Quality Management

16
4

Journal v o l u m e 1 6 , i s s u e 4

Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Satya Chakravorty
Quality Management Journal

The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement

Alan Robinson and Dean Schroeder

Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation Through Human Resource Management

Xingxing Zu and Lawrence Fredendall
2009

www.asq.org
 Volume 16 Issue 4

ARTICLES
Contents DEPARTMENTS
7 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
4 Introduction
Satya Chakravorty
This little-known tool has been used by Toyota for identifying and solving
5 Executive Briefs
problems, and reporting results of improvement activities.
55 Book Reviews
27 The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement
Alan Robinson and Dean Schroeder 59 Cumulative Index—
Many companies that are beginning their lean efforts lack a real understanding
of the importance of implementing high-performing idea systems and creating Volume 16
a lean culture of daily improvement.

41 Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation Through Human Resource

Management
Xingxing Zu and Lawrence Fredendall
Three human resource management practices—employee involvement,
employee training, and employee performance and recognition—play a
significant role in Six Sigma implementation.

AIMS AND SCOPES: The Quality Management Journal (QMJ) is a rigorously refereed periodical published
quarterly by the American Society for Quality (ASQ). It is the first journal to link the efforts of academic researchers
Annual Subscription Rates
and quality management practitioners. QMJ provides a forum for communicating and discussing research findings. Members Nonmembers Institutional
New research that scientifically explores the principles of quality management is actively sought for the journal.
U.S. $50.00 $75.00 $130.00
All papers must be original works and be grounded in research and experience. Each article must provide
readers with significant new information that contributes to the development of the field of quality management. International $74.00 $90.00 $150.00
Highly technical papers of limited scope are not appropriate for this publication. Manuscripts submitted to QMJ
must be original works not previously published or under review by another publication. Canadian $80.00 $95.00 $160.00
Note that ASQ and QMJ cannot be responsible for unsolicited manuscripts. Rates subject to change without prior notification. Institutional rates
SUBSCRIPTIONS: For subscriptions to QUALITY MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, please contact ASQ’s Customer include first-class delivery. Canadian rates include 7% GST.
Care Center at 800-248-1946 or 414-272-8575 (outside North America) or visit the Web site at www.asq.org. Institutional subscriptions are held in the name of a company,
IDENTIFICATION STATEMENT: Copyright 2009 by ASQ. QUALITY MANAGEMENT JOURNAL (ISSN 1068-6967) corporation, government agency, or library.
is published quarterly (January, April, July, October) by ASQ, 600 N. Plankinton Ave., P.O. Box 3005,
Milwaukee, WI 53201-3005. Preferred periodicals postage paid at Milwaukee, WI, and additional mailing offices. Canadian GST #128717618. Canadian Publications Mail
Agreement #40030175, Returns: 4960-2 Walker Rd., Windsor, ON N9A 6J3. Back issues are available by calling ASQ at 800-248-1946 (U.S. or Canada) or 414-272-8575.
ASQ members $15 per copy; nonmembers $23 per copy and based on availability.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by QUALITY MANAGEMENT JOURNAL provided that the fee of $1 per copy is paid to the
Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. Copying for purposes other than internal or personal reference requires the
express permission of QUALITY MANAGEMENT JOURNAL. For permission, contact Valerie Funk at ASQ, P.O. Box 3005, Milwaukee, WI 53201-3005, or call 414-272-8575.
To request bulk reprints (100 or more) contact Barbara Mitrovic at the same address or phone number.
For microform, contact ProQuest Information and Learning, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, 800-521-0600, ext. 2888, international 734-761-4700,
www.il.proquest.com.
MANUSCRIPT REQUIREMENTS: Manuscripts should be submitted to James R. Evans, Editor, Quality Management Journal c/o ASQ, 600 N. Plankinton Ave., Milwaukee,
WI 53203. See the Author Guidelines in the back of this issue for details about manuscript requirements and submission or see ASQ’s Web site at www.asq.org.
Claims: No claim for missing issues will be accepted after three months following the month of publication of the issue for domestic addresses and six months for Canadian
and international addresses.
POSTMASTER: Please send address changes to Quality Management Journal, ASQ, P.O. Box 3005, Milwaukee, WI 53201-3005. Printed in USA
 QMJ Editorial

Editor
James R. Evans
University of Cincinnati

FOUNDING Editor
William A. Golomski

BOOK REVIEW Editor

James B. Kohnen
St. Mary’s College of California

QMJ Administration/Production

publisher
William Tony

manuscript coordinator
Valerie Funk

Copy EditorS
Leigh Ann Klaus
JoAnn Regenauer

Production
Cathy Schnackenberg

Digital Production Specialist

Laura Franceschi
 Editorial Editorial
Advisory Board Review Board
Christine Cantarino
Abbott
Barbara B. Flynn
Indiana University
Steven Hoisington
Electro-Motive Diesels, Inc.
Karen E. Koch
North Mississippi
Medical Center
Peter J. Kolesar
Columbia University
John Latham
Monfort Institute,
University of
Northern Colorado
Cathy Lawson
General Dynamics
Roger G. Schroeder
University of Minnesota
Kalyan Singhal
University of Baltimore
Ken Stephens
University of South Florida
Fran Zenzen
General Dynamics
Sanjay Ahire Frank Knight
University of South Carolina FISI Madison Financial
Robert Batson Ronald D. Kurtzmann
University of Alabama Diamond Management Systems
Peter Billington Yongjin (James) Kwon
Colorado State University–Pueblo Drexel University
Ram Bishu Deborah Manzo
University of Nebraska University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Luis Calingo Kathleen L. McFadden
Dominican University Northern Illinois University
Adrian S. Choo Satish Mehra
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute University of Memphis
Sharon Clinebell Nat Natarajan
University of Northern Colorado Tennessee Tech
Lori Cook Ceyhun Ozgur
DePaul University Valparaiso University
Sime Curkovic Gertrude Pannirselvam
Western Michigan University Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Maling Ebrahimpour Victor Prybutok
Roger Williams University University of North Texas
Jacob K. Eskildsen Darrell Radson
Aarhus School of Business (Denmark) Drexel University
Joy Field Gipsie B. Ranney
Boston College Belmont University
Matt Ford Alan Robinson
Northern Kentucky University University of Massachusetts Amherst
S. Thomas Foster Jr. Borut Rusjan
Brigham Young University University of Ljubljana (Slovenia)
Lawrence Fredendall Brooke Saladin
Clemson University Wake Forest University
Brian Fynes
The Michael Smurfit Graduate School of Business Paulo Sampaio
(Ireland) University of Minho
Vidyaranya Gargeya Danny Samson
University of North Carolina at Greensboro University of Melbourne (Australia)
Thomas Gattiker Joseph Sarkis
Boise State University Clark University
Sherrill Gelmon Helmut Schneider
Portland State University Louisiana State University
Soumen Ghosh Marc Schniederjans
Georgia Institute of Technology University of Nebraska
Susan Meyer Goldstei Dean Schroeder
University of Minnesota Valparaiso University
John Grout Scott Shafer
Berry College Wake Forest University
Sandra J. Hartman Vinod Singhal
University of New Orleans Georgia Institute of Technology
Janelle Heineke Marilyn Smith
Boston University Winthrop University
Marilyn Helms Rui Sousa
Dalton State College Universidade Catolica Portuguesa (Portugal)
Jeff Heyl John G. Surak
Lincoln University Clemson University
Steve Hillmer Kwei Tang
University of Kansas Purdue University
Jane Humble Milé Terziovski
Arizona State University University of Melbourne (Australia)
Dana M. Johnson Joseph G. Van Matre
Michigan Tech University of Alabama at Birmingham
Hale Kaynak Rohit Verma
University of Texas-Pan American Cornell University
Ray A. Klotz Gregory H. Watson
Qualcomm, Inc. Oklahoma State University
Intro
duction
I recently returned from my second trip to China to lecture and provide advice on understanding
and using the Baldrige criteria in conjunction with some local and provincial quality award programs
(namely, the Ningbo Mayor’s Quality Award and the Shandong Province Governor’s Quality Award).
There clearly is an intense interest in quality among Chinese business owners and government officials,
which supports the conclusions in other articles I have read in Quality Progress and elsewhere. While
many large corporations have highly developed quality systems that can benefit from a comprehensive
approach to high-performance management practices, I also see many smaller companies struggling
with the basics for whom the Baldrige criteria would be overwhelming, intimidating, and counter-
productive (thinking of Jim Harrington’s work on best practices and organizational maturity back in the
1990s). Nevertheless, I was impressed by the fact that in each lecture, some 100 participants listened
intently, took copious notes, and asked many questions. I have not seen this scale of interest locally for
some time, and we all know that interest in Baldrige and quality in general has waned among manufac-
turing and small businesses. This all reminds me of Joseph Juran’s observation of the relative trajectories
of quality improvement in Japan and the United States back in the 1950s. The question is how long
will it take before their trajectories overtake ours—unless, of course, we begin again to accelerate our
rate of improvement.
Improvement is the focus of the first paper by Satya Chakravorty. “Process Improvement: Using
Toyota’s A3 Reports” describes an interesting, but little-known, tool used by Toyota for problem
identification and solution, focusing on understanding successful factors related to implementation.
Alan Robinson and Dean Schroeder, in their paper “The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance
Improvement,” provide insights on high-performing idea systems for lean initiatives, along with help-
ing us to understand why many companies have difficulty in creating a lean improvement culture.
In “Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation Through Human Resource Management” Xingxing Zu
and Lawrence Fredendall investigate the role of three quality-based HRM practices—employee
involvement, training, and performance and recognition—in Six Sigma implementation.
I would also encourage readers to consider submitting papers to the special issues on healthcare
and supply chain management that we are trying to organize. Please see the announcements on pages 60
and 64 of this issue.
Enjoy the issue.
James R. Evans, Editor
james.evans@uc.edu

4 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ


Process Improvement:
Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
(pp. 7–26). Satya S. Chakravorty,
Kennesaw State University
Toyota uses A3 reports to drive
process improvement. The com-
pany created these reports as a tool
to identify problems, find solutions,
and report results of improvement
activities. The A3 report is an effec-
tive tool because it contains not only
text, but also pictures, diagrams,
and charts, all of which enrich and
clarify the data.
The author found no study,
however, that explained how to
implement the A3 report in manu-
facturing operations. Thus, the
purpose of this study is to show
how A3 reports are implemented in
a successful process improvement
project in aircraft maintenance
and repair operations. In doing so,
he shows a systematic approach,
improvement event, and the process
used to implement and document
the reports.
An improvement event is gener-
ally completed in four weeks and
has four distinct phases: 1) prepa-
ration and training; 2) process
mapping and analysis; 3) process
mapping and analysis of future state;
and 4) implementation and own-
ership transfer. The author notes
five implications of this process
improvement effort involving A3
reports. This research shows how to
Executive
Briefs
effectively guide a process improve-
ment effort using A3 reports to
reduce waste from the operations.
The Role of Front-Line
Ideas in Lean Performance
Improvement (pp. 27– 40).
Alan G. Robinson, University
of Massachusetts, and Dean M.
Schroeder, Valparaiso University
Over the years, many manufac-
turing and service organizations
have adopted lean principles in
hopes of improving performance.
Yet the majority of these compa-
nies have not been truly successful
at becoming lean. This can be
explained by the fact that many
leaders of companies that start
lean efforts lack a real understand-
ing of the principles involved and,
therefore, focus on short-term
application of isolated tools rather
than the deeper changes neces-
sary. This paper identifies a critical
component that is often missing
in underperforming initiatives —
the ability to get large numbers of
improvement ideas from front-line
employees .
The authors noticed that there
appeared to be a relationship
between the performance of a com-
pany’s idea system and the success
of its lean effort, as defined by its
rate of productivity improvement.
In several companies they stud-
ied, the lean initiatives resulted in
only limited productivity improve-
ment until management adopted
a high-performance idea system.
The authors decided to delve
more deeply into the cause of this
relationship.
The data used in this study
were derived from field research
in more than 300 organizations
in 25 countries. All were apply-
ing lean principles with employee
ideas as their primary con-
tinuous improvement tool. The
three strongest relationships the
authors’ data showed between
high-performing idea systems and
lean performance improvement
are that a high-performing idea
system: 1) creates a lean improve-
ment culture by engaging the work
force in daily improvement activity;
2) taps improvement opportunities
that are difficult for managers to
spot; and 3) promotes rapid orga-
nizational learning.
The authors’ work has identified
what they believe to be two barriers
for any company setting up a high-
performing idea system. First, most
managers have experience with only
the suggestion-box type of system,
which causes them to shy away from
any kind of initiatives to promote
front-line ideas. The second barrier
is that high-performing idea sys-
tems frequently require significant
and difficult changes in operating
practices.
www.asq.org 5
Briefs
E n h an c i n g S ix S i g ma
Implementation Through
Human Resource Management
(pp. 41–54). Xingxing Zu, Morgan
State University, and Lawrence D.
Fredendall, Clemson University
Many companies claim to have
achieved remarkable improvements
as a result of implementing Six
Sigma methodology. Not all orga-
nizations, however, have had the
same success. Organizations that
have implemented Six Sigma suc-
cessfully claim that the best way
to manage the change that results
from the implementation is through
issues related to human resource
management (HRM). This article
presents a study that investigates the
role of HRM practices on Six Sigma
implementation.
Prior research identified three HRM
practices—employee involvement,
6 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
employee training, and employee
performance and recognition—that
are important in forming a quality
culture and influencing the attitudes
of employees in favor of quality.
Three hypotheses were proposed
to determine if the traditional HRM
practices significantly affect the level
to which an organization applies Six
Sigma methods such as the struc-
tured improvement procedure and
performance metrics:
• Hypothesis 1: The three tradi-
tional quality-oriented HRM
practices have a positive direct
effect on the use of Six Sigma
methodology.
• Hypothesis 2: The Six Sigma role
structure has a positive direct
effect on the use of Six Sigma
methodology.
• Hypothesis 3: The Six Sigma role
structure has a positive direct
effect on the three traditional
quality-oriented HRM practices.
The data for the study were
drawn from a Web-based survey that
investigated the implementation
of quality management programs
in the U.S. manufacturing indus-
try. The study comprised 95 plants
that had implemented Six Sigma
as a formal quality management
method.
For the current study, the Six
Sigma and HRM constructs were
measured using a seven-point Likert
scale. Results of this study indicate
that the three HRM practices sig-
nificantly affect the use of Six Sigma
methodology. In addition, it was
found that Six Sigma role struc-
ture integrates with the traditional
quality-oriented HRM practices in
supporting the use of Six Sigma
methodology.
 Process Improvement:
Using Toyota’s
A3 Reports
Satya S. Chakravorty
Kennesaw State University
In order to drive process improvement, Toyota uses
A3 reports as a tool to identify and solve problems.
A3 reports are usually written on paper size 11 inches
by 17 inches and are enriched with visuals such
as pictures, diagrams, and charts to improve com-
munication. To date, the author has found no study
explaining how to implement A3 reports in manu-
facturing operations. The purpose of this exploratory
study is to show how A3 reports were implemented in
a successful process improvement project in aircraft
maintenance and repair operations. In doing so, he
shows a systematic approach, improvement event,
and the process used to implement and document
A3 reports. The duration of an improvement event
is generally four weeks and has four distinct phases:
1) preparation and training; 2) process mapping and
current state analysis; 3) process mapping and future
state analysis; and 4) implementation and ownership.
Important for both practitioners and academicians,
the author also discusses implications of A3 report
implementation and directions for future research.
Key words: lean, process improvement, Six Sigma,
theory of constraints
© 2009, ASQ
INTRODUCTION
In order to drive process improvement, Toyota created
A3 reports as a tool to identify problems, find solutions,
and report results of improvement activities (Sobek and
Jimmerson 2004). The A3 report got its name from the
paper size on which the report is printed. In its purest
form, A3 reports are printed on a single sheet of 11-inch
by 17-inch paper (Radeka 2005). The A3 report is an
effective tool because it contains not only text, but also
pictures, diagrams, and charts, all of which enrich and
clarify the data. The thought behind the A3 report is
to include all relevant information and to establish a
clear representation of the current problem, eliminat-
ing “waste” in the form of information that is not
absolutely pertinent to the problem at hand. The idea
is to streamline the report so it focuses only on the
problem and its solution, and nothing else. A3 reports
are adopted in operations (Sobek and Jimmerson 2006)
and promoted by the Shingo Prize for Operational
Excellence (Chakravorty, Atwater, and Herbert 2008a).
To date, the author has found no study explaining how
to implement A3 reports in manufacturing operations.
One purpose of this exploratory study is to show how
A3 reports were implemented to improve the perfor-
mance of aircraft maintenance and repair operations.
The author demonstrates a systematic approach to the
improvement event, and the implementing and doc-
umenting of A3 reports. Each improvement event is
conducted at a target shop by an experienced facilitator
with a team of workers or process owners from the shop.
An improvement event consists of a host of activities, is
generally completed in four weeks, and has four distinct
www.asq.org 7
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
phases: 1) preparation and training; 2) process map-
ping and analysis of current state; 3) process mapping
and analysis of future state; and 4) implementation and
ownership transfer. Important to both practitioners and
academicians, this article discusses three implications
of A3 report implementation and includes directions for
future research.
TOYOTA’S A3 REPORTS
According to Sobek and Jimmerson (2004), Toyota
has developed many kinds of A3 reports for different
applications. An example of an A3 report format is
included in Appendix 1. Other examples of completed
A3 reports can be found in Sobek and Smalley (2008),
Shook (2008), Jimmerson (2007), and Abilla (2007).
Typically, the report has left and right sections, and
each section has many headings.
On the left section, there are four headings. The first
heading is the “Theme,” which succinctly states the
problem(s) being addressed in one or two sentences.
The second heading is “Background,” which contains
a description of all pertinent information needed to
understand the scope of the problem at hand. The third
heading is “Current Condition,” which deals with devel-
oping an understanding of what is happening currently
using a value-stream map (Rother and Shook 1998).
The map should be enhanced by inserting quantita-
tive information (for example, takt time, setup times,
and so on), storm bursts, or notes at appropriate places
to develop a good understanding of all existing con-
ditions. These illustrations use words and pictures to
enhance readability and understand the problem. See
Tufte’s (1983) and Cleveland’s (1985) books for several
examples of illustrations. The fourth heading, “Cause
Analysis,” deals with determining the cause of the
current problem. Sobek and Jimmerson (2004) recom-
mend the “5 Why’s” method where participants ask the
“why” question five times to get to the bottom of the real
problem. There are, however, additional methods for
performing root-cause analysis (see Lepore and Cohen
1999; Womack and Jones 2003; and Keller 2005).
On the right section, there are three headings. The
first heading is the “Target Condition,” which consid-
ers possible improvement ideas that could rectify the
8 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
problem. In pursuit of operational excellence, Toyota
calls these improvement ideas “countermeasures” to
imply that a solution is currently being reached for a
specific problem only until a better solution is found
(Sobek and Jimmerson 2004). With the objective of
countermeasures, participants draw the target condi-
tion or future state. The future state diagram shows
how the modified or improved process will work when
countermeasures are in place. The second heading
is the “Implementation Plan,” which identifies the
steps that need to be completed in order to realize the
improvements outlined under the future state map.
The participants clearly write the changes necessary to
improve the process, define a priority for the changes,
establish a timeline to complete the changes, and
identify the results expected from the process improve-
ment steps. The third heading is “Follow-Up,” and it
involves activities that are not completed in the time
outlined. Follow-up activities also are necessary to docu-
ment problems or obstacles encountered during the
implementation so the future implementation can be
improved. In addition, results of the implementation are
also written, which outline what specific improvements
have been realized.
METHODOLOGY
Action research is a collaborative process of critical
inquiry that fosters the learning of theory and practice
(Argyris 1985). The author used action research to
document how to implement process improvement pro-
grams using Toyota’s A3 report. According to Kemmis
and McTaggart (2000), there are two reasons why
action research is appropriate for these objectives. First,
action research focuses on “… learning from trying
to bring about change….” (Kemmis and McTaggart
2000, 572), where the typical participants are shop-floor
employees, middle managers, and outside consul-
tants. In this case, there is very little known about how
to implement Toyota’s A3 reports, so the researcher,
as a participant, academic researcher, and process
improvement expert, was essential for this exploratory
investigation. Second, action research does not require
control over the behavioral elements. Instead, it relies
on reflection and participation of subjects to evaluate
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
phenomena rather than control and objectivity. As
participant-observer, the researcher was able to observe
how a host of activities were identified and coordinated
in implementing Toyota’s A3 reports.
The action research methodology that was
employed is based on Susman and Evered’s (1978)
seminal work on how to conduct rigorous scientific
action research, which is so highly regarded that it is
commonly referred to as “canonical action research”
(Davidson, Martinsons, and Kock 2004), or “action
science” (Kemmis and McTaggart 2000). Davidson
clearly articulates five stages of rigorous action research.
They are the principles of: 1) researcher-client agreement
(RCA); 2) cyclical process model (CPM); 3) theory;
4) change through action; and 5) learning through
reflection. Next, the author briefly discusses each stage
and shows how the study generally complemented, as
well as differed, with his recommendations.
The RCA articulates the relationship among stake-
holders in the study, and is a key to establishing the
internal validity of the research findings. Stakeholders
include the researcher, workers, managers, owners,
and all who will potentially benefit from the effort. The
researcher participated in the steering committee and
with shop-floor work groups. An acceptable RCA must
ensure the researcher’s access to all pertinent data and
personnel who can provide insight into the “cause and
effect” phenomenon observed during the study. The orga-
nization agreed to these conditions as long as proprietary
data were excluded from external review.
CPM is a procedure for systematically applying solu-
tions in an action research study (Davidson, Martinsons,
and Kock 2004). Susman and Evered (1978) describe
five stages for systematically applying solutions in action
research. In summary, they are: 1) diagnosis (identify-
ing the cause of a problem); 2) planning (identifying
prospective solutions and how best to apply them to a
problem); 3) intervention (actually applying the pro-
posed solution); 4) evaluation (analyzing outcome
data); and 5) reflection (the process of reviewing the
results of the effort).
The primary form of “diagnosis” in this study was
the reflection by the researchers on their own experi-
ences. They spent several hours brainstorming ideas
and reflecting on what had happened during the day’s
events with several participants—including a steer-
ing committee that was initially formed and chaired
by the vice president (VP) of operations. It would have
improved reliability to have the author’s findings evalu-
ated by an independent source; however, many of the
findings were considered proprietary by the organization
and were not available for review by others. This process
also satisfies the “reflection” stage of CPM. The ideas
and events that improved performance were noted, as
well as the researcher’s preliminary insights into why
they worked. This satisfied the “evaluation” stage of
the CPM. The events observed while coordinating dif-
ferent activities related to improvement projects were
compared with previous experiences of the researcher.
Discrepancies in proposed causes and sequencing of the
events were noted for further examination. Solutions to
problems in one stage of implementation were tried in
others. Each morning, based on consensus, the partici-
pants chose the problems and events to first attack that
satisfied the “planning” stage of the CPM. The planned
solutions were implemented during the first shift opera-
tions of the organization, and new events were noted.
During this period, the researcher focused solely on
assisting with the implementation efforts and docu-
menting the process. This satisfies the “intervention”
stage of CPM. This procedure occurred on an iterative
basis throughout the study.
The findings in this study are explained through
existing theories, and suggest how a theory or model
for implementation of process improvement should be
developed. The processes of action and the resulting
changes are indivisible, because both exist in successful
problem solving. According to Davidson, Martinsons,
and Kock (2004), if action does not bring about change,
then: 1) no problem truly existed; 2) the intervention
(action) was inappropriate; or 3) the problem could not
be solved because of practical obstacles. To strengthen
reliability in learning through reflection, the author’s
team had at least two judges evaluate the consistency
of their results (internal validity). In this study, the
researcher independently evaluated the information
from participants, and then resolved the discrepan-
cies through reflection and argument. The team then
presented its findings back to the VP of operations and
steering committee to evaluate the results.
www.asq.org 9
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
This 12-month study was conducted in aircraft
maintenance and repair operations with in-house
manufacturing capability located in the southern
United States. As suggested by Yin (2008), the team
used multiple sources of evidence such as documents,
archival records, interviews, participation, and direct
observation. Essential steps of these operations con-
sist of performing disassembly of aircraft, separating
nondefective parts from defective parts, replacing
defective parts with high-quality parts, and carrying
out assembly of the aircraft. The parts to replace the
defective parts were produced in the manufacturing
shops. The redesign effort was initiated to stay com-
petitive in the domestic and international markets. The
pressure from the VP of operations was to drastically
reduce turnaround time for aircraft maintenance and
repair operations while improving the quality of overall
maintenance and repair operations.
DESCRIPTION OF PROCESS
IMPROVEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Initial Initiative
Four major steps were necessary before implementation
of process improvement was carried out. First, the VP of
operations, along with divisional managers and branch
heads of functional areas, established a core team called
“Speed” to develop a strategic intent and to drive the
process improvement. The Speed team consisted of
managers and workers from the functional areas who
were experienced in process improvement, and outside
experts or researchers (the author) in process improve-
ment strategies. The core team also included trainees
from the functional areas. The RCA stipulated that:
1) the client was committed to improving mainte-
nance and repair operations, and was willing to provide
all pertinent data to the researcher; 2) the researcher
would document the application of process improve-
ment in a research log and provide findings to the VP of
operations and to the divisional managers as requested;
3) the researcher would provide training and participate
in improvement efforts in exchange for publishing
the results; and 4) all participants and the Speed team
10 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
would be available for at least two hours per day to
reflect and provide feedback to the researcher. The Speed
team was responsible for strategizing process improve-
ment with active participation from all functional areas,
implementing process improvement, and following up
on implementation results.
Second, the focus was to adopt an improvement tool
and an instrument to document and communicate the
implementation of process improvement ideas. Over
the years, the manufacturing operations had initiated
many process improvement tools such as Six Sigma
(Keller 2005; Pyzdek 2003), lean (Chakravorty and
Hales 2004; Womack and Jones 2003; Robinson 1990),
and theory of constraints principles (Chakravorty and
Atwater 2006; Goldratt and Cox 2004; Chakravorty
2000) (see Appendix 2). One problem with these initia-
tives was that they were fragmented and rarely worked
together to synergistically improve the performance of
various operations. One objective of this initiative was
to integrate all of these improvement strategies into one
core strategy that was simple to understand and to drive
operational excellence from the bottom up. While the
Speed team recognized the need for sophisticated tools
(for example, statistical process control), the general
census was that the majority of managers and workers
did not possess the needed skills to either fully under-
stand or to implement such tools. Implementation of
sophisticated tools was left to the discretion of indi-
vidual facilitators and to the specific needs of a given
situation. The Speed team worked diligently to develop
the contents of the training program, including illus-
trations, examples, and interactive simulation games
to provide training in the basics of process improve-
ment. Essentials of the training program included the
concept of waste, process or value-stream mapping,
and applying the problem-solving steps: identify the
problem, gather information, generate solutions, pri-
oritize solution, and implement solutions (similar to
Six Sigma’s approach of define, measure, analyze,
improve, and control). As an instrument to document
and communicate the progress of all process improve-
ment efforts, the Speed team decided to use a version of
Toyota’s A3 report as Speed A3 report (see Appendix 3).
This report was usually printed on one page of 11-inch
by 17-inch paper, but sometimes it was printed on two
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
pages of 11-inch by 8 ½-inch paper. To reinforce the
understanding of A3 reports among managers and
workers in the application of the report, the team devel-
oped examples of trial reports, and supervised a session
where the managers and workers applied the report to
eliminate waste from the process.
Third, the Speed team performed high-level pro-
cess mapping of maintenance and repair operations.
This was designed to understand the flow of parts and
information into the existing operations. Although
these operations involved complex and intertwined
flows, the Speed team determined that there are four
distinct stages. In stage 1, aircraft are scheduled for
maintenance. Once they physically arrive at the main-
tenance area, they are pulled into a hanger, and an
in-depth inspection is performed. In stage 2, they are
disassembled, and defective parts are separated from
nondefective parts. Some parts are replaced as man-
dated by the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) guidelines.
In stage 3, orders are released to produce component
parts in manufacturing operations consisting of 14
different shops. Once the parts are produced, they are
transported to the assembly area. In stage 4, final
assembly of the aircraft is performed, testing and
inspection is done, and, finally, the aircraft is sent out
for use.
Fourth, since the Speed team could not effectively
address all of the problems simultaneously, they strug-
gled to decide which ones to address first. The Speed
team documented many wasteful activities in different
departments, and segregated them using the frequency
of their occurrences. After several iterations, there was
agreement on the problems based on two possible
outcomes, either potential cost savings or revenue gen-
eration. When applicable, the potential cost savings were
computed in terms of reduction in defects, inventory,
returns, or temporary workers’ payroll, and so on. When
applicable, the revenue generation ideas were calculated
in terms of faster response time, increased throughput,
or better utilization of bottleneck operations. Combing
the two potential outcomes, the Speed team prioritized
process improvement projects based on those with the
strongest support from the workers and managers. The
Speed team then held a meeting with the VP of opera-
tions, divisional managers, branch heads, and outside
consultants for their input and approval. After delib-
erations, the Speed team developed the final priority
for 25 process improvement projects in various stages
of the entire maintenance and repair operations, and
immediately began application of A3 reports.
Application of Speed A3 Report
The Speed team developed an appropriate human
infrastructure to drive improvement from the bottom
up. The Speed team established low-level improve-
ment teams involving processes, and chose champions
to manage these teams. In addition to communicating
with the Speed team, the champions worked with the
low-level improvement teams on various improve-
ment events. These events involved coordinating a
host of activities to apply A3 reports. Each event was
orchestrated by an experienced facilitator along with
a couple of Speed team trainees. The trainees are
included so they can become future facilitators by
learning the latest process improvement strategies
and their deployment to improve actual operations.
The trainees also saved the facilitator’s valuable time
by providing assistance in gathering and organiz-
ing relevant data to accelerate implementation. It is
important to understand that no two events are alike,
and that each event had to be treated as a separate
entity. In general, each event took four weeks, and
each week involved different activities.
Phase 1: Preparation and
Training (First Week)
There were five major activities in this phase. First, once
the target shop was designated, the first objective was to
form a team to lead improvement efforts in the shop. The
team consisted of an experienced facilitator, Speed team
trainees, and workers from the shop. Generally, four to
nine shop workers were chosen, and each worker devoted
at least 20 hours per week for the first three weeks, and
40 hours per week for the fourth week. To get an idea of
the extent of possible improvements, the facilitator made
arrangements for workers to visit another shop where an
improvement event was previously conducted.
www.asq.org 11
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
Second, the team members spent time studying
the existing shop operations. They obtained the latest
shop layout drawings, identified shop boundaries, and
noted material flow through the shop. They walked
through the process, observed material flow, and noted
various machines and tools used throughout the process.
In doing so, they identified and “red tagged” old and
unused machines and/or tools for their removal from
the shop. The team collected preliminary data, which
included actual output, customer demand, on-time
percentages, start times, breaks, shifts, lunch times, and
similar information. The team also discussed target goals
and measurements (for example, travel time reduction,
work-in-process reduction, take time reduction, mistake
reduction, and so on), and documented all suggestions
for improvement coming from shop workers.
Third, after studying the shop operations, the team
deliberated on verbalizing a problem statement for the
shop. Typically, the first time a problem statement was
written, there was no clear agreement among workers.
While each worker was very familiar with his or her job,
he or she still lacked an understanding of flow through
the shop. The facilitator and the Speed trainees played
an important role, and used the Socratic approach
to seek the shop workers’ input in order to refine the
problem statement. After several iterations, patiently
considering the workers’ input and the Speed trainees’
suggestions, the facilitator wrote the actual problem
statement on the A3 report.
Fourth, a conference room close to the target shop
was secured in order for workers to meet frequently
and to openly discuss ways to improve the process. To
incorporate management’s suggestions, an invitation
to the kick-off meeting was sent to the VP of operations,
divisional managers, branch heads, managers, and shop
supervisors. In addition, a suggestion box was set up near
the shop to encourage the rest of the workers, especially
those who were not included in the team, to give their
input about the shop’s problems and their solutions for
improvement.
Fifth, process improvement training was provided
in the conference room. The training was delivered
by the facilitator in an interactive manner by using
presentation slides with audio and video enhance-
ments. To cover all aspects of process improvement
12 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
strategies, three training sessions for two hours each
(with a lunch break and other breaks) per day were
scheduled. At the end of each session, the workers were
given simulation games or Tinker Toy® games to apply
their process improvement strategies. Throughout the
training session, open discussions were encouraged, so
workers felt comfortable providing their input. Finally,
the team secured a digital camera to archive before
and after implementation pictures, and later used these
pictures to document the implementation.
Phase 2: Process Mapping
and Analysis of Current State
(Second Week)
There were three important activities during this
phase. First, with active participation from work-
ers, the facilitator orchestrated the development of a
current state map of the shop operations. They used
sticky notes to describe an operation (or machine),
and Sharpies® (permanent dry markers) to connect
each operation in order to highlight the flow through
the target shop. The team used sticky notes and
Sharpies® because they were simple to use. They tried
to use electronic display boards, but they encoun-
tered problems due to power or battery failure, and
lost many hours of work. Often, they used red sticky
notes to show non-value-added activities and green
sticky notes to show value-added activities. While
creating the process map, discussions among work-
ers, Speed trainees, and the facilitator were crucial for
the success of an improvement event. In all of these
improvement events, workers acknowledged they were
aware of wasteful activities (for example, wait time,
transportation, and defects) in their shop, but they
were not aware that these activities could occupy the
majority (for example, 80 percent) of their time.
Second, the team used both qualitative and quanti-
tative data to analyze the existing shop. Qualitative data
were gathered through independent surveys, interviews,
observations, and participation. In addition, they found
that casual discussions with workers and supervisors
during breaks and lunch hours were very effective in
gaining insights into the existing shop’s difficulties. In
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
fact, many times these discussions provided insights
into the type of quantitative data necessary to better
understand the existing conditions. These insights (or
qualitative data) provoked their interest in searching for
a type of quantitative data that they would otherwise not
have discovered.
Quantitative data were collected through a variety
of sources, including personal observations and mea-
surements. First, the team obtained layout drawings
of the existing shop and ascertained that there were
no major discrepancies between the drawing and the
physical layout of the shop. Second, they obtained as
much shop information as possible, which included
shop routing, down times, setup times, quality
reports, and efficiency reports. Third, they collected
data by observing and measuring cycle time, travel
time, square footage of each area, type of defects, and
similar data associated with the shop. It is important
to note that the facilitator needs to use experience
and judgment in collecting just enough data (opti-
mum amount) to perform a thorough analysis of the
existing conditions. They found that many facilitators
got bogged down in collecting an exhaustive set of
data, and then were left with insufficient time to per-
form an adequate analysis, which resulted in a poor
implementation.
Third, a thorough analysis was performed to find the
root cause of the problem. Qualitative techniques used to
perform analysis ranged from simple procedures such as
“5 Why’s” and fishbone charting to a current reality tree.
Similarly, quantitative techniques to perform analysis
ranged from simple procedures that included histograms
(content analysis), Pareto charts, and “t” tests, and
sophisticated procedures such as analysis of variance
(ANOVA), regression, and design of experiments (DOE).
In general, they found that simple procedures often
worked better than sophisticated procedures. Although
a majority of the workers did not have a college degree,
they easily understood simple procedures, and experi-
enced little or no trouble in applying such procedures
to perform current state analysis. In other words, the
team had to rely on simple procedures, rather than
sophisticated procedures, to drive process improvement
from the bottom up. Many times, however, the facilitator
augmented worker’s analysis with additional analysis
using sophisticated procedures. Once a thorough analysis
of the current state was complete, the facilitator filled the
appropriate section in the A3 report.
Phase 3: Process Mapping
and Analysis of Future State
(Third Week)
There are four activities involved in this phase. First,
with active participation from workers, the facilitator
orchestrated the development of a future state map of
the shop operations. Once again, the facilitator played
an important role, and using the Socratic Method,
guided the workers to improve the current state of the
shop operations. To start discussions, the facilitator
challenged non-value-added activities and asked sim-
ple questions like, “Do we need this step?” “How can
we eliminate this step?” or “Can we move this machine
here to reduce travel time?” Usually workers answered
these questions, and soon they started to actively par-
ticipate in providing suggestions for improving their
existing shop operations. The facilitator should exercise
utmost caution, however, and not hastily provide solu-
tions to the problems. It took a little longer, but the
workers eventually provided suggestions for improving
their shop’s problems, an absolute must for ownership
and “buy in” to occur. After several iterations, there
usually was an agreement among the workers on the
future state of the shop operations.
Second, once the future state of the shop operations
was decided, the facilitator and Speed team train-
ees developed a “to do” list, which included action
items, responsibilities, and deadlines to complete all
tasks. The facilitator went through the list diligently
and made sure that all supporting functions were
informed. For example, there were usually layout
changes involving moving machines and tools from
one location to the other. The facilitator coordinated
with plant operations to be sure that machine founda-
tion requirements, machine preparations, availability
of electricians, and, if necessary, that heavy machinery
movers, would be available.
Third, the facilitator held a meeting with the
entire shop to explain the forthcoming changes or
www.asq.org 13
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Table 1
Speed A3 Report Date 06/02/08

Target Shop: 3553

Facilitator: Satya Chakravorty
Speed Trainees: James Ivey, Lewis Carroll, Dave Davies, John Johnson, Kenneth John
Process Owners: John Copland (Supervisor) and Heat Treatment Artisans

1. Problem Statement
The heat treatment is designed to deliver treated parts to the foundry components and the manufacturing components. Parts processed
through heat treatment are frequently delayed, which in turn negatively impact the performance of the manufacturing components.

2. Current State Analysis

Process map of the existing conditions reveal that only about 25 percent of activities are adding value. Many activities are
performed manually.

Non-value-added activities Value-added activities

Artisan from another Verify Create heat treat Transport to Treat part with
area carries part paperwork requisition oven / solution solution and
to heat treat (1 min) document (5 min) (20 min) remove (8 min)

Non-value-added activities Value-added activities Value-added activities

Value-added = 24.64%
Put in freezer (9 min) Stamp off Non-value-added = 75.36%
Transport to Rinse
Note: Part sets in freezer until artisan paperwork, 1st heat
glyco-solution chemical
retrieves it for re-form / re-shaping treat completion
(20 min) (1 min)
and sets it on the incoming table for (5 min)
2nd heat treat process

Turn Around Time—Before Heat Treat Area

90 Interview and a walk-through with Hubert Suggs
80
70
60 Artisans bring the work with the paperwork to the heat treat area. Parts
50
Hours

going to the oven then SW (solution wash to make material soft) after SW
40
30 goes to clear water to wash off the chemical. After SW and water go back
Part 3456
20 Part 3407 to where they came from to be reform/straighten, then go back to heat
10
0 Part 4006 treat to be aging (check AMS standard American Metal Society) then go to
1 2 3 4 standard machine, if meet the standard then for sale. 2-3 times heat treat.
Quarters Heat, average temperature 925 degree for 30 minutes, after the oven to
solution 100 degree for 8 seconds (glycol solution) then go into the water
(wash off the chemical) go into the freezer –60 degree, stay in the freezer
until they need it. (Aging) test machine.

Quincy oven / furnace (underground unit), can only process 1 job at a time,
utilized 3-4 times a year. This furnace primarily processes 5' exhaust duct.
New furnace (walk-in furnace has 4235 generated) can do multiple jobs
(Waltz)
Need better working tools for efficient job.

Clean up the area-5S plus 1 event

Better equipment to work with
Better tools to work with
Only have
Better test equipment for accuracy (certain parts require stress test accuracy.
Every two weeks 30 parts small parts) save time.
©2009, ASQ

Recommend walk-in-freezer
Recommend a replacement “Quincy” oven/furnace that is above ground
and can handle multi-job requirements

14 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ

 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Table 1 (continued)
3. Future State Analysis
After implementation, value-added activities will increase to about 60 percent. There are additional opportunities for buying new
machines to speed up the treatment process.

Non-value-added activities Value-added activities

Artisan from another Verify Create heat treat Treat part with
area carries part paperwork requisition solution and
to heat treat (1 min) document (5 min) remove (8 min) Many activities before
and after treatment
could be automated.
Non-value-added activities Value-added activities Value-added activities
Two software packages
have been contacted.
Put in freezer (9 min) Stamp off
Rinse
Note: Part sets in freezer until artisan paperwork, 1st heat
chemical
retrieves it for re-form / re-shaping treat completion
(1 min)
and sets it on the incoming table for (5 min)
2nd heat treat process

Heat treatment engineer

informed that newer models
of this process could cut down
processing by 50%.

4. Implementation
Implementation was generally smooth. Oven-solution and glyco-solution baths were moved closer to the heat treatment area.
Follow-up visits revealed that new equipment was not purchased. The shop now has a new supervisor. After four weeks, results
showed the performance of the shop improved and results are included here.

Value Analysis: After Turn Around Data—After

45
40
35
30
25
Hours

20
Value Add 15 Part 3456
Non-Value Added 10 Part 3407
5
0 Part 4006
1 2 3 4
Weeks ©2009, ASQ

The turnaround time performance also improved. The shop supervisor indicated that turnaround time for many other parts have
gone down. That area has not received any complaints about treated parts from manufacturing components. Automation of order
processing is under way. IT department is evaluating two software vendors.

improvement initiatives. At this time, the team mem-
bers shared the details of changes with rest of the
workers. Many workers provided additional sugges-
tions for improvement in the future state map, and
the facilitator incorporated those suggestions to refine
the future state map of the shop operations.
In the fourth and final stage, the facilitator started
to impart all of the upcoming changes to the shop
operations. The facilitator compared the current state
map with the future state map to estimate reduction
in all non-value-added activities. For example, a 40
percent reduction in travel time, an 80 percent reduc-
tion in transportation, and a 20 percent reduction
in wasteful activities in the shop. Once all of these
estimates were complete, the facilitator completed the
appropriate section in the A3 report and made a final
check before all the changes were implemented the
following week.

www.asq.org 15
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
Phase 4: Implementation
and Ownership Transfer
(Fourth Week)
There were two major steps taken during this phase.
First, the facilitator orchestrated actual imple-
mentation in the target shop. Good planning and
participation of the workers in the previous stages
facilitated a smooth transition to all of the changes
in the shop. Since this phase involved all aspects of
a shop (machines and tools, method, materials, and
personnel), there were often last-minutes glitches. The
facilitator provided assistance in coordinating these
activities to make the implementation a success. The
workers followed through with the changes, discussed
the benefits of the changes openly, and began to oper-
ate under the changed conditions. As the changes
were introduced, the performance of the shop did not
immediately improve, even in the next week. In fact,
the performance of the shop deteriorated as workers
were transitioning into new ways of operating. There
was chaos and confusion in many areas of shop oper-
ations. In a couple of weeks, however, as the workers
became accustomed to operating in the new way, their
individual performance improved and, eventually,
the target shop’s performance improved. At the end
of this week, the facilitator took pictures of the shop
to document “after” implementation conditions, and
assisted the workers in preparing for the presentation,
which included all the changes. The presentation was
done by the shop workers for the VP of operations,
divisional managers, branch heads, managers, and
shop supervisors.
Second, once the implementation was complete,
a follow up was necessary. The facilitator visited the
target shop to learn from the improvement event. The
facilitator documented specific methods that worked,
specific methods that did not work, and determined
how to modify the future process improvement event.
It is important to note, however, that many times all
activities could not be completed, despite the team’s
best efforts. The facilitator diligently documented
all unfinished activities and developed a follow-up
list of activities, specifying action items, individual
16 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
responsibilities, and a timeline to complete those
activities. The facilitator followed up and made sure
that all unfinished activities were completed on time.
As the last activity of an improvement event, four to
six weeks following the implementation, the facilita-
tor completed the appropriate sections of the Speed A3
report. Examples of three implementation reports are
provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PROCESS
IMPROVEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
There are five implications of this process improve-
ment effort involving A3 report implementation. First,
the team encountered many problems in developing
A3 reports. Initially, the facilitator along with many
participants who were involved in the actual process
improvement wrote parts of A3 reports. There was pro-
pensity among the participants to fill every space on
A3 reports with descriptions, pictures, and diagrams.
Often times, the handwriting of many participants
was barely legible. In addition, many A3 reports got
soiled with manufacturing oil or grease as participants
wrote on them. These initial attempts cluttered many
A3 reports and created confusion among participants,
facilitators, and process owners. In fact, many of the
initial reports had to be either completely rewritten, or
additional pages of explanation had to be attached.
Later, as they gained experience, instead of filling out
the entire A3 report, only the most important descrip-
tions and pictures or diagrams were included. Typically
the facilitator or another participant with satisfactory
handwriting completed the A3 report. There was no
readily available solution to protect the A3 reports from
manufacturing oil or grease. More research is necessary
to determine the feasibility of developing a software
system to create A3 reports. Once the required infor-
mation is provided, such a system should be able to
generate a digital version of A3 reports.
Second, A3 reports implementation was successful
because the team developed an appropriate human
infrastructure to drive improvement from the bot-
tom up. The approach was to establish low-level
improvement teams along product flows and choose
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Table 2
Speed A3 Report Date 07/01/08

Target Shop: 3675

Facilitator: Satya Chakravorty
Speed Trainees: Jeff Anderson, Nick Johnston, and Mike Rogers
Process Owners: Jim Grant (Supervisor) and Manufacturing Component Artisans

1. Problem Statement
The manufacturing component produces parts needed for the assembly process of maintenance and repair operations. The workers
suspected that there were too many jobs in work-in-process causing long lead-times, and the bottleneck resource was poorly utilized
(and working on wrong jobs).

2. Current State Analysis

Process mapping revealed that “form material” (Farquar) machine was the bottleneck. This implies that this machine will dictate
the output of the line.
Layout changes were difficult in this shop.

Obtain work order Review WK pkg. Travel to Verify & match metal
from PC area & pull sheet metal room with pull sheet Bottleneck time = 45 min
(2 min) (5 min) (5 min) (10 min) Output (8 hours) = 10 jobs

Is template in Yes Template in pkg. travel Scribe Travel to Trim material

pkg. or need to to workbench template bard saw to template
obtain? (2 min) (10 min) (1 min) (7 min)

No
Obtain template
from rack
(2 min)

Debur Is form Yes Transport to QA Transport to

Form material
material required? workbench heat treatment
(Farquar: 45 min)
(3 min) (2 Min) (2 min)
No
Transport to
Is part good Good
brake shop
(1 min) or defective?
The analysis confirms that
Bad too many jobs were in the
Defective part is scrapped and process process and bottleneck is
re-starts at travel to metal room. not properly utilized.

Work in Process—Before Bottleneck Utilization—Before

80 60%
70 50%
60
50 40%
40 30%
30
20 20%
©2009, ASQ

10 10%
0 No. of Jobs
1st Wk 2nd Wk 3rd Wk 4th Wk 0%
Setup Breakdowns Utilization

www.asq.org 17
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Table 2 (continued)
3. Future State Analysis
A drum buffer rope (DBR) solution was developed. First, drum was developed for the bottleneck machine. Second, buffer size
was developed to protect the drum. Third, rope was tied to properly release jobs into manufacturing component area.

Obtain work order Review WK pkg. Travel to Verify & match metal
from PC area & pull sheet metal room with pull sheet
(2 min) (5 min) (5 min) (10 min)

Is template in Yes Template in pkg. travel Scribe Travel to Trim material

pkg. or need to to workbench template bard saw to template
obtain? (2 min) (10 min) (1 min) (7 min)

No
Obtain template
from rack
(2 min)

Debur Is form Yes Transport to QA Transport to

Form Material
material required? workbench heat treatment
(3 min) Buffer Drum
(Farquar: 45 min)
(2 Min) (2 min)
No
Transport to
Is part good Good
brake shop
(1 min) Rope or defective?

Bad
Defective part is scrapped and process
re-starts at travel to metal room.

4. Implementation
Development of the initial drum schedule and rules to improve the efficiency of the bottleneck was difficult. The bottleneck had
some maintenance issues, which were studied by the maintenance department. The number of jobs in the system decreased and
bottleneck utilization improved.

Work in Process—After Bottleneck Utilization—After

14 70%
12 60%
10 50%
8 40%
6 30%
4 20%
2 10%
0 No. of Jobs
1st Wk 2nd Wk 3rd Wk 4th Wk 0%
Setup Breakdowns Utilization
©2009, ASQ

Four weeks after the implementation, bottleneck performance had increased. The shop supervisor confirmed that parts lead-time
decreased. The supervisor also knew that many steps of the operation were manually done and that there was an opportunity
for automation.

18 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ

 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Table 3
Speed A3 Report Date 09/01/08

Target Shop: 4095

Facilitator: Satya Chakravorty
Speed Trainees: Maggie Davis, John Anderson, and Ivey James
Process Owners: Kevin Rice (Supervisor) and Tubing Area Artisans

1. Problem Statement
The problem in the tubing area was that there was high variability in processing time through the area. The artisans pointed out
that the problem was around one machine “process tube.”

2. Current State Analysis

After interviewing workers and completing the process map, the improvement team observed variation in processing time for
“process tube” operation. The facilitator suggested a statistical process control chart to pinpoint the problem and applied Six
Sigma’s DMAIC method.

Obtain work Verify print Travel to Retrieve conversion code from

order from box matches P/N on computer computer or cabinet for tubing
by aisle way work document or cabinet machine setup sequence
Samples were obtained
(1 min) (2 min) (5 min) (1 min)
from this machine

Cut tube to Clean tube in Stamp off

Debur tubing Process tube
length varsol tank paper work
(2 min) (20 min)
(3 min) (5 min) (1 min)

Travel to clock station Deliver completed 3R

UCL = X +
and clock-off work tubing to PC d2 n
(1 min) (1 min)
3R
LCL = X −
d2 n
n = Sample size
X = Average of mean of each sample
R = Range of each sample (largest-smallest)
R = Average of all sample’s range

Tubing Area
Interview and walk-through simulation with 50.00
Change of raw material/new vendor
Wesley King 45.00
40.00
Processing Time

93553 Tubing Area 35.00 UCL

This shop has 4 people on 1st shift and 1 30.00
“Loaner” from H-53 AC line. 25.00 X
1/4" to 3/4' tubing has 30 minute setup 20.00
15.00 LCL
2" plus tubing machine has 8 hr. set up 10.00
Concerns and Recommendations 5.00
a. Have “conversion code”computer and 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
tubing “machine” computer communicate Days
together. Once conversion code is retrieved
at front desk it would automatically
download conversion to tubing machine.
This would eliminate duplicate effort of
©2009, ASQ

work. Three new machines, if possible,

have capabilities that computer can talk to
the machine. (Conversion not accurate.)

www.asq.org 19
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Table 3 (continued)
b. Machines are set too close together, need more room.
c. Pines mfg. tube bender (new machine) was ordered without additional tooling support, agreed by upper management to
share tooling support from “old” tube bender and new tube bender. With new additional tooling, could produce double the
work. Some of the “old” tooling support will not work with new setup.
d. Needs more room, people, air conditioner, workbench and no tools for the particular machine, tube bender. (PIN NC25
Green)

3. Future State Analysis

The variation in shop performance was due to several vendors supplying same raw materials with slightly different specifications
to the shop. The raw materials were delivered to the shop where there was no inspection or quality check of the incoming raw
materials. Using operators’ input, inspection strategy (for example, number of times in a day, what to check, and how to check)
and a vendor scorecard (for example, quality and delivery) were developed. The purpose was to choose one main and one
back-up vendor, based on high performance as evidenced by vendor scorecards.

Obtain work Verify print Travel to Retrieve conversion code from

order from box matches P/N on computer computer or cabinet for tubing
by aisle way work document or cabinet machine setup sequence
(1 min) (2 min) (5 min) (1 min)

Incoming material
(1) Inspection
(2) Vendor scorecard Cut tube to Clean tube in Stamp off
Debur tubing Process tube
length varsol tank paper work
(2 min) (20 min)
(3 min) (5 min) (1 min)

Travel to clock station Deliver completed

and clock-off work tubing to PC
(1 min) (1 min)

4. Implementation
Vendor scorecards were implemented, and one vendor was chosen. This vendor supplied material to the shop, and after about
four weeks, shop performance stabilized. (A back-up plan was in place until success with the single vendor was confirmed.)

30.00 UCL
25.00
X
Processing Time

20.00
LCL
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Days
©2009, ASQ

Five weeks after the implementation, the shop performance continued to be stable. The purchasing department wanted to
implement statistical process control and vendor scorecards for all of their vendors.

champions to manage the teams. In addition to com- literature. For example, according to Liker (2004),
municating with the Speed team, champions worked low-level improvement teams and champions are
with the improvement teams on various improve- essential to drive improvement projects from the
ment projects. This approach is well supported in the bottom up. According to McManus (2007, 20):

20 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ

 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
“Every organization should have a process
improvement team approach in place that
engages a high percentage of the work force.
Such an approach is mandatory for sustained
progress toward process excellence…. If you
want to sustain your improvement efforts over
time…give a training [to the improvement
teams], and turn teams loose.”
The human side of the improvement initiative is crit-
ical for successful improvement implementations. While
implementing improvement programs, Vavra (2008)
found that human (or organization) culture issues dom-
inate when compared with tools (or technology) issues.
According to Chakravorty and Dulaney (2010), effective
management of human aspects is critical for improve-
ment initiatives. Chakravorty (2009) points out that
companies need to pay attention to the human side of
improvement initiatives. Often times, more importance
is given to intricate details of improvement tools and not
to how humans adapt to such improvement tools. Future
research should focus on identifying human aspects
(for example, team composition, communications, and
incentives) of A3 reports to facilitate implementation in
their business environment.
Third, in order to implement A3 reports, the team
experienced substantial difficulty in identifying and pri-
oritizing improvement projects aligned to overall process
improvement objectives. To prioritize these improvement
projects, they used cost reduction and revenue genera-
tion (or throughput based) potential, along with input
from workers and management. It is important to learn
more about how to identify improvement projects, and
how to prioritize them. One reason many improvement
programs fail is because improvement projects are not
correctly identified and prioritized (Zimmerman and
Weiss 2005). Over the years, many researchers have
worked on prioritizing improvement projects by mixing
tools such as Six Sigma, lean, or theory of constraints.
For example, Draman and Chakravorty (2000) and
Chakravorty and Atwater (1998) showed how to pri-
oritize quality improvement projects using theory of
constraints. Chakravorty (1996) and Chakravorty and
Sessum (1995) showed how to blend lean improvement
projects using theory of constraints. More research is
necessary on how to mix these tools to correctly identify
and prioritize improvement projects to align them with
the overall process improvement objectives to achieve a
sustained competitive advantage in the ever-changing
global market.
Fourth, the A3 report is an improvement tool, and
various implementation activities need to be coordi-
nated for its successful adoption. The author believes
this A3 report implementation was a success because
various implementation activities (for example, stra-
tegic intent, core improvement team, and so on) were
properly coordinated. Many process improvement
programs fail not because improvement tools are inad-
equate; they fail because implementation activities
related to such programs are not properly coordinated
(for example, Chakravorty 2009). Unfortunately, a
lot of academic research tends to focus on uncovering
intricate, many times unnecessary details of improve-
ment tools (for example, Schroeder et al. 2008), rather
than on how to coordinate activities to implement such
tools. In the real world, the author believes that practic-
ing managers do understand the definition of process
improvement tools. They simply lack an understanding
of different activities critical to implementation, and
how to coordinate those activities in a systematic man-
ner. Research in developing an implementation model
for coordinating various activities related to A3 reports
is an important area for future research.
Fifth, A3 reports are promoted as improvement tools
primarily for lean (for example, Sobek and Smalley
2008; Shook 2008; Jimmerson 2007). Likewise, different
improvement tools are endorsed by Six Sigma or theory
of constraints. Consistent with the team’s implementation
experience, it is not surprising that there is a good bit of
confusion among managers attempting to select specific
improvement tools for their business environment. The
problem is that managers waste their time in adopting
the newest improvement tool and using consultants, and
spend very little time in driving process improvement from
the bottom. Hayes et al. (2004) argue that improvement
tools fail to show a significant increase in performance
because, prior to implementing them, most companies
do not develop deep problem-solving capabilities in their
employees. They refer to the development of these capa-
bilities as “learning by doing.” As the name implies,
www.asq.org 21
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
managers and workers must practice the art and science
of problem solving to use it effectively. Further, they write
“…you are not likely to be able to make substantial
progress through analysis and detailed improvement pro-
grams, no matter how many consultants you hire…”
This research shows that deep problem-solving capability
could be developed using A3 reports. In doing so, A3 reports
could be used to implement lean, Six Sigma, or theory
of constraints. Additional insights are available on deep
problem-solving capability in various real-world settings
(for example, Chakravorty, Hales, and Herbert 2008b;
Chakravorty and Hales 2008; Chakravorty and Franza
2009). More research on A3 implementation is necessary
in different business environments to enhance the team’s
experience from this implementation. This research will be
greatly helpful for practicing managers wanting to effec-
tively implement improvement programs using A3 reports.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the author described how Toyota’s A3
reports were implemented at a facility in the southern
United States to improve aircraft maintain and repair. He
provided a systematic approach, improvement event, and
a process to implement and document A3 reports. Each
improvement event was conducted at a target shop by an
experienced facilitator with a team of workers from the
shop. An improvement event consists of a host of activi-
ties, and they are generally completed in four weeks and
consist of four distinct phases: 1) preparation and train-
ing; 2) process mapping and analysis of current state;
3) process mapping and analysis of future state; and
4) implementation and ownership transfer. Important
for both practitioners and academicians, the author
provided five implications of the process implementation
experience with directions for future research.
This research shows how to effectively guide process
improvement effort using A3 reports to reduce waste
from the operations. This is particularly important
because today’s hard economic times demand that
companies reduce waste to stay in business, retain
employees, and nurture customers. There is increasing
pressure to pursue new and innovative ways of thinking
as a source of competitive advantage. More research
in this area is necessary to contribute to the science
22 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
and practice of implementation of A3 reports to reduce
waste and create value.
REFERENCES
Abilla, P. 2007. Toyota A3 Report, March. http://www.shmula.
com/363/the-toyota-a3-report
Argyris, C. 1985. Action science: Concepts, methods, and
skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 136-148.
Chakravorty, S. S., and R. E. Dulaney. 2010. ERP systems: An
implementation experience. International Journal of Business
Excellence, in press.
Chakravorty, S. S. 2009. Six Sigma programs: An implementa-
tion model. International Journal of Production Economics 119,
no. 1:1-16.
Chakravorty, S. S., and R. M. Franza. 2009. Implementation
of design for Six Sigma (DFSS): A development experience.
International Journal of Product Development 9, no. 4:329-342.
Chakravorty, S. S., and D. N. Hales. 2008. The evolution of
manufacturing cells: An action research study. European Journal
of Operational Research 188:153-168.
Chakravorty, S. S., J. B. Atwater, and J. I. Herbert. 2008a. The
Shingo Prize for operational excellence: Rewarding world-class
practices. International Journal of Business Excellence 1, no.
4:418-433.
Chakravorty, S. S., D. N. Hales, and J. I. Herbert. 2008b. How
problem solving really works. International Journal of Data
Analysis Techniques and Strategies 1, no. 1:44-59.
Chakravorty, S. S., and J. B. Atwater. 2006. Bottleneck manage-
ment: Theory and practice. Production Planning & Control 17, no.
5:441-447.
Chakravorty, S. S., and D. N. Hales. 2004. Implications of cell
design implementation: A case study and analysis. European
Journal of Operational Research 152, no. 3:602-614.
Chakravorty, S. S. 2000. Improving a v-plant operation: A
window manufacturing case study. Production and Inventory
Management Journal (Third Quarter):37-42.
Chakravorty, S. S., and J. B. Atwater. 1998. Implementing qual-
ity improvement programs using the focusing steps of the theory
of constraints. International Journal of Technology Management
16(4/5/6):544-555.
Chakravorty, S. S. 1996. Robert Bowden Inc.: A case study
of cellular manufacturing and drum-buffer-rope implementa-
tion. Production and Inventory Management Journal (Third
Quarter):15-19.
Chakravorty, S. S., and J. L. Sessum. 1995. Developing effective
strategies to prioritize setup reduction in multi-machine produc-
tion system. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 15, no. 10:103-11.
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports
Cleveland, W. 1985. The elements of graphing data. Monterrey,
Calif.: Wadsworth, Inc.
Draman, R. H., and S. S. Chakravorty. 2000. An evaluation
of quality improvement project selection alternatives. Quality
Management Journal 7, no. 1:58-73.
Davidson, R., M. Martinsons, and N. Kock. 2004. Principles of
canonical action research. Information Systems Journal 14, no.
1:65-86.
Hayes, R. H., G. P. Pisano, D. M. Upton, and S. C. Wheelwright.
2004. Operations, strategy, and technology: Pursuing the com-
petitive edge. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Goldratt, E. M., and J. Cox. 2004. The goal. Great Barrington,
Mass.: North River Press.
Jimmerson, C. 2007. A3 problem solving for healthcare: A prac-
tical method of eliminating waste. New York: Productivity Press.
Jimmerson, C. 2004. Unique features of the A3 problem solving
method: A breath of fresh air for ailing healthcare. Lean Health
Care West. http://leanhealthcarewest.com/
Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart. 2000. Participatory action
research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, second edition,
eds. N. K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lincoln, 567-606. California: Sage
Publications.
Keller, P. 2005. Six Sigma: Demystified. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lepore, D., and O. Cohen. 1999. Deming and Goldratt: The the-
ory of constraints and the system of profound knowledge. Great
Barrington, Mass.: North River Press.
Liker, J. K. 2004. The Toyota way: 14 Management principles
from the world’s greatest manufacturer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McManus, K.. 2007. The trouble with teams. Industrial Engineer
39, no. 10:20.
Pyzdek, T. 2003. The Six Sigma handbook: A complete guide for
green belts, black belts, and managers at all levels. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Robinson, A. 1990. Modern approaches to manufacturing
improvement. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Radeka, K. 2005. Anatomy of A3 Report: Focusing knowl-
edge for better decision-making. Camas, Wash.: Whittier
Consulting Group, Inc. http://www.whittierconsulting.com/pdf/
anatomy_of_a3.pdf
Rother, M., and J. Shook. 1998. Learning to see. Brookline,
Mass.: The Lean Enterprise Institute, Inc.
Schroeder, R. G., K. Linderman, C. Liedtke, and A. S. Choo.
2008. Six Sigma: Definition and underlying theory. Journal of
Operations Management 26, no. 4:536-554.
Shook, J. 2008. Managing to learn: Using the A3 management
process to solve Problems, gain agreement, mentor, and lead.
Cambridge, Mass.: The Lean Enterprise Institute, Inc.
Sobek II, D. K., and A. Smalley. 2008. Understanding A3 think-
ing: A critical component of Toyota’s PDCA management system.
New York: Productivity Press.
Sobek II, D. K, and C. Jimmerson. 2006. A3 reports: Tool for
organization transformation. In Proceedings of the Industrial
Engineering Research Conference, Orlando, Fla.
Sobek II, D. K., and C. Jimmerson. 2004. A3 Reports: A tool
for process improvement and organizational transformation. In
Proceedings of the Industrial Engineering Research Conference,
Houston, Texas.
Susman, G., and R. Evered. 1978. An assessment of the scien-
tific merits of action research. Administrative Sciences Quarterly
23:582-603.
Tufte, E. R. 1983. The visual display of quantitative information.
Cheshire, Conn.: Graphics Press.
Vavra, B. 2008. Which way do you lean. Plan Engineering
(March):31-36.
Womack, J. P., and D. T. Jones. 2003. Lean thinking. New York:
Free Press.
Yin, R. K. 2008. Case study research: Design and methods.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Zimmerman, J. P., and J. Weiss. 2005. Six Sigma’s seven sins.
Quality 44, no. 1:62-66.
BIOGRAPHY
Satya S. Chakravorty is Caraustar professor of operations man-
agement and professor at Michael J. Coles School of Business
at Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA. He received his
doctorate in production and operations management from the
University of Georgia. He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees
in engineering and sciences from BITS, Pilani (India). He is
a Certified Fellow of Production and Inventory Management
(CFPIM), and a certified academic associate (JONAH) from
Goldratt Institute. He has training in lean manufacturing and has
Six Sigma Black Belt training experience. He has also worked as
an examiner for the Shingo Prize for Operational Excellence.
Chakravorty has worked as a senior advisor for BearingPoint
and Deloitte Consulting companies. His expertise is in develop-
ing, training, and implementing process improvement (lean, Six
Sigma, and theory of constraints) programs in large organiza-
tions such as the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Shaw Industries,
Lockheed Martin, Heinz, Delta Engine Repair, Beech-Nut, 3M
Corporation, AT&T, Harlequin, Beechnut, DariGold, and Los
Angeles Times. Many of his implementation experiences can be
found in journals such as Operations Management Research;
International Journal of Production Economics; European
Journal of Industrial Engineering; Production and Operations
Management; European Journal of Operational Research;
Production and Inventory Management Journal; Industrial
Management; and Quality Management Journal. Chakravorty
can be reached at satya_chakravorty@kennesaw.edu.
www.asq.org 23
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Appendix 1
A3 Report
To: ___________________
THEME: “What are we trying to do?”
By: ___________________
Date: _________________

Background Target Condition

• Background of the problem • Diagram of proposed new process

• Context required for full understanding • Countermeasures noted as fluffy clouds
• Importance of the problem • Measurable targets (quantity, time)

Implementation Plan
Current Condition
What? Who? When? Where?
• Diagram of current situation (or process)
• Highlight problem(s) with storm bursts
Actions to Responsible Times,
• What about the system is not IDEAL
be taken person dates
• Extent of the problem(s), i.e., measures

Cost:

Cause Analysis Follow-Up

• List problem(s) Plan Actual Results
• Most likely direct (or root) cause • How will you • In red ink/pencil
Why?
Why? check the effects • Date check done
Why?
Why? • When will you • Results, compare
Why?
check them? to predicted

Downloaded from Web site: http://www.coe.montana.edu/IE/faculty/sobek/A3/report.pdf

24 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ

 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Appendix 2
Process Improvement Training Program
• Six Sigma simply means a measure of quality that strives for near perfection. Six Sigma is a disciplined,
data-driven approach and methodology for eliminating defects (driving toward six standard deviations between
the mean and the nearest specification limit) in any process from manufacturing to service operations and from
product to service. Six Sigma tools include:
o Process identification and mapping
o DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve, and control) methodology
o Statistical process control
o Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
o Multiple regression
o Taguchi’s experimental design

• Lean operations principles categorize activities into value-added and non-value-added activities. The focus of these
principles is on eliminating all forms of non-value-added activities. There are seven forms of non-value-added (or
waste): waste of over production, waste of inventory, waste of defects, waste of motion, waste of processing, waste of
waiting, and waste of transportation. Lean operations tools include:
o Value-stream mapping
o Lean events
o SMED (a.k.a quick changeover)
o Manufacturing cell design
o Poka-yoke (a.k.a. mistake proofing)
o 5S Plus One (sort, straighten, shine, standardize, sustain, and safety)

• Theory of constraints (TOC) challenges the belief of functional independence with the view of an organization
as a chain of dependent activities. According to TOC, every organization has a constraint or bottleneck, and the
existence of a bottleneck provides an opportunity for process improvement priority. In addition, TOC provides a
set of measures that link local actions to the measures of organization-wide measures. TOC tools include:
o Bottleneck analysis
o Drum buffer rope
o Buffer management
o Buffer sizes and locations
o Throughput maximization
o VAT operations analysis

1) Keller (2005)
2) Womack and Jones (2003)
3) Goldratt and Cox (2004)

www.asq.org 25
 Process Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3 Reports

Appendix 3
Speed A3 Report Date _____________

Target Shop
Facilitator ______________________
Speed Trainees _________________
Process Owners _________________

1. Problem Statement
This section delineates problems associated with the target shop.

2. Current State Analysis

This section documents data collection and analysis to understand the current conditions.

3. Future State Analysis

This section summarizes the future conditions after improvements are introduced.

4. Implementation
This section highlights implementation, shows results, and provides follow-up activities.

Adapted from Toyota’s A3 Report and printed on one page of 11-inch by 17-inch (A3) paper or two pages of 11-inch by 8.5-inch paper.

26 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ

 The Role of Front-Line
Ideas in Lean Performance
Improvement
Alan G. Robinson, University of Massachusetts
Dean M. Schroeder, Valparaiso University
Companies are increasingly embracing lean produc-
tion techniques in their efforts to improve performance.
Yet the majority of these companies fail to tap the full
potential of “going lean.” By comparing a sample
of successful lean initiatives with less successful ones
(as defined by the rate of ongoing productivity improve-
ment), this paper identifies a critical component that
often is missing in underperforming initiatives—the
ability to get large numbers of improvement ideas from
front-line employees.
High-performing idea systems — which the authors
define as those that implement 12 or more ideas per
employee per year—were found to be a major factor
in successful lean initiatives, for three reasons. First,
they created a “lean culture” of daily improvement.
Second, they addressed improvement opportunities
that were difficult for managers to spot. Third, they
promoted rapid organizational learning.
In addition to demonstrating the importance of
high-performing idea systems for lean, this research
provides insight into why such systems are relatively
rare: 1) the predominance of the suggestion-box
paradigm; and 2) they frequently require significant
and difficult changes in operating practices.
Key words: idea system, lean, organizational learning,
suggestion system
© 2009, ASQ
INTRODUCTION
Over the last three decades, an increasing number
of manufacturing and service organizations have
embraced lean principles as a way to improve perfor-
mance (Chase and Stewart 1994; Schonberger 2007;
Swank 2003; Womack and Jones 2005). But more
recently, a number of experts have noted that other
than Toyota, few companies have been truly suc-
cessful at becoming lean (Womack and Jones 1996;
Liker 2004; Liker and Hoseus 2007; Spear and Bowen
1999). The consensus explanation of this phenom-
enon seems to be that many leaders of companies
that start lean efforts lack a real understanding of
the principles involved and, therefore, focus on the
short-term application of isolated tools rather than
the deeper changes necessary.
One way this short-term emphasis has manifested
itself is in the popularity in the United States of the
“kaizen event” (also known as a “kaizen blitz” or
“kaizen burst”). The APICS Dictionary defines a
kaizen event as “a rapid improvement of a limited
process area, for example, a production cell” (Cox and
Blackstone 1999). For many companies, the kaizen
event has become the primary, and in some cases
the exclusive, vehicle for lean improvement (Burch
2008; Laraia, Moody, and Hall 1999; Nicholas and
Soni 2005; Strategos 2009). The notion was originally
developed by Taiichi Ohno in the late 1980s to demon-
strate to Toyota suppliers the potential improvement
that could be made through sustained application
of the Toyota Production System. Its creators never
intended this dramatic shock tactic to become a
www.asq.org 27
 The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement
company’s primary ongoing approach to lean perfor-
mance improvement. In practice, the improvements
from them have proved hard to sustain (Bodek 2004;
Burch 2008). Indeed, Veech (2004) noted that up to
90 percent of the benefits of kaizen events disappear
within six months.
Toyota, almost from the outset, placed its emphasis
on getting a continuous stream of front-line ideas
rather than management-driven bursts of improve-
ment (Liker 2004; Toyota Motor Corporation 1988;
Tozawa and Bodek 2001; Yasuda 1990). In 1951, Eiji
Toyoda, the new managing director of the fledgling
Toyota Motor Company, visited the United States
to learn more about automobile manufacturing. A
highlight of his trip was a visit to Ford, where he was
intrigued by the company’s employee suggestion sys-
tem (Toyoda 1987). Soon after his return to Japan, his
company faced a serious financial crisis and was forced
to look for low-cost ways to streamline operations. As
Toyoda put it:
All we had to do was use our know-how. While at
Ford, I had seen how considerable savings could
be had in materials handling by judiciously
making even minor changes, so we decided
to begin there. That’s how Toyota’s suggestion
system got started. (Toyoda 1987, 114)
This focus on minor changes was reinforced when,
in the early 1950s, like many Japanese companies,
Toyota adopted the Training Within Industries (TWI)
programs (Graupp and Wrona 2006; Nemoto 1983).
These programs emphasized daily improvement
through large numbers of small front-line improve-
ment ideas (Graupp and Wrona 2006; Robinson and
Schroeder 1993). During the 1950s and 1960s, front-
line employee ideas grew into the primary driver of
the Toyota Production System (Nemoto 1987; Yasuda
1990). By 1973, the company was getting more than
a million ideas per year, an average of more than 10
ideas per person (Hall 1983).
The focus on front-line ideas became a distin-
guishing characteristic of Japanese management
(Imai 1986). By 1990, the disparity between the
Japanese and Western approaches had become
quite apparent (see Table 1). The average Japanese
28 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
Table 1 Comparative statistics at the national
level, 1990.
United States Japan
Ideas per employee 0.11 32.5
Implementation rate 32% 87%
Participation rate 9% 72%
Average reward $491.71 $2.50
Source: 1991 National Association of Suggestion Systems and
©2009, ASQ
Japan Human Relations Association Statistical Report (based
on 336 reporting organizations in the United States and 696
in Japan).
company in the sample was getting more than 300
times the number of front-line ideas than the average
U.S. firm. What is more, a much higher percentage
of the Japanese ideas were being implemented. The
idea gap was even greater in the automobile indus-
try. Japanese automobile companies got an average
of 61.8 ideas per employee per year, while U.S. and
European counterparts averaged 0.4 ideas (Womack,
Jones, and Roos 1990).
Toyota has always been open about its emphasis
on front-line ideas. The company even posted this
fact on its Web site for a number of years. When users
clicked on Toyota’s tab “What Sets Us Apart?” they
found the following brief summary:
Based on the concept of continuous improve-
ment, or Kaizen, every Toyota team member
is empowered with the ability to improve
their work environment… Improvements
and suggestions by team members are the
cornerstone of Toyota’s success. (Toyota 2004)
THE RESEARCH PROCESS
While a number of authors have noted Toyota’s
emphasis on front-line ideas (see, for example, Liker
2004; Liker and Hoseus 2007; Womack, Jones, and
Roos 1990; Yasuda 1990), little research has been
done to evaluate the specific nature of the relation-
ship between front-line ideas and lean performance
improvement. This relationship is the topic of this
paper, which grew out of a stream of work on idea
 The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement
systems that the authors have been conducting
over the last 20 years. The purpose of this ongoing
research has been to identify the principles that
govern high-performing idea systems (defined as
those implementing 12 or more ideas per person per
year), by comparing them with low- and medium-
performing ones.
One of the patterns they noticed in their sample
was that there appeared to be a relationship between
the performance of a company’s idea system and
the success of its lean effort, as defined by its rate
of productivity improvement. In several companies
they studied, the lean initiatives resulted in only
limited productivity improvement until manage-
ment adopted a high-performance idea system. The
authors decided to delve more deeply into the cause
of this relationship. Combining the findings reported
by other researchers and authors with what they had
been observing in their work, they developed their
initial questions for this study. They sought first to
identify the nature of the relationship between high-
performance idea systems and lean performance
improvement, and second to find out why, if high-
performance idea systems are important for success
with lean objectives, such systems are still so rare.
This research is exploratory and intended to build
theory rather than to test hypotheses. As Richards
and Morse (2006) emphasize, it is important to
choose a research method that is consistent with
the purpose of the research. Consequently, the
authors selected a method that would provide
the best opportunity to develop new insights and
awareness (Vishnevsky and Beanlands 2004) while
taking advantage of the rich database they had
accumulated.
The data used in this study are derived from
field research in more than 300 organizations in
25 countries; notes and recordings from more than
a thousand interviews, supporting company doc-
umentation of processes and performance results,
and observations made during the visits and post-
visit debriefings. Thirty-six of the companies were
identified as having high-performing systems.
Twenty-seven of these were manufacturers, including
five Toyota and two Honda units. All were applying
lean principles with employee ideas as their primary
continuous improvement tool. Additionally, four were
recipients of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award, two had received the European Quality Award,
one had been named several times as running the
most efficient plant in North America by Industry
Week, and two had received the Shingo Prize.
Using an inductive approach (see, for exam-
ple, the grounded theory approach in Strauss and
Corbin 1998), the authors sought to determine the
relationships between lean success and idea system
performance in the companies in their sample, and
examine the ensuing patterns to develop proposi-
tions. The propositions were then tested against
other organizations in the sample, as well as new
companies that were added to the study as it pro-
gressed. Whenever possible, they employed what
Denzin (1970) called data triangulation (cross-
checking information from interviews, supporting
data, secondary data, and observations for inter-
nal consistency) and investigator triangulation
(cross-checking the impressions and observations
of the members of the research team) in order to
verify and strengthen their findings (Nykiel 2007;
Downward and Mearman 2007). Only the findings
with the strongest and most consistent relationships
were selected for discussion in this paper.
Because little has been written about high-
performing idea systems, before talking about the
findings, it is important to identify and describe some
of the underlying principles that distinguish them
from traditional suggestion systems.
THE PRINCIPLES
DISTINGUISHING A HIGH-
PERFORMANCE IDEA SYSTEM
The goal of a high-performing idea system is to gen-
erate significant front-line involvement in identifying
and implementing opportunities for improvement.
Four of the primary principles that differentiate
high-performing systems from low-performing ones
include (Imai 1986; Robinson and Schroeder 2006;
Savageau 1996; Tozawa and Bodek 2001):
www.asq.org 29
 The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement
• Ideas are integrated into everyday work
• The emphasis is on small ideas
• Front-line performance metrics focus ideas on
what is important
• Both managers and workers are held accountable
for their roles in the idea process
Ideas Are Integrated Into
Everyday Work
In traditional suggestion systems, ideas are vol-
untary. Management may welcome them, but
employees are not required, or even expected, to offer
them (recall the participation rate of 9 percent in
Table 1). Because high-performance idea systems
begin with the expectation that every employee can
see many improvement opportunities, these systems
are designed with the capability to process large
numbers of ideas rapidly and efficiently. (Thirteen
of the companies in the sample were implementing
more than 50 ideas per employee per year.)
Take, for example, the Scania engine assembly plant
in Södertälje, just outside of Stockholm, Sweden. Every
Wednesday at 8:00 a.m. the production line is stopped
for 26 minutes so every work team, generally consist-
ing of 9 to 12 people, can hold its weekly improvement
meeting around its idea whiteboard. Team members
check the progress of each open idea, remove those that
have been completed, and discuss the new problems and
ideas that have been posted during the week. To ensure
workers have enough time to implement the improve-
ments, every team has built-in slack; it is deliberately
“over staffed” by two positions. If additional resources
or authority are needed for a specific idea, it is escalated
up to the idea board of the next level of management.
If necessary, an idea that needs the highest level of
approval can move within a week from the team board
to the supervisor group’s board, to the management
group’s board, and finally to the plant manager’s board.
All boards are public. Top management’s board is in
the middle of the plant where everyone can see the ideas
that it is working on.
The weekly process is aimed at improvement activi-
ties, but Scania also uses the same boards for daily
30 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
corrective action of urgent problems. At 8:00 every morn-
ing, each team meets around its idea board for eight
minutes to discuss the previous day’s performance on the
plant’s three key performance indicators: safety, quality,
and line stoppage. Performance issues that emerged the
previous day are discussed and, if possible, ideas to cor-
rect them are proposed and implemented. If the team
cannot resolve an issue, it is escalated to the next level
and posted on the local supervisor group’s idea board to
be addressed at its 8:15 a.m. meeting. Each supervisor
group has technicians and additional resources at its
disposal. If the issue is beyond the scope of this group, it
is escalated again, this time to the management group,
and it is listed on its board for discussion at its 8:45 a.m.
meeting. This group includes plant maintenance and
still more support and authority. If further escalation is
still needed, it is addressed at the 9:30 a.m. top manage-
ment meeting, which includes the plant manager and all
of his direct reports, including plant engineering.
According to the company’s CEO, in order to stay
competitive, Scania has to improve productivity by
a minimum of 8 to 10 percent each year. In each
of the last two years, the company has increased its
manufacturing productivity by 15 percent.
Emphasis on Small Ideas
Traditional suggestion systems focus on getting big
ideas with major cost or revenue implications. But
to generate more involvement, increase the rate of
improvement, and achieve the greatest overall impact,
high-performance idea systems target small ideas
(Imai 1986; Japan Human Relations Association 1988;
Robinson and Schroeder 2006; Tozawa and Bodek
2001). Not only can front-line workers come up with
a lot of them, but small ideas are easier to imple-
ment, face little resistance, and don’t need to go far
up the hierarchy for approval. Small ideas can be a
routine part of daily work, and employees can see their
ideas making a difference. This creates an invigorating
atmosphere of rapid ongoing improvement.
One of the surprising benefits of small ideas
is that they create competitive advantage that is
more sustainable (see, for example, Robinson
and Schroeder 2006). While competitors generally
 The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement
become aware of big ideas fairly quickly, and can
copy or counter them, it is much harder for them
to find out about small ideas. Because these remain
effectively proprietary, they accumulate over time
into a cushion of significant competitive advantage.
Take Milliken & Company, a U.S.-based textile com-
pany, for example, whose idea system has consistently
averaged around 100 implemented ideas per person
per year. In Milliken Denmark, the managing direc-
tor showed the authors a number of looms, each of
which had several hundred small ideas applied to it,
that collectively made them two to three times faster
than they were designed to operate, and capable of
making special weaves that their manufacturers had
thought were impossible. Competitors could easily
buy the same models of loom, but would find it much
more difficult to come up with all of the ideas that
would be needed to match this performance.
Performance Metrics
That Focus Ideas
A standard complaint about suggestion systems is
that the ideas that come in are unfocused and of little
value (see, for example, Savageau 1996). If ideas are
to be integrated into the daily work, they must be tied
to key companywide improvement goals. The case of
Introduxi, a large Iberian electronics retail chain—
and one of the high-performing companies in the
authors’ sample—illustrates this point.
In 2006, the company launched an idea system.
The first year’s results met the standard of a high-
performing system—the company received 18 ideas
per employee, with almost 100 percent participation.
The authors were surprised when they met with the
CEO to hear he was concerned about the system,
because he thought the ideas were scattershot and of
limited value. The authors spent several days in this
company studying its idea system. They visited stores,
interviewed employees and managers, and examined
the kinds of ideas the employees had come up with.
They found that the company did indeed have a
well-designed process. Its problem, however, was that
management had not told the employees what kinds
of ideas it wanted.
The central warehouse was the one exception.
The warehouse manager had translated the com-
pany’s strategic goals into lean metrics that his
front-line workers could understand and that they
could affect directly with their ideas. He came up
with three metrics:
• Shipments (in euros) per week per employee
• Percentage of orders shipped correctly and on the
same day
• Inventory turnover
These three metrics encompassed the primary
goals of the company for the shipping department:
efficiency/productivity, quality/customer satisfaction,
and flexibility and innovativeness. (In the electron-
ics and software business, high inventory turnover
is particularly important because of the rapid rate of
product obsolescence.)
The warehouse manager believed that these
prominently displayed performance measures
played an important role in stimulating ideas in his
area for three reasons. First, they emphasized the
aspects of performance that were important. Second,
they sensitized employees to problems and opportu-
nities they might otherwise have ignored. Finally,
keeping score added a bit of competitiveness and
fun. As his workers saw the numbers reflecting the
improvements from their ideas, they felt a sense of
involvement and personal achievement.
The result of these employee ideas was that in
just over a year, the shipping department was able
to double the number of orders it shipped without
adding any employees. The number of orders filled
incorrectly dropped by 90 percent, and inventory
turnover increased 30 percent.
Holding People Accountable
for Ideas
A number of researchers have observed that tradi-
tional suggestion systems have trouble with follow
through and implementation. Generally, there
are large backlogs of unevaluated and unimple-
mented ideas (Savageau 1996; Fairbank, Spangler,
and Williams 2003). This was corroborated by the
www.asq.org 31
 The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement

Figure 1 Siemens VDO idea accountability tracking.

Idea Performance by Unit

50
45
40
35
Ideas/Employee

30 “...you do not want to be one

25 of the executives out here...”
Siemens Executive
20
15
10
5
0
Korea
Seattle
Taiwan
Munich
Singapore
London
Milan
Paris
St. Louis
Peoria
Warsaw
Bonn
Hartford
Chicago
Stockholm
Toledo
Phoenix
Delhi
Moline
San Francisco
Denver

©2009, ASQ
Plant

organizations in the authors’ sample. In those with

traditional suggestion systems, backlogs of 18 months HIGH-PERFORMANCE
or more were common. The reason was that no one
was held accountable for getting, processing, or
IDEA SYSTEMS AND LEAN
implementing ideas. PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT
To assure prompt action on ideas, high-performing The three strongest relationships the authors’ data
systems have strong mechanisms for accountability. showed between high-performing idea systems and
Idea performance often is included in annual reviews lean performance improvement are as follows. A
and taken into consideration when making decisions high-performing idea system:
about pay raises and bonuses. • Creates a “lean improvement culture” by engaging
The mechanisms used to hold people accountable the work force in daily improvement activity
do not need to be complicated. Take, for example,
• Taps improvement opportunities that are difficult
the approach used by Siemens VDO (the global vehi-
for managers to spot
cle parts division with almost 100,000 employees,
now Continental VDO). The CEO used a very simple • Promotes rapid organizational learning
chart to track his division managers’ performance
in getting ideas. Every month his staff prepared and
distributed a chart (like the one in Figure 1, where Creating a Lean Improvement
for illustrative purposes the authors have curtailed Culture by Engaging the
the number of locations and changed their names)
showing how many ideas per person each of his 98 Work Force
plants had implemented that month. As one of his As a number of researchers have identified, a com-
executives said, “When the CEO gets this chart, you mon reason lean initiatives perform poorly is that
do not want to be the executive in charge of one of they fail to engage the work force in creating a culture
these operations [pointing to the right end, where the of lean improvement (see, for example, Imai 1997;
poor performers were].” Liker 2004; Liker and Hoseus 2007; Spear and Bowen

32 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ

 The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement

Table 2 Differences between high- and low-performing lean initiatives.

Less successful lean initiatives Successful lean initiatives

Improvement is management driven Improvement is front-line driven

Improvement is done primarily through larger-scale events or projects Small improvements are made on a daily basis

©2009, ASQ
There are limited opportunities for front-line involvement Front-line involvement is primary to improvement activity

Improvement activity is results focused Improvement activity is process focused

1999). Almost all the company leaders the authors
interviewed stressed the importance of employee
engagement, and the amount of training they pro-
vided to their employees was not a differentiator.
But clear differences emerged in the nature and
extent of employee involvement. These differences
are summarized in Table 2.
Generally, in the less-successful lean initiatives,
improvement efforts were management driven. They
focused on larger-scale improvement projects —
using tools such as kaizen events, ad-hoc task forces,
or Six Sigma—intended to generate significant bot-
tom-line results. Ongoing or regular opportunities
for front-line people to engage in the improvement
process were not emphasized. In the more successful
lean initiatives, however, generating, processing and
implementing ideas were integrated into the normal
work of front-line workers. The high-performance
idea system was the primary vehicle by which front-
line employees drove the lean improvement process.
It was this ongoing and regular engagement with
daily problems and opportunities, and the compa-
nies’ process-focused approaches (see Choi and Liker
1995), that built their lean cultures. The example of
Pyromation shows how this happens.
In 2002, Pyromation, a medium-sized producer
of high-temperature measurement and control
devices located in Fort Wayne, IN, began implement-
ing lean. The company launched the initiative with
great fanfare, trained its people in the standard lean
tools (such as 5S, poka-yoke, quick changeover, and
value-stream mapping), created new work teams, and
radically restructured reporting relationships on the
production floor. But two years later, the lean effort
was still struggling to gain traction. Morale was low.
Since all the improvement projects had been dictated
from above, the employees felt disconnected from
the lean effort; indeed, they had become very cynical
about it. All six production coordinators asked to be
transferred to other jobs.
Management realized the company couldn’t
make any real progress with lean until the work force
became more engaged in the improvement process.
After some study and benchmarking, in late 2004,
Pyromation decided to integrate problem-identification
and idea-generation into the regular work of front-
line employees. Idea boards were set up, supervisors
were trained in idea-meeting facilitation, and weekly
shop-floor idea meetings were scheduled. In this way,
front-line workers were given the opportunity to use
the tools and techniques of lean production that they
had been taught.
The resulting stream of improvement ideas made
an enormous difference. In two years, productivity
increased by a third, lead-time was cut by 60 percent,
and late deliveries were reduced by 70 percent. By 2008,
Pyromation was getting an average of 47 implemented
ideas per person per year. Dan Atkinson, the company’s
lean coordinator, observed that “the idea system was
the turning point in our lean effort—it was what we
had been missing all along.”
Improvement Opportunities
That Are Hard for
Managers to See
Managers deal primarily with information that
has been aggregated — such as “profits are
down,” “market share is dropping,” or “labor

www.asq.org 33
 The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement
as a percentage of costs is up” (Hayek 1945).
Information in this form is helpful in identifying
issues, but not so helpful in dealing with them. But,
as Hayek also observed, front-line workers are the
ones who have specific and detailed knowledge of
how their organization’s work actually gets done.
As such, they are in much better positions than their
managers to see many problems and opportuni-
ties. They also are in the best positions to develop
ideas that will work to deal with these problems
and opportunities. Consider the example of the
Coca-Cola bottling plant in Stockholm, Sweden, the
highest-performing corporate bottling plant in the
Coca-Cola system.
A few years ago, Coca-Cola headquarters required
all corporate-owned bottlers to implement Six Sigma.
Each plant was expected to: a) train a cadre of Black
and Green Belts; b) focus on Six Sigma improvement
projects that generated large documented monetary
savings; and c) strive for high plant capacity utili-
zation. But unlike its peers, Coca-Cola Stockholm
already had a high-performance idea system in
place. In 2007, the company implemented 15 ideas
per person.
The implementation of Six Sigma on top of an
effective idea system provided interesting data on the
relative impact of both approaches. In 2007, there were
seven Six Sigma projects (both Green and Black Belt),
which saved a total of 2.5 million Swedish Kronor (one
U.S. dollar equals about seven Swedish Kronor). The
idea system, however, generated 8 million in savings
from a total of 1,720 front-line ideas. In 2008, Coca-
Cola Stockholm increased its emphasis on the idea
system. As a result, front-line ideas saved 9 million
Swedish Kronor as compared to 1.5 million from Six
Sigma projects.
One example of an idea that illustrated the advan-
tage of the front-line perspective came from a worker
on the high-speed, half-liter Coca-Cola bottling line.
It solved what had been a tricky problem there. After
being filled and capped, the bottles zoomed around
a 90-degree curve before passing an electronic eye
that scanned each bottle in order to assure it had
been properly filled. If not, an air piston would auto-
matically activate and push the defective bottle off
34 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
the line. As long as the bottles were properly spaced,
this process worked quite well. Unfortunately, the
bottles often would bunch together as they rounded
the corner. Then, when the air piston pushed a defec-
tive bottle aside, the next bottle (now in contact with
the first one) sometimes would be shifted slightly,
nick the corner, and tip over and block the line. Ten
bottles of Coke per second would then slam into the
fallen bottle and fly everywhere, creating a huge mess
and many defective bottles before the line could be
stopped. This disruption to production occurred two
or three times per day.
Two Six Sigma Black Belt projects had failed
to solve the problem, which was caused by friction
between the bottles and the corner guide. The proj-
ect teams had fiddled with many variables: the line
speed, different kinds of lubricating strips along the
curve guide, the spacing of the bottles — but with
little success. The problem eventually was solved by
an idea from one of the bottling-line workers. His
simple solution was to reduce the contact surface
area between the guide and the bottles. By using a
standard washer as a spacer in between the guide
and its lower mounting bracket, the guide was
cocked inward slightly so only its upper edge now
came in contact with the bottle. In this way, the
friction was lowered enough to keep the bottles from
bunching. The idea saved 91,000 kronor per year,
not including the costs of damaged product.
Over the three-year period that the authors tracked
this plant, it ranked first among Coca-Cola’s corpo-
rate-owned bottlers around the world in productivity,
quality, safety, environmental performance, and cus-
tomer fulfillment. The only key metric in which the
Stockholm bottler did not outperform its peers was
plant capacity utilization. Managers said this was
because the large number of front-line improvement
ideas kept increasing plant capacity.
Notice that in 2007, 76 percent of the overall
cost savings for Coca-Cola Stockholm came from its
idea system. In 2008, the figure was 86 percent. Five
other companies in the authors’ sample with high-
performing idea systems also measured bottom-line
improvement by source. Each of these companies
reported similar results — around 80 percent of
 The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement
overall improvement came from front-line ideas.
While the authors initially were surprised by these
data, they clearly attest to the extent that front-line
people see improvement possibilities that their bosses
do not.
Idea Systems Promote Rapid
Organizational Learning
The purpose of adopting lean principles is to
improve operations at a rapid rate. To do this, the
organization must be capable of learning quickly.
“Organizational learning” (see, for example, Argyris
and Schon 1995) happens whenever an organiza-
tion improves the way work is done in a manner that
incorporates these changes into its standard work or
the technology and equipment in use.
Organizational learning became popular with
business leaders in the 1990s following the success
of books such as Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline
(1990) and Thomas Stewart’s Intellectual Capital
(1997). Unfortunately, while the concept was gen-
erally sound, in practice the movement itself was
short on examples and practical advice on how
to create a learning organization. Because most
improvement opportunities are seen by front-line
workers (recall the 80/20 ratio above), it is not sur-
prising that the high-performance idea systems in
the authors’ sample were facilitating rapid organi-
zational learning. Some companies, including three
of Autoliv’s Utah air-bag production facilities and
Scania’s engine plant outside of Stockholm, were
averaging 15 percent rates of annual productivity
improvement.
To understand how a high-performance idea system
can work as a tool of organizational learning, consider
the example of Subaru Indiana Automotive (SIA). This
company assembles almost 1000 automobiles each
day, including 300 Camrys for Toyota. What makes SIA
interesting in this context is the way it turned the focus
of its lean initiative onto environmental improvement.
It has been a zero landfill operation since May 2, 2004,
putting less waste into landfills in a year than an
average U.S. household does in a day.
SIA’s “green lean” program is not driven by
multimillion-dollar recovery systems, but by thou-
sands of small environmental improvement ideas
from front-line workers every year. Since 2000, these
ideas have: a) reduced the amount of steel scrap
generated by 102 pounds per vehicle; b) resulted in
the reuse of more than 6 million pounds of packag-
ing materials each year; c) lowered the consumption
of electricity by 25 percent; and d) cut the waste
generated per vehicle by more than 50 percent.
SIA began its green initiative in 1989, long before
environmental sustainability became popular.
Consequently, SIA has had to learn on its own how
to identify and exploit green opportunities. Its kaizen
idea system played a central role in this. Because
the front-line workers are the ones who physically
handle the parts, materials, packaging, and equip-
ment, they are well positioned to spot ways to reduce
consumption and reuse materials, and to identify
waste that can be recycled. They also are in the best
positions to implement reuse and recycling plans, in
which the biggest challenge is usually that of sepa-
rating out the various materials. This sorting process
is most easily and economically done where the
waste is actually generated. SIA managers told the
authors that the company could not have reached its
high level of environmental performance without the
active participation of its front-line workers.
Front-line ideas not only helped SIA achieve its
ambitious zero landfill goal two years early, but they
also were the primary force for its ongoing organi-
zational learning. Following are two examples that
show how this worked:
Distilling toxic solvent for reuse
One of the more toxic chemicals used in automo-
bile manufacturing is the solvent used to flush the
painting system between color changes (at SIA,
this typically occurs every three or four vehicles).
Previously, the used solvent was shipped offsite
for processing as toxic waste, a costly affair that
required special handling and special transpor-
tation procedures. An employee had the idea to
develop an onsite distillation process to recover the
solvent for reuse. When looking for vendors of such
www.asq.org 35
 The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement
technology, SIA found one that proposed an even
more environmentally friendly approach. Since
existing distillation processes could not separate
out all the solvent and invariably left a toxic sludge
of paint residue and solvent in the bottom of the
still, the contractor suggested distilling the solvent
in a vacuum. Vacuum distillation would make it
possible to extract all of the toxic liquid and leave
a solvent-free dry cake in the bottom of the still.
Unfortunately, halfway through the project, the
contractor, who was having difficulty getting the
new technology to work as promised, went out of
business, and the responsibility for completing the
project fell onto the shoulders of front-line mainte-
nance people. By the end of the project, these workers
had come up with hundreds of small ideas that
cumulatively solved the problem the vendor’s engi-
neers could not. With the new vacuum distillation
process in place—the first of its kind in industry—
the company’s solvent use dropped from three to five
truckloads a month to less than one every quarter,
and the need to truck an almost equivalent amount
of toxic waste offsite for processing was eliminated.
Once the distillation process was operational,
additional front-line ideas built upon it. Rather than
shipping the dry still-bottom residue to a special
toxic-waste incineration plant almost five hundred
miles away, an employee suggested a way to recycle
it. She identified a company that could extract the
organic elements from the still-bottom residue and
reuse them. The char left over from the organic
recovery process went to a local steel company, which
used it as a coating to prolong the life of its ladles for
handling molten steel.
Another idea involved the rags used to clean the
painting equipment. As had been the case with the
solvent-contaminated sludge, these solvent-soaked
rags needed to be shipped as toxic waste to the spe-
cial incineration plant. A worker suggested that
the rags could be centrifuged to extract the solvent
from them, and this solvent then could be distilled
for reuse. Now, for every 34 barrels of rags that are
centrifuged, one barrel of solvent is recovered. This,
in turn, led to another idea. Since the polyester rags
were no longer toxic, they too could be recycled.
36 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
Today, they are sold to a company that uses them
as raw materials for the plastic wheel-well linings it
makes for other auto companies.
Processing welding sparks
Another set of ideas came from the welding depart-
ment. If zero landfill was the goal, something had
to be done with the residue constantly being swept
up from the floor around the robotic welders used
to assemble car bodies. This residue consisted of
the remnants of sparks emitted during the welding
process. These sparks are primarily small pieces of
copper oxide blown off the welding tips by the arcing
of the high-amperage electric current used to fuse the
steel body components together. The first idea was to
find a way to process this welding slag to recover the
copper in them. After some searching, SIA found a
company in Spain that could do this.
While processing the welding slag kept it out of
the landfill, it was expensive to ship it to Spain (and
the shipping added to the company’s carbon foot-
print). A follow-up idea was to reduce the amount
of sparks created in the first place. Because sparks
are caused by arcing between the copper welding tips
and the steel, the better the fit between the tip and
the steel, the fewer the sparks that are generated. A
new tip of the proper shape sparks very little. But
with use, the copper welding tips heated up, softened
and deformed, which degraded the fit and created
more sparks. Because it is expensive to replace the
copper tips as they start to deform, standard prac-
tice is to increase the amperage on the welder every
two hours in order to assure a good weld. The extra
power produces even more sparks and heat, cre-
ating more tip deformation, which requires even
more amperage, and so on. Now, instead of turning
up the electricity when the tips deform, a special
device mounted on the welder quickly “dresses the
tips,” that is, machines them back to their original
shape. This idea meant that fewer sparks were gen-
erated, shipping costs were reduced, less electricity
was consumed, weld quality improved, and 58,000
fewer copper welding tips were used in the first five
months, a 75 percent reduction. The reduced tip
usage alone saved $23,000.
 The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement
WHY HIGH-PERFORMING IDEA
SYSTEMS ARE SO RARE
If the findings associated with the authors’ first
research question—about the links between high-
performance idea systems and lean performance
improvement—are valid, and the strong relation-
ships in their sample indicate that they are, then why
are such systems so rare? Given that Toyota, whose
lean practices are highly watched and emulated, has
publicly and repeatedly identified front-line ideas
as key to its improvement methodology, why aren’t
more companies adopting good idea systems as part
of their lean initiatives? This was the authors’ sec-
ond research question. While the first question was
relatively straightforward to answer through analysis
of the relationships between ideas and improvement
performance, addressing the second question requires
a less structured approach. Here their findings derive
less from observing direct relationships than from
studying the perspectives of the leaders of companies
that did not use high-performance idea systems and
interpreting their answers to the interview questions.
The authors also tracked the experiences of companies
as they implemented, or attempted to implement,
high-performance idea systems.
Their investigation identified two reasons for the
scarcity of high-performance idea systems. The first is
the dominance of the suggestion-box paradigm. The
second is that the adoption of a high-performance
idea system invariably requires significant changes
in behaviors that challenge deeply held assumptions
and norms.
For the leaders of companies without high-
performing idea systems, “asking employees for
ideas” was synonymous with “installing a sugges-
tion box” (whether physical or electronic). This was
the only approach they were aware of. The problem
was that suggestion boxes are an ineffective process
for collecting ideas (see, for example, Fairbank,
Spangler, and Williams 2003; Schuring and Luijten
2001), and experience with them had taught these
managers that seeking front-line ideas was rarely
worth the time and effort.
The suggestion box has been the dominant
paradigm for seeking employee ideas for more
than a century. It was first used in industry in the
late 19th century at companies such as William
Denny Shipbuilders in Scotland (William Denny
and Brothers 1932) and NCR in the United States
(Crowther 1924). Schuring and Luijten (2001, 361)
observe that “since the birth of suggestion systems,
their structure has hardly changed.” A standard
process is as follows. Suggestions are written on
special forms and dropped in boxes, or in many
organizations today, submitted electronically via
intranet or the Internet. The suggestions then go
to an individual or a committee that gives them
a preliminary assessment. If the idea is deemed
worthy of further consideration, it is sent to one
or more experts for evaluation. If the evaluations
come back positive, then the suggester typically is
given a reward that is a percentage of the revenue
generated or money saved by the idea. (For a more
complete discussion of the suggestion-box model, see
Bassford and Martin (1996)). A review of two dozen
peer-reviewed articles published over the last sev-
eral decades confirms both Schuring and Luijten’s
observation and the dominance of suggestion-box
thinking. All but one of the papers assumed the
suggestion-box process as the model for getting
employee ideas. Ironically, although each of these
studies recognized various deficiencies in this model,
and proposed and tested various changes to deal with
these deficiencies, such as automation, enhanced
reward systems, faster turnaround, more diplomatic
and informative rejection letters, none of the authors
questioned the underlying model.
Unfortunately, the suggestion box is a very
poor tool for getting ideas. Employees, and even
cartoonists, have poked fun at them for years.
Suggestion-box type systems, even in their elec-
tronic manifestations, rarely get more than one idea
per person per year. Even the best systems get no
more than two. Worse, “a 10 percent to 25 percent
adoption rate is considered good for a suggestion
program” (Bassford and Martin 1996, 95).
The second reason why high-performing idea
systems are so rare is that they usually require
www.asq.org 37
 The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement
fundamental changes in a company’s operat-
ing practices and its managers’ behavior. As part
of this research, the authors chronicled more than
a hundred successful and unsuccessful attempts
to implement high-performing idea systems, and
discovered that the process of implementation
often required a transformational journey involv-
ing wrenching change. The unsuccessful
companies were either incapable of making the
necessary changes, or they decided that changes of
that magnitude weren’t worth making. For those
companies both willing and able to make the pro-
found changes, the benefits proved to be substantial.
The case of Hickory Chair, a furniture manufacturer
in North Carolina, illustrates this well.
The domestic furniture industry has been one
of the hardest hit by low-cost foreign competition.
Many of Hickory’s domestic competitors have moved
their production offshore or have gone out of busi-
ness. In order to survive, President Jay Reardon
realized his company had to dramatically lower its
costs, dramatically improve quality, and dramati-
cally increase responsiveness. But according to him,
“I was the sales guy (he had been vice president
of marketing before becoming president after the
sudden death of his predecessor). I didn’t know
anything about making furniture. But the people
who put the furniture together know a lot about
it.” Reardon’s first act after being appointed presi-
dent was to ask for everyone’s help in consolidating
Hickory’s two underutilized manufacturing plants
into one. He asked front-line workers to design the
layout of their own departments before the move.
After the move, Reardon was able to persuade Hajime
Ohba, former head of the TSSC and then one of
the most prominent lean production experts in the
world, to look at Hickory’s initiative and to pro-
vide guidance to his people on where to focus their
efforts. Over the next eight years, employee ideas
significantly increased the company’s performance.
Hickory Chair’s quality, responsiveness, and inno-
vativeness improved dramatically. Work-in-process
inventory was cut more than 80 percent, and the
company was able to improve its margins without a
38 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
single price increase. Sales grew at double digit rates
annually and the return on assets (ROA) increased to
almost 50 percent.
Hickory Chair is one of America’s great lean
transformation success stories, only made possible
through a very painful process. Over the transition
period, 70 percent of the company’s managers left,
including two vice presidents. They found themselves
unable to operate effectively in an environment where
the majority of improvements were driven by their
subordinates.
Generally, the required transition in leader-
ship behavior (from directive to engaging) can be
made less traumatic if the organization prepares
for it. An example of how this can work comes from
Pyromation (mentioned earlier), which experienced
100 percent turnover of its mid-level production
managers, none of whom left the company. Senior
leaders explicitly identified the behavioral changes
they needed in their managers and discussed the
reasons for these changes openly. They created
meaningful staff positions for those managers who
did not wish to make these changes. With its candid
and unthreatening approach, Pyromation made the
transition to a new management team much easier.
CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
A great many lean initiatives have fallen short of
what is possible, because they have failed to incor-
porate a critical component needed for success—a
high-performing idea system. The authors research
indicates that without such a system, a company may
have a difficult time creating a lean improvement
culture and could be ignoring as much as 80 percent
of its improvement potential.
There are considerable opportunities for further
research into the links between high-performing idea
systems and lean performance improvement, both in
further testing the propositions presented here and
in identifying and testing new ones. The authors
believe, however, that the more important future
research will study why it is that so many organiza-
tions do not adopt high-performance idea systems
 The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement
as part of their lean initiatives. Certainly Toyota,
Daneher, Autoliv, Milliken, Scania, and other “lean
leaders” have demonstrated the importance of such
systems for lean success. The authors’ work has
identified what they believe to be two of the first-
order barriers for any company in setting up such a
system. First, most managers have experience with
only the suggestion-box type of system — an out-
dated and ineffective process—and this causes them
to shy away from any kind of initiatives to promote
front-line ideas. To overcome this hurdle is primar-
ily a matter of education, that is, demonstrating to
managers the results they can expect from a high-
performance idea system, and teaching them the
principles involved in designing and operating one.
The second barrier is more subtle and difficult to
overcome, as it requires a fundamental rethinking
of the roles of both employees and managers, that is,
a challenge to what Argyris and Schon (1996) refer
to as a “theory in use.” It is understandably hard for
managers to confront the limitations of the very para-
digm of behavior that led to their personal success.
As Thomas Kuhn pointed out in his classic book The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1996), whenever
a significant shift in a paradigm occurs, it is very dif-
ficult for those who built their careers on the earlier
paradigm to embrace the new one. This observation
also may explain why so many lean initiatives focus
on the tools of lean rather than the fundamental
changes in management behavior and thinking that
are needed to allow front-line employees to truly drive
performance improvement.
It is the authors’ belief that future research may
well identify the high-performing idea system as the
single most important, and the most intractable, part
of a lean initiative to implement.
REFERENCES
Argyris, C., and D. Schon. 1995. Organizational learning II:
Theory, method, and practice. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Bassford, R. L., and C. L. Martin. 1996. Employee suggestion
systems: Boosting productivity and profits. Lanham: Maryland:
Crisp Publications.
Bodek, N. 2004. Kaikaku: The power and magic in lean.
Vancouver, Wash.: PCS Press.
Burch, M. 2008. Lean longevity: Kaizen events and determinants
of sustainable improvement. Ph.D. diss. Amherst, Mass.: University
of Massachusetts.
Chase, R. B., and D. M. Stewart. 1994. Make your service fail-safe.
Sloan Management Review (Spring):35-44.
Choi, T. Y., and J. K. Liker 1995. Bringing Japanese continuous
improvement processes to U.S. manufacturing: The roles of pro-
cess orientation and communications. Decision Sciences 26, no.
5:589-620.
Cox, J. F., and J. H. Blackstone, eds. 1999. The APICS diction-
ary. Falls Church, Va.: The American Production and Inventory
Control Society.
Crowther, S. 1924. John H. Patterson—Pioneer in industrial wel-
fare. New York: Doubleday.
Denzin, N. K. 1970. The research act in sociology. Chicago:
Aldine.
Downward, P. M., and A. Mearman. 2007. Retroduction as
mixed-method triangulation in economic research: Reorienting
economics into social sciences. Cambridge Journal of Economics
31, no. 1:77-99.
Fairbank, J. F., W. E. Spangler, and S. D. Williams. 2003.
Motivating creativity through a computer-mediated employee
suggestion management system. Behavior and Information
Technology 22, no. 5:305-314.
Fuller, U., H. Helbling, and R. Cooley. 2002. Suggestion schemes
as information and knowledge management systems. In Information
Systems Research, Teaching and Practice: Proceedings of the
7th Annual UKAIS Conference, eds. B. Howell and G. Orange,
226-234. Leeds, United Kingdom: Leeds Metropolitan University.
Graupp, P., and R. Wrona. 2006. The TWI workbook. New York:
Productivity Press.
Hall, R. W. 1983. Zero inventories. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hayek, F. 1945. The use of knowledge in society. American
Economic Review XXXV, no. 4: 519-30.
Imai, M. 1986. Kaizen: The key to Japan’s competitive success.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Imai, M. 1997. Gemba kaizen. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Japan Human Relations Association. 1988. The idea book.
Cambridge, Mass.: Productivity Press.
Kuhn, T. S. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Laraia, A. C., P. E. Moody, and R. W. Hall. 1999. The Kaizen
blitz: Accelerating breakthroughs in productivity and performance.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Liker, J. K. 2004. The Toyota way. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Liker, J. K., and M. Hoseus. 2007. Toyota culture. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
www.asq.org 39
 The Role of Front-Line Ideas in Lean Performance Improvement
Nemoto, M. 1987. Total quality control for management.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Nicholas, J. M., and A. Soni 2005. The portal to lean production.
New York: Auerbach Publications.
Nykiel, R. A. 2007. Handbook of marketing research methodolo-
gies for hospital and tourism. London: The Haworth Press.
Richards, L., and J. Morse. 2007. README FIRST for a user’s
guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage
Publications.
Robinson, A. G., and D. M. Schroeder. 1993. Training, continu-
ous improvement, and human relations: The U.S. TWI programs
and the Japanese management style. California Management
Review 35, no. 2:35-57.
Robinson, A. G., and D. M. Schroeder. 2006. Ideas are free. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Savageau, J. 1996. World-class suggestion systems still work
well. The Journal for Quality and Participation 19:86-90.
Schonberger, R. 2007. Best practices in lean Six Sigma process
improvement. New York: Wiley.
Schuring, R. W., and H. Luijten. 2001. Reinventing suggestion
systems for continuous improvement. International Journal of
Technology Management 22:359-372.
Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Spear, S., and H. K. Bowen. 1999. Decoding the DNA of
the Toyota Production System. Harvard Business Review
(September-October):1-12.
Stewart, T.A. 1997. Intellectual capital: The new wealth of orga-
nizations. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell.
Strategos Inc. 2009. Available at: http://www.strategosinc.com/
kaizen.htm, accessed June 23.
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research:
Grounded theory, procedures and techniques. Newbury Park,
Calif.: Sage Publications.
Swank, C. K. 2003. The lean service machine. Harvard Business
Review 81, no. 10 (September-October):123-129.
Toyoda, E. 1987. Fifty years in motion. New York: Kodansha
International.
Toyota Motor Company. 2004. What sets us apart. http://www.
toyota.com/about/operations/manufacturing/index.html.
Tozawa, B., and N. Bodek. 2001. The idea generator. Portland,
Ore.: PCS Press.
40 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
Veech, D. S. 2004. A person-centered approach to sustaining a
lean environment job-design for self-efficacy. Defense Acquisition
Review Journal (August-November):159-171.
Vishnevsky, T., and H. A. Beanlands. 2004. Neurology Nursing
Journal 31, no. 2:234-8.
William Denny and Brothers. 1932. Denny Dumbarton. London:
E. J. Burrow.
Womack, J. P., and D. T. Jones. 2005. Lean solutions. London:
Simon and Schuster.
Womack, J. P., and D. T. Jones. 1996. Lean thinking. London:
Simon and Schuster.
Womack, J. P., D. T. Jones, and D. Roos. 1990. The machine that
changed the world. New York: Harper Perennial.
Toyota Motor Corporation, 1988. Toyota: A History of the First
50 Years. Toyota City, Japan: Toyota Motor Corporation.
Yasuda, Y. 1990. Forty years, twenty million ideas. Cambridge,
Mass.: Productivity Press.
BIOGRAPHIES
Alan G. Robinson is on the faculty of the Isenberg School of
Management at the University of Massachusetts. He received his
doctorate in applied mathematics from Johns Hopkins University,
and bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mathematics from the
University of Cambridge in Great Britain. His book Corporate
Creativity: How Innovation and Improvement Actually Happen
(co-authored with Sam Stern) has been translated into 13 lan-
guages and was named “Book of the Year” by the Academy
of Human Resource Management. In addition, his 2004 book
Ideas Are Free, co-authored with Dean Schroeder, was named
Reader’s Choice by Fast Company magazine and named as one
of the 30 best business books of 2004 by Soundview Executive
Books. Robinson can be reached at agr@som.umass.edu.
Dean M. Schroeder is the Herbert and Agnes Schulz Professor of
Management at Valparaiso University. He received his doctorate
in strategic management from the Carlson School at the University
of Minnesota, his MBA from the University of Montana, and his
bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the University
of Minnesota. Schroeder has authored more than 80 articles and
papers. His latest book, co-authored with Alan G. Robinson, Ideas
Are Free, was featured on ABC World News, CNN Headline
News, and several NPR programs. He served for five years on
the board of examiners of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award and has served on several corporate boards. Schroeder
can be reached by e-mail at dean.schroeder@valpo.edu.
 Enhancing Six Sigma
Implementation Through
Human Resource Management
Xingxing Zu, Morgan State University
Lawrence D. Fredendall, Clemson University
While many companies have implemented Six Sigma
and claim that they have achieved remarkable
benefits from their investment, not all Six Sigma
implementations yield the positive results promoted
by its advocates. Human resource management
(HRM) is recognized as a critical factor that influ-
ences the adoption of Six Sigma in organizations.
Using data collected from 95 manufacturing plants
that practice Six Sigma, this study investigates the role
of three quality-oriented HRM practices — employee
involvement, employee training, and employee
performance and recognition — in Six Sigma imple-
mentation. Results of this study indicate that the three
HRM practices significantly affect the use of Six Sigma
methodology. In addition, it is found that Six Sigma
role structure (that is, the human infrastructure
for Six Sigma using the Six Sigma Green and Black
Belt system) integrates with the traditional quality-
oriented HRM practices in supporting the use of Six
Sigma methodology.
Key words: human resource management, quality
management, Six Sigma
© 2009, ASQ
INTRODUCTION
Many large companies, including General Electric,
Honeywell, Raytheon, Sony, Caterpillar, and
Johnson Controls, have implemented Six Sigma and
report remarkable improvements in market share,
customer satisfaction, reliability, and performance
of products and services with impressive financial
savings (Foster 2007; Harry and Schroeder 2000;
Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh 2000; Snee and
Hoerl 2003). Not all organizations, however, have
implemented this methodology successfully (Gijo
and Rao 2005). Some of the organizations that
have successfully implemented Six Sigma report
that the best way to manage the change is through
increased and sustained communication, motiva-
tion, and training (Antony and Banuelas 2002),
which are the issues related to human resource
management (HRM). The importance of HRM to
Six Sigma implementation has been recognized
in the literature (for example, Breyfogle, Cupello,
and Meadows 2001; Lee and Choi 2006; Motwani,
Kumar, and Antony 2004), but little research has
been done to empirically examine the relationship
between HRM and Six Sigma implementation.
This study seeks to investigate the role of HRM
practices in Six Sigma implementation. Prior
research has identified three HRM practices —
employee involvement, employee training, and
employee performance and recognition — that
are important in shaping a quality culture and in
influencing employees’ attitudes toward quality (for
example, Bayo-Moriones and de Cerio, 2001; Bou
www.asq.org 41
 Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation Through Human Resource Management
and Beltrán 2005; Howard and Foster 1999; Langbert
2000). Using empirical data collected from 95 man-
ufacturing plants that practice Six Sigma, this study
examines the effects of the three quality-oriented
HRM practices on the use of Six Sigma methodology.
Also, this study investigates Six Sigma role structure,
a special human infrastructure that uses a group of
improvement specialists in the deployment of Six
Sigma and its relationship with the traditional HRM
practices and how both affect the application of Six
Sigma tools and techniques.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
Six Sigma
Six Sigma involves using a comprehensive set of
tools and techniques in continuous improvement.
It is a formal methodology for measuring, analyz-
ing, improving, and then controlling or “locking
in” processes (Bolze 1998). Six Sigma has evolved
beyond a technical program and has become a stra-
tegic management approach that seeks to increase
the customer satisfaction and financial health of an
organization (Pyzdek 1999; Snee 1999). Linderman
et al. (2003, 195) define Six Sigma as “an organized
and systematic method for strategic process improve-
ment and new product and service development
that relies on statistical methods and the scientific
method to make dramatic reductions in customer
defined defect rates.”
While some argue that Six Sigma only repackages
the tools and techniques from total quality manage-
ment (TQM), a careful examination of Six Sigma
concepts and techniques and a comparison between
them and traditional quality management (QM)
methods reveals that the practical approach employed
by Six Sigma does not necessarily imply an absence
of theory underlying it. Schroeder et al. (2007) sug-
gest that although Six Sigma tools and techniques
are similar to some QM methods, they provide an
organizational structure not previously seen, which
reduces variation in organizational processes by
42 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
using improvement specialists, a structured method,
and performance metrics. In a study investigating
the relationship between Six Sigma and traditional
QM practices, Zu, Fredendall, and Douglas (2008)
identify three practices that are particularly important
in applying Six Sigma principles and methods. These
practices are Six Sigma role structure, Six Sigma
structured improvement procedure, and Six Sigma
focus on metrics. Zu, Fredendall, and Douglas (2008)
suggest that Six Sigma structured improvement
procedure and Six Sigma focus on metrics are the
methodological core of Six Sigma, while Six Sigma
role structure is the human infrastructure specifi-
cally developed for Six Sigma implementation. In this
study, the authors adopt these practices to examine
the relationship between HRM and Six Sigma. These
practices are briefly discussed next.
Six Sigma prescribes a rigorous structured
approach to conducting quality improvement proj-
ects, typically represented by the define, measure,
analyze, improve, and control (DMAIC) procedure
for process improvement and the define, measure,
analyze, design, and verify (DMADV) procedure for
product design. These procedures consist of five
specific problem-solving steps with recommended
statistical and scientific tools in each step (Choo,
Linderman, and Schroeder, 2007; Linderman et al.
2003). As the basic structure of how Six Sigma imple-
ments quality improvement, the procedures provide
a methodological framework for when tools should
be used, assist Six Sigma teams to design solutions
that are sustainable once applied, and help team
members understand the link between tools and
improvement steps and how they support each other
to produce an output that can be acted on (Devane
2004). Choo, Linderman, and Schroeder (2007) sug-
gest that adherence to structured procedures such as
DMAIC or DMADV in the process of conducting Six
Sigma improvement projects increases the learning
behaviors of team members, which will result in
improved knowledge and better project performance.
Moreover, Six Sigma emphasizes using quanti-
fiable metrics in continuous improvement. These
measures include defects per unit (DPU), defects per
million opportunities (DPMO), proportion defective,
 Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation Through Human Resource Management
throughput yield and rolled throughput yield, process
sigma, and 10× improvement measures, as well as
traditional quality measures such as process capabil-
ity measures (Breyfogle, Cupello, and Meadows 2001;
Dasgupta 2003; Linderman et al. 2003). Six Sigma
uses these measures to closely monitor critical busi-
ness processes in order to detect quality problems
and respond to changes. Six Sigma sets clear and
explicit improvement goals by means of the met-
rics. Linderman, Schroeder, and Choo (2006) find
that using explicit goals motivates team members to
improve quality, particularly when the teams rigor-
ously follow the Six Sigma structured procedure and
use the associated tools. Six Sigma also emphasizes
connecting operational performance to business-level
performance when determining metrics for project
selection and evaluation, to help ensure that qual-
ity improvement projects will finally increase both
customer satisfaction and the company’s bottom line
(Breyfogle, Cupello, and Meadows 2001).
On the other hand, to deploy the Six Sigma meth-
odology throughout the organization, companies
practicing Six Sigma use a group of improvement
specialists who are often referred to as champion,
Master Black Belt, Black Belt, and Green Belt
(Breyfogle, Cupello, and Meadows 2001; Henderson
and Evans 2000; Linderman et al. 2003). These
specialists take key roles and responsibilities in their
company’s continuous improvement efforts. For
example, the company’s senior executives usually
serve as champions for promoting and leading the
Six Sigma deployment in the organization, and
Master Black Belts and Black Belts lead improvement
teams and mentor Green Belts in Six Sigma projects
(Henderson and Evans 2000; Sinha and Van de Ven
2005). The improvement specialists receive intensive
Six Sigma training to improve their knowledge and
skills in statistical methods, project management,
process design, problem-solving techniques, leader-
ship skills, and other managerial skills (Barney 2002;
Linderman et al. 2003; Snee and Hoerl 2003).
Based on General Electric’s experience imple-
menting Six Sigma, Henderson and Evans (2000)
suggest that the implementation of Six Sigma needs
to link to human resources-based actions. Others,
such as Antony and Banuelas (2002), Hendricks
and Kelbaugh (1998), and Lee and Choi (2006) also
recognize the importance of HRM for Six Sigma. The
next section examines the nature of the relationship
between HRM and QM in general, and then proposes
hypotheses about the relationship between HRM and
Six Sigma practices.
The Relationship of
HRM and QM
HRM is concerned with people and the way they are
managed, and is recognized as one of the impor-
tant sources of competitive advantage (Schuler and
MacMillan 1984). From the resource-based view of
the firm, HRM contributes to sustained competi-
tive advantage by facilitating the development of
other organizational capabilities (Saá-Pérez and
García-Falcón 2002). The HRM system supports an
organization’s QM effort by reinforcing employee
relationships and group consciousness of the need for
customer satisfaction, raising employee competence,
and helping to achieve culture change by involving
members in quality decision making (Yang 2006).
The existing body of literature examining the
relationship of HRM and QM provides a theoreti-
cal background to investigate HRM and Six Sigma.
Prior studies have examined various HRM dimen-
sions such as human resource planning, recruiting
and selection, work design and analysis, training
and education, job rotation, leadership development,
performance appraisal, incentive compensation,
benefits and profit sharing, employee development,
employee security and health, communication, and
the use of teams (for example, Dean and Bowen
1994; Bayo-Moriones and de Cerio 2001; Bou and
Beltrán 2005; Flynn 1994; Mayer 2002; Yang 2006).
Among them, dimensions related to such practices
as employee involvement, employee training, and
employee performance recognition are suggested to
have a particularly important impact on QM imple-
mentation (Bayo-Moriones and de Cerio 2001; Bou
and Beltrán 2005; Flynn, Schroeder, and Sakakibara
1995; Kaynak 2003).
www.asq.org 43
 Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation Through Human Resource Management
Employee involvement is necessary to con-
tinuous improvement because ultimately people
make quality happen (Rahman and Bullock 2005).
Teamwork and group problem solving are impor-
tant parts of QM that permit decentralized decision
making by allowing employees to make decisions on
their own (Dean and Bowen 1994; Flynn, Schroeder,
and Sakakibara 1994). Teamwork contributes to
employee involvement by creating collaboration
between management and employees that allows
nonmanagerial employees to make important con-
tributions to quality improvement (Dean and Bowen
1994). Also, cross-functional teams create synergy by
involving different functions to achieve the outcomes
of the whole organization.
Employee training is the cornerstone of QM imple-
mentation (Juran 1993). The QM-related training
includes training in small group problem solving,
communication, statistical tools, and other relevant
areas, in addition to classroom and on-site training
about specific tasks, with the purpose of transform-
ing employees into creative problem solvers (Flynn,
Schroeder, and Sakakibara 1994; Kaynak 2003).
Through training, employees also can better under-
stand the QM policies implemented by the organization
and become more inspired to take part in the quality
improvement effort (Joseph 1999).
Employee performance and recognition
involves the methods used by organizations to pro-
vide appropriate compensation, promotion, and
recognition policies to their employees. The tradi-
tional employee performance appraisal approach
emphasizes the impact of individual differences,
but the quality-oriented performance appraisal
practice requires group performance, quality-based
incentives, and compensation based on breadth of
skills (Dean and Bowen 1994; Flynn et al. 1994).
Maintaining an effective quality culture requires
recognizing and rewarding continuous quality
improvement activities and quality customer ser-
vices, including both formal and informal, and
financial and nonfinancial rewards for individuals
and teams that contribute to the quality improve-
ment effort (Blackburn and Rosen 1993).
44 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
The QM research has shown that the three
quality-oriented HRM practices identified previously
contribute to quality improvement by helping orga-
nizations develop a competent, committed work force
for continuous improvement (Flynn, Schroeder,
and Sakakibara 1994). Kaynak (2003) found that
organizations use quality data better by training
their employees in quality tools and by encouraging
them to participate in decision-making processes,
teamwork, and employee recognition. Similarly,
Sila and Ebrahimpour (2005) found that it is criti-
cal to designing high-quality products and services
and to managing processes for quality that firms
build organizational competencies through effec-
tive HRM practices that are focused on employee
training and satisfaction. Nair (2006) conducted
a meta-analysis of 26 QM studies and found that
people management practices are highly correlated
to aggregate business performance, financial perfor-
mance, and operational performance. In addition,
people management significantly interacts with
other QM practices to affect customer service and
product quality.
Research Model and
Hypotheses
To effectively implement Six Sigma, it is critical to
strengthen job security, motivate employees to speak
out with ideas, and provide employees with techni-
cal and psychological support to provide better
products and services for customers (Bhote 2003).
Lee and Choi (2006) suggest that Six Sigma entails
communication through cross-functional teams,
cooperation and interactive connection processes
between people, sustainable education/training
to foster learning at all organizational levels, top
management support, and a fair compensation
policy for employees.
The three HRM practices considered here —
employee involvement, employee training, and
employee performance and recognition — should
support the sustainable use of Six Sigma methodol-
ogy. First, employee involvement leads to active
 Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation Through Human Resource Management
participation of organizational members in the
new quality initiative (Henderson and Evans 2000).
For an organization to successfully convert to a
Six Sigma culture, many people must be directly
involved and many support systems must be in
place to make the transformation work smoothly
(Hendricks and Kelbaugh 1998).
Second, employee training helps to commu-
nicate why and how the organization adopts Six
Sigma and to improve the employees’ understand-
ings of the policies implemented by the organization
(Hendricks and Kelbaugh 1998; Lee and Choi 2006).
Continual education and training for manage-
ment and other employees assists in developing
the knowledge and skills required for Six Sigma
improvement (Breyfogle, Cupello, and Meadows
2001; Gale 2003). General Electric, for instance,
required 13 days of training for every employee,
and made promotions dependent on the completion
of green belt training (Henderson and Evans 2000;
Hendricks and Kelbaugh 1998). Organizationwide
training increases all members’ understanding of
the importance of Six Sigma and helps to maintain
improvement results over time.
Third, employee performance and recognition
aligns individual interests with organizational
goals. Six Sigma emphasizes not only improving
product and service quality to better satisfy cus-
tomers’ needs and expectations but also providing
benefits for employees, customers, and sharehold-
ers (Pande and Holpp 2002). An organizational
policy that recognizes and rewards employees’ per-
formance in quality improvement motivates them to
participate in and contribute to Six Sigma projects.
Linderman et al. (2003) suggest that incentives
and rewards help to encourage a higher level of
goal commitment and more efforts in fulfilling
organizational improvement goals. When organiza-
tions have an effective mechanism to evaluate their
employees’ performance and accordingly recognize
and reward their contribution to quality improve-
ment, employees are more willing to learn and
develop themselves (LLoréns-Montes and Molina
2006). Six Sigma goals must be internalized on
an individual level to truly change behavior over
the long term, and thus using Six Sigma accom-
plishments as key measures for management
performance and compensation encourages success-
ful selection and completion of Six Sigma projects
(Henderson and Evans 2000). Overall, as a company
applies the three quality-oriented HRM practices, its
work force is more likely to be prepared for applying
the Six Sigma methodology. Thus, the following
hypothesis is proposed to determine if the tradi-
tional HRM practices significantly affect the level to
which an organization applies Six Sigma methods
such as the structured improvement procedure and
performance metrics:
• Hypothesis 1: The three traditional quality-
oriented HRM practices have a positive direct
effect on the use of Six Sigma methodology.
The organizational infrastructure is important
to firms using Six Sigma methodology (Breyfogle,
Cupello, and Meadows 2001). The Six Sigma role
structure is a human infrastructure specifically
designed for Six Sigma and is critical in facilitat-
ing the use of Six Sigma tools and techniques. The
differentiated and intensive Six Sigma training
programs received by Six Sigma specialists from
champions to Green Belts are designed to improve
their knowledge, skills, and abilities in using Six
Sigma tools, techniques, and metrics, so that they
will be able to effectively lead and conduct improve-
ment projects. These improvement specialists serve
as leaders of the organization’s improvement efforts.
They spread Six Sigma philosophy throughout the
organization and have the responsibility to teach
other employees about Six Sigma tools and tech-
niques (Antony and Banuelas 2002; Henderson and
Evans 2000). Also, Six Sigma training mitigates the
difficulty of attaining challenging goals of improve-
ment projects set by Six Sigma metrics, which
reduces the uncertainty associated with improvement
projects and increases the commitment of the orga-
nizational members (Linderman et al. 2003). This
discussion thus suggests:
• Hypothesis 2: The Six Sigma role structure has
a positive direct effect on the use of Six Sigma
methodology.
www.asq.org 45
 Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation Through Human Resource Management
Figure 1 Proposed model of HRM and Six Sigma.
HRM practices
• Employee involvement
• Employee training
• Employee performance
and recognition
Six Sigma
role structure
In organizations that practice Six Sigma, the
adoption of the Six Sigma role structure brings
innovative elements into their existing HRM sys-
tem. First, the Six Sigma role structure enhances
employee involvement and teamwork by provid-
ing better leaders in improvement projects. Teams
work better when there is strong leadership and
effective administrative support. As compared to
TQM, Six Sigma demands more leadership involve-
ment on improvement projects and requires
leaders to be involved in the improvement pro-
cess on an ongoing basis (Schroeder et al. 2007).
Top management serves as champions leading the
organization’s improvement effort and actively
participates in directing and supporting improve-
ment projects (Henderson and Evans 2000; Lee
and Choi 2006; Schroeder et al. 2007). The direct
involvement of top management in Six Sigma
provides visible leadership to the employees and
demonstrates the importance of the quality initia-
tive, which encourages employees to participate
in the organization’s improvement effort (Flynn,
Schroeder, and Sakakibara 1995; Kaynak 2003).
Meanwhile, the Six Sigma Green and Black Belt
system can be used as a vehicle to develop future
leaders (Schroeder, Linderman, and Zhang 2005).
Master Black Belts, Black Belts, and Green Belts
develop skills for managing change and leading
teams and they are clearly assigned with the respon-
sibilities of supporting teamwork, determining team
members’ roles and duties, setting tasks, and assess-
ing team members’ performance, which helps to
foster collaboration and increase involvement of
team members (Hackman 2002).
46 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
Use of Six Sigma methodology
• Six Sigma structured improvement
©2009, ASQ
procedure
• Six Sigma focus on metrics
Moreover, Six Sigma teams focus on projects at
the strategic level and are formed with people along
process lines to improve a particular process and are
disbanded after the process improvement is imple-
mented, unlike TQM teams which aim to involve all
employees, particularly shop-floor employees, and
have an ongoing charter for improvement in their
work areas (Schroeder et al. 2007). Second, Six
Sigma training adds to traditional employee train-
ing and education on QM. Different from the TQM
training for every employee, Six Sigma training
is offered on an as-needed basis and is differenti-
ated by task (Schroeder et al. 2007). The amount
and content of training are tailored for different
levels of Six Sigma specialists to match their tasks’
complexity, which increases their capabilities of
solving complex problems and helps to focus on
challenging problems and increase the magnitude
of improvement efforts (Linderman et al. 2003).
Particularly, as Six Sigma training and certification
is being accepted by many companies as a formal
component for recruitment and promotion, more
people are willing to participate in quality training
(Gale 2003; Lee and Choi 2006). Third, associated
with the Six Sigma training, Six Sigma role struc-
ture entails a certification program of Master
Black Belt, Black Belt, and Green Belt. Through
the Green and Black Belt certifications, a firm offi-
cially recognizes and rewards employees’ expertise
and achievement in continuous improvement.
Organizations strictly implementing the Green and
Black Belt system emphasize that every member in
the company should reach a certain level of exper-
tise in continuous improvement skills, and a certain
 Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation Through Human Resource Management
level of Six Sigma qualification is required for each
position in a core department (Lee and Choi 2006).
Six Sigma training and the associated certifica-
tion promote the value of quality training as both a
path to promotion and as a means to solve quality
problems, which increases employees’ interest and
involvement in quality improvement activities and
their commitment to the organization’s quality goals
(Linderman et al. 2003). In addition, in the Six
Sigma role structure, explicit policy is included to
determine how to appraise the employees’ and teams’
quality improvement performance and to reward
them accordingly. Specific Six Sigma sections are
added to the annual performance evaluation form,
and executive incentive compensation is awarded
based on the achievement of Six Sigma goals, which
is expected to motivate employees’ efforts in continu-
ous improvement and increase employee fulfillment
(Henderson and Evans 2000; Hendricks and Kelbaugh
1998). Thus, the influence of Six Sigma role structure
on traditional HRM practices is proposed as:
• Hypothesis 3: The Six Sigma role structure has
a positive direct effect on the three traditional
quality-oriented HRM practices.
From these hypotheses, the following research
model is derived, as shown in Figure 1. As explained
earlier, the research model consists of three sections.
The first section is the Six Sigma role structure. The
authors have assumed that the Six Sigma role struc-
ture will positively affect the second section, three
traditional quality-oriented HRM practices, which
will influence the third section, the use of Six Sigma
methodology.
METHODOLOGY
Sample
The data for this study were drawn from a cross-
sectional Web-based survey that investigated the
implementation of QM programs in the U.S. manu-
facturing industry. The sample frame was selected
from the directories of ASQ and Thomas Register
and then e-mails with a link to the Web survey were
sent to the target respondents. This study sample
comprises 95 plants that have implemented Six
Sigma as a formal QM method. The respondents
include operations managers, quality managers,
Six Sigma Master Black Belts, and Black Belts, who
had sufficient knowledge of Six Sigma implemen-
tation in their plant. The responding plants were
from a diverse set of manufacturing industries with
transportation equipment, electrical equipment,
and fabricated metal products being the best rep-
resented. Most of the plants had more than 100
employees. Among these plants, 53 had been imple-
menting Six Sigma for three years or less, 25 plants
had been implementing Six Sigma for four to six
years, 14 plants had been implementing Six Sigma
for more than six years, and three plants did not
indicate how long they had used Six Sigma. The
number of Black Belts and Green Belts in these
plants was distributed as: 30 plants had fewer than
10 trained Green and Black Belts, 39 plants had 10
to 100 trained Green and Black Belts, and 18 plants
had 100 or more trained Green and Black Belts.
Overall, this study sample demonstrates an adequate
range of maturity and experience in Six Sigma
implementation.
Measures of HRM and
Six Sigma Practices
In this study, the Six Sigma and HRM constructs
were measured using multiple items on a seven-
point Likert scale with 1 for strongly disagree and 7
for strongly agree. The measures for the three tradi-
tional quality-oriented HRM practices — employee
involvement, training, and performance and recog-
nition — were developed based on prior empirical
studies on QM that included HRM as a construct
in their model (for example, Anderson et al. 1995;
Douglas and Judge 2001; Flynn, Schroeder, and
Sakakibara 1994; 1995; Kaynak 2003). Compared
to the measures used in the general HRM litera-
ture, these measures were designed to reflect their
orientation toward QM. Employee involvement was
measured by items relating to teamwork, group
www.asq.org 47
 Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation Through Human Resource Management

problem solving, and employees’ participation in items assessed how a plant deployed the Six Sigma
quality decisions. Employee training was evaluated Green and Black Belts in improvement projects, and
in terms of the availability of quality training for the related training and reward and recognition
employees and managers and the contents of train- policies. As to the use of Six Sigma methodology,
ing. Employee performance and recognition was the Six Sigma structured improvement procedure
assessed by items addressing
whether top management
is rewarded for quality and Table 1 Descriptive statistics and construct validity and reliability of the factors.
whether employees receive
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6
feedback about quality and
are recognized for their 1. Employee involvement 1.00
quality achievements. 2. Employee training 0.73 1.00
The items measuring the
3. Employee performance and recognition 0.79 0.77 1.00
Six Sigma constructs were
based on practitioner publi- 4. Six Sigma role structure 0.36 0.42 0.36 1.00
cations (for example, Bhote
5. Six Sigma structured procedure 0.42 0.49 0.40 0.77 1.00
2003; Breyfogle, Cupello,
and Meadows 2001; George 6. Six Sigma focus on metrics 0.40 0.54 0.51 0.66 0.70 1.00

2003; Pande, Neuman, and No. of items 3 4 3 6 6 13

Cavanagh 2000; 2002) and
Mean 5.26 5.10 5.01 4.31 5.21 5.36
academic studies (Choo,
Linderman, and Schroeder Std. dev. 1.19 1.28 1.28 1.72 1.37 1.13

2004; Linderman et al.

©2009, ASQ
Cronbach’s alpha 0.84 0.84 0.81 0.94 0.93 0.94
2003; Schroeder 2000). The
Eigenvalue 2.28 2.76 2.17 4.69 4.55 7.75
Six Sigma role structure

Table 2 Results of simple regression analysis.

Dependent variable Independent variable Adj. R2 Beta Std. error t-value P-value

Six Sigma structured procedure Employee involvement 0.17 0.42 0.11 4.43*** 0.000

Six Sigma structured procedure Employee training 0.23 0.49 0.10 5.36*** 0.000

Six Sigma structured procedure Employee performance and recognition 0.15 0.40 0.10 4.26*** 0.000

Six Sigma focus on metrics Employee involvement 0.15 0.40 0.09 4.17** 0.000

Six Sigma focus on metrics Employee training 0.28 0.54 0.08 6.19*** 0.000

Six Sigma focus on metrics Employee performance and recognition 0.25 0.51 0.08 5.68*** 0.000

Six Sigma structured procedure Six Sigma role structure 0.59 0.77 0.05 11.59*** 0.000

Six Sigma focus on metrics Six Sigma role structure 0.42 0.66 0.05 8.36*** 0.000

Employee involvement Six Sigma role structure 0.12 0.36 0.07 3.76*** 0.000

Employee training Six Sigma role structure 0.17 0.42 0.07 4.44*** 0.000
©2009, ASQ

Employee performance and recognition Six Sigma role structure 0.12 0.36 0.07 3.77*** 0.000

* Significant at p < 0.10, ** Significant at p < 0.05, *** Significant at p < 0.01

48 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ

 Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation Through Human Resource Management

Table 3 Hierarchical regression analysis for Six Sigma structured improvement procedure.
Dependent variable: Six Sigma structured procedure

Independent variable Beta t-value P-value Adj. R2 ΔR2 Sig. F-Change

Model 1 Employee involvement 0.42 4.43 0.000*** 0.17

Model 2 Employee involvement 0.16 2.29 0.025** 0.60 0.43*** 0.000

Six Sigma role structure 0.71 10.21 0.000***

Model 1 Employee training 0.49 5.36 0.000*** 0.23

Model 2 Employee training 0.20 2.82 0.006*** 0.62 0.39*** 0.000

Six Sigma role structure 0.69 9.73 0.000***

Model 1 Employee performance and recognition 0.40 4.26 0.000*** 0.15

Model 2 Employee performance and recognition 0.14 2.05 0.043** 0.60 0.45*** 0.000

©2009, ASQ
Six Sigma role structure 0.72 10.23 0.000***

* Significant at p < 0.10; ** Significant at p < 0.05; *** significant at p < 0.01

Table 4 Hierarchical regression analysis for Six Sigma focus on metrics.

Dependent variable: Six Sigma focus on metrics

Independent variable Beta t-value P-value Adj. R2 ΔR2 Sig. F-Change

Model 1 Employee involvement 0.40 4.17 0.000*** 0.15

Model 2 Employee involvement 0.18 2.22 0.029** 0.45 0.30*** 0.000

Six Sigma role structure 0.59 7.15 0.000***

Model 1 Employee training 0.54 6.19 0.000*** 0.28

Model 2 Employee training 0.32 4.04 0.000*** 0.51 0.23*** 0.000

Six Sigma role structure 0.52 6.51 0.000***

Model 1 Employee performance and recognition 0.51 5.68 0.000*** 0.25

Model 2 Employee performance and recognition 0.31 3.97 0.000*** 0.50 0.25*** 0.000 ©2009, ASQ

Six Sigma role structure 0.54 6.94 0.000***

* Significant at p < 0.10; ** Significant at p < 0.05; *** significant at p < 0.01

was measured by multiple items evaluating how the
plant used DMAIC or DMADV as a standard procedure
in process improvement or product design projects,
and the Six Sigma focus on metrics was assessed by
the degree to which the plant systematically used Six
Sigma metrics in setting improvement goals, deter-
mining quality measures, and connecting customer
needs and business-level performance measures with
process-level metrics.
Table 1 contains the descriptive statistics of the
factors and the results of verifying their reliability
and validity. All six scales used were reliable with
all Cronbach’s alphas above the generally accept-
able level of 0.7 (Nunnally 1978). The construct
validity (that is, the degree to which a scale appro-
priately operationalizes the construct) was tested
using factor analysis. All eigenvalues for the six
scales were higher than 1.00, and the factor loadings
of the items exceeded 0.40, which indicates all the
items contributed substantially to their respective
scales (Hair et al. 1998). Since all the scales met the
reliability and construct validity requirements, the

www.asq.org 49
 Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation Through Human Resource Management
composite scores were calculated for each factor by
averaging its items to represent each plant’s scores
on the factors for subsequent analyses (Hair et al.
1998).
Analysis and Results
Hypotheses 1 through 3 concern the direct relation-
ships among the Six Sigma role structure, three
traditional HRM practices, and two Six Sigma meth-
odological practices. Simple regression analysis
was conducted to test these hypotheses. As shown
in Table 2, each of the three traditional quality-
oriented HRM practices is significantly related to
the Six Sigma structured improvement procedure:
employee involvement with standardized regression
coefficient β = 0.42, p < 0.01; employee training
with β = 0.49, p < 0.01; and employee performance
and recognition with β = 0.40, p < 0.01. The three
HRM practices also are significantly and positively
related to the Six Sigma focus on metrics: employee
involvement with β = 0.40, p < 0.01; employee
training with β = 0.54, p < 0.01; and employee per-
formance and recognition with β = 0.51, p < 0.01.
These results support the proposition that the three
quality-oriented HRM practices have direct positive
effects on the level of applying Six Sigma methodol-
ogy, thus supporting Hypothesis 1.
The regression results in Table 2 show that the
Six Sigma role structure is significantly related to
both the Six Sigma structured improvement proce-
dure (β = 0.77, p < 0.01) and the Six Sigma focus
on metrics (β = 0.66, p < 0.01), which supports
Hypothesis 2. The high standardized regression coef-
ficients, as well as the high correlation between the
Six Sigma role structure and the two Six Sigma
methodological practices (see Table 1), indicate that
the Six Sigma role structure is a particularly criti-
cal infrastructure for the effective use of Six Sigma
methodology.
Table 2 shows that the Six Sigma role structure
is significantly and positively related to all three
traditional HRM practices: employee involvement
(β = 0.36, p < 0.01), employee training (β = 0.42,
p < 0.01), and employee performance and
50 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
recognition (β = 0.36, p < 0.01). Thus, Hypothesis 3
is supported. This finding suggests that Six Sigma’s
new approach to developing and managing human
resources for continuous improvement has a posi-
tive effect on the traditional quality-oriented HRM
practices of employee involvement, training, and
performance appraisal and reward.
In addition, the authors conducted hierarchi-
cal regression analysis to evaluate whether the Six
Sigma role structure can enhance an organiza-
tion’s capability of human resource development
for Six Sigma improvement. Two sets of hierarchical
regression analysis models were evaluated for the
Six Sigma structured improvement procedure and
Six Sigma focus on metrics, respectively. In Table 3,
where the Six Sigma structured improvement proce-
dure was the dependent variable, each HRM practice
was first entered as an independent variable in model
1, and then the Six Sigma role structure was added
in model 2. The analysis of standardized regression
coefficients showed significant relationships among
the Six Sigma role structure, the HRM practices, and
the Six Sigma structured improvement procedure.
The explained variances (ΔR 2) were significantly
higher (that is, adjusted R2 values increased by 39
percent to 45 percent) after the Six Sigma role struc-
ture was entered into the regression model. Similar
results were found for the hierarchical regression
models evaluating the relationships among the Six
Sigma role structure, the HRM practices, and the Six
Sigma focus on metrics (see Table 4). Overall, these
results suggest that adopting Six Sigma principles
adds to the organization’s existing HRM system in
supporting the use of Six Sigma methodology.
DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSIONS
Both practitioners and researchers have empha-
sized that human resources play a critical role in
deploying Six Sigma (for example, Antony and
Banuelas 2002; Bhote 2003; Breyfogle, Cupello,
and Meadows 2001; Henderson and Evans 2000;
LLoréns-Montes and Molina 2006). The results
 Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation Through Human Resource Management
of this study provide the empirical evidence that
people-based practices have a significant effect
on the application of Six Sigma methodology. In
this study, three traditional quality-oriented HRM
practices (that is, employee involvement, employee
training, and employee performance and recog-
nition) are found to have a positive relationship
with two Six Sigma methodological practices—Six
Sigma structured improvement procedure and Six
Sigma focus on metrics. This finding supports previ-
ous research suggesting that a high-quality system
is embedded within a HRM system that uses teams,
engages employees, promotes employee participa-
tion in decision making, and provides training and
rewards (Bowen and Lawler 1992; Kochan, Gittel,
and Lautsch 1995; Yang 2006). The use of Six
Sigma methodology entails substantial changes
in an organization’s business processes and man-
agement styles. Factors such as communication,
training, and rewards and recognition, if imple-
mented effectively, can accelerate the integration of
Six Sigma into the organization’s culture (McAdam
and Evans 2004).
In addition, Six Sigma creates a unique human
infrastructure — the Six Sigma role structure —
consisting of improvement specialists who have
clearly specified roles and responsibilities in the
organization’s improvement efforts and are assigned
to take leading positions in project teams. This study
found that this Six Sigma role structure positively
supports the use of the two Six Sigma methodologi-
cal practices. Six Sigma emphasizes conducting
improvement projects in a disciplined manner by
offering structured procedures that specify the
sequence of improvement activities and prescribe
the appropriate tools and techniques for each activ-
ity. When teams follow such procedures to plan and
execute their projects, it is easier for them to divide
complicated projects into feasible tasks so that they
are more likely to achieve better project performance
(Linderman et al. 2003; Linderman, Schroeder, and
Choo 2006). The improvement specialists, as the
influential members of management and the leaders
of project improvement teams, are expected to pro-
mote the application, acceptance, and evolution of
improvement procedures within their business units
(Antony 2004; LLoréns-Montes and Molina 2006).
These Six Sigma improvement specialists are in a
role where they focus on how to use the Six Sigma
procedures and the associated tools, techniques,
and metrics, which facilitates the use of Six Sigma
structured procedures and performance metrics in
improvement projects.
Moreover, the results presented in this study
show that this Six Sigma role structure adds to
the traditional HRM practices and their synergy
significantly facilitates the application of Six
Sigma methodology. The training and certifica-
tion/qualification mechanisms associated with
the Six Sigma role structure generate motivation
and commitment to the organization’s continu-
ous improvement activities (Bhote 2003; Breyfogle,
Cupello, and Meadows 2001). The Six Sigma role
structure differs from other QM programs, since it
assigns full-time specialists (that is, Black Belts)
to take the responsibility of planning and manag-
ing improvement projects so that Six Sigma is not
perceived as overburdening executives (LLoréns-
Montes and Molina 2006). So, the specialists are
held accountable for applying Six Sigma methods to
meet improvement goals, which drives them to con-
sistently seek innovative ways to improve products,
services, and processes. The reward and recogni-
tion they receive for their success will publicize
Six Sigma throughout the organization and thus
increase the organizationwide interests in and com-
mitment to quality improvement. It is important
that human resource professionals be involved in
Six Sigma efforts in selecting and developing people
with appropriate knowledge and skills, creating a
Six Sigma culture, increasing team effectiveness,
improving communication, and establishing the
right rewards and recognition system (Federico and
Thomson 2003).
The findings of this study are relevant to both
QM researchers and practicing managers. In the
QM literature, it has been recognized that many
companies did not achieve the expected benefits
from QM implementation because they failed to
address the issues related to people and culture
www.asq.org 51
 Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation Through Human Resource Management
when implementing QM practices (Prajogo and
McDermott 2005). To successfully apply QM meth-
ods and tools, organizations must establish a sound
people-based, soft, cultural, and organizational
environment (Evans and Lindsay 1999; Rahman
and Bullock 2005; Tari and Sabater 2004; Wilkinson
1992). Effective human resource use is critical for
improving quality (Ahire, Golhar, and Waller 1996).
The empirical evidence in this study demonstrates
the importance of people-based practices, both the
traditional quality-oriented HRM practices and
the Six Sigma role structure, in implementing Six
Sigma methodology. Based on the results of this
study, managers are advised to prepare for Six Sigma
implementation with careful evaluation of their
current HRM practices, such as whether their orga-
nizational culture supports employee involvement
and participation, whether top management is will-
ing to invest in employee training and education,
and whether the appraisal and reward policy takes
quality performance into account. More important,
the synergy of the Six Sigma role structure and the
traditional HRM practices encourages managers
to innovate their policies and tactics in managing
human resources. It is valuable to integrate the Six
Sigma role structure into the organization’s existing
HRM system to create high-performance work force.
REFERENCES
Ahire, L. S., D. Y. Golhar, and M. A. Waller. 1996. Development
and validation of TQM implementation constructs. Decision
Sciences 27, no. 1:23-56.
Anderson, J. C., M. Rungtusanatham, R. G. Schroeder, and
S. Devaraj. 1995. A path analytic model of a theory of qual-
ity management underlying the Deming Management Method:
Preliminary empirical findings. Decision Sciences 26:637-658.
Antony, J., and R. Banuelas. 2002. Key ingredients for the effec-
tive implementation of a Six Sigma program. Measuring Business
Excellence 6, no. 4:20-27.
Antony, J. 2004. Some pros and cons of Six Sigma: An academic
perspective. The TQM Magazine 16, no. 4:303-306.
Barney, M. 2002. Macro, meso, micro: Six Sigma. The Industrial-
Organizational Psychologist 39, no. 4:104-107.
Bayo-Moriones, A., and M. J. de Cerio. 2001. Quality manage-
ment and high performance work practices: Do they coexist?
International Journal of Production Economics 73:251-259.
52 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
Bhote, K. R. 2003. The power of ultimate Six Sigma: Keki Bhote’s
proven system for moving beyond quality excellence to total busi-
ness excellence. New York: AMACOM.
Blackburn, R., and B. Rosen. 1993. Total quality and human
resource management: Lessons learned from Baldrige award-
winning companies. Academy of Management Executive 7, no.
3:49-66.
Bolze, S. 1998. A Six Sigma approach to competitiveness.
Transmission and Distribution World 50, no. 8:18.
Bou, J. D., and I. Beltrán. 2005. Total quality management, high-
commitment human resource strategy and firm performance: An
empirical study. Total Quality Management 16:71-86.
Bowen, D., and L. Lawler. 1992. Total quality-oriented human
resource management. Organizational Dynamics 24, no. 4:39-41.
Breyfogle, F. W., J. M. Cupello, and B. Meadows. 2001.
Managing Six Sigma: A practical guide to understanding,
assessing, and implementing the strategy that yields bottom-line
success. Danvers, Mass.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Choo, A.S., K. Linderman, and R. G. Schroeder. 2004. Social
and method effects on learning behaviors and knowledge cre-
ation in Six Sigma projects. In Proceedings of 2004 Annual
Meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans.
Choo, A. S., K. Linderman, and R. G. Schroeder. 2007. Method
and psychological effects on learning behaviors and knowledge
creation in quality improvement projects. Management Science
53, no. 3:437-450.
Dasgupta, T. 2003. Using the six-sigma metric to measure
and improve the performance of a supply chain. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence 14, no. 3:355-367.
Dean, H. W., and D. E. Bowen. 1994. Management theory
and total quality: Improving research and practice through
theory development. Academy of Management Review 19, no.
3:392-418.
Desai, D. A. 2006. Improving customer delivery commitments
the Six Sigma way: Case study of an Indian small scale industry.
International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage 2,
no. 1:23-47.
Devane, R. 2004. Integrating lean Six Sigma and high-perfor-
mance organizations: Leading the charge toward dramatic, rapid
and sustainable improvement. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Douglas, T. J., and W. Q. Judge Jr. 2001. Total quality man-
agement implementation and competitive advantage: the role
of structural control and exploration. Academy of Management
Journal 44:158-169.
Evans, J. R., and W. M. Lindsay. 1999. The management and
control of quality. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.
Federico, M., and T. Thomson. 2003. The role of human
resources (HR) in Six Sigma. Available at: www.isixsigma.com/
library/content/c030414a.asp#about.
 Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation Through Human Resource Management
Flynn, B. B. 1994. The relationship between quality manage-
ment practices, infrastructure and fast product innovation.
Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology 1, no.
1:48-64.
Flynn, B. B., R. G. Schroeder, and S. Sakakibara. 1994. A
framework for quality management research and an associated
measurement instrument. Journal of Operations Management 11:
339-366.
Flynn, B. B., R. G. Schroeder, and S. Sakakibara. 1995. The
impact of quality management practices on performance and
competitive advantage. Decision Sciences 26, no. 5:659-692.
Foster, S. T. Jr. 2007. Does Six Sigma improve performance?
Quality Management Journal 14, no. 4:1-20.
Gale, S. F. 2003. Building framework for Six Sigma. Workforce
(May):64-69.
George, M. L. 2003. Lean Six Sigma for service. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Gijo, E. V., and T. Rao. 2005. Six Sigma implementation—
hurdles and more hurdles. Total Quality Management 16, no.
6:721-725.
Hackman, J. R. 2002. Leading teams: Setting the stage for great
performances. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1998.
Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harry, M., and R. G. Schroeder. 2000. Six Sigma: The break-
through management strategy revolutionizing the world’s top
corporations. New York: Doubleday Publishers.
Henderson, K. M., and J. R. Evans. 2000. Successful implemen-
tation of Six Sigma: Benchmarking General Electric company.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 7, no. 4: 260-281.
Hendricks, C. A., and R. Kelbaugh. 1998. Implementing Six
Sigma at GE. The Journal of Quality and Participation 21, no.
4:48-53.
Howard, L. W., and S. T. Foster. 1999. The influence of human
resource practices on empowerment and employee percep-
tions of management commitment to quality. Journal of Quality
Management 4, no. l:5-22.
Joseph, I. N. 1999. An instrument for measuring total quality
management implementation in manufacturing based business
units in India. International Journal of Production Research
37:2201-2215.
Juran, J. M. 1993. Made in the USA: A renaissance in quality.
Harvard Business Review 71, no. 4:42-50.
Kaynak, H. 2003. The relationship between total quality manage-
ment practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of
Operations Management 31:1-31.
Kochan, T. A., J. H. Gittel, and B. A. Lautsch. 1995. Total
quality management and human resource systems: An interna-
tional comparison. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 6, no. 2:201-22.
Langbert, M. 2000. Human resource management and Deming’s
continuous improvement concept. Journal of Quality Management
5:85-101.
Lee, K. C., and B. Choi. 2006. Six Sigma management activities
and their influence on corporate competitiveness. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence 17, no. 7:893-911.
Linderman, K., R. G. Schroeder, S. Zaheer, and A. S. Choo.
2003. Six Sigma: A goal-theoretic perspective. Journal of
Operations Management 21:193-203.
Linderman, K., R. G. Schroeder, and A. S. Choo. 2006. Six
Sigma: The role of goals in improvement teams. Journal of
Operations Management 24, no. 6:779-790.
LLoréns-Montes, F. J., and L. M. Molina. 2006. Six Sigma and
management theory: Processes, content and effectiveness. Total
Quality Management 17, no. 4:485-506.
McAdam, R., and A. Evans. 2004. The organizational contextual
factors affecting the implementation of Six-Sigma in a high tech-
nology mass-manufacturing environment. International Journal of
Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage 1, no. 1:29-43.
Mayer, K. J. 2002. Human resource practices and service quality
in theme parks. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 14, no. 4:169-175.
Motwani, J., A. Kumar, and J. Antony. 2004. A business pro-
cess change framework for examining the implementation of Six
Sigma: A case study of Dow Chemicals. The TQM Magazine 16,
no. 4:273-283.
Nair, A. 2006. Meta-analysis of the relationship between quality
management practices and firm performance—implications for
quality management theory development. Journal of Operations
Management 24, no. 6:948-975.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric theory, second edition. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Pande, P. S., and L. Holpp. 2002. What is Six Sigma? New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Pande, P. S., R. P. Neuman, and R. R. Cavanagh. 2000. The Six
Sigma way: How GE, Motorola, and other top companies are
honing their performance. New York: McGraw Hill.
Pande, P. S., R. P. Neuman, and R. R. Cavanagh. 2002. The Six
Sigma way, team fieldbook: An implementation guide for process
improvement teams. New York: McGraw Hill.
Prajogo, D. I., and D. M. McDermott. 2005. The relation-
ship between total quality management practices and
organizational culture. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 25, no. 11:1101-1122.
www.asq.org 53
 Enhancing Six Sigma Implementation Through Human Resource Management
Pyzdek, T. 1999. Six Sigma is primarily a management program.
Quality Digest (June):26.
Rahman, S., and P. Bullock. 2005. Soft TQM, hard TQM, and
organizational performance relationships: An empirical investiga-
tion. Omega 33:73-83.
Saá-Pérez, P. D., and J. M. García-Falcón. 2002. A
resource-based view of human resource management and orga-
nizational capabilities development. International Journal of
Human Resource Management 13, no. 1:123-140.
Schroeder, R. G. 2000. Six Sigma quality improve-
ment: What is Six Sigma and what are the important
implications? In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual International
POMS Conference, Seville, Spain.
Schroeder, R. G., K. Linderman, and D. Zhang. 2005. Evolution
of quality: First fifty issues of production and operations manage-
ment. Production & Operations Management 14:468-481.
Schroeder, R. G., K. Linderman, C. Liedtke, and A. S. Choo.
2007. Six Sigma: Definition and underlying theory. Journal of
Operations Management (June).
Schuler, R. S., and I. C. MacMillan. 1984. Gaining competi-
tive advantage through human resource management practices.
Human Resource Management 23:241-255.
Sila, I., and M. Ebrahimpour. 2005. Critical linkages among
TQM factors and business results. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 25:1123-1155.
Sinha, K. K., and A. H. Van de Ven. 2005. Designing work
within and between organizations. Organization Science 16, no.
4:389-408.
Snee, R. D. 1999. Why should statisticians pay attention to Six
Sigma?: An examination for their role in the six sigma methodol-
ogy. Quality Progress 32 no. 9:100-103.
Snee, R. D., and R. W. Hoerl. 2003. Leading Six Sigma: A step-
by-step guide based on experience with GE and other Six Sigma
companies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
54 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
Tarí, J. J., and V. Sabater. 2004. Quality tools and techniques:
Are they necessary for quality management? International Journal
of Production Economics 92, no. 3:267-280.
Wilkinson, A. 1992. The other side of quality: Soft issues and the
human resource dimension. Total Quality Management 3, no.
3:323-329.
Yang, C. C. 2006. The impact of human resource management
practices on the implementation of total quality management: An
empirical study on high-tech firms. The TQM Magazine 18, no.
2:162-173.
Zu, X., L. D. Fredendall, and T. J. Douglas. 2008. The evolving
theory of quality management: The role of Six Sigma. Journal of
Operations Management, 26, no. 5:630-650.
BIOGRAPHIES
Xingxing Zu is assistant professor in the Department of
Information Science & Systems at Morgan State University. She
received a bachelor’s degree and master’s degree in industrial
engineering from Tianjin University, China, and her doctorate in
operations management from Clemson University. Her research
interests are implementation of business improvement methods
such as TQM, Six Sigma, and lean in manufacturing and ser-
vice industries and quality communication and assurance in the
global supply chain. Her research has been published in Journal
of Operations Management, Omega, International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, and other journals. She can
be reached at xingxing.zu@morgan.edu.
Lawrence D. Fredendall is associate professor of management
at Clemson University. He received his MBA and his doctorate
in operations management from Michigan State University. His
most recent book is titled Basics of Supply Chain Management
and was published by The St. Lucie Press/APICS Series. His
work has appeared in journals such as the Journal of Operations
Management, Decision Sciences, International Journal of
Production Research, European Journal of Operational Research,
and Production and Operations Management.

Communication: The Key
to Effective Leadership. 2009.
Judith Ann Pauley and Joseph F.
Pauley. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality
Press. 90 pages.
Communication is a very con-
cise book that describes how to
apply the process communication
model developed by Taibi Kahler.
The model is reported to be effective
in every aspect of one’s life, in every
personal and business interaction.
It does this by identifying another
person’s primary, or “base,” per-
sonality type, primarily through the
language that he or she uses, and
the unique communication styles,
psychological needs, behaviors, and
other characteristics of each of the
six personality types.
The words that describes the six
personality types that Kahler settled
on include: dreamer, reactor, rebel,
promoter, workaholic, and persister.
While these words are over simpli-
fications of all the nuances found
in the various behavioral aspects of
a personality type, they do express
the essence of each one described
in the book. No test or clinical
method is provided by the Pauleys
to determine the intensity of the per-
sonality types, other than inspection
of one’s own behavior or observa-
tion of other’s behavior, which they
say research shows is effective. The
fact is that everyone possesses some
form of each of these personality
Book
Reviews
types in order to cope with his or her
environment. Based on the circum-
stances, however, one or two will
be dominant in their hierarchical
structure. Over time, these personal-
ity types can rearrange themselves in
a specific individual to better cope
with the environment in which he
or she lives. Fortunately, the leader
only has to identify the dominate
personality type exhibited by his or
her individual followers to effectively
communicate with them.
Given that all of this can be
internalized to the point that it is use-
ful, the leader will be in a position
to choose the language that is most
effective in motivating the follower
into action. The interaction style for
each type described by Kahler (1982)
and used by the Pauley’s is shown in
Table 5.1 (p. 29):
The Pauleys present a fasci-
nating array of cases, antidotes,
and testimonials to illustrate how
individuals in all walks of life
and situations have used Kahler’s
Process Communication Model to
effectively lead others. Their attempt
to convey the intricacy of the model
is noteworthy in the array of per-
sonality profile models available
from some very noteworthy behav-
ioral researchers of the day in both
academic and popular press. While
Kahler’s model is worthy of exami-
nation, its complexity and onus
on the leader to adapt his or her
language to the individual is not
easy. In some circumstances, how-
ever, it can be a very effective tool to
get results.
Reviewed by
Dr. James Kohnen
The China Price: The True
Cost of Chinese Competitive
Advantage. 2008. Alexandra
Harney. New York: The Penguin
Press HC. 336 pages.
Alexandra Harney pres-
ents a well-written, thoroughly
documented and very informative
presentation on the business condi-
tions that currently prevail in China.
She provides a comprehensive view
of the factors contributing to the
phenomenal changes that are tak-
ing place in the social structure and
economic climate in China, plus
the techniques used by individuals,
business entities, and the govern-
ment to cope with them. And while
a disclaimer at the beginning of the
book states: “At the request of some
individuals mentioned in this work,
the author has changed their names
and, in some instances, omitted
identifying characteristics,” the
characters created to illustrate the
material presented in each chapter
all seem to ring true to the footnotes
that support them.
This technique of using a
character to track the material
present in each chapter softens the
www.asq.org 55
Reviews
academic tone of the book and the
material presented. Nevertheless,
each chapter quickly gets to the
heart of the topic at hand, illus-
trating shadow factories, falsified
records, and unreliable audits by
both the government and custom-
ers representatives. That is not to
say the government and customers
do not have contemporary stan-
dards; they just are not effectively
communicated and enforced. This
is especially true of adjudication
of contract disputes because of the
fledgling legal system found in
China today. Occasionally, how-
ever, someone does get severely
punished by imprisonment, fines,
or loss of business for a specifically
horrendous act.
The point of Harney’s rhetoric is
that the business system in China is
structured to provide goods to the
world at an artificially low price.
To do this China has been, is, and
will continue to use its unique
position in the world to sustain
itself in this very profitable mode.
With more than 1.3 billion people
who live very frugally, China has
an ample labor force to do any-
thing inexpensively. China also
has an extensive education system
to train selected professional indi-
viduals to support the physical and
intellectual infrastructure capable
of reacting effectively, and some-
times forcefully, to correct actions
that are perceived not to be in
their national interests. It seems
that, from Harney’s perspective,
all Chinese citizens are trying to
56 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
make money for themselves and
their family with little regard for
anything else.
The consequences of these
underlying conditions can and
do lead to abuses of the human
capital that is employed through-
out China to support the world’s
demand for cheap goods. Chapter
7, Accounts and Accountability,
does an excellent job of describing
how the auditing effort can become
jaded as the pressure for low cost
goods grows. Harney reports that
the difference between China and
the rest of the world, in the produc-
tion of fake factory records used to
document manufacturing, is scale
and skill. “Falsification engineers”
are routinely hired to create fake
factory records that are considered
an art form.
The closing chapters of the
book provide considerable hope for
the future of China and the world
market. In the new model factory,
conditions will improve and records
will accurately reflect the conditions
they are documenting, because it is
good politics to value workers and
know what is actually happening.
The cost of the goods in the factory
will grow, but the China price will
remain competitive, because it has
built the infrastructure to support
its manufacturing sector. There will
always be cheaper alternatives, but
they come with problems orders of
magnitude greater than those found
in China.
Reviewed by
Dr. James Kohnen
The Performance Paradox:
Understanding the Real
Drivers that Critically Affect
Outcomes. 2009. Jerry L. Harbour.
New York: Productivity Press. 175
pages.
Harbour’s passion for detailed
examination of the essence of
performance is noteworthy. By
thoroughly examining it from a
declarative and procedural perspec-
tive he ferrets out all the theoretical
and practical aspects of its mean-
ing. With the zeal of Diogenes,
who carries a lantern that shines
the light of truth into the shad-
ows, and the sincerity of Apollo,
the god of truth, who cannot speak
a lie, Harbour seeks what is true
about the concept of performance.
He claims that “Incorrectly held
performance-related truths set
up business leaders and inves-
tors for disappointment and
disillusionment.”
Harbour seeks to debunk the
prevailing notion that increased
resources will always increase
performance. He illustrates with
the logical statement that perfor-
mance is the action that results in
outcomes. He quantifies this in a
performance equation in which
the performance outcome Y can be
expressed as a function of a variable
set x. The relationship can then be
portrayed by the formula Y=f(x).
Given this approach, three basic
types of x variables emerge.
• Those that significantly affect
performance in a positive
manner
• Those that significantly affect
performance in a negative
manner
• Those that have little or no real
effect on performance
The critical thinking task for
management is to identify which is
which.
Simply managing resources,
however, is not enough.
Performance is shown to have
limits using asymptotic analysis,
which is a method of describing
limiting behavior. This is illus-
trated by an S-shaped cumulative
life-cycle curve, which is said to
show essentially the same data as
seen in a normal bell curve. The
other benefit of using an S-curve
as a universal model (logistic func-
tion) for performance is that it
is derived from a law that states
that “the rate of growth is pro-
portional to both the amount of
growth already accomplished and
the amount of growth remaining
to be accomplished.” The implica-
tions of this insight are enormous.
Harbour summarizes this notion
as: A performance life cycle will,
after getting off to a slow start, rap-
idly accelerate and eventually hit
some limiting threshold or wall
and stop regardless of the resources
expended at any given time.
Management can sometimes
thwart this paradox superficially
through innovation. It does not
change the process, but only adds
a new beginning to the S-curve.
The replacement of internal com-
bustion engines with jet engines
in Army tanks changed the horse-
power to a weight ratio allowing
for heaver offensive and defensive
improvements to be added without
degrading the vehicle’s mobility
because of their weight. This change
started a new S-curve that should be
noted on the vehicle’s cumulative
life-cycle chart.
With this theoretical back-
ground, Harbour ventures off into
the practical application of his
theories. Sometime the case studies,
anecdotes, and stories become more
interesting than the point they are
illustrating. He does provide sum-
maries at the end of each chapter
to reinforce the teaching point of
each of his descriptive practical
applications.
At times the book seems to pro-
vide too much information about
a single subject. Harbour is aware
of this, but being an academic at
heart and very passionate about his
subject and the research time he
and his colleagues have put into it,
he is almost compelled to overstate
his position. If the material seems
overbearing, simply reading the
chapter summaries will significantly
expand the reader’s understanding
of performance.
Reviewed by
Dr. James Kohnen
Work the System: The
Simple Mechanics of Making
More and Working Less. 2009.
Sam Carpenter. Austin, Texas:
Greenleaf Book Group, LLC. 240
pages.
Sam Carpenter is the founder,
majority owner, chief execu-
tive officer (CEO), and general
manager of Centratel LLC, which
provides exclusive-quality 24/7/365
telephone-answering service to all
50 states. He presents a compelling
look into what it takes to develop
and maintain a small business that
has a singled-minded focus to “do
whatever is necessary to maintain
the position as the highest quality
telephone answering service in the
United States.”
Reading the book clearly identi-
fies that a CEO of a small business
must be cognizant of every aspect
of the product and service it offers,
the customers it serves, and the
suppliers that provide the goods
and services it needs. Internally,
every aspect of running the busi-
ness must be attended to without
a large staff or any staff. The sheer
magnitude and catastrophic con-
sequences of handling any one
of them incorrectly makes the
job enormous, if not impossible.
Unless, as Carpenter discovered,
a system is found to make more
while working less. His journey
from fire-killing to his holistic
approach of appreciating the value
of systems in the universe and
their application in the workplace
is certainly intriguing.
It is unfortunate that Carpenter
was not aware of the work of
Frederick Winslow Taylor, a
mechanical engineer, who is
regarded as the father of scien-
tific management. Taylor had very
www.asq.org 57
Reviews
precise ideas about how to intro-
duce his system: “It is only through
enforced standardization of meth-
ods, enforced adoption of the best
implements and working condi-
tions, and enforced cooperation
that this faster work can be assured.
And the duty of enforcing the adop-
tion of standards and enforcing this
cooperation rests with manage-
ment alone” (Taylor, Principles
of Scientific Management). But it
clearly illustrates that rediscovery
is the lot of small business owners
such as Carpenter, who claims to
have had an epiphany when he was
at the depths of despair that led to
his current theory of management
that includes systems. The book does
include five pages (pp. 228-232) of
contemporary references, although
not linked to specific notions he
describes that he derived from this
life-altering experience.
Carpenter’s concept includes sev-
eral levels of systems that include
goals and strategies that are cre-
ated by the owner — after all, it
is his business, published as a
brief statement for all to see and
unconditionally subscribed to as a
condition of employment. These
are reinforced by Centratel’s 30
58 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
principles, which are also uncon-
ditional and uncompromisingly
enforced. Number 11 states: “we
operate the company via docu-
mented procedures and systems.”
The systems are said to have an “off
the street meaning that anyone with
normal intelligence can perform
the procedures unassisted because
they are efficient, simple and thor-
oughly documented in no. 13.”
The procedures provide a detailed
account of how to deal with reoccur-
ring systems, subsystems, and event
activities that are considered impor-
tant to the efficient operation of the
firm. They are all subject to imme-
diate revision when a documented
recommendation is presented that
will improve the process.
Carpenter defends his approach
as being a very logical method of
achieving high efficiency, excellent
quality, and producing a loyal work-
force. He also is enamored with the
concept “keep it simple,” embodied
in Ockham’s Razor. There are other
truisms like these that support his
contentions that Centratel offers the
highest quality telephone answering
service in the United States.
This book initially emerged as
a self-published offering that was
picked up by Greenleaf Publishing
and is being distributed in major
markets by big-box book stores.
The appeal is in its contrast to
the retiring corporate CEO’s part-
ing memoirs, usually co-authored
with a professional writer, that
offer their bland wisdom to those
willing to read it. Most of them
should not have taken the sug-
gestion to write a book, given
freely by their colleagues at their
retirement gala, seriously because
their books come out poorly in
content and presentation that tar-
nish their own reputation. This
book provides an uninhibited look
into the development of an active
CEO for a small business, as did
David Novak’s The Education
of an Accidental CEO: Lessons
Learned From the Trailer Park
to the Corner Office (QMJ vol. 15,
issue 4) for a large corporation.
Both Carpenter and Novak exhibit
their unbridled passion for the
organization, the product, and the
people they lead. Their belief in
themselves, the integrity of their
conviction, and unwavering focus
on excellence is overwhelming.
Reviewed by
Dr. James Kohnen
 QMJ Volume 16 Author
A G
Amara, Nabil. See Boiral, Olivier
Armstrong, Curtis P. See Guimaraes,
Tor
B
Boiral, Olivier, and Nabil
Amara, “Paradoxes of ISO 9000
Performance: A Configurational
Approach” (vol. 16, no. 3): 36–60.
C
Cantrell, R. Stephen. See
Laohavichien, Tipparat
Chakravorty, Satya S., “Process
Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3
Reports” (vol. 16, no. 4): 7–26.
F no. 3): 30–34.
Finch, Byron J., and Xiaowen Huang,
“Predictability of Impending Online
Auction Business Failure: A P-Chart
Analysis” (vol. 16, no. 2): 25–33.
Fredendall, Lawrence D. See
Laohavichien, Tipparat
Fredendall, Lawrence D. See Zu,
Xingxing
Index
M
Guimaraes, Tor, Curtis P. Armstrong, Mahanti, Rupa, “The Application of
and Brian M. Jones, “A New Approach Quality Function Deployment to User
to Measuring Information Systems Interface Design” (vol. 16, no. 1):
Quality” (vol. 16, no. 1): 42–54. 29–41.
H N
Huang, Xiaowen. See Finch, Byron J. Norton, William I. Jr., and Lyle
Sussman, “Team Charters:
J Theoretical Foundations and
Practical Implications for Quality and
Jones, Brian M. See Guimaraes, Tor Performance” (vol. 16, no. 1): 7–17.
K R
Koch, Karen E. See Van Matre, Robinson, Alan G., “The Role
Joseph G. of Front-Line Ideas in Lean
Kolesar, Peter, “A Quality Perspective Performance Improvement” (vol. 16,
on the Mortgage Crisis: More no. 4): 27–40.
Questions Than Answers” (vol. 16, Rodchua, Suhansa, “Comparative
Analysis of Quality Costs and
Organization Sizes in the
L Manufacturing Environment”
(vol. 16, no. 2): 34–43.
Laohavichien, Tipparat, Lawrence D.
Fredendall, and R. Stephen Cantrell, Rodrigues, António Guimarães.
“The Effects of Transformational and See Sampaio, Paulo
Transactional Leadership on Quality
Improvement” (vol. 16, no. 2): 7–24. S
Latham, John R., “Complex System Sampaio, Paulo, Pedro Saraiva, and
Design: Creating Sustainable António Guimarães Rodrigues, “A
Change in the Mortgage-Finance Statistical Analysis of ISO 9000-Related
System” (vol. 16, no. 3): 19–25. Data for European Union Ultra-
Peripheral and Portuguese Regions”
(vol. 16, no. 2): 44–58.
www.asq.org 59
Author Index
Saraiva, Pedro. See Sampaio, Paulo
Schroeder, Dean M. See Robinson,
Alan G.
Stephens, Ken, “Quality Principles,
Philosophies, and Methodologies
Applicable to the Mortgage-Finance
Supply Chain” (vol. 16, no. 3):
26–27.
Sussman, Lyle. See Norton,
William I. Jr.
V Z
Van Matre, Joseph G., and Karen E. Zipkin, Paul, “Quality Snags in the
Koch, “Understanding Healthcare Mortgage-Finance Supply Chain”
Clinical Process and Outcome (vol. 16, no. 3): 7–18.
Measures and Their Use in the
Zu, Xingxing, and Lawrence D.
Baldrige Award Application Process”
Fredendall, “Enhancing Six Sigma
(vol. 16, no. 1): 18–28.
Implementation Through Human
W Resource Management” (vol. 16,
no. 4): 41–54.
Watson, Gregory H., “Time to
Sharpen These Blunt Instruments
and Give Them to Some Living
Spirits!” (vol. 16, no. 3): 28–29.

Special Issue
Research in Supplier Development and Global Supply Chain Quality
Guest Editor:
S. Thomas Foster Jr.
Area Leader and Professor of Global Supply Chain
Management
Ford Motor Company Fellow in Quality Management
Brigham Young University
The special issue on Research in Supplier Development
and Global Supply Chain Quality aims to publish papers
that provide greater insights into how decisions about
quality management, quality assurance, and quality
control need to be recast to improve supply chain perfor-
mance. Papers may be either conceptual or empirical in
nature, and pursue either theory building or theory testing.
Methodologically, papers will typically be based on empiri-
cal methodologies (for example, case research, survey
research, and so on) and should be in alignment with the
mission of the QMJ to encourage research that is relevant to
practitioners. Interdisciplinary papers in terms of content or
in terms of methodologies are strongly encouraged.
Appropriate topics include but are not limited to:
1. Global supply chain quality management: Companies
are struggling to improve supply chain performance in a
global environment. This includes working with suppli-
ers in emerging economies such as the BRIC countries.
2. Papers relating to supplier development are encour-
aged. This can be in either a domestic or global
context. What are firms doing to improve supplier
performance? What does and doesn’t work?
3. A related area of interest is supplier evaluation. What
are effective methods for evaluating suppliers? Do
these relate to improved performance?
4. Global supply chain quality strategy. Strategy relates
to both content and process relating to managing
suppliers in global supply chains.
Manuscripts must be submitted by September 30,
2009, and conform to QMJ requirements. Manuscripts
will be reviewed in a double-blind fashion and accord-
ing to QMJ review procedures. The guest editor in
consultation with the editor of QMJ will make all final
decisions as to the suitability of manuscripts for the
special issue.
Papers should be submitted according to QMJ
guidelines, but authors should clearly note that their
submissions are being submitted for this special issue.

60 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ

 QMJ Volume 16 Subject
Configurations
Boiral, Olivier, and Nabil
Amara, “Paradoxes of ISO 9000
Performance: A Configurational
Approach” (vol. 16, no. 3): 36–60.
Empirical Research
Laohavichien, Tipparat, Lawrence D.
Fredendall, and R. Stephen Cantrell,
“The Effects of Transformational and
Transactional Leadership on Quality
Improvement” (vol. 16, no. 2): 7–24.
Healthcare
Van Matre, Joseph G., and Karen E.
Koch, “Understanding Healthcare
Clinical Process and Outcome
Measures and Their Use in the
Baldrige Award Application Process”
(vol. 16, no. 1): 18–28.
Human Resource Management
Zu, Xingxing, and Lawrence D.
Fredendall, “Enhancing Six Sigma
Implementation Through Human
Resource Management” (vol. 16,
no. 4): 41–54.
Idea Systems
Robinson, Alan G., “The Role
of Front-Line Ideas in Lean
Performance Improvement” (vol. 16,
no. 4): 27–40.
Index
Information Systems
Guimaraes, Tor, Curtis P. Armstrong,
and Brian M. Jones, “A New Approach
to Measuring Information Systems
Quality” (vol. 16, no. 1): 42–54.
ISO 9000
Boiral, Olivier, and Nabil
Amara, “Paradoxes of ISO 9000
Performance: A Configurational
Approach” (vol. 16, no. 3): 36–60.
Sampaio, Paulo, Pedro Saraiva, and
António Guimarães Rodrigues, “A
Statistical Analysis of ISO 9000-Related
Data for European Union Ultra-
Peripheral and Portuguese Regions”
(vol. 16, no. 2): 44–58.
Kano Model
Mahanti, Rupa, “The Application of
Quality Function Deployment to User
Interface Design” (vol. 16, no. 1):
29–41.
Leadership
Laohavichien, Tipparat, Lawrence D.
Fredendall, and R. Stephen Cantrell,
“The Effects of Transformational and
Transactional Leadership on Quality
Improvement” (vol. 16, no. 2): 7–24.
Lean
Chakravorty, Satya S., “Process
Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3
Reports” (vol. 16, no. 4): 7–26.
Robinson, Alan G., “The Role
of Front-Line Ideas in Lean
Performance Improvement” (vol. 16,
no. 4): 27–40.
MBNQA
Van Matre, Joseph G., and Karen E.
Koch, “Understanding Healthcare
Clinical Process and Outcome
Measures and Their Use in the
Baldrige Award Application Process”
(vol. 16, no. 1): 18–28.
Measurement
Guimaraes, Tor, Curtis P. Armstrong,
and Brian M. Jones, “A New Approach
to Measuring Information Systems
Quality” (vol. 16, no. 1): 42–54.
Van Matre, Joseph G., and Karen E.
Koch, “Understanding Healthcare
Clinical Process and Outcome
Measures and Their Use in the
Baldrige Award Application Process”
(vol. 16, no. 1): 18–28.
Mortgage Crisis
Kolesar, Peter, “A Quality Perspective
on the Mortgage Crisis: More
Questions Than Answers” (vol. 16,
no. 3): 30–34.
Latham, John R., “Complex System
Design: Creating Sustainable
Change in the Mortgage-Finance
System” (vol. 16, no. 3): 19–25.
www.asq.org 61
Subject Index
Stephens, Ken, “Quality Principles,
Philosophies, and Methodologies
Applicable to the Mortgage-Finance
Supply Chain” (vol. 16, no. 3):
26–27.
Watson, Gregory H., “Time to
Sharpen These Blunt Instruments
and Give Them to Some Living
Spirits!” (vol. 16, no. 3): 28–29.
Zipkin, Paul, “Quality Snags in the
Mortgage-Finance Supply Chain”
(vol. 16, no. 3): 7–18.
Organizational Learning
Robinson, Alan G., “The Role
of Front-Line Ideas in Lean
Performance Improvement” (vol. 16,
no. 4): 27–40.
P-Charts
Finch, Byron J., and Xiaowen Huang,
“Predictability of Impending Online
Auction Business Failure: A P-Chart
Analysis” (vol. 16, no. 2): 25–33.
Process Improvement
Chakravorty, Satya S., “Process
Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3
Reports” (vol. 16, no. 4): 7–26.
Quality Costs
Rodchua, Suhansa, “Comparative
Analysis of Quality Costs and
Organization Sizes in the
Manufacturing Environment”
(vol. 16, no. 2): 34–43.
62 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
Quality Function Deployment
Mahanti, Rupa, “The Application of
Quality Function Deployment to User
Interface Design” (vol. 16, no. 1):
29–41.
Service Quality
Finch, Byron J., and Xiaowen Huang,
“Predictability of Impending Online
Auction Business Failure: A P-Chart
Analysis” (vol. 16, no. 2): 25–33.
Chakravorty, Satya S., “Process
Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3
Reports” (vol. 16, no. 4): 7–26.
Six Sigma
Chakravorty, Satya S., “Process
Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3
Reports” (vol. 16, no. 4): 7–26.
Zu, Xingxing, and Lawrence D.
Fredendall, “Enhancing Six Sigma
Implementation Through Human
Resource Management” (vol. 16,
no. 4): 41–54.
Small and Medium Enterprise
(SME)
Rodchua, Suhansa, “Comparative
Analysis of Quality Costs and
Organization Sizes in the
Manufacturing Environment”
(vol. 16, no. 2): 34–43.
Statistical Analysis
Sampaio, Paulo, Pedro Saraiva, and
António Guimarães Rodrigues, “A
Statistical Analysis of ISO 9000-Related
Data for European Union Ultra-
Peripheral and Portuguese Regions”
(vol. 16, no. 2): 44–58.
Teams
Norton, William I. Jr., and Lyle
Sussman, “Team Charters:
Theoretical Foundations and
Practical Implications for Quality and
Performance” (vol. 16, no. 1): 7–17.
Theory of Constraints
Chakravorty, Satya S., “Process
Improvement: Using Toyota’s A3
Reports” (vol. 16, no. 4): 7–26.
User Interface Design
Mahanti, Rupa, “The Application of
Quality Function Deployment to User
Interface Design” (vol. 16, no. 1):
29–41.
User Satisfaction
Guimaraes, Tor, Curtis P. Armstrong,
and Brian M. Jones, “A New Approach
to Measuring Information Systems
Quality” (vol. 16, no. 1): 42–54.
 Guidelines for Authors

To receive a sample issue of the Quality Management Journal, contact:

Periodicals Coordinator, ASQ
P.O. Box 3005, 600 N. Plankinton Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53201-3005
414-272-8575 • E-mail: vfunk@asq.org

Quality Management Journal (QMJ) is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal published by ASQ. Its mission is to
publish significant research relevant to quality management practice and to provide a forum for discussion of
such research by both academics and practitioners. Since its launch in 1993, QMJ has sustained a circulation of
approximately 14,000. QMJ readers are predominately quality management practitioners. Many have training
responsibilities. Some are college professors. Most have senior responsibilities within their organizations. They
represent a variety of industries, most often, manufacturing. Approximately 10 percent reside outside of the
United States.

suitable articles
Quality Management Journal is foremost a research journal. To be appropriate for QMJ, an article should be
grounded in research and theory. QMJ publishes only original work, not work previously published or under review
by another publication. Types of articles suitable for publication in QMJ include the following:
Empirical articles that provide objective evidence concerning actual quality management practice and its effectiveness.
These articles should be written in a manner that emphasizes the managerial implications of the research results and
the rationale for the study. Articles should demonstrate use of accepted methods for empirical research.
Research case studies that consider either a single application or a small number of cases. These articles should
include a structured approach for comparison of the cases and should lead to a set of propositions. Either quantitative
or qualitative comparison is appropriate. For a helpful description of research case studies, see K. M. Eisenhardt’s 1989
article, “Building Theories from Case Study Research,” in Academy of Management Review 14, no. 4:532–550.
Management theory articles that present significant new insight and demonstrated practice. These articles should
include testable propositions and should offer a foundation for future empirical research.
Review articles that create links to the existing academic literature and aid in the development of an identifiable
quality management academic literature. Such articles should represent a synthesis of existing literature and should
demonstrate an understanding of quality management theory and practice.

Articles should emphasize application and implications. Language usage similar to that found in Harvard
Business Review is appropriate. Use the early paragraphs to emphasize the significance of the research. Make the
opening interesting; use the introduction to answer the “so what” question. Spell out the practical implications
for those involved in quality management. These things concern all readers. Detailed technical description of the
research methods is important, but not necessarily of interest to everyone. Place this description of methods and
analysis at the end of the article, preferably in an appendix. Throughout the article, keep sentence structure and
word choice clear and direct. Citations, for example, should not distract from readability. As much as possible, limit
citations to one or two per key idea; use only the most recent or most widely accepted. Avoid acronyms and jargon
that are industry- or organization-specific. Try not to use variable names and other abbreviations that are specific
to the research. Restrict the use of acronyms to those that most readers recognize. Authors for whom English is not
their native language are encouraged to have their articles reviewed and edited first by a professional writer versed
in English grammar and style.
Prospective authors should review the description of the refereeing process and expectations for submissions that
are described in the introduction to volume 15, issue 1.

www.asq.org 63
 Special Issue
Research in Healthcare Operations and Quality Management
Guest Editors:
Victor Prybutok, Ph.D., CQE, CQA, CQMgr.
Regents Professor of Decision Sciences
Fellow in the Texas Center for Digital Knowledge
Doctoral Program Coordinator,
Information Technology and Decision Sciences Department
University of North Texas
Xiaoni Zhang, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Business Informatics
Northern Kentucky University
The special issue on Research in Healthcare
Operations and Quality Management aims to publish
papers that provide greater insights into healthcare
services, operations, quality management, decision mak-
ing, and performance improvement. This special issue
seeks conceptual or empirical papers that pursue either
theory building or theory testing. Papers based on empiri-
cal methodologies (for example, case research, survey
research, and so on) that fulfill the mission of the QMJ
to encourage research that is relevant to practitioners are
encouraged. This special issue also welcomes interdisci-
plinary papers that fulfill the same mission.
Healthcare is an essential and growing component of
the economies in many countries. The increase in demand
that is spurring the growth in healthcare is the result of
evolving technology in medicine and the growing needs of
64 QMJ VOL. 16, no. 4/© 2009, ASQ
aging populations. The challenge today is to deliver these
services in a safe and cost-effective manner while meeting
organizational financial and quality standards. The intent
of this call is to disseminate healthcare delivery research
that is relevant to practitioners and that identifies ways to
improve operations, financial management, and quality
management associated with healthcare delivery in both
inpatient and outpatient environments. Appropriate topics
include but are not limited to:
1. Improvements in the safety of healthcare delivery
2. Maximizing revenues via improved compliance with
reimbursement criteria
3. Quality improvement in healthcare settings
4. Measurement of healthcare quality
5. Tools for effective managerial decision making in
healthcare settings
6. Organizational culture and quality improvement
7. Use of technology to improve service delivery
Manuscripts must be submitted by September 30,
2009, and conform to QMJ requirements. It is important
for authors to clearly state that the submission is for
this special issue. Manuscripts will undergo a double-
blind review and the review process will adhere to all
QMJ procedures. The guest editors in consultation with
the editor of QMJ will make all final decisions as to the
suitability of manuscripts for the special issue.