Content uploaded by Dag Naslund
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dag Naslund on Jan 29, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
M&IS 34060—Operations Management
Just-in-Time and Lean Assignment
ASSIGNMENT:
Read the textbook chapter on JIT and the enclosed article that relates to JIT,
lean systems, and six-sigma.
Do you agree or disagree that the lean and six-sigma approaches are just
“fads”, repackaged from total quality management (TQM)?
o Even if they are extensions of TQM does this mean they are “fads” that
will total disappear in a short time? Or could they be more enduring in
some fashion?
o Give some examples from your own experience or from recent
publications (print or online) to further develop your response.
Use at least three concepts or discussion points from the article and expand
upon your position.
o Some of the whitepaper is technical in nature and other areas give
accessible examples. Be sure to include in any technical discussion some
form of explanation or example to illustrate what is meant.
o Be sure to use formatting cues, such as bold or headings, so I can easily
find the different points you are making.
o This must be type written and double spaced and would typically be
somewhere in the 3 to 5 page range. You may use paragraph form, bullet
points, or a combination of formats but you must use complete sentences.
This will be part of your “Individual Investigation” that is to be turned in
before you take your final exam. Note, though, the schedule has a suggested
timeframe for when you may want to complete this as it relates to other
course materials.
WHITEPAPER BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE
Lean, six sigma and lean
sigma: fads or real process
improvement methods?
Dag Na
¨slund
Department of Management, Coggin College of Business,
University of North Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore if six sigma and lean are new methods, or if they
are repackaged versions of previously popular methods – total quality management (TQM) and
just-in-time (JIT).
Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on a critical comparison of lean with JIT and
six sigma with TQM, a study of the measure of the publication frequency – the number of academic
articles published every year of the previous 30 years – for each topic, and a review of critical success
factors (CSF) for change efforts.
Findings – The more recent concepts of lean and six sigma have mainly replaced – but not
necessarily added to – the concepts of JIT and TQM. lean and six sigma are essentially repackaged
versions of the former, and the methods seem to follow the fad (product) life cycle. The literature offers
fairly similar and rather general CSF for these methods, e.g. top management support and the
importance of communication and information. What seems to be missing, however, is the need for a
systemic approach to organizational change and improvement.
Practical implications – A prediction is, given the fad or product life cycle phenomenon, that there
will be a new method promoted soon, something perhaps already experienced with the borderline
preposterous concept of lean six sigma. On the other hand, based on the gap in time between both
JIT and lean, and TQM and six sigma – a gap filled by BRP/reengineering – the next method will be
process oriented. This paper concludes with the discussion of the need for a process-based approach to
organizational improvement efforts.
Originality/value – This paper is of value in that it analyzes what lessons can be learnt from
organizational change and improvement efforts. The analysis includes a comparison of CSF for any
change project before discussing the need for a process (systems) perspective for successful
organizational improvement efforts.
Keywords Just in time, Lean production, Total quality management, Six sigma, Production processes
Paper type General review
Introduction
Lean has been marketed as a new organizational change and improvement method,
particularly as a cost reduction mechanism (Bicheno, 2004; Achanga, 2006). Similarly,
six sigma has been promoted as a new organizational change and improvement method
(Hoerl et al., 2004; Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005). As Spector (2006, p. 42) writes, “Lean
and Six Sigma are two of the most effective business-improvement techniques available
today.” Recently, there have also been efforts to promote lean six sigma (George et al.,
2004; Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005; Brett and Queen, 2005; Caldwell et al., 2005).
Interestingly enough, it seems as if American and European businesses experience
a couple of management fads per decade. While individual methods to change
may vary in approach and target, ultimately it is a matter of different ways to improve
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm
Lean, six sigma
and lean sigma
269
Business Process Management
Journal
Vol. 14 No. 3, 2008
pp. 269-287
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-7154
DOI 10.1108/14637150810876634
organizational performance. However, the method marketed and promoted as a “new”
method, is sometimes a repackaged version of a previously popular method. As Gibson
and Tesone (2001) argue, “... out of disintegrating fads come remnants which, often
under new names, become new fads or blend into standard operating practice.”
Organizations appear to jump from one fashionable practice to the next (DiMaggio
and Powell, 1983; Abrahamson, 1996). At any given time, practitioners and researchers
are likely to agree that older management techniques were deficient, and/or that their
popularity was not justified by performance improvements. As with any fashion trend,
discussions of contemporary techniques tend to be much more positive (Staw and
Epstein, 2000). These methods, or fads, tend to follow a seven-stage life cycle:
(1) an academic article is written on a new discovery or theory;
(2) the study is discussed, summarized, and repeated;
(3) the concept is popularized in a best-selling book;
(4) throngs of management consultants carry the new technique to their client base;
(5) managers embrace the fad and champion the concept;
(6) time passes, enthusiasm dims, and doubts and cynicism arise; and
(7) new discoveries occur and consultant interest turns elsewhere.
Similarly, Ettorre discusses five stages: discovery, wild acceptance, digestion,
disillusionment, and hard core. During the digestion stage, critics start suggesting that
the method may not be the ultimate savior it once was believed to be. By the hard core
phase, only staunch supporters still remain.
An important question is obviously why organizations fall for these fads. Abrahamson
(1996) states that these fashion-like cycles may be created by organizations continually
searching for improvement in their operations. New procedures may be adopted when
they are widely hailed as solutions to human and organizational problems, then dropped
after the promised results fail to materialize or are superceded by another, even more
promising alternative. Wood and Caldas (2001) discuss institutional factors. These are
external forces which pressure the adoption, such as consulting firms, authors and
management gurus. Brochures and other marketing material are convincing in claiming
that these methods really provide improvements and make managing easier (Cranier,
1996). Miller and Hartwick (2002) found that fads had eight primary qualities:
(1) simple;
(2) prescriptive;
(3) falsely encouraging;
(4) universally relevant;
(5) easy to apply;
(6) able to speak directly to business issues of the day;
(7) interesting because of their novelty; and
(8) given legitimacy by consultants and their successful devotees.
Furthermore, a project may not necessarily offer a solution to organizational needs, but
rather an ideal road to power and influence (Wood and Caldas, 2001). As Cranier (1996)
writes, “... latching onto the latest great idea may serve to advance your career...
BPMJ
14,3
270
aspiring managers cast around for recipes for success and ideas which can distinguish
them from the crowd.” Staw and Epstein (2000) found that organizations often copy
other organizations to gain legitimacy rather than technological or economic
advantage As March and Olsen (1976) noted, when technologies are poorly understood
and organizations face problems with ambiguous causes and unclear solutions,
copying other organizations may simply be a low-cost heuristic for finding useful
solutions. Other reasons include the manager’s need to feel up-to-date with the latest
thinking as well as the need of security and reassurance. People who read management
books often want the safety of a proven formula or need a precedent before they
act (Cranier, 1996).
Another important question is if it matters that organizations switch from idea
to idea. In searching for increased performance, organizations sometimes do not seem
to know what they are really trying to accomplish, thus the distraction of another
change effort is actually a relief, and pursued with a passion. Cranier (1996) quotes
Richard Pascale, author of Managing on the Edge:
It’s like the practice of medicine in the Middle Ages. A leech under the armpit, and one to the
groin, with no understanding of bacteria, viruses or how the body worked, there were lots of
prescriptions [...] But cures were largely the product of random chance. A parallel holds
today. Lots of remedies but few examples of authentic transformation. Organisations chum
through one technique after another and at best get incremental improvement on top of
business as usual. At worst, these efforts waste resources and evoke cynicism and
resignation.
Unfortunately, practitioners and researchers are relearning old lessons by repeating
past mistakes (Sarker and Lee, 2002). Problems occur because organizations forget
what they have learned from previous development projects. Thus, it does matter and
organizations should be aware of fads.
This study
The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, the paper explores if six sigma and lean are
new methods, or if they basically are a repackaged versions of previously popular
methods – total quality management (TQM) and just-in-time (JIT). The study is based
on a comparative literature review and a measure of the frequency at which each of these
approaches has appeared in the literature to investigate if the methods seem to follow the
fad (product) life cycle. The second purpose is to analyze what lessons we can learn from
organizational change and improvement efforts. The analysis includes a comparison of
critical success factors (CSF) for any change project before discussing the need for a
process (systems) perspective for successful organizational improvement efforts.
Six sigma
The purpose of six sigma is to reduce cost by reducing the variability in the processes
which leads to decreased defects. Six sigma is a method to improve process capability
and enhance process throughput (Nave, 2002). Six sigma is also hailed as a method to
reduce waste, increase customer satisfaction, and improve financial results (Revere et al.,
2003). By using statistical methods, organizations are able to understand fluctuations in
a process, which will allow them to pinpoint the cause of the problem. Improving the
process by eliminating root causes, and controlling the process to make sure defects do
not reappear (Pojasek, 2003) should ideally provide long-term benefits to the firm
Lean, six sigma
and lean sigma
271
(Bisgaard and Freiesleben, 2004). Over time, six sigma evolved (Arnheiter and Maleyeff,
2005). Six sigma includes designing, improving, and monitoring business processes
(Revere et al., 2003). It has become multifaceted, encompassing everything from simple
process improvement to broad initiatives, such as project management, change
management, leadership, culture change, rewards and compensation, defect definition,
teaming, and problem solving (Goodman and Theuerkauf, 2005).
The six sigma methodology is based on the DMAIC cycle (define, measure, analyze,
improve, and control). Motorola, the company usually recognized as one of the original
developers of six sigma, decided in the 1980s that the traditional quality levels,
measuring defects in thousands of opportunities, were not satisfactory (Arnheiter and
Maleyeff, 2005). Based on the ideas of statistical process control, Motorola defined “six
sigma” as 3.4 defects per million opportunities. Six sigma was further developed in the
1990s, among other places at General Electric. The development included the needed
cultural change associated with the method (Hoerl et al., 2004; Revere et al., 2003).
Some argue that six sigma is mainly a fad (Caudron, 2002) and that projects are
simply narrowly defined continuous improvement efforts (Hammer, 2002). Proponents
claim that it is more than just a quality system (Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005; Spector,
2006). Six sigma is argued as a vision, a philosophy, a symbol, a metric, a goal, and/or a
methodology. Proponents also mean that one should look at eight characteristics that
account for six sigma’s increasing bottom-line success. They claim that other quality
initiatives typically fulfill only one or two of these characteristics:
(1) bottom-line results expected and delivered;
(2) senior management leadership;
(3) a disciplined approach (i.e. DMAIC);
(4) rapid (3-6 month) project completion;
(5) clearly defined measures of success;
(6) infrastructure roles for six sigma practitioners and leadership;
(7) focus on customers and processes; and
(8) a sound statistical approach to improvement.
Comparing discussion: history and development
However, these points appear very much like a description of TQM. TQM started in
Japan, although many of the original ideas came from Americans (especially, Deming,
1986; Juran, 1989) who helped rebuild Japanese industry after World War II (Talha,
2004; Tarı
´, 2005). The purpose of TQM, as with any change method, is to improve
organizational performance. TQM emphasizes the importance of satisfying customer
requirements in terms of availability, delivery, reliability, maintenance, and cost
effectiveness (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 2000a, b). TQM is also striving towards
zero-defects via continuous improvements, achieved via two not mutually exclusive
approaches. First, TQM consists of gradual, unending improvement activities
that involve every person in the organization (Koehler and Pankowski, 1996; Love
et al., 1998; Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005). As Gunasekaran et al. (1998, p. 948) write
“...total quality will create a positive spiral in the company. Happy employees will do
a better job, i.e. better products and services which will satisfy more customers.”
BPMJ
14,3
272
Customer satisfaction includes both internal and external customers. Second,
improvements were achieved via efforts to reduce variation in production processes.
Deming’s basic quality philosophy was that efficiency improves as variability
decreases. Statistical methods are needed to reduce variation in the production
processes since over 90 percent of manufacturing errors typically belong to the system
and very few problems are special problems (Motwani, 2003). Statistical control does
not imply absence of defective items. It is a state of random variation, in which the
limits of variation are predictable. There are two types of variation: chance and
assignable. Deming’s position was that the difference between these is one of the most
difficult things to comprehend. It is a waste of time and money to look for the cause of
chance variation; yet, he claimed, this is exactly what many companies do when they
attempt to solve quality problems without using statistical methods. He advocated the
use of statistics to measure performance in all areas, not just conformance to product
specifications. Furthermore, he also believed that it is not enough to meet
specifications; one has to keep working to reduce the variation as well. Thus, the
processes need to be monitored for variation with statistical tools.
Lessons learned
If statistical process control was included in TQM – something both Crosby (1979),
Deming (1986) and Juran (1989) emphasized – then it is difficult to identify differences
between TQM and six sigma. The Deming wheel of TQM is basically the same as the
DMAIC cycle. Both methods also evolved over time. Hellsten and Klefsjo (2000), for
example, described TQM as a management system. Both methods require more than
statistical tools to change and improve processes. Both emphasize the importance of
top management commitment and employee involvement (Zhang, 2000). Deming was
critical of the US approach to business management and he was an advocate of worker
participation in decision making. He claimed that management was responsible for
most quality problems, and thus it is management’s task to help people work smarter,
not harder. Thus, Deming was not only focused on statistics, but also the more
managerial aspects, as exemplified in his well-known “fourteen points” (Crosby, 1979;
Anderson et al., 1994).
Both TQM and six sigma also rely on a plethora of tools. Many, many quality tools
exist. In her book, Tauge (2005) discusses 148 different tools divided into six categories
(project planning and implementing tools, idea creation, process analysis, data
collection and analysis, cause analysis and finally evaluation and decision-making
tools) with many tools belonging to more than one category. Similarly, Tarı
´(2005)
presents a wide range of tool and techniques. Some of the more commonly mentioned
quality tools are often described as QC7 tools or the seven basic quality tools
(McConnell, 1989; Bamford and Greatbanks, 2005; Tauge, 2005). These are
cause-and-effect diagrams (fishbone and ishikawa) control charts, check sheets,
pareto charts and histogram, scatter diagrams and graphs or flow charts (McConnell,
1989; Koehler and Pankowski, 1996; Dale and McQuater, 1998).
Lean
Lean is defined by Womack and Jones (1994) as the systematic removal of waste by all
members of the organization from all areas of the values stream. Lean is often referred
to as a cost-reduction mechanism (Achanga, 2006; Bicheno, 2004). Lean strives to make
Lean, six sigma
and lean sigma
273
organizations more competitive in the market by increasing efficiency, decreasing
costs incurred due to elimination of non value-adding (VA) steps and inefficiencies in
the processes (Motwani, 2003) as well as reducing cycle times (Sohal and
Egglestone, 1994) – and increasing profit for the organization (Claycomb et al.,
1999). An organization can achieve these results while not sacrificing effectiveness
(Monden, 1981) if it produces exactly what is needed in the right amount when it is
needed (Kannan and Tan, 2005; Monden, 1981). “Lean manufacturing is aimed at the
elimination of waste in every area of production including customer relations, product
design, supplier networks, and factory management” (Phillips, 2000, p. 23).
The approach to lean is based on mapping and analyzing the activities in the
processes. In lean terminology, this is value stream mapping (Womack and Jones, 1994;
Worley and Doolen, 2006). The value stream includes all activities needed to produce
the product. The value stream represents the “flow of value” to these organizations.
The analysis is primarily based on identifying activities that add value to the product
or activities that can be classified as muda – the Japanese word for waste (Worley and
Doolen, 2006). Waste can be found in all activities in the value stream, especially where
the product moves from one department to another (Womack and Jones, 1994). Taj and
Berro (2005) claim that many manufacturing companies waste over 70 percent of their
resources. Jones et al. (1997) claim that for many organizations less than 10 percent of
activities often are value adding and as much as 60 percent do not add any value at all.
Similarly, Bhasin and Burcher (2006) claim that implementing lean can reduce waste
by 40 percent. Seven typical examples of waste are: overproduction, waiting,
transportation, inappropriate processing, excess inventory, unnecessary motion, and
defects (Endsley et al., 2006; Bhasin and Burcher, 2006).
Lean is also described as a pull system. The system promotes conditions necessary
to manufacture high-quality products to meet market demand with relatively small
levels of inventory. Holding costs are diminished because materials do not arrive until
needed and items are only produced to meet the forecasted demand. As a result,
“companies have substantially cut lead times, drastically reduced raw material,
work-in-process and finished goods inventories, and effectively increased asset
turnover” (Claycomb et al., 1999). Thus, there are five basic steps in the lean process
(Nave, 2002; Snee, 2004; Womack, 2006):
(1) define value and all of the VA features in a given process;
(2) identify the “value stream,” the chronological flow of activities that add value –
people are visual by nature, and they place value on seeing a process flow
visually;
(3) force the activities to flow without interruption. Any non-value adding activities
should be removed or minimized (in the case that non-value adding activities
are required, their impact to the process is minimized);
(4) allow the customer to “pull” the product or service through the process, akin to
JIT manufacturing; and
(5) continuously pursue perfection of the process by revisiting the steps again in a
continuous loop. Go through the aforementioned steps repeatedly to ensure that
the process is as improved as it can be.
BPMJ
14,3
274
Comparing discussion: history and development
JIT can be described as an approach to redesign production systems – from the receipt
of raw materials to the shipment of the finished product. JIT strives to eliminate waste
within this system (Chong et al., 2001). Aghazadeh (2004) claims that JIT is a
philosophy of problem solving with the purpose of cutting cost and eliminating waste.
JIT is focused on pull production. Sometimes the term Kanban is used to describe the
philosophy to shift from push to pull production. Kanban is also described as the actual
signaling device (card and bin) to trigger production of correct quantities in a correct
manner (Chausse et al., 2000). In most production systems, the use of in-process buffers
can hide potential organizational problems, thus creating waste. A JIT flow system can
expose these problems at the source, facilitating their elimination and driving the
continuous improvement of the production system. This, in turn, will lead benefits
such as reduced inventory levels, reduced throughput time, improved external and
internal quality, increased efficiency in general and on-time delivery (Davy et al., 1996;
White et al., 1999).
In many ways, lean is an updated version of JIT. For all practical purposes they
share the same approach to change. Both are focused on the process – adding value
and eliminating waste in the process. Ironically, when JIT was in focus, lean was
one important aspect of the JIT movement (Suzuki, 2004). Similarly, JIT is one of the
more important components in the lean philosophy (Liker and Yu, 2000). Both methods
also origin in the Toyota production system – TPS (Womack and Jones, 1994;
Petersen, 2002; Vokurka and Davis, 1996). In developing TPS, the objectives were to
shorten production and set up time, integrate suppliers, eliminate waste, synergize the
entire business process, and to gain support at all levels for this system – from all
managers and all workers (Bowen and Spear, 1999).
Lessons learned
The tools for achieving lean (Liker, 2004; Motwani, 2003; Worley and Doolen, 2006) are
basically the same as the tools promoted under JIT. Some of the more prominent tools
are: process/value stream mapping, Kaizen, Five S, and Kanban. Both methods strive
to eliminate waste and to make the production flow as VA as possible. VA activities
are activities in the production process that actually add value to the product – from
the customer’s perspective (Hammer, 2001; Hines and Taylor, 2000). VA activities thus
refer to the actual production process (whether manufacturing or service) and could
simply be explained as activities that the customer is willing to pay for. Another way
to interpret VA activities is to contrast them to waste or non-value adding activities or
muda (Hammer, 2001).
Kaizen is a theory of continuous improvements (Shirouzu and Moffett, 2004). With
Kaizen, organizations strive to incrementally improve performance and to sustain a
culture of continuous improvements (Faulk, 2006). Incorporating the concepts of
standardized procedures and workplace improvement via the 5S’s (Sort – seiri,
Set – seiton, Shine – seiso, Standardize – seiketsu, and Sustain – shitsuke) can improve
efficiency and responsiveness and thus reduce costs for the organization (Liker and Yu,
2000). The 5S’s technique has benefits for both the employee and the organization.
Organizational benefits include higher quality, reduced costs, improved safety, more
reliable deliveries, and improved availability of plant and equipment.
Lean, six sigma
and lean sigma
275
Frequency of academic publications on each method
Fad behavior is not only marked by the repackaging of similar ideas under new titles,
but also the abandonment of approaches in favor of new ones that may actually be
similar. One measurement of whether JIT vs lean, and TQM vs six sigma, have
followed the latter aspect of fad behavior, is the number of academic publications, as
identified through the ABI/Inform data base, in these areas during each of the last
30 years (1975-2004). For each of the four approaches, this study presents the number
of articles published with the method in the title, the number of articles published with
the method in the abstract, and number of articles published with the method in the
keyword (subject). The results are shown in Figures 1-4.
The number of articles featuring JIT as a primary subject reached their peak during the
late 1980s and early 1990s and have tailed off ever since. The popularity oflean started to
grow rapidly in the late 1990s and lean has continued to grow in popularity since. A very
similar – but even more sharply defined – phenomenon has occurred in the TQM vs six
sigma comparison. TQM’s popularity was enormous in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The Baldrige Award became the symbol of TQM excellence in the USA with similar
awards in Europe. However, without widespread understanding of the culture that made
TQM successful in Japan, American, and European efforts did not always show the same
results. By the late 1980s, reports started coming in about lack of results, implementation
problems, and failed TQM efforts (de Cock and Rickards, 1996; Holland and Dey, 1996;
Wiersema, 1998). The number of published TQM articles also dropped significantly.
Product life cycle
It appears from these comparisons that “abandonment in favor of the new (albeit not
necessarily different)” aspect of fad behavior has occurred in academia for both pairs.
Figure 1.
Frequency of six sigma
publications
Six Sigma
0
50
100
150
200
250
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
Time
Articles
Title
Abstract
Subject
Figure 2.
Frequency of TQM
publications
Total Quality Management
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
Time
Articles
Title
Abstract
Subject
BPMJ
14,3
276
Another interpretation of these timelines is that management change methods indeed
seem to follow the product life cycle. When a method begins to fade in popularity it will
be difficult to market useful approaches, tools and techniques under that brand name.
On the other hand, it may be an advantage that a new method can be marketed as
Figure 4.
Frequency of JIT
publications
JIT Article Time Line
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
The year the articles were published
The number of articles that were
published per year
The number of articles found with the word JIT in the TITLE
The number of articles found with the word JIT in the ABSTRACT
The number of articles found with the word JIT as the SUBJECT
Figure 3.
Frequency of lean
publications
Lean Article Time Line
0
50
100
150
200
250
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
The year that the articles were published
The number of articles published
per year
The number of articles found with the word Lean in the TITLE
The number of articles found with the word Lean in the ABSTRACT
The number of articles found with the word Lean as the SUBJECT
Lean, six sigma
and lean sigma
277
something that is indeed new. That way, organizational members can get emotionally
connected to “their” method.
One may also wonder what occurred in the era between TQM and six sigma, as well
as between JIT and lean. This era can perhaps be described as the business process
reengineering (BPR) era. The rapid growth and popularity of BPR in the early 1990s
can be explained by the relative lack of success of many TQM and JIT initiatives.
Then, in the mid-1990s, the term BPR became intimately connected with downsizing
and lay-offs. Organization argued that reduction in force would result in enhanced
financial performance and competitiveness, and that the short-term costs associated
with layoffs would be justified by long-term benefits to the organization, its
stockholders, and its customers. When the data on downsizing did not support these
contentions BPR went from being the dramatic solution for improvement to being just
another among many “change management” philosophies (Dervitsiotis, 1998).
Critical success factors
Another comparison between these methods is to analyze CSF. As Table I indicates, a
review of the literature offers fairly similar and rather general CSF for these methods.
For further comparison, CSF for BPR/reengineering and enterprise resource planning
(ERP) systems implementations are also included.
Frequently mentioned success factors include the importance of a vision and strategy,
top management support and commitment and the importance of communication and
information, and so forth. While not surprising that similar change methods have issues
in common, one can argue about the practical application of such general success factors.
For example, what does top management support really mean?
The purpose of any change method is to improve performance of the processes by
increasing efficiency (e.g. reduced cost or time) and/or increasing effectiveness. Yet,
efforts to change and improve operational performance do not seem to be very
successful when they are compartmentalized. Most organizations, approach these
change methods in a functional, operational and/or ad hoc manner rather than in a
holistic or systemic way (Harber et al., 1990; Goyal and Deshmukh, 1992; White et al.,
1999; Chong et al., 2001). The functional approach to change can also lead to
sub-optimization. In trying to achieve improvements in one function, the result may
actually decrease performance for the organization overall. Functional approach to
change can also lead to fragmentation. To conduct number of different projects within
one not only requires resources, it also requires that organizations manage the dynamic
big-picture, not the fragmented pieces. In addition, it makes prioritization even more
difficult (Spector, 2006).
What seems to be missing is a systemic approach to organizational change and
improvement (Brache and Rummler, 1997; Hammer, 2002) including a readiness for
change (Jones et al., 2005). A common theme for all these improvement efforts, albeit
not always explicitly stated, is process orientation. Successful implementation of any
change effort most likely requires that they are implemented with a systemic, holistic
understanding of organizations (Harber et al., 1990; Goyal and Deshmukh, 1992; Chong
et al., 2001). Thus, the theories behind systems thinking, applied via process
management, can provide the framework needed to facilitate and maintain successful
organizational improvements. With a systems view of organizations, the most
important processes bridge the gap between strategy and operations (Na
¨slund, 1999).
BPMJ
14,3
278
Issues TQM/six sigma JIT/lean BPR ERP
Business plan and vision Coronado and Antony (2002),
Dalton et al. (1996), Deming
(1986), Henderson and Evans
(2000), Juran (1989) and Tarı
´
(2005)
Achanga (2006), Chong et al.
(2001) and Yasin and Wafa
(1996)
Arora and Kumar (2000),
Rummler and Brache (1995)
and Hammer and Stanton
(1995)
Blessing et al. (2001),
Buckhout et al. (1999),
Davenport (2000), Dong
(2000), Falkowski et al.
(1998), Holland et al. (1999),
Roberts and Barrar (1992),
Rosario (2000) and Wee
(2000)
Top-management support
(including funding)
Coronado and Antony (2002),
Dalton et al. (1996), Deming
(1986), Juran (1989) and Tarı
´
(2005)
Achanga (2006), Chong et al.
(2001), Worley and Doolen
(2006) and Yasin and Wafa
(1996)
Arora and Kumar (2000),
Dervitsiotis (1998) and
Hammer and Stanton (1995)
Bingi et al. (1999), Buckhout
et al. (1999), Dong (2000),
Holland et al. (1999), Roberts
and Barrar (1992), Sumner
(1999), Wee (2000), McNurlin
(2001) and Weston (2001)
Project management
(including project champion
and teamwork and
composition)
Coronado and Antony (2002),
Tarı
´(2005) and Spector
(2006)
Needy (2002), Spector (2006),
Taj and Berro (2005) and
Yasin and Wafa (1996)
Arora and Kumar (2000) Bingi et al. (1999), Buckhout
et al. (1999), Falkowski et al.
(1998), Holland et al. (1999),
Rosario (2000), Sumner
(1999), Wee (2000) and
Weston (2001)
Change management,
organizational culture
Coronado and Antony (2002),
Deming (1986), Dalton et al.
(1996), Juran (1989), Spector
(2006), Tarı
´(2005) and
Winter (1994)
Achanga (2006), Parks
(2003), Spector (2006), Taj
and Berro (2005) and Worley
and Doolen (2006)
Arora and Kumar (2000),
Bancroft et al. (1998),
Coulson-Thomas (1994),
Holtham (1994), Sarker and
Lee (2002) and Talwar (1994)
Bingi et al. (1999), Capron
and Kuiper (1998),
Davenport (2000), Falkowski
et al. (1998), Holland et al.
(1999), Kampmeier (1998),
Mahapatra and Lai (1998),
Roberts and Barrar (1992),
Ronca (1999), Rosario (2000),
Schneider (1999), Sumner
(1999) and Wee (2000)
(continued)
Table I.
Critical success factors
Lean, six sigma
and lean sigma
279
Issues TQM/six sigma JIT/lean BPR ERP
Effective communication,
education and training
knowledge transfer,
knowledge management,
(including skills and
expertise)
Coronado and Antony (2002),
Deming (1986), Dalton et al.
(1996), Juran (1989), Tarı
´
(2005) and Winter (1994)
Achanga (2006), Parks
(2003), Shirouzu and Moffett
(2004) and Worley and
Doolen (2006)
Hammer and Stanton (1995)
and Sarker and Lee (2002)
Al-Mashari and Zairi (2000a,
b), Bancroft et al. (1998),
Blessing et al. (2001),
Falkowski et al. (1998),
Holland et al. (1999), Rosario
(2000), Sumner (1999) and
Wee (2000)
Organizational structure Coronado and Antony (2002),
Garvin (1995), Keen and
Knapp (1996) and Tarı
´(2005)
Chong et al. (2001), Goyal
and Deshmukh (1992), Taj
and Berro (2005), Womack
(2006) and Yasin and Wafa
(1996)
Arora and Kumar (2000),
Garvin (1995) and Keen and
Knapp (1996)
Bingi et al. (1999), Buckhout
et al. (1999), Davenport
(2000), Holland et al. (1999),
Roberts and Barrar (1992),
Sumner (1999) and Wee
(2000)
Monitoring and evaluation of
performance: performance
measurements
Deming (1986), Juran (1989)
and Na
¨slund (1996)
Groebner and Merz (1994),
Womack (2006) and Worley
and Doolen (2006)
Arora and Kumar (2000),
Kaplan and Norton (1996)
and Na
¨slund (1999)
Al-Mashari and Zairi (2000a,
b), Cook and Peterson (1998),
Falkowski et al. (1998),
Holland et al. (1999), Rosario
(2000), Roberts and Barrar
(1992) and Sumner (1999)
Table I.
BPMJ
14,3
280
With this approach to change, the concepts of efficiency and effectiveness should not
be regarded as mutually exclusive. An organization can increase customer satisfaction
while at the same time lowering its costs (Na
¨slund et al., 2006).
Acquiring a systems view of organizations, needed for successful implementation of
change effort, most likely requires different education and training than what is
currently offered. Education in a systems and process view of organizations answers
the questions why the change of the system is needed, how it is supposed to change,
and what the benefits will be to the system. This education can also prepare the
organization for change – create the readiness for change (Jones et al., 2005; Wanberg
and Banas, 2000). Organizations can view new change efforts from a rational and
historical perspective. They can avoid the tendency to “forget” previous mistakes
and thus repeating them again in the next change effort. They can apply parts of the
new ideas that make sense to improve their system – their processes. New tools and
thoughts can be added to the existing tool box. With this approach to change, we may
minimize the fad phenomenon.
Conclusion
One could argue that the nature of the transitions from TQM to six sigma and from
JIT to the lean follow fad phenomena. Comparing the goals, approach, tools, history
and CSF of these methods, as well as reviewing the publication frequency in academia,
the conclusion is that lean and six sigma essentially share the same fundamental
approach to change with JIT and TQM. Furthermore, the ideas behind JIT and lean are
not that different from the ideas in the quality movement either. One difference could
be the historical focus on the manufacturing industry of JIT and lean. An obvious
prediction is, given the fad or product life cycle phenomenon, that there will be a new
method promoted soon, something we perhaps are already experiencing with the
borderline preposterous concept of lean six sigma. On the other hand, based on the gap
in time between both JIT and lean, and TQM and six sigma – a gap filled by
BRP/reengineering, the next method will be more process oriented.
In addition, since history does not repeat itself but it often rhymes, organizations
should view any new promoted change method critically – is it a fad or does it offer
something substantially new? There are tools, techniques and useful experiences from
any change method. A major contribution of the BPR movement, for example, is the
importance of cross-functional processes, not just processes, but cross-functional
processes. Properly used, these tools can help an organization improve performance.
Finally, the importance of placing organizational change and improvement methods in
general under a systemic (process management) umbrella cannot be overstated. This
will increase organizational readiness for change and thus, hopefully, increase
probability of implementation success.
References
Abrahamson, E. (1996), “Management fashion”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21,
pp. 254-86.
Achanga, P. (2006), “Critical success factors for lean implementation within SMEs”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-71.
Aghazadeh, S-M. (2004), “Does manufacturing need to make JIT delivery work?”, Management
Research News, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 27-42.
Lean, six sigma
and lean sigma
281
Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (2000a), “Revisiting BPR: a holistic review of practice and
development”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 10.
Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (2000b), “Supply-chain re-engineering using enterprise resource
planning (ERP) systems: an analysis of a SAP R/3 implementation case”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30 Nos 3/4, pp. 296-313.
Anderson, J., Rungtusanatham, M. and Schroeder, R. (1994), “A theory of quality management
underlying the Deming management method”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 472-509.
Arnheiter, E. and Maleyeff, J. (2005), “The integration of lean management and six sigma”,
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Arora, S. and Kumar, S. (2000), “Reengineering: a focus on enterprise integration”, Interfaces,
Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 54-71.
Bamford, D. and Greatbanks, R. (2005), “The use of quality management tools and techniques:
a study of application in everyday situations”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 376-92.
Bancroft, N., Seip, H. and Sprengel, A. (1998), Implementing SAP R/3: How to Introduce a Large
System into a Large Organization, Manning Publications, Greenwich, CT.
Bhasin, S. and Burcher, P. (2006), “Lean viewed as a philosophy”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 56-72.
Bhuiyan, N. and Baghel, A. (2005), “An overview of continuous improvement: from the past to
the present”, Management Decisions, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 761-71.
Bicheno, J. (2004), The New Lean Toolbox towards Fast and Flexible Flow, PICSIE Books,
Buckingham.
Bingi, P., Sharma, M.K. and Godla, J. (1999), “Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation”,
Information Systems Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 7-14.
Bisgaard, S. and Freiesleben, J. (2004), “Six sigma and the bottom line”, Quality Progress, Vol. 3
No. 9, p. 57.
Blessing, D., Goerk, M. and Bach, V. (2001), “Management of customer and project knowledge:
solutions and experience at SAP”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 75-90.
Bowen, K. and Spear, S. (1999), “Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 96-107.
Brache, A. and Rummler, G. (1997), “Managing an organization as a system”, Training, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 68-74.
Brett, C. and Queen, P. (2005), “Streamlining enterprise records management with lean six
sigma”, Information Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 58-62.
Buckhout, S., Frey, E. and Nemec, J. Jr (1999), “Making ERP succeed: turning fear into promise”,
IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 116-23.
Caldwell, C., Brexler, J. and Tom Gillem, T. (2005), “Engaging physicians in lean six sigma”,
Quality Progress, Vol. 38 No. 11, pp. 42-6.
Capron, B. and Kuiper, D. (1998), “Management and implementation”, Manufacturing Systems,
(Supplement): A Managers Guide to Application Systems, April 1.
Caudron, S. (2002), “Just say NO to training fads”, Training & Development, Vol. 56 No. 6,
pp. 39-43.
Chausse, S., Landry, S., Pasin, F. and Fortier, S. (2000), “Anatomy of Kanban: a case study”,
Production & Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 11-16.
BPMJ
14,3
282
Chong, H., White, R. and Prybutok, V. (2001), “Relationship among organizational support, JIT
implementation, and performance”, Industrial Management þData Systems, Vol. 101
No. 6, pp. 273-80.
Claycomb, C., Germain, R. and Droge, C. (1999), “Total systems JIT outcomes: inventory,
organization and financial effects”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 10, p. 612.
Coronado, R. and Antony, J. (2002), “Critical success factors for the successful implementation of
six sigma projects in organizations”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 92-9.
Coulson-Thomas, C. (Ed.) (1994), Business Process Re-engineering: Myth & Reality, Kogan Page,
London.
Cranier, S. (1996), “The rise of guru skepticism”, Management Today, March, pp. 48-52.
Crosby, P. (1979), Quality is Free; the Art of Making Quality Certain, Hodder & Stoughton,
New York, NY.
Dale, B. and McQuater, R. (1998), Managing Business Improvement and Quality: Implementing
Key Tools and Techniques, Blackwell Business, Oxford.
Dalton, G., Perry, L., Younger, J. and Smallwood, N. (1996), “Strategic restructuring”, Human
Resources Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 433-52.
Davenport, T. (2000), Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Systems, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA, available at: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/
detail/-/0875849067/qid ¼1127414965/tomdavenportc-20
Davy, J., White, R., Merritt, N. and Gritzamacher, K. (1996), “A derivation of the underlying
constructs of JIT management”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35, pp. 653-67.
de Cock, C. and Rickards, T. (1996), “Thinking about organizational change: towards two kinds
of process intervention”, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 4 No. 3.
Deming, W. (1986), Out of the Crisis, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Dervitsiotis, K. (1998), “The challenge of managing organizational change: exploring
the relationships of re-engineering, developing learning organizations and total quality
management”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 109-22.
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 35,
pp. 147-60.
Dong, L. (2000), “A model for enterprise systems implementation: top management influences on
implementation effectiveness”, in Chung, H.M. (Ed.), Proceedings, 2000 Americas
Conference on Information Systems, Omnipress, Long Beach, CA, pp. 1045-9.
Endlsey, S., Magill, G. and Marjorie, M. (2006), “Creating a lean practice”, Family Practice
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, p. 34.
Falkowski, G., Pedigo, P., Smith, B. and Swanson, D. (1998), “A recipe for ERP success”, Beyond
Computing, September, pp. 44-5.
Faulk, C. (2006), “Reducing waste by design”, Machine Design, Vol. 78 No. 1, p. 31.
Garvin, D. (1995), “Leveraging processes for strategic advantage”, Harvard Business Review,
September/October, pp. 77-90.
George, M., Rowlands, D. and Kastle, B. (2004), What is Six Sigma?, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Gibson, J. and Tesone, D. (2001), “Management fads: emergence, evolution, and implications for
managers”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 122-33.
Goodman, J. and Theuerkauf, J. (2005), “What’s wrong with six sigma?”, Quality Progress, Vol. 38
No. 1, pp. 37-42.
Lean, six sigma
and lean sigma
283
Goyal, S. and Deshmukh, S. (1992), “A critique of the literature on just-in-time manufacturing”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 18-28.
Groebner, D. and Merz, C. (1994), “The impact of implementing JIT on employees’ job attitudes”,
International Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 26-37.
Gunasekaran, A., Goyal, S.K., Martikainen, T. and Yli-Olli, P. (1998), “Total quality management:
a new perspective for improving quality and productivity”, The International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 15 Nos 8/9, pp. 947-69.
Hammer, M. (2001), The Agenda: What Every Business Must Do to Dominate the Decade, Three
Rivers Press, New York, NY.
Hammer, M. (2002), “Process management and the future of six sigma”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 26-32.
Hammer, M. and Stanton, A. (1995), The Reengineering Revolution Handbook, Harper Collins,
London.
Harber, D., Samson, D., Sohal, A. and Wirth, A. (1990), “Just-in-time: the issue of
implementation”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 21-30.
Hellsten, U. and Klefsjo, B. (2000), “TQM as a management system consisting of values,
techniques and tools”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 238-44.
Henderson, K. and Evans, J. (2000), “Successful implementation of six sigma: benchmarking
general electric company”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 260-81.
Hines, P. and Taylor, D. (2000), Going Lean: A Guide to Implementation, Cardiff University,
Cardiff.
Hoerl, R., Snee, R., Czarniak, S. and Parr, W. (2004), “The future of six sigma”, ASQ Six Sigma
Forum Magazine., Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 38-43.
Holland, C. and Dey, K. (1996), “Making quality pay”, Telephony, January 8, pp. 34-6.
Holland, C., Light, B. and Gibson, N. (1999), “A critical success factors model for enterprise
resource planning implementation”, Proceedings 7th European Conference on Information
Systems ECIS, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Holtham, C. (1994), “Business process re-engineering – contrasting what it is with what it is not”,
in Coulson-Thomas, C. (Ed.), Business Process Re-engineering: Myth & Reality, Kogan
Page, London.
Jones, D.T., Hines, P. and Rich, N. (1997), “Lean logistics”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 17 Nos 3/4.
Jones, R., Jimmieson, N. and Griffiths, A. (2005), “The impact of organizational culture and
reshaping capabilities on change implementation success: the mediating role of readiness
for change”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 361-80.
Juran, J. (1989), Juran on Leadership for Quality: An Executive Handbook, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Kampmeier, C. (1998), “Intellectual capital: the new wealth of organizations”, Journal of
Management Consulting, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 61-4.
Kannan, V. and Tan, K. (2005), “Just in time, total quality management, and supply chain
management: understanding their linkages and impact on business performance”,
The International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 153-62.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1996), “Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management
system”, Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp. 75-85.
BPMJ
14,3
284
Keen, G. and Knapp, M. (1996), Every Manager’s Guide to Business Processes: A Glossary of Key
Terms & Concepts for Today’s Business Leader, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Koehler, J. and Pankowski, J. (1996), Teams in Government, St Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.
Liker, J.K. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest
Manufacturer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Liker, J.K. and Yu, Y-C. (2000), “Japanese automakers, US suppliers and supply-chain
superiority”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 81-93.
Love, P., Gunasekaran, A. and Li, H. (1998), “Putting an engine into re-engineering: toward a
process-oriented organization”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 18 Nos 9/10, pp. 937-49.
McConnell, J. (1989), The Seven Tools of TQC, 3rd ed., The Delaware Group, Manly Vale.
McNurlin, B. (2001), “Will users of ERP stay satisfied”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter.
March, J. and Olsen, J. (1976), Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, Universitetsforlaget,
Bergen.
Miller, D. and Hartwick, J. (2002), “Spotting a management fad”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 8
No. 10, p. 26.
Monden, Y. (1981), “What makes the Toyota production system really tick”, Industrial Engineer,
Vol. 13 No. 1, p. 36.
Motwani, J. (2003), “A business process change framework for examining lean manufacturing:
a case study”, Industrial Management þData Systems, Vol. 103 Nos 5/6, pp. 339-47.
Na
¨slund, D. (1996), On Performance Measurement Systems: Design and Development, Lund
University, Lund.
Na
¨slund, D. (1999), “Towards bridging the gap between strategy and operations: a process based
framework”, Dissertation, Lund University, Lund.
Na
¨slund, D., Olsson, A. and Karlsson, S. (2006), “Operationalizing the concept of value – an action
research based model”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 Nos 2/3, pp. 300-32.
Nave, D. (2002), “How to compare six sigma, lean and the theory of constraints”, Quality
Progress, Vol. 35 No. 3, p. 73.
Petersen, P. (2002), “The misplaced origin of just-in-time production methods”, Management
Decision, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 82-8.
Phillips, T. (2000), “Building the lean machine”, Advanced Manufacturing, January, pp. 21-6.
Pojasek, R. (2003), “Lean, six sigma, and the systems approach: management initiatives for
process improvement”, Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, p. 85.
Revere, L., Black, K. and Huq, A. (2004), “Integrating six sigma and CQI for improving patient
care”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 2, p. 105.
Roberts, H. and Barrar, P. (1992), “MRPII implementation: key factors for success”, Computer
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 31-8.
Ronca, C. (1999), “Beyond the ERP experience change management as a key factor a winning
enterprise”, Proceedings, 1st International Workshop on Enterprise Management Resource
and Planning Systems (EMRPS), Venice, Italy, p. 373.
Rosario, J.G. (2000), “On the leading edge: critical success factors in ERP implementation
projects”, BusinessWorld, Vol. 27, (Philippines).
Rummler, G. and Brache, A. (1995), Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on
the Organization Chart, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Lean, six sigma
and lean sigma
285
Sarker, S. and Lee, A.S. (2002), “Using a positivist case research methodology to test three
competing theories-in-use of business process redesign”, Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 2 No. 7, available at: http://jais.isworld.org/articles/
Schneider, P. (1999), “Wanted: ERPeople skills”, CIO, Vol. 12 No. 10, pp. 30-6.
Shirouzu, N. and Moffett, S. (2004), “Bumpy road: as Toyota closes in on GM, quality concern
also grow”, The Wall Street Journal, August 4.
Snee, R.D. (2004), “Weave six sigma into the fabric of an organization”, Quality Progress, Vol. 37
No. 9, pp. 69-72.
Sohal, S. and Egglestone, A. (1994), “Lean production: experience among Australian
organizations”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14
No. 11, pp. 35-51.
Spector, R. (2006), “How constraints management enhances lean and six sigma”, Supply Chain
Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 42-7.
Staw, B. and Epstein, L. (2000), “What bandwagons bring: effects of popular management
techniques on corporate performance, reputation and CEO pay”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 523-56.
Suzuki, Y. (2004), “Structure of Japanese production system: elusiveness and reality”, Asian
Business and Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 201-19.
Taj, S. and Berro, L. (2005), “Application of constrained management and lean manufacturing in
developing best practices for productivity improvement in auto-assembly plant”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55 Nos 3/4,
pp. 332-45.
Talha, M. (2004), “Total quality management (TQM): an overview”, The Bottom Line, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 15-19.
Talwar, R. (1994), “Re-engineering – a wonder drug for the 90’s”, in Coulson-Thomas, C. (Ed.),
Business Process Re-engineering: Myth & Reality, Kogan Page, London.
Tarı
´, J. (2005), “Components of successful total quality management”, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 17 No. 2, p. 182.
Tauge, N. (2005), The Quality Toolbox, American Society for Quality, Quality Press, Milwaukee.
Vokurka, R. and Davis, R. (1996), “Just-in-time: the evolution of a philosophy”, Production &
Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 56-9.
Wanberg, C. and Banas, T. (2000), “Predictors and outcomes of openness to change in a
reorganizing workplace”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 132-42.
Wee, S. (2000), “Juggling toward ERP success: keep key success factors high”, ERP News,
February, available at: www.erpnews.com/erpnews/erp904/02get.html
Weston, F. (2001), “ERP implementation and project management”, Production & Inventory
Management Journal, Vol. 42 Nos 3/4, pp. 75-80.
White, R., Pearson, J. and Wilson, J. (1999), “JIT manufacturing: a survey of implementations in
small and large US manufacturers”, Management Science, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Wiersema, W. (1998), “Producing better quality at lower cost”, Electrical Apparatus, Vol. 51 No. 9,
pp. 51-2.
Winter, S. (1994), “Organization for continuous improvement, evolutionary theory meets the
quality revolution”, in Baum, J. and Singh, J. (Eds), The Evolutionary Dynamics of
Organizations, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Womack, J. (2006), “Value stream mapping”, Manufacturing Engineering, May, pp. 145-56.
BPMJ
14,3
286
Womack, J. and Jones, D. (1994), “From lean production to the lean enterprise”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 93-103.
Wood, T. and Caldas, M.P. (2001), “Reductionism and complex thinking during ERP
implementations”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 387-93.
Worley, J. and Doolen, T. (2006), “The role of communication and management support in a lean
manufacturing implementation”, Management Decision, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 228-45.
Yasin, M. and Wafa, M. (1996), “An empirical examination of factors influencing JIT success”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, p. 19.
Zhang, Z. (2000), “Developing a model of quality management methods and evidence their effects
on business performance”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 129-37.
Further reading
Benavent, F. (2006), “TQM application through self-assessment and learning: some experiences
from two EQA applicants”, The Total Quality Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 7-25.
DeToro, I. and McCabe, T. (1997), “How to stay flexible and elude fads”, Quality Progress, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 55-60.
Jabnoun, N. and Sedrani, K. (2005), “TQM, culture, and performance in UAE manufacturing
firms”, The Quality Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 8-20.
Kaplan, R. and Murdock, L. (1991), “Core process redesign”, The McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 2,
pp. 15-31.
Kueng, P. (2000), “Process performance measurement system: a tool to support process-based
organizations”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 67-85.
McCarthy, M. (2006), “Can car manufacturing techniques reform health care”, The Lancet,
Vol. 367 No. 9507, p. 290.
Nah, F., Lau, J. and Kuang, J. (2001), “Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise
systems”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 285-96.
Turner, D. and Crawford, M. (1998), Change Power: Capabilities that Drive Corporate Renewal,
Business and Professional Publishing, Warriewood, NSW.
Corresponding author
Dag Na
¨slund can be contacted at: dnaslund@unf.edu
Lean, six sigma
and lean sigma
287
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
