The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-4166.htm

IJLSS
6,2
Project barriers to Green Belts
through critical success factors
Chad Laux
Department of Technology Leadership & Innovation, Purdue University,
138 West Lafayette, Indiana, USA
Received 27 February 2014 Mary Johnson
Revised 30 July 2014
Accepted 30 July 2014
Department of Aviation Technology, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Indiana, USA, and
Paul Cada
Rolls Royce Corp., Fishers, Indiana, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to utilize critical success factors (CSF) and identify items Green Belt (GB)
practitioners note as barriers to completion of Six Sigma (SS) projects in a major manufacturer setting.
Design/methodology/approach – The design of this paper is a descriptive study of a single location
of a global manufacturer’s internal data and survey of accredited GBs who have completed an SS project
for company accreditation utilizing company focus on CSFs.
Findings – The results demonstrate the GB practitioners have competing priorities, have time
constraints and lack project management skills that reduce timely completion of SS projects. Top
management responsibility for SS GB projects are defined through the CSFs of leadership, project
management and project selection.
Research limitations/implications – This study pertains to the single manufacturing location of a
major, multinational company. The survey of SS GBs is limited to those individuals who have become
accredited to company requirements, in the initial stages of strategic implementation, resulting in a
small sample size. All GB projects follow the DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control)
methodology. The implications may be reproduced in similar environments where GBs conduct SS
projects to test the robustness of the study.
Practical implications – This study underscores the importance of proper coaching and mentoring of SS
practitioners, especially those who are expected to contribute as GBs in a part-time manner. Implementation of SS
goesbeyondinitialdeploymentandrequiresactivementoringofGBpractitionerstomakesurethatSSprojectsget
proper focus. The results are relevant to both researchers and practitioners.
Originality/value – This paper examines SS projects with a GB perspective, an important
contribution to SS but lacking in the literature. While GBs are important to SS implementation, and
serve as a pathway to fulltime SS personnel, there are few studies that note this work. This study will
support practitioners in the importance of wider SS deployment through active support of GBs, where
top management responsibility for GB success is defined through CSFs for improvement.
Keywords Critical success factor, Projects, Six Sigma, Green Belt
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Lean Six

Sigma 1. Introduction
Vol. 6 No. 2, 2015
pp. 138-160
Since the beginning of the 1980s Six Sigma (SS) has been adopted as a way of achieving
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-4166
higher profits by reducing defects and increasing customer satisfaction (Parast, 2011;
DOI 10.1108/IJLSS-02-2014-0006 Tjahjono et al., 2010; Behara et al., 1995). Started at Motorola, SS has enjoyed widespread
adoption, often attributed to early adoption at Allied Signal subsequent by Jack Welch Project
at GE (Pande et al., 2000; Maneesh et al., 2011). Since then, the definition of SS has barriers to
evolved from a quality engineering initiative devised at Motorola to a holistic
methodology that is philosophically based upon total quality (Aboelmaged, 2009).
Green Belts
When implemented successfully, the results can be remarkable and show substantial
quality improvements. According to the American Society for Quality, 82 of the 100
largest companies in the USA have embraced it (Bloomberg, 2007). SS methodologies 139
are being used in a vast array of organizations and in a wide variety of functions. There
are numerous definitions of SS in the literature.
SS may be defined as a methodology for pursuing continuous improvement in
customer satisfaction and profit that goes beyond defect reduction and emphasizes
business process improvement in general (Breyfogle, 2003). According to Mehrjerdi
(2011), the central theme of SS, is that product and process quality may be improved
dramatically by understanding the relationships between the inputs to a product or
process and the metrics that define the quality level of the product or process: by
controlling the inputs, the outputs will be produced in a predictable range.
Approximately based upon two project methodologies inspired by Deming’s
Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, SS projects follow two methodologies, composed of five
phases each, as DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control) and DMADV
(Define, Measure, Analyze, Design, and Verify) (Breyfogle, 2003; Deming, 2000). DMAIC
is used when existing products and processes need improvement and when the cause of
the problem is unknown or unclear. DMADV is a similar process used when a new
product or process is being designed. The DMAIC project methodology has five phases
where each project phase ends with a gate review that results in a project either going
forward, redoing the phase or being stopped completely (Feo and Barnard, 2005). The
project aspect of SS is crucial to efforts for successful SS deployment.
Because SS implementation is primarily conducted through projects, SS success may
be defined through managing projects successfully. The various methodologies
(DMAIC, DMADV, Design for Six Sigma [DFSS], etc.) all follow a basic template of
project management to identify and manage the project constraints (PMI, 2009; Pzydek
and Keller, 2003). The basic project constraints include: project scope, time and cost and
may be identified and managed to measure project success (PMI, 2009). At the project
level, success means the finished project realized the objectives and are sustained in the
organization after the project has been completed (Pzydek and Keller, 2003). Jacobsen
(2008) states that project success is evident where they are: viable and achievable in a
short time through a successful launch, may be quantified and are built on accepted and
highly demonstrable successes. Pande et al. (2000) provide three categories of project
selection criteria: business benefits, feasibility and organizational impact. Financial
benefits are also quantified. Antony and Banuelas (2002) gives a similar perspective that
every project should be selected so that it will help the company improve competitive
advantage, business profitability, process cycle-time and throughput yield.
SS projects are no different where the basic attributes of meeting the project are
selected so that it will help the company improve competitive, are met. While all three
are inclusive and should not be separately managed, project managers may find that it
is easier to manage the constraint of time, instead of reducing a project’s scope to meet
the project’s goals (PMI, 2009). Basic SS projects function in the same manner where
project completion varies. The expert opinion states that SS projects should take
IJLSS approximately three to six months (Arumugam et al., 2013; Ahadian and Abadi, 2012;
6,2 Lynch et al., 2003) or four to six months (Breyfogle et al., 2001). While projects vary
according to scope of work, shorter duration of projects helps avoid waste and added
costs as project completion time is related to tangible and intangible costs. Lack of
progress can lead to a lack of project focus by stakeholders involved and delay in
realizing project benefits (Lynch et al., 2003) and Snee and Hoerl (2003) find that SS
140 success means that a sense of urgency to complete projects within four to six months is
needed. Team membership begins to suffer and time is lost as project team effort
declines as they encounter serious motivational issues (Mariotti, 2005). The individual
who manage the day-to-day work of an SS project may work on SS projects full time
(Black Belt [BB]) or part time (Green Belt [GB]) (Pzydek and Keller, 2003). Regardless, a
person managing an SS project to its successful conclusion must manage the constraints
listed above to be successful in the field.
As many experienced practitioners relate, merely sending an employee to training
does not mean that the employee will lead a project successfully. In this study, the
problem of project duration (timeliness) is introduced through a review of the literature
to understand the significance of the problem in general, and more specifically in
part-time work of SS GBs. This organization, a multinational, advanced manufacturer,
was in its third year of SS strategic implementation at the time of this study. The
planned rollout of SS included benchmarking SS project performance; in particular,
project duration was the primary concern of management at this three-year review of
implementation. The majority of GBs at this company do not finish within six months,
the corporate measure for SS success with regard to this constraint. And while this
study focuses on those individuals who do complete an SS project (timely or not), the
problem is even larger where a portion of the SS GB trainees never start or conduct a
project. Discovering and removing barriers may lead to a larger number of successful
GB projects and reduce costs further. The SS duration problem is significant because the
full speed of return from process or product improvements is not realized. Customer
delivery, improvement in quality and customer satisfaction may follow if GB projects
are completed in a timelier manner. As a singular case study, the problem is still
significant from a leadership perspective and the ultimate strategic goal is to gain more
control of the business costs and improve customer satisfaction through creating a sense
of urgency of project completion at one of the multinational’s facilities located in the
USA. Based upon a strategic viewpoint of the company’s SS criterion, or critical success
factors (CSFs), a survey of company accredited SS GBs are surveyed to understand the
research question: What are the barriers to timely completion of SS GB projects?
Recommendations to eliminate and/or mitigate those elements that prevent SS GBs from
meeting project goals, in time, are presented. This is one of few studies that has been
conducted that focuses on the individual involved in SS implementation, through the
strategic viewpoint of CSFs, on the GB, expected to successfully manage SS projects
where the individual’s focus is also on their functional, regular job description. SS is not
limited to full-time BB work. While results are limited to this particular environment,
future growth at this company demands a sustainable, stable and robust GB project
process to meet the organization and to this particular environment; future growth at
this company demands a sustainable without SS GBs; and the positive change that SS
potential has requires a broad, in addition to deep, implementation of the methodology.
2. Review of the literature Project
2.1 Project success barriers to
Much as been written about SS project success, particularly in studies on the inputs or
proper project selection (Ahadian andAbadi, 2012; Padhy and Sahu, 2011; Ray and Das,
Green Belts
2010; Sharma and Chetiya, 2010; Kumar et al., 2009, 2007; Yang and Hsieh, 2009; Su and
Chou, 2008; Antony, 2004a). The literature of SS project success also includes:
knowledge management (Arumugam et al., 2013; Easton and Rosenzweig, 2012; Gopesh 141
et al., 2009; Savolainen and Haikonen, 2007), project management (Mandal, 2012; Gray
and Anantatmula, 2009), risk management (Tariq, 2013) and team management (Wu
et al., 2012). Finally, a review of SS project research based upon GB perspective is done
(Ho et al., 2008; Green, 2006; Green et al., 2006).
A review of the literature of SS projects was done to understand how SS success is
defined through a project perspective. Validation of the effectiveness of SS programs is
critical to the credibility and continued success of process improvements, as the
methodology has gained wide application. SS, like other strategies, is easier to start than
validating effectiveness. Thus, empirical study is recommended to measure SS success
to mitigate subjective interpretation (Zhang et al., 2011). The addition of increased
bureaucracy, lack of leadership, problematic project definition and selection and
ineffective project management support a project-based assessment of SS effectiveness
based upon constraints noted above (Snee, 2010; Antony, 2004b). Utilizing an overall
process perspective, study of inputs or antecedents are part of SS project assessment.

2.2 Project selection

A focus on selection methods as a predecessor to SS project-based research is well
developed in the literature for the result of successful SS projects (Aboelmaged, 2009).
Ahadian and Abadi (2012) present a model for identifying SS projects that may be
completed successfully, including duration, based upon the multiple criteria decision
making (MCDM) mathematical approach (Ahadian and Abadi, 2012). While a rationale
for comparing projects is presented, the characteristic of pilot, or test, projects is the
focus. In addition, human elements, such as BB or GB roles, are not included (Ahadian
and Abadi, 2012). Padhy and Sahu (2011) also study SS project selection through inputs.
Conducted as a case study, Padhy and Sahu (2011) study project success through
improved flexibility in managing constraints utilizing a real option model; a two-stage
decision-making approach and model to evaluate value and risk (Padhy and Sahu, 2011).
The results suggest that SS projects using real options can provide flexibility in
managing projects and meet project success (Padhy and Sahu, 2011). However, risk and
value are the primary factors contributing to project definition and success rather than
a systematic approach. Ray and Das (2010) use a more comprehensive approach where
they study SS project identification for subsequent success. The authors establish a
model for project selection where the data availability, management commitment,
project selection and project control skills are all evident through a top-down
management and balanced scorecard approaches (Ray and Das, 2010). However, project
success was not defined with time duration but primarily customer satisfaction. Sharma
and Chetiya’s (2010) study project success through factor analysis find that
management commitment, good communication, existence of process/workflow
techniques, availability of data, existence of measurement systems and resource
availability are required antecedents for an SS project success (Sharma and Chetiya,
IJLSS 2010). Conducted through a study of 13 manufacturers, the primary criterion for project
6,2 success was financial, not time. Project selection studied by Büyüközkan and Öztürkcan
(2012) focused on enabling practitioners in determining priority and impact of SS
projects using a combined two multi-criteria decision-making methods, Decision
Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) and analytic network process
(ANP) decision-making approach (Büyüközkan and Öztürkcan, 2012). Results
142 demonstrate that this combined approach is viable; based upon risks of delay, budget
and project, the study is limited to a single Turkish logistics company with data
collection (Büyüközkan and Öztürkcan, 2012). Yang and Hsieh (2009) study project
selection based upon national quality award criteria for a hierarchical evaluation
process, utilizing a Delphi fuzzy criteria decision-making methodology by management
(Yang and Hsieh, 2009). The results demonstrate successful adoption in a case study of
a component manufacturer where the more crucial the project priority, the greater the
financial impact. Project duration is not part of the study criterion. In an empirical study,
investigators studied the importance of project selection on SS project success utilizing
a combined analytic hierarchy process and project desirability matrix (Kumar et al.,
2009). The results demonstrate the importance of project selection to ultimate success
through a more objective, comprehensive and combined methodology (Kumar et al.,
2009). The study is also limited to a single case study of a UK small and medium
enterprise (Kumar et al., 2009). In another empirical study, Su and Chou (2008) sought to
identify SS projects for selection and report on prioritization with regard to company
strategy and customer satisfaction. Implemented through a case study of a
semiconductor foundry, the results demonstrate an empirical approach that
incorporates where SS projects may be classified as low-hanging fruits, GB or BB
projects (Su and Chou, 2008). While SS roles (GB and BB) are incorporated, the approach
requires implementation to evaluate SS projects at completion (Su and Chou, 2008).
Banuelas et al. (2006) study criteria for SS project selection in a national survey of SS
practitioners consisting of BBs, GBs and others involved in the SS methodology (quality
managers, champions, etc.) (Banuelas et al., 2006). Results shown that customer
satisfaction, financial benefits, linkage to business strategy and top management
commitment were the main SS project criteria. Survey response rate was low,
approximately 8 per cent, but similar to related studies (Banuelas et al., 2006). The study
was also geographically bound to the UK. In addition, the constraint of time, as a
performance metric, was not noted as significant (top ten factors) by survey
participants. Shanmugaraja et al. (2012) created an SS project selection model through
quality function deployment (QFD). Through a case study using Indian small and
medium enterprises, the researchers replaced the Define phase to create a QFDMAIC
and applied the methodology to the business. While the organization vision was
primarily through satisfying customer service, results demonstrate that technical
improvement projects should be the focus through QFDMAIC application
(Shanmugaraja et al., 2012). While connecting to company strategy, limitations to this
approach included a single organization, at the beginning of an SS implementation
(Shanmugaraja et al., 2012). Kumar et al.’s (2007) study is based upon improving SS
project completion through improved selection utilizing data envelopment analysis
(DEA) techniques. In a theoretic study, DEA was demonstrated to be a viable SS
selection methodology where hypothetical inputs and outputs are tested for robustness
(Kumar et al., 2007). Application to real SS projects would mitigate the limitations of the
study, although several factors contributing to SS project setbacks are integrated into Project
the model (Kumar et al., 2007). While the majority of recent research of SS projects has barriers to
been based through project selection, other studies have been based upon learning in the
SS process.
Green Belts

2.3 Project leadership

Studies of project success may be based upon the principle of the learning organization 143
(Senge, 1990), and, in this section, SS project-based research may be seen through the
learning perspective. A study by Arumugam et al. (2013) investigates how
organizational inputs, technical resources and team socialization impact SS project
success. In a survey of SS team members participating in 110 projects of a single Fortune
500 firm, Arumugam et al. (2013) found that SS resources are related to know what
(knowledge about facts and concepts) and psychological safety (team socialization) is
related to know how (competence and skills); know how also mediates project
performance through know what (Arumugam et al., 2013). Although limited in project
number (52) and to a single firm, this study demonstrates for practitioners to support a
positive team climate for project success. In another study, experience, individual, team
and organizational, Easton and Rosenzweig (2012) analyzed both SS project successes
and failures in a Fortune 500 firm. While a single organization of SS projects is studied
after the fact, Easton and Rosenzweig (2012) find that team leader experience is most
strongly related to project success, followed by organization experience. In contrast to
Arumugam et al. (2013), SS project success is not dependent upon individual knowledge
or socialization. However, other works (Anand et al., 2010) are in line with previous
works (Arumugam et al., 2013). In a study of SS project success, Anand et al. (2010) study
explicit and tacit knowledge. In a survey of BBs across five firms, it was found that
knowledge-creation practices, through individuals on SS team, are related to success.
This result is important even though SS projects are limited in duration and team
members contribute only a portion of their time to projects, and their individual
knowledge is important for project success through explicit knowledge creation from
tacit knowledge of team members (Anand et al., 2010). Savolainen and Haikonen (2007)
study SS implementation through organizational learning and continuous
improvement. The results that the authors find (Savolainen and Haikonen, 2007) is that
SS implementation (project implementation and personnel learning) is based upon
problem-based (project) learning through SS framework that supports continuous
improvement. The study is limited to five Finnish firms. While not defined through
explicit SS project success, this study incorporates principles of project-based SS
research (Savolainen and Haikonen, 2007).

2.4 Other project-based research

Recent SS project research may be categorized broadly upon business process
management principles (Mandal, 2012; Vom Brocke and Sinnl, 2011; Gray and
Anantatmula, 2009; Kumar et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2012; Tariq, 2013). While originally
focused on information technology adoption, current business process management
principles may be more holistically applied where processes are the core from which
business is executed and supported (Vom Brocke and Sinnl, 2011). SS implementation
also shares process focus and the management thereof. SS project management is found
in a couple of studies (Mandal, 2012; Gray and Anantatmula, 2009). Mandal (2012) takes
IJLSS a different approach to SS project research through improving the DMAIC process. By
6,2 modifying the improve and analyze phases to incorporate more design of experiments,
Mandal (2012) suggests that SS may be more effective in application (Mandal, 2012).
While a strategic relationship to SS is described, there are several limitations: the study
is based upon a single case, two applications of the proposed model (ease of control and
process knowledge leap) are theoretic by classifying 17 DMAIC projects after the fact;
144 and more study would be required for confirmation (Mandal, 2012). In a study to
improve SS projects, Gray and Anantatmula (2009) propose a framework for DMAIC
application utilizing standardized project management implementation (PMI)
principles. Based upon the variation of SS implementation, Gray and Anantatmula
(2009) state that project management principles, defined by time/resources (efficiency)
and goals/impact (effectiveness), a revised framework of Six Sigma Project
Management would improve project initiation, execution and completion. In a survey of
24 SS project leaders, the results demonstrate that SS and project management are
complementary, and the ultimate success of SS projects relies primarily upon execution
(Gray and Anantatmula, 2009); this study diverges with those above that rely upon
project selection. However, the survey defines SS project success through a project
management approach (time/scope, budget and results) with a limited sample size, even
though BBs and GB perspectives are included (Gray and Anantatmula, 2009). Tariq
(2013) was concerned about project completion delays by focusing on execution, rather
than selection, in an SS project study. Utilizing risk management principles, the purpose
of Tariq (2013) was to create a framework for minimizing project duration delay through
combination of SS and risk management principles (Tariq, 2013). Applied to a case
study, the results demonstrate improvement in an SS DMAIC project applied to a
health-care production company. There is not a comparative study to further validate
the model and is limited to a single project. Finally, Wu et al. (2012) study how leadership
impacts SS project success. Through a survey of Taiwanese individuals involved in SS
(BBs, GBs, etc.), member cohesiveness, similar to team approaches described above,
mediates leadership and overall SS project success (defined as meeting goals, on time,
within budget) (Wu et al., 2012). As one of few studies to include leadership, this study
included several national industries, in a snapshot. Furthermore, while individuals
surveyed reference their own particular SS project experience, factors of SS success are
not particularly noted with regard to the role individuals play in those projects (Wu et al.,
2012). This may be true of GBs who are able to devote only part of their time to projects
because of their other managerial duties, to SS project success. In the next section,
studies of how SS GBs impact project success are reviewed.

2.5 Six Sigma GBs

A study of SS projects should consider the impact of GBs. As part of a comprehensive
strategy, GBs serve as the professional force that fill in between full-time project managers
(BBs) and the functional workforce by serving as part-time practitioners who fulfill SS
projects themselves, serve as team members on larger projects and serve as a pool from
which to draw full-time BBs (Snee and Hoerl, 2003). As important as the function GBs serve,
they often get less dedicated training and are expected to conduct SS projects in addition to
their regular duties (Pzydek and Keller, 2003). There are few studies dedicated to the
perspective of the GB. In an initial review, Green (2006) studies the impact of GBs at five
companies through in-depth interviews of selected individuals. Through structured
interview and questionnaire, Green (2006) researched actual GB performance at these Project
organizations. Individuals selected or volunteered for GB were highly educated (Green, barriers to
2006). Training time and pedagogy varied considerably; from multiple weeks to a few days Green Belts
utilizing classroom-based to more recent electronic-based training. Regardless, project
completion was required for certification (Green, 2006). Most GBs stated that they competed
projects on their own with little BB mentorship and felt that they did not have the time to
complete their projects due to completing regular duties (Green, 2006). Most importantly, GB 145
project duration varied considerably from three months to two years with an average of nine
months, much longer that recommended (Pzydek and Keller, 2003; Green, 2006). Common
barriers mentioned were lack of data, unclear goals and improper scope (Green, 2006). While
illuminating, the study contains few individuals (n ⫽ 14) from which to draw more general
conclusions and does not take strategic objectives, such as CSFs, into account. In another
study, Green et al. (2006) takes a more detailed approach of how to implement an
improvement program at a small company primarily utilizing GBs. In this case study,
individuals are either selected of volunteered, take a training program of approximately 24
hours of classroom instruction to apply and complete a GB project in 12-18 months, receiving
compensation through a skills reward-based program (Green et al., 2006). GBs are mentored
one-on-one by BBs and are expected to complete an additional GB project per year to
maintain certification, while completing regular duties (Green et al., 2006). Thus, the time
dedicated to GB projects remains low (2-3 per cent of time) (Green et al., 2006). However, a
major project barrier was a lengthy project duration (12-18 months), followed by data
collection issues and team direction (Green et al., 2006). As a result, GB projects are designed
to be of shorter duration through the adoption of lean tools toward more lean-oriented SS
projects (Green et al., 2006). While project selection was always a top-down approach, GBs
conduct projects based upon strategic company initiatives through a balanced scorecard
(Green et al., 2006). Limiting these results is the singular case of a small manufacturer.
Finally, a study that has similar research objectives as the study conducted here is one by Ho
et al. (2008), where the researcher asks what the key success factors that enable GBs to
successfully complete projects and reach certification. While these factors are defined as
crucial to GB certification, they are based upon strategic indictors or CSFs. Based upon a
review of CSF’s, individuals who had completed GB certification, or failed to obtain it, were
asked in a survey to identify factors that are crucial to project success (Ho et al., 2008). In
detail, CSF’s critical to GB project success were: top management commitment and
participation, business strategy (i.e. SS projects) tied to customer demands, use of data with
data that are easily obtainable, investment of essential resources (i.e. time for GB to complete
project) and investment/reward system for employees (Ho et al., 2008). Results from this
study are interesting where strategy (CSF’s) is compared to GB project success, with regard
to the limitations that the study is a single case within an Asian aircraft maintenance
company (Ho et al., 2008).
A majority of previous work in the area of SS project research has been based upon
the inputs, such as: proper project selection or process, such as learning (individual
and/or team) or project management. Many studies explicitly study the SS GB, or the
successful output of the SS process, as defined by successful project completion. It has
been noted above that crucial to SS success is the linking of SS projects to business
strategy (Ho et al., 2008). This study connects company focus on CSF’s to GB projects. In
the next section, a review of CSFs to define SS success is given.
IJLSS 2.6 CSFs for projects
6,2 For successfully implementation of SS into a business strategy, the focus on CSFs is
recommended (Achanga et al., 2006). Several publications note where CSFs may be
translated into a successful project strategy such as executive and active management
support, an effective organizational structure, proper project selection, project
management, availability of data, bottom-line review and effective coaching and
146 mentoring (Pande et al., 2000; Breyfogle, 2003; Bisgaard, 2007; Jacobsen, 2008; Snee,
2010). With this linkage, managing projects that focus on key core issues may be done
for evaluating project success (Sharma and Chetiya, 2010). Projects with no linkage to
strategic goals or financial backing are likely to fail and produce a negative precedent
for future projects (Ramu, 2007). Table I summarizes findings into six categories of
CSFs:
(1) leadership commitment and participation;
(2) projects aligned with business strategy and voice of the customer (VOC);
(3) a consistent SS framework;
(4) project management and execution;
(5) utilization of SS tools; and
(6) project selection.

The question studied in this research is:

RQ1. What are the barriers to timely completion of Six Sigma Green Belt projects?
Few studies evaluate personnel success in project completion through a company’s
CSFs (Ho et al., 2008; Su and Chou, 2008). As noted above, SS success includes a

CSFs Reference

Leadership commitment Antony and Banuelas (2002), Pande et al. (2000), Snee and Hoerl (2003),
and participation Desai et al. (2012); Dobbins (1995), Coronado and Antony, 2002,
Breyfogle, 2003, Mehrjerdi, 2011, Zhang et al. (2011), Jacobsen (2008),
Pande et al. (2000)
Projects align to business Harry and Schroeder (2006), Antony and Banuelas (2002), Pande et al.
plans and VOC (2000), Desai et al. (2012), Coronado and Antony, 2002, Mehrjerdi, 2011,
Jacobsen (2008), Sharma and Chetiya (2010)
Six Sigma framework Antony and Banuelas (2002), Snee and Hoerl (2003), Desai et al. (2012),
Breyfogle, 2003, Zhang et al. (2011), Sharma and Chetiya (2010)
Project management/ Harry and Schroeder (2006), Antony and Banuelas (2002), Pande et al.
execution (2000), Snee and Hoerl (2003), Coronado and Antony (2002), Bisgaard
(2007)
Utilization of SS tools Pande et al. (2000), Antony and Banuelas (2002), Desai et al. (2012),
Coronado and Antony (2002), Breyfogle (2003), Jacobsen (2008),
Sharma and Chetiya (2010)
Table I. SS training Harry and Schroeder (2006), Antony and Banuelas (2002), Snee and
Critical success Hoerl (2003), Coronado and Antony (2002)
factors for SS Project selection Desai et al. (2012), Coronado and Antony, 2002, Breyfogle, (2003),
implementation Jacobsen (2008), Sharma and Chetiya (2010), Ramu (2007), Pande et al.
summary (2000)
project-based perspective. This case study was conducted in a global manufacturing Project
company to understand what the barriers are to successfully completing GB SS projects barriers to
through a survey of personnel that have completed GB training. This survey
incorporates the organization’s CSFs in an effort to identify barriers through a CSF
Green Belts
framework. While this study is specific to one manufacturing plant, there may be
lessons learned that could apply to other process improvement projects.
147
3. Methodology
To answer RQ1, this study utilized internal company data of completed SS GB projects
and surveyed company GBs as well; specifically, information came from both database
review and individual GB training records. The company under study is in the initial
stages of implementing SS at this facility utilizing full-time BBs and part- time GBs.
Project information was collected from an internal project database utilized for
continuous improvement. This database is utilized to track SS projects and for this
study provided: a basis of DMAIC projects for the study sample and to corroborate
findings in a subsequent survey noted below. Clear operational definitions were created
for how long GB projects were taking to complete (project duration) by project gate
reviews to communicate consistently how project time was defined by personnel
involved in the study (Deming, 2000). From the database and records, time between gate
reviews was collected within projects. Project duration was defined through time taken
between DMAIC gate reviews. Actual project duration time, defined by gate reviews,
was compared with the overall planned project duration from the original project
charter vs the actual project duration. In addition to the charter revisions collected from
the database, project folders were evaluated for project duration times to verify actual vs
planned duration time. The sample size of gate review projects represented 29 GBs.
After removing incomplete project data, a final sample size of GB projects was 18. As a
result, company data of completed GB projects demonstrated that the majority of GB
projects were taking over nine months to complete instead of the company goal of six
months. After confirmation of the lack of progress of timely completion of GB projects,
a survey was administered to company GBs.
An electronic survey was administered to GBs to gather feedback utilizing CSFs
noted above for timely completion of GB SS projects. The survey sample of GBs
included company-accredited GBs who had gone through GB training for a total of 50
individuals in this convenience sample. This represents all of the GB’s at this particular
company locationnience samplehrough GB Belts included feedback ojects, a survey was
administered to company GB’s was to corrobon of a SS DMAIC project. Survey
guidelines followed Sekaran and Bougie (2009). For cogency, the survey underwent a
subjective analysis by subject matter experts (SME) within the organization. This
analysis included the researchers and process excellence team. The survey was then
pre-tested using a sample of the SME group before distribution to reduce bias and
improve consistency. A debrief of the pretest results was done with the SME group to
address the reaction to the survey and identify recommended changes. The survey was
reviewed by the management team for stakeholder agreement and awareness. The
survey was administered electronically through Survey Monkey (1999) anonymously.
This study was focused identification of barriers the GB encountered (defined through
CSFs listed for GBs in Table I). The survey also collected information on: subject
completion of an accredited GB project, project duration, project focus (in GB functional
IJLSS area), project timeline, if the GB t accreditation was also accounted on the
6,2 individualccounted on the listed for GB’s in Table I above)er agreement and awa, and
the level of engagement with the Black Belt coach/sponsor. The final question on the
survey was open ended to identify additional improvements to the GB accreditation
process. The results to these questions will be answered in subsequent publications.
Table II displays the survey questions and the original research purpose after coding.
148 Full survey questions are provided in Appendix 1.
The e-mail requesting participation included an introduction to the project and a link
to the survey Web site. This was sent to 50 subjects with one reminder sent later. At the
end of the survey period, 29 of the 50 GBs responded, at a response rate of 58 per cent,
meeting minimum requirements for this type of survey (Sekaran and Bougie, 2009).

3.1 Limitations and delimitations and assumptions

Reducing the general nature of this study were delimitations and limitations of the
study. The basis of delimitations of why the researchers focused on the particular
research question is formed from the organizational goal-improved timeliness of GB
project completion at this location. Thus, delimiting this study is that it pertains to one
manufacturing location of a large, multinational company, located within the
manufacturing sector in the Midwest region of the USA. Also delimiting this study is the
sample size: the scope of this study consisted of GBs initial project for getting SS GB
accredited. An assumption is that the historical data collected on project duration in this
study are accurate. Thus, project performance was delimited to those that met project
goals and included by the researchers. Finally, limiting this study was sample size:
based upon research goals, it was a small convenience sample, although, consisting of
all GBs at this particular location accredited since 2009. Other limitations include the
fact that all projects are DMAIC in methodology, completed by an individual leading a
team while in GB training.

Question Purpose

1. Is your project currently active, or has it been Determine demographic

completed?
2. Once the GB workshop training was complete, Compare the observed proportion with the
when did you complete the project? survey proportion
3. Was the focus of the project within your functional Determine demographic
area?
4. How closely did you follow your project timeline? Project management abilities
5. What type of roadblocks did you encounter? Identify the critical success factors
(Please select all that apply)
6. Was completing GB accreditation on your PDR? Determine demographic
7. Select the main reason for starting the GB Is the subject directed or driven?
accreditation process
8. How would you describe the BB coach’s Coaching engagement into project
engagement on your project?
Table II. 9. How would you describe the Sponsor’s Leadership engagement into project
Survey questions and engagement on your project?
purpose 10. How can we improve the GB accreditation process? Gather feedback, textual analysis
4. Data collection and analysis Project
4.1 Reliability and validity barriers to
Reliability and validity of the GB survey were validated through “goodness of data” and
by tests of validity and reliability. Validity establishes how well a technique, instrument
Green Belts
or process measures a particular concept, and reliability indicates how stably and
consistently the instrument taps the variable (Sekaran and Bougie, 2009). Cronbach’s
alpha is a reliability coefficient that indicates how well the items in a set are positively 149
correlated to one another. Cronbach’s alpha is computed in terms of the average
intercorrelations among the items measuring the concept (Sekaran and Bougie, 2009,
p. 324). The closer Cronbach’s alpha is to 1, the higher the internal consistency reliability
(UCLA, 2007). The results here demonstrate that Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ 0.4396; however,
although this value is low, it is acceptable due to Cronbach’s alpha sensitivity to the
number of items in a survey, as in this survey, and may underestimate the internal
consistency reliability (Hair et al., 2014).

4.2 Survey results

According to Sekaran and Bougie (2009), the sample must be representative of the
population for it to provide useful and accurate answers to the research questions. Of
company-accredited GBs, approximately 55 per cent of GBs had active projects. Of those,
GBs with completed projects, over 33 per cent took six months or more to complete. To verify
results, 24 per cent of respondents completed projects on time or sooner according the
scheduled timeline on the original charter. Concerning the nature of GB SS projects, 97 per
cent of respondents focused on projects within their personal, functional area.
Survey responses from company GBs were categorized according to company CSFs.
From the expert internal review, the factors of leadership, project management and
project selection were noted as most critical to understand with regard to barriers that
company GBs and related to the CSF categories previously. The results of the survey
note the frequency of GB barriers categorized by CSFs below (Table III).
The largest roadblock noted by GBs was “Priorities”. The term “Priorities” was defined
as: precedence, established by order of importance or urgency. “Time Constraints” was the
second highest response and similar to “Priorities”. The next three responses scored the
same percentage (15 per cent): “Team Involvement”, “Data Availability” and “Process
Owners”. “Planning” and “Project Scope” both had 11 per cent, and “SS Tools” and “Other”
had 7 per cent. A chi-square test was performed to determine if a difference between the
proportions of survey responses for Question 5 existed.

Survey responses Leadership Project selection Project management % of respondents

Priorities ⫻ ⫻ 59
Time constraints ⫻ ⫻ 41
Team involvement ⫻ 15
Data availability ⫻ ⫻ 15
Process owners ⫻ ⫻ 15
Planning ⫻ 11 Table III.
Project scope ⫻ 11 Project roadblocks
Other ⫻ ⫻ ⫻ 7 through CSF
Six Sigma tools ⫻ ⫻ 7 perspective
IJLSS A chi-square test was performed to determine if a difference between the proportions of
6,2 survey responses for Question 5 existed which are noted in Figure 1:
H0. There is no difference between the proportions of survey responses for Question 5.
H1. There is a difference between the proportions of survey responses for Question 5.

150 With a p-value ⬍ 0.05 (0.000), a significant difference exists between the CSF roadblocks
identified by the subjects. A comparison of the contribution to chi-square is in Figure 2
below.
The top two contributors to the chi-square value were “Priorities” and “Time
Constraints”. The third, “Six Sigma Tools” had the least amount of responses but scored
significantly because it was statistically significant with regard to expected count. The
following observations come from the survey data noted below:

Test Contribution
Category Observed Proportion Expected to Chi-Sq
Data Availability 4 0.111111 5.55556 0.4356
Planning 3 0.111111 5.55556 1.1756
Priorities 16 0.111111 5.55556 19.6356
Project Scope 3 0.111111 5.55556 1.1756
Team Involvement 4 0.111111 5.55556 0.4356
Process Owners 4 0.111111 5.55556 0.4356
Time Constraints 11 0.111111 5.55556 5.3356
Figure 1. Six Sigma Tools 2 0.111111 5.55556 2.2756
Chi-square Other 3 0.111111 5.55556 1.1756
goodness-of-fit test
N DF Chi-Sq P-Value
for Question 5
50 8 32.08 0.000

Chart of Contribution to the Chi-Square Value by Category

20
Contributed Value

15

10

0
s
ie
t
y
ts

ng

rs
r
s

pe

en

rit
he

lit
ol
in

ne
ni

co

bi
To

em

rio
Ot
ra

an

Ow
la
tS
t

P
lv
a
ns

ai
Pl
gm

Figure 2.
ec

vo
Av

s
Co

es
oj

In
Si

ta

oc
Pr
e

Chi-square
am
m

Da

Pr
Si
Ti

Te

contributors to CSF
barriers Category
 • Subjects that have completed projects with a project duration of 6⫹ months, Project
responded to Question 5 (roadblocks) that “Priorities” were a barrier the most barriers to
frequently at 71 per cent.
Green Belts
• Subjects that had completed projects and were told by their manager to become
accredited responded to Question 5 (roadblocks) with “Priorities” as a barrier at
80 per cent.
• Subjects that completed the project 30⫹ days to the timeline, 70 per cent 151
responded to Question 5 (roadblocks) with “Priorities” as the main barrier.

Priorities was the most frequently cited roadblock across all demographics. Barriers
signal that time management and priorities from local manager were a major concern.

4.3 Qualitative results

Qualitative data are data in the form of words (Sekaran and Bougie, 2009). The analysis of
qualitative data aimed to make valid conclusions from comments, recordings, transcripts or
answers from open-ended questions in a survey for validation (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
Triangulation is a technique that is also often associated with reliability and validity in
qualitative research (Sekaran and Bougie, 2009). The data collected from the open-ended
question and performed by the research team at several different times throughout the
months of January and February in 2013. The study survey contained one open-ended
question: How can we improve the Green Belt accreditation process? Of the 29 subjects, 18
responded to the question with a 62 per cent response rate. The research team reviewed and
categorized all of the responses to the question into three major themes: Time, Improvement
and Leadership. A complete division may be found in Appendix 2. The theme of “time” was
the most frequently mentioned barrier outside of “project(s)”, and a constraint on the GB
accreditation process. The next highest frequently mentioned theme, “make”, suggests
improvements to the process were recommended.

5. Discussion
Project management is a critical skill for every business, function and individual. SS GBs
need to consider basic elements of time, cost and quality with regard to project management,
and these elements will support SS teams with scope, aim and resources (Coronado and
Antony, 2002). Success in SS projects is well defined through the literature, especially with
regard to inputs such as project selection, project leadership and management. This study is
in line with previous research as defining SS projects through leadership, project
management and project selection. Fewer studies focus on the process of executing SS
projects; little is stated concerning GBs, those individuals serving the vast middle of SS
implementation between full-time SS personnel and the functional operators. Recent
literature stated that a weakness of SS is that as a top-down management approach, it
requires sustained and long-term commitment to achieve success (Antony, 2011).
The sustainability aspect is crucial in this study, as top management needs to provide the
planning and control through an SS project, not just in selecting the proper project
ingredients. The results above show that GBs’ greatest barrier to timely project completion
is priorities of personnel. As part-time practitioners, this study demonstrates that GBs’
understanding how to personally manage time on SS projects require upper-level support
and understanding of personnel duties at a strategic level. Regular communication between
the SS and regular business functions should support GB success, especially important, as
IJLSS GBs conduct SS in an occasional manner, juggling multiple priorities. Without more
6,2 inclusive personal direction, a whim may drive GBs’ project work and extend duration.
In this study, the results demonstrate that projects are scoped and defined without proper
knowledge of timeline utilizing basic project management techniques. Beginning with
charters or baselines are assumptions based upon previous work, or guesses, and do not
incorporate basic project management concepts such as sufficient slack time (Lambrechts
152 et al., 2011). GBs in this study note that constraints on time are significant factors influencing
project timeliness. For the majority of projects in this study, GBs and their team members
had a strong motivation to complete projects and took only optimistic accounts of project
duration, creating aggressive timelines. GBs in this study noted that time constraints, rather
than proper project planning, such as optimistic and pessimistic durations, accounted in the
duration. As GB projects progress, roadblocks start to occur with data collection or
determining a root cause and the attention to the project timeliness begins to diminish.
Defined at the project start, these time constraints become more limiting due to the arbitrary
nature of the planned timeline. Establishing an initial, rational timeline is critical, and
previous literature notes that it requires team commitment, clear leadership and lessons
learned to be incorporated into calculating accurate project timelines. However, from this
study, historical data should be used with caution as the project durations varied widely,
making accurate time estimates of future projects based upon similar projects difficult. In
addition, GBs noted that teamwork, data availability and SS tools were all factors
contributing to a lengthy project duration. GBs noted that teamwork, more precisely, team
commitment through time contribution as a significant factor: GBs leading more involved
teams noted more project timeliness, in line with previous literature. Also note, previously,
especially in the area of GBs, there was the availability of data; teams that had ready data
were more efficient where collection of accurate data is a time-consuming activity (Green,
2006). Finally, analysis of results show that GBs felt that requiring the same tools, regardless
of the nature of the project they were leading, was onerous. This is similar to previous work
where the heavy commitment to the SS DMAIC process reduces its effectiveness (Antony,
2011).

6. Conclusions and recommendations

This study was conducted to understand GB project barriers through a CSF framework. The
significant factors that contributed to a lack of GB timely project completion were
categorized by: project selection, project management and leadership. The primary factors
noted by GBs themselves were priorities, time constraints and SS tools. Top management
understanding of SS strengths and weaknesses should support the nature of SS projects and
be included in initial selection and design, especially as SS spreads across the enterprise and
project applications become more diverse, even with GBs working on SS within their
functional areas, as demonstrated here, requiring attention to the problem statement, scope
and goals at project selection and not relying as heavily on GB process knowledge. As in
previous work, the GBs included in this study were experienced and educated in their chosen
area of expertise but note that a barrier to completion noted was SS tools. This also means
that the individuals who become GBs (or BBs) need more than the technical competence to be
successful in their role in SS implementation.
While GBs described the prescriptive nature of DMAIC, a lack of applying project
management was noted by GBs. This organization, like many others, outsources GB
training. This curriculum is predominately online. A review or insourcing GB training could
support better project management and leadership in SS to support GB time constraints. Project
GBs have strong motivations to successfully complete projects and may exhibit a strong barriers to
start. But as the time progresses, barriers start to occur and attention to the project timeliness Green Belts
diminishes to meet projected goals. The inclusion of established project management
principles in GB training to support all overall project management principles (scope, time
and budget) is important, and it requires commitment and acceptance from both project and
functional leadership to support GB priorities, both in temporary (SS) and functional duties. 153
Due to the nature of GB work, priorities between SS and functional duties may
become an issue without proper project planning and control. After initial gate review,
GBs often interact with their functional managers and their SS coach or trainers. Of
these competing commitments, prioritization of duties may result in SS work being
subsumed by regular job duties. Governance at the strategic level between functional
managers and SS personnel could minimize confusion as to competing commitments.
Better coordination of a GBs time between SS personnel and functional managers, and
better management of SS projects, such as project portfolio management, is encouraged.
But this means that top management must lead beyond strategic levels to operations
transparent to all employees.
To lead with SS means going beyond lip service. Top management plays an active
role in not only introducing SS but also demonstrating a visible role for all employees to
see. The “sense-making” of the professional roles within the SS framework increases; a
principle of a learning organization (Senge, 1990). To support organizational learning,
top management should review projects regularly to understand project progression
and fulfill the role of leading SS efforts. Frequent interaction between the GBs and top
management is encouraged. Without understanding, the roles that upper management
plays in supporting SS efforts is limited: while GBs (and BBs) follow a strong roadmap
(DMAIC), top management often does not have standardized work at the strategic level
that follows best practices. Use of CSFs to actively management SS projects, in addition
to implementing SS strategy, may prove useful.
A majority of SS inquiry is based upon industrial research. This study is based upon
a single manufacturer with strong engineering knowledge. Expanding upon this case to
other industries with GBs would improve the general impact. This study indicates that
there is further research potential into project management and SS. While there has been
much research on CSFs and projects, especially with regard to selection, the use of CSFs
to evaluate the SS project management through top management of SS has potential. In
addition, the methods and practice of teaching and learning SS in the industrial
environment became evident but was not explored. Research in this area holds promise.
While the organization under study contains strong functional knowledge in its
employees, SS tools remained a barrier; recent developments with regard to maturity
models should be explored.
GBs play an important function in SS success. They provide the critical mass to support
the widespread change needed. Without GBs, there are too few personnel, operating as BBs,
to have a broader impact. SS is an expensive endeavor and the training and application of BB
projects takes much investment. However, with effective GBs conducting projects, an
organization may improve the payback of such efforts and improve SS application to a wider
spectrum of organizations, especially among the vast number of enterprises that have the
will, but not the resources to take full advantage of SS benefits.
IJLSS References
6,2 Aboelmaged, M. (2009), “Six Sigma quality: a structured review and implications for future
research”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 269-318.
Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R. and Nedler, G. (2006), “Critical success factors for lean
implementation with SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17
154 No. 4, pp. 460-471.
Ahadian, B. and Abadi, A. (2012), “Six Sigma pilot project selections using an MCDM approach”,
Management Science and Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 34-43.
Anand, G., Ward, P. and Tatikonda, M. (2010), “Role of explicit and tacit knowledge in Six Sigma
projects: an empirical examiniation of differential project success”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 303-315.
Antony, J. (2004a), “Six Sigma in the UK service organisations: results from a pilot survey”,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 1006-1013.
Antony, J. (2004b), “Some pros and cons of Six Sigma: an academic perspective”, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 303-306.
Antony, J. (2011), “Six Sigma vs Lean: some perspectives from leading academics and
practitioners”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 60
No. 2, pp. 185-190.
Antony, J. and Banuelas, R. (2002), “Key ingredients for the effective implementation of Six Sigma
program”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 20-27.
Arumugam, V., Antony, J. and Kumar, M. (2013), “Linking learning and knowledge creation to
project success in Six Sigma projects: an empirical investigation”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 141 No. 1, pp. 388-402.
Behara, R., Fontenot, G. and Gresham, A. (1995), “Customer satisfaction measurement and
analysis using six sigma”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 9-18.
Banuelas, R., Tennant, C., Tuersley, I. and Tang, S. (2006), “Selection of Six Sigma projects in the
UK”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 514-527.
Bisgaard, S. (2007), “What’s missing in Six Sigma? Project management – individually and
collectively”, ASQ Six Sigma Forum, pp. 38-39.
Bloomberg (2007), “Six Sigma: so yesterday”, Bloomberg, 11 June, available at: www.
businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_24/b4038409.htm (accessed 22 November 2011).
Breyfogle, F. (2003), Implementing Six Sigma. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Breyfogle, F., Cupello, J. and Meadows, B. (2001), Managing Six Sigma, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Büyüközkan, B. and Öztürkcan, D. (2010), “An integrated analytic approach for Six Sigma project
selection”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 8, p. 5835.
Coronado, R. and Antony, J. (2002), “Critical success factors for the successful implementation
of Six Sigma projects in organizations”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 92-99.
Deming, E. (2000), Out of the Crisis, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Desai, D., Antony, J. and Patel, M. (2012), “An assessment of the critical success factors for Six
Sigma implementation in Indian industries”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 426-444.
Dobbins, R. (1995), A Failure of Methods, Not Philosophy, Quality Progress, pp. 31-33.
Easton, G. and Rosenzweig, E. (2012), “The role of experience in Six Sigma project success: an Project
empirical analysis of improvement projects”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 30, pp. 481-493.
barriers to
Feo, J. and Barnard, W. (2005), JURAN Institute’s Six Sigma Breakthrough and Beyond – Quality
Green Belts
Performance Breakthrough Methods, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Goh, T. (2003), “Impact of Six Sigma implementation on stock price performance”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 753-763. 155
Gopesh, A., Ward, P. and Tatikonda, M. (2009), “Role of explicit and tacit knowledge in Six Sigma
projects: an empirical examination of differential project success”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 303-315.
Gray, J. and Anantatmula, V. (2009), “Managing Six Sigma projects through the integration of Six
Sigma and project management processes”, Journal of International Six Sigma and
Competitive Advantage, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 127-143.
Green, F. (2006), “Six Sigma and the green belt perspective: a study in five companies”,
International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 291-300.
Green, F., Barbee, J., Cox, S. and Rowlett, C. (2006), “Green belt Six Sigma at a small company”,
International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 179-189.
Hair, J., Hult, G., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, New York, NY.
Harry, M. and Schroeder, R. (2006), Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy
Revolutionizing The World’s Top Corporations, Crown Business, New York, NY.
Ho, Y-C., Chang, O-C. and Wang, W-B. (2008), “An empirical study of key success factors for Six
Sigma Green Belt projects at an Asian MRO company”, Journal of Air Transport
Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 263-269.
Jacobsen, J. (2008), “Avoiding the mistakes of the past: lessons learned on what makes or breaks
quality initiatives”, Journal for Quality and Participation, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 4-8.
Kumar, M., Antony, J. and Cho, B. (2009), “Project selection and its impact on the successful
deployment of Six Sigma”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5,
pp. 669-686.
Kumar, U. Saranga, H., Ramırez-Marquez, J. and Nowicki, D. (2007), “Six Sigma project
selection using data envelopment analysis”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 419-441.
Lambrechts, O., Demeulemeester, E. and Herroelen, W. (2011), “Time slack-based techniques for
robust project scheduling subject to resource uncertainty”, Annals of Operations Research,
Vol. 186 No. 1, pp. 443-464.
Lynch, D., Bertolino, S. and Cloutier, E. (2003), “How to scope DMAIC projects”, Quality Progress,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 37-41.
Mandal, P. (2012), “Improving process improvement: executing the analyze and improve
phases of DMAIC better”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 231-250.
Maneesh, K., Antony, J. and Tiwari, M. (2011), “Six Sigma implementation framework for SMEs –
a roadmap to manage and sustain the change”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 49 No. 18, pp. 5449-5467.
Mariotti, J. (2005), “What’s missing in Six Sigma”, ASQ Six Sigma Forum, pp. 44.
IJLSS Mehrjerdi, Z. (2011), “Six Sigma: methodology, tools and its future”, Assembly Automation, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 79-88.
6,2
Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Padhy, R. and Sahu, S. (2011), “A real option based Six Sigma project evaluation and selection
model”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 1091-1102.
156 Pande, P., Neuman, R. and Cavanaugh, R. (2000), The Six Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola and
Other Top Companies are Honing their Performance, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Parast, M. (2011), “The effect of Six Sigma projects on innovation and firm performance”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 44-55.
PMI (2009), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBOK Guide, 4th ed.,
Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Pzydek, T. and Keller, P. (2003), The Six Sigma Handbook: A Complete Guide for Black Belts,
Green Belts, and Managers at All Levels, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ramu, G. (2007), “Six Sigma project assignment: know your black belts”, ASQ Six Sigma
Forum, pp. 26-30.
Ray, S. and Das, P. (2010), “Six Sigma project selection methodology”, International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 293-309.
Savolainen, T. and Haikonen, A. (2007), “Dynamics of organizational learning and continuous
improvement in Six Sigma implementation”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 6-17.
Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2009), Research Methods for Business, Wiley & Sons, New York,
NY.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Doubleday, New York, NY.
Shanmugaraja, M., Nataraj, M. and Gunasekaran, N. (2012), “Six Sigma project selecting via
quality function deployment”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality
Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 85-111.
Sharma, S. and Chetiya, A.R. (2010), “Six Sigma project selection: an analysis of responsible
factors”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 280-292.
Snee, R. (2010), “Lean Six Sigma – getting better all the time”, International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-29.
Snee, R. and Hoerl, R.W. (2003), Leading Six Sigma: a Step-by-Step Guide Based on Experience with
GE and Other Six Sigma Companies, Ft Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Su, C. and Chou, C. (2008), “A systematic methodology for the creation of Six Sigma projects:
a case study of semiconductor foundry”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34
No. 4, pp. 2693-2703.
Tariq, M. (2013), “A Six Sigma based risk management framework for handling undesired effects
associated with delays in project completion”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 265-279.
Tjahjono, B., Ball, P., Vitanov, V., Scorzafave, C., Nogueira, J., Calleja, J., Minguet, M.,
Narasimha, L., Rivas, A., Srivastava, A., Srivastava, S. and Yadav, A. (2010), “Six
Sigma: a literature review”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 216-233.
UCLA (2007), “Introduction to SAS”, available at: www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/whatstat/whatstat.
htm (accessed 13 February 2013).
Vom Brocke, J. and Sinnl, T. (2011), “Culture in business process management: a literature Project
review”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 357-377.
barriers to
Wu, K., Yang, L. and Chiang, I. (2012), “Leadership and Six Sigma project success: the role of
member cohesiveness and resource management”, Production Planning & Control: The Green Belts
Management of Operations, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 707-717.
Yang, T. and Hsieh, C. (2009), “Six-Sigma project selection using national quality award criteria
and Delphi fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making method”, Expert Systems with 157
Applications, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 7594-7603.
Zhang, W., Hill, A. and Gilbreath, G. (2011), “A research agenda for Six Sigma research”, The
Quality Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-53.

About the authors

Dr Chad Laux is an Assistant Professor from the Technology Leadership & Innovation
Department at the College of Technology at Purdue University. Dr Laux teaches and conducts
research in the area of quality management, lean Six Sigma and food security. Chad is a Six Sigma
Black Belt from Caterpillar, General Electric and the American Society for Quality and has 20
years experience and has numerous publications in the quality field. He earned his PhD from Iowa
State University in 2007. Chad Laux is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
claux@purdue.edu
Dr Mary Johnson is an Associate Professor at the College of Technology at Purdue University.
As a member of the Aviation Technology department, Dr Johnson studies aviation emissions,
sustainability analysis in aviation and continuous improvement. Dr Johnson has taught Black
Belt, Master Black Belt and Green Belt LSS courses.
Paul Cada is a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt at a large manufacturing company in Indianapolis
and holds a Master of Science degree from Purdue University in Industrial Technology.
IJLSS Appendix 1. Survey questions
6,2

158
Appendix 2. Qualitative results Project
barriers to
Category Sub category Comment
Green Belts
Time Time management, Nothing the GB team can do. It was just a matter of finding quality
priorities time to devote to the project. I was not prepared for the extended
amounts of time I would need to dedicate to complete the project
and had to work hard to dedicate
159
Time management, Consider a required separation from day-to-day business (perhaps
priorities physical separation) that would allow for regularly scheduled time
for Green Belt activities. Day-to-day business requirements easily
and often receive higher priority than Green Belt projects.
Formalizing time away could be very effective towards ensuring
timely completion
Time management, GB candidates seem to be shying away from the efforts involved
priorities with getting certified due to the added time constraints/
expectations. We ought to ensure at least some part of a work week
to the candidates (and support teams) to execute the improvement
efforts
Time management, Provide more pressure to meet the project timeline and force
priorities projects to be small
Non-value-added activity How can I get rid of my GB certification
Non-value-added activity Get rid of the entire thing, the amount of money wasted by me
spending time on the GB project and not on my actual job is
insane. Class for a week, 60 hours of training online, then the test,
then working on the project itself. Over 1 1/2 months of actual
work time has been dedicated to the project, and it is not finished.
To be honest, it is finished, just spending hours upon hours
working on the paperwork to get it accredited. Complete waste of
money, and I will NOT be doing another project, I don’t have
Non-value-added activity My first GB project was meaningful and still useful, my second GB
project (In my opinion was a waste of time) had to be completed
because of the mandatory requirement to complete a project once a
year. I feel that these types of time and money consuming projects
should only be assigned as needed
Non-value-added activity Don’t require them. If the company is serious about changing the
culture and changing the way people view there job’s and the role
we all play in continuous improvement then push yellow belts as
an active requirement for their day-to-day activities. It is a
hindrance to improvement to use such a cumbersome process that
requires special funding, a dedicated team, and a significant time
investment that takes employees away from their jobs and
ultimately thier families. Make it simple and make it part of the
job. We should all be thinking about how we make our jobs better
everyday and GB just doesn’t help that
Improvements Budget Aid the GB applicant in establishing a budget within
Budget Dedicated budget for these, so don’t need to scratch around
Improve class material The book that we get from class of all the class material was
impossible to go back and reference later. I couldn’t find anything.
Doing it in the DMAIC order and adding tabs would be helpful.
Otherwise, it is wasted printed paper
Improve the process Streamline the gated review process. Should complete this
electronically to avoid delays, wasted time waiting for personal
schedules to align. Documentation requirements seem excessive.
IPP workbooks, Excel files, seemed redundant. Perhaps final
approver can approve each project phase just after reviews rather
than waiting to the end of the project to grant Table AI.
(continued) Qualitative results
IJLSS Category Sub category Comment
6,2
Improve the toolset Streamline the toolset (decision tree on what tools to use in
specific cases) and make clear that the sponsor has to be
engaged
Project selection This may already be in place but if not [. . .] Generate a pool
of corporate GB projects which people can take on as
160 projects. It can be difficult to identify suitable projects
when working at deployed sites and getting buy-in from
the customer
Leadership Governance meeting Perhaps having some sessions at the end of the year to go
over some GB projects would be beneficial for read across
Leadership I would like to see the senior leadership engage in more
substantive projects. I’ve noticed that project complexity
(and benefit) seems to be inversely proportion to rank in
the company. Very senior folks are doing GB projects that
feel more like YB projects (e.g. 5S, L: drive cleanup, etc).
For Belt skills to be taken more seriously, we really need
the seniors to be taking on major, transformational projects
using the GB tools. In my view, projects like our re-orgs
should be addressed using Belt tools, rather than by the
Table AI. seat of the pants

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com