Purpose Process improvement initiatives, such as Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma, typically have common characteristics that are carried through projects. Whilst a project’s performance is an important determinant of the successful implementation of continuous improvement (CI) initiatives, its failure can undermine the impact of any CI initiative on business performance. As a result, an understanding of the reasons of process improvement project failures is crucial. The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a pilot survey highlighting the most common reasons for process improvement project failures. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a pilot survey of 42 Brazilian manufacturing specialists who have been involved in process improvement projects. The participants of this survey were Six Sigma Master Black Belts, Black Belts, Green Belts and Six Sigma champions from manufacturing companies in Brazil. The survey questionnaire was piloted with five experts in the field in order to ensure that the questions were valid and technically sound. Findings The execution of Six Sigma projects in organizations results in a moderate rate of project failures. These failures can cost organizations several millions of dollars especially within the context of larger organizations. The main reasons for project failure, as cited by the specialists include: resistance to change, lack of commitment and support from top management and incompetent teams. Research limitations/implications The authors report the findings from a pilot survey having a limited sample size. Moreover, the data have been collected from one country and primarily from large manufacturing companies. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first empirical study looking into the reasons for process improvement project failures. The authors argue that if the top reasons for such failures are understood, a framework can be developed in the future that can mitigate the chance of project failures during project execution. This could potentially lead to significant savings to the bottom-line of many organizations.
PurposeThe main purpose of this study is to revisit Dr. Ishikawa's statement: “95% of problems in processes can be accomplished using the seven quality control (QC) tools” from his book “What is Quality Control?”. The authors are interested in critically investigating if this statement is still valid nowadays. It involves the analysis of the usage of the seven QC tools in the manufacturing and service sectors and the benefits, challenges and critical success factors (CSFs) for the application of the seven QC tools.Design/methodology/approachIn order to evaluate Kaoru Ishikawa's statement and how valid his statement is for manufacturing and service industries nowadays, an online survey instrument was developed, and data collection was performed utilising a stratified random sampling strategy. The main strata/clusters were formed by senior quality professionals working in operational excellence, quality consultants, quality directors, quality engineers, quality managers and quality supervisors working in both manufacturing and service sectors from South American companies. A total of 97 participants from different countries in South America responded to the survey.FindingsThe main finding of this study is that only about 20% of respondents felt that the original seven basic tools of QC can solve above 80% of quality related problems in their businesses. This is quite different from the findings reported by Dr Ishikawa in his work in between 1970 and 1980s. Another relevant finding presented in this paper is that Pareto analysis, histograms and cause and effect analysis are the most used tools in both manufacturing and service sectors. This paper also revealed that the seven QC tools proposed by Dr. Ishikawa were least used by human resources (HR), information technology (IT) and finance functions. This work presents a list of critical success factors required for the proper application of the seven QC tools.Research limitations/implicationsAll data collected in the pilot survey came from professionals working for South American companies. So, this paper does present limitations in terms of generalisation of the results. Also, data were collected at an individual level, so parameters such as the inter reliability of judgements on a particular survey item could not be evaluated. It is important to highlight that n = 97 is a low sample size, enough for a preliminary survey but reinforcing the limitation in terms of generalisation of the results.Originality/valueAuthors understand that this is the very first research focused on challenging Dr. Ishikawa's statement: “95% of problems in processes can be accomplished using the seven quality control (QC) tools” from his book “What is Quality Control?”. The results of this study represent an important first step towards a full understanding of the applicability of these tools in manufacturing and service industries in a global scale.
PurposeThe purpose of the article is to present the results of a critical literature review (CLR) on Design of experiments (DoE) in the service industry.Design/methodology/approachA critical review of existing literature review across various databases including Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Emerald Insight were searched for the identification of relevant papers. The authors searched relevant journal articles for a time period of 25 years (1994–2019).FindingsA total of 29 industry case studies of DoE applications were identified spanning healthcare, retail, logistics, education, marketing, after sales and catering business. The industrial experimentation strategies adopted by the case study organisations were screening, factorial designs, Taguchi, response surface method and split-plot. It was apparent that there are only a handful number of papers showing the applications of DoE across the service sector and this motivates for pursuing further research into this topic by the authors.Practical implicationsThe findings of the study can be very useful for middle and senior managers to understand the benefits of implementing this powerful technique for increased understanding of service processes, as well as for optimising service performance. Moreover, the paper presents some of the fundamental challenges, as well as skills needed for the successful application of DoE.Originality/valueTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first CLR on DoE and its applications in the service sector. The findings of the study can be beneficial to both academic and industrial communities to understand some of the challenges and fundamental gaps which need to be tackled in the future.
PurposeThe term Lean Startup (LS) was coined by Eric Ries, and his 2011 book has popularized the concept with organizations, both startups and established organizations, implementing LS. However the empirical grounding is thin and for a long time this subject has been neglected by academia. The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic literature review (SLR) on LS, while highlighting core knowledge and identify gaps.Design/methodology/approachA SLR was carried out based on the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol of Scopus and Web of Science databases. In total, 45 articles published in journals and conferences over 10 years were collected which revealed a number of LS research gaps.FindingsThe SLR revealed the tools and methods associated with LS, most cited pros and cons, reasons that cause LS failure, the challenges that companies face in the implementation of LS, and critical success factors (CSFs) that can support these challenges and minimize the reasons for failure.Practical implicationsThe findings of the study can be beneficial to practitioners and senior managers in organizations who wish to delve into the journey of LS. The study also discloses challenges and barriers that can hinder the implementation of LS.Originality/valueAcademic publications regarding LS are sparse and this SLR is one of the first SLRs to explore both the critical failure factors (CFFs) and the CSFs based on peer-reviewed journal and conference proceedings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.