Key Criticisms of Six Sigma: A Systematic Literature Review

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 37

Key Criticisms of Six Sigma: A Systematic Literature Review

1.Michael Sony, Namibia University of Science & Technology, Namibia,

emailofsony@gmail.com

2.Jiju Antony, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland, J.Antony@hw.ac.uk

3.Sung Park, Korean Society for Quality Management, parksh@snu.ac.kr

4.Michael Mutingi, Namibia University of Science & Technology, Namibia,

mmutingi@nust.na

Abstract

Six Sigma is one of the most popular initiatives to improve management processes in the last

decade. Amidst the success stories on the Six Sigma, there exist some literature on the

criticisms of Six Sigma. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the existing literature on the

criticisms of Six Sigma through a systematic literature review. The criticisms need to be

analyzed so that there is growth in the knowledge and understanding of Six Sigma. This study

analysed literature through various electronic databases such as Academic Source Premier

(EBSCO), Google Scholar, Business Source Premier (EBSCO), Emerald Insight, IEEE

Xplore Digital Library, JSTOR, ProQuest, Science Direct, Taylor & Francis, PubMed, Wiley,

Inderscience, Scopus and World Public Library. Sixty-one relevant articles were found and

analysed in depth. This study finds twelve major themes of criticisms on Six Sigma. Based on

the findings sixteen research directions are offered. Amidst the plethora of literature review

on the success of Six Sigma, this is the first comprehensive systematic literature review on

the criticisms of Six Sigma. The authors firmly believe that such criticisms will help the

academicians as well as the practitioners to understand some of the rudimentary gaps in

implementing Six Sigma as a business improvement strategy.

Keywords: Six Sigma, Systematic Literature Review, Critique, Six Sigma limitations,
I. Introduction

Six Sigma has been one of the most widely used quality improvement methodologies in both

manufacturing and service organizations for over two decades [1]–[4]. Many researchers

have devoted considerable attention to researching the various facets of Six Sigma. Previous

research on Six Sigma have primarily focused on a) Evolution of Six Sigma[5]–[7] b) Six

Sigma Theory[8], [9] c) Six Sigma Methodology[10], [11] d) Implementation frame works

& methodology[12]–[14] e) Empirical observations [3], [15], [16] f) Impact of Six

Sigma[17], [18] g) Six Sigma in service organizations[19]–[21] h) Critical success factors

[22]–[24], i) Critical failure factors[25], [26] etc. Criticism in any field is an important

component for the growth of knowledge, because, it challenges the basic assumption of the

domain of knowledge[27], [28]. Six Sigma methodology has also been criticized by a number

of authors[26], [29]–[32]. A systematic literature review in this domain is important because

it will help in further developing the theory & understanding of Six Sigma which will help

the researchers & practitioners in developing numerous facets of Six Sigma. There is yet to

be a systematic literature review carried out on the criticisms of Six Sigma. Previous studies

on the criticisms of Six Sigma needs to be analysed through the systematic literature review

methodology to analyse the pattern in the criticisms of Six Sigma. In this study, we intend to

extend the knowledge of Six Sigma by addressing the gaps in the literature regarding a need

for a systematic literature review. The study will investigate a) What are the common

criticisms or limitations of Six Sigma? and b) How should future research proceed given our

research findings?

II. Background Theory

Many organizations are using Six Sigma to improve their product quality and service

performance from the shop floor to health care systems. Six Sigma has been extensively used
for tackling defects or errors in business processes. The background theory is divided into

two sections. The first section answers the question what Six Sigma and the second section is

deals with the criticisms on Six Sigma.

I. What is Six Sigma?

Six Sigma is a project driven management approach which is intended to improve the

organizations products, services and processes, by continuously reducing defects due to

excessive process variation in organizations[33]. Schroeder et al (2008) defined Six Sigma as

an organized, parallel-meso structure to reduce variation in the organizational processes by

using improvement specialists, a structured method, and performance metrics with the aim of

achieving strategic objectives. The two major perspectives on Six Sigma is 1) Statistical & 2)

Business Improvement. From the statistical perspective, it is defined as having less than 3.4

defects per million opportunities or a success rate of 99.9997%. Here the term sigma is used

to represent the variation about the process average[12]. From a business point of view, it is

used to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of all operations to meet or exceed the

customers’ needs and expectations[33], [34].The initial applications of Six Sigma were

focused on manufacturing sectors[35], [36] and subsequently it is applied in various service

sectors such as education[37]–[39], public service [40] and health care [41], [42]. Six Sigma

uses two types of methodology for tackling problems in organisations. The DMAIC (define-

measure-analyse-improve-control) methodology is used for solving problems in existing

processes where the solutions are unknown. The other methodology called DFSS (Design for

Six Sigma) utilises DMADOV (define-measure-analyse-design-optimize-verify) for either

redesigning existing processes due to fundamental problems in the design of

products/services or designing Six Sigma concepts and principles into products and services

in the product or service development stages. [43], [44]. Six Sigma is thus, likely to remain as
one of the key initiatives to improve the management of processes in organisations, rather

than to be remembered as a management fad[1], [33].

II. Criticisms of Six Sigma

Although many companies have successfully implemented Six Sigma, a significant number

of companies have failed to gain any benefits from Six Sigma[25], [45]. The results of a

survey in the aerospace industry showed that respondents satisfaction with Six Sigma was

less than 50%[14], [25], [46]. Six Sigma is prone to failure in organizations and ten major

reasons for the failure of Six Sigma were elucidated[47].In a study on Six Sigma, it was

reported that Six Sigma was expensive and failed to yield any benefits to the

organization[48]. Companies like 3M and Home Depot though initially were advocates of Six

Sigma, however, later abandoned Six Sigma initiatives due to the negative impact on

customer and employee satisfaction [26], [49], [50]. Studies have also reported that benefits

from Six Sigma programs are marginal and the cost of implementing Six Sigma is more than

its benefits [26]. Nearly 60% of all corporate initiatives on Six Sigma have failed [29]. These

criticisms of Six Sigma in literature warrant a systematic literature review analysis so that

further understanding of the criticisms can be understood in a broad thematic sense. Besides,

the thematic analysis will also lead to attempt in reducing the failure rate of Six Sigma

initiatives and exploring future research areas. These future research directions will thus help

to clarify the criticism on Six Sigma in a broader perspective.

III. Methodology

To achieve the study goal of adding to the extant knowledge on Six Sigma criticisms, the

SLR methodology proposed by Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart [51] was employed in this

review, as shown in Figure 1.

A. Data Sources
A systematic literature review process was undertaken. The first step was intended to search

electronic databases. The search criteria employed for this research was Six Sigma failures,

Six Sigma failure rate, failure factors of Six Sigma, Six Sigma criticisms, Six Sigma failures,

Six Sigma fad, Six Sigma criticisms, Six Sigma limitations, Six Sigma Challenges, Six Sigma

disadvantages, Six Sigma issues, Six Sigma negative experience. The scope of the study was

restricted from any period to 2018. The databases which were considered in the study

include: Academic Source Premier (EBSCO), Google Scholar, Business Source Premier

(EBSCO), Emerald, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, JSTOR, ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses, Science Direct, Taylor & Francis, PubMed, Wiley,Scopus and World Public Library.

Though some authors have concluded that conference proceedings should be excluded[52],

however conference proceedings and other grey literature offer some insights in an emerging

research areas[53] such as Six Sigma criticisms. Hence, conference proceedings and other

grey literature which were deemed to be appropriate for the research were included.

B. Screening

A literature review protocol based on Popay et al. [54] was developed to limit systematic

error and bias in the screening of papers for review. This protocol, which summarized the

scope, strategy, and data extraction method for the review, is detailed in Figure 2. The

present research used the protocol to obtain its final sample of articles. The first step was a

broad search to find abstracts that met the screening criteria, Six Sigma failures, Six Sigma

failure rate, failure factors of Six Sigma, Six Sigma criticisms, Six Sigma failures, Six Sigma

fad, Six Sigma criticisms, Six Sigma limitations, Six Sigma Challenges, Six Sigma

disadvantages, Six Sigma issues, Six Sigma negative experience in the title or abstract of the

article. Case studies that claimed the successful implementation of Six Sigma were excluded;

however, if failure factors were considered then these were taken in. The titles and abstracts

were then analysed. This helped in removing duplicates. The remaining abstracts were
screened using the inclusion/exclusion criteria stated earlier. The full articles were then read

to meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The reference list of articles was read to further

improve the search criteria. The total number of articles that came up initially and a

breakdown of each stage is given in Figure 1.

Define research objectives and


Planning
develop research protocol

Identify target journals and key


search items

Electronic search of databases


included in the study were Academic
Source Premier (EBSCO), Google
Scholar, Business Source Premier
Executing (EBSCO), Emerald, IEEE Xplore
Digital Library, JSTOR, ProQuest,
Science Direct, Taylor & Francis,
PubMed and World Public Library
(321 papers)

Review of the title and abstract


of each paper
Eliminate papers considering the
title, abstract and duplication
Full text review of each of
extracted papers (89 papers)
Reason based elimination upon
reading full text

Thematic classification and


Synthesis of(61 papers) based on
identified parameters

The findings are reported


Reporting
C. Data Analysis

As the primary goal of this research was to explore six sigma criticisms, it was decided to

identify the patterns, directions, similarities, and differences in six sigma implementation

within the sampled articles [55]–[58]. Sixty-one articles were extracted after review

considering the research objective of the study. These articles were analysed and the themes

of criticisms which emerged from the analysis are organized. The data from the final group of

articles were condensed to a controllable complete form as follows. The Editorial/opinion

and theoretical articles were summarized in writing. After that, they were then synthesized

and coded by themes to reduce data and establish patterns and themes in a comprehensive

and systematic manner. As regards to the empirically based articles, they were read, coded,

summarized and synthesized to determine types of research studies completed to date. The

theoretical, opinion and editorial articles were read for themes and ideas were then

categorized and synthesized to determine patterns among the group[56]. The entire sample

was then critically analysed to gain an understanding of the state of overall knowledge in

relation to Six Sigma limitations. After studying all the papers, sixty-one articles that were

relevant were compiled. The articles were then critically analysed and following themes of

criticisms emerged from the analysis.


Research Objectives
• To conduct a systematic literature review criticisms of Six Sigma
• To compile & critically evaluate the existing research on criticisms of Six Sigma
• To develop future research directions to address the reported criticisms of Six Sigma

Conceptual Boundaries
• Outlining the key limitations/criticisms of Six Sigma in extent literature
• Analysing the limitations/criticisms of Six Sigma in various sectors

Inclusion Criteria

Search Boundaries Keyword Search Covered Period


Academic Source Premier Six Sigma failures, Six Sigma Any time
(EBSCO), Google Scholar, failure rate, failure factors of
Business Source Premier Six Sigma, Six Sigma criticisms, until June 2018
Six Sigma failures, Six Sigma
(EBSCO), Emerald, IEEE fad, Six Sigma criticisms, Six
Xplore Digital Library, JSTOR, Sigma limitations, Six Sigma
ProQuest Dissertations and Challenges, Six Sigma
Theses, Science Direct, disadvantages, Six Sigma issues,
Taylor & Francis and World Six Sigma negative experience
Public Library.

Exclusion Criteria
• Articles which does not have keys words in abstract or title
• Non-English language articles
• Articles from predatory journals such as Beal’s list

Validating Search Results


• Analysis of articles independently by authors for thematic
classification
• Difference of opinion on limitations/criticisms are discussed
and consensus obtained
• Ensuring high inter-rater reliability
D. Descriptive Analysis

The descriptive analysis of articles revealed that most of the articles on limitations or

criticism were published from the US followed by the UK. As Six Sigma originated in the

American corporations and later was adopted by other countries, that may be reason for such

a large number of articles emanating from the US. Though Six Sigma originated way back in

1985, the first articles stressing the limitations surfaced in the 1993.The reason could be that

since limitations or criticisms evolve over a time period. That too when large number of

organizations have implemented Six Sigma. The analysis of research method reveals that

most of the articles on the limitations or criticism were conceptual and case study. This trend

suggests, that this field is evolving and there is an imminent need for further research to be

carried out to investigate the limitations on Six Sigma. The investigation transpired that most

articles were from the Emerald, Google scholar and Elsevier database. Additional scrutiny

depicted that large number of articles were either one and two authored, suggesting a need for

studies where there are collaborations among authors to address the issue of criticisms of Six

Sigma. Sector wise comparison suggests that most papers were concentrated most on the

manufacturing compared to service sector. Nevertheless, papers which neither concentrated

on any sector were in large numbers, suggesting that limitations studies need to focus the

criticism or limitation in a specific sector for deep understanding of the phenomenon. The

Figure 3 depicts the summary of the descriptive analysis.


Figure 3: Descriptive Analysis of Research articles
IV. Thematic Analysis of Six Sigma Criticism

Criticism 1: The failure rate of Six Sigma like any other organizational change

initiatives is very high.

The success rate in quality management studies was a cause for concern. In a study in the

healthcare sector, it was estimated that 62% of Six Sigma initiatives have failed [25], [59].

Six Sigma like any other quality improvement initiatives starts off well, but, as time

progresses it fails to have a lasting impact. As a result, the motivation drops and

organizations fall back into the same old habits [60]. Around 60% of all corporate Six Sigma

initiatives fail[14], [26], [29], [61]. Due to these high failures, more corporations across

multiple industry sectors are now pulling back on their Six Sigma initiatives. It is felt that the

methodology by itself is not the cure-all for corporate ills [14], [29]. In the healthcare
companies, a national survey indicates that 54% of the companies do not intend to implement

Six Sigma[62]. The criticism of poor success rate needs to be investigated.

Many companies abandoned Six Sigma projects because they were not achieving positive net

results within a specific period of time. In addition, “it is generally believed that only a small

number of organizations that start this program succeed, where a large number of them

fail”[63], [64]. The critical success factors for the successful Six Sigma implementation

reported in previous studies are a) management involvement and commitment b) cultural

change c)organizational infrastructure d) communication e) education and training f) project

management skills g) project prioritisation and selection h) understanding six sigma

methodology, tools and techniques i) linking six sigma to business strategy j) linking six

sigma to customer k) linking six sigma to human resources l) linking six sigma to

suppliers[12], [33], [65]–[67]. There were very few studies on critical failure factors (CFF’s).

It is important to distinguish the importance of CFF’s, as it is those the key aspects or areas

where ‘things must go wrong’ for the Six Sigma implementation process to achieve a high

level of failure. The most common CFF’s elucidated in a previous study on LSS, which is the

only study of CFF’s are a) lack of top management attitude, commitment and involvement b)

Lack of training and education c) Poor LSS project selection and prioritisation d) A weak link

between the CI projects and the strategic objectives of the organisation e) Lack of resources,

such as technical, human and financial resources[25]. The successful implementation of six

sigma also requires disciplined and systematic application of tools and techniques. The

strength of Six Sigma lies in the application of tools and techniques within five stages of

methodology. The key ingredients for the successful application of tools and techniques in

Six Sigma are a) uncompromising support and commitment from top management b) well‐

designed education and training programmes c) co‐operative environment d) backup from

facilitators e) availability of resources f) rigorous project management approach and a


framework to indicate which tool or technique to use and when[19]. Consequently, it is

imperative to conclude that successful implementation of Six Sigma in an organization is the

successful tackling of critical success factors, critical failure factors and implementing the six

sigma tools and techniques in a systematic and disciplined manner. Therefore, Six Sigma can

be compared to change initiative in an organization. It is estimated that almost 70% change

initiatives in the organization fail [68], [69].When you compare Six Sigma with any change

initiatives, it can be inferred that failure rate is almost similar around 60-70%. Thus, Six

Sigma like any other change initiative is prone to high failure rate.

Criticism 2: The initial cost of implementing Six Sigma in an organization is very high.

The cost of implementing Six Sigma initiatives in an organization is very high compared to

its benefits[48]. The initial cost for institutionalising Six Sigma in corporate culture can be a

substantial investment[70]. Because of this many small and medium-size enterprises are

discouraged from the introduction, development, and implementation of Six Sigma

strategy[71], [72]. Six Sigma warrants use of a parallel meso structure and use of Six Sigma

experts. The cost of training and implementing a parallel meso structure within an

organization is a high. In the implementation of parallel meso structure, the employees are

usually drawn from various departments[9], [14]. Consequently, there is a shortage of

employees who must be recruited from the parent departments.

Criticism 3: Six Sigma, if not implemented properly, may have a negative impact on

customer satisfaction

Customer satisfaction is the fundamental requirement for any industry to be successful. At

two major companies like 3M and Home Depot, they abandoned the Six Sigma program

because it had a negative impact on customer satisfaction [26], [49], [50]. At 3M, the creative

and innovative culture that had always driven the company’s success took a back seat to cost
cutting, process improvement, and efforts at improving business efficiency[50], [73]. An

organization that is creative and innovative delivering products and services are well liked by

the customer. For improving the customer satisfaction, organizations have to be creative and

innovative in ways they deal with customers [74]–[76]. There are also studies which suggest

that proper implementation of Six Sigma promotes customer satisfaction and innovation

[77]–[79]. Thus, it is proposed that Six Sigma is implemented to promote customer

satisfaction.

Criticism 4: Poor measurement system for Six Sigma may erode employee motivation.

Also, Six Sigma creates a culture of command, and culture associated which may stifle

the employee creativity and innovation.

The efficiency programs like Six Sigma are designed to identify problems in work processes.

Once found then a rigorous measurement system is put in to reduce variation and eliminate

defects[11], [80]. If the measurement system is not perfect, it creates a lot of motivation

problem for the employees[81]. When Six Sigma type of initiatives become ingrained in a

company's culture, creativity can easily get squelched. After all, a breakthrough innovation is

something that challenges existing procedures and norms [73], [82].Employees are at the

receiving end while implementing Six Sigma programs because of the structured and

procedural nature of Six Sigma. In addition, Six Sigma is associated with a culture of

command control much like a mechanistic structure within an organization. In other words,

Six Sigma promotes a perceived superiority of technical and rational knowledge over the

interaction of human knowledge[81], [83]–[85]. The mechanistic organization structure is

predisposed to resist organizational change and it will stifle employees creativity and

innovation[86].
Criticism 5: The benefits due to Six Sigma improvement for companies are minimal

with respect to the efforts

The benefits associated with Six Sigma are minimal compared to the efforts and cost

associated with it. Being a statistical and data-driven methodology, the efforts required in the

implementation of Six Sigma is very high in terms of resources and documentation.

Compared to the efforts, the benefits of Six Sigma programs are minimal [26]. A fortune

article is supposed to have stated that of 58 companies that announced Six Sigma

implementation, 91% have trailed S&P 500 since then. Many of the huge success stories of

Six Sigma saving huge money are anecdotal and without evidence [87].There is a need for a

study which will longitudinally monitor the success of Six Sigma for a long period.

Criticism 6: The technical criticisms of Six Sigma like 1.5σ shift needs to be addressed to

instil confidence in Organizations to implement Six Sigma.

The prominent technical criticism of Six Sigma is 1.5σ shift. The argument that argue to

assume the process mean to be 1.5σ shift is ridiculous[88]. If the six-sigma process mean

were centered on the target value, the process would produce defectives at a rate of two parts

per billion. When the process mean shift by 1.5 σ the defective rate would increase to 3.4

ppm defectives. This discussion has a theme that standard deviation can be arbitrarily

modified as per process user’s convenience. In most cases, the standard deviation cannot be

further reduced without capital investment that is also not guaranteed. Six Sigma approach

implies that operator further controls standard deviation. The concept of shift is rejected in

mid- 1980’s[89]. Such technical criticisms of the Six Sigma methodology should be studied

in detail, else many organizations will be discouraged from implementing Six Sigma.

Criticism 7: Implementing a structured improvement method like Six Sigma may

hinder Organization Innovation.


The three components of Six Sigma i.e. Six Sigma role structure, Six Sigma focus on

structured improvement methodology and Six Sigma focus on metrics were studied on

Organizational Innovation. It was shown in the previous study that Six Sigma focuses on

structured improvement methodology was negatively related to Organizational Innovation i.e.

both technical and administrative innovation[2], [29]. For the business to survive in the

modern world, innovation is the key[90], [91]. Some writers claim that six sigma has started

to develop towards a technology based statistical process approach, rather than broad

business improvement approach[77], [92]. To maintain a long-term success organization,

should produce innovative products and services[93]. However, the structured improvement

methodology of Six Sigma may hinder the organizations for innovations(Inman, Buell, &

Inman, 2003; Sony & Naik, 2012).

Criticism 8: Variance reduction should not be the only goal of Six Sigma

implementation.

Six Sigma is a powerful philosophy, strategy, and methodology for understanding,

quantifying and reducing variation in all business processes[96], [97]. Many companies

around the world have built entire cultures upon this foundational concept[98]. However,

variation reduction is not the only evil the organizations have to deal with. A flourishing

organization must grow; hence, the focus should be on growth and speed of growth[99],

[100]. The companies which have stopped growing has hit the wall[100]. There have many

stories of successful companies which have suddenly stopped growing[101]. Hence, in

addition to variance reduction, the companies should also pursue other goals for its success in

the long run like growth and speed of growth.

Criticism 9: Six Sigma bend towards Correction System


There has been some mention of Six Sigma bending towards a correctional system

philosophy. In other words, it a system which is bending towards correcting a system, rather,

than preventive or proactive approach towards quality improvement[88], [95]. This criticism

may have arisen due to the manner in which organizations have implemented Six Sigma as a

philosophy, rather the Six Sigma as a problem-solving methodology itself. Training &

Education are essential components of Six Sigma implementation[23]. Organizations should

use Six Sigma as a philosophy for prevention of errors and defects in a proactive manner

rather than corrective manner.

Criticism 10: What is new in Six Sigma?

There is nothing new about Six Sigma, it is the same old quality improvement tools

rebranded in a new methodology. In order to successfully implement Six Sigma, an expert

requires in-depth knowledge of tools and techniques of Six Sigma, inferential and descriptive

statistics, capability to convince and manage people[31], [102], project management

skills[12] , visionary leadership and uncompromising commitment from senior management

team ([22], [103], [104] and organisational infrastructure (i.e., Belt system)[9]. The authors

argue that Six Sigma places a clear focus on measurable bottom-line results which makes it

unique from other initiatives we have witnessed in the past. Moreover, Six Sigma

methodology integrates the tools and techniques in a cookbook fashion within the problem-

solving methodology.

Criticism 11: Non-Standardisation of Curriculum

Training is the key to the implementation of Six Sigma within an organisation[23].However

non-standardisation of curriculum of Six Sigma training for the Yellow Belts, Green Belts

and Black Belts training has been a constant problem. The skills of different belt system have

been used in the industry without any knowledge indiscriminately, without an understanding
of the skills and responsibilities, as the training and requirements are mostly tailored to

different industries and/or companies[105]. An education system which is non-standardised

creates a lot of different learning pattern which may be detrimental to the implementation of

Six Sigma. Different countries follow different standards for training and this will lead to

greater confusion among the practitioners while implementing Six Sigma. Another cause of

concern is that there is no standardisation of certification criteria for different belts is another

major issue. Such a controversy causes a total havoc while implementing Six Sigma.

Although ISO 13053 was developed in 2011[106], not all organizations are implementing

this education system around the world like ISO 9001:2015 standard. The differences were

huge between the requirements of ISO 13053 and the actual practices followed by a sample

of 107 European large companies when implementing Six Sigma[107].

Criticism 12: Other Limitations of Six Sigma

There are other criticisms of Six Sigma as regards to the challenges it will face due to the Big

data revolution. However, the big data has to be used in the right way if we have to make a

meaningful analysis through Six Sigma[108]. The environmental aspects are neglected in Six

Sigma implementation. Most of the companies does not take into account green concepts

while implementing Six Sigma[109]. In the wake of a new revolution of Industry 4.0, the

integration mechanism with Six Sigma will possess a great challenge[110].The success of

Six Sigma in SME’s industries are well documented[111], however, there is hardly a study

of Six Sigma in micro-enterprises.

V. Discussion & Future Research Directions

Six Sigma is possibly one of the most widely used quality improvement methodologies of the

last three decades. Along with success stories of implementation of Six Sigma in various

sectors today, there are also criticisms of Six Sigma Methodology. In order to understand the
concept of Six Sigma, the criticisms have to be also considered. This study through

systematic literature review analysis and compiles the literature criticising Six Sigma. Below,

discussion on the criticisms and the corresponding future research directions are given.

Research direction 1: High failure rate

Previous literatures have suggested that the failure rate of Six Sigma implementation is very

high. The average failure rate of Six Sigma literature is around 60-70% [25], [29], [59].

Future research should explore the high failure rate of Six Sigma implementation across

different industries. The failure rates may also be classified between manufacturing and

service industries and across different countries. In order to ascertain the reasons for the

failure rate a qualitative or multiple case study research may be conducted. The authors argue

that failure rate of Six Sigma programs at the project level as well as firm level should be

studied and analysed separately. Perhaps the development of a framework in reducing

failures of Six Sigma initiatives could be extremely invaluable for many senior managers in

organisations at a global level.

Research direction 2: High initial cost

The second criticism of Six Sigma revolves around the initial cost of implementation of Six

Sigma[48]. The cost of manpower, training, and education of employees, allocating resources

to the execution of projects, etc adds to a huge additional investment for the organizations.

Future research may look at the cost of implementation of Six Sigma in terms of fixed cost

and variable costs for the different type of organizations ranging from manufacturing, service

to even public sector organisations and small and medium-sized enterprises. Some

mechanisms for reducing high start-up cost may be also researched so that small and medium

scale industries may be assisted.

Research direction 3: Reduced customer satisfaction


Implementing Six Sigma has resulted in reduced customer satisfaction due to the lack of

innovative products and services. Customers are satisfied with the organizations if there are

innovative products and services from the organization at competitive pricing strategies.

Efficiency-driven organizations may result in producing products or services which may not

be useful for the customers. Researchers may look at how to develop innovative products or

services using structured improvement methods like Six Sigma[29], [60].

Research direction 4: Reduced employee motivation for creativity and innovation

It is often mentioned that the typical mechanistic organization structure for Six Sigma

implementation may stifle employee motivation for creativity and innovation. This is

definitely a future research topic for Six Sigma promotion in the right direction. Building a

new culture for quality management including Six Sigma is important in the era of the fourth

Industrial Revolution (Park et. al, 2017). Some strategies to motivate employees for creativity

and innovation should be studied and the role of leadership in creating an environment for

fostering innovation should also be further explored. An innovative feature like the marriage

of Six Sigma with TRIZ[112], [113], may be considered for promoting innovation using Six

Sigma. Six Sigma may be implemented with other creativity inculcating techniques within

organizations. The impact of Six Sigma on the satisfaction of employees is documented in

literature[2], [26], [29]. The structured improvement process sometimes inhibits the creative

temperament of employees because it instils a culture of command and control. Researchers

may explore the relationship between Six Sigma and creativity. Though there are some

studies on creativity and Six Sigma [95], however, there are only a few qualitative and

empirical studies which are conducted to clarify the relationship between these two important

variables e.g. [114]. Future research in different context, different industry setting will help in

understanding this relationship.


Research direction 5: Six Sigma improvement benefits

Another criticism of Six Sigma is that the benefits derived out of Six Sigma is minimal[26].

Implementing Six Sigma within a company requires some time, effort and cost[115].There

are frustrations that benefits given by data are expensive and small part is implemented in the

end[32]. Initial results of Six Sigma are attractive, however, in the long run many

organizations fail to sustain the Six Sigma results and benefits in the long run[116].

Therefore, in the long run when the benefits of Six Sigma, are compared with the efforts

required to implement and sustain Six Sigma, the results are inconclusive[14], [61], [116].

Future research should explore in a different context and setting, the long run benefits of Six

Sigma implementation. Also, case studies research may be carried out in different sectors, to

conduct the cost-benefit analysis using longitudinal data for a long period e.g. ten years. This

will help in analysing the sustainability of the benefits of Six Sigma in the long run. The case

study is a preferred method, as it will help to capture a large number of variables of Six

Sigma implementation and the corresponding improvement benefits.

Research direction 6: Technical criticism of Six Sigma on 1.5σ shift.

The prominent technical criticism of Six Sigma is the controversy around the 1.5σ shift[88].It

is reported that Motorola without formal empirical verification has devolved the concept of

1.5σ. and the shift in process mean will also have implications for the distribution of process

outcomes. Therefore, one should also question the assumption that the entire process

distribution shifts by 1.5σ [117]. This particular issue 1.5σ should be the major thrust for

future research, as a small shift in sigma could lead to erroneous defect calculations[32]. The

followers of Deming have rejected Six Sigma on the grounds that Six Sigma 3.4 ppm is a

numerical goal and the 1.5 σ shift is arbitrary[118], [119]. Such controversies need to be

addressed by the researchers as it will help many organizations while implementing Six
Sigma. Research should be conducted in this area to find the veracity of 1.5σ claims. Also,

guidelines may be offered with regard to the nature of shifts for different types of processes.

Research direction 7: Six Sigma and Organization Innovation

A recent study in China empirically finds that Six Sigma management, infrastructure, and

core practices have a positive relationship with product, process, and administrative

innovation[120]. However, numerous case studies at various organization also show a

negative impact on Organizational innovation[29]. DMAIC for example, and employs

rigorous, analytical methods, it leads to people blindly following a rigid process, and turning

off their brains[73], however, such an argument can come from people who have never

implemented Six Sigma. Creativity is an integral part of the DMAIC process. However, it is

not the best method for identifying opportunities for disruptive innovation which is critically

needed for businesses to succeed in the long‐term[95].Six Sigma due to its structured

improvement methodology may have a negative impact on the organizational innovation[2].

In view of these academic debates, it is important that future research should be conducted in

various sectors to ascertain the nature of the relationship between the Six Sigma and

Organization Innovation.

Research direction 8: Significance of variation reduction

Organizations to be competitive in the modern market should keep growing and the

companies which have stopped growing has hit the wall. The organizational growth is not

due to one factor[100]. There have many stories of successful companies which have

suddenly stopped growing[121], [122] leading to negative firm performance. Therefore,

continuous involvement in variation reduction should not be the only motto of Six Sigma,

other organizational benefits like growth opportunities etc should be considered in tandem.

One size of variation reduction does not fit all parts of the organization. In a manufacturing
such kind of rigor may be required, however, when it comes to research or design

department, variation may not be the only thing to look to. Hence, customization of Six

Sigma may be topologized among different elements in an organization. Thus, future

research should identify various factors like growth strategy, innovation strategy[123],

product expansion[124], market penetration[125], diversification etc which should be

considered in tandem with variation reduction so that Six Sigma can be implemented

effectively.

Research direction 9: Six Sigma as a prevention or proactive methodology

The proactive or preventive aspects should be considered while implementing Six Sigma[88].

Many organizations are concentrating only on the correctional system while implementing

Six Sigma[115] and hence it will not be beneficial for the organization to sustain the results

in the long run. Proactive or preventive and correctional system will help the organizations to

sustain the best practices for a long-term organizational growth[126]. Therefore, the future

research should concentrate on how to integrate preventive or proactive systems in equal

proportions while implementing Six Sigma.

Research direction 10: What’s new in Six Sigma?

Six Sigma as a methodology is questioned for its uniqueness compared to other quality

improvement initiatives like TQM etc. Many argue that the tools and techniques are of

previous quality management systems given a new name[31], [102]. Though previous

research has delineated about the uniqueness of Six Sigma compared to other initiatives[9],

[21], [22], [98], there exist still misperceptions about its uniqueness. Future research should

study why Six Sigma is seen as a similar initiative when compared to its predecessors. The

perception – expectation gap formations of the stakeholders will be interesting to explore so

as to understand the mechanisms for perceiving a new improvement initiative.


Research direction 11: Standardisations of Six Sigma Education

Non-Standardisation of Six Sigma education has been a huge problem[105]. Though ISO

13053 has been developed its status of implementation throughout the world is a matter of

great importance and study[107]. Future research may study the status of its implementation

in various countries. In addition, the extent of implementation of this standard will moderate

the relationship between Six Sigma and Organizational performance e.g. firm performance.

Therefore, future research should be conducted in this area. The qualitative study on how

organizations perceive this standard will also be an important area for research. Similarly,

barriers or implications for standardising Six Sigma education will also be an important area

to explore.

Research direction 12: Six Sigma and Big data

Big data are large data sets where in the traditional data processing are in adequate to deal

with [127]. The challenge of Big data sets includes capturing data, storing data, analysing

data, searching data ,sharing data, transferring the data, visualizing the data etc[128]. Big data

offers huge opportunities that can unlock infinite efficiencies and savings when it is used in

the right way[108]. Most of the observation data are passive and observational, thus needs to

utilise with care and caution for improvement initiatives. Therefore, future research in Six

Sigma should explore this area further to develop tools for conceptualisation & visualisation

of big data. In addition, a step by step methodological analysis plan will help so that big data

issues can be addressed.

Research Direction 13: Six Sigma and Green

The integration of Green and Six Sigma has been conceptualised in the literature. Green Six

Sigma is the assessment of direct and eventual environmental effects of all processes and

products of an organization[109]. The environmental concerns have made organizations to


develop cleaner manufacturing processes and services as well as designing recyclable

products. Green is an initiative that tends to reduce the negative environmental impact of

production and consumption of products and services through utilisation of methods which

helps in improving the environmental footprint of the organization[129], [130]. Integrating

the concepts of Green and Six Sigma would be beneficial to further improve and sustain the

environmental foot print of the Organisation. The future researchers may develop integration

frameworks for Green- Six Sigma for products and services. The implementation model also

should be developed for Green Six Sigma, so it will be guide to the practitioners in terms of

any precedence relationship to be followed so that Green Six Sigma can be implemented

successfully.

Research Direction 14: Six Sigma and Industry 4.0

Industry 4.0 merge the real and virtual worlds into an Internet of Things (IOT) in order to

exploit the full potential of the synergy between the information and communications

technology (ICT) sector and the production sector[110], [131]. The Cyber-Physical-Systems

(CPS) will be the platform for achieving it. This will comprise not only the objects, devices

and facilities, but also production plants and logistics components with systems which are

called sensors and actuators will be able to communicate with each other and utilise services

provided via the internet[132]. Smart manufacturing calls for the integration of IOT with CPS

for creating cyber-physical-production-systems (CPPS’s)[133]. This will generate a high

volume of data and Six Sigma can make use of it. In addition, the DMIAC model of Six

Sigma will be enhanced with capability modelling and thus, Six Sigma can be used as the

guideline for capability modelling [110]. The future processes will become smarter by

embedding various technologies and the flood of data will have to be incorporated into Six

Sigma. The predictive and self – learning measures of modern machines, smart materials, and
objects will also need new analytical tools, which may be used in tandem with existing Six

Sigma tools and future research may explore these areas.

Research direction 15: Six Sigma and Public Sector Organisations

The public sector in most of the countries provides a wide variety of services. These services

are used by a large number of customers. There are many unique characteristics of public

service like public accountability, multiple objectives, lack of equity ownership, Governance

structures etc[134].However, there are very few studies done on the implementation of Six

Sigma in public services. An important question to address in a public service would be how

public sector should work together to maximize benefits, reduce duplication, and deliver a

customer-focused and integrated service[40]. Therefore, the impact of Six Sigma on local

councils, higher education, ambulance and fire services, police forces, municipalities etc

should be further researched for its suitability in the long run. The critical success factors for

implementing Six Sigma in public services will have to be re-examined in two different

setting i.e. developing and developed countries. The implementation model is an important

research because public services cannot afford to pay huge consultant fees. Therefore, a

research which depicts a step by step implementation model will have a deep impact on its

implementation in public utilities.

Research direction 16: Six Sigma and micro enterprises

The microenterprises play a major role in the development of a developing country[135].

Micro-enterprises are defined as those with fewer than ten employees. In a developing

country this can account for fifty percent of new job opportunities. A study in a developing

country states that three out of five business of micro nature fails. There are many reasons for

its failure, some of the main reasons are the ability to provide quality product or service,

unable to handle more than one critical project, low levels of productivity, poor quality
products, serving small localised markets etc [136], [137]. Six Sigma can be an important

methodology for the micro-enterprises and it changes the way they do business. However, the

initial cost of Six Sigma implementation is high. Future research may be directed on how to

implement Six Sigma in micro-enterprises. Such a research direction will create a huge

impact on the lives of new and existing micro-entrepreneurs.

VI. Conclusion, limitations and agenda for future research

Six Sigma is one of the most popular process excellence methodologies used in the

organizations today. Many organizations have benefitted from the implementation of Six

Sigma. Despite its success, Six Sigma is also criticised by many academicians and

practitioners. It is important to collate and analyse these criticisms for enlarging the body of

knowledge on Six Sigma. This study through a systematic literature review method analysed

the criticism of Six Sigma in detail through a thematic analysis. Twelve predominant

criticisms in the literature have been analysed and sixteen research directions are given to

help the future researchers. The systematic literature review gives an overview and critique of

the field of Six Sigma. The review is limited by the databases accessed, the search criteria’s,

method of searching, inclusion and exclusion criteria and the time constraints. Due to Big

data revolution and Industries 4.0 integration with Six Sigma, the horizons of Six Sigma are

expanding. Hence, it is pertinent that given our findings the future research in Six Sigma

should focus on the sixteen research directions elucidated in the paper. Each of the directions

will help to repudiate the criticisms of Six Sigma in the long run.

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous referees for the constructive comments, which have improved the

paper.

References
[1] F. T. Anbari, “Innovation, project management, and Six Sigma method,” in Current
topics in Management, Routledge, 2018, pp. 111–126.
[2] M. Sony and S. Naik, “Six Sigma, organizational learning and innovation: An
integration and empirical examination,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., vol. 29, no. 8,
pp. 915–936, 2012.
[3] M. Sony and S. Naik, “Successful implementation of Six Sigma in services: an
exploratory research in India Inc.,” Int. J. Bus. Excell., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 399–419,
2011.
[4] D. Power, T. Schoenherr, and D. Samson, “Assessing the effectiveness of quality
management in a global context,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 307–
322, 2011.
[5] J. Folaron, “The evolution of six sigma,” 2003.
[6] G. J. Hahn, N. Doganaksoy, and R. Hoerl, “The evolution of six sigma,” Qual. Eng.,
vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 317–326, 2000.
[7] M. P. J. Pepper and T. A. Spedding, “The evolution of lean Six Sigma,” Int. J. Qual.
Reliab. Manag., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 138–155, 2010.
[8] X. Zu, L. D. Fredendall, and T. J. Douglas, “The evolving theory of quality
management: the role of Six Sigma,” J. Oper. Manag., vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 630–650,
2008.
[9] R. G. Schroeder, K. Linderman, C. Liedtke, and A. S. Choo, “Six Sigma: Definition
and underlying theory,” J. Oper. Manag., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 536–554, 2008.
[10] S. Barone and E. Lo Franco, “Six Sigma methodology,” Stat. Manag. Tech. Six Sigma
Methodol. Theory Appl., pp. 1–21, 2012.
[11] B. Klefsjö, H. Wiklund, and R. L. Edgeman, “Six sigma seen as a methodology for
total quality management,” Meas. Bus. Excell., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 31–35, 2001.
[12] J. Antony and R. Banuelas, “Key ingredients for the effective implementation of Six
Sigma program,” Meas. Bus. Excell., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 20–27, 2002.
[13] F. W. Breyfogle III, Implementing six sigma: smarter solutions using statistical
methods. John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
[14] S. S. Chakravorty, “Six Sigma programs: An implementation model,” Int. J. Prod.
Econ., vol. 119, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2009.
[15] J. Antony, M. Kumar, and C. N. Madu, “Six sigma in small-and medium-sized UK
manufacturing enterprises: Some empirical observations,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab.
Manag., vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 860–874, 2005.
[16] J. Antony and D. A. Desai, “Assessing the status of Six Sigma implementation in the
Indian industry: results from an exploratory empirical study,” Manag. Res. News, vol.
32, no. 5, pp. 413–423, 2009.
[17] G. J. Hahn, W. J. Hill, R. W. Hoerl, and S. A. Zinkgraf, “The impact of Six Sigma
improvement—a glimpse into the future of statistics,” Am. Stat., vol. 53, no. 3, pp.
208–215, 1999.
[18] T. N. Goh, P. C. Low, K. L. Tsui, and M. Xie, “Impact of Six Sigma implementation
on stock price performance,” Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell., vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 753–
763, 2003.
[19] J. Antony, F. Jiju Antony, M. Kumar, and B. Rae Cho, “Six sigma in service
organisations: Benefits, challenges and difficulties, common myths, empirical
observations and success factors,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 294–
311, 2007.
[20] S. Syltevik, S. Karamperidis, J. Antony, and B. Taheri, “Lean for airport services: a
systematic literature review and agenda for future research,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab.
Manag., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 34–49, 2018.
[21] J. Antony, “Six Sigma in the UK service organisations: results from a pilot survey,”
Manag. Audit. J., vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 1006–1013, 2004.
[22] A. R. Jesus, J. Antony, H. A. Lepikson, and A. L. A. Peixoto, “Six Sigma critical
success factors in Brazilian industry,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., vol. 33, no. 6, pp.
702–723, 2016.
[23] R. B. Coronado and J. Antony, “Critical success factors for the successful
implementation of six sigma projects in organisations,” TQM Mag., vol. 14, no. 2, pp.
92–99, 2002.
[24] R. Banuelas Coronado and J. Antony, “Critical success factors for the successful
implementation of six sigma projects in organisations,” TQM Mag., vol. 14, no. 2, pp.
92–99, 2002.
[25] S. Albliwi, J. Antony, S. Abdul Halim Lim, and T. van der Wiele, “Critical failure
factors of Lean Six Sigma: a systematic literature review,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag.
Vol., vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1012–1030, 2014.
[26] S. S. Chakravorty, “Six Sigma failures: An escalation model,” Oper. Manag. Res., vol.
2, no. 1–4, p. 44, 2009.
[27] D. P. Rowbottom, “Kuhn vs. Popper on criticism and dogmatism in science: a
resolution at the group level,” Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part A, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 117–
124, 2011.
[28] A. Musgrave, Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Volume 4: Proceedings of the
International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, vol. 4.
Cambridge University Press, 1970.
[29] C. Del Angel and C. Pritchard, “Six Sigma: What Went Wrong?,” Pap. 360, p. 30,
2008.
[30] J. Goodman and J. Theuerkauf, “What’s wrong with six sigma?,” Qual. Prog., vol. 38,
no. 1, p. 37, 2005.
[31] S. Bisgaard and J. De Mast, “After Six Sigma-What’s Next?,” Qual. Prog., vol. 39, no.
1, p. 30, 2006.
[32] J. Antony, “Some pros and cons of six sigma: an academic perspective,” TQM Mag.,
vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 303–306, 2004.
[33] Y. H. Kwak and F. T. Anbari, “Benefits, obstacles, and future of six sigma approach,”
Technovation, vol. 26, no. 5–6, pp. 708–715, 2006.
[34] J. Antony and R. B. Coronado, “A strategy for survival,” Manuf. Eng., vol. 80, no. 3,
pp. 119–121, 2001.
[35] M. Kumar, J. Antony, and A. Douglas, “Does size matter for Six Sigma
implementation? Findings from the survey in UK SMEs,” TQM J., vol. 21, no. 6, pp.
623–635, 2009.
[36] J. Antony, M. Kumar, and A. Labib, “Gearing Six Sigma into UK manufacturing
SMEs: results from a pilot study,” J. Oper. Res. Soc., vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 482–493,
2008.
[37] J. Antony and J. Antony, “Lean Six Sigma for higher education,” Int. J. Product.
Perform. Manag., vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 574–576, 2017.
[38] J. Antony, N. Krishan, D. Cullen, and M. Kumar, “Lean Six Sigma for higher
education institutions (HEIs) Challenges, barriers, success factors, tools/techniques,”
Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag., vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 940–948, 2012.
[39] J. Antony, “Readiness factors for the Lean Six Sigma journey in the higher education
sector,” Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag., vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 257–264, 2014.
[40] J. Antony, B. Rodgers, and E. A. Cudney, “Lean Six Sigma for Public Sector
Organisations: is it a myth or reality?,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., no. just-accepted,
p. 0, 2017.
[41] T. Taner and J. Antony, “Comparing public and private hospital care service quality in
Turkey,” Leadersh. Heal. Serv., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1–10, 2006.
[42] J. Antony, K. Downey-Ennis, F. Antony, and C. Seow, “Can Six Sigma be the ‘cure’
for our ‘ailing’ NHS?,” Leadersh. Heal. Serv., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 242–253, 2007.
[43] D. P. Mader, “Design for six sigma,” Qual. Prog., vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 82–86, 2002.
[44] J. Antony and R. B. Coronado, “Design for six sigma,” Manuf. Eng., vol. 81, no. 1, pp.
24–26, 2002.
[45] M. Kumar, J. Antony, C. N. Madu, D. C. Montgomery, and S. H. Park, “Common
myths of Six Sigma demystified,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 878–
895, 2008.
[46] J. P. Zimmerman and J. Weiss, “Six Sigma’s seven deadly sins,” Quality, vol. 44, no.
1, p. 62, 2005.
[47] F. Mullavey, “Shackled by Bad Six Sigma?: Here are the top 10 reasons why Six
Sigma implementations fail,” Qual. Dig., vol. 25, no. 9, p. 29, 2005.
[48] M. Berg, “Six sigma shortcomings,” Ind. Eng., vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 10–11, 2006.
[49] B. Hindo, “3M’s innovation crisis: How Six Sigma almost smothered its idea culture,”
Bus. Week, pp. 8–14, 2007.
[50] B. Hindo and B. Grow, “Six sigma: So yesterday,” Bus. Week, vol. 4038, pp. 11–12,
2007.
[51] D. Tranfield, D. Denyer, and P. Smart, “Towards a methodology for developing
evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review,” Br. J.
Manag., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 207–222, 2003.
[52] S. Scott‐Findlay and C. A. Estabrooks, “Mapping the organizational culture research in
nursing: a literature review,” J. Adv. Nurs., vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 498–513, 2006.
[53] U. Flick, Introducing research methodology: A beginner’s guide to doing a research
project. Sage, 2015.
[54] J. Popay et al., “Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews,”
A Prod. from ESRC methods Program. Version, vol. 1, p. b92, 2006.
[55] V. S. Conn, S. Isaramalai, S. Rath, P. Jantarakupt, R. Wadhawan, and Y. Dash,
“Beyond MEDLINE for literature searches,” J. Nurs. Scholarsh., vol. 35, no. 2, pp.
177–182, 2003.
[56] K. B. Smith, J. Profetto-McGrath, and G. G. Cummings, “Emotional intelligence and
nursing: An integrative literature review,” Int. J. Nurs. Stud., vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 1624–
1636, 2009.
[57] R. Whittemore, “Combining evidence in nursing research: methods and implications,”
Nurs. Res., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 56–62, 2005.
[58] L. A. Burke and H. M. Hutchins, “Training transfer: An integrative literature review,”
Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 263–296, 2007.
[59] J. M. Glasgow, J. R. Scott-Caziewell, and P. J. Kaboli, “Guiding inpatient quality
improvement: a systematic review of Lean and Six Sigma,” Jt. Comm. J. Qual. patient
Saf., vol. 36, no. 12, pp. AP1-AP5, 2010.
[60] S. S. Chakravorty, “Where process-improvement projects go wrong,” World Str. J.
(January 2010), 2005.
[61] S. S. Chakravorty, “Where process-improvement projects go wrong,” World Str. J.
(January 2010) Google Sch., 2010.
[62] Q. Feng and C. M. Manuel, “Under the knife: a national survey of six sigma programs
in US healthcare organizations,” Int. J. Health Care Qual. Assur., vol. 21, no. 6, pp.
535–547, 2008.
[63] K. Moosa and A. Sajid, “Critical analysis of Six Sigma implementation,” Total Qual.
Manag., vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 745–759, 2010.
[64] C. Wasage, “Implementation of Six Sigma Projects in Fortune 500 Companies,” J.
Mod. Account. Audit., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 208–216, 2016.
[65] X. Zu, T. L. Robbins, and L. D. Fredendall, “Mapping the critical links between
organizational culture and TQM/Six Sigma practices,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 123,
no. 1, pp. 86–106, 2010.
[66] A. Brun, “Critical success factors of Six Sigma implementations in Italian companies,”
Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 131, no. 1, pp. 158–164, 2011.
[67] I. Alhuraish, C. Robledo, and A. Kobi, “A comparative exploration of lean
manufacturing and six sigma in terms of their critical success factors,” J. Clean. Prod.,
vol. 164, pp. 325–337, 2017.
[68] M. Hughes, “Do 70 per cent of all organizational change initiatives really fail?,” J.
Chang. Manag., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 451–464, 2011.
[69] M. Beer and N. Nohria, “Cracking the code of change,” HBR’s 10 must reads Chang.,
vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 133–141, 2000.
[70] N. V Fursule, S. V Bansod, and S. N. Fursule, “Understanding the benefits and
limitations of Six Sigma methodology,” Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–9,
2012.
[71] J. Antony, “Six sigma for service processes,” Bus. Process Manag. J., vol. 12, no. 2,
pp. 234–248, 2006.
[72] M. Abdolshah, R. M. Yusuff, M. Y. B. Ismail, and T. S. Hong, “Overcoming the
challenges of implementating Six Sigma in service industries,” in 2009 International
Conference on Information Management and Engineering, 2009, pp. 191–195.
[73] B. Hindo, “At 3M, a struggle between efficiency and creativity,” Bus. Week, vol. 11,
no. 11, pp. 8–14, 2007.
[74] P. Dekoulou and P. Trivellas, “Organizational structure, innovation performance and
customer relationship value in the Greek advertising and media industry,” J. Bus. Ind.
Mark., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 385–397, 2017.
[75] R. Maria Stock, A. de Jong, and N. A. Zacharias, “Frontline employees’ innovative
service behavior as key to customer loyalty: Insights into FLEs’ resource gain spiral,”
J. Prod. Innov. Manag., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 223–245, 2017.
[76] T. Peters, “Get Innovative or Get Dead.,” Calif. Manage. Rev., vol. 33, no. 1, 1990.
[77] G. Fortenot, R. Behara, and A. Gresham, “Six sigma in customer satisfaction,” Qual.
Prog., vol. 27, no. 12, p. 73, 1994.
[78] R. S. Behara, G. F. Fontenot, and A. Gresham, “Customer satisfaction measurement
and analysis using Six Sigma,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 9–18,
1995.
[79] D. C. Montgomery, “Does six sigma stifle innovation?,” Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int., vol.
24, no. 3, p. 249, 2008.
[80] M. J. Harry, “Six Sigma: a breakthrough strategy for profitability,” Qual. Prog., vol.
31, no. 5, p. 60, 1998.
[81] R. McAdam and B. Lafferty, “A multilevel case study critique of six sigma: statistical
control or strategic change?,” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 530–549,
2004.
[82] L. Y. Fok, S. J. Hartman, A. L. Patti, and J. R. Razek, “Human factors affecting the
acceptance of total quality management,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., vol. 17, no. 7,
pp. 714–729, 2000.
[83] M. Alvesson and H. Willmott, Making sense of management: A critical introduction.
Sage, 2012.
[84] B. Nakhai and J. S. Neves, “The challenges of six sigma in improving service quality,”
Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 663–684, 2009.
[85] J. Kokkranikal, J. Antony, H. Kosgi, and E. Losekoot, “Barriers and challenges in the
application of Six Sigma in the hospitality industry: Some observations and findings,”
Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 317–322, 2013.
[86] J. L. Pierce and A. L. Delbecq, “Organization structure, individual attitudes and
innovation,” Acad. Manag. Rev., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 27–37, 1977.
[87] A. Asefeso, Lean Six Sigma: Cost Reduction Strategies, 2nd ed. South Carolina:
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; Second Edition edition (June 3, 2014),
2014.
[88] J. S. Ramberg, “Six sigma: Fad or fundamental,” Qual. Dig., vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 30–31,
2000.
[89] L. W. Flott, “Six-sigma controversy,” Met. Finish., vol. 98, no. 12, pp. 43–48, 2000.
[90] M. E. Ginn, “Creativity management: Systems and Contingencies from a literature
review,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., no. 2, pp. 96–101, 1986.
[91] J. Park, J.-N. Lee, O.-K. D. Lee, and Y. Koo, “Alignment between internal and
external IT governance and its effects on distinctive firm performance: An extended
resource-based view,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 351–364, 2017.
[92] H. Wiklund and P. S. Wiklund, “Widening the Six Sigma concept: An approach to
improve organizational learning,” Total Qual. Manag., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 233–239,
2002.
[93] F. Schiavone, “Vintage Innovation: How to Improve the Service Characteristics and
Costumer Effectiveness of Products Becoming Obsolete,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.,
vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 227–237, 2013.
[94] D. F. Inman, R. Buell, and R. A. Inman, “Six Sigma and innovation,” J. Manag. Inf.
Decis. Sci., vol. 6, no. 1–2, p. 107, 2003.
[95] R. W. Hoerl and M. M. Gardner, “Lean Six Sigma, creativity, and innovation,” Int. J.
Lean Six Sigma, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 30–38, 2010.
[96] P. S. Pande, R. P. Neuman, and R. R. Cavanagh, The six sigma way: How GE,
Motorola, and other top companies are honing their performance. McGraw-Hill (New
York), 2000.
[97] R. N. Natarajan and J. Morse, “Six Sigma in services–challenges and opportunities,”
Int. J. Product. Qual. Manag., vol. 4, no. 5–6, pp. 658–675, 2009.
[98] N. Ranjan Senapati, “Six Sigma: myths and realities,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag.,
vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 683–690, 2004.
[99] D. A. Whetten, “Organizational growth and decline processes,” Annu. Rev. Sociol.,
vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 335–358, 1987.
[100] N. P. Mouzelis, Organizational pathology: Life and death of organizations. Routledge,
2017.
[101] R. Ashkenas, “Why Successful Companies Stop Growing,” Harvard business review,
2013. [Online]. Available: https://hbr.org/2013/06/why-successful-companies-
stop.html.
[102] E. V Gijo and T. S. Rao, “Six Sigma implementation–hurdles and more hurdles,” Total
Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell., vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 721–725, 2005.
[103] G. Byrne, “Ensuring optimal success with Six Sigma implementations,” J. Organ.
Excell., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 43–50, 2003.
[104] J. Antony, “Six Sigma vs Lean: Some perspectives from leading academics and
practitioners,” Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 185–190, 2011.
[105] A. Laureani and J. Antony, “Standards for lean six sigma certification,” Int. J. Product.
Perform. Manag., vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 110–120, 2011.
[106] V. Ismyrlis and O. Moschidis, “Six Sigma’s critical success factors and toolbox,” Int.
J. Lean Six Sigma, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 108–117, 2013.
[107] A. Chiarini, “A comparison between companies’ implementation of Six Sigma and
ISO 13053 requirements: a first investigation from Europe,” Int. J. Process Manag.
Benchmarking, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 154–172, 2013.
[108] J. Antony, R. Snee, and R. Hoerl, “Lean Six Sigma: yesterday, today and tomorrow,”
Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1073–1093, 2017.
[109] K. Muralidharan, “Green Six Sigma,” in Six Sigma for Organizational Excellence,
Springer, 2015, pp. 549–557.
[110] A. Basios and P. Loucopoulos, “Six Sigma DMAIC Enhanced with Capability
Modelling,” in Business Informatics (CBI), 2017 IEEE 19th Conference on, 2017, vol.
2, pp. 55–62.
[111] S. V Deshmukh and A. Chavan, “Six Sigma and SMEs: a critical review of literature,”
Int. J. Lean Six Sigma, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 157–167, 2012.
[112] M. Sony and V. Mariappan, “Inventive Qualitative Methodology in Services: Six
Sigma with Triz,” Rev. Prof. Manag., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 79–85, 2010.
[113] X. Zhao, “Integrated TRIZ and six sigma theories for service/process innovation,” in
Services Systems and Services Management, 2005. Proceedings of ICSSSM’05. 2005
International Conference on, 2005, vol. 1, pp. 529–532.
[114] J. Antony, D. Setijono, and J. J. Dahlgaard, “Lean Six Sigma and Innovation–an
exploratory study among UK organisations,” Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell., vol. 27,
no. 1–2, pp. 124–140, 2016.
[115] M. S. Raisinghani, H. Ette, R. Pierce, G. Cannon, and P. Daripaly, “Six Sigma:
concepts, tools, and applications,” Ind. Manag. Data Syst., vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 491–
505, 2005.
[116] M. Gamal Aboelmaged, “Reconstructing Six Sigma barriers in manufacturing and
service organizations: The effects of organizational parameters,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab.
Manag., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 519–541, 2011.
[117] S. de Treville, N. M. Edelson, A. N. Kharkar, and B. Avanzi, “Constructing useful
theory: The case of Six Sigma,” Oper. Manag. Res., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 15–23, 2008.
[118] W. E. Deming, Out of the Crisis. MIT press, 2000.
[119] D. C. Montgomery and W. H. Woodall, “An overview of six sigma,” Int. Stat. Rev.,
vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 329–346, 2008.
[120] Z. He, Y. Deng, M. Zhang, X. Zu, and J. Antony, “An empirical investigation of the
relationship between Six Sigma practices and organisational innovation,” Total Qual.
Manag. Bus. Excell., vol. 28, no. 5–6, pp. 459–480, 2017.
[121] R. Ashkenas, “It’s time to rethink continuous improvement,” HBR blog, 2012.
[122] R. Ashkenas, “Why Continuous Improvement May Need To Be Discontinued,” forbes,
2013.
[123] R. Adner, “Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem,” Harv. Bus.
Rev., vol. 84, no. 4, p. 98, 2006.
[124] Y. Mishina, T. G. Pollock, and J. F. Porac, “Are more resources always better for
growth? Resource stickiness in market and product expansion,” Strateg. Manag. J.,
vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 1179–1197, 2004.
[125] S. H. Hanks, C. J. Watson, E. Jansen, and G. N. Chandler, “Tightening the life-cycle
construct: A taxonomic study of growth stage configurations in high-technology
organizations,” Entrep. theory Pract., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 5–29, 1994.
[126] M. Faizan, M. N. A. Khan, and S. Ulhaq, “Contemporary trends in defect prevention:
A survey report,” Int. J. Mod. Educ. Comput. Sci., vol. 4, no. 3, p. 14, 2012.
[127] S. Kaisler, F. Armour, J. A. Espinosa, and W. Money, “Big data: Issues and challenges
moving forward,” in System sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii international
conference on, 2013, pp. 995–1004.
[128] S. Sagiroglu and D. Sinanc, “Big data: A review,” in Collaboration Technologies and
Systems (CTS), 2013 International Conference on, 2013, pp. 42–47.
[129] A. Galeazzo, A. Furlan, and A. Vinelli, “Lean and green in action: interdependencies
and performance of pollution prevention projects,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 85, pp. 191–
200, 2014.
[130] J. A. Garza-Reyes, “Green lean and the need for Six Sigma,” Int. J. Lean Six Sigma,
vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 226–248, 2015.
[131] M. Sony, “Industry 4.0 and lean management: a proposed integration model and
research propositions,” Prod. Manuf. Res., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 416–432, 2018.
[132] S. Meyer, A. Ruppen, and C. Magerkurth, “Internet of things-aware process modeling:
integrating IoT devices as business process resources,” in International conference on
advanced information systems engineering, 2013, pp. 84–98.
[133] F. Pérez, E. Irisarri, D. Orive, M. Marcos, and E. Estevez, “A CPPS Architecture
approach for Industry 4.0,” in Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA),
2015 IEEE 20th Conference on, 2015, pp. 1–4.
[134] K. Walsh, Public services and market mechanisms: competition, contracting and the
new public management. Macmillan International Higher Education, 1995.
[135] D. C. Mead and C. Liedholm, “The dynamics of micro and small enterprises in
developing countries,” World Dev., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 61–74, 1998.
[136] M. Bowen, M. Morara, and M. Mureithi, “Management of business challenges among
small and micro enterprises in Nairobi-Kenya,” KCA J. Bus. Manag., vol. 2, no. 1,
2009.
[137] E. Lukács, “The economic role of SMEs in world economy, especially in Europe,”
Eur. Integr. Stud., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 3–12, 2005.

Author Biographies

Michael Sony received his PhD in 2015 and Master of Industrial Engineering degree in 2008
from Goa University, Goa, India. He passed in bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering in
2004. He is also a certified Energy Manager and Energy Auditor from Bureau of Energy
Efficiency, India.
He has industrial experience as an engineer with the Electricity Department, Government of
Goa, India. He also has been consultant and trainer in Six Sigma and Lean, in various
multinational organizations. He has also published articles more than 25 articles in various
international journals in the field of operations management.
Dr. Michael Sony is at present working as a faculty in Department of Mechanical and Marine
Engineering, Namibia University of Science and Technology, Windhoek Namibia.

Professor Jiju Antony is recognised worldwide as a leader in Lean Six Sigma methodology
for achieving and sustaining process excellence. He is a Professor of Quality Management in
the School of Social Sciences at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland. He is a
Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society (UK), Fellow of the Chartered Quality Institute (CQI),
Fellow of the Institute of Operations Management (FIOM), Fellow of the American Society
of Quality (FASQ), Fellow of the Institute of the Six Sigma Professionals (ISSP), Fellow of
the Chartered Management Institute (UK) and Fellow of the Higher Education Academy
(UK). He is a Certified Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt and has trained over 1400 people
from over 21 countries representing over 175 organisations in the last 12 years.
He has a proven track record for conducting internationally leading research in the field of
Quality Management and Lean Six Sigma. Professor Antony has authored over 350 journal,
conference and white papers and 8 text books. He has published over 200 papers on Six
Sigma and Lean Six Sigma topics and is considered to be one of the highest in the world for
the number of Six Sigma publications. Two of his papers published in 2002 entitled (Critical
Success Factors for the successful implementation of Six Sigma projects in organisations
(over 700 google citations) and Key Ingredients for the effective implementation of Six
Sigma program (over 800 google citations)) have the highest citations making them the
most referred to papers in the world in the field of Six Sigma and Continuous Improvement.
He has an h-index of 67 according to Google Scholar with a total of over 12000 citations
on Six Sigma and Lean Sigma topics alone.
He is the founder of the International Conference on Six Sigma and is also the founder of the
International Conference on Lean Six Sigma for Higher Education. He was the past Editor of
the International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage and is currently serving as
the Editor of the International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Associate Editor of the TQM and
Business Excellence Journal, and Associate Editor of Quality in Education (ASQ). He is
serving on the Editorial Board of 14 international journals. He has been a keynote speaker
for over 30 international conferences. Professor Antony has worked on a number of
consultancy projects with several blue chip companies such as Rolls-Royce, Bosch, Siemens,
Parker Pen, Siemens, Ford, Scottish Power, Tata Motors, Thales, Nokia, Philips, General
Electric, NHS, Glasgow City Council, ACCESS, Scottish Water, University Sectors and a
number of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises.

Professor Sung Park graduated from Seoul National University, Korea, in 1968 with a BS
degree in Chemical Engineering, and then in 1972 with a MS degree in Operations Research
and in 1975 with a Ph.D. degree in Statistics at North Carolina State University, U.S.A.. After
graduating in 1975, he went to Mississippi State University as an assistant professor, and then
returned to his country, Korea, in 1977. Since 1977 he served as an associate professor and
then professor in statistics at Seoul National University (SNU). He retired from SNU in 2010.
He is the only one academician of International Academy for Quality from Korea, and a
fellow of American Society for Quality as well as American Statistical Association.
He was the president of the Korean Society for Quality Management, and the president of the
Korean Statistical Society. He received two prestigious medals from Korean Government;
one is ‘Order of Service Merit, Red Stripes Medal’ for his contribution to quality
management, and another is ‘Order of Science & Technology (S&T) Merit, Hyeoksin Medal’
for his contribution of S&T for Korea. He was the president of Korean Academy of Science
and Technology during 2013-2016, and now the president of Social Responsibility and
Management Quality Institute. He has published 60 books on statistics and quality
management including four books in English such as "Robust Design and Analysis for
Quality Engineering", "Statistical Process Monitoring and Optimization", “Six Sigma for
Quality and Productivity Promotion”, and “Robust Design for Quality Engineering and Six
Sigma.
Michael Mutingi obtained his PhD in engineering management from the University of
Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2015. He also received a MEng and a BEng in industrial
engineering from the National University of Science and Technology, Zimbabwe, in 1999
and 2004, respectively.
In 1999, he served as a Research Fellow with the National University of Science and
Technology, Zimbabwe, and thereafter as a Lecturer in Industrial Engineering with the same
university. He was a Research Associate at the National University of Singapore, Singapore,
in 2011. He was a Lecturer with the University of Botswana, Botswana, until 2014, when he
joined the Namibia University of Science and Technology, Namibia. Since 2018 he has been
an Associate Professor in industrial engineering at the same university. He is also a Visiting
Associate Professor at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa.
Professor Mutingi’s research interests include operational excellence, lean healthcare
systems, multi-criteria decision analysis. He has published two books and more than 110
articles in reputable international journals and conference proceedings. He is member of the
South African Institute of Industrial Engineering.

You might also like