International Journal of Lean Six Sigma

Six Sigma project selection methodology

Sanjit Ray, Prasun Das,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sanjit Ray, Prasun Das, (2010) "Six Sigma project selection methodology", International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, Vol. 1 Issue: 4, pp.293-309, https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461011096078
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461011096078
Downloaded on: 14 December 2017, At: 08:37 (PT)
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 23 other documents.

To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2434 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2010),"Six Sigma: a literature review", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 Iss 3 pp. 216-233 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461011075017">https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461011075017</a>
(2009),"Project selection and its impact on the successful deployment of Six Sigma",
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 Iss 5 pp. 669-686 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/14637150910987900">https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150910987900</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:581112 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-4166.htm

Six Sigma
Six Sigma project selection project
methodology selection
Sanjit Ray
SQC & OR Division, Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore, India, and 293
Prasun Das
SQC & OR Division, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India

Abstract
Purpose – The selection of right projects in a Six Sigma program is a major concern for early success
and long-term acceptance within any organization. One of the ever-increasing challenges is to define
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

and select right measure for improvement and appropriate problem definition. Many projects
encounter the problem of no linkage with business objectives or customer needs, too large or high-level
project scope along with unclear problem and goal statement. Improperly, chosen metrics lead to
sub-optimal behavior and can lead people away from the organization’s goal instead of joining them.
This paper aims to propose a project selection methodology for different situations.
Design/methodology/approach – This research develops a model for project identification;
ensuring well-defined projects are selected having large impact on customer satisfaction or bottom
line. The model is described for the situations: availability of performance data, balanced business
score card implemented and no data is available.
Findings – A “top-down approach” model is developed for project selection, since top management
support for Six Sigma initiatives is absolutely critical to see tangible, significant results. The authors
suggest establishing the linkage with data (either reactive or survey), otherwise through prioritization
tool for project selection. Finally, factors influencing successful Six Sigma projects include
management commitment; project selection and control skill, irrespective of whether this is a define,
measure, analyze, improve and control or define, measure, analyze, design and validate/verify project.
Originality/value – This approach will help the organizations to select the specific project from
multivariate organizational and customer needs. Three different methods for project selection are
explained with examples and reasons for selection. Merits and demerits of each method are also
highlighted.
Keywords Project management, Six Sigma, Customer satisfaction
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Six Sigma management is a project-driven scheme that employs a well-structured
methodology, namely, define, measure, analyze, improve and control (DMAIC) or
define, measure, analyze, design and validate/verify (DMADV) program. Six Sigma
projects reduce process variability, improve product and service quality, decrease cost,
eliminate process waste and enhance profitability and customer satisfaction via
effective application of statistical approach (Coronado and Antony, 2002). The
Six Sigma breakthrough strategy broadens the definition of quality to include
economic value and practical utility to both the company and the customer. International Journal of Lean Six
Successful implementation and growing organizational interest in Six Sigma Sigma
Vol. 1 No. 4, 2010
method has been exploding in the last few years (Kwak and Anbari, 2006). Numerous pp. 293-309
books and articles provide the basic concepts and benefits of Six Sigma methods q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-4166
(Harry and Schroeder, 2000; Hoerl, 1998). However, the principal focus of Six Sigma DOI 10.1108/20401461011096078
 IJLSS is to decrease potential variability in processes and products using a continuous
improvement methodology (Antony and Banuelas, 2001). Defects may be related to any
1,4 aspect of customer satisfaction; Six Sigma focuses on improving quality by helping an
organization to produce products and services, better, faster, and cheaper (Mahanti and
Antony, 2005).
Developing Six Sigma as a corporate philosophy and culture of an organization is a
294 long term, rigorous challenge. In most organizations, fully implementing a Six Sigma
culture takes four to five years, requiring significant resources for training
and development. The top management team should be fully and visibly committed
to Six Sigma. Most of the processes selected for improvement in Six Sigma are key
processes in the organization and majority of them are cross-functional in nature.
Active involvement of top management will ensure that barriers associated with
cross-organization, cross-functional process issues are resolved. The top management
defines the overall objective of Six Sigma implementation in the organization and
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

ensures that it matches with the varied organizational priorities and also gains the
organizational support (Ray and Das, 2009). It is also the responsibility of the top
management to identify the macro company level objectives to be improved and agreed
as key priority for the business by all (Bremer et al., 2006).
The Six Sigma drive for improvement takes place project-by-project basis (Juran,
1989) through:
.
Identifying the process for improvement. Every output is the result of a process.
To improve quality of output, improve the process.
.
All processes have inherent variability.
.
Data are used to understand the variability and the sources thereof, and drive
process-improvement decisions.
Both DMAIC and DMADV frameworks of Six Sigma are serial analytical and statistical
method for eliminating process variations and obtaining breakthrough improvement
in product and service quality (Harry, 1998). Six Sigma methodologies differentiate
itself from other quality improvement programs immediately in the “define” stage.
A specific Six Sigma project is launched, only after the customer satisfaction or business
goals have been established and further deployed into sub-goals such as cycle time
reduction, cost reduction or defect reduction.
The primary purpose of the define phase is to ensure that the organization,
department or team focuses on the right things. The define phase answers the question:
what is important? The organization should have a clear focus and agree as key
priorities for the business (Bremer et al., 2006). The define phase of the specific project
calls for base lining and identifying the process to be improved, decomposing the
process into manageable sub-processes, further specifying goals/sub-goals and
establish infrastructure to accomplish the goals. Though all the steps of DMAIC or
DMADV are very crucial for successful implementation of Six Sigma but if improper
projects are selected, it will have less or no impact on business or with customer even it
is carried out correctly.

2. Challenges
The ultimate objective of all process improvement methodologies is to identify
customer and business needs and then satisfy these needs effectively and efficiently
 (Andersson et al., 2006). The selection of right projects in a Six Sigma program is a major Six Sigma
concern in the early success and long-term acceptance within any organization project
(Antony, 2004). The quality of project selected is a critical driver for the success of rollout
(Rath and Strong, 2003). Many projects typically encounter the problems of no linkage selection
with business objectives or customer needs, too large or too high-level project scope,
along with unclear problem and goal statement. One of the key success factors for
Six Sigma programs is to define and selection of the right measure for improvement 295
and appropriate problem definition (Stamatis, 2004). The choice of what to measure is
crucial to the success of the organization. Improperly chosen metrics lead to sub-optimal
behavior and can lead people away from the organization’s goal instead of joining them
(Pyzdek, 2003). This paper proposes different models for project identification, which
will ensure that the clearly defined projects in terms of expected key deliverables, are
selected having large impact on customer satisfaction or bottom line (Urdhwareshe,
2000). The paper discusses three different methods for identifying Six Sigma projects in
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

an organization. Each method is described with a real-life industrial situation, and also
defines the background conditions for using these methods. Finally, a summary is
prepared describing merits and demerits of each method.

3. Top management involvement in project selection – a top-down

approach
The approach detailed in this paper for Six Sigma project selection is defined as,
“top-down approach” since top management support for Six Sigma initiatives is
absolutely critical (Naumann and Hoisington, 2001). The top management team must
be fully and visibly committed to Six Sigma as it might take four to five years to see
tangible, significant results (Robert, 1999). The involvement of top management at the
stage of project selection is very important for the following reasons:
.
Six Sigma must be a cultural imperative, not an incremental improvement
program.
.
Significant training and development expenses will be incurred over the next
three to five years of implementation period. Six Sigma cannot be implemented
quickly without any expense.
.
Every organization is a multifunction, multiobjective place and business and
customer requirements are ever changing and so the priorities.
.
At any given point of time, “what to improve” can be best answered only by the
top management of the organization. Most likely, it will be agreed as key priority
for the business by all and get the support.

Owing to the above reasons, the approach for project selection is defined as “top-down
approach”. All Six Sigma projects are to be selected by using this approach as follows:
.
A leadership team defines the goals and objectives of the Six Sigma journey
process. The top management is expected to demand and expect the desired
outcome in terms of quality, deadline and problem solving (Thomsett, 2005).
Therefore, the top management decides to launch Six Sigma to improve upon
serious business or customer issues.
.
The effective design of team is critical for project success. A project requires more
work and knowledge of activities than one person possesses. The design of team is
 IJLSS extremely important. Identify people at appropriate level in the organization
1,4 (depending on the size and structure of the organization) as process owners and
project sponsors. The process owner is having a role required in a company,
serious about improvement of the process and also gets affected by the problem.
Project sponsors are from the top management (leadership team) and are
responsible for removing all roadblocks for project execution and improvement.
296 .
The strategic business/customer goals (big Y) are usually established by a team
of top management. Deriving sub-goals or critical process goals (small y) from
strategic goals and deriving project objectives is very useful. It is essential to
identify those processes and small y’s, which are currently not meeting targets
and are the constraints to achieving the higher level business targets. The
linkage makes obtaining support and buy in from others in the organization
makes easy (Donald, 2004).
Note: This step is the most crucial step in Six Sigma DMAIC or DMADV
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

methodology. If a wrong project is selected, which does not have much influence
on big Y or the business or customer need, the management will conclude that
Six Sigma is not useful in improving business results.
.
Once the specific Six Sigma project is identified with the small y, big Y and their
established connection with the business/customer need along with the
identification of process; the project leader and the team are identified and the
project is handed over to the team for execution. The processes selected for
improvement should be significant and important, not minor or trivial. The process
selected for improvement should be strategically important to the organization’s
goal, significant cost and important to customer.
.
The team (leader and the members together) fine-tunes the project definition,
gather data and analyze the root causes of variation for the assigned y’s. Based on
the requirement of the project, the team may select DMAIC or DMADV approach.

The “top-down approach” of Six Sigma project selection methodology as defined in this
paper will have the following advantages:
.
All projects are initiated by top management as a business need or customer goal.
.
Translate the need/goal to process and process characteristic to improve.

The rest of the paper discusses three particular situations for selecting a Six Sigma
project by following the “top-down approach”.

4. Project selection methodology

Though the top-down approach looks simple enough, many organizations fail to grasp
or forget the importance of following the top-down deployment flow of project selection
and execution. This paper discusses three different situations, and defines the
methodology to be followed for carrying out the Steps 3 and 4 of top-down approach of
project selection. The methods as suggested are the following:
(1) performance data analysis;
(2) balanced score card; and
(3) survey.
 4.1 Method I: performance data analysis Six Sigma
Project identification, by using appropriate data analysis, is the most commonly used project
method for selecting a Six Sigma project. Availability of data makes the project
selection specific and quantifiable. It will be very easy to estimate the expected benefits selection
by the project. These types of projects can be initiated with a specific business need
(voice of business, VOB). Mostly, these business needs will be at the corporate level or
board level or company level objective. 297
One has to deploy this need to plant, product and process levels. For example, if the
company level objective is “reduce manufacturing cost”, then we have to find out the
natural break ups of manufacturing cost (cost of raw material, cost of production plan
changes, cost of rejection, cost of rework, cost of breakdown, cost of maintenance, cost
of utility, cost of overhead, etc.). Afterwards, these cost elements to be deployed at
plant and product levels and finally at the process level.
What we understand from the above example is that this type of improvement
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

project can be selected not only from the manufacturing process but across the
organization. It is our experience that non-manufacturing process improvement results
in more cost saving than manufacturing process improvement projects. Some of the
typical examples of big Y can be as follows:
.
cost of poor quality (COPQ);
.
cost of inventory;
.
cost of manufacturing;
.
cost of transportation;
. cost of maintenance (breakdown, spare, production loss, safety, etc.);
.
cost of utility services (cost and loss);
.
cost of purchase (procurement cycle time and poor quality of purchased
material);
.
cost of receivables (. 60 days); and
.
cost of marketing (forecasting error, advertisement, schemes, etc.).

The project selection is a step-by-step approach from need (big Y) to small y, then
selection of plant, product, process (project scope) and finally the critical-to-quality
(CTQ) (which is output of the process) to improve. This journey is based on the
available historical data from the plant and the typical analysis could be a Pareto chart
or pie chart. The following table gives a small outline of examples of project selection
by using the above methodology (Table I).
The effort required to select a Six Sigma project based on COPQ data does not
require much effort and is a regular practice in many industries. This approach is
highly dependable with respect to quality of the data captured. The only drawback
with this approach is that it is reactive in nature and the effect of wrong selection of a
project will be very expensive and time consuming. The other advantage of this
approach is that it can start at the process owner’s level, instead of launching
improvement projects with the involvement of top management and broadly stated
goals by them. In this approach, the process owners, along with the team, drill down
from original business issues (needs) to discover the individual process problems.
As this analysis is supported by COPQ data, this pre-analysis identifies a lot of small
 IJLSS
Need (big Y) Small y Product Plant Defect (CTQ) Process
1,4
Reduce Reduce warranty XYZ (based Plant (in Reduce Manufacturing
warranty cost cost of product on product- which the separation
group A (group- wise pie chart) selected defect (based
wise pie chart) product is on defect-
298 manufactured) wise Pareto)
Reduce Cost of rejection (do Select a Select a plant Select a Select the
manufacturing a product- and product defect from process to be
cost defect-wise matrix the matrix improved to
from FTP data) reduce the
defect
Cost of rework (do a Select a Select a plant Select a Select the
product- and defect- product defect from process to be
wise matrix for the matrix improved to
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

repairable defects reduce the

data) defect
Reduce cost of Reduce cost of Select the Marketing Improve Forecasting
inventory finished goods lying product function product process
in stock more than forecasting
three months efficiency
Reduce inventory of Select a Purchase Reduce Procurement
chemicals particular function procurement process
chemical cycle time
Reduce inventory of Do a item- and Purchase Reduce Procurement
C class items product-wise function inventory process
Table I. (consumables) matrix and level of C
Selection of Six Sigma select few class items
projects based on COPQ (group)

y’s and then CTQs which in turn will improve the big Y’s of business or customer.
A project bank may be created, and the projects will be selected based on Pareto
principle and number of Black Belts available with the plant. This approach of project
selection can be considered as the simplest of all.

4.2 Method II: balanced score card

The balanced scorecard of an organization includes both financial and non-financial
metrics, as well as efficiency and effectiveness measures across the four perspectives
of business: financial, customer, internal process and employee learning or growth.
Effectiveness measures are those that are measured at the end of the event or by
customer (uses the output), while efficiency measures lead to fulfillment of the
effectiveness measures. This approach improves the identified parameters of balanced
score card with the use of rigorous problem-solving approach of Six Sigma, thus helps
an organization to achieve its strategic goals. This approach of planning, managing
and monitoring improvement brings clarity in problem identification and builds
confidence in proposed process improvement. In turn, the measurable impact of the
improvement can be linked with the management objective of cost, quality and
efficiency. The use of a balanced scorecard approach as a method for the selection of
project CTQ’s (small y’s) ensures that the project meets both customer and
business needs.
 One of the crucial elements of the project charter in the define phase of a Six Sigma Six Sigma
project is the selection of the project metrics. Project metrics selected should reflect the project
voice of customer or business, as well as ensure that the internal metrics selected by the
organization are achieved. Metrics selected should be simple and meaningful. Metrics selection
should create a common language among diverse team members and processes. The
most common approach used by a team is to understand the problem statement,
brainstorm critical characteristics, and finally decide what characteristics can help 299
them in achieving better performance. An example of balanced score card of Six Sigma
projects metrics is given in Table II.
Most balanced scorecard metrics are based on standard business measures, but
what is important is to develop a good balance between efficiency and effectiveness
measures. It is very essential to establish a relationship between these two which can
be done either by brainstorming or by using data, if available. The process for selecting
Six Sigma project will be as follows:
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

.
selection of critical business issues;
. establish relation between the critical business issues and business units (BUs)
(plants);
.
identification of process and sub-process; and
.
selection of project.

To start with, the leadership team should define the importance/impact ranking of
these critical business issues. The importance rank for the critical business issues can
be provided by using the performance data or from the management priority, in the
absence of data. The relationship between the BUs and the critical business issues will
be carried out with the help of a prioritization matrix, and is given in Table III.
The objective of the above analysis is to select the critical business issue and the
corresponding area for improvement. Table III suggests working on COPQ and
transportation cost in BU1. This analysis has been carried out with the help of
brainstorming by involving leadership team and champions.

Effectiveness measures Efficiency measures

Financial Internal business process

1. Inventory turn ratio 1. Defects
2. Manufacturing cost per unit 2. Rework
3. Cost of poor quality 3. Yield
4. Transportation cost per unit 4. Cycle time
5. Market share 5. Consumption variance
6. Turnover 6. Process capability
Customer Employee learning and growth
1. Customer satisfaction 1. No. of Six Sigma projects
2. On-time delivery 2. Training effectiveness
3. Final product quality 3. No. of Black Belts
4. Development cycle time 4. Projects completed on time (%) Table II.
5. Response time to customer 5. Cultural change Balanced score card of
6. Customer dissatisfaction 6. Safety Six Sigma project metrics
 IJLSS
Relationship with
1,4 the critical
business issueb
Critical business issue Importance rankinga BU1 BU2 BU3 Score of critical business issue

Cost of poor quality 9 9 5 1 ¼ 9 *9 þ 9 *5 þ 9 *1

300 ¼ 135
On-time delivery 5 9 5 5 95
Customer response time 3 1 5 5 33
Manufacturing cost 5 1 5 5 55
Transportation cost 9 9 1 5 135
Customer complaint 1 9 1 5 15
Market share 5 1 5 9 75
Inventory turn 5 9 5 5 95
Operational profit 5 5 5 5 75
Table III.
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

Score of SBU 299 195 219

Prioritization matrix
between critical business Notes: a9 – very critical, 5 – moderate, 3 – minor, 1 – no criticality (these ranking may change
issues and BUs with time); BU – business unit; bScore 9 – strong, Score 5 – moderate, Score 1 – weak or no effect

In the next step of analysis, the selected business issue is connected with the process of
the selected BU which is explained with the help of transportation cost. This analysis is
carried out in a large-automotive manufacturing industry, but can be used as a method
elsewhere also. The transportation cost can be divided into three major processes –
inbound logistic, outbound logistic and maintenance of transport vehicles. This stage
of problem selection is very important as the process and area of improvement will be
selected. The concept of prioritization matrix is utilized here to decide which process
will have large impact on the overall need (transportation cost) of the project, along
with ease of carrying out the project and the expected time scale. The scoring criteria of
factors, such as, time to complete, easy of carrying out and effect to the critical business
issue are given in Table IV.

Factor Definition Criteria Score

Impact on critical business How much cost can be saved by High 9

issue (transportation cost) this process/sub-process Moderate 3
Nil or negligible 1
Time to complete Expected duration to complete Very long
the project in this area ( . one year) 1
Large (six months –
one year) 3
Manageable
( , six months) 9
Easy to complete Difficulty of improving the selected Easy 9
process/sub-process (may not be Difficult 3
within the scope) Impossible/out-of-
scope 1
Management priority Management decides/priorities High 9
Table IV. which area to improve now Medium 3
Scoring criteria of factors Low/nil 1
 The weightage of each factors were provided by the team. Each sub-process score is Six Sigma
provided for each factor (impact, time, easy and priority) based on the guideline project
provided in Table IV by the team. The total score for each sub-process is calculated by
cross-multiplying the weightage with the score. This prioritization matrix reduces the selection
complexity of selecting a process for improvement, which will have great impact on
overall company need as well as satisfying all practical characteristics of a project like:
time to complete, ease of doing and management priority. The rejection or defect data 301
can be used for deciding the impact score of the sub-process on overall processes. This
selection procedure of sub-process is more robust as it satisfies multiple and conflicting
factors of selection. Table V illustrates the method with one example.
Table V clearly identifies the processes and sub-processes where the Six Sigma
improvement projects should be selected. The projects selected from the above areas
(Table V), are given in Table VI.
This step-by-step deployment of critical business issue – BU – process –
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

sub-process – Six Sigma project approach will not only ensure that appropriate

Factors (Weightage (wi )) Total 

P
Process Sub-process Impact Time Easy Priority w*i xi

9 3 3 9
Vehicle maintenance Breakdown 3 3 3 3 72
Preventive 1 3 1 1 30
Inbound logistic (outside Other country – port
country) transportation 9 1 1 3 114
Terminal management 9 9 3 9 198
Port – plant transportation of
containers 9 9 3 9 198
Container management in
plant 3 3 3 9 126
Inbound logistic (within Local supplier inbound
country) transportation 9 3 3 9 180 Table V.
Outbound logistic Documentation 3 3 1 1 48 Process prioritization
Plant – dealer 3 3 1 1 48 matrix

Need Process Sub-process/area Main project

Transportation Inbound transportation Terminal management Reduce waiting time of

cost (outside country) containers in port
Port – plant Reduce clearance time of
transportation of containers
containers Reduce documentation time of
containers
Container management Reduce waiting time of
in plant containers in plant (stores)
Reduce return time of empty
containers back to port from
plant Table VI.
Inbound transportation Local supplier inbound Reduce lead-time of supply of Six Sigma project
(within country) transportation parts (select part/supplier) selection
 IJLSS metrics are selected for improvement, but also help the project team in project planning
1,4 and create a purpose of direction. This approach helps in identifying processes with
well-identified projects with a clear-cut linkage to business, customer, internal process
or employee improvement areas. The advantages of this method are expected as under:
. involvement of top management in project selection;
.
selected project are derivatives of management interest and priority;
302 .
systematic deployment of critical business issue – BU (plant) – process –
sub-process – project, will always keep the project team focused on what they
want to accomplish;
.
manageable and doable projects get selected;
.
at the time of project selection, top management can involve other level of
management as appropriate, such that, there will be less resistance from them
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

later on;
.
objectively projects get selected, even when there is not much data available with
the management; and
.
it matches with the basic objective of Six Sigma: doing correct first time.

4.3 Method III: survey

So far, in this paper, two situations are described, project selection based on balanced
business scorecard and top management involvement and second, which is more
reactive in nature, by using the COPQ data and by using the step-by-step journey of
big Y – small y – product – process – CTQ. There are many organizations and
businesses, where neither there is data of COPQ nor there exist any business scorecard.
But the management is interested in improving process performance to improve the
business results or customer satisfaction. The type of business houses could be a bank,
hospital, medical check-up facility, retail store, restaurant or any other service
organizations. All service organizations want to improve their customer satisfaction
through the quality of service. But, it is not very clear which process characteristic will
affect the customer satisfaction. In this paper, the authors recommend conducting a
survey of target customers and analysis of the survey-based information prior to
selecting a process for improvement.
The use of Six Sigma principles for process improvement and thus improving
customer satisfaction is becoming widely used in service industries nowadays. In a
service industry, adopting a reactive system (like COPQ) and then deciding to improve
a process could be very adverse for the industry, as the customer reaction time is very
fast. Hence, a proactive system of process improvement can prove better over a
reactive system. Also, it would be better to ask customers themselves what to improve,
rather assuming it.
In this paper, conduct of a systematic survey and analysis of survey data are
recommended as the proactive method to identify and moreover prioritize the customer
satisfaction metrics. The approach is explained with the help of an actual survey
conducted for a medical check-up facility. The process starts with a brainstorming
session by involving top management, where it is deliberated about the internal metrics
which influence customer satisfaction. One such brainstorming session identifies the
following metrics responsible for customer satisfaction:
 (1) accuracy of report; Six Sigma
(2) report preparation cycle time; project
(3) waiting time for test; selection
(4) skill level of staff;
(5) check-up facility;
(6) cost; and 303
(7) housekeeping level.

The brainstorming could identify very crucial process parameters thought to be

responsible for customer satisfaction. But it is not very clear whether they significantly
impact customer satisfaction and, if so, by how much. The other problem with these
parameters is that if a customer is asked about the importance of these parameters
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

individually, he/she will always select the best level of each of them as the preferred
one. It will become very difficult to decide which one is more important than other.
Hence, the following problem is defined:
.
to identify the significance of the parameters in the presence of others; and
.
to quantify the impact of the significant parameters.

With the objective of finding out the critical service parameters, a design of experiment
technique is employed. A service questionnaire is prepared by using Taguchi’s method
of orthogonal array (OA) experimentation. A Taguchi (1987) design, or, an OA, is a
method of designing experiments that usually requires only a fraction of the full
factorial combinations. An OA means that the design is balanced so that factor levels
are weighted equally. Because of this, each factor can be evaluated independently of all
the other factors, so the effect of one factor does not influence the estimation of another
factor. In these studies, only the main effect of the service parameters is considered.
In the survey questionnaire, the customers are requested to rate a particular facility in
an ordinal scale of 1-10, where, 10 is the maximum level of customer satisfaction and 1
is the minimum. It is decided to carry out a fractional factorial experiment with the
factors and their levels as shown in Table VII.
The customer satisfaction survey questionnaire is developed by using L8(27) OA.
The questionnaire thus designed, by considering each facility (experimental
combination) is given in Table VIII. In Table VIII, each experiment is considered as
a combination of a particular service level combination.

Levels
Sl no. Factors Code 1 2

1 Report accuracy (%) A 100 , 100

2 Report preparation cycle time (h) B .24 , 24
3 Waiting time for test (min) C .15 , 15
4 Skill level of staff D Specialist General
5 Facility E Limited Exhausted Table VII.
6 Cost F Standard Expensive Factors and levels
7 Housekeeping level G Ok To be improved for the experiments
 IJLSS
Report
1,4 Accuracy time Test wait time House Score
Expt no. (%) (h) (min) Skill level Facility Cost keeping (1-10)

1 100 . 24 .15 SPEC Limited STD OK

2 100 . 24 .15 GEN Exhaust EXP Improve
304 3 100 , 24 ,15 SPEC Limited EXP Improve
4 100 , 24 ,15 GEN Exhaust STD OK
5 , 100 . 24 ,15 SPEC Exhaust STD Improve
Table VIII. 6 , 100 . 24 ,15 GEN Limited EXP OK
Customer satisfaction 7 , 100 , 24 .15 SPEC Exhaust EXP OK
survey questionnaire 8 , 100 , 24 .15 GEN Limited STD Improve

Each customer is requested to rate all the eight service level combinations (Table VIII)
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

in the questionnaire. A total of 160 customers are contacted to fill up the survey
questionnaire in the following combinations:
.
Group 1 – male, age (, 35 years).
.
Group 2 – male, age (. 35 years).
.
Group 3 – female, age (, 35 years).
.
Group 4 – female, age (. 35 years).
The service organization can decide to carry out customer survey by following any
other method of customer profile segmentation, which will be meaningful to them.
From each of the above groups, 40 customers are selected at random for the survey.
Hence, the data from the experiments boil down to 160 readings for each experiment
and 40 readings from each group. The total customer satisfaction score is calculated
from each group and then the total is ranked. Finally, the data from the experiments
reduce to four-ranked data from each group. The total customer satisfaction score as
well as the rank for each of the four groups is displayed in Table IX.
The main interest behind the data analysis, to identify the robust service parameter
(factor in the experiments) affecting all customer groups. A measure of robustness
could be the setting of control factor that minimizes the effect of noise (customer
groups) on the response. Signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio (Taguchi et al., 1999) is calculated
for each combination of factor levels in the design. The choice of S/N ratios depends on
the goal of the experiment, higher the better; lower the better or nominal the best.

Total customer satisfaction Rank data of customer satisfaction

Expt no. Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

1 268 300 196 241 6 5 6 6

2 240 320 192 227 3 7 5 5
3 276 328 268 253 7 8 7.5 7
4 280 316 268 303 8 6 7.5 8
Table IX. 5 244 276 140 191 4 2.5 2 3
Customer satisfaction 6 232 272 108 152 2 1 1 1
and rank data for the 7 256 276 160 202 5 2.5 4 4
experiments 8 220 288 156 170 1 4 3 2
 For this particular data analysis, higher the better S/N ratio is selected. The formula for Six Sigma
the larger-is-better S/N ratio is:
project
X 
S 1=yi2 selection
¼ 210 * log10
N n
where, yi is the response (rank score) for the ith factor level combination and n is the 305
total number of responses in the factor level combination. The analysis of the rank data
is conducted by calculating the average S/N ratio (higher the better) for each level of
the factors. Then, for each factor, the delta value is calculated which is the absolute
value of the average response characteristic at the low level subtracted from the
average response at the high level. Then, each factor is assigned a rank, which is the
order of the delta values from high to low. The factor with the highest delta value is
assigned rank 1; the factor with the next highest delta value is assigned rank 2, and so
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

on. Table X provides the S/N ratios, the delta value and the rank for each of the factors.
Both Table X and Figure 1, clearly identify the service parameters which are
important (in the ranked order) from the customer’s point of view and should be
selected for improvement. Hence, the following Six Sigma projects are initiated:
(1) zero defect in report;
(2) improve staff skill level; and
(3) reduce report preparation cycle time.

5. Discussions
The successful Six Sigma implementation in an organization depends on three broad
and overlapping key elements, namely, committed leadership, right project and right
people. The active involvement of top management is essential in all the above three key
success factors. Integrating these three success factors can ensure successful
implementation of Six Sigma. Specifically, Six Sigma facilitates effective problem
definition, allows the use of data rather than emotion and conjecture during critical
decision making, and provides a platform for managing continuous improvement.
Hence, success of Six Sigma initiatives in an organization starts with the projects
selected by the top management or by the leadership team. This paper highlights the
importance of active involvement of top management especially at the time of project
selection. This approach is very essential for all Six Sigma projects irrespective

S/N ratio
Sl. no. Factors Level 1 Level 2 Delta Rank CTQ selected

1 Report accuracy 15.590 6.162 9.427 1 No defect in report

2 Report preparation cycle time 9.285 12.468 3.183 3 Reduce reporting cycle time
3 Waiting time for test 10.816 10.936 0.119 7
4 Skill level of staff 12.922 8.831 4.091 2 Improve skill level
5 Facility 9.453 12.299 2.845 4
6 Cost 11.281 10.472 0.809 5
7 Housekeeping level 11.020 10.732 0.288 6
Table X.
Note: The main effect plots for S/N ratios are shown in Figure 1 Results of analysis
 IJLSS Main fffects plot (data means) for SN ratios
1,4 Accuracy Report time Test waiting time
15

10

306 5
100% <100% >24 <24 >15 <15
Mean of SN rations

Staff skill Facility Cost

15

10

5
SPE GEN Limited Exaust STD EXP
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

Housekeeping
15

10

Figure 1. 5
Main effect plot Ok Improve
for S/N ratios
Note: Signal-to-noise: Larger is better

of whether this is a DMAIC or DMADV. The paper also elaborates three different
situations, and the methodology to be followed for selecting a Six Sigma project
objectively. The major portion of the paper discusses these methodologies for selecting
an appropriate Six Sigma project, which has a clear linkage with business result or
customer satisfaction. The common thread among the three approaches is that:
.
it always starts at top – business need or customer need;
.
as far as possible, use data and data analysis to establish the linkage;
.
at the stage of project selection, it is a policy deployment for reactivity data; and
.
if there is no data, do a brainstorming followed by prioritization or carry out a
survey followed by data analysis.

This paper provides a step-by-step approach for project selection for three different
situations:
(1) companies implement balanced business score card;
(2) data of COPQ are available; and
(3) where no data is available.

The intent of an effective method to identify right Six Sigma project is the major step
towards successful implementation. The background condition for using each method
with merits and demerits are highlighted in Table XI.

6. Conclusions
The VOB defines Six Sigma as a business strategy used to improve business
profitability or exceed customer’s need and expectations. One of the reasons
 Six Sigma
Methods Background condition Merits Demerits
project
Balanced Organization implemented Step-by-step deployment Team members should be selection
business score balanced business of critical business issue – clear how to give
card scorecard BU – process – sub- importance ranking for
Metrics defined and process – project selection factors, and scores in the
available Very useful for a large prioritization matrix 307
organization with many If no consensus between
BUs and multiple metrics team members while
Does not use a demerit giving scores
data alone for project
selection
Data on cost of Data on COPQ is available Very easy to select project If data are wrong or nor
poor quality The most widely used reliable or incomplete, may
method result in selection of wrong
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

project
Only defect is considered,
many other aspect of a
project like “time to
complete”, “management
priority” and “ease of
doing” is not considered
many times
Survey No data to justify selection Very useful in service, Little time consuming
of a metric or process healthcare sectors before actually doing a Six
Projects are not Sigma project
emotionally selected, The author suggests
based on data collected conducting this activity
from the customer (VOC) itself as a project. Once
Selection of a CTQ for completed, Six Sigma
improvement is very projects are listed based on
objective their importance/ Table XI.
No demerit data is used for significance Summary of the
project selection proposed methods

for widespread application of Six Sigma was possible due to the fact that organizations
were able to generate financial returns by linking process improvements with cost
savings. Successful implementation and growing organizational interest in Six Sigma
methods have been possible by selecting right improvement projects by the top
management. Top management involvement and support is necessary to gain
participation from all levels in the organization as most of the key processes cut across
the organizational and functional boundaries. Most Six Sigma projects are process
oriented, cutting across department and consisting of diverse activities. Top
management thus becomes a mechanism for breaking down these natural barriers
associated with cross-organization. If the projects get success, the improvement effort is
rolled out more broadly throughout the organization. This paper highlights the need of
top management involvement at the time of project selection; otherwise there will be
always a chance of selecting a wrong project, without having a meaningful impact. The
approaches discussed here will help the organizations to select the specific project from
multivariate organizational and customer needs. The authors suggest establishing this
linkage with data (either reactive or survey), otherwise through prioritization tool.
 IJLSS Finally, factors influencing successful Six Sigma projects include management
1,4 commitment, project selection and control skill. The future work in this area could
be to identify and create a guideline for Six Sigma project selection, sector wise
(manufacturing, service, health care, software, etc.). The selected project should fulfill
the criterion of the guideline, to qualify as a Six Sigma project.

308 References
Andersson, R., Eriksson, H. and Torstessor, H. (2006), “Similarities and differences between
TQM, Six Sigma and lean”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 282-96.
Antony, J. (2004), “Six Sigma in UK service organizations: results from a pilot survey”,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 1006-13.
Antony, J. and Banuelas, R. (2001), “Six Sigma: a business strategy for manufacturing
organizations”, Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 119-21.
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

Bremer, M., Mckibben, B. and McCarty, T. (2006), Six Sigma Financial Tracking and Reporting,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Coronado, R.B. and Antony, J. (2002), “Critical success factors for the successful
implementation of Six Sigma projects in organizations”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 92-9.
Donald, J.W. (2004), The Six Sigma Practitioner’s Guide to Data Analysis, SPC Press,
Knoxville, TN.
Harry, M. (1998), “Six Sigma: a breakthrough strategy for profitability”, Quality Progress, Vol. 31
No. 5, pp. 60-4.
Harry, M. and Schroeder, R. (2000), Six Sigma, The Breakthrough Strategy Revolutionizing the
World’s Top Corporation, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Hoerl, R.W. (1998), “Six Sigma and the future of quality profession”, Quality Progress, Vol. 31
No. 6, pp. 35-42.
Juran, J.M. (1989), Juran on Leadership for Quality, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Kwak, Y.H. and Anbari, F.T. (2006), “Benefits, obstacles and future of Six Sigma approach”,
Technovation, Vol. 26, pp. 708-15.
Mahanti, R. and Antony, J. (2005), “Confluence of Six Sigma, simulation and software
development”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 739-62.
Naumann, E. and Hoisington, S.H. (2001), Customer Centered Six Sigma: Linking Customers,
Process Improvement, and Financial Results, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Pyzdek, T. (2003), The Six Sigma Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Rath and Strong (2003), Six Sigma Leadership Handbook, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Ray, S. and Das, P. (2009), “Improving efficiency and effectiveness of APQP process by using
DFSS tools”, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 222-36.
Robert, S. (1999), Jack Welch and the GE Way, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Stamatis, D.H. (2004), Six Sigma Fundamentals, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Taguchi, G. (1987), System of Experimental Design, UNIPUB, Oslo.
Taguchi, G., Chowdhury, S. and Taguchi, S. (1999), Robust Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Thomsett, M.C. (2005), Getting Started in Six Sigma, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Urdhwareshe, H. (2000), “The Six Sigma approach”, Quality and Productivity Journal, September.
 Further reading Six Sigma
Das, P., Roy, S. and Antony, J. (2007), “An application of Six Sigma methodology to reduce project
lot-to-lot shade variation of linen fabrics”, Journal of Industrial Textiles, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 227-51. selection

About the authors

Sanjit Ray is a member of faculty in the SQC & OR Division of the Indian Statistical Institute 309
(ISI), Bangalore. He has received a Master’s degree in Statistics with specialization in Statistical
Quality Control and Operational Research (SQC & OR) from ISI. His responsibilities include
consultancy services, teaching and training in the field of quality improvement, quality
management and Six Sigma. He has published many papers in reputed national and
international journals during his tenure in academics.
Prasun Das is an Associate Professor in the SQC & OR Division of the ISI, Kolkata, India.
He received his PhD (Materials Science and Engineering) degree from BESU, Shibpur, India and
Master’s degree in Technology with specialties in quality, reliability and operations research
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

from ISI. His responsibilities include industrial consultancy, teaching and applied research in the
field of quality control and management, soft computing and mathematical programming. He is
engaged in various interdisciplinary research projects, both in India and abroad. He has a
significant number of publications with international repute. Prasun Das is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Prasun Das, Srabanti Mukherjee. 2017. Improvement in higher education quality of the North-East
University of India. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 28:7-8, 765-781. [Crossref]
2. PadhyRamakrushna, Ramakrushna Padhy. 2017. Six Sigma project selections: a critical review.
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 8:2, 244-258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Dilip Kumar, Ranjit Singh, Ashok Yadav. Process improvement through six sigma — A case study of
Agra foundry 1-7. [Crossref]
4. AdebanjoDotun, Dotun Adebanjo, SamaranayakePremaratne, Premaratne Samaranayake,
MafakheriFereshteh, Fereshteh Mafakheri, LaosirihongthongTritos, Tritos Laosirihongthong. 2016.
Prioritization of Six-Sigma project selection. Benchmarking: An International Journal 23:7, 1983-2003.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. V. Arumugam, Jiju Antony, Kevin Linderman. 2016. The influence of challenging goals and structured
method on Six Sigma project performance: A mediated moderation analysis. European Journal of
Downloaded by Universidad Icesi At 08:37 14 December 2017 (PT)

Operational Research 254:1, 202-213. [Crossref]

6. S Vinodh, Vikas Swarnakar. 2015. Lean Six Sigma project selection using hybrid approach based on
fuzzy DEMATEL–ANP–TOPSIS. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 6:4, 313-338. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
7. Ang Boon Sin, Suhaiza Zailani, Mohammad Iranmanesh, T. Ramayah. 2015. Structural equation
modelling on knowledge creation in Six Sigma DMAIC project and its impact on organizational
performance. International Journal of Production Economics 168, 105-117. [Crossref]
8. Chad Laux, Mary Johnson, Paul Cada. 2015. Project barriers to Green Belts through critical success
factors. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 6:2, 138-160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Sungwoon Choi. 2015. Development of Financial Effect Measurement(FEM) Models for Quality
Improvement and Innovation Activity. Journal of the Korea Safety Management and Science 17:1, 337-348.
[Crossref]
10. Mazen Arafah. 2015. Selecting the Six Sigma Project: A Multi Data Envelopment Analysis Unified
Scoring Framework. American Journal of Operations Research 05:03, 129-150. [Crossref]
11. Amândio Pereira Baýa. 2015. Achieving Customer Specifications Through Process Improvement Using
Six Sigma: Case Study of NutriSoil – Portugal. Quality Management Journal 22:2, 48-60. [Crossref]
12. Muhammad Usman Tariq. 2013. A Six Sigma based risk management framework for handling undesired
effects associated with delays in project completion. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 4:3, 265-279.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Sushil Kumar, P.S. Satsangi, D.R. Prajapati. 2013. Improvement of Sigma level of a foundry: a case study.
The TQM Journal 25:1, 29-43. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Satya S. Chakravorty. 2012. Prioritizing Improvement Projects: Benefit & Effort (B&E) Analysis. Quality
Management Journal 19:1, 24-33. [Crossref]
15. Jun-yi Shu, Liang Liu. The application of six sigma methods in Packing Line Y of Company A 1071-1074.
[Crossref]