Search results

In the last few years, signs of material excess by organizational and political leaders have often evoked public outcry. The paper aims to argue that there is insight to be gleaned from drawing together strands from the leadership literature with the literatures on moral economy and conspicuous consumption. The premise is that views of leader conspicuous consumption are shaped by their moral economy, the interplay between moral attitudes and economic activities. The paper seeks to juxtapose tales of Cleopatra and Antony's display of wealth with current media accounts to contribute to the leadership literature on ethics, specifically its intersection with power and narrative representation.

The paper adopts an analytic approach, with an international orientation and an interdisciplinary perspective. It acknowledges the role of narrative representation in shaping leadership and the psychological ambivalence with which societies approach their leaders' practices, focus here on desire-disdain and discipline-decadence. Cleopatra and Antony's conspicuous consumption generated a legacy of condemnation for millennia. Drawing from the retellings of their story, four moralizing representations – by Plutarch, Shakespeare, Sarah Fielding and Hollywood – are analyzed and juxtaposed with current media accounts. Altogether, the paper combines the interest in leadership across history with moralizing perspectives on the display of wealth by leaders.

The intersection of the literatures on leadership, moral economy and conspicuous consumption draws together several dynamics of relevance to leadership. First, evaluations of the display of wealth on the part of a leader are contextual: they change across time and place. Second, interpretations of conspicuous consumption involve aesthetic judgment and so sit at the nexus of morality and taste. Third, following tragedies, tales of leader conspicuous consumption offer critics another knife to dig into the fallen tragic hero. Fourth, views of conspicuous consumption are gendered. Last, conspicuous consumption by leaders attracts condemnation through support for social responsibility and sustainability.

The paper establishes a novel articulation between the literatures on leadership, moral economy and conspicuous consumption.

This paper gives the background to the ISO 18404:2015 standard and explains its rationale. It aims to rebut the Oudrhiri et al. (2022) paper. Furthermore, this paper adds further evidence of the misplacement and unfitness for use of the standard, as evidenced in the previous work by Antony et al. (2021, 2022).

A point-counterpoint methods approach with a literature review of studies available on ISO 18404:2015 to respond to the Oudrhiri et al. (2022) study.

The findings indicate that Oudrhiri et al.'s (2022) work is not open minded in relation to ISO18404. Each point raised in the Oudrhiri et al. (2020) study has been answered and counter argued.

Other than Antony et al.'s three studies (2021 and 2022) and Oudrhiri et al.’s (2022) study empirical studies looking into the impact of the ISO 18404 standard in the literature were limited. As the literature has shown, many companies are not utilising the standard given its current format; hence, a lack of information relating to the practical implementation is sparse.

The findings indicate that Oudrhiri et al.'s (2022) work can be answered and counter argued.

This study consolidates and strengthens the findings from the three studies by Antony et al. (2021 and 2022) and acts as a rebuttal to the Oudrhiri et al. (2022) study.

The purpose of this study is to identify the practical implications of Lean, Six Sigma (SS) and Lean SS (LSS) in the public administration sector. Determining the key themes of these practical implications is also an aim of the present study.

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted based on the databases of six well-known academic publishers, namely, Emerald, Elsevier/Science Direct, Springer Link, Taylor and Francis, Sage and Willey online. The review revealed 56 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2004 and 2020. The “affinity diagram” was applied to group the practical implications of Lean, SS and LSS into logical themes.

A plethora of practical implications of Lean, SS and LSS in the public administration sector are identified in the literature, examples of which are analytically presented. The analysis showed that the practical implications identified can be grouped into 14 meaningful themes, and these themes in turn into categories, formulating thus, a conceptual framework. The key themes that are supported in the literature by most references are the following: human factors involved in Lean/SS/LSS, Lean/SS/LSS benefits and Lean/SS/LSS implementation issues.

Although several databases were used, some publishers might have been missed out in this SLR. The subjectivity in applying the “affinity diagram” is also a limitation of this study. Based on these limitations, further literature review studies can be designed.

Twofold implications arise from the present study, meaning from the practitioner and the academic perspective. The practical implications identified as well as their meaningful themes revealed constitute useful guidelines for managers and decision-makers wishing to implement Lean/SS/LSS in the public administration sector and bridge their knowledge gap between theory and practice. Moreover, all the practical dimensions of Lean/SS/LSS included in the comprehensive conceptual framework formulated could serve as research avenues for academics.

The application of Lean/SS/LSS in the public sector has not been widely reviewed, while the stream of literature focuses on limited issues (critical success factors, benefits, challenges, etc.). Moreover, SLRs in services and specifically in the public administration sector are fewer. Stimulated by this gap and the suggestions of other researchers for future studies, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study provides the first SLR which analyzes the practical implications of Lean/SS/LSS in the public administration sector and determines their key themes.

The purpose of this study is to propose a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) roadmap to guide healthcare practitioners in the implementation of LSS along with a customized LSS tool kit for reducing medication errors.

The authors initially critically reviewed several frameworks/roadmaps of Lean, Six Sigma and LSS which have been proposed in healthcare sector from the existing literature. This review has led to an understanding of key characteristics, limitations and reasons behind the development of such frameworks/roadmaps. A conceptual roadmap was developed and then validated by a number of LSS experts and a healthcare practitioner. Based on the previous studies and taking LSS experts’ opinions into account, a revised roadmap for reducing medication is presented.

The roadmap for LSS in reducing medication errors is developed. This roadmap includes three phases: Phase 1 cultural readiness for LSS employment in reducing medication errors; Phase 2 preparation, initialization and implementation; and Phase 3 sustainability.

The roadmap has been tested with only a handful of practitioners of LSS. Moreover, only two case studies have been carried out in a Thai hospital setting which followed the roadmap. In order to improve the validity of research, more case studies need to be executed and more people should be used for testing the roadmap with varied cultures.

This is the first attempt in the development of a LSS roadmap that healthcare practitioners can follow to reduce medication errors using LSS methodology and sustaining LSS in their organizations.

This study aims to present Lean Six Sigma (LSS) deployment and sustainment strategies for the healthcare sector from a multi-level perspective. The objective is to present LSS implementation insights to enable policymakers, practitioners and academicians to test and develop an LSS framework for healthcare sectors.

The strategies identified are the result of a multi-method research design involving literature review, action research (AR) and Delphi study. Further, the AR portion of the study involved more than 10 years of projects focused on the deployment of LSS in the healthcare sector.

The strategies include a holistic view from the multi-level perspective, considering the Top Management Level, Middle Management Level and Operational Level. The authors ascertained 27 strategies across the three levels of organizational structure for the effective deployment of LSS. Further, the authors present a customized LSS “pocket guide” from the healthcare perspective for quick reference.

The strategies delineated in this study are based on the Indian healthcare section only; thus, further research in additional geographic contexts is needed. Also, further research is necessary to provide additional empirical validation of the effects of the identified strategies on LSS program outcomes and to verify that the strategies operate at the proposed organizational levels. Future research should also focus on identifying the interrelationships between strategies within and across levels, developing a “road map” for LSS implementation in hospitals and designing the LSS curriculum for medical schools and other medical training programs.

Observations of this study can contribute to developing a holistic framework for successful LSS implementation in the healthcare sector for academicians, practitioners and policymakers. This, in turn, ensures an enhanced value proposition, improved quality of life and reduced healthcare operational costs. Thus, it ensures a win-win situation among all the stakeholders of the healthcare sector.

The strategies put forth will enable the LSS researchers, academicians and, more particularly, practitioners to delve deeper into specific enablers and safeguard the LSS deployment from backlash. The research has two significant benefits. Firstly, it enhances the understanding of LSS from the healthcare perspective. Secondly, it provides direction for future studies with specific components for hospitals’ LSS framework, which can be further tested, refined and improved.

From two bodies of literature, the purpose of this paper is to generate theory for an updated conceptual model of drivers of Six Sigma project success by integrating extant psychology theory and empirical general team project results with a history of eight recent Six Sigma projects and extant Six Sigma literature. The new theory emphasizes the need for project leads to process information simultaneously, as well as develop prioritization abilities. Also, the new theory reverses the relations of three existing theories from general team composition theory. The new theory suggests that Six Sigma belt trainers should focus more on soft skill development.

A literature review of the two bodies of literature previously mentioned.

Eight new propositions related to the success of Six Sigma projects are developed. Further, two new constructs, “project leader simultaneity of thought” and “prioritization ability” are suggested for further investigation.

The authors suggest a few practical implications: first a greater emphasis on soft skill training would be beneficial in Six Sigma belt training. A second new point of emphasis in belt training is developing greater internal locus of control in belt candidates. Third, the authors suggest that during the team member selection process a diversity of backgrounds would be beneficial to Six Sigma project success.

Process improvement initiatives, such as Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma, typically have common characteristics that are carried through projects. Whilst a project’s performance is an important determinant of the successful implementation of continuous improvement (CI) initiatives, its failure can undermine the impact of any CI initiative on business performance. As a result, an understanding of the reasons of process improvement project failures is crucial. The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a pilot survey highlighting the most common reasons for process improvement project failures.

This paper presents a pilot survey of 42 Brazilian manufacturing specialists who have been involved in process improvement projects. The participants of this survey were Six Sigma Master Black Belts, Black Belts, Green Belts and Six Sigma champions from manufacturing companies in Brazil. The survey questionnaire was piloted with five experts in the field in order to ensure that the questions were valid and technically sound.

The execution of Six Sigma projects in organizations results in a moderate rate of project failures. These failures can cost organizations several millions of dollars especially within the context of larger organizations. The main reasons for project failure, as cited by the specialists include: resistance to change, lack of commitment and support from top management and incompetent teams.

The authors report the findings from a pilot survey having a limited sample size. Moreover, the data have been collected from one country and primarily from large manufacturing companies.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first empirical study looking into the reasons for process improvement project failures. The authors argue that if the top reasons for such failures are understood, a framework can be developed in the future that can mitigate the chance of project failures during project execution. This could potentially lead to significant savings to the bottom-line of many organizations.

The main purpose of this study is to revisit Ishikawa's statement: “95% of problems in processes can be accomplished using the original 7 Quality Control (QC) tools”. The paper critically investigates the validity of this statement in higher education institutions (HEIs). It involves analysis of the usage of the 7 QC tools and identifying the barriers, benefits, challenges and critical success factors (CSFs) for the application of the 7 QC tools in a HEI setting.

An online survey instrument was developed, and as this is a global study, survey participants were contacted via social networks such as LinkedIn. Target respondents were HEIs educators or professionals who are knowledgeable about the 7 QC tools promulgated by Dr Ishikawa. Professionals who work in administrative sectors, such as libraries, information technology and human resources were included in the study. A number of academics who teach the 7 basic tools of QC were also included in the study. The survey link was sent to over 200 educators and professionals and 76 complete responses were obtained.

The primary finding of this study shows that the diffusion of seven QC tools is not widespread in the context of HEIs. Less than 8% of the respondents believe that more than 90% of process problems can be solved by applying the 7 QC tools. These numbers show that modern-quality problems may need more than the 7 basic QC basic tools and there may be a need to revisit the role and contribution of these tools to solve problems in the higher education sector. Tools such as Pareto chart and cause and effect diagram have been widely used in the context of HEIs. The most important barriers highlighted are related to the lack of knowledge about the benefits and about how and when to apply these tools. Among the challenges are the “lack of knowledge of the tools and their applications” and “lack of training in the use of the tools”. The main benefits mentioned by the respondents were “the identification of areas for improvement, problem definition, measurement, and analysis”. According to this study, the most important factors critical for the success of the initiative were “management support”, “widespread training” and “having a continuous improvement program in place”.

The exploratory study provides an initial understanding about the 7 QC tools application in HEIs, and their benefits, challenges and critical success factors, which can act as guidelines for implementation in HEIs. Surveys alone cannot provide deeper insights into the status of the application of 7 QC tools in HEIs, and therefore qualitative studies in the form of semi-structured interviews should be carried out in the future.

This article contributes with an exploratory empirical study on the extent of the use of 7 QC tools in the university processes. The authors claim that this is the first empirical study looking into the use of the 7 QC tools in the university sector.

Continuous improvement initiatives such as Lean in Higher Education (HE) institutes are an emerging topic for research. Under pressure to do more with less, institutes of HE are increasingly adopting the tools and methods of lean to improve their quality practices. Nevertheless, institutes of HE differ significantly from business organizations. The purpose of this study was to examine the critical success factors (CSFs) of continuous improvement in this homogeneous industry. Two other contextual factors, implementation approach and national culture, are examined.

A mixed methods approach, combining Q-methodology, online surveys and interviews, was used to investigate the CSFs of lean implementation in HE. Participants were recruited from an international network of lean practitioners in HE. Using Q-methodology, three perspectives of CSFs in HE were identified.

Lean implementation at institutes of HE is characterized by a bottom-up approach, involving mostly supporting processes. Contrary to business organizations, the role of management in the implementation of Lean in HE is limited and attention should instead be directed to employee empowerment and customer focus. The findings also showed that, at least for institutes of HE, organizational culture is more influential than national culture.

When management involvement is limited, a bottom-up implementation of lean is recommended, centered on improving university-wide supporting processes, promoting cross-departmental cooperation and overcoming the silo mentality. This approach requires an emphasis on a specific set of CSFs, namely, employee empowerment, sharing success stories and training.

The study findings enrich conceptually based lean implementation frameworks for HE that advocate a top-down implementation approach.

This paper gives the background to the ISO 18404:2015 standard and explains its rationale. It aims to correct misconceptions and erroneous statements about the standard appearing in the paper by Antony et al. (2021) and to demonstrate the usefulness of the standard in a wide range of application sectors.

A review of recently reported misconceptions and erroneous statements is presented and clarifications are provided. A qualitative interview approach was utilised to obtain the views of leading academics and practitioners familiar with Six Sigma and Lean in a range of sectors and from different parts of the world. This includes the results of a survey for capturing expectations and requirements for the next ISO18404 version.

Clarifications were needed to correct some misconceptions and erroneous statements in recently published work. However, on review, the reports of the interviews in Antony et al. (2021) indicate that most Lean Six Sigma professionals have positive experiences with ISO 18404:2015 and see the advantages of a common standard in helping continuous improvement deployment. Possible causes of some reported negative results are already scheduled to be addressed in the forthcoming review of ISO 18404:2015.

A very real constraint when conducting research into ISO 18404:2015 is to obtain a balanced view of the standard from those who have a vested interest in its continuation and evolution, or not. Whilst the authors cannot claim to be any more objective than Antony et al.’s (2021) authors and commentators, they are, in contrast to that group, highly knowledgeable about the reality of the standard, rather than speculating in ignorance.

A very real constraint when conducting research into ISO 18404:2015 is to obtain a balanced view of the standard which is balanced with respect from those who have a vested interest in its continuation and evolution, or not. Whilst the current authors cannot claim to be any more objective than previous authors, Antony et al.’s (2021) authors and commentators, they are, in contrast to that group, highly knowledgeable about the reality of the standard, rather than speculating in ignorance.

The paper gives a clear description of the ISO standard development process and provides a resource for people to obtain insight into the value or non-value add of a standard in Six Sigma and Lean, and the appropriate details of such a standard. These results can form the basis of a case for the implementation of the standard for those organisations currently trying to decide whether or not to implement it.