Dmaic - Ijqrm 10 2020 0332
Dmaic - Ijqrm 10 2020 0332
Dmaic - Ijqrm 10 2020 0332
net/publication/349291311
CITATIONS READS
2 392
3 authors:
13 PUBLICATIONS 13 CITATIONS
Government Engineering College Bikaner
44 PUBLICATIONS 405 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Jaiprakash Bhamu
Government Engineering College, India, Bikaner
32 PUBLICATIONS 927 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Effect of heat treatment and uniaxial deformation on thermal stability and wear behavior of AA 2014 alloy View project
Application of Kaizen Lean approach to reduce rejections and failure cost at Shop floor of a wire harness manufacturing company View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Pramod Kumar on 12 October 2021.
Validation of
QUALITY PAPER DMAIC based
Development and validation of framework
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop and validate an extended Define-Measure-Analyze-
Improve-Control (DMAIC) based framework through a case study of an Indian fasteners manufacturing
organization.
Design/methodology/approach – Research methodology is established on the development of the existing
DMAIC framework through an extensive literature review of 25 LSS/DMAIC based frameworks and
discussions held with practitioners. This paper also depicts a case study of Indian manufacturing organization
for validation of the developed framework.
Findings – The study proposed an extended DMAIC based framework for effective implementation of Lean
Six Sigma (LSS) methodology. Furthermore, this framework has been implemented successfully in the Indian
manufacturing organization and showed encouraging results. The in-house rejections of Nut Cylinder Head
(NCH) were brought down to 966 from 2910 PPM and sigma level was improved by 0.40. The case organization
has achieved significant improvements in the process capability, customer satisfaction, and cost savings of
US$ 0.25 million in one financial year. Intangible benefits like improvements in employee’s morale,
communication, housekeeping and decision-making capabilities were also observed significantly.
Practical implications – The proposed DMAIC based framework has been implemented successfully in the
Indian case organization, and the results will enable the policymakers, specifically practitioners, to strategically
leverage the resources for successful implementation of the LSS in healthcare, aerospace, service sectors etc.
Originality/value – This research develops a DMAIC based framework which can be used to implement LSS
effectively in different industries. Moreover, the pre (initial/introduction) and post (validation/verification)
implementation phase provides the top management, an edge to think strategically into broader
improvement areas.
Keywords Lean six sigma, DMAIC, Framework, Defects, Process capability, Rejections, Quality level
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
Lean Six Sigma integrates different strategies for business improvement whether it be in the
service or manufacturing sectors to increase customer satisfaction levels in the competitive
market for the organization. Customers expect on-time delivery of their desired products
without additional costs for quality (Seth et al., 2017). Every organization is striving for the
cost reduction by reducing the defects or variations in the processes and products to obtain
better bottom line results than their competitors. To meet such challenges, manufacturing
companies strive to develop innovative methodologies/ technologies or other quality
improvement practices to provide value to the customer. Lean Six Sigma is a widely used
competent technique that renders the improvements in the quality of a product. It is a data International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management
driven methodology that facilitates improved business performance by minimizing waste, © Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-671X
removing non-value-added activities and reducing process variations (Trehan et al., 2019; DOI 10.1108/IJQRM-10-2020-0332
IJQRM Ben Ruben et al., 2017), to achieve operational excellence at reduced cost (Seth et al., 2017;
Lande et al., 2016; Lolli et al., 2014). These practices are being used in industries with new
concepts/frameworks to reduce non-value added activities, wastes, defects and non-
conformities came across several processes (Drohomeretski et al., 2013; Yadav and Desai,
2018a). Basically, it includes the rapidness of Lean and robustness of Six Sigma (Sunder and
Antony, 2018), thereby increasing the effectiveness of machines, tools and equipment (Bhamu
and Sangwan, 2014). As a quality improvement technique, LSS has achieved recognition and
success in manufacturing and services industries (Pepper and Spedding, 2010).
The manufacturing sector, globally as well as in India is facing the challenges of
shrinking margins, more demands of quality products, inventory issues, reduction in
wastes, variety and service level constraints (Ben Ruben et al., 2017; Yadav et al., 2018b).
Managements are implementing the LSS for handling the waste and quality issues. LSS
implementation requires a proper understanding of tools/techniques/practices by
management and employees of the organization. Based on the extensive literature
review, it was observed that several articles were published on the LSS frameworks, but
some of them were industry specific, while some were complex in nature. To bridge the gap,
a generalized framework has been developed by the authors. Considering the expert views
of the practitioners, a generic LSS framework is proposed and the same is validated in real-
world applications.
This paper is structured as: Section 2 presents the systematic literature review of research
trends in LSS and a review of 25 frameworks for LSS implementation. Section 3 defines
methodology used for development of framework. Sections 4 proposes a framework and its
description followed by the validation of the framework through the case study in section 5.
Section 6 presents the results and discussion, and conclusions with future scope in research in
Section 7.
2. Literature review
To gain competitive advantages in current market situations, companies are implementing
meliorated methodologies/approaches to improve product or service characteristics and
productivity with customer satisfaction. One such practice is the integration of Lean and Six
Sigma to provide the desired product to the customer without compromising the quality and
delivery (Tenera and Pinto, 2014). Lean facilitates elimination of wastes through simple and
visual techniques, whereas Six Sigma focuses on reduction in process variations using
statistical tools. LSS is blended approach, which leads to enhancement in performance of a
system. This performance improvement is the measure of cost, quality and satisfaction level
of the customers (Snee, 2010; Garza-Reyes et al., 2016). Effective deployment of the LSS
concept is vital for any firm to minimize the process variations, lead time and sustain the
business (Ben Ruben et al., 2017; Jeyaraman and Kee Teo, 2010; Albliwi et al., 2014). Prior to
implementation of the LSS, organizations must use a proper framework to achieve the
requirements of waste reduction and quality improvement. The framework emphasizes the
need to identify appropriate tools/techniques/practices throughout supplier, input, process,
output, and customer to implement LSS across the entire supply chain (Bhamu and Sangwan,
2016). Many practitioners have shown their interest to understand, absorb and apply LSS-
based frameworks (Yadav and Desai, 2018a; Hilton and Sohal, 2012; Chaurasia et al., 2016).
Sodhi et al. (2020) reviewed articles on Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma integration
frameworks, and formulated an advanced model that may be applied in manufacturing
organizations to reduce scrap, enhanced productivity and increase quality of products. A
framework of Lean and Six Sigma tools was implemented in the bulb manufacturing firm in
India (Trehan et al., 2019), and mentioned reduction in aging failure rate to 0.13% from 9.4%
and a commensurate reduction in customer complaints. Sodhi et al. (2019) discussed a case
study to improve waste management using a theoretical Lean Six Sigma model. The model Validation of
was designed by reinforcing Lean Manufacturing tools in Six Sigma approach (DMAIC) and DMAIC based
implemented the same in foundry industry to reduce variations in processes. Nascimento
et al. (2019) proposed LSS framework applicable for continuous and incremental
framework
improvement in the oil and gas sector. The conceptual framework combines Lean, Six
Sigma (DMAIC) and Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle for problem solving in oil and gas
settings. A Six Sigma framework was developed through questionnaire survey, expert
opinion and interview method for business processes which was implemented in chemical
industry to improve quality levels (Motwani et al., 2004). Wei et al. (2010) used efficient tools
and techniques of Six Sigma DMAIC methodologies to achieve operational excellence in the
replenishment process. Zhang et al. (2014) implemented DMAIC methodology to improve
process capability of a cold roll mill in China.
Similarly, Banawi and Bilec (2014) formulated a framework combining a green approach
with Lean and Six Sigma to reduce the environmental affects created by construction processes
and was validated through a case study in a construction company. Jevgeni et al. (2015)
introduced a framework for continuous improvement that makes production processes reliable
and enables engineers to define and measure failures of production operations. It also reduced
lead time by integrating Six Sigma DMAIC, Failure Mode and Effect Analysis and others.
Cabrita et al. (2015) applied Lean Six Sigma model in a Portuguese bolts manufacturing
company to reduce the production cost. The proposed project discussed some valuable Lean and
Six Sigma tools utilizing the DMAIC approach leading to a 50% cost reduction. The stock levels
between two working stations was reduced which makes availability of stamping machine 10%
more, which finally resulted in 15% improvement in production capacity. Similarly, Nunes
(2015) proposed a model that integrates LSS and ergonomics aspects of production engineering,
associated with a potential tool Decision Support System (DSS) for proper implementation of
proposed framework specifically in SMEs for continuous improvement.
Pugna et al. (2016) used DMAIC Six Sigma methodology along with statistical tools, i.e.
control charts, Pareto chart etc. to enhance the assembly process in an automotive in
Romania. Swarnakar and Vinodh (2016) developed a framework, applying Lean tools with
DMAIC methodology of Six Sigma that facilitates elimination of non-value added operations
to enhance bottom line results. The framework was tested by deploying it in production line
of an automotive part manufacturing industry. Ben Ruben et al. (2017) portrayed LSS
framework by considering environmental impacts of production processes and validated the
framework through a case study performed in Indian automotive organization. A significant
reduction in internal defects from 16,000 ppm to 6,000 ppm and environmental impacts from
42Pt to 33Pt was observed. This was an effective initiative to increase sigma level along with
reducing environmental impacts. Deeb et al. (2018) presented a generic framework regarding
adoption of Six Sigma in SMEs. The proposed framework was formalized by meta-model and
defined the requirements of each phase of the DMAIC approach.
Chaurasia Descriptive Brain- Process (Oil- Flexible Not used Operational Cost Work in process Team Business Uncertainties
et al. (2016) storming exporting) building for excellence of business
with Brain- strategies are
experts storming not
incorporated
Yadav et al. Conceptual Review Manufacturing Complicated Case study Operational Decision Process variations No Business Cannot be
(2018b) and supported making excellence optimized.
Expert with Applicable to
opinion Sensitivity other
Analysis manufacturing
sector after
modifications
Ben Ruben Empirical Review Manufacturing Moderate Case study Operational Costand Process Team Cost Specific to
et al. (2017) and quality variations þ Lead building reduction automobile
Sustainable time and sector
reduced
variations
Jevgeni et al. Conceptual Expert Process Flexible Case study Operational Time Lead time No Business Framework is
(2015) opinion effective excellence supported by
theoretical
approach
Nunes (2015) Empirical Review Process Moderate Not Sustainable – – – Business Validation is
conducted, excellence based on
validation preliminary
supported- studies
preliminary
studies
Deeb et al. Descriptive Other Others Flexible No Operational Cost – – Cost No validation
(2018) validation reduction
Tenera and Descriptive Review Service (tele- Flexible Case study Operational Cost þ time Process variations Employee Cost Applicable in
Pinto (2014) communication) involvement reduction service
industries
Sreeram and Empirical Review Design Moderate Multiple Operational Time Working process Employee Business Limited to
Thondiyath engineering case studies effective involvement excellence design
(2015) engineering
(continued )
framework
DMAIC based
Comparison of
Validation of
Table 1.
different frameworks
Table 1.
IJQRM
Dimensions
Author/s D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 Limitations
Sunder and Conceptual Review Service Flexible No Other Quality of – Team Business Education
Antony (2018) (Education) education building excellence sector
and
customer
satisfaction
Mishra and Conceptual Review Manufacturing Moderate Case study Operational Quality Process variations – – Limited to
sharma (2014) Supply Chain
Process
Panagopoulos Conceptual Other Design Moderate Case study Other Quality Process variations – Business Limited to
et al. (2017) Engineering excellence aviation safety
and system
customer
satisfaction
Swarnakar Conceptual Review Manufacturing Flexible Case study Operational Quality Lead time – Reduce Limited to
and Vinodh andcycle time variations automobile
(2016) sector
Jie et al. (2014) Empirical Review Manufacturing Flexible Case study Operational Cost and Lead time Employee Cost No experts
time involvement reduction opinion
Garza-Reyes Empirical Review Process Flexible Case study Operational Time Cycle time – Business Addition of
et al. (2016) excellence more tools is
needed to
implement in
other domain
Thomas et al. Empirical Review Manufacturing Flexible Case study Operational Cost and Cycle time – Cost Specific
(2016) time reduction application
Kowang et al. Conceptual Review Manufacturing Flexible No Sustainable – – Motivation – Validation is
(2016) andcase validation not proper
study
Ramphal Empirical Review Service Flexible No – – – Motivation – Not Validated
(2017) validation
Owad et al. Conceptual Survey Healthcare Moderate No Operational Time time Employee Customer Validation not
(2014) validation involvement satisfaction included
Cabrita et al. Empirical Review Manufacturing Flexible Case study Operational Cost Reduce variations Motivation Cost Basic
(2015) reduction methodology
adopted
(continued )
Dimensions
Author/s D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 Limitations
Table 1.
IJQRM 2.2 Research gap
Since the inception of LSS concept, a significant number of frameworks have been developed
by various academicians and practitioners based on the five phase methodology termed as
DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, improve and Control). Each and every phase is originated
through statistical and qualitative tools to accomplish the objectives during process of
implementation (Deeb et al., 2018). In line with the literature review of existing frameworks
related to application of DMAIC method, there is need to ensure practical validation of the
studies (Swarnakar and Vinodh, 2016) and to develop a new generalized framework/
theoretical model which may be validated through practical application in service/
manufacturing industry to get better outcomes in terms of waste reduction and improved
quality.
Exploring the literature on Lean Six Sigma frameworks development and their
implementation in manufacturing organizations, it was found that many LSS frameworks
which were developed and implemented in the organizations (Ben Ruben et al., 2017; Cabrita
et al., 2015; Nunes, 2015; Deeb et al., 2018; and Pugna et al., 2016) are based on the DMAIC six
sigma methodology. But, so far none of the academician/practitioners discussed the pre
(initial/introduction) and post (validation/verification) implementation phase which is
proposed in the present model. Pre and post implementation phase helps to make the
organization ready and optimize the implementation results. The developed framework
includes initial or introduction phase before going to the define phase of DMAIC for
identification of problems in production processes and their categorization.
Also, there is a need for validation and verification of results which are expected on
implementation of LSS at the end of control phase. Therefore, verification phase is included in
proposed framework and validated in a manufacturing organization. Detail discussion of
each phase is mentioned in Section 4.1.
Figure 1.
Methodology used for
development of the
framework
process capability chart, SIPOC chart and other statistical tools listed in Figure 3. These
improve the manufacturing processes as well reduce rejections. The detailed description of
the framework is given in the next section.
problem and set a clear vision for the project for solving the same. This phase also includes
the project charter formation consisting of problem statement, goal statement, project scope
and other information about the case problem. An activity plan should also be developed for
the project. To understand the detail of the actual problem, combination of lean and statistical
tools (project charter, process flow diagram etc.) are used in the define phase.
4.1.3 Measure phase. This phase collect and measures the data through a valid measuring
tool or measurement system to interpret the current state of the process, which aims to
identify critical quality parameters of the process. Data is collected to capture the current
state of the process and to find the capability through a process capability chart.
4.1.4 Analyze phase. The aims of this phase is to analyze the collected data related to the
critical/identified problem. Potential causes of the problem should also to be identified on the
basis of results of the measure phase. A cause and effect diagram is used to determine the root
cause/s of the problem.
4.1.5 Improve phase. Plan for improvements must be developed in this phase and root
cause solutions are identified and generated to improve the processes. Continuous kaizen
improvement activities should also be performed in parallel to the root cause solutions to
remove other potential causes of rejections. Impact of each improvement or trial is evaluated
and a suitable improvement is selected for implementation. Probable resistance in
implementing the improvement/s must be defined in this phase.
Identification of all existing problems Brain storming Validation of
DMAIC based
Categorization of identified problems ABC Analysis framework
Initial Phase
Decision criterion for problem selection
Brain storming
Rating Analysis of ‘A’ category problems
Trial implementation
4.1.6 Control phase. Improvement actions planned in the improve phase, must be
implemented in this phase and tested in a controlled manner, so that it may result in
process improvements and reduction in rejection level. Potential merits and impacts are to be
compared for control of the process parameters. Action plans and monitoring sheets should
be incorporated for regular checkup.
4.1.7 Verification phase. This phase is actually included in the framework because
verification of all the results is needed to match the progress of the improvements in the
IJQRM process. It is also required to check the generated savings of the projects. Tangible and
intangible benefits of the process improvements and customer satisfaction level are verified
in this phase.
Parameter Criterion/Rating
5.1.4 Rating analysis of “A” category problems. After assigning the rating to the four
parameters in above step and on the basis of these four parameters and their rating value,
rating analysis of “A” type problems is performed. The results from rating analysis are
shown in Table 4. After conducting rating analysis, pareto chart is drawn to clearly define the
impact of the problems (Figure 4).
Problem listed at serial no. 5 in Table 4 has severe rating value of 72 and have 30%
contribution level according to the Pareto analysis. Problem no. 4 and 7 also have a total value
of 48 in rating analysis. But, the problem related to thread out or concentricity out in Nut
Cylinder Head is finally selected to solve, as it makes a major contribution in rejections and is
also a Voice of Customer (VOC).
5.1.5 Final selection of the problem. As per the rating and Pareto analysis, the problem
related to the thread or concentricity out in Nut Cylinder Head was selected to solve first. This
problem has the severe impact in increasing the rejection level in the company. Repeated
customer complaints were arising due to this problem and quality of the product was also
diminishing. So, it was decided to overcome this problem keeping on priority.
200
80
Defect
150
Percent
60
100 40
50 20
0 0
Problem t s
H p g u d 5 g
NC ixu sin od re
a
8x
4 pc llin
n m is pr th tM st
y ro
ti s m g ng Ru nk
ou pc h er l lin o ou a
ad ng as ro wr le Sh
re tti w o Ho
Th Se w/
Defect 72 48 48 24 24 8 8 8
Figure 4. Percent 30.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 3.3 3.3 3.3
Pareto analysis Cum % 30.0 50.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 93.3 96.7 100.0
aims to increase the process capability by trial implementation on three different machines Validation of
and checking probable resistance. DMAIC based
5.2.2 Definition and description of the problem. The problem which was identified to solve
at priority has uneven concentricity in Nut Cylinder Head (Plate 1). The flow chart of
framework
manufacturing process of the component is presented in Figure 5. At first, forging process
was performed and then component was sent for the next machining operation. Facing,
pointing, drilling, chamfering, and tapping operations was performed at the machine shop of
the company. Afterwards the component was sent for heat treatment, pickling, oiling, and
followed by hydrogen de-embrittlement. After performing all operations, final inspection was
done in quality department. Supplier-Input-Process-Output-Customer (SIPOC) chart shown
in Table 5 was drawn to identify the materials required and the sequence of operations in
manufacturing of the product.
5.2.3 Formation of project charter and team. Project charter was prepared as mentioned in
Table 6. It consists of information about the project, like problem statement, business case,
goal statement, project scope, name of the organization and name of the product. Project team
consists of total 6 members as; 1 Champion, 1expert, 1 coordinator and 3 other members
having different responsibilities.
5.2.4 Development of the activity plan. After observing six months rejection level (as shown
in Figure 6), an activity plan was developed to implement the proposed framework in the case
company. The case study presented in this paper involves different sequential steps carried
out during May 2019 to November 2019 and a team was formed to conduct the study. In the
first week of May 2019, 20 problems were identified by the team members through
Plate 1.
Problem definition; (a)
case product with
defect, (b) Plan view
Figure 5.
Process flow chart of
Packing and Final Inspection Oiling manufacturing Nut
Dispatch Cylinder Head
IJQRM observations. A problem having highest rating in rating analysis and a Pareto analysis was
considered to solve first.
In second week of May 2019, the problem was defined and analyzed on the basis of their
effects. Further probable causes of the problem were identified in next week and root cause
Project charter
Problem statement
To reduce the in-house rejections of Nut Cylinder Head by resolving the concentricity out problem and to
improve the process capability index of the drilling process by performing trials on three different machines.
The current in house rejections of six month average is 2910 PPM and process capability index (Cpk) on drill
machine is 0.41
Business case
The case company is willing to apply the developed DMAIC six sigma based framework, to reduce the rejection
level and to increase sigma quality level
Goal statement
(1) To bring down the in-house rejections
(2) To improve the process capability index (Cpk) of drilling process from 0.41 to above 1.0
Project scope: Collect the data of defective components of Nut Cylinder Head used in assembly of head to
cylinder and provides sustainable improvement actions to reduce the same
Name of the organization: XYZ company of manufacturing domain
Name of the component taken for consideration: Nut Cylinder Head
Tools and Techniques to be used
Brainstorming, ABC analysis, Pareto chart, SIPOC chart, Process capability chart, Kaizen activities etc.
Project team
Champion -Mr. A
Expert -Mr. B
Table 6. Coordinator -Mr. C
Project charter Three members namely - Member-1, Member 2, Member 3
Figure 6.
Six months
rejection level
analysis was performed. After identifying the root causes, counter measures were suggested Validation of
to implement against root causes. In June 2019, trials were carried out for implementation and DMAIC based
in series regular implementation was performed. A review report was also prepared after
follow up. The major defect observed was concentricity out in NCH, and at this time the
framework
rejection and sigma level was 2910 PPM and 4.3 respectively. In a six months period of
observation, 7,35,000 units of nut were inspected and 2,140 units were found defective.
Figure 7.
Six pack analysis on
Drill Machine
Figure 8.
Six pack analysis on
CNC Machine
Figure 9.
Six pack analysis on
Capstan lathe
IJQRM using Minitab is expressed in Figure 10. The improvement in process capability index (Cpk)
was 1.22. However, as compared to CNC machine this value was less, but as compared to
capstan lathe it has higher. It was clear that the process is more capable than the capstan lathe
and lesser components fall out of the specification limits.
5.4.4 Identification and exploration of root causes. The probable causes of the problem
were pictured in the cause and effect diagram as expressed in Figure 11. The team members
had conducted a meeting to check significance of these causes through brain storming
session and validation of each probable cause was carried out. After the opinions of the team
members, it was concluded that the causes which significantly increase the rejections were
center out of the drill machine, play in slide and low capability of the machining process at
drill machine.
Figure 10.
Six pack analysis on
Traub machine
Man Machine Validation of
DMAIC based
Centre out of m/c
Unskilled Operator
Education
Tool sharping angle not
framework
Play in slide
Trainin right
Poor work condition Experience
Thread out in
Nut cylinder
Check sheets Work instructions Bend Head
Wrong m/c used Wrong sample collection Dent
Figure 11.
Method Material Root cause diagram
(5) Accuracy of machine should be improved and play in moving slide should be
removed.
5.5.2 Make improvement plans. All the employees involved in the manufacturing process
were motivated to support continuous improvement activities. It was planned that the
product should be transferred to the capstan and Traub machine for machining processes. All
team members planned to implement kaizen activities at every place of the company, and
employees should be made aware about the same.
5.5.3 Improve through kaizen activities. The discrepancies found during the audit at
different work stations were removed on applying kaizen activities. For inspecting hole
diameter and depth, inspection gauges were made available at workstations. Revised work
instructions and check sheets regarding the machine were provided at each work station. A
new machine for 100% inspection was also made available to check the product. Training
about calibration of available measuring instruments was conducted for awareness to the
operators. Thread inspection gauge was made available at tapping operation also.
5.5.4 Trial implementation. Nut Cylinder Head was machined on three different machines,
i.e. CNC, Capstan and Traub machine. Process capability analysis of each machine was
carried out with Minitab. Process capability for the CNC machine was observed highest as
1.29 (Figure 8), but the production cost was very high as compared to sales of the product.
Therefore, management of the case company refused to implement this trial. Second trial was
performed on the capstan machine and process capability observed was 0.89 (Figure 9).
Although, it was not good, but would be adopted for counter machining. Process on capstan
machine was successful, except few rejections due to the operator’s minor mistake. Third trial
was performed on the Traub machine and process capability was found to be 1.22 which was
very good, and product was transferred for machining on the Traub machine. A cam of
60 mm was designed (Plate 2 and incorporated on Traub machine to achieve the proper depth
of hole.
Plate 2.
(a) After improvement
(CAM is success in
80% cases whenever
material is soft), (b)
Image of part
mentioned by an arrow
in (a)
Plate 3.
(a) Auto checking m/c
for 100% inspection, Total Length 60 mm
(b) Inspection pin for
mistake proofing
(a) (b)
It was observed that rejection level were drastically reduced as compared to the previous Validation of
month’s average. Figure 12 shows the rejection (PPM trend) observed for June–November19, DMAIC based
and the Sigma level achieved was 4.7. The difference from targeted PPM was found as 816
PPM and 280 PPM for months of June and July 2019 respectively.
framework
In the month of August, industry matched the targeted PPM and only 846 PPM rejections
were observed. With further inspection during next three months only 758 PPM, 590 PPM
and 504 PPM rejection were observed. Average rejection was reduced by 966 PPM
significantly demonstrating the improvement in quality of the case product. No customer
complaints were received during these four months. Prior to improvement, sigma level
observed was 4.3 and after improvement it was 4.7, showing raise in Sigma level by 0.4.
S.
No Station Gauge type Control parameter
Figure 12.
Six month rejection
level (after
improvement)
IJQRM 5.7.2 Cost effectiveness verification. It was also verified that cost effectiveness increased
after improvements. Cost savings of US$ 0.25 million were achieved in one financial year by
reducing the cost of poor quality, customer’s complaints and in house rejections.
5.7.3 Tangible benefits verification. After implementation of suggested improvements,
apart from the cost savings; six sigma quality levels was improved by 0.4, process capability
by 0.81 and in-house rejections were reduced from 0.29% to 0.09% per month.
5.7.4 Intangible benefits verification. After verification from four months, it was noticed
that intangible benefits were also found, beyond the tangible benefits. They were increased
customer satisfaction level, improvement in product quality, participative change in attitude
of the employees, team building with feeling of unity, and enrichment in knowledge and
presentation skills. These intangible benefits will significantly improve the case company’s
efficiency and operational effectiveness, which ultimately results in financial benefits.
Figure 13.
Tangible benefits after
implementation
results. The members should be well trained and must have knowledge of various Lean tools
and be aware of the philosophy of the Six Sigma approach.
References
Albliwi, S., Antony, J. and Lim, S. (2014), “Critical failure factors of Lean Six Sigma: a systematic
literature review”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 31 No. 9,
pp. 1012-1030.
IJQRM Aldairi, J.S., Khan, M.K. and Munive-Hernandez, J.E. (2016), “A hybrid knowledge-based Lean Six
Sigma maintenance system for sustainable buildings”, in Ao, S., Yang, G.C. and Gelman, L.
(Eds), Transactions on Engineering Technologies, Springer, Singapore, pp. 355-369, doi: 10.1007/
978-981-10-1088-0_27.
Banawi, A. and Bilec, M.M. (2014), “A framework to improve construction processes: integrating Lean,
Green and Six Sigma”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 45-55.
Ben Ruben, R., Vinodh, S. and Asokan, P. (2017), “Implementation of Lean Six Sigma framework with
environmental considerations in an Indian automotive component manufacturing firm: a case
study”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 28 No. 15, pp. 1193-1211.
Bhamu, J. and Sangwan, K.S. (2014), “Reduction of post-kiln rejections for improving sustainability in
ceramic industry: a case study”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 26, pp. 618-623.
Bhamu, J. and Sangwan, K.S. (2016), “A Framework for lean manufacturing implementation”,
International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 313-333.
Buestan, M., Perez, C. and Desintonia, E. (2016), “A proposed framework for implementing Lean Six
Sigma methodology in Ecuadorian children hospital”, Proceedings of the fourteenth
International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education, and Technology-Engineering
Innovations for Global Sustainability, pp. 20-22.
Cabrita, M.D.R., Domingues, J.P. and Requeijo, J. (2015), “Application of Lean Six-Sigma methodology
to reducing production costs: case study of a Portuguese bolts manufacturer”, International
Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 222-230.
Chaurasia, B., Garg, D. and Agarwal, A. (2016), “Framework to improve performance through
implementing Lean Six Sigma strategies to oil exporting countries during recession or
depression”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 65 No. 3,
pp. 422-432.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S. and Govindan, K. (2017), “A framework for the integration of Green and Lean
Six Sigma for superior sustainability performance”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 55 No. 15, pp. 4481-4515.
Deeb, S., Haouzi, H.B.-E. and Aubry, A. (2018), “A generic framework to support the implementation of
Six Sigma approach in SMEs”, IFAC-PapersOnLine, Vol. 51 No. 11, pp. 921-926.
Drohomeretski, E., Gouvea da Costa, S.E. and Pinheiro de Lima, E. (2013), “Lean, six sigma and lean
six sigma: an analysis based on operations strategy”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 804-824.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., Al-Balushi, M., Antony, J. and Kumar, V. (2016), “A Lean Six Sigma framework for
the reduction of ship loading commercial time in the iron ore pelletizing industry”, Production
Planning and Control, Vol. 27 No. 13, pp. 1092-1111.
Hilton, R.J. and Sohal, A.S. (2012), “A conceptual model for the successful deployment of Lean Six
Sigma”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 54-70.
Jevgeni, S., Eduards, S. and Roman, Z. (2015), “Framework for continuous improvement of production
processes and product throughout”, Proceedings of twenty fifth International Symposium on
Intelligent Manufacturing and Automation, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 100, pp. 511-519.
Jeyaraman, K. and Kee Teo, L. (2010), “A Conceptual framework for critical success factors of Lean
Six Sigma: implementation on the performance of electronic manufacturing service industry”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 191-215.
Jie, J.C.R., Kamaruddin, S. and Azid, I.A. (2014), “Implementing the Lean Six Sigma framework in a
small medium enterprise -a case study in a printing company”, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, pp. 387-396.
Kowang, T.O., Yong, T.S. and Rasli, A. (2016), “Lean Six Sigma sustainability framework: a case
study on an automotive company”, Asian Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 9, pp. 279-283.
Lande, M., Shrivastava, R.L. and Seth, D. (2016), “Critical success factors for lean six sigma in SMEs Validation of
(small and medium enterprises)”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 613-635.
DMAIC based
Lolli, F., Ishizaka, A. and Gamberini, R. (2014), “New AHP-based approaches for multi-criteria
inventory classification”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 156 No. C,
framework
pp. 62-74.
Man, S.M., Zain, Z. and Nawawi, M.K.M. (2015), “Cycle time reduction using Lean Six Sigma in make-
to-order (MTO) environment: conceptual framework”, AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1691.
Mishra, P. and Sharma, R.K. (2014), “A hybrid framework based on SIPOC and Six Sigma DMAIC for
improving process dimensions in supply chain network”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 522-546.
Motwani, J., Kumar, A. and Antony, J. (2004), “A business process change framework for examining
the implementation of Six Sigma: a case study of Dow chemicals”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 273-283.
Nascimento, D.L.D.M., Goncalvez Quelhas, O.L. and Gusm~ao Caiado, R.G. (2019), “A Lean Six Sigma
framework for continuous and incremental improvement in the oil and gas sector”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 1-19.
Nunes, I.L. (2015), “Integration of ergonomics and lean six sigma. A model proposal”, Procedia
Manufacturing, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 890-897.
Owad, A.A., Karim, M.A. and Ma, L. (2014), “Integrated Lean Six Sigma approach for patient flow
improvement in hospital emergency department”, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 834-836,
pp. 1893-1902, doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.834-836.1893.
Panagopoulos, I., Atkin, C. and Sikora, I. (2017), “Developing a performance indicators lean-sigma
framework for measuring aviation system’s safety performance”, Transportation Research
Procedia, Vol. 22, pp. 35-44.
Pepper, M.P. and Spedding, T.A. (2010), “The evolution of lean six sigma”, International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 138-155.
Pugna, A., Negrea, R. and Miclea, S. (2016), “Using Six Sigma methodology to improve the assembly
process in an automotive company”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 22,
pp. 308-316.
Raja Sreedharan, V., Raju, R. and Rajkanth, R. (2018), “An empirical assessment of Lean Six Sigma
awareness in manufacturing industries: construct development and validation”, Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 29 Nos 5-6, pp. 686-703.
Ramphal, R.R. (2017), “Lean Six Sigma framework for the hospitality industry”, African Journal of
Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 1-15.
Rathilall, R. and Singh, S. (2018), “A Lean Six Sigma framework to enhance the competitiveness in
selected automotive component manufacturing organizations”, South African Journal of
Economic and Management Science, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Seth, D., Seth, N. and Dhariwal, P. (2017), “Application of value stream mapping (VSM) for lean and
cycle time reduction in complex production environments: a case study”, Production Planning
and Control, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 398-419.
Snee, R.D. (2010), “Lean Six Sigma- getting better all the time”, International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-29.
Sodhi, H.S., Singh, D. and Singh, B.J. (2019), “Developing a Lean Six Sigma conceptual model and its
implementation: a case study”, Industrial Engineering Journal, Vol. 12 No. 10, pp. 1-19.
Sodhi, H.S., Singh, D. and Singh, B.J. (2020), “A conceptual examination of Lean, Six Sigma and Lean
Six Sigma models for managing waste in manufacturing SMEs”, World Journal of Science,
Technology and Sustainable Development, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 20-32.
Sreeram, T.R. and Thondiyath, A. (2015), “Combining lean and six sigma in the context of systems
engineering design”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 290-312.
IJQRM Sunder, M.V. and Antony, J.A. (2018), “Conceptual Lean Six Sigma framework for quality excellence in
higher education institutions”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 857-874.
Swarnakar, V. and Vinodh, S. (2016), “Deploying lean six sigma framework in an automotive
component manufacturing organization”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 267-293.
Tenera, A. and Pinto, L.C. (2014), “A Lean Six Sigma (LSS) project management improvement model”,
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 119, pp. 912-920.
Thomas, A.J., Francis, M., Fisher, R. and Byard, P. (2016), “Implementing Lean Six Sigma to overcome
the production challenges in an aerospace company”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 27
Nos 7-8, pp. 591-603.
Trehan, R., Gupta, A. and Handa, M. (2019), “Implementation of Lean Six Sigma framework in a large
scale industry : a case study”, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 23-41.
Wei, C.C., Sheen, G.J. and Tai, C.T. (2010), “Using Six Sigma to improve replenishment process in a
direct selling company”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 3-9.
Yadav, G. and Desai, T.N. (2018a), “Strengths and challenges of Lean Six Sigma in context of
manufacturing industries”, Industrial Engineering Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 14-19.
Yadav, G., Seth, D. and Desai, T.N. (2018b), “Application of hybrid framework to facilitate lean six
sigma implementation: a manufacturing company case experience”, Production Planning and
Control, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 185-201.
Zhang, M., Wang, W. and Goh, T.N. (2014), “Comprehensive Six Sigma application: a case study”,
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 1-16.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]