Search results

This paper aims to highlight that a define, measure, analyze, improve, and control (DMAIC) project should be carried out keeping the broader business goal of achieving continuous improvement in mind and that a design of experiment (DOE) based improvement approach should be preferred to achieve this goal.

“Ease of control” of the improved process and “gain in process knowledge” from a DMAIC study are identified as two measures for judging the contribution of a DMAIC project towards continuous improvement. Various improvement approaches are classified into seven groups and the likely impact of each of these seven approaches on the above two quality measures are discussed.

The improvement approach adopted during the improve phase is partially determined by the nature of the root cause(s) – type X or type Y. The type Y root cause leads to the adoption of the “innovation‐prioritization” approach, which is very popular but has many limitations. Accordingly, an “analysis strategy” is proposed for efficient identification of the X‐type root causes.

The above findings suggest that one should try to identify as many X‐type root causes as possible. However, in case of service and transactional processes one finds it difficult to do so. Much more research is necessary in the area of service process design before the path of continuous improvement of such processes can be embarked on effectively.

It is expected that an awareness of the broader goal of continuous improvement, the classification of the end states of the analyze phase, the proposed “analysis strategy” and the practical guidelines provided for selecting an appropriate improvement approach will be helpful in executing the analyze and improve phases of DMAIC better.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a structured overview of so‐called business process improvement (BPI) approaches and their contribution to the actual act of improving. Even though a lot is said about BPI, there is still a lack of supporting the act of improving the process. Most approaches concentrate on what needs to be done before and after the improvement act, but the act of improving itself still seems to be a black box.

This paper is mainly based on a review of literature that deals with the term “Business Process Improvement”. The analysis of the literature is supported by qualitative content analysis. The structure of the evaluation follows the mandatory elements of a method (MEM).

A lot of literature and consulting approaches deal with the restructuring and improvement of business processes. The author finds that even so‐called BPI approaches do not describe the act of improvement itself. And if they do, they lack a methodological structure that can be reused.

To constrain the complexity of this research at this first stage of investigation only the search criterion “business process improvement” was used in the database search (EBSCO and Emerald).

The paper is valuable for academics and practitioners because the impact of BPI on organizational performance is high. Its originality is in the structured evaluation of so‐called BPI approaches according to the MEM, which so far no one has investigated.

The purpose of this paper is to assess Lean Six Sigma to identify important advances over the last ten to 15 years and discuss emerging trends that suggest how the methodology needs to evolve. The goal is to aid those who want to use the method to improve performance as well as assist those developing improvement methodologies.

The use and development of Lean Six Sigma is reviewed including the origins of the method, the what, why and benefits of the method, how the approach is different, the integration of Lean and Six Sigma, implementation mistakes made, lessons learned and developments needed in the future.

It is found that organizations have many different improvement needs that require the objectives and methods contained in the lean and Six Sigma methodologies. It is also found that deployment and sustaining improvements are major issues that can be overcome by building a sustaining infrastructure and making improvement a business process. Critical issues include using Lean Six Sigma to generate cash in difficult economic times, development of data‐based process management systems and the use of working on improvement as a leadership development tool.

These findings suggest that improvement is most effective when approached in an holistic manner addressing improvement in all parts of the organization using a holistic improvement methodology such as Lean Six Sigma. Improvement must address the flow of information and materials thorough processes as well as the enhancement of value‐adding process steps that create the product for the customer. This leads naturally to making improvement a business process that is planned for, operated and reviewed as any other important business process is.

The roadmaps, guiding principles, and deployment pitfalls identified will be of value to those initiating and operating improvement processes in their organizations enabling them to rapidly create useful and sustainable improvements. The discussion of needed enhancements will be of value to those who are working to improve the effectiveness of the approach.

This paper aims to assess the combined application of Lean Six Sigma and agile approach for optimizing operational processes of order management in the seed industry.

This study is based on an action research case conducted in a multinational Brazilian Seeds Business enterprise. This paper reports on the application of the Lean Six Sigma define-measure-analyze-improve-control (DMAIC), using the steps of DMAIC cycle as a sprint of agile approach. The methodology involves outlining an operational process through sequential activities, each associated with a cycle time, equivalent number of full-time employee and number of orders. Performance metrics for the order management process include continuous monitoring of these activities, using monitoring systems, management software and manual records to collect data.

The findings reveal significant improvements in critical-to-quality measures related to customer care, planning and logistics. The implementation of the DMAIC methodology and agile approach resulted in tangible enhancements in cycle time, defects per opportunities and overall process efficiency. The results allow the classification of defects, the identification of their causes and, consequently, the presentation of a control plan to mitigate these problems. Furthermore, the study identifies key causes of operational issues and proposes a prioritized action plan.

The limitation of this research is its restriction to a single case. The external validity of the results and generalizability to other organizational contexts may be compromised due to the lack of case diversity. The fact that the research focuses on a single company, even if it is a large multinational company, may limit the applicability of the findings to different sectors, sizes and organizational structures, which may be an opportunity for future research.

The findings suggest that the integrated approach of DMAIC and agile methodology contributes to a culture of continuous improvement and operational efficiency. The systematic collection and analysis of data enhance evidence-based decision-making, providing a robust foundation for strategic and operational choices. Moreover, the successful integration of methodologies presents a comprehensive framework applicable to diverse organizational challenges.

The paper applies action research to understand and address operational challenges, emphasizing practical solutions. The integration of DMAIC and agile enhances the depth of process analysis, enabling the identification, implementation and control of improvements. This study offers a significant contribution both to practitioners, providing practical implications, and to academics, enriching the Lean Six Sigma and agile body of knowledge.

This paper examines the effectiveness of various business process improvement and benchmarking methodologies described in the literature and reported by survey respondents. As a result of this “benchmarking study” a new and potentially improved business process improvement methodology is developed.

Business process re‐engineering (BPR) is certainly one of the latest buzzwords and is the subject of great interest and also great controversy. Organizations need to shake themselves out of complacency to close competitive gaps and achieve superior performance standards ‐ the reason why many have embarked on huge BPR projects. In view of the high risks associated with radical change, there are, however, many problems associated with BPR. For some BPR is going off the rails before it is properly understood, and many BPR exercises are not delivering the goods. Sometimes, organizations are expecting “quick fixes”, thus displaying their lack of understanding of a complex system. It is unreasonable to expect quick results when so much change is involved, especially when these business processes involve not only machines, but also people. Many believe, such as Mumford, that the management of change is the largest task in re‐engineering. Many people perceive re‐engineering as a threat to both their methods and their jobs. Owing to this recognition, many authors concentrate on the need to take account of the human side of re‐engineering, in particular the management of organizational change.

This research paper aims to develop and validate an enhanced business process improvement methodology (EBPIM) by integrating the DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve and control) and the comprehensive business process management (CBPM) methodologies.

A systematic literature review and analysis were conducted to prove the novelty of the research approach and identify the similarities, differences, strengths and weaknesses of the DMAIC and the CBPM methodologies. The EBPIM was proposed based on the analysis results. Then, a focus group approach was used to evaluate and validate the methodology.

The EBPIM consists of nine activities: preparation, selection, description, quantification, modeling, enactment, improvement opportunities selection, analysis and improvement and monitoring. The proposed methodology adopted the systematic and structured process of the DMAIC methodology by having one tollgate between every two activities to check the progress and authorize the team to go to the next activity. At the same time, it has the ability of the CBPM methodology to enhance the interaction between human activities and business process management systems (BPMS).

The EBPIM was evaluated and validated by a focus group of academic professors. However, the main limitation of the proposed methodology is that it is still theoretical and needs to be empirically tested. Therefore, future work will focus on testing the EBPIM in different industries and organization sizes.

From the theoretical perspective, the proposed methodology adds value to the knowledge in the scope of business processes improvement methodologies (BPIMs) by integrating the DMAIC and the CBPM methodologies. It takes advantage of and combines the strengths of the DMAIC and CBPM methodologies. From the practical perspective, the proposed methodology presents a valuable tool that can facilitate the organization’s mission to improve the areas that need improvement using a systematic improvement methodology that will effectively enhance organizational performance (OP).

The BPIMs literature analysis proved that most of the reviewed methodologies could not support all phases of the business process improvement (BPI) activities. It was concluded that integrating the DMAIC and the CBPM methodologies is a novel approach. The proposed methodology will enhance the efficiency of both methodologies, fill the gaps that may exist in both of them and lead to better results in terms of BPI.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a leagile transformation model for product development that guides manufacturers in the construction of a road map and the management of its deployment in line with both lean and agile improvement objectives.

An intervention qualitative and transformative research approach was adopted in order to develop required knowledge to theorise professional practice made from rigorous observations of facts. The research project took place over a period of two and a half years, in partnership with an international firm that develops and produces a wide range of luxury products.

The application of the methodology proved that a lean transformation does not have to be generated only by the field needs but it can follow a mixed approach where a top-down transformation management linked with strategic objectives is deployed without compromising implication and needs from people on the field. The right balance can be found between the strategic aspect of transformation and the incremental aspect on the field of lean paradigms.

For complete validation and widespread scientific application, the model should be tested in other sectors and industries.

The application case of the leagile model in several divisions of a luxury organisation proved that the proposed approach can be used as a guide for manufacturer in the construction of an improvement road map and in the management of its deployment. The application cases enabled a number of positive results to be generated and measured on quantitative indicators such as service ratio for new products for which, one of the divisions saw an increase of 30 per cent. The approach created a positive revolution among development team members by its potential in terms of communication, steering, benchmarking and knowledge system.

The model supports the identification and prioritisation of improvement initiatives by focusing on the levers for improvement that meet the needs and objectives of transformation, as well as the organisation’s maturity level.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the European Regions for Innovative Productivity project that established Innovative Productivity Centres (IPCs) to assist SMEs in the North Sea Region of Europe to develop a process improvement capability. A conceptual framework explains how a process improvement methodology developed for large firms was adapted and shaped to meet the needs of SMEs.

A comparative case study of 23 SMEs within six European countries. A protocol was developed to collect financial and operational data. This was supplemented by observations, secondary data and field notes. An established research model was used to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the process improvement interventions.

The intervention context and structure of the IPCs varied by country which shaped process improvement interventions at two levels: the country and the firm. During diffusion three process improvement variants emerged that were tailored to fit the local context. Developing a process improvement capability depended upon the availability of company resources, establishing KPIs and change agent support.

The research contributes to knowledge and theory on diffusion and institutionalization by examining how SMEs responded to institutional pressures by implementing process improvement practices in different ways. Heterogeneity of both the IPCs and the external change agents were the drivers in shaping the improvement practices.