LEAN SIX SIGMA IMPLEMENTATION JOURNEY in POLYMER INJECTION MOLDING SMEs
Master Thesis, MSc, specialization Supply Chain Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
August 24, 2013
GINA GUSTAN Student number: 2008653
e-mail: g.a.gustan@student.rug.nl
Supervisor/ University
Prof. dr. ir. C.T.B. (Kees) Ahaus Co-Supervisor/ University
dr. W.M.C. (Wouter) van Wezel
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...2
2. Theoretical Background ...5
2.1 From Lean and Six Sigma to Lean Six Sigma...5
2.2 Implementation of LSS...9
The development of LSS implementation framework for SMEs 3. Methodology ...16
3.1 Research Design...16
3.2 Data Collection...18
4 Analysis and Results….……….………....22
5 Discussion………..29
6 Conclusion and Limitation ………41
7 Acknowledgements………43
8 Appendix ………...44
9 References...47
Abstract
The development of a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) approach is well known and has been implemented successfully in large companies such as GE, Motorola, and Honeywell.
However, there have only been a few academic publications that discuss the implementation of LSS for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Research has shown that in the context of SMEs, an efficient implementation framework is needed to successfully implement an LSS approach. In this study, multiple case study research is applied to discuss an existing LSS implementation framework and to propose revisions to this framework based on LSS deployment programs in practice.
1. Introduction
Lean manufacturing is known as a methodology that eliminates waste. On the other hand, Six Sigma is known as an approach that improves processes by reducing variation. The common objective of both is to identify the most critical processes to generate savings for an organization. Lean Six Sigma (LSS) integrates these two approaches, combining the variability-elimination tools from Six Sigma with the waste-elimination methodology from Lean manufacturing.
Previous studies discussed the LSS methodology in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in terms of their critical success factors (CSFs) and implementation barriers, such as the level of experience with LSS, resources, and skills (Timans et al. 2012; Kumar et al. 2011). Since the financial and human resources of SMEs are very limited, the implementation of LSS in SMEs is therefore different from that of large organizations. So far, the current existing road maps for LSS implementation are more suitable for large organizations.
Polymer injection molding has been a challenging process for many SMEs manufacturers to produce products in large series that meet customer requirements at a low cost. Factors that affect quality exist in the design, machine performance, and processing conditions. During production, quality characteristics may deviate because of the shifting of processing conditions caused by machine, operators, changeover,
etc. Determining the optimal process parameter settings critically influences productivity, quality, and cost of production in the polymer injection molding.
The study of Kumar et al. (2011) about Six Sigma implementation framework in SMEs is selected to be the point of departure of this study. To our knowledge this implementation framework is the only one in literature, which is designed for SMEs. In this study, the implementation framework of developed by Kumar et al.
(2011) is presented in Figure 1. The framework comprising of five phases and 12 steps, and six of the steps are specifically designed for SMEs. So far, the framework has been tested in three SMEs in UK. Kumar et al. (2011) indicate that the framework needs to be checked and refined based on the suggestions and comments from industry, academics and practitioners of Six Sigma.
Following the suggestion of Kumar et al. (2011), this research aims to check and refine the framework. To do this, the research is focusing on the following research questions:
• How has LSS been deployed and implemented in the SMEs with the most LSS experience?
• What are the similarities and differences between Kumar et al. (2011) framework and the implementation in practice?
• What are the confirmations and revisions that can be derived from the comparison between LSS implementation in practice and the implementation framework developed by Kumar et al. (2011)?
To answer the research questions, this research investigates the LSS implementation program in injection molding SMEs in Netherlands. This study will give insight in the similarities and differences between the implementation in practice and the Kumar et al. (2011) framework. The similarities and differences will further be used as the materials for revision proposals to improve the Kumar et al. (2011) framework.
A multiple-case study approach is adopted in order to achieve the research objective.
Multiple cases enable broader exploration of research questions and theoretical elaboration (Yin, 2003; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). We selected two companies
that complied with the inclusion criteria. The size of these companies varies from about 20 to 100 employees. Semi-structured interviews will provide the data upon which the findings of this study will be based. Chapter two will present the theoretical background. Chapter three will describe the methodology.
2. Theoretical Background
In this section, the theoretical foundation of this study will be described. First, a short review is made about Lean and Six Sigma. This is followed by taking a critical perspective on the universal implementation of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) in general.
Finally, the development of an LSS implementation framework for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is introduced and further explored.
2.1 From Lean and Six Sigma to Lean Six Sigma
Both Lean manufacturing and Six Sigma are broadly classified under the umbrella of process-improvement approaches. Lean and Six Sigma are the most recent manifestations of the process-improvement evolution programs (Shah, 2006).
Lean
Lean manufacturing comes from the Toyota Production System (TPS), which is defined as an approach to improve firm performance through elimination of waste (Holweg, 2007; Shah & Ward, 2007). The main aim is to provide processes with zero defects, followed by continuous improvement (CI) events in all areas (Moyano- Fuentes & Sacristan-Diaz, 2012). Shah and Ward (2007) reviewed the literature on Lean definitions, and they define Lean as “an integrated socio-technical system whose main objective is to eliminate waste by concurrently reducing or minimizing supplier, customer, and internal variability.”
Socio-technical system defined as a complex organizational work design that recognizes the interaction between people in a workplace. Shah and Ward (2007) illustrate the definition of socio-technical system as to pursue lean production and
minimize inventory, firms have to manage variability in supply, processing time, and demand (Hopp and Spearman, 2004), which in turn require firms to effectively manage their social and technical systems simultaneously.
Lean is rather a philosophy, aiming at achieving the “best buffer production” (Hopp &
Spearman, 2004). Within the Lean philosophy, there are Lean tools to help achieve the “best buffer production.” First, applying value-stream mapping is to visualize the value-added time to the total production time, which allows for visible CI. Lean focuses on the elimination of waste in internal and external operational processes that arise from “the seven wastes” as defined by Taiichi Ohno: overproduction, waiting, transportation, unnecessary motion, over processing, defect, and unnecessary inventory.
There appears to be four defining characteristics of the Lean approach:
1. Strive for perfection in delivering value to customers.
2. Only produce what is pulled from the customer just in time and concentrate only on those actions that create value flow.
3. Focus on the elimination of waste in all operational processes, internally and externally, that arise from overproduction, waiting, transportation, inappropriate processing, defects, and unnecessary inventory and motion.
4. Specify what does and does not create value from the customer’s perspective.
Six Sigma
The Six Sigma approach was first developed in the 1980s within a mass- manufacturing environment in Motorola and became widely known when GE adopted it in the mid-90s (Folaron & Morgan, 2003). Since then, Six Sigma has become one of the most popular improvement initiatives and has been widely implemented in a wide range of sectors, by companies such as Boeing, DuPont, Toshiba, and Honeywell.
The definition of Six Sigma also varies according to several authors. Pande et al.
(2000) define Six Sigma as “a comprehensive and flexible system for achieving, sustaining and maximizing business success that uniquely driven by close
understanding of customer needs, disciplined use of facts, data, and statistical analysis, and diligent attention to managing, improving, and reinventing business process.”
Another definition of Six Sigma proposed by Schroeder et al. (2008) is “an organized, parallel-meso structure to reduce variation in organizational processes by using improvement specialists, a structured method, and performance metrics with the aim of achieving strategic objectives.”
Schroeder et al. (2008) capture the characteristics of the DMAIC structure and three theoretical aspects of Six Sigma in the above definition. Most of Six Sigma projects are structured by an improvement cycle known as DMAIC. De Koning and De Mast (2006) define the generic descriptions of DMAIC phases:
1. Define – problem selection and benefit analysis)
2. Measure – translation of the problem into a measurable form and measurement of the current situation
3. Analyze – identification of influence factors and causes that determine critical to quality (CTQ) behavior
4. Improve – design and implementation of adjustments to the process to improve the performance of the CTQ
5. Control – adjustment of the process management and the control system to make the improvements sustainable
The two definitions capture several similar characteristics of Six Sigma: an approach with a specific organization structure for change, a structured method for improvement projects, a customer-oriented perspective (“Voice of the Customer”), and a data-driven orientation using specific metrics. In addition, one of the characteristics of Six Sigma lies in the implementation of improvement projects, which occurs through a parallel organization that consists of improvement specialists such as “master black belts,” “black belts,” and “green belts” (Bertels, 2003).
The Integration of Lean and Six Sigma
Both Six Sigma and Lean share the same goal that seeks process improvement and the creation of the most efficient system possible. But they take different approaches toward how to achieve this goal. The tool for Lean is concentrated on improving the flow through the chain of processes. Six Sigma tools can be more complex because Six Sigma requires statistical knowledge and math to tackle more complex problems within the process. In addition, “Lean production addresses the visible problems in processes, for example, inventory, material flow, and safety. Six Sigma is more concerned with less visible problems, for example, variation in performance” (Evans
& Lindsay, 2005, p. 498).
Furthermore, employee involvement in each improvement approach also differs. Six Sigma deploys the practices through a parallel organizational structure. On the other hand, Lean directly engages the employee in the process. The nature of employee involvement also differs in the two approaches. Lean is a bottom-up approach, and management plays a more active role in applying Six Sigma, often by selecting, championing, and monitoring the improvement projects.
The concept of LSS as an approach to process improvement has yet to fully mature into a specific area of academic research (Bendell, 2006). It can be said that in practice, the majority of efforts to fully and comprehensively implement an LSS initiative to its full potential have not been realized (Smith, 2003). Specifically, in the case of fusing Lean and Six Sigma, the two approaches have often been implemented in isolation (Smith, 2003), creating Lean and Six Sigma subcultures to emerge within the organization, which can cause a conflict of interest and a drain on resources (Bendell, 2006).
Mika (2006) takes the stance that the two approaches are completely incompatible with each other because Six Sigma cannot be embraced by the “average worker on the floor” (Mika, 2006, p. 1). He argues that Lean is accessible by these workers and encourages effective teamwork through collaboration and participation through cross- functional teams. According to Snee (2007), the problem in the integration of LSS is in the companies’ belief that Lean and Six Sigma should remain mutually exclusive
alternatives for pursuing improvement. By following this vision, they failed to get the most out of a Lean and Six Sigma union. The reason is because the companies seem to have a rather narrow view on improvement. Snee (2007) specifically discusses that companies used Six Sigma exclusively to improve quality and Lean exclusively to improve process flow by reducing waste and cycle time.
In terms of successful LSS efforts, Smith (2003) outlines two case studies that experienced impressive results from a combined approach to improvement. The first case study had been practicing Lean for approximately 18 months when consultants were called in to push the improvements further. However, both case studies found that one of the two approaches became dominant in the improvement process. A fully integrated framework targeting specific industries will take away any such ambiguity over which techniques to apply where and in what situations.
2.2 Implementation of LSS and the development of an LSS Implementation Framework for SMEs)
The ability of the organization to fully embed LSS into their corporate culture is linked to their ability to overcome the barriers and challenges they face during the deployment and implementation phases (Shah, 2008). LSS expert George stated that the execution of an LSS initiative includes three streams of activities: (1) initiation, (2) resource and project selection, and (3) implementation, sustainability, and evolution.
The initiation is the phase where the top management becomes engaged in supporting the initiative. According to George (2002), the top management support of LSS deployment includes three main activities:
• The top management demonstrates active involvement in the decision making about how, when, and who of the LSS implementation program.
• The top management sets up the long-term organizational goals and performance that reflect the value of implementing LSS.
• The top management determines the way that LSS could bridge the gap between the current state and the desire state.
During the second phase, resources are made available, and the first projects are selected (George, 2002). One of the key activities in this phase is to identify the roles within different areas of responsibility (specifically for SMEs), limited staff, and other resources that have to be carefully considered.
The “implementation, sustainability, and evolution” phase is concentrating on converting the LSS initiative to a way of doing business. George (2002) states that this change will only happen if “Lean Six Sigma is institutionalized through the CEO’s visible commitment, management’s resolve to use the Lean Six Sigma infrastructure as a means to improve their business, and the design team’s efforts in upfront planning.”
Before discussing the various implementation frameworks, it is appropriate to try to characterize the SME context with regard to quality implementation by comparing both large and small businesses. Welsh and White (1981) suggested that “a small company is not a little large business” because there are many differences between SMEs and large business organizations in terms of structure, policy-making procedures, and utilization of resources to the extent that the application of large business concepts directly to SMEs may not be appropriate.
SMEs are in a more advantageous position in terms of structure because its structure facilitates faster communication lines, quick decision-making process, short decision- making chain, higher contribution as a source of ideas in their operations and innovation, unified culture, and very few interest groups (Kraipornsak, 2002). A majority of SMEs have simple systems and procedures that allow flexibility, immediate feedback, better understanding, and quicker response to customer needs than larger organizations (Kraipornsak, 2002).
On the other hand, SMEs have a number of major weaknesses, which can result to a disadvantageous situation, such as a majority of SMEs lacking adequate financial resources and access to commercial lending (i.e., it is difficult to obtain loans)
(Hashim & Wafa, 2002; Kraipornsak, 2002). As a result, SMEs do not have adequate budget for staff training, which can stifle improvement efforts. In terms of human resources, SMEs are always faced with the shortage of skilled labor, and they have to compete with large companies for skilled workers (i.e., large companies are able to offer skilled workers better wages and working conditions) (Reed et al., 2001; Chee, 1987). Furthermore, very often, SMEs relied on one-person management; thus, insufficient time and attention are given to the various managerial functions (Hashim
& Wafa, 2002). In SMEs, the owner controls everything; poor management was attributed to the owner’s lack of management experience or know-how (Pickle &
Abrahamson, 1990; Baumack, 1988).
The review of published literature on general quality management and the cultural requirements that build the basis for any LSS program suggest that several factors have to be represented in a Six Sigma initiative within an SME context. These are the following:
1. The Six Sigma roles should be restricted to the project leaders in the SME organization (e.g., an “SME black belt”). The rest of the workforce and management staff should only participate in the awareness training.
2. A training program has to be shorter than that in large corporations but is still based on the well-proven methods and tools of LSS, adjusted to specific SME needs.
3. The best way forward for SMEs to negate the effect of resource availability in the implementation process is to collaborate with their original equipment manufacturer / organization that adopts Six Sigma, government bodies, and academic institutions for training and support (Thomas, 2007; Thomas &
Webb, 2003; Kumar & Anthony, 2009).
Currently, a few frameworks of LSS are available for implementation in SMEs. This situation confirms the need for a road map, which can be used to implement LSS in SMEs. The study of Kumar et al. (2011) was selected to be the point of departure of this study. The reason is that the study focuses on the implementation of a Six Sigma program in the SME context. Kumar et al. (2011) presented a framework for the implementation of Six Sigma including Lean instruments.
The Origin of the Framework
Kumar et al. (2011) presented a framework for the implementation of Six Sigma including Lean instruments.. The framework is depicted in figure 1. The approach taken was to develop an LSS framework tailored to the needs of SMEs. In his study, the implementation framework of Six Sigma in SMEs takes place in five phases, starting from assessing the readiness for Six Sigma implementation to sustaining the benefits from the implementation.
Within the five phases, Kumar et al. (2011) proposed 12 steps. There are six steps that are specially designed to fit the characteristics and constraints of SMEs. These steps are as follows:
Step 3: “Education and training at the senior management level”
Step 4: “Identify and train the best people for the first wave of Six Sigma”
Step 5: “Identify the core business processes”
Prepare
Phase 1
Identify and train best people for first wave of training
Identify the core business processes
Selecting Six Sigma pilot project
Communi cating initial success
Organizati on-‐wide training
Establish methods to
evaluate progress
Commitme nt to continuous improveme
nt
Linking Six Sigma to intrinsic motivation
of employees
Progressi on toward
learning org.
Communication and Leadership Commitment Readiness
for Six Sigma
Yes/No
Phase 0
Sustain
Phase 4
Institutionali ze
Phase 3
Initialize
Phase 2
If Yes
These steps were designed specifically for the needs of SMEs.
Recogniz e the need for
change
Top mgmt.
commitme nt and strong leadership
Educati on and training
Figure 1. Framework of Kumar et al., 2011
Step 8: “Organization-wide training”
Step 10: “Commitment to continuous improvement”
Step 12: “Progression towards learning organization”
In the following paragraph, we will discuss, step-by-step, the framework by Kumar et al. with some details for each building block summarized from the article of Kumar et al. (2011).
Phase 0 – Readiness: This phase is about the organization’s preparedness before departing on the Six Sigma initiative. Kumar et al. (2011) defined five criteria to measure the readiness of SMEs for Six Sigma implementation, namely, leadership, customer focus, measurement and process, systems and control, and people management. Please refer to Kumar and Anthony (2010) for further information related to the Six Sigma readiness index.
Phase 1 – Prepare: The prepare phase helps the organization understand the need for change. In this phase, the top management commitments are vital.
Step 1: Recognize the need for change
This step is about defining the need for implementing Six Sigma. Kumar et al.
(2011) stated that the need for change may be externally driven by customers and markets and internally driven by the employees.
Step 2: Strong leadership and top management commitment
In this step, top management approves the Six Sigma initiative. Furthermore, the top management defines the purpose and scope of the Six Sigma program and links them to the mission and vision of the organization.
Step 3: Education and training at the senior management level
First, educate the senior management team with executive or champion training. Then create a Six Sigma steering committee, comprising the top management (Writers, 2007), to provide leadership, coordinate the review of ongoing projects, allocate resources, followed by identifying and selecting executive leaders to drive the initiative.
Phase 2 – Initialize: A pilot project for execution that can be completed within a short span of time and thus have maximum impact is selected.
Step 4: Identify and train the best people for the first wave of Six Sigma
In this step, the top management selects the right people for the first wave of training. Considering resource limitation, SMEs do not require an extensive role system where master black belts are involved in projects as are applied in large organization (Kumar et al., 2008, 2009). Once the people are selected, develop a training plan/schedule and cross-functional teams consisting of a maximum of eight people in each team.
Step 5: Identify the core business processes
In this step, Kumar et al. (2011) suggested to develop the process map or value-stream map for the core processes, followed by the identification and prioritization of those processes that have greater stakeholder and financial impact.
Step 6: Selecting Six Sigma pilot project
The criteria for selecting pilot project are as follows: (1) focus on key problem areas with strategic alignment in terms of high customer satisfaction and critical to business success in terms of faster or larger financial return, (2) only those projects should be selected at the start of the implementation process that could be completed in the shortest possible time (three to four months) (Stuebing & Klause, 1997), and (3) the process performance measures determined by the senior management facilitate everyone to focus on the initial project strategically (Snee & Hoerl, 2003).
Phase 3 – Institutionalize: This refers to the deployment of Six Sigma across the organization so that the culture of CI is embedded within the organization.
Step 7: Communicating the initial success
This step emphasizes the communication strategies. Based on the work by Kumar et al. (2011), there are three key communication activities: (1) senior management team communicates carefully to the whole company why they chose to deploy Six Sigma, (2) celebrate and widely share the success of pilot projects, and (3)
share the major challenges and pitfalls during project execution.
Step 8: Organization-wide training
This step is about educating the organization as a whole. The key activities in the step include identifying all the training needs of all the roles and putting together a sustained ongoing system. Furthermore, training should not just be short term but should involve regular training follow-ups and briefings (Anthony & Taner, 2003).
Step 9: Establish methods for evaluating progress
This step is about the evaluation of the implementation program. First, develop standard procedures and a system for results reporting. Second, highlight the success and poor results and provide feedback for employees.
Phase 4 – Sustain: This phase emphasizes how learning from the first three phases could be shared and applied across the organization to benefit from the implementation of Six Sigma.
Step 10: Commitment to continuous improvement
This step is about facilitating in the creation of resilient SMEs. According to Kumar et al. (2011), to keep the momentum going, it is necessary to develop generations of managers who understand and are dedicated to the pursuit of CI in meeting external and internal customer needs (Oakland, 2003).
Step 11: Linking Six Sigma to intrinsic motivation of employees
In this step, Kumar et al. (2011) addressed several activities that can help the organization motivate its employees. Motivation can be generated through employee involvement in project improvement teams or review meetings, through employee empowerment for training and development, and, lastly, through giving reward and recognition.
Step 12: Progression towards learning organization
In this last step of the framework, Kumar et al. (2011) emphasized on organizational learning. There are some key elements that an organization should focus on to become a learning organization. Thus, it can be done by regular project
review meetings to share experiences and progress on projects, benchmarking of an organization’s activities and its progress with internal (within department) and external competitors, and regular review of employee training needs (Kumar et al., 2011).
In step 3 (“Education and training at the senior management level”), step 4 (“Identify and train the best people for the first wave of Six Sigma”), and step 8 (“Organization- wide training”), Kumar et al. (2011) addressed the resource constraints of SMEs, namely, human resource. These steps addressed the activities to counter limited resources in SMEs.
In step 5 (“Identify the core business processes”), Kumar et al. (2011) highlighted the importance of identification of the core business (e.g., for project identification, etc.).
In the last two steps, step 10 (“Commitment to continuous improvement”) and step 12 (“Progression towards learning organization”), Kumar et al. (2011) proposed key activities that can be done by SMEs to sustain the benefit of Six Sigma as follows:
• Project review and meetings to share the experiences and progress on the projects
• Benchmarking of an organization’s activities within department and external organizations (competitors)
• Regular evaluation of employees training need, employees performance and feedback session
The above activities are suggested by Kumar et al. (2011), considering the struggle of many SMEs because of a change in business focus or a fluctuation in economy.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Design
This study contains multiple retrospective case studies as research methodology. The reason for employing multiple retrospective case studies is because we want to investigate the LSS implementation journey in experienced SMEs. Retrospective research focused on acquiring input from LSS practitioners to review the SME
deployment framework in figure 1 in order to find confirmations for the framework and to discover ideas for the improvement of the framework.
However, the “retrospective accuracy” issue is very critical in employing this methodology. Key to the process of collecting retrospective data is the need to reduce recall bias (Barney, 2003). We decided to use the lifegrid interview as our methodology for improving the validity and reliability of the study. These strategies have been seen as improving the accuracy of recalled data, particularly with reference to the time at which events happened (Blane, 1996).
In this study, we selected two experienced polymer injection molding SMEs out of seven organizations, taking into consideration that this study requires more experienced SMEs to be able to provide more information related to the LSS implementation program. These companies were asked to recall experiences engaging in practice-related activities in their LSS implementation program. During the interviews, these SMEs were asked “to think back to the important events during their journey (from point of departure until the current state of the process) of LSS implementation.”
The study focused on injection molding companies that have employed Lean and Six Sigma. This study wanted to confront the earlier framework by comparing the framework of Kumar et al. with the data of the LSS journey in injection molding SMEs that were gathered for this study.
Company A is a leading manufacturer of plastic pipe, with 70 employees in the injection-molding department. The first LSS experience was in 2003, and it was started with BB training at management level. Currently, the company has many LSS specialists: 2 BBs, 60 GBs, 120 OBs. All employees have accomplished basic training, and LSS tools are about 70% Lean and 30 % Six Sigma. Company B operates in medical, pharmaceutical, and food industries with 60 employees. The initiative to implement LSS came from the holding’s top management. The first LSS experience was in 2007, and it was started with hiring a Lean Business Consultant and YB training. Currently, the production manager is BB specialist and the company has continuously trained their employees for GB certification. Furthermore, the way of
working with an LSS project is common in the organization. More information about the companies can be found in appendix A.
3.2 Case Study Selection
At the outset of the design phase, the researcher determined that only experienced injection molding SMEs would be studied and further set the study boundaries. The initial candidates for the case studies were seven injection molding SMEs in the Netherlands. We conducted interviews with each company to collect information related to the LSS implantation program. After we analyzed the data from the interview, we found that five companies were still at the early stage of the LSS implementation program, and two of the companies were assessed as being close to phase 4 of the framework of Kumar et al. (2011).
Yin (1984) suggested that the choice of case design depends on the type of question that the research is asking, the degree of control that can be exercised over the case, and the focus on the current or prior phenomena. We were interested in the most experienced injection molding SMEs, considering the needs to answer the research questions. Therefore, we excluded the five less-experienced companies in LSS implementation from our cases. The reason is that we can explore more information needed for the study from the companies that have more experience in the LSS implementation program. The data will be further analyzed using within-case analysis and cross-case analysis.
3.3 Data Collection
In accordance with Yin (1994), a protocol needs to be prepared before collecting the data. A well-designed protocol will increase the reliability and validity of the research data (Yin, 1994). Questions asked in the interviews are the main part of the protocol.
The protocol is showed in appendix B. After the first two interviews, questions were critically evaluated and revised.
In order to reduce bias in the interview, the main approach was to select appropriate interviewees (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). The interviewees we chose were all knowledgeable about the deployment of LSS in the company since they have direct
contacts involved with the implementation process. Triangulation was used as the principle in collecting data (Voss et al., 2002). It reduces the discrepancies and limitations in data by combining multiple sources and methods for the same research phenomenon (Blackhurst et al., 2011; Yin, 1994). The reliability of data can also be increased by the triangulation method (Voss et al., 2002). Therefore, data was collected from multiple sources and data-collection methods.
The study mainly used interviews as a source. The use of website was more as supportive source to provide the information about the company profile. First of all, for all seven samples case, semi-structured face-to-face interviews were designed as the main method to collect qualitative data from the interviewees in the companies.
The interview takes between two hours to two hours and thirty minutes. Questions were prepared beforehand and evaluated by the researchers involved in the study.
Two researchers with different roles conducted each interview. One researcher handled the presentation and discussion, and the other took notes and observations.
Eisenhardt (1989) proposed that multiple investigators can have advantages. First, it can improve the creative potential of the research, and second, the confidence and quality of findings can be enhanced. All interviews were conducted in Dutch. To ensure validity of the research (Yin, 1994), interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed afterward. After their validation, the data was coded in order to gain better overview of the similarities and differences by classifying data into categories (Voss et al., 2002). Tables 4 and 5 show the main information of each interview.
The second source of data was collected from the companies’ official websites. Thus, it provided basic background information and records of some important events that ever happened. Most information in these archived data were about general descriptions of companies. Relevant information to the research was noted as raw data to be coded later. Data from the archives can increase the validity of the research.
This research employed a specific interview method, namely, the lifegrid interview technique, as its major method of data collection. The lifegrid interview starts with interviewees providing a brief summary of major life events, such as a change in management, product development, etc. These events are recorded in a series of
timelines—in our study LSS deployment, management, employees, and customers.
The completed lifegrid allows the interviewer to structure the more detailed part of the interview that follows, focusing on specific areas of interest. The accuracy of recalling dates of life events is improved by cross-referencing events recorded on the timelines against each other and against an “external” line of relevant major public events.
With this interview method, we were interested in retrospectively assessing the implementation of a CI-LSS-based program. All the interviews were tape-recorded and subsequently transcribed by the interviewers. Field notes were also taken during and after the interviews, and these and the lifegrids were referred to when sections of the tape recordings were rather difficult to understand.
The information gathered from the interviews was added to a series of tables.
Variables were arranged in a row across the top and columns referring to chronological year and activities that the companies have engaged in. We used specific wording to elicit required information in a standardized way. For each row, the companies began at an appropriate point in their life and moved chronologically forward. The lifegrid approach is extremely flexible and allows for subjects to determine the recall cues. The researcher can quickly identify those areas, which assist the recall process while simultaneously developing rapport (Barney, 2003).
The first section of the interview was designed to assess the specific momentum during the years of the implementation program. This information provides a detailed outline of the timeline at which the company is progressing in their implementation program. The general goal is to obtain a developmental profile of how the LSS program has been deployed throughout their LSS implementation.
3.4 Data Analysis
Yin (2003) proposed five techniques for analyzing case studies: pattern matching, explanation building, time series analysis, logic models, and cross-case synthesis.
These techniques were used throughout the case analysis; for instance, time series
analysis was used to describe the chronology of the LSS implementation in the companies; pattern matching and explanation building were employed to identify the differences. For a detailed qualitative data analysis, there are two structured ways:
content analysis and grounded analysis. Both ways aim to produce common or contradictory themes, patterns, and categories from the data, which are used as a basis interpretation (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002).
The goal of the analysis was to answer first the following research question: “How has LSS been deployed and implemented in the SMEs with the most LSS experience?”. The author was not plan to find exactly two cases for this study. As stated earlier, it lead to two cases as the other five cases were not experienced enough to provide the information needed for the study. The interview reports and the lifegrid table were used to answer this question. Subsequently, to check and refine the framework of Kumar et al. (2011), this research investigated the LSS implementation process of companies by answering the following sub questions sequentially:
• “What are the similarities and differences between the framework of Kumar et al. (2011) and the implementation in practice?”.
• “What are the confirmations and revisions that can be derived from the comparison between LSS implementation in practice and the implementation framework developed by Kumar et al. (2011)?”.
By answering the first sub question, we were able to get the picture of how LSS has been implemented in practice. Then the framework by Kumar et al. (2011) has been compared with the step-by-step implementation in practice in order to identify the similarities and differences. By doing so, we derived confirmations and revision proposals for the framework.
Within-Case Analysis
The within-case analysis was according to a three-step process mentioned by Miles and Huberman (1994). In the first step, the first-order coding was conducted by extracting additional information from the raw data (reports). For example, when interviewees said something like “We don’t speak about LSS project, but just about project since we use these tools always now,” it was coded under the descriptive
phase “culture.” The first-order coding was to generalize the raw data into more descriptive phrases. After the raw data were first coded, the second-order coding was conducted sequentially. The second-order coding was used to categorize those descriptive phrases into similar groups. Coding in this step focused on five dimensions related to the label available on the lifegrid, namely, external, LSS deployment, management, employees, and customer. It turned out that we did not derive information from the cases regarding external events; therefore, we excluded this dimension from the lifegrid analysis (see tables 4 and 5).
Cross-case Analysis
After analyzing the cases, a cross-case analysis was required (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Cross-case analysis helps, first, to enhance the generalizability and, second, to gain a deeper understanding and explanations of the research field (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). The way of conducting a cross-case analysis in the study was by comparing the findings of each case to check whether findings in the single case indeed existed in the other case. Then these findings were considered as patterns of LSS deployment, which are similar in both cases. The results that follow are based mainly upon this analysis of the transcripts and reflexive assessment of the data that were generated.
4. Analysis and Results
In this section, the lifegrid table for each company is presented. The lifegrid tables are used to answer the first sub question: “How has LSS been deployed and implemented in the SMEs with the most LSS experience, specifically in polymer injection molding context?” The data available in the lifegrid table and the interview reports were used to identify the step-by-step LSS implementation journey in the companies. The amount of time each company had been involved with implementing LSS is not the same. Both companies departed from two different improvement approaches.
Company A had a robust Six Sigma program using Lean tools for 12 years, and Company B had a program using Lean and Six Sigma for six years. In both companies, Lean and Six Sigma became an integral and merged approach in 2010.
Furthermore, we summarized and translated the companies’ implementation journeys into sequential steps as presented in Figure 2.
Table 4. Company A Lifegrid
Year LSS Deployment Management Employees Customers
2002
Announcement of the decision to embark on Six Sigma. New General Manager (GB) with SS experience.
Autumn Introduction of SS to Management Team (MT) by RD, Ibis, UvA, Amsterdam).
2003 First LSS experience: BB training (combined with project execution) for three employees by a Dutch consultant, (OA).
New Quality Manager (BB) with SS experience within automotive sector.
Begin of “culture Shift” from family- based company to a more professionally organized company.
Summer First wave of GB training (MT members took part). All MT-members take part. Training takes 5/6 months, two consecutive days each month, in between participants work on a project. The first month training is carried out by (OA), during the second month the training is given by the newly trained BB’s, from then on the BB’s do it on their own, (OA) delivers support on demand.
Participation of MT members in SS as project- leader during training.
Begin of SS thinking for middle management and experts.
Project execution as part of GB training.
2004
Second round of GB training.
2005
• First round of basic training. First version took two days, later versions were shortened to one day. Mixed Six Sigma and Lean subjects:
Six Sigma:
Process mapping,
Measurement System Analysis (MSA) Brainstorm, Ishikawa, Correlation, Control plan In the first course simple Design of Experiments (DoE) was part of the program, but from then on DoE was left out, because it was too complicated for the operator level.
Lean:
7 wastes, Visual management, 5S, Single-Minute Exchange of Die (SMED), Lego game.
• Third round of GB training.
• 5S implemented at division level.
• Initial steps are taken to build a system for administration and support of projects (intranet- based).
Involvement of all employees in the basics of Lean and Six Sigma.
2006
• Two rounds of GB training.
• Basic Training.
2007
(Only) GB projects that already had been started were running normally.
Year LSS Deployment Management Employees Customers Evaluation of the SS program at MT-level in a project
called “Six Sigma Kwadraat”. During normal MT-meeting with BBs (scheduled every 6 weeks) the following problems were discussed:
1. SS projects suffered of far too long lead times.
2. After GB training the methods and tools learned were not used consistently at acceptable levels.
3. Management developed measures for improvement as a result of Six Sigma Kwadraat project, following the DMAIC structure:
• A coaching system was developed for Champions and GBs.
• Support and providing tools for Champions and GBs by BBs was structured.
• Definition of an intermediate Belt level between GB and operator level (Orange Belt).
Shift from pure financially based target setting to wider range of indicators: quality level, safety level, work happiness.
GB-projects: more complex, 3-6 months.
OB projects: 2-3 months, less complex.
BB-projects: more factories involved, on strategic issues.
2008
Introduction of LSS for the management of the Belgium company.
Create (work out) new Belt-level called Orange Belt.
First Orange Belt training delivered by BBs: three days within one month, combined with Small Group Activity Training, focus on small problems/ irritations on the workplace. Techniques: Brainstorming, Pareto, Fishbone diagram, statistical measures as mean, median, range, (rather avoid standard deviation, careful approach).
Green Belt training.
General Manager became General Manager of a Belgium company.
Enforcement of
cooperation on LSS between Company A and two other companies of the same group in Belgium and Netherlands.
On the BB level also contacts with the UK (not for joined training- programs).
Gap between shop- floor employees and GB-level
employees.
2009
Six Sigma and Lean are progressing separately. The GB- projects (for certified Green Belts) were run.
Year LSS Deployment Management Employees Customers Two Orange Belt training sessions, and one Green Belt
training with candidate form Company A together with the cooperating companies.
Basic training for new operators.
2010
• Integration of Lean and SS into LSS.
• Green Belt training (as in 2009). Green Belt projects.
Orange Belt training for two groups.
• Basic training for new operators. Here “B” Consultancy comes in, for assistance on the deployment of 5S.
The 5S activities were restructured.
More emphasis on ownership of machines and processes on the shop floor.
2011
Serious dip at GB-level.
The Black Belt the Quality manager of Company A participating in the MT) takes the initiative to discuss his concerns in the MT.
MT decides to take measures: GBs have to carry out one project each year. GB must deliver project proposal, the BB decides if the project proposal agrees to GB-standards, process owners/ champion decides about approval/
disapproval. Process owner is the manager who is stakeholder (for injection molding it is the manager of the injection molding department). Champions are members of the MT (roles of Champion and Process owner were not combined before). Monthly feedback discussions between project-team leaders and Champion. BBs and process owners evaluate.
2012
• GB projects.
• OB projects.
• GB and OB training.
• Basic training.
2013 Current state of LSS deployment:
• LSS specialist: Two BB, 60 GB’s, 120 OB’s.
• All employees have accomplished basic training.
• LSS tools are about 70% Lean and 30 % SS.
• Project prioritization. GBs and OBs propose projects, BB checks if proposals fit to GB or OB levels, approval form process owners is needed.
The basic training program has evaluated in regular morning discussion (LSS business case) and in the afternoon Lean manufacturing issues are studied by carrying out a Lego game.
Current state of the intranet system for administration of the projects: Version 14, containing a database of all projects (closed out and running), LSS tools and templates. All of the employees have access to the LSS tools and templates. BBs have access to projects- database.
The number of employees has been lowered by about 10
% because of lower
demands for
products, caused by the current crisis in the building-trade.
Table 5. Company B Lifegrid
Year LSS Deployment Management Employees Customers
2007 A mission statement was formulated on Continuous Improvement.
A Consultant was hired from Scotland: Lean Business Solutions.
Yellow Belt level education followed on Lean subject, predominantly on Waste reduction, 5S and SMED. Participants were operators, team leaders, mechanics (technicians who repair production facilities, also they do some maintenance), and also project engineers.
Projects were focused on production processes.
Training was organized within Kaizen events.
The program faded away afterwards (extending to the next year).
The company was a part of a Danish organization, which was owned by a multinational.
“Cultural Change” as a result of Kaizen events implementation.
Pharmacy and Food &
beverages are the main customers of Company B.
For new projects there are two possibilities:
1. The customer has an idea for a function and has a few limitations in which this function must fit.
2. The other one is that the customer has a product completely engineered and Company B only develop the process and necessary tools plus small changes to improve the manufacturability.
ratio 20:80 Loosing external assistance of the consultancy. The production
manager left the Dutch company Losing focus of management, and financial difficulties.
2008
A temporary
production manager came in from mother- company (he came from Scotland).
However, he had communication problems (language) and also a difficult relation to the general director.
The multinational tried to sell the holding company of Company B.
2009
Communication to top/holding management through monthly reporting.
Communication at local management level by defining KPI’s, which were reported every 2 weeks in Management team meeting.
Communication to all personnel by providing status information in quarterly meetings, and
Outside world
(customers/ suppliers) have only been informed on a case by case base combined in regular business update meetings 1-4 times a year dependent upon the customer).
Year LSS Deployment Management Employees Customers continuously in the ‘customer Care Center’, which
displays continuously the most up-to- date major KPI’s (OTIF, Quality complaints, DPPM level, quality problems solving rate).
End of
the year A new production
manager came in.
A Swedish investor bought the holding company.
2010
January New managing
director appointed Introduction of the
Customer Care Center The initiative developed at local management
level, and coincided with a program at group/top management level.
The production manager took the initiative to start a CI-and Lean-project, called WOW.
A selection was made of problems that had to be tackled within the next half year, from a 40 points list.
Progress of WOW action plan from Q1 2010 till Q3 2011 as action item and KPI of Operations Manager in weekly Management meeting.
Progress of GB and BB projects as action item and KPI of Operations manager in weekly management meeting.
There were two strongly separated departments:
Injection Molding and Medical. These departments had separated quality systems and facilities within the factory.
There also were cultural differences.
Four employees were made redundant who did not qualify for the higher standards imposed on everyone.
Projects were run focusing on integration of different departments on quality issues, including on standardization.
Cooperating with bachelor students (Bedrijfskunde) from a regional University of Applied Science in implementing the LSS program.
During the year the feeling came up that there were problems with knowledge
levels. From
discussions with the company’s
management at group
level (top-
management above 7 companies in Poland, Scotland, Germany, Sweden (2), China, India) with in total
about 1500
employees) decisions were made by the end of 2010 to start a Lean program. Pressure from bottom up also helped, especially form Mark and his Polish colleague.
End of the year
Start with Lean program
2011
Year LSS Deployment Management Employees Customers The production manager educated as BB plus 2
GBs (again Lean Business Solutions was hired for training).
BB-training consisted of four blocks of one week training, with intervals of six weeks (so one week training every seven weeks).
Training was
organized around a project, the first blocks were strongly focused on project selection and setting up a project charter.
BB projects should deliver 150 k€. The project of the production manager was closed around August 2012. Time spent by the people who have been trained is partly based on own motivation, partly stimulated by a group investment.
Mid of the year
LSS is part of the annual objectives for the Operations manager.
LSS project status (number of running projects and progress) reported in local weekly management meeting, and mentioned in monthly report to the group.
Project database (running, closed or yet to be assigned) monitored in management team. Project database in Excel.
All LSS projects and training materials are accessible on the local intranet for team-members of projects.
2012
The management team in the Netherlands focuses on restructuring the company as a base for CI- development based on the seven forces model of McKinsey.
Now the company is a leading company within the group for CI.
Aiming at: always 3 projects are running.
There was officially a steering group but that only started to function well at holding’ level
The Dutch company was taken over. . The former holding wanted to concentrate
on domestic
appliances,
automotive and paper handling. Paper handling was quite a different market, making components for money-withdrawal machines.
The Dutch company did not fit in that portfolio. The Management team
focuses on
restructuring the company as a base for CI-development based on the seven forces model of McKinsey.
KPI’s for customer satisfaction have grown each year by 5-20%.
One new customer was added in 2012 with the help of continuous improvement culture and customer Care Center information
Year LSS Deployment Management Employees Customers Now the company is a
leading company within the group for CI.
August The BB project of the production manager that was started in 2011 was closed out successfully.
One other Greenbelt project was also successfully closed.
New customer in medical market added to customer portfolio.
October Second Greenbelt certification was completed.
In order to make the analysis more structured, we drew a step-by-step LSS implementation in practice based on the case studies. Figure 2 shows the sequence or steps of LSS implementation of the companies included in this study. However, Because of missing information, we are not able to identify the sequence of
“identifying the core business process.” Based on the information that we have gathered from the questionnaire, we can assure that the core business process is identified and used to identify the project to focus on.
