Search results

COVID-19 has changed life as we know. Data are scarce and necessary for making decisions on fighting COVID-19. The purpose of this paper is to apply Six Sigma techniques on the current COVID-19 pandemic to distinguish between special cause and common cause variation. In the DMAIC structure, different approaches applied in three countries are compared.

For three countries the mortality is compared to the population to distinguish between special cause variation and common cause variation. This variation and the patterns in it are assessed to the countries' different approaches to COVID-19.

In the DMAIC problem-solving approach, patterns in the data are distinguished. The special cause variation is assessed to the special causes and approaches. The moment on which measures were taken has been essential, as well as policies on testing and distancing.

Cross-national data comparisons are a challenge as countries have different moments on which they register data on their population. Furthermore, different intervals are taken, varying from registering weekly to registering yearly. For the research, three countries with similar data registration and different approaches in fighting COVID-19 were taken.

This is the first study with Master Black Belts from different countries on the application of Six Sigma techniques and the DMAIC from the viewpoint of special cause variation on COVID-19.

ISO 18404:2015 standard defines the proficiencies to the attainment of distinct competency levels with either Lean Manufacturing or Six Sigma or separately combined strategy Lean Six Sigma (LSS). The purpose of this paper is to perform a detailed investigation of the applicability of current LSS competency standard in SMEs and examine the need for further improvement.

A qualitative-based semi-structured interview method was utilized globally by interviewing a group of LSS professionals with knowledge about the LSS implementation working in different leading organizations. All participants were asked to review the standard before the interview process to ensure that they are familiar with the standard.

The results reveal that the current ISO 18404:2015 standard does not fit SMEs to implement the LSS approach as it has several shortfalls that need to be fixed before its adoption or an urgent need to develop a more customized LSS standard for SMEs. The outcome further helps organizations understand theoretical knowledge about ISO 18404:2015, its role in operational excellence implementation, pros, cons, critical success factors and required changes for further improvement within the standard.

There were very limited baseline studies in the literature. A mixed method strategy that includes qualitative and quantitative data would yield better data so that more robust outcomes can be derived from the research.

To the best of authors' knowledge, this is the first empirical research on the applicability of ISO 18404:2015 for SMEs, which encapsulate opinions of LSS professionals working in several SMEs.

The term Lean Startup (LS) was coined by Eric Ries, and his 2011 book has popularized the concept with organizations, both startups and established organizations, implementing LS. However the empirical grounding is thin and for a long time this subject has been neglected by academia. The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic literature review (SLR) on LS, while highlighting core knowledge and identify gaps.

A SLR was carried out based on the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol of Scopus and Web of Science databases. In total, 45 articles published in journals and conferences over 10 years were collected which revealed a number of LS research gaps.

The SLR revealed the tools and methods associated with LS, most cited pros and cons, reasons that cause LS failure, the challenges that companies face in the implementation of LS, and critical success factors (CSFs) that can support these challenges and minimize the reasons for failure.

The findings of the study can be beneficial to practitioners and senior managers in organizations who wish to delve into the journey of LS. The study also discloses challenges and barriers that can hinder the implementation of LS.

Academic publications regarding LS are sparse and this SLR is one of the first SLRs to explore both the critical failure factors (CFFs) and the CSFs based on peer-reviewed journal and conference proceedings.

Lean has shifted over the years from a set of tools to implement to a human-centric approach concerning both hard and soft factors. However, there is a limited research on these soft factors and how they influence companies performance and social outcomes on the one hand and how they enable the hard factors on the other hand. Taking this as a valuable opportunity, the purpose of this paper is to present the key motivating factors and key gaps in the literature as an agenda for future research.

A systematic methodology to identifying the literature on social outcomes and factors in Lean is presented. Web of Science, EBSCO, Emerald, Science Direct, Google Scholar and the top journals were searched, and 158 papers were identified.

The systematic review helped the authors to identify the evolution, current trends, research gaps and an agenda for future research for exploring social outcomes in Lean and the factors mediating them. These factors are grouped and presented.

The implications of this work include understanding for managers and professionals how both soft and hard factors in Lean are related and that for a sustainable implementation, the whole system must be observed. This work could serve as a valuable resource that depending on the execution of Lean, either positive outcomes will emerge or even negative outcomes, referred to as “The Dark Side”.

This paper presents an extended survey on the factors in Lean mediating both companies’ performance and social outcomes. The authors also believe that this is possibly the most comprehensive systematic literature review on the topic and will set the foundation for various research avenues based on the key findings of this study.

While educators impart FMEA instruction, its practical implementation within the educational sector remains limited. This study investigates the application of FMEA within higher education institutions. Implementing FMEA in these institutions is difficult due to statutory requirements, schedule restrictions, and stakeholder participation challenges. Moreover, higher education institutions struggle with preserving education quality, faculty training, and resource management, complicating organised methods such as FMEA.

This research conducted a global survey to identify the critical success factors, benefits, and common challenges in using FMEA in the higher education sector.

The outcomes highlighted that lack of awareness regarding the tools’ benefits is the primary barrier to FMEA implementation. However, respondents perceive that FMEA can improve process reliability and quality in higher education institutions. Further, the analyses found that knowledge about the FMEA tools is the prime critical success factor, and the lack of time due to other priorities in the organisation is a significant challenge in tapping the potential of FMEA.

A limitation of the study is the relatively low number of HEIs surveyed globally. Further, the study provides a broad perspective rather than a focused study on one HEI.

This study addresses this gap by exploring the potential benefits, challenges, and factors associated with the successful adoption of FMEA in academic settings. Using this information, HEIs can become more successful in applying FMEA.

This study is unique in its exploration of the application of FMEA with higher education institutions for service quality improvement.

The integration of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) and Industry 4.0 (I4.0) is in the nascent stage and promises to achieve new optimums in operational excellence. This study aims to empirically examine the enablers, barriers, benefits and application of I4.0 technologies in LSS and I4.0 integration.

A pilot survey was chosen as an appropriate methodology, as LSS and I4.0 integration is still budding. The survey targeted senior quality management professionals, quality managers, team leaders, LSS Black Belts and operations managers to collect the relevant research data. The questionnaire was sent to 200 respondents and received 53 valid responses.

This study reveals that “top management support” is an essential enabler for LSS and I4.0 integration. The most significant barrier was “poor understanding of data analysis” and “lack of top management support”. The findings further illustrated that LSS and I4.0 integration resulted in greater efficiency, lower operational costs, improved productivity, improved customer satisfaction and improved quality. Regarding I4.0 technology integration at different phases of LSS, the authors noticed that big data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) are the most prominent technologies used in all phases of LSS implementation.

One of the limitations of this study is the sample size. LSS and I4.0 are emerging concepts; hence, obtaining a larger sample size is difficult. In addition, the study used non-parametric tests to analyse the data. Therefore, future studies should be conducted with large sample sizes across different continents and countries to understand differences in the key findings.

The outcomes of this study can be useful for organisational managers to understand the enablers and barriers before integrating LSS and I4.0 for adoption in their organisations. Secondly, it helps to convince top management and human resource personnel by providing a list of benefits of LSS and I4.0 integration. Finally, it can help decision-makers understand which I4.0 technologies can be used in different stages of LSS methodology.

LSS and I4.0 integration was studied at a conceptual level. This is the first empirical study targeted toward understanding the LSS and I4.0 integration. In addition, this study investigates the application of widely used I4.0 technologies in different phases of LSS.

Entering a new era of digital transformation, Industry 4.0 (I 4.0) promises to revolutionize the way business has been done, providing unprecedented opportunities and challenges. This study aims to investigate empirically and comparatively analyse the benefits, challenges and critical success factors (CSFs) of Industry 4.0 across four continents and developing and developed economies.

This study used an online survey to explore the benefits, challenges and CSFs of developed and developing economies. In order to ensure the validity of the survey, a pilot test was conducted with 10 respondents. A total of 149 participants with senior managerial, vice-presidential and directorial positions from developed and developing economies spanning four continents were invited to take part in the survey.

The study ranks benefits, challenges and CSFs across economies and continents. Further, the benefit of Industry 4.0 helping to achieve organizational efficiency and agility differed across the developing and developed economies. Furthermore, the benefit improves customer satisfaction significantly differed across continents; in terms of challenges, Employee resistance to change had a higher proportion in developing economies. The future viability of I 4.0 also differed across the continents. Regarding CSFs, there was no difference across the developing and developed economies. Finally, change management and project management vary across the continents.

This study contributes to a balanced understanding of I 4.0 by providing empirical evidence for comparative analysis. Moreover, it extends the concept of resource dependence theory to explain how organizations in developing economies and developed economies deploy resources to manage external condition uncertainties to implement I 4.0. Furthermore, this study provides a structural framework to understand the specific benefits, challenges and CSFs of implementing I 4.0, which can be utilized by policymakers to promote I 4.0 in their economies or continents.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no studies have empirically demonstrated the comparative analysis of benefits, challenges and CSFs across economies and continents and distinguish an original contribution of this work.