakravorty, S.S. and Franza, R.M. (2009) ‘Implementation of design for six sigma (DFSS): a
development experience’, International Journal of Product Development, Vol. 9, No. 4,
pp.329–342.
Chakravorty, S.S. and Hales, D.N. (2008) ‘The evolution of manufacturing cells: an action research
study’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 188, pp.153–168.
Chakravorty, S.S. and Hales, D.N. (2004) ‘Implications of cell design implementation: a case study
and analysis’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 152, pp.602–614.
Chakravorty, S.S., Hales, D.N. and Herbert, J.I. (2008) ‘How problem solving really works’,
International Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.44–59.
Cveykus, R. and Carter, E. (2006) ‘Fix the process, not the people’, Strategic Finance, Vol. 88,
No. 1, pp.26–33.
Daum, M.S. (2008) ‘Three quality data traps’, Quality, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp.40–45.
Deming, E.D. (1986) Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for
Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA.
Farris, J.J., Van Aken, E.M., Doolen, T.L. and Worley, J. (2009) ‘Critical success factors in kaizen
events: an empirical study’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 117,
pp.42–65.
Gates, R. (2007) ‘Lean six sigma deployment: start off on the right foot’, Quality Progress, Vol.
40, No. 8, pp.51–57.
George Group (2007) Training Manual: Lean Six Sigma, Dallas, TX.
George, M.L. (2003) Lean Six Sigma for Service, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Gopal, R. (2008) 10 Ways to Failure for a New Six Sigma Program, available at
http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c071203a.asp.
Hu, G., Wang, L., Fetch, S. and Bidanda, B. (2008) ‘A multi-objective portfolio selection to
implement lean and six sigma concepts’, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 46, No. 23, pp.6611–6625.
Ingram, D. (2009) ‘Technical problem solving’, Journal of Validation Technology, Winter,
pp.64–70.
Keller, P. (2005) Six Sigma: Demystified, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Liker, J.K. (2004) The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest
Manufacturer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
 Lean Six Sigma (LSS) 133

Mader, D.P. (2008) ‘Lean six sigma’s evolution’, Quality Progress, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp.40–48.
Mukherjee, S. (2008) ‘A dose of DMAIC’, Quality Progress, Vol. 41, No. 8, pp.44–51.
O’Sullivan, D. and Dooley, L. (2009) Applying Innovation, Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Pyzdek, T. (2003) The Six Sigma Handbook: A Complete Guide for Green Belts, Black Belts, and
Managers at All Levels, McGraw-Hil, New York, NY.
Rettig, C. (2007) ‘The trouble with enterprise solution’, MITSloan Management Review, Vol. 49,
No. 1, pp.21–27.
Rother, M. and Shook, J. (1998) Learning to See, The Lean Enterprise Institute, Inc., Brookline,
MA.
Schonberger, R.J. (2008) Best Practices in Lean and Six Sigma Process Improvement, John Wiley
& Sons, Hobokon, NJ.
Shah, R., Chandrasekaran, A. and Linderman, K. (2008) ‘In pursuit of implementation patterns: the
context of lean and six sigma’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46, No. 23,
pp.6679–6699.
Shingo, S. (1985) The Revolution in Manufacturing: The SMED System, Productivity Press,
Portland, OR.
Shook, J. (2008) Managing to Learn: Using the A3 Management Process to Solve Problems, Gain
Agreement, Mentor, and Lead, The Lean Enterprise Institute, Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Stratman, J.K. (2007) ‘Realizing benefits from enterprise resource planning: does strategic focus
matter’, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.203–216.
Tiwari, M.K., Antony, J. and Montgomery, D.C. (2008) ‘Editorial note for special issue on
‘effective decision support to implement lean and six sigma methodologies in the
manufacturing and service sectors’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46,
No. 23, pp.6563–6566.
Wedgewood, I.D. (2007) Lean Sigma: A Practitioners’ Guide, Prentice Hall, New York, NY.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (2003) Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in your
Corporation, Free Press, New York, NY.
Zimmerman J.P. and Weiss, J. (2005) ‘Six Sigma’s seven sins’, Quality, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp.62–66.

Notes
1 http://www.asq.org
2 Search for ‘Lean Six Sigma’ on Google’s website http://www.google.com
3 http://www.georgegroup.com
134 S.S. Chakravorty and A.D. Shah

Appendix 1

Figure 1 Example of LSS charter

Project Name: Reduce Raw Material Inventory Project ID Number: PRJ60
Business/Facility: Plant ABC Charter Revision Number: 000
Charter Revision Date: 2/2/09
1. Signature Block: Name Title Signature Date
LSS Facilitator John Smith LSS Facilitator
LSS Co-Facilitator Jane Smith LSS Co-Facilitator
Financial Representative Arthur King Accounting Manager
Project Owner John Doe Plant Manager
Business Sponsor Amy King Business Director
The process/ product in Raw Material Warehouse
2. Process / Product: which opportunity
exists.
Describe the project’s Reduce Raw Material Inventory by 20% and Reduce Waste
3. Project Objective: purpose. generate by excess inventory by 30%
What improvement is
Opportunity
targeted and what will Project Total Opportunity
4. Project Significance: Baseline Perfection Impact
be the impact on the Goal ($)
(%)
entitlement?
Primary Key Measure(s): Monthly Waste % 1.434 1.004 0 $1,246,828 30%
Monthly Inventory
21.24 17.41 15.44 $4,082,986 20%
(million units)
Monthly Missed Orders
Secondary Key Measure(s): due to lack of inventory
16.92 16.92

What improvement in A 30% decrease in waste will result in $374,048 & 20% reduction
5. Business Results: business performance in inventory will yield an annual savings of $816,597. The
(In current year dollars) is anticipated and combined savings is projected to be $1,056,948.
when?
6. Project Category: Inventory Strategic Improvement Only Yes ⌧ No
Who are the full-time John Smith, Jane Smith, Arthur King, Machine Operator A, Lift
7. Team Composition: members and any
Truck Driver A, Transportation Manager, Production Planning
expert consultants?
Manager

Describe the areas that In Scope: Raw Material Out of Scope: Finished Goods
8. Project Scope: are in scope and out of Inventory and Raw Material Inventory and Finished Goods
scope. Waste Waste
Give the key Projected Projected Actual
9. Project Timeline: Start Completion Completion
milestones/dates.
D – Define 2/2/09 2/6/09
M – Measure 2/9/09 2/13/09
A – Analyze 2/9/09 2/13/09
I – Improve 2/23/09 2/27/09
C – Control 2/27/09 3/27/09
 Lean Six Sigma (LSS) 135

Appendix 2

Figure 2 Example of Gage R&R analysis (see online version for colours)
Gage R&R Numerical Print Out

Gage R&R
%Contribution
Source VarComp (of VarComp)
Total Gage R&R 129.2 0.32
Repeatability 128.2 0.31
Reproducibility 0.9 0.00
Operator 0.9 0.00 Gage RR %
Part-To-Part 40657.5 99.68
Total Variation 40786.7 100.00 (< 30 % = Valid)

Study Var %Study Var

Source StdDev (SD) (6 * SD) (%SV)
Total Gage R&R 11.365 68.19 5.63
Repeatability 11.325 67.95 5.61
Reproducibility 0.959 5.75 0.47
Operator 0.959 5.75 0.47
Part-To-Part 201.637 1209.82 99.84
Total Variation 201.957 1211.74 100.00

Number of Distinct Categories = 25

Gage R & R Graphical Print Out

Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Weight High Part to Part

Reported by : John S mith Variation = Low
G age name: LS S M easurement V alidation Tolerance:
D ate of study : F ebruary 2009 M isc:
Measurement Variation

Components of Variation Weight by Raw Material

100 % Contribution 800
% Study Var
Percent

600
50

400
0
Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part 1 2 3 4 5
Bale
R Chart by Operator
First Utility Second Utility Third Utility Weight by Operator
800
Sample Range

50
600
25 UCL=21.56
_ 400
R=6.6
0 LCL=0
First Utility Second Utility Third Utility
Operator
Xbar Chart by Operator
First Utility Second Utility Third Utility Operator * Raw Material Interaction
800 800 Operator
Sample Mean

First Utility
UCL=621.2
_
_
Average

Second Utility
600 X=608.8 600 Third Utility
LCL=596.4
400
400
1 2 3 4 5
Bale
136 S.S. Chakravorty and A.D. Shah

Appendix 3

Figure 3 Example of baseline analysis (see online version for colours)

I-MR Chart of Inventory Baseline Average

Baseline on the charter
23 UCL=22.959
Individual Value

22
_
X=21.240
21

20
LCL=19.521

2/2/2008 3/1/2008 3/29/2008 5/3/2008 5/31/2008 6/28/2008 8/2/2008 8/30/2008 9/27/2008 11/1/2008 11/29/2008 1/3/2009
Month End

UCL=2.112
2
Moving Range

1
__
MR=0.646

0 LCL=0
2/2/2008 3/1/2008 3/29/2008 5/3/2008 5/31/2008 6/28/2008 8/2/2008 8/30/2008 9/27/2008 11/1/2008 11/29/2008 1/3/2009
Month End

Appendix 4

Figure 4 Example of SIPOC analysis (see online version for colours)

 Lean Six Sigma (LSS) 137

Appendix 5

Figure 5 Example of B&E analysis (see online version for colours)