The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2731.

htm

The perceptions and perspectives of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) practitioners

An empirical study in Malaysia
K. Jayaraman and Teo Leam Kee
Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia, and

Perspectives of LSS practitioners 433

Received 28 March 2010 Revised 11 December 2010 4 May 2011 18 November 2011 28 January 2012 Accepted 13 February 2012

Keng Lin Soh

School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose The electronic manufacturing service (EMS) industry recognizes Lean Six Sigma (LSS) as an effective business strategy to strive for cost reduction and improve the profitability and growth of a company. There are many factors affecting the success of an LSS program to meet desired profitability and growth. The purpose of this paper is to identify the critical success factors (CSFs) in successful LSS programs and to evaluate the CSFs impact on company performance. Design/methodology/approach This study is carried out using the quantitative survey method containing structured questionnaires. The study population comprises the six multinational EMS industries in Malaysia that have successfully implemented LSS programs. The LSS practitioners, namely the holders of the Master Black Belt (MBB), the Black Belt (BB) and the LSS champions of the various international manufacturing sites of the six multinational EMS in Malaysia form the respondents. Findings The significance of this research is the identification of CFSs for the successful implementation of LSS within the EMS industry. It has identified management engagement and commitment as the most critical to the success of implementing the companies LSS programs. Moreover, an effective LSS training, an established LSS dashboard, a frequent communication among all value streams of organizations and a supportive organizational culture are also found to be essential ingredients for the implementation of LSS. Practical implications The paper advises of the nurturing of appropriate CSFs for successful implementation of LSS in the EMS industry and to evaluate its impact on the company performance. Originality/value This research adds a new body of knowledge containing factors in the implementation of LSS that are significant in their relationships with operational and organizational performances in the EMS industry, using primary data. The results would provide the EMS industry and other Malaysian SME companies with guidelines for the successful implementation of Lean Six Sigma with the intention to remain competitive. Keywords Malaysia, Lean production, Six Sigm, Lean Six Sigma, Electronic manufacturing services industries, Critical success factors, Likert scale, Theoretical framework, Multiple regression analysis Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Lean Six Sigma (LSS) has been marketed as a new organizational change and improvement method, particularly as a cost reduction mechanism (Hoerl et al., 2004;
The authors wish to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions which helped to a great extent to improve the quality of this research article. Further details on the elaborate contents of this research article can be obtained from the first author at dr_kjraman@usm.my
The TQM Journal Vol. 24 No. 5, 2012 pp. 433-446 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1754-2731 DOI 10.1108/17542731211261584

TQM 24,5

434

Edward and John, 2005). In the recent past, efforts have been made to promote LSS (George et al., 2003; Edward and John, 2005; Brett and Queen, 2005; Caldwell et al., 2005). Lean and Six Sigma are two of the most effective business-improvement techniques available (Spector, 2006). The use of LSS techniques helps companies to improve operational efficiency and effectiveness especially when companies have to operate in a highly competitive globalized market (George et al., 2003; Hoerl et al., 2004). The implementation of LSS initiative is believed to have encountered enormous difficulties (Denton and Hodgson, 1997). Therefore, several electronic manufacturing service (EMS) industries have implemented LSS program to improve performance. However, not all industries has benefitted from this program as the implementation was somehow not effective. Some of these companies have their own queries on LSS implementation in terms of cost and time. LSS is becoming a popular technique for improving productivity and quality. The aim of this study is to determine the critical success factors (CSFs) for the successful implementation of LSS in EMS industries and to evaluate its impact on the company performance using empirical study. 2. Objectives of the study The objectives of the study are: (1) (2) (3) to identify the CSFs for successful LSS implementation in EMS industries; to evaluate the impact of the CSFs of LSS implementation on organization performance; and to study whether organizational belief and culture moderate the relationship between CSFs and organizational performance of EMS industries.

3. Research methodology This study is carried out using a quantitative survey with structured questionnaire ( Jayaraman and Teo, 2010). The population of this study is the six multinational EMS industries that have implemented LSS program and have multi-site operations in Malaysia and also across the world. There are altogether 65 sites in Asia, America and Europe region for these six multinational EMS Industries. The LSS practitioners namely master black belt (MBB), black belt (BB) and LSS champions of some selected sites form the respondents. Four questionnaires were sent to each site using e-mails and of the 260 questionnaires sent, 138 (53 percent) respondents returned the questionnaires and were used for statistical analysis. There were 108 (78 percent) male respondents and 30 (22 percent) were female respondents, and each has a working experience of between two and 20 years. The age of the majority (85 percent) of the respondents is above 36 years. About 62 percent of the respondents came from their companies in Asia, 27 percent in America and 12 percent in Europe. These respondents constituted 20 percent upper management, 73 percent middle management, and 12 percent lower management. The majority (64 percent) of the respondents have LSS experiences of between five and ten years. A total of 78 percent of the respondents became involved in LSS program through internal company training program while the majority of 91 percent were BB certified either internally or externally. Generally, the benefits derived from LSS projects would be realized after some time since the duration of the BB projects will range from six months to one year. The LSS projects would usually take six months to one year to complete. According to the LSS

practitioners, the success of LSS implementation would depend on the presence of big volume of problems to be solved, and the positive impact is usually seen within a year of implementation. 4. Research framework The idea of identifying the CSFs as a basis for determining the needs of managers was popularized by Rockart (1979). The CSFs used in this study were derived from the existing literature of LSS (Antony and Banuelas, 2002; Spanyi and Wurtzel, 2003; Waxer, 2004). Based on the rankings of the respondents, nine CSFs were identified ( Jayaraman and Teo, 2010). The CSFs are treated as independent variables (IVs) in the research framework (Figure1). On the other hand, the dependent variables namely operational performance and organizational performance represent the level of performance of the organizations which have implemented LSS programs. The items of the dependent variables were adapted from Salaheldin (2008). The operational performance reflects the performance of internal operations of the company in relation to cost and waste reduction, improving the quality of products, improving flexibility, improving delivery performance and productivity improvement. The organizational performance consisted of financial measures such as revenue growth, net profits, profit to revenue ratio and return on assets, and non-financial measures such as capacity to develop a competitive profile, new product development and market development. Organizational belief and culture are introduced as moderating variables.
Moderating variables Organizational belief and culture

Perspectives of LSS practitioners 435

Independent variables (critical success factors) 1. Management engagement and commitment 2. Reward and recognition system 3. Competency of master black belt/black belt 4. Company financial capability 5. Frequent communication and assessment on lean six sigma result 6. Project prioritization, selection, reviews and tracking 7. Project success stories, best practices sharing and benchmarking 8. Effective lean six sigma training program 9. Established lean six sigma dashboard

Dependent variables

Operational performance Organizational performance

Figure 1. Research framework

TQM 24,5

4.1 Hypothesis development The following hypotheses are formulated based on the framework and literature review. The EMS industries that have practiced LSS agreed that the most important factor is top management support and enthusiasm (Henderson and Evans, 2000). Thus, the following hypothesis is developed: H1. The better the management engagement and commitment, the higher the operational and organizational performance. LSS practising organizations give recognition to the efforts of employees that are congruent with LSS initiatives. Such recognition includes the successful completion of training in Six Sigma tools and techniques as well as successful completion of Six Sigma projects. ( John, 2004). Thus, the following hypothesis is developed: H2. The better the reward and recognition system, the higher the operational and organizational performance. From a review of Six Sigma and industrial research literature, it is clear that a number of authors have concluded that an effective training and education of the Six Sigma practitioners is a CSF for the success and sustainability of a LSS program resulting in a positive impact on the performance of an organization (Waxer, 2004; Antony and Banuelas, 2002; Pyzdek, 2001). Thus, the following hypothesis is developed: H3. The better the competencies of MBB/BB, the higher the operational and organizational performance. Financial capacity is a crucial factor in the determination of any successful project. This is due to the fact that financial capacity makes consultancy and training possible. Conversely financial inadequacy is a major hindrance to the adoption and subsequent successful implementation of lean manufacturing. The application of lean manufacturing like any other productivity improvement initiatives within any organization would require financial resources to hire consultants and to accommodate costs of implementation. Similarly the training of people in LSS techniques also requires financial resources. Thus, the following hypothesis is formulated: H4. Company financial capability is positively related to operational and organizational performance. Lean manufacturing requires clear communication, not only between shifts, but also between all value streams (Storch and Lim, 1999). Lean manufacturing enterprises must have communication pathways that are efficient and broad ( Jenner, 1998). A communication plan is important to explain to personnel involved with Six Sigma program to describe the workings of the program, the relationship of the jobs to the employees and the benefits from such a program. Therefore, a clear explanation will reduce resistance to change (Henderson and Evans, 2000).

436

When Six Sigma was launched in Sony Electronics, a part of the communication plan contained slogans such as show me the data is frequently seen in internal magazines and on pins worn by employees. Thus, the following hypothesis is developed: H5. The better the communication and assessment on LSS results, the higher the operational and organizational performance. Project reviews must be conducted on a regular basis to drive them to a successful completion and closure. It is a good practice to have a project tracking system to track all projects which are submitted for consideration, accepted for implementation, in progress and completed (Antony and Banuelas, 2002): H6. The better the project selection, prioritization, project status and tracking, the higher the operational and organizational performance. The implementation of what has been denominated high-performance work practices is seen as critical for obtaining high levels of organizational performance (Pfeffer, 1997), and since organizations today strive for survival that is apparently becoming more and more knowledge intensive, one such highperformance work practice has become knowledge sharing. Thus, the following hypothesis is developed: H7. The greater the sharing of project success stories and best practices, the higher the operational and organizational performance. Training is a crucial factor in the successful implementation of LSS programs. It is critical to communicate both the whys and the hows of the programs as early as possible, and provide the opportunity to people to improve their comfort level through training classes (Hendricks and Kelbaugh, 1998). The belt system must also be applied throughout the company starting with top management and should be cascaded down through the organizational hierarchy. Thus, the following hypothesis is developed: H8. The better the LSS training program, the higher the operational and organizational performance. LSS cannot be treated as yet another stand-alone activity. It requires adherence to a whole philosophy rather than just the usage of a few tools and techniques of quality and productivity improvement (Dale, 2000). LSS projects must be targeted for process and product improvements that have a direct impact on both financial and operations goals. Even if the first efforts focus on fairly narrow problems, their impact on the whole business should be clear. Hence, it is essential to have an LSS dashboard containing the progress updates of the projects and other activities which are linked to customers, core organization process and competitiveness (Pande et al., 2000). Thus, the following hypothesis is developed: H9. The better the established LSS dashboards, the higher the operational and organizational performance.

Perspectives of LSS practitioners 437

TQM 24,5

438

4.2 Organizational belief and culture as moderator The creation of a supportive organizational culture is an essential platform for the implementation of lean manufacturing. The high-performing companies are those with a culture of sustainable and proactive improvement toward progress. LSS is considered a breakthrough management strategy and it involves adjustments to the organizations values and culture with its introduction. It also involves a substantial change in the organization structure and infrastructure. When important change occurs, the people in the organization are afraid of the unknown and they do not understand the need for change. Organizational belief and culture would likely to play a role to moderate the relationship between CSFs and successful LSS implementation in EMS manufacturing industries. Jayaraman and Teo (2010) have provided reasons for choosing organizational belief and culture as a moderator in the research framework given in Figure 1. 4.3 Factor analysis and reliability analysis The confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the nine CSFs (IVs) using varimax rotation. Principal components analysis method of factor extraction is used to form uncorrelated linear combinations of the observed variables. Appendix Tables AI-AIII show the factor loadings for IVs, moderating variables and dependent variables respectively. The KMO statistics for measure of sampling adequacy, the Bartletts test of sphericity using w2 values with the associated p-values are displayed. At the outset, the factor analysis fits well for the data. The criterion used to identify and interpret factors is as follows: that each item should have a main loading of 0.5 or greater on one factor to form groupings (Hair et al., 1998). This means that two questions, A1 and H30, did not make significant contributions to the factor loadings of 0.5; hence, the factor loading for A1 and H30 were not displayed in the principal component matrix. Accordingly, A1 and H30 were eliminated in the subsequent analysis. Table AI shows that A2-A6 fall under Factor (component) 1 management engagement and commitment; B7-B9 fall under Factor 2 reward and recognition system; C10-C14 fall under Factor 3 competency of MBB/BB; D15-D18 fall under Factor 4 company financial capability; E19-E22 fall under Factor 5 frequent communication and assessment of LSS results; F23-F25 fall under Factor 6 project selection, prioritization, reviews and tracking; G26-G29 fall under Factor 7 project success stories and best practices sharing; H31-H35 fall under Factor 8 effective LSS training program and I36-I39 fall under Factor 9 established LSS dashboard. Table AII shows that J1-J4 fall under Factor 1 the organizational belief and culture. Table AIII shows that Q2-Q6 fall under Factor 1 operational performance and Q7-Q12 fall under Factor 2 organizational performance. For reliability analysis, a benchmark Cronbachs value of 0.7 is commonly used to suggest that at least some of the items measured the same construct (might need further clarification). In general, Cronbachs a of o0.6 is considered to be poor while those in the range of 0.7 are acceptable and over 0.8 is good (Sekaran, 2006). All the factors mentioned above have Cronbachs a 40.7. 4.4 Multiple regressions analysis The multiple regression analysis was used to test whether the IVs, and moderating variables (organizational belief and culture) influence the dependent variables (operational performance and organizational performance). Table I shows the results of regression analysis of IVs (nine CSFs), moderating variables (organizational belief and culture) on dependent variables (operational performance and organizational

Independent variables Management engagement and commitment (H1) Reward and recognition system (H2) Competency of master black belt/black belt (H3) Company financial capability (H4) Frequent communication and assessment on LSS result (H5) Project selection, prioritization, reviews and tracking (H6) Project success stories and best practices sharing (H7) Effective Lean Six Sigma training program (H8) Established Lean Six Sigma dashboard (H9) Moderating variable Organizational belief and culture Model summary R2 Adjusted R2 p-value Durbin-Watson

Operational performance Standard b 0.12** 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.14** 0.11 0.03 0.26*** 0.41*** 0.10 0.90 0.89 0.08 1.95

Organizational performance Standard b 0.14** 0.08 0.22*** 0.12* 0.17** 0.05 0.01 0.17** 0.63*** 0.10 0.90 0.89 0.07 2.14

Perspectives of LSS practitioners 439

Notes: N 138; significant at ***po0.001, **po0.01, *po0.05

Table I. Results of regression analysis of independent variables, moderating variable and dependent variables (operational performance and organizational performance)

performance). The Durbin-Watson value of 1.95 for operational performance and 2.14 for organizational performance is within the acceptable range of 1.5-2.5, and implies there is no significant positive auto correlation in residuals among these variables. Furthermore, the variance inflation factor was o10 for all IVs. Therefore, those results convince that there is no severe multicollinearity among IVs. Referring to Table I the R2 value is 0.90 for operational and organizational performances. This clearly indicates that the organizational belief and culture do not moderate the relationships between the IVs and the dependent variables, but it is significant only at po0.1. Management engagement and commitment is significant at po0.01 with a positive relationship (b 0.12) to operational performance and is significant at po0.01 with a positive relationship (b 0.14) to organizational performance. Frequent communication and assessment on LSS result is significant at po0.01 with a positive relationship (b 0.14) to operational performance and is significant at po0.01 with a positive relationship (b 0.17) to organizational performance. Effective LSS training program is significant at po0.001 with a positive relationship (b 0.26) to operational performance and is significant at po0.01 with a positive relationship (b 0.17) to organizational performance. Established LSS dashboard is significant at po0.001 with a positive relationship (b 0.41) to operational performance and is significant at po0.001 with a positive relationship (b 0.63) to organizational performance. Competency of MBB/BB is found to be negatively significant in its relationship to organizational performance at po0.001 level (b 0.22) but not significant to operational performance. Company financial capability is found to be positively significant in its relationship to organizational performance at po0.1 level (b 0.12) but not significant to operational performance.

TQM 24,5

440

5. Significant findings and results In this study, the variable management engagement and commitment is found to be positively and linearly related to operational performance, while its relationship to organizational performance is high and statistically significant. This was unanimously supported by other research of Antony and Banuelas (2002); Spanyi and Wurtzel (2003), and Waxer (2004). The success of LSS implementation requires a significant level of management engagement and commitment; and without the continuous support and commitment from top management, the true importance of the initiative will be in doubt and the energy behind it will be weakened (Pande et al., 2000). A frequent communication and assessment on LSS results, an effective LSS training program and an established LSS dashboard were found significant in their relationships with operational performance and organizational performance. These results are in line with Spanyi and Wurtzel (2003) frequent communication and assessment on LSS result; Waxers (2004) and Antony and Banuelas (2002) effective LSS training program; Antony and Banuelas (2002) and Pande et al. (2000) established LSS dashboard. The competency of MBB/BB is found to be significant in its relationship with organizational performance and not significant with operational performance. These findings have revealed that the competency of MBB/BB does not significantly contribute to operational performance of a company. Instead the operational performance relied on other CSFs of LSS such as management engagement and commitment. The company financial capability has an impact upon organizational performance but not significant toward operational performance. The significance upon organizational performance may be attributed to those organizations with greater financial capability and willingness to invest into new research areas of high technology to attain and project a higher competitive profile to attract more new customers. The other CSF such as reward and recognition system is not significant in its relationship to the LSS implementation success dimension and this contradicts with the findings of Spanyi and Wurtzel (2003) and Waxer (2004). The project prioritization, selection, reviews and tracking were also found to be insignificant in its relationship to LSS implementation success and there were not consistent with Antony and Banuelas (2002). The sharing of project success stories and best practices is not significant in its relationship to LSS implementation success dimensions and is not supported by Spanyi and Wurtzel (2003). 5.1 CSFs, organizational belief and culture toward operational performance and organizational performance The organizations that practices LSS emphasize training by setting up better training facilities to promote LSS practices and encouraged more employees to get involved in LSS projects. In addition, the performance of the organizations will be displayed periodically on the LSS dashboards. In this way, better LSS strategies will be formulated to achieve the goals and the required objectives. The higher the organization belief and culture in LSS would see the LSS management core team meeting up more frequently to prioritize, review and keep track of LSS projects. Surprisingly, the competency of MBB/BB is negatively significant with LSS culture and belief. Organizations with high LSS culture and belief have employees with better self-awareness, that can drive LSS projects independently and that always seek improvements although the LSS program is not driven by the MBB/BB. The aforesaid reason may explain competency of MBB/BB as not seen to be so important in assisting the organization to achieve operational and organizational performances.

Company financial capability is found positively significant in its relationship to organizational performance when the organizational belief and culture is high. This is because organizations with higher belief and culture in LSS put their trust in the benefits of this program and will invest more money to attain an effective training program with better training facilities and resources. In addition, organizations with higher LSS belief and culture will reward participants in successful LSS projects and will even reinforce with financial rewards. 5.2 Directions for future research This research has provided the findings of the LSS CSFs to achieve successful LSS implementation in EMS industries. Even though some similar research has been carried out in Europe and America, but it is a pioneering work in Malaysia. These results can provide a focus on success factors to Malaysian SMEs companies as they kick off their LSS program. Case study research may be carried out in one of the LSS companies to get a more details from different group of respondents to perform a gap analysis to arrive at a more accurate CSFs for the LSS implementation success instead of having to follow a biased feedback from the LSS practitioners. 6. Conclusions This research study has shown a new direction for a successful implementation of a LSS program for the EMS industry. It evaluates the role of nine CSFs consisting of management engagement and commitment, reward and recognition system, competency of MBB/BB, company financial capability, frequent communication and assessment on LSS result, project selection, review and tracking, sharing of project success stories and best practices, effective LSS training program and establishment of LSS dashboard. Out of these CSFs, it has been established that management engagement and commitment, effective LSS training program, established LSS dashboard, frequent communication and assessment on LSS results were found to be statistically significant and they affect LSS implementation success dimension represented by operational performance and organizational performance. Finally, the implementation of LSS program is believed to encounter enormous difficulties and therefore should be properly planned prior to implementation. Undoubtedly, the LSS program will bring about a significant improvement to the company performance if it is properly implemented.
References Antony, J. and Banuelas, R. (2002), Critical success factors for the successful implementation of Six Sigma projects, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 92-9. Brett, C. and Queen, P. (2005), Streamlining enterprise records management with Lean Six Sigma, Information Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 58-62. Caldwell, C., Brexler, J. and Tom, G.T. (2005), Engaging physicians in Lean Six Sigma, Quality Progress, Vol. 38 No. 11, pp. 42-6. Dale, B. (2000), Marginalisation of quality: is there a case to answer?, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 266-74. Denton, P.D. and Hodgson, A. (1997), Implementing Strategy-led BPR in a Small Manufacturing Company, paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on FACTORY 2000, The Technology Exploitation Process Conference Publication, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, No. 435, April 2-4, pp. 1-8.

Perspectives of LSS practitioners 441

TQM 24,5

442

Edward, D.A. and John, M. (2005), The integration of lean management and Six Sigma, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5-18. George, M., Rowlands, D. and Kastle, B. (2003), What is Lean Six Sigma? McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, NY. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Pearson Education, New Jersey, NJ. 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. Hendricks, C.A. and Kelbaugh, R. (1998), Implementing Six Sigma at GE, The Journal of Quality and Participation, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 48-53. 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. Jayaraman, K. and Teo, L.K. (2010), Critical success factors for successful Lean Six Sigma implementation and its impact on company performance of electronics manufacturing service (EMS) industries: a practical guide for Lean Six Sigma implementation success model, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 191-215. Jenner, R.A. (1998), Dissipative enterprises, chaos, and the principles of lean organizations, International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 397-407. John, M. (2004), A Study on the Integration of a Six Sigma Continuous Improvement Program and the Management Control System of that Organization, Southern Cross University, East Lismore. Pande, P.S., Neuman, R.P. and Cavanagh, R.R. (2000), The Six Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola and Other Top Companies are Honing their Performance, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Pfeffer, J. (1997), New Directions for Organization Theory, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Pyzdek, T. (2001), The Six Sigma revolution, quality America, Tuscon, AZ, available at: www.qualityamerica.com/knowledgecentre/articles/PyzdekSixSigRev.htm (accessed October 6, 2004). Rockart, J. (1979), Chief executives define their own data needs, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 81-93. Salaheldin Ismail, S. (2008), Critical success factors for TQM implementation and their impact on performance of SMEs, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 215-37. Sekaran, U. (2006), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 4th ed., Wiley, Chichester. Spanyi, A. and Wurtzel, M. (2003), Six Sigma for the rest of us, Quality Digest, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 22-6. Spector, R. (2006), How constraints management enhances lean and Six Sigma, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 42-7. Storch, R.L. and Lim, S. (1999), Improving flow to achieve lean manufacturing in shipbuilding, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 127-37. Waxer, C. (2004), Is Six Sigma just for large companies? What about small companies?, available at: www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c010325a.asp (accessed March 2, 2005).

Further reading Elmore, P.E. and Beggs, D.L. (1975), Salience of concepts and commitment to extreme judgements in response pattern of teachers, Education, Vol. 95 No. 4, pp. 325-34.

Hayes, B.J. (2000), Assessing for Lean Six Sigma implementation and success, Six Sigma advantage, available at: http://software.isixsigma.com/ (accessed October 10, 2010). Holland, C.P. and Light, B. (1999), A critical success factors model for ERP implementation, Focus, IEEE Software, May/June, pp. 30-5. Huber, G.P. and Powere, D.J. (1985), Retrospective reports of strategy-level managers: guidelines for increasing accuracy, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 171-80. Lau, H.C. and Idris, M.A. (2001), The soft foundation of the critical success factors on TQM implementation in Malaysia, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 51-62. Mann, R. and Kehoe, D. (1995), Factors affecting the implementation and success of TQM, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 11-23. Piotr Soja (2006), Success factors in ERP systems implementations, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-71. Pius, A., Esam, S., Rajkumar, R. and Geoff, N. (2006), Critical success factors for lean implementation within SMEs, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-71. Saraph, V., Benson, G. and Schroeder, G. (1989), An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management, Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-29. Siong, C.C. (2006), KM critical success factors. A comparison of perceived importance versus implementation in Malaysian ICT companies, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 230-56. Sohal, S. and Egglestone, A. (1994), Lean production: experience among Australian organizations, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 11, pp. 35-51. Steven, B. (2006), The benefits of Lean Six Sigma, available at: http://EzineArticles.com/ ?expertSteven_Bonacorsi (accessed February 26, 2011). Zikmund, W.G. (2003), Business Research Method, Thomson Learning, South Western, Mason. (Appendix appears over page.)

Perspectives of LSS practitioners 443

444

TQM 24,5

Appendix

Questions

A1 A2 A3 A4 0.81 0.57 0.63 0.56 0.76 0.86 0.87 0.79 0.67 0.62 0.74 0.67 0.71 0.82 0.63 0.70 0.83 0.73 0.78 0.76 0.73

A5 A6 B7 B8

B9 C10 C11 C12 C13

C14

D15 D16

D17 D18 E19

E20 E21 E22

Table AI. Factor analysis results for independent variables 1 2 3 4 Components 5 6 7 8 9

Top management assumes responsibilities for LSS performance The department heads are fully responsible for the implementation of LSS Top management supports long-term LSS improvement process Top management attached importance to LSS in relation to cost and schedule objectives Top management always considers LSS improvement as a way to increase profits Commitment of the top management to ensure employee training Organization having effective performance measurement Organization emphasis on fairness of individual or team-based performance measurement Organization is rewarding and recognize for actual performance improvement Master black belt/black belt in driving LSS program is visible Master black belt/black belt access to top management Master black belt/black belt needs full autonomy Utilization of master black belt/black belt professionalism as a consulting resource Effectiveness of the Master black belt/black belt in improving company performance Adequate financial funding to support LSS projects Adequate financial funding to setup IT infrastructure for data analysis using Minitab Adequate financial funding to setup classroom training with computer facility Adequate financial funding to reward success project Employees are using LSS problem solving tools/techniques to solve problems There is good communications between different departments during driving LSS projects There is an effective top-down and bottom-up communication There is frequent, clear, consistent communication of LSS goals and objectives

(continued)

Questions

Components 5 6 7 8 9

F23 Having project selection and prioritization on projects that improve company competitive advantage, business profitability, process cycle-time, throughput yield, etc. 0.76 F24 Periodic project review to ensure projects are proceed according to schedule 0.89 F25 Project tracking system to track the project status 0.86 LSS data (cost of quality, defects, errors, scrap, etc.) are used as tools to manage G26 LSS performance 0.76 G27 LSS project success stories and best practices are available to employees 0.83 G28 LSS project success stories and best practices are available to managers and supervisors 0.75 G29 LSS project success stories and best practices are displayed at employee work stations 0.80 H30 Specific LSS training (yellow/green/black belt training) given to employees throughout the company H31 LSS awareness training among employees is ongoing 0.57 H32 Training in problem identification and solving skills, quality improvement skills and waste identification skills is essential 0.77 H33 Training in statistical techniques (such as histograms control chart, design of experiments and regression analysis) is essential 0.73 H34 Adequate availability of resources for employee training in the company 0.63 H35 Training in interactive skills (such as communication skills, effective meeting skills and leadership skills) is needed 0.72 I36 LSS results (yield improvement, cost reduction, scrap reduction etc.) are used as tools to manage performance 0.84 I37 LSS dashboard is available to employees 0.88 I38 LSS dashboard is available to managers and supervisors 0.68 I39 LSS goals within the company is focussed 0.53 KMO statistic 0.72 0.69 0.78 0.70 0.72 0.66 0.77 0.72 0.59 Bartletts test w2 value 136.4 124.63 107.57 131.79 116.02 132.53 153.86 149.15 197.15 p-value 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cronbachs a 0.71 0.79 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.78 0.79 0.73 0.73

Perspectives of LSS practitioners 445

Table AI.

TQM 24,5

Questions (moderating variable)

Component 1

446

Table AII. Factor analysis for moderating variable

J1 A comprehensive culture exists to support and enhance effective people and team processes 0.85 J2 A process is in place to help workers expand their role to become team players, highly skilled, knowledge resources, customer advocates, trainers, problem solvers and decision makers. This process includes training and follow-up support 0.86 J3 A process is in place to help supervisors, managers, and technical and support professionals modify and expand their, roles to become coaches, facilitators, customer advocates, barrier busters, motivators and leaders. This process includes, training and follow-up support 0.75 J4 Major achievements stemming from the continuous improvement and empowerment efforts are formally celebrated 0.80 KMO statistic 0.80 Bartletts test w2 value 205.03 p-value 0.00 Cronbachs a 0.83

Components Questions (dependent variables) Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Table AIII. Factor analysis results for dependent variable LSS program improving LSS program improving LSS program improving LSS program improving LSS program improving LSS program improving LSS program improving LSS program improving LSS program improving LSS program improving LSS program improving LSS program improving KMO statistic Bartletts test w2 value p-value Cronbachs a cost reduction waste elimination the quality of products productivity flexibility delivery performance revenue growth net profits return on assets competitive profile new product development market development 1 Dropped 0.59 0.72 0.77 0.74 0.65 0.76 0.74 0.76 0.69 0.68 0.83 0.68 440.04 0.00 0.86 2

0.76 151.55 0.00 0.73

Corresponding author K. Jayaraman can be contacted at: dr_kjraman@usm.my

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints