No abstract

No abstract

This research investigates a possible integration between Lean Six Sigma (LSS) tools and principles and Industry 4.0 technologies. The aim is the development of a new pattern for Operational Excellence through the grounded theory methodology. Data collection involved interviewing Italian manufacturing managers in ten case organisations as well as a direct observation of practices linked to Industry 4.0 and LSS integration at one of the selected case organisations. Results of the study aligns with preliminary literature supporting LSS providing platform to achieve effective outcome from Industry 4.0 application. The integration needs reinvented mapping tools and implies a horizontal integration and a vertical, end-to-end integration. The latter requires the company to reengineer the ERP modules, while in the horizontal integration the real ultimate goal is to reach a complete automatic synchronisation of the processes named Autonomous Process Synchronisation. Moreover, all the data gathered from production processes and offices needs the development of new analytics at all levels. This is amongst first few studies that answers how to achieve integration between LSS and Industry 4.0 technologies and thus have several research and managerial contributions in advancing operational excellence research.

PurposeThe main purpose of this paper is to analyse the current literature situation in terms of relationships between Industry 4.0 and quality management and TQM. The author wanted to understand what topics and issues can be considered the most relevant referring to the so-called Quality 4.0, what the literature is missing opening avenues for further research.Design/methodology/approachThis research employed a systematic literature review. In total, 75 papers from different sources were reviewed using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria.FindingsFour categories of topics emerged, namely: creating value within the company through quality (big) data, analytics and artificial intelligence; developing Quality 4.0 skills and culture for quality people; customer value co-creation; cyber–physical systems and ERP for quality assurance and control. This paper also tried to understand if there is a definition of Quality 4.0 based on determined methods.Research limitations/implicationsSystematic literature review could have introduced some limitations in terms of the number and reliability of reviewed papers. Probably some interesting papers had been not intentionally missed.Practical implicationsConsultants and managers in developing and implementing their own Quality 4.0 models could use many practical and discussed implications concerning I4.0 technologies and quality management.Originality/valueThis is one of the first papers which employed the systematic literature review for researching Industry 4.0, quality management and TQM relationships.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to theorize and prioritize the main categories of risk sources for the European manufacturing small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in accordance with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001:2015 requirement “risk based thinking.” Furthermore, the research analyses how these organizations intend to manage the risks and their effects. Design/methodology/approach A first exploratory interview with 28 experts from international certification bodies and manufacturing companies which revealed 11 risk sources has been performed. Then, quality managers from European manufacturing SMEs were surveyed to determine whether or not they intended to manage the risk sources suggested by the experts. A 95 percent confidence interval was performed to evaluate the range of plausible values for the population. The quality managers were also asked to comment on each category of risk source. Findings The research shows that the most taken into account categories of risk sources were the internal production of nonconforming products followed by poorly trained workers with a lack of skills and awareness, supplier nonconforming products and lack of risk-based assessment. The least taken into account category was nonconforming technical results in the design process. The quality managers’ qualitative comments also brought to light interesting issues which represented avenues for new research. Research limitations/implications The limitations of this research lie in the first exploratory interview with the 28 experts. This process could be improved by means of a larger sample of experts. Furthermore, these experts could have included risk source categories which could fall outside of an ISO 9001 quality management system (QMS) scope and application. Practical implications Quality managers in SMEs can now address the new ISO 9001:2015 requirement knowing what the priorities from a statistical point of view are. This implication is also relevant to QMS consultants who are implementing ISO 9001:2015 QMS together with their customers. Originality/value The novelty of this research is that it has been tried for the first time to theorize what the main categories of risk sources in accordance with the risk-based thinking requirement are for European manufacturing SMEs.

No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to compare and discuss the evolution of six important management systems: Japanese Total Quality Control (JTQC), Total Quality Management (TQM), Deming's system of profound knowledge, Business Process Reengineering (BPR), Lean Thinking and Six Sigma. Indeed, the contribution of this paper lies in the concurrent analysis and classification, by the means of a literature review, of the results and critical implementation factors of the six systems. Deming's Plan‐Do‐Check‐Act (PDCA) has been used to classify the findings from the literature review.Design/methodology/approachThe research methodology is based on a literature review. The literature review has been carried out for each single system, trying subsequently to compare and discuss the results.FindingsInside the six systems, nine common factors have been found and proposed. They are: results and benefits; management style; deployment of the system; employee management, deployment and participation; voice of the customer; tools, techniques and IT; optimisation of the system; day‐by‐day check and control of the results and review of the system.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper presents some limits due to the fact that it is based on a literature review. This implies that more research about the findings should be carried out: TQM in Western companies, Six Sigma that could have substituted TQM, Six Sigma and TQM in Japan, Deming's system developments and the influence of the Japanese style on Lean Six Sigma.Originality/valueFor the first time a paper tries to compare and discuss the six most important systems dedicated to quality and operations improvement.