Business Process Management Journal Emerald Article: Case study analysis of Six Sigma implementation in service organisations Ayon Chakraborty, Kay Chuan Tan

Article information: To cite this document: Ayon Chakraborty, Kay Chuan Tan, (2012),"Case study analysis of Six Sigma implementation in service organisations", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 18 Iss: 6 pp. 992 - 1019 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637151211283384 Downloaded on: 30-10-2012 References: This document contains references to 53 other documents To copy this document: [email protected]

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm

BPMJ 18,6

Case study analysis of Six Sigma implementation in service organisations

992

Ayon Chakraborty Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, and

Kay Chuan Tan Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore Abstract Purpose – The aim of this research is to explore the implementation of Six Sigma in service organisations. The focus of the investigation is on identifying critical success factors (CSFs), critical-to quality (CTQ) characteristics, tools and techniques and key performance indicators (KPIs), and also to understand the issues emerging from the implementation process. Design/methodology/approach – Exploratory empirical evidence is provided through four in-depth case studies of organisations mainly in Singapore. They include a hospital, a public service organisation, a consultancy service and a hotel. Findings – The major findings include an understanding about the suitability of Six Sigma implementation in service organisations. Management support and team member support emerged as primary success factors. The CTQs include time and cost, while use of soft tools instead of rigorous statistical tools are preferred by service organisations. At the project level, KPIs are understood more as CTQs. Additionally; various interesting practical difficulties emerged from the case studies. Research limitations/implications – A main limitation of this study is the small number of organisations studied and that are mainly from a single geographical location. Furthermore, the exploratory nature of the study demands rigorous in-depth studies. The practical difficulties identified will have major implications for managers. The framework including the CSFs, CTQs, KPIs, and tools and techniques, will be a useful guide for both practitioners and academicians. Originality/value – There are limited studies about Six Sigma implementation in service organisations. This paper provides a framework and a paradigm shift from viewing its implementation through a manufacturing lens. Keywords Six Sigma, Service organizations, Case study, Critical success factors, Singapore Paper type Research paper

Business Process Management Journal Vol. 18 No. 6, 2012 pp. 992-1019 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1463-7154 DOI 10.1108/14637151211283384

Introduction Since, its introduction in the 1980s by Motorola, Six Sigma as a quality improvement methodology has gained importance both in manufacturing and service organisations (Basu, 2004). The initial success stories are mainly from the manufacturing sector and included organisations such as Raytheon, Texas Instruments and Honeywell. The success story of General Electric in the 1990s, catapulted Six Sigma into several manufacturing and service organisations. In the last decade or so, service organisations in the finance and banking sector such as Citibank and American Express, and health sector such as Baxter Health and Mount Carmel Hospital have registered success through Six Sigma implementation (Jones Jr, 2004; Sehwall and De Yong, 2003; Young, 2001; Rucker, 2000).

Six Sigma implementation in service organisations though mainly limited to health care and finance in the initial years, is slowly getting recognized by other services such as information technology, call centers and education. According to Does et al. (2002) and Mortimer (2006) Six Sigma applicability is for all types of organisations throughout the world. This reflects in the growing influence of Six Sigma in countries such as Singapore where it is extensively implemented in public service organisations such as Alexandra Hospital, Singapore Power, and Singapore City Gas (Inozu et al., 2006; Pheng and Hui, 2004). An extensive literature review on Six Sigma implementation in service organisations by the authors (Chakrabarty and Tan, 2009, 2007) resulted in understanding several aspects. First the literature talks mainly about critical success factors (CSFs), critical-to-quality (CTQ) characteristics, key performance indicators (KPIs), and a set of tools and techniques (STTs). There is ambiguity in understanding about KPIs both in the literature and in practice at the level of Six Sigma implementation. It is also observed that there is lack of rigor in the studies about Six Sigma in services. Authors such as Nonthaleerak and Hendry (2008) and Schroeder et al. (2008) stressed the need for rigorous research and theory development in studies related to Six Sigma implementation. Based on the identified gaps, this study aims to develop a framework and identify major factors that a play a role in Six Sigma implementation at the project level. The overall study includes data collection both qualitatively and quantitatively. The qualitative data collection is through multiple case studies in different service organisations. This paper presents results from four main case studies done as a part of the overall research. The results are presented through interpretation of the data collected through various techniques. On the Six Sigma implementation aspect at project level and also as part of the overall framework, the study focused on CSFs, CTQs, KPIs, and STTs. The practical issues explored are the difficulties and concerns of the practitioners regarding Six Sigma implementation in service organisations. The rest of the paper is organized into six sections. The next section provides a literature review and focus on Six Sigma implementation in manufacturing and services. The third section discusses the derived research questions. This is followed by two sections on case study data collection techniques and four case studies and their analysis. In the final section, the paper concludes with possible implications and limitations of the study. Literature review Six Sigma originated in industry. But in recent times, it has inspired a considerable amount of academic literature. This review of the literature covered a timeframe of 12 years (2000-2011). Scope and research methods The review focused on papers published in journals, magazines, conference proceedings, and excludes articles published on web sites of Six Sigma communities, such as isixsigma.com. The aim of such articles is to share ideas and best practices among members of the community. But this may be vague from an academic point of view (Hendry and Nonthaleerak, 2005). The search was derived from database ABI/INFORM, spanning a time period of 2000 through 2011. Seven descriptors were used: Six Sigma, Six Sigma in services, Six Sigma in manufacturing, quality initiatives in services,

Six Sigma implementation

993

BPMJ 18,6

quality initiatives in manufacturing, Six Sigma and quality control, quality management and Six Sigma. A total of 180 articles related to Six Sigma were identified and covered in the review. The text of each article was reviewed in order to eliminate those, which were clearly not related to Six Sigma. Overall, it is not claimed that the list of articles included is exhaustive, only that the associated databases serve as a reasonably comprehensive list for understanding Six Sigma related research.

994 Framework – article analysis This section, characterizes the database of articles using statistics derived from the classifiers as described in Table I. The goals include the identification of trends including those that relate to the authorship of articles and the subjects addressed. Results focusing on success factors, CTQs, and KPIs are discussed. 1. Literature trend. Figures 1 and 2 show the number of articles published about Six Sigma against the years, in manufacturing and services, respectively. Based on the number of articles, there is little doubt that the subject is actively reported in manufacturing. The plots suggest the following findings: . First, in case of manufacturing the publication started from very early period and is initially dominated by authors from industry. A similar trend is observed for articles related to Six Sigma implementation in services. For manufacturing the number of articles by industrial authors peaked in 2006, whereas for services

Table I. Descriptors used to classify articles

Figure 1. The yearly number of Six Sigma articles in manufacturing and their authorship

S. no.

Descriptor

1 2

Industrial sector: manufacturing (M), service (S), or general (G) (Zain et al., 2001) Research approach: case study (CS), comparative (C), survey (S), literature review (LR), or theoretical with application (TA) (Zain et al., 2001) Authorship: industrial (I), academic (A), or both (I, A) (Brady and Allen, 2006) Success factors: all combination of possible success factors (Brady and Allen, 2006) Journal impact factor: 0-9.723 (SCI)

3 4 5

Source: Adapted from Brady (2005)

Six Sigma implementation

995

Figure 2. The yearly number of Six Sigma articles in services and their authorship

.

.

the domination is declined for industrial authors from 2003 onwards. This trend in authorship from industry dominated to academic dominated is not surprising because of industrial origins of Six Sigma. Second, at the same time interest among academics started to grow for Six Sigma implementation in manufacturing. But same cannot be said about implementation in services. Over the entire search period, 44 percent of the authors had industry affiliations and 56 percent had academic affiliations in the case of the manufacturing related literature. Over the same period, for services, 62 percent of the authors had industry affiliations and 38 percent had academic affiliations. It can be anticipated that growing interest in Six Sigma implementation in services from the academic arena would add rigour and theoretical understanding to the subject. The third observation is about the publication in different industry sectors. It is observed that most of the publications still discuss services in general. Figure 3

Figure 3. Distribution of articles in different industry sectors

BPMJ 18,6

996

Figure 4. Pareto chart of articles in manufacturing by research approach

shows that of the reviewed articles, 42 percent talks about application in general. 24 percent is about articles in manufacturing. For services, the article distribution is 26 percent. There are also limited publications in SMEs and supply chain. 2. Literature research topics and methods. Next, the topics and research approaches of the articles in the databases are examined. We begin by focusing on the topics covered and the dependence of the number of articles and scholarly impact on the authorship. Then, the methods used in relation to scholarly impact are investigated. Figure 4 shows number of articles associated with different research methods. Most articles are review papers. The focus of review extends from Six Sigma methodology, tools and techniques to CSFs. The second most articles are about direct application of Six Sigma to different sectors. This is largely dominated by manufacturing with applications ranging from chemical to pharmaceutical organisations. It was noted that these types of articles mostly dealt with DMAIC methodology and tools and techniques. They are not helpful in developing a model on how and why Six Sigma works. The number of case studies in services is limited. Those published lack rigour and do not add significantly to theory development about Six Sigma implementation in services. As discussed in the last section, journal impact factors were developed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) to provide a rough measure of journal quality. Figure 5 is distribution of the journal impact factors associated with either academic or industry authors. It shows that, academic authors tended to publish in journals with high scholarly impact. The articles related dealt mostly with technical level rather than the level of practice, which is more helpful for decision makers in organizations looking for guidance. Figure 6 is distribution of the journal impact factors associated with articles related to manufacturing, services or of generic interest. The plot shows that for service related publications, the impact factor varies from very low (0.25) to very high (5.093). This can be attributed to limited Six Sigma implementation in services. Healthcare where Six

Six Sigma implementation

997

Figure 5. Distribution of impact factors of publications associated to authorship

Figure 6. Distribution of impact factors of publications associated to business sectors

BPMJ 18,6

998

Sigma has high rate of implementation, there are more articles with high scholarly impact. This is because of the relatively greater impact associated with specific journals related to healthcare. Critical success factors CSFs are the essential ingredients required for success of Six Sigma projects (Coronado and Antony, 2002). There have been many studies on CSFs. One of the earliest is by Harry (2000), who discussed about six success factors involving management’s leadership, belt system, etc. Later on, Antony and Banuelas (2002) mentioned 12 success factors which include management involvement and commitment, linking Six Sigma to business strategy, etc. There are several other studies and all of them have at least one common CSF, i.e. top management commitment. The discussion on CSFs by Antony (2006) is the only one specific to service organizations. The factors discussed above are equally applicable to services and manufacturing. This literature review found that top management commitment, education and training, cultural change, and financial benefits are the most important CSFs. Figure 7 shows the importance of the CSFs as seen by each of the articles that were reviewed. CTQ characteristics CTQ is defined in different ways in the literature. But mostly it is agreed that CTQ is a quality characteristic of a product or a service which is required to be improved on from a customer’s point of view. In other words, CTQs are generated from critical customer requirements derived from the voice of customer. CTQs are the key measurable indicators of a product or process whose performance standards or specification limits must be met in order to satisfy the customer. CTQs align improvement or design efforts with customer requirements. In layman term, CTQs are what customers expect of a product or service. They are the spoken needs of the customer (isixsigma/dictionary).

Figure 7. Percentage of articles mentioning each of 19 CSFs

Six Sigma focuses on process improvement, and improving the service process is a major determinant of customer satisfaction. Key performance indicators The term KPI is not well defined in the literature, and there exist different interpretations. Mostly the literature discuss about it as performance metrics, i.e. it is a measure of performance in terms of cost, quality, yield, and capacity (Basu and Wright, 2003; Hahn et al., 1999). KPIs show actual data of a particular outcome. The outcomes of Six Sigma projects are usually required to be expressed in financial terms. This leads to a direct measure of achievement which is easy to understand (Goh, 2002). The majority of the KPI literature on Six Sigma in services talks about financial benefits. Other KPIs include expressions in terms of customer satisfaction and efficiency. Similar to CTQs, some KPIs are common across services. Tools and techniques There is much literature available on tools and techniques used in Six Sigma. Tools are mostly referred to as having a clearly defined role but narrow in focus, whereas techniques have wider application and require specific skills, creativity, and training (Antony, 2006). Similar to CSFs, CTQs, and KPIs; there is limited literature which discuss about STTs specific to service organizations. Discussion on STTs is mostly on its usage at different phases of the DMAIC methodology. De Koning and De Mast (2006) used seven different literature sources and provided a summary of STTs used in the DMAIC phases. Some other literature provide classification scheme for tools and techniques used. Henderson and Evans (2000) discussed about tool sets in three groups; team tools, process tools, and statistical tools. As for Six Sigma tools and techniques specific to service organizations, Antony (2006) provides a grid as a guideline for services. A number of classification schemes for STTs exists, the majority of which are based on the DMAIC methodology. The classification schemes by the American Society for Quality (ASQ) and by Nancy Tague (1995) called the tool matrix provide an exhaustive list of tools and techniques which can be used during Six Sigma implementation. The ASQ classification scheme and the tool matrix have almost similar categories. The only difference being in the number of tools and techniques each category. Summary As the nature of research on Six Sigma is difficult to confine to specific disciplines, relevant material is scattered across various publications. A search resulted in identification of articles published between 2000 and 2011. Although this review cannot claim to be exhaustive, it does provide reasonable insight into the state-of-the-art. Further investigation still provides limited insight about Six Sigma implementation in service organisations. The review revealed that compared to manufacturing, Six Sigma is relatively new in services. The publication of articles related to services started around 1999 and is now dominated by authors having academic affiliation. The published articles so far are mainly from Six Sigma implementation in healthcare (Heuvel et al., 2005; Woodard, 2005; Young et al., 2004; Benedetto, 2003), followed by finance (Krupar, 2003; Rucker, 2000) and others. This shows the limited Six Sigma implementation in services.

Six Sigma implementation

999

BPMJ 18,6

1000

There are more published case studies in manufacturing than in services for the period of this review. The case studies are mostly descriptive in nature and lack academic rigor which is important for theory development. Further there is conflicting evidence regarding the applicability of Six Sigma in services. Does et al. (2002) found that Six Sigma can be applicable to services with minor adaptations whereas McAdam and Lafferty (2004) reported low success of Six Sigma in services. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate further this issue (Nonthaleerak and Hendry, 2008). In the database, approximately 8 percent of the articles discussed about success factors. But most of them do not attempt to determine a comprehensive set of CSFs for services. Antony (2006) and Antony et al. (2007) provides a list of 13 CSFs specific to services based on a literature review and survey. Similar to CSFs, a discussion on tools and techniques used in Six Sigma projects is descriptive in nature. There is also no conclusion on the differences in their application between manufacturing and services. In addition there is a need to determine specific issues in context. For example, if a certain CSF or tool is important then it is necessary to question the nature and frequency of this involvement through in-depth case study research (Nonthaleerak and Hendry, 2008). The success of Six Sigma in services depends on the outcome of project and initiatives. But there is little theory to explain the differences between successful and unsuccessful efforts (Brady, 2005). What is required is to develop a framework which will attempt to build a theory of how and why Six Sigma works in services. Research questions Based on the above discussion, the following exploratory research questions were derived: RQ1. What success factors are of importance for succeeding with a Six Sigma implementation in service organizations? How do they impact its implementation in services? RQ2. How have service organizations successfully implemented Six Sigma, and what difficulties emerged during the implementation process? RQ3. What are the tools and techniques for Six Sigma implementation in services? How they are selected? Methodology This type of study involves some issues which need to be addressed. One is the need for sufficient data. The three-phase approach considered in this study will ensure that valid and reliable interpretation are made while generating theories and in developing the framework. Next is to have rich and detailed enough data to go beyond the limited depth of explanation of the theories that occur in large-scale research. Practitioner involvement is important to overcome this issue. Relationships, attitudes, and meaningful insights have to be obtained from the practitioners’ views to build a discussion around them. This will help to establish without misinterpretation the relationships and propagation of Six Sigma in service organizations. Finally, the practitioner has to be challenged so that the critically reflexive learning can be applied for Six Sigma implementation to a wider range of service organizations.

In order to overcome these issues, an empirical study is developed using three-phase approach. This approach is integrative. It uses a combination of different techniques at each phase as shown in Figure 8. This integrative phase by phase process of data collection helps in developing an understanding of the phenomena over time, by allowing each phase of the research to build on learning from previous phase(s) (Gilmore and Carson, 1996). This paper reports on the results emerging only from the case studies which are conducted in two phases. The discussion on surveys and their results are out of the scope of this paper. The insights from case studies were rich and provide inputs for a larger scale survey which was conducted later in this study. Phase I Macro study

Six Sigma implementation

1001

Exploratory case studies

Action Redefine/expand/refocus research agenda Develop new ideas/directions Phase II Companies in similar industry or in similar geographical location Small scale survey

Observation study

Conversations with practitioners

Case Studies

Outcomes Describe data to which the company could specifically respond with tangible actions Experiential knowledge development of researcher Ongoing interpretive analysis, allowing data to be initially coded in several ways, then reanalyzed and interpreted as further data are gathered Holistic perspective/ understanding of phenomena

Action Add wider dimensions to agenda Redefine/expand/refocus research agenda Develop new ideas/directions Phase III Companies in similar industry in different geographical locations/or specific aspects within one company Large scale survey Conversations with practitioners

In-depth interviews Content analysis of organization materials

Source: Adapted from Leonard and McAdam (2001) and Gilmore and Carson (1996)

Figure 8. Three-phase approach

BPMJ 18,6

1002

Case studies The case study was chosen as the research method primarily due to the nature of the research questions. Yin (1994) recommends this method as the most appropriate when contextual conditions are believed to be highly pertinent to the phenomenon under study. The case study method is also recommended when research questions embodies an explanatory component such as in this study (i.e. how CSFs impact Six Sigma implementation in services) (Yin, 1994). Sample selection We opted for an intricate sample design (Harrigan, 1983). This is a design where the sample is selected to coincide with sites that possess observable traits that are key factors in the propositions to be examined (Sousa and Voss, 2001). The process for selecting individual service organizations was based on publicly available information and the respondents of a small-scale survey. An initial list of 20 service organizations was compiled. These organizations were likely to comply with our research objectives. Eight of the organizations declined to participate. We started by contacting the remaining 12 firms. Unit of analysis Except for single case versus multiple-case design possibilities, one can also distinguish a case design separating and choosing between a single unit of analysis and multiples unit of analysis (Yin, 1994). In the literature, a unit of analysis refers to a great variety of objects of study, for example, a person, a program, an organisation, a classroom or a clinic (Mertens, 1998), or a community, state or nation (Patton, 1987). Other authors have considered the unit of analysis as interviews or diaries in their entity, and the amount of space allocated to a topic or an interaction under study (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992). For our case studies, the overarching unit of analysis is the Six Sigma projects. There were sub-units that were investigated to reveal the main unit as realistically as possible. These sub-units are the experiences from different expertise (belt levels), the difficulties faced, the tools and techniques used, which also counts for the opinions among the actors involved in the implementation work. The reason behind choosing different expertise is because of different roles of black belt (BB) and green belt (GB) in Six Sigma project. BBs are the project leaders who are responsible towards project management while GBs are involved in data collection and analysis process. Following the experiences from different expertise will help in understanding the concerns from different levels, about Six Sigma projects. Table II provides link between the research questions of our study with the unit of analysis considered. Therefore, during the case studies different expertise in Six Sigma are chosen, which indicates that the chosen research design is an embedded multiple-case design. The replication does not necessarily mean that each case study needs to be either holistic or embedded (Hansson, 2003). When an embedded design is used, each individual case may include the collection and analysis of high quantitative data including the use of surveys within each case (Yin, 1994). During this study, each individual case in the multiple-case design represented an embedded design. This unity between the individual cases was chosen in order to discover possible differences between the respondent groups, different levels of expertise and experience in Six Sigma implementation, as they may not share the same experience from an implementation process.

Data collection procedure Interviews We conducted structured interviews with all the informants. The structured questionnaire involved questions on the Six Sigma initiative, project selection, Six Sigma implementation process, and the learning experience. As a part of the Six Sigma initiative, we asked the informants about the reason they prefer Six Sigma over other initiatives, how the preparations were done to implement Six Sigma, and what was their approach to training. In project selection the informants were asked about the criteria of selection of the projects, factors involved in success of a project, and reasons behind unsuccessful projects. For the process of Six Sigma implementation, the questions are about their considerations on CTQs, tool and techniques used at different phases of DMAIC, selection criteria of STTs, and KPIs. We also asked the informants about their learning experience on the basis of Six Sigma’s relevance to their organization, problems faced during the implementation process, and how they overcame those problems. In total there were ten interviews; six formal and four informal. The informal interviews were conducted with the staff nurses of the hospital. The questions asked were mainly about their experience from the current projects due to their limited knowledge on Six Sigma. All formal interviews were taped, transcribed, and coded. The list of interviewees is provided in Table III. Having already established a database from the literature review, initial questionnaire survey, and exploratory case studies on different aspects of Six Sigma Research questions

Unit of analysis

RQ1. What success factors are of importance for succeeding with a Six Sigma implementation in service organizations? And how do they impact its implementation in services? RQ2. How service organizations that have successfully implemented Six Sigma worked and what difficulties have emerged during the implementation process? RQ3. What are the tools and techniques for Six Sigma implementation in services? And how they are selected?

Six Sigma project Different expertise CSFs Six Sigma Project Different expertise Difficulties faced Six Sigma Project Different expertise Tools and techniques

Organization description

Interviewee

The hospital was one of the seven public service organizations to participate in the pilot phase of Singapore Government’s initiative of Six Sigma implementation Public service organization related to engineering services is under Ministry of National Development, championing the development of an excellent built environment for Singapore Well recognized business solutions provider

Director (quality management office); head (department of emergency medicine); staff nurses – four

Six Sigma implementation

1003

Table II. Linking research questions with unit of analysis

Assistant director (corporate development division) SDO (department, technology development division) Consultant (corporate development office); building manager (administration and building management department)

Table III. List of interviewees

BPMJ 18,6

1004

implementation in service organizations, phase three interviews were more focused and directed. A protocol for conducting these interviews is shown in Figure 9. Participation in projects In the hospital case study, the authors participated as a team member for two Six Sigma projects. This provided an opportunity to develop a partnership which lasted for six months. Combining retrospective and longitudinal study; as done in case of healthcare service organization for the study enhances construct, external, and Objectives

Question Modules Organizational Overview

Six Sigma Initiative

Project Selection

Six Sigma Methodological Issues

Learning Experience

Figure 9. Interview protocol for the interviews

– Type of service organization – Number of full-time employees in the organization – Business improvement initiatives implemented in the organization – Reason for preferring Six Sigma over other initiatives – Initial preparations done to implement Six Sigma – Learning experience, after Six Sigma training – Approach for training personnel in Six Sigma – Criteria for selecting project – Approach after project selection – Factors helpful in successful completion of projects – Projects completed by the organization/ department – Number of successful projects – Reasons behind unsuccessful projects – Quality characteristics that required to be improved – Selection criteria for tools and techniques – Tools and techniques used during different phases of Six Sigma methodology – List of performance indicators considered – Factors leading to variation in tools usage – Overall feeling about Six Sigma – Six Sigma’s relevance to service organizations – Reasons behind Six Sigma’s widespread usage – Difficulties faced during Six Sigma implementation – Overcoming these problems – Major learning from Six Sigma implementation

Source: Adapted from Nonthaleerak and Hendry (2008)

internal validity (Barton, 1990). Approaching the interviewees was not a problem, as the authors visited the organization on regular basis. This helped in getting completed answers on all questions and returning at a later date to seek clarification to questions that arose. For the other two organizations though there is no participant involvement, the interviewees were approachable when required. Overall, interviewees represent different levels in terms of experience and expertise with Six Sigma. This helped to avoid a bias or unqualified opinion which can be a problem in single respondent studies (Nonthaleerak and Hendry, 2008; Voss et al., 2002).

Six Sigma implementation

1005

Documentation The documentary evidences for information about these case studies is gathered through various sources which include web sites such as Singapore Government web site (PS21 – Public Service for twenty-first century), articles, interviews and speeches from newspapers, magazines, and journals. Other sources of data are the reports and presentations of the completed projects. Multiple case study and qualitative outcomes Brief description of cases All the organisations of this study embarked on their Six Sigma journey with the help of strong leadership from the chief executive officer (CEO). As mentioned by the senior development officer (SDO) of engineering services: CEO was one of the kin supporters for Six Sigma in 2004. He actually pushed this program. Also, because of the support from PS21, Singapore government’s public service office.

The objective for implementing Six Sigma in the hospital is to provide patient-centered quality healthcare that is accessible and seamless, comprehensive, appropriate, and cost effective[1]. Improving patient turnaround time at the specialist outpatient clinic (SOC) was one of the first projects to be completed as a Six Sigma initiative. Since then the hospital has successfully completed 20-30 projects. Some of the completed projects are tabulated in Table IV.

S. no.

Project title

Start date

End date

P1

To improve in-patient admission turnaround time at the DEM To reduce turnaround time for stat laboratory results from SOC To improve appointment lead-time for SOC To reduce waiting time and turnaround time for emergency patients Fewer lost calls, more happy customers at dental clinic To reduce door-to-reperfusion therapy time for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) To improve the conversion process at DEM To reduce the procedure turnaround time in DEM To improve accident and emergency (walk in) patient cycle time

July 2001

December 2001

July 2003

January 2004

August 2003 October 2003

January 2004 April 2004

November 2004

October 2005

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007 May 2007 –

October 2007 October 2007 –

P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9

Table IV. Six Sigma projects at the hospital

BPMJ 18,6

1006

For the engineering service organization, the objective for implementing Six Sigma is to improve not only its own internal processes but also to work closely with industry partners to improve their key processes and services[2]. The organization has completed 10-20 projects with around 75-85 percent success rate. Some of the completed projects are shown in Table V. The implementation process at the consultancy service organisation started with BB and GB training. The BB training was conducted by the Singapore Quality Institute. These BBs were then told to identify projects and also their team members. The selected members for the projects then underwent in-house GB training. One of the initial Six Sigma projects was by the finance department on cost reduction. Starwood was the first major player in the hospitality industry to adopt Six Sigma. Till date, the organization has successfully executed hundreds of Six Sigma projects in areas involving productivity, menu redesign, resort concierge, e-mail marketing, and sales. The purpose of implementing Six Sigma, according to Regional Vice President for New England Operations, SWHR is: Six Sigma gives us the tools to eliminate variation and improve efficiency. It has strong record in manufacturing productivity, perhaps most visibly at General Electric. It’s also extremely adaptable; since its introduction at SWHR, we’ve refined it dramatically to reflect our focus on service quality and satisfying VOC (Isenberg School Alumni, 2005).

Some of the projects completed by Starwood in its Six Sigma journey are: green room program; increase sales lead conversion; reduce room assignment defects; implementation of an automated customer interaction recording and evaluation solution; and reduction in accident rates. Qualitative results The data analysis is based on interviews, articles from various sources, presentations, and project reports. In particular, we searched for CSFs, CTQs, STTs, and KPIs. Critical success factors We found strong evidence of management support as a CSF in all of our data sources from different organisations, i.e. it was clearly mentioned in the interviews, observations, and archival sources. As evidenced from the data of Starwood hotel: S. no.

Project title

Start date

End date

P1

Reduction of the number of suspensions in TOP/CSC applications Improve CONQUAS assessment consistency Improve electronic submission front-end services and user friendliness to customers Improve reliability of the lift’s automatic rescue device performance Reduce water seepage in wet area floors Improve the typical floor-to-floor cycle time for private high-rise residential project

June, 2003

November 2003

June 2003 August 2004

February 2004 May 2006

–

–

– –

– –

P2 P3 Table V. Six Sigma projects at construction and related engineering service organization

P4 P5 P6

Sternlicht (CEO, Starwood) [. . .], [. . .] and bought the Six Sigma process improvement program (made famous by General Electric CEO Jack Welch) to Starwood, where it will be implemented right away in the convention services department of its major meetings properties.

The CEO also appointed a former GE executive as Executive Vice President, Six Sigma, for Starwood having global responsibility for executing the strategy, designing the tools, and overseeing the implementation of Starwood’s Six Sigma initiative. Thus, the initial thrust for Six Sigma is provided by top management followed by training of BBs and GBs by external consultants. In the case of CSF, the support of team members was the next most important as observed from the interviews and other sources of data of all the case study organisations. Support of team members includes both internal and external members. External members here refer to employees who were not in the project but their assistance is vital for the success of Six Sigma implementation. The third CSF is cultural change which was mentioned by informants who were at higher management levels. This was consistent for all the organisations studied. The list of CSFs observed from the data of study organisations are summarized in Table VI.

Six Sigma implementation

1007

CTQ characteristics Examination of the data revealed time as the most important of CTQs and is consistent throughout different sources of data of the study organisations. On close analysis of data, it was found that the more specific CTQs are actually turnaround time and waiting time. The analysis also provides some other CTQs but they are not common across different data sources. For consultancy services, an additional CTQ observed is service cost. Starwood data revealed that there are several areas or processes, where Six Sigma projects are done for improvement. These areas or processes (Table VII) provide information about the CTQs considered during Six Sigma implementation. As can be noted from the above table, there is a common CTQ, time (waiting time and turnaround time) across different areas or processes. There are some CTQs specific to particular areas or processes such as billing error, occupancy rate, etc. The analysis also showed that some of the CTQs related to inventory reduction, wastage/pilferage have similarities with those of manufacturing. Thus, it suggests that service organizations can also have some projects similar in nature to manufacturing. List of CTQs summarized from all the case study organisations are summarized in Table VIII. Organisation

Interviews

Documentation

The hospital

Management support, cultural change, support of team members Management support, support of team members, cultural change, availability of resource, sufficient time to implement Six Sigma Management support, support of team members

Management support, cultural change Management support, cultural change

Engineering service Consultancy service Starwood hotel

Management support Top management commitment

Table VI. List of CSFs

BPMJ 18,6

1008

Front office operations/sales and marketing Reduce waiting time during peak check-in time Reduce waiting time during peak check-out time Eliminate billing errors and improve accuracy Reduce no shows Increase occupancy Optimal utilization of the current product mix (rooms) to increase revenue Increase customer delight at the executive club Reduce/eliminate lost calls Accuracy of information HRs/personnel Accuracy of payroll Documentation management Reduce the turnaround time of recruitment Reduce the turnaround time of relieving Increase the employee satisfaction rate

Table VII. Areas or processes where Six Sigma is applied

Organisation

Interviews

Documentation

The hospital

Time (service time, waiting time, cycle time, turnaround time), employee behaviour, timely information to customer, clinical outcome Time (service time, waiting time, cycle time), accurate information to customer, timely information to customer, time to restore customer complaints, time to respond to customer complaints Time (cycle time, turnaround time), service cost

Time (turnaround time), employee behaviour

Engineering service

Consultancy service Table VIII. List of CTQs

Food and beverage service/production To maintain optimal inventory Minimise wastage/pilferage Standardized output of food and beverage Reduce the time from order to service Optimal utilization of current product mix (F&B/ Outlets) to increase revenue Accommodation operation (housekeeping) Reduce the turnaround time of making/turning down a room Standardization of cleanliness across areas Purchase/stores Reduce inventory surplus Cost-benefit analysis between cost of inventory and cost of storage of products where prices vary seasonally Standardize the operating procedure of issuance to various departments Reduce the turnaround time of issuance to various departments

Starwood hotel

Turnaround time, ease of use, assessment consistency

Turnaround time, cost Time (waiting time, turnaround time), billing errors, occupancy rate

Set of tools and techniques For the hospital, the tools and techniques usage showed some inconsistency across data sources. For example, the interview transcripts mention differences in tools and techniques usage at different stages by the two BBs. We infer that this difference is due to the familiarity and ease of an individual with a particular tool usage, even though they have the knowledge of all tools. As can be observed from the response of one of the informant from the engineering service organisation: Project leaders or members use the tools they are more familiar with. They won’t use the tools they are not confident with.

Another observation is consistency in tools and techniques usage across different projects. The reason can be the nature of projects done in the organization, as all are related to improvement in time (turnaround time, waiting time, and cycle time). For the engineering service organisation, tools and techniques such as gage repeatability and reproducibility, measurement system analysis, and hypothesis testing, were used in the projects. The reason behind is the similarity of some projects with that of manufacturing projects. Additional factors related to the use of tools and techniques emerged from the study of consultancy services. They are the nature of business, the nature of projects, and the nature of collected data. As can be observed from the response of one of the informants: There are some tools we do not use like DOE. This is due to the nature of our business. Certain tools we use are on data analysis and data organizations like bar charts, graphs, etc. selection of tool depends on nature of project, on what kind of data is collected [. . .].

The complete list of tools and techniques are shown in Table IX. Key performance indicators During the interview sessions, customer satisfaction, financial benefits, and timely delivery are mentioned as KPIs. Other data sources do not mention about KPIs. We feel that since KPIs were explicitly asked in questionnaire so its existence is observed during interview sessions. Thus, the analysis suggests that there is a need to understand KPIs interpretation. Some of the KPIs identified are mentioned in Table X. Difficulties in implementation The analysis of hospital data is done through check list matrix. This helped to assess the supporting conditions prior to executing a Six Sigma project in the hospital is provided in Table XI. The above table provides some useful information which helped us in understanding the difficulties faced by the organization. The Six Sigma initiative started in 2000 but as the time progressed and with change in top management the approach to Six Sigma also changed. Initially, on Singapore Government’s initiation and also encouraged by the top management, staff members were trained as BBs and GBs. This trained staffs were then involved in most of the Six Sigma projects. As we got involved in their current project we found that, Department of Emergency Medicine is the only department currently involved in Six Sigma projects. The approach of providing GB training prior to Six Sigma project has also changed and now the approach is more towards learning through work on the project. The four staff nurses who were involved in the project do not had prior experience in other quality initiatives. They faced much problems while doing the Six Sigma project. They have limited knowledge about the tools and techniques used in Six Sigma implementation. But as one of the staff nurses puts it “knowing and understanding is totally different thing”. This showed that there is a lack of understanding about Six Sigma on their part. We feel that prior education and training is very important for team members involved in Six Sigma projects. As can be seen from the checklist matrix Six Sigma project team members faced lack of support from other employees in the organization. The team members felt that support of the employees in the organization is also vital for the project to succeed. The following quote from a staff nurse helps us in understanding the importance:

Six Sigma implementation

1009

Define Project charter, VOC analysis, CTQ definition, process map, flow chart Measure Pareto diagram, process Six Sigma calculation Analyze Cause and effect diagram, brainstorming, process map, flow chart, data analysis, correlation and regression Improve Creative thinking Control Statistical process control, FMEA Define Project prioritization, project charter, SIPOC diagram, VOC analysis, CTQ definition, process map/flow chart Measure Pareto diagram, run chart, process capability, process Six Sigma calculation Analyze Cause and effect diagram, brainstorming, process map/flow chart, FMEA, data analysis, hypothesis testing, correlation and regression Improve Creative thinking, force field analysis, five why analysis Control Statistical process control Define Project charter, process map/flow chart, stakeholder analysis Measure Pareto diagram, control chart Analyze Cause and effect diagram, brainstorming, process map/flow chart FMEA, data analysis Improve Creative thinking, force field analysis, five why analysis, cost-benefit analysis Control FMEA, continuous monitoring

The hospital

Consultancy service

Define Project charter, process map/flow chart Measure Descriptive statistics, gage repeatability and reproducibility analysis, Pareto chart Analyze Box plot, process capability analysis, data analysis (descriptive statistics), ANOVA, hypothesis testing, FMEA, cause and effect diagram Improve Brainstorming Control Control charts Define Project charter Measure Pie chart, histogram, line chart Analyze Brainstorming, fishbone diagram, affinity diagram, root cause analysis Improve Force field analysis, FMEA, cost-benefit analysis Control Control charts

Define Project charter, process map, flow chart Measure Pareto diagram Analyze Cause and effect diagram, process map, flow chart

Documentation

1010

Engineering service

Interviews

Table IX. List of STTs

Organisation

BPMJ 18,6

[. . .] success of the project depends on our colleagues also [. . .] project involves a survey, for this survey all our staffs have to help us out, they have to understand the survey form and give us accurate information to analyze.

In order to understand the problems faced by the team members in a better manner, we feel that a context chart (Miles and Huberman, 1984) will be helpful. This chart (Figure 10) will assist in understanding the interrelationships among the roles of different members involved in a Six Sigma project. This chart is specific to the two current projects in which I participated. Looking at the lines of authority, we can see that Director, human resource (HR) has direct authority over department head as they work on Six Sigma implementation. The person is not only an advocate but also has high influence over implementation. The department head on the other hand is also an advocate of Six Sigma implementation and seems to have a license from the Director to do this. Because of the department head’s involvement, it is the only department in the hospital to still carry on Six Sigma projects.

Organisation

Interviews

Engineering service

Efficient service, timely delivery, customer satisfaction, reduced variation, financial benefits Reduction in cost, timely delivery, financial benefits

Consultancy service

Condition

Team leaders

Team members

Top management commitment and involvement

Strong commitment from top management initially Change in top management resulted in limited commitment Black belt training

Strong commitment from respective department heads

Education and training

Support of team members

Six Sigma implementation

1011

Table X. List of KPIs

Green belt training for initial cadres in 2000 Recent projects do not involve prior training. It is learn while you work based approach Strong support among team members

Strong support of team members. They are the persons involved in actual data collection Skills Skilled – undergone BB training Skilled – undergone GB training No skills in Six Sigma tools and techniques for those with the approach of learn by work Relevant prior experience Experienced with Six Sigma No experience in Six Sigma projects or other quality projects Limited experience in other initiatives quality initiatives Support of other staff members Not available Limited support – requires of the organization repeated request

Table XI. Checklist matrix: conditions supporting preparedness for Six Sigma projects at the hospital

BPMJ 18,6

Director (Human Resource Department) SS +* +

1012

Head (Department of Emergency Medicine) SS +* +

+

Staff Nurse 1 (Department of Emergency Medicine) ±

Staff Nurse 3 (Department of Emergency Medicine) ± –

+

+

Staff Nurse 2 (Department of Emergency Medicine) ±

Staff Nurse 4 (Department of Emergency Medicine) ±

–

–

–

Other Staff Members of Department of Emergency Medicine not involved in the project (0)

Figure 10. Context chart for Six Sigma projects at department of emergency medicine (DEM)

Legend

+ ± 0 within boxes: attitude towards Six Sigma + ± – between boxes: character of the relationship * high influence over Six Sigma implementation SS

Six Sigma advocate or champion

The staff nurses who were involved in the project are rather ambivalent towards Six Sigma implementation. Given, no prior training in Six Sigma and learning through their first project their attitude towards Six Sigma is understandable. As one of the staff nurses mentioned during interview “interested in the project to learn about Six Sigma”. The relation between staff nurses and other staff members is negative because of the problems faced during data collection. This negative relation is only related to the Six Sigma project but overall the staff nurses have positive attitude towards other staff members. This shows that Six Sigma awareness have to spread beyond the members of the project to ensure an overall success. Data collection This is one of the most serious problems faced by the consultancy, and engineering services organizations. In case of manufacturing the data is readily available in hundreds or thousands but not so in case of services. As the SDO mentioned during the interview session: Biggest hurdle we face for our company is data collection [. . .] because in some cases one data is one case [. . .] data collection can take years.

Similar concern is voiced by the Building Manager: In service I think so far the most difficult is data collection, if you talk about manufacturing they have data around. Services are volatile [. . .] difficult to get data.

Insufficient resources In manufacturing Six Sigma teams are independent and not associated with day-to-day work. But in case of services the team is also responsible for carrying out their day-to-day work, i.e. Six Sigma projects are mostly done part-time. As evidenced from the following response: We are still holding on our jobs, this is our primary role. Normally we have to reach out of our time, i.e. unlike manufacturing where they have full-time.

This part-time involvement in Six Sigma projects generally results in stretching the resources such as time and manpower. Longer time is also required to see full implementation of solution of a Six Sigma project. Sustaining Six Sigma In case of service organizations identifying projects every year is also very difficult. There may be number of projects in initial years but there is a gradual decline in projects with subsequent years. The reason behind is identification of projects which are challenging, complex, and have greater impact to the organization. As one of the informant noted: [. . .] full blown success of Six Sigma will be good only when there is very challenging project.

Along with the above mentioned problems there are some others such as deciding upon the scope of project, extension of project timeline, staff turnover, attaching incentives to the successfully completed Six Sigma projects, and quantification of savings. In case of public service organizations, it is difficult to quantify the savings from projects since they are mostly done to reduce customer complaints, i.e. benefits directed towards public. The analysis of data highlighted some of the practical difficulties faced by the organization. This includes part-time involvement of team leader and team members in Six Sigma projects, involving and convincing senior doctors and surgeons about the importance of Six Sigma, and lack of support from the staff members who are not involved in the project. Discussion The primary aim of this study was to explore the success factors, identification of CTQ characteristics, tools and techniques, and the performance indicators which display the improvements due to Six Sigma. This paper identifies different CSFs, CTQ, and STTs which influence Six Sigma implementation. Critical success factors The work highlighted that top management commitment and involvement is indeed an important CSF and continuity of Six Sigma very much depends on it. This is very much evident through a comment by one of the respondents from our study: 7 projects in the first wave which are currently being resolved. Only 2 projects are scheduled for second wave because our new CEO doesn’t believe in Six Sigma.

Six Sigma implementation

1013

BPMJ 18,6

1014

Involvement of top management helps in “overcoming problems which the employees at their levels are not able to solve” as evidenced from a quote by one of the interviewee of one case study. Other CSFs such as education and training, customer focus, cultural change, etc. also emerged from the case studies. Previous research, see Nonthaleerak and Hendry (2008), Antony (2006), Brady and Allen (2006), Coronado and Antony (2002) and Antony and Banuelas (2002) has talked about CSFs for Six Sigma implementation. The literature highlights several CSFs required for successful Six Sigma implementation in organizations. The drawback is lack of rigorous empirical research about CSFs and not being specific for service organizations. The strength of our work is providing empirical evidence and focusing on the nature and frequency of certain CSFs. This helped in identifying the relative importance of CSFs and the issues related to service organizations. One weakness of our work is not able to concentrate on few CSFs and study there importance in contexts. This is probably because our research is exploratory in nature and is focused on building theory related to Six Sigma implementation in service organizations. CTQ characteristics Identification of process parameters for Six Sigma implementation in service organizations is mentioned as a major difficulty in literature. This seems not to hold true for the organizations which have already implemented Six Sigma. The CTQs observed from our study is mainly related to time. This time is related to cycle time, service time, turnaround time, waiting time, response time to customer complaints, etc. Key performance indicators The finding on KPI is an important aspect of our research. The literature review highlighted the ambiguity about KPI and being sometime used synonymously with CTQ. The case studies helped us understanding the two viewpoints of KPI. Majority is with the strategic nature of KPI, where it is understood as KPI. KPIs are set internally and Six Sigma is implemented in the organization if it links with the organizations’ KPIs. This answers the reason behind high preference for linking Six Sigma with business strategy as a CSF. The second interpretation of KPI is key process input. In Six Sigma implementation this is the way KPI is interpreted by practitioners and that is where it becomes synonymous with CTQ. So, to reduce ambiguity we suggest using the term measurable process parameters instead of CTQ and financial benefit as performance metric, since it is widely mentioned in literature and easily understood by practitioners (Goh, 2002). Difficulties Referring to previously conducted research on service organizations and Six Sigma, one common argument is that service has inherent differences with manufacturing (Hensley and Dobie, 2005; Antony, 2004; Benedetto, 2003; Sehwall and De Yong, 2003), which negatively affects their conditions for a successful implementation. However, the findings of our study do not point to inherent differences as an obstacle for service organization’s Six Sigma efforts. The negative aspects to do with Six Sigma implementation is part-time involvement in Six Sigma projects, staff turnover during projects or after training, extension of project time line and in some cases data collection.

Set of tools and techniques The findings from our analysis indicate what tools and techniques are mainly used and how they are selected for Six Sigma implementation in service organizations. The selection criteria of tools and techniques are mainly based on nature of project(s), nature of data collected, etc. The important finding is the selection of tools and techniques based on familiarity of BBs or project leaders with certain cluster of tools and techniques and in some cases suggestion from external consultant. This implies the subjective nature of selection of tools and techniques in Six Sigma implementation. The previous research see, Antony et al. (2007), Antony (2006), De Koning and De Mast (2006) and Henderson and Evans (2000) has not focused much on selection criteria and mainly limited to nature of project(s) and nature of data collection and lack empirical evidence. The strength of our research is in identifying a STTs which will be useful for Six Sigma implementation in service organizations. Exploratory nature of our research restricted concentration on specific tools and techniques. Conclusion Implications to research We hope that this study encourages investigation of Six Sigma implementation in service organizations and promote rigorous development and explicit articulation of theories. It is necessary to increase theory development related to Six Sigma implementation that is grounded on relevant established theories and empirical evidences from related disciplines. So that empirical investigations of related phenomenon can be integrated into the building and modification of useful and interesting theories. The case-based research draws attention to the existence of contingencies and the need to further investigate the ambiguous role of contextual factors in affecting Six Sigma implementation in service organizations. Studies by Nonthaleerak and Hendry (2008), Schroeder et al. (2008) and Antony (2004) prescribes that Six Sigma can be implemented in service organizations, our study suggests that the implementation and impact of Six Sigma can be affected by contextual factors such as service types. In summary, this research contributes to theory-grounded empirical research. This is a worthwhile endeavour because contributions to valid and reliable measurements and explicit theory development help lay a foundation for future Six Sigma implementation studies. By identifying and testing theories we encourage the development of a stream of cumulative research. Implications to practice This study offers conceptual clarity and specificity on Six Sigma implementation in service organizations, managers can use a guideline for choosing the fundamental practices that they can implement. We provide conceptual and empirical evidence on CSFs, measurable process parameters, STTs, and difficulties faced by service organizations. Thus, encouraging managers to plan and implement Six Sigma with a systematic view of service environment. Furthermore, there is empirical evidence of the importance of committed and involved leadership for implementation of Six Sigma in service organizations. We also find that a general emphasis on company-wide Six Sigma projects is significant in differentiating high and low performance.

Six Sigma implementation

1015

BPMJ 18,6

Notes 1. Ministry of finance – press statement (2002). 2. Annual reports from 2003 to 2006.

1016

References Antony, J. (2004), “Some pros and cons of Six Sigma: an academic perspective”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 303-6. Antony, J. (2006), “Six Sigma for service processes”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 234-48. Antony, J. and Banuelas, R. (2002), “Key ingredients for the effective implementation of Six Sigma program”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 20-7. Antony, J., Antony, F.J., Kumar, M. and Cho, B.R. (2007), “Six Sigma in service organizations: benefits, challenges and difficulties, common myths, observations and success factors”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 294-311. Barton, D.L. (1990), “A dual methodology for case studies: synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites”, Organization Science, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 248-66. Basu, R. (2004), Implementing Quality: A Practical Guide to Tools and Techniques: Enabling the Power of Operational Excellence, 1st ed., Thomson Learning, London. Basu, R. and Wright, J.N. (2003), Quality Beyond Six Sigma, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Benedetto, A.R. (2003), “Adapting manufacturing-based Six Sigma methodology to the service environment of a radiology film library”, Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 263-80. Brady, J.E. (2005), “Six Sigma and the university: teaching, research and meso-analysis”, PhD dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Brady, J.E. and Allen, T.T. (2006), “Six Sigma literature: a review and agenda for future research”, Quality & Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 22, pp. 335-67. Chakrabarty, A. and Tan, K.C. (2007), “The current state of Six Sigma application in services”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 194-208. Chakrabarty, A. and Tan, K.C. (2009), “An exploratory qualitative and quantitative analysis of Six Sigma in service organizations in Singapore”, Management Research News, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 614-32. Coronado, R.B. 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. 92-9. De Koning, H. and De Mast, J. (2006), “A rational reconstruction of Six Sigma’s breakthrough cookbook”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 766-87. Does, R., Heuvel, E., Mast, J. and Bisgaard, S. (2002), “Comparing non-manufacturing with traditional applications of Six Sigma”, Quality Engineering, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 177-82. Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992), “Content analysis: method, applications, and issues”, Health Care for Women International, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 313-21. Gilmore, A. and Carson, D. (1996), “Integrative qualitative methods in a services context”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 21-6.

Goh, T.N. (2002), “A strategic assessment of Six Sigma”, Quality & Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 18, pp. 403-10. Hahn, G.J., Hill, W.J., Hoerl, R.W. and Zinkgraf, S.A. (1999), “The impact of Six Sigma improvement – a glimpse into the future of statistics”, The American Statistician, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 208-15. Hansson, J. (2003), “Total quality management – aspects of implementation and performance: investigations with a focus on small organizations”, PhD dissertation, Lulea˚ University of Technology, Lulea˚. Harrigan, K. (1983), “Research methodologies for contingency approaches to business strategy”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 398-405. Harry, M.J. (2000), “Six Sigma: a breakthrough strategy for probability”, Quality Progress, May, pp. 60-4. Henderson, K.H. and Evans, J.R. (2000), “Successful implementation of Six Sigma: benchmarking general electric company”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 260-81. Hendry, L. and Nonthaleerak, P. (2005), “Six Sigma: literature review and key future research areas”, LUMS working paper series, June, pp. 1-66. Hensley, R.L. and Dobie, K. (2005), “Assessing readiness for Six Sigma in a service setting”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 82-101. Heuvel, J., Does, R. and Bisgaard, S. (2005), “Dutch hospital implements Six Sigma”, ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, February, pp. 11-14. Inozu, B., Niccolai, M.J., Whitcomb, C.A., Mac Claren, B., Radovic, I. and Bourg, D. (2006), “New horizons for ship building process improvement”, Journal of Ship Production, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 87-98. Isenberg School Alumni (2005), “Alumni profile: denise”, Commonwealth Magazine, September/Fall. Jones, M.H. Jr (2004), “Six Sigma: at a bank”, ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 13-17. Krupar, J. (2003), “Yes, Six Sigma can work for financial institutions”, ABA Banking Journal, September, pp. 93-4. Leonard, D. and McAdam, R. (2001), “Grounded theory methodology and practitioner reflexivity in TQM research”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 180-94. McAdam, R. and Lafferty, B. (2004), “A multilevel case study critique of Six Sigma: statistical control or strategic change”, International Journal of Operations and Productions Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 530-49. Mertens, D.M. (1998), Research Methods in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity With Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Miles, B.M. and Huberman, A.M. (1984), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Mortimer, A.L. (2006), “Six Sigma: a vital improvement approach when applied to the right problems, in the right environment”, Assembly Automation, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 10-17. Nonthaleerak, P. and Hendry, L. (2008), “Exploring the Six Sigma phenomenon using multiple case study evidence”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 279-303. Patton, Q.M. (1987), How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation, Sage, London.

Six Sigma implementation

1017

BPMJ 18,6

1018

Pheng, L.S. and Hui, M.S. (2004), “Implementing and applying Six Sigma in construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130 No. 4, pp. 482-9. Rucker, R. (2000), “Citibank increases customer loyalty with defect-free processes”, Association for Quality and Participation, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 32-6. Schroeder, R.G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C. and Choo, A.S. (2008), “Six Sigma: definition and underlying theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp. 536-54. Sehwall, L. and De Yong, C. (2003), “Six Sigma in health care”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 1-5. Sousa, R. and Voss, C.A. (2001), “Quality management: universal or context dependent”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 383-404. Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. and Frohlich, M. (2002), “Case research in operations management”, International Journal of Operations and Productions Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 195-219. Woodard, T.D. (2005), “Addressing variation in hospital quality: is Six Sigma the answer”, Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 226-36. Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Young, J. (2001), “Driving performance results at American Express”, ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-10. Young, T., Brailsford, S., Connell, C., Davies, R., Harper, P. and Klein, J.H. (2004), “Using industrial processes to improve patient care”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 328, pp. 162-4.

Further reading Aboelmaged, M.G. (2010), “Six Sigma quality: a structured review and implications for future research”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 269-318. Carson, D. and Coviello, N. (1996), “Qualitative research issues at the marketing/entrepreneurship interface”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 51-8. Oke, S.A. (2007), “Six Sigma: a literature review”, South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 109-29. Patton, F. (2005), “Does Six Sigma work in service industries?”, Quality Progress, September, pp. 55-60. Shewart, W.A. (1931), Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Products, Van Nostrand, New York, NY. Sila, I. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2002), “An investigation of the total quality management survey based research published between 1989 and 2000: a literature review”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 902-70. About the authors Ayon Chakraborty is Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the BPM Research Group at the Faculty of Science and Technology, Queensland University of Technology. He received his PhD degree from National University of Singapore in the area of Service Quality. He has a Master’s degree in Manufacturing Systems Engineering from BITS, Pilani, India and Bachelor of Production and Industrial Engineering from University of Rajasthan, India. He has more than six years of work experience. His work experience includes research, teaching and quality engineering in electronics industry. His current research interests include Six Sigma, service management and

business process management. Ayon Chakraborty is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Kay Chuan Tan is an Associate Professor in the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering at the National University of Singapore (NUS). He supervises the Department’s Ergonomics Laboratory. He does research and teaches in the following subject areas: human factors engineering and ergonomics, engineering statistics, quality planning and management, engineering economy, and production and operations management. He is also Acting Director of the Office of Quality Management at NUS. He is involved in the setting up of benchmarks for quality excellence in education as well as the day-to-day administrative quality management of NUS.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Six Sigma implementation

1019