JMTM 04 2012 0045

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
The Six Sigma program: an empirical study of Brazilian companies

Marly Monteiro de Carvalho Linda Lee Ho Silvia Helena Boarin Pinto
Article information:
To cite this document:
Marly Monteiro de Carvalho Linda Lee Ho Silvia Helena Boarin Pinto , (2014),"The Six Sigma program: an
empirical study of Brazilian companies", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 25 Iss 5
pp. 602 - 630
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-04-2012-0045
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 20:20 02 September 2016 (PT)
Downloaded on: 02 September 2016, At: 20:20 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 85 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 730 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2010),"The evolution of lean Six Sigma", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 27 Iss 2 pp. 138-155 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656711011014276
(2014),"Benchmarking Six Sigma implementation in services companies operating in an emerging
economy", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 21 Iss 1 pp. 62-76 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
BIJ-03-2012-0014
(2005),"Six sigma in small- and medium-sized UK manufacturing enterprises: Some empirical observations",
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 22 Iss 8 pp. 860-874 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710510617265
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:394461 []
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/1741-038X.htm
JMTM
25,5
The Six Sigma program:
an empirical study of
Brazilian companies
602 Marly Monteiro de Carvalho, Linda Lee Ho and
Received 20 April 2012 Silvia Helena Boarin Pinto
Revised 18 December 2012 Production Engineering Department – Polytechnic School,
1 February 2013 University of Sa~o Paulo, Sa~o Paulo, Brazil
Accepted 5 February 2013
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess the status of Six Sigma’s status in Brazilian
companies and understand the integration of this program with other quality management
approaches. Additionally, the critical success factors (CSFs) for Six Sigma implementation and
primary Six Sigma program characteristics were identified. Finally, the results of the used of Six Sigma
were analysed.
Design/methodology/approach – An extensive literature review illustrates the primary Six Sigma
characteristics and its relationship with other quality approaches. The research methodology
encompasses survey development and statistical analyses. Questionnaires are distributed to 1,000
large firms in the manufacturing and service industries in Brazil. Altogether, a total of 198 firms, of
which 46 companies adopted the Six Sigma program, participated in this study.
Findings – The results suggest a synergic and incremental pattern of quality model implementation.
The study reveals that companies that have adopted Six Sigma have a long history of implementing
quality programs, which suggests a certain level of quality maturity. The studied companies perceive
in Six Sigma an incremental evolution, which can be combined with earlier initiatives and provides
strong synergy with ISO 9000. The findings of this study confirm the distinctive Six Sigma role
structure suggested by several authors. However, three possible configurations of the role structure
were found that differ in terms of training and the dedication of human resources involved in the
Six Sigma program.
Research limitations/implications – This study demonstrates the inherent limits of the research
method adopted, the use of a non-probabilistic sample and a reliance on self-reported perceptions,
which introduces bias to the analysis.
Practical implications – Important managerial implications of this study are related to the Six
Sigma structure adopted. The capillarity of the program in the organisation as a whole can be related
to the type of role structure configuration adopted. This structure can have an impact in terms of
both numbers and employees’ and managers’ degree of involvement, as well as the type of training and
resources provided.
Originality/value – The diffusion of Six Sigma in Brazilian companies is less widespread than in
other countries. Three possible configurations of the role structure were found that differ in terms
of the training and dedication of human resources entailed by the Six Sigma program. Three CSFs
factors were identified: organisation, infrastructure and human resources.
Keywords Six Sigma, Quality management
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Many authors recognise the difficulty of defining the constructs and boundaries of Six
Management Sigma but emphasise that the program has singular aspects with respect to other
Vol. 25 No. 5, 2014
pp. 602-630
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-038X The authors wish to thank the CNPq and the CAPES for supporting this research. The authors
DOI 10.1108/JMTM-04-2012-0045 wish to express gratitude to the reviewers who contributed to the improvement of this paper.
quality management approaches (Klefsjö et al., 2001; McAdam and Lafferty, 2004; The Six Sigma
Lloréns-Montes and Molina, 2006; Schroeder et al., 2008; Linderman et al., 2003; program
Choo et al., 2007).
Nevertheless, some authors argue that there is nothing significantly new regarding
the Six Sigma approach (Clifford, 2001), so it has assumed characteristics of a managerial
fad (Abrahamson, 1996). This argument is based on the lack of significant differences
between the constructs of Six Sigma and those outlined in TQM (Saraph et al., 1989, 603
Dale et al., 1994; Flynn et al., 1994; Ahire et al., 1996; Zeitz et al., 1997; Black and Porter,
1996; Powell, 1995; Martı́nez-Lorente et al., 1998; Motwani, 2001; Douglas and Judge,
2001). The sensation of “déjà vu” experienced with respect to the Six Sigma literature is
very evident.
In between these controversial streams, some authors state that the Six Sigma
program is leveraged by the prior implementation of other improvement approaches.
Furthermore, the Six Sigma program depends on the foundations of quality

improvement models previously implemented, as corroborated by various authors
(Benner and Tushman, 2002; Shankar, 2003; Shah et al., 2008; Zu et al., 2008; Kumar and
Antony, 2008; Kumar et al., 2011; Timans et al., 2012).
Despite academic discussion, companies have tested the Six Sigma program.
Through the use of the impressive earnings figures obtained and disseminated by
companies who pioneered its implementation, such as Motorola, General Electric,
Allied Signal and Citibank, the program was publicised, particularly among
large companies (Mitchell, 1992; Harry, 1998; Harry and Schroeder, 2000; Pande
et al., 2001; Basu, 2004). This program was brought to Brazil by subsidiaries of these
organisations and has exhibited increasing rates of diffusion and implementation
(Pinto et al., 2008).
In this context, this study aims to assess the status of Six Sigma in Brazilian
companies and understand its integration with other quality management approaches.
Additionally, the critical success factors (CSFs) of Six Sigma implementation and
primary Six Sigma program characteristics were identified. Finally, the results of the
use of Six Sigma were analysed. The methodological approach adopted was a survey-
based research.
This paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents the theoretical background
for Six Sigma and the research assumptions. The implementation patterns associated
with the Six Sigma program are presented in Section 3. Section 4 describes the research
methods used and the primary research questions. Section 5 contains the results and
a discussion of the field research. Finally, the last section provides conclusions
and recommendations for future work.
2. Literature review
Six Sigma was created by Motorola and the approach was first diffused using
American companies and later disseminated globally by their subsidiaries (Mitchell,
1992; Harry, 1998; Harry and Schroeder, 2000). A survey with respondents from the
three countries (the Netherlands, the UK and the USA) performed by Van Iwaarden
et al. (2008) noted that the meaning conferred the Six Sigma approach varies little
among organisations, which suggests that it is a transnational concept. However;
McAdam and Lafferty (2004) caution that the degree of coverage provided by what
organisations call Six Sigma varies significantly, particularly for those that have
simultaneously adopted other programs.
JMTM 2.1 Distinctive characteristics of Six Sigma
25,5 Schroeder et al. (2008) highlight four elements that are distinctive to Six Sigma
with respect to TQM: “the focus on financial and business results is to some
extent unique”, “the use of a structured method for process improvement or
new product and service introduction is also not entirely distinctive”, “the use of
specific metrics is also new with Six Sigma”, and “the use of a significant number of
604 full-time improvement specialists in Six Sigma is new to many organisations” ( p. 13).
Furthermore, Zu et al. (2008) identified three of the four elements suggested by Schroeder
et al. (2008) as significant in empirical research: “the Six Sigma role structure, the
Six Sigma structured improvement procedure, and the Six Sigma focus on metrics”
( pp. 641-642). Braunscheidel et al. (2011) utilise institutional theory by determining
influence mechanisms (coercive, mimetic and normative) to assess motivation for the
adoption of Six Sigma.
Lloréns-Montes and Molina (2006) highlight the following primary distinctive

principles of Six Sigma: strategic focus, statistical thinking and systematised
methodology. Several authors corroborate the notion that one of the distinctive
aspects most often highlighted by authors is the Six Sigma strategic vision
(Harry, 1998; Klefsjö et al., 2001; Sanders and Hild, 2000; Connor, 2003; Snee,
2004). Similarly, statistical thinking and the structured method are other highly
praised distinctive aspects of Six Sigma for many authors (Basu, 2004; Snee and Hoerl,
2002; Ingle and Roe, 2001; Pande et al., 2001; Snee, 2004; Choo et al., 2007; Zu
et al., 2008).
The structured method encompasses common metrics, adherence to a stepwise
problem-solving approach, and analysis using a set of tools (Choo et al., 2007; Zu et al.,
2008). The most widespread Six Sigma structured method is the DMAIC, so called
because of the following phases: Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve and Control
(Dale et al., 2000; Hahn et al., 2000). This method is used as a managerial process
improvement practice, focusing on variance reduction and increased process control,
which lead to organisational efficiency and effectiveness (Harry and Schroeder, 2000).
The most common Six Sigma metric is the capability index, which supplies the
program’s name and entails the goal of achieving six standard deviation (6s), that is,
3.4 parts per million defects, allowing for 1.5 SD (shift sigma) in the nominal value
(Harry, 1998).
In contrast to other approaches, which advocate costs for quality and discuss the
trade-offs between prevention and evaluation ( Juran, 1962); the Six Sigma approach
emphasises gains in quality, calculated on the basis of the results of Six Sigma projects.
De Feo (2000) also stresses that Six Sigma projects are oriented towards achieving
a return on investment (ROI). Schroeder et al. (2008) emphasise that the Six Sigma
performance metrics include multiple levels and can be characterised as customer-
oriented metrics or financial metrics, whereas Linderman et al. (2003) explore the
goal-theoretic perspective of Six Sigma in terms of its relationship to performance and
task strategies, commitment and effort, and persistence and direction. Goela and Chen
(2008) link the metrics for business process reengineering (BPR) to the metrics
employed in the Six Sigma program.
The surveys conducted by Davison and Al-Shaghana (2007), Zu et al. (2008) and
Kumar and Antony (2008) identify the focus on metrics and performance evaluations
based on quality-related criteria as significant differences between Six Sigma and
non-Six Sigma firms, which confirms the theoretical assumption previously discussed
(Linderman et al., 2003; Schroeder et al., 2008; Goela and Chen, 2008).
2.2 Six Sigma and other quality management initiatives The Six Sigma
The broad dissemination of quality management models created an evolutionary program
perspective, in which each new program inherits characteristics of its predecessor
models, i.e. are built upon the foundations of models previously implemented (Lascelles
and Dale, 1993; Garvin, 1988). Firms adopt a sequential implementation process in
which distinctive approach generations coexist, because a firm’s absorptive capacity
increases incrementally and each implemented approach facilitates the implementation 605
of another related improvement program (Benner and Tushman, 2002). Thus, the
intersection among these programs is significant. Using absorptive capacity perspective,
McAdam and Hazlett (2010) suggest that there is evidence of an emerging theoretical
underpinning regarding Six Sigma’s borrowing from an eclectic range of organisational
theories.
This study’s underlying assumption is that the Six Sigma program is leveraged
by the prior implementation of other improvement approaches. Furthermore, the Six

Sigma program depends on the foundations of quality improvement models previously
implemented. Previous studies corroborate this assumption (Benner and Tushman,
2002; Shah et al., 2008; Shankar, 2003; Zu et al., 2008; Kumar and Antony, 2008; Kumar
et al., 2011; Timans et al., 2012).
Zu et al. (2008, p. 445) state that Six Sigma “key practices work with other
QM practices to enhance the organisation’s ability of improving quality”. Shankar
(2003) sustains that the diverse approaches to quality, such as quality awards (Malcolm
Baldrige, National Prize for Quality and The Deming Prize), Six Sigma and the ISO
9001:2000 norms, are not independent of one another, i.e. they can and should coexist
harmoniously, free of the need to abandon one approach to implement another.
Furthermore, these authors suggest that there should be a sequence for implementation:
first, ISO 9001:2000 norms and, later, Six Sigma. Additionally, Shankar (2003) argues that
quality awards allow for integration, whereas Six Sigma improves control and ISO
9001:2000 norms focus on the basics.
Other authors have explored the convergence of Six Sigma and Lean Management
(Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005; Shah et al., 2008; Thomas et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2010;
Delgado et al., 2010). Kumar and Antony (2008) note that ISO may be the foundation
of lean management or Six Sigma in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
The majority of the SMEs surveyed possessed ISO certification before lean and
Six Sigma implementation. Thomas et al. (2008) also identify the benefits of
lean Six Sigma (LSS) implementation in a small engineering company. Nabhani and
Shokri (2009) suggest the application of a simplified version of LSS in a food service
SME. Kumar et al. (2011) present a Six Sigma implementation framework for
SMEs that is deployed into five phases: readiness for Six Sigma, prepare, initialise,
institutionalise and sustain. During phase 2, initialise, they suggest the identification
of core business processes and explore adherence to ISO 9000 and lean. More recently,
Timans et al. (2012) studied LSS implementation in Dutch manufacturing
engineering SMEs, and no distinct separation between lean manufacturing and
Six Sigma were identified.
Van Iwaarden et al. (2008) identified prerequisites for successful Six Sigma
implementation, such as an existing quality culture and a certain level of quality
maturity. Arauz and Suzuki (2004) corroborate this finding and suggest an incremental
pattern of quality model implementation in Japanese ISO 9000 certified companies.
Conversely, in organisations in which programs are implemented in an isolated
package, it is observed that human and financial resources are dissipated, leading to
JMTM unnecessary competition for resources and the discrediting of employees (Hammer,
25,5 2002; Hoerl, 2001).
2.3 Six Sigma diffusion and CSFs

The literature on Six Sigma is replete with success cases of world-class companies,
among them the pioneers: Motorola, General Electric and Allied Signal (Eckes, 2001;
606 Pande et al., 2001; Snee and Hoerl, 2002; Ingle and Roe, 2001). These cases are primarily
related to Six Sigma implementation in large companies and include a predominance
of manufacturing organisations.
However, there is a lack of empirical surveys in this field, which has been fulfilled in
recent years through the use of surveys performed in several countries, such as the UK
(Antony and Banuelas, 2002; Antony, 2004; Kumar and Antony, 2008; Van Iwaarden
et al., 2008; Antony et al., 2008), the USA (Van Iwaarden et al., 2008; Zu et al., 2008; Shah et al.,
2008), Japan (Arauz and Suzuki, 2004) and Saudi Arabia (Alsmadi et al., 2012).
One of the pioneer surveys on Six Sigma was performed by Antony and Banuelas
(2002) in large size manufacturing and service companies in the UK. Eleven key
success factors were researched: management involvement and commitment; cultural
change; organisational infrastructure; training; project management skill; project
prioritisation and selection, review and tracking; understanding Six Sigma methodology,
tools and techniques; a link to business strategy; a link to the customer; a link to human
resource; and a link to supplier.
The most important success factors for the surveyed firms was “involvement
and commitment of top management to the program”, as was also stressed by several
authors ( Johnson and Swisher, 2003; Kwak and Anbari, 2006; Yeung et al., 2006;
Davison and Al-Shaghana, 2007; Zu et al., 2008; Antony et al., 2008). The success
factors that scored higher than average were the following: project prioritisation and
selection, reviews and tracking, and the linking of Six Sigma and the customer.
In further research, Kumar and Antony (2008) and Antony et al. (2008) also identified
the importance of linking Six Sigma to customers. Other authors emphasise project
selection and leadership, as well as project management and project performance,
as being critical to the success of Six Sigma (Kwak and Anbari, 2006; Johnson and
Swisher, 2003).
The least relevant factor was found to be “linking Six Sigma to human resources”,
which is controversial in other studies (Davison and Al-Shaghana, 2007; Buch and
Tolentino, 2006). Davison and Al-Shaghana (2007) identified significant relationships
between Six Sigma and non-Six Sigma firms considering some organisational factors
related to human resources such as training, employee participation and creating an
awareness of quality. Buch and Tolentino (2006) also stated that employees believe that
their participation in a Six Sigma program will lead to valued outcomes for themselves
and their organisations. In addition, the rewards associated with their participation
are more intrinsic, social, and organisational than extrinsic, which can lead to the
attraction and retainment of program participants. Kumar and Antony (2008) also
identified differences between Six Sigma and ISO-certified SMEs in the UK with regard
to knowledge transfer to employees.
According to Antony and Banuelas (2002), the three factors considered less
important by the surveyed firms were: “linking Six Sigma to business strategy”,
“understanding the Six Sigma methodology” and “tools and techniques”. However, in
new studies, the importance of linking Six Sigma to business strategy has been
highlighted (Antony et al., 2008).
Antony et al. (2008) and Kumar and Antony (2008) study Six Sigma implementation The Six Sigma
in SMEs. Kumar and Antony (2008) identified a ranking of 13 CSFs, adding the program
following to Antony and Banuelas (2002) list: communication, vision and plan,
Information Technology (IT) and innovation. It is important to note that no significant
difference in CSF importance between Six Sigma and ISO-certified companies was
identified. Furthermore, they discovered a gap between the CSF importance and
actual implementation within a company. A recent study by Timans et al. (2012) 607
provides an analysis of CSFs and impeding factors on LSS implementation in Dutch
manufacturing/engineering SMEs. The highest ranked CSFs were the following:
linking to customer, vision and plan, communication and management involvement
and participation. Conversely, the strongest impeding factors were internal resistance,
resource availability, a changing business focus and a lack of leadership. Timans
et al. (2012) propose three new CSFs: personal LSS-experience of top management,
development of the project leader’s soft skills and supply chain focus.
Kumar and Antony (2008) note that the majority of the SMEs surveyed provide
in-house training to their employees rather than seeking the external help of
consultants. However, in contrast to ISO-certified firms, the SME firms that apply Six
Sigma prefer to utilise external consultants. Scott et al. (2009) conducted a survey on
continuous improvement programs in the Canadian food sector, identifying more
widespread use of Six Sigma among large organisations (50.0 per cent) than small ones
(9.1 per cent). Similar results were found for Japanese companies (Arauz and Suzuki,
2004), in which the focus on Six Sigma was found only among large companies.
Antony (2004) surveyed service companies in the UK, the majority of which were large
(80 per cent).
In the service sector, the Six Sigma program had been implemented with the
primary goal of reducing and controlling costs, and the key success factors highlighted
by the surveyed firms were the following: linking Six Sigma to business strategies,
maintaining a focus on customers, competent project management, executive
leadership and top management commitment, organisational infrastructure and
project selection and prioritisation (Antony, 2004). Alsmadi et al. (2012) compared Six
Sigma with other initiatives and the findings suggest that there is no significant
difference in the level of most of Six Sigma practices between manufacturing and
service firms.
Antony and Banuelas (2002) identified the following as the quality tools most
often adopted for Six Sigma: the cause and effect diagram, control charts and the
Pareto diagram, regression analysis, quality function deployment (QFD), hypothesis
testing and failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). For Shah et al. (2008), the
practices that significantly impact Six Sigma program are as follows: quality
management, continuous improvement, process capability, a pull system, error
proofing and statistical process control (SPC). These tools and practices are also related
to other approaches.
For Arauz and Suzuki (2004), distinctive trends exist that depend on organisation
size. Small companies focus on two variables (motivational issues and implementation
procedures), whereas medium-sized companies emphasise these two variables, as well
as maintenance activities and integration with previous/existent quality measures.
In addition to the four variables considered by medium companies, large firms also
emphasise three others: the significance of employees’ involvement and understanding,
information systems and Six Sigma. More recently, Alsmadi et al. (2012) presented a
survey on Six Sigma implementation conducted with fortune 100 manufacturing and
JMTM service firms in Saudi Arabia. Six Sigma implementation occurs among o32 per cent
25,5 of respondents.
2.4 Six Sigma and performance

As previously mentioned, distinctive Six Sigma characteristics include the focus on
performance and the belief that Six Sigma firms’ stock prices should be higher (De Feo,
608 2000; Linderman et al., 2003; Schroeder et al., 2008; Goela and Chen, 2008; van Iwaarden
et al., 2008), but in recent studies the impact of Six Sigma program on organisational
performance and stocks was analysed in depth (Goh et al., 2003; Kumar and Antony,
2008; Choi et al., 2012; Swink and Jacobs, 2012).
Goh et al. (2003) studied the stock prices’ reaction in two contexts: the day on which
Six Sigma activities were publicised and long-run stock performance. In the first case,
no significant differences were found regarding the event day. Similarly, a study on
six firms demonstrates that in the long run, the stock performance of Six Sigma
companies did not significantly outperform Standard & Poor’s 500.
For Kumar and Antony (2008) a significant difference in strategic and operational
measures of organisational performance between Six Sigma and ISO-certified
companies was identified.
Using a structural equation model, Choi et al. (2012) explore the relationship
between Six Sigma and corporate competitiveness in the affiliated companies of
Samsung Group in Korea. The empirical results demonstrated that Six Sigma activities
do contribute to revitalised process management, improved quality and, finally, lead to
corporate competitiveness.
Swink and Jacobs (2012) also investigate the operational impacts of Six Sigma in
larger firms, comparing financial data for 200 Six Sigma adopters and a control group,
using criteria such as return on assets (ROA), industry and size. They found that
Six Sigma adoption has a both statistically and economically significant positive
impact on ROA that arises primarily from significant reductions in indirect costs,
whereas no significant improvements in direct costs and asset productivity were
identified. The dimensioned effect equals at least 0.2-0.3 percentage points on ROA
each year on average; although it is significant, its magnitude is lower than that
discovered in other studies conducted in quality fields.
The literature review was organised so that the primary aspects of Six Sigma
characteristics, other quality management approaches, CSFs, practices and impacts on
results were clustered, as shown in Table I.
3. Research design
As previously mentioned, this study aims to assess Six Sigma’s status among Brazilian
companies. Furthermore it investigates the integration between Six Sigma and
other quality management approaches. Additionally, the CSFs for Six Sigma
implementation, the primary Six Sigma program characteristics and the tools applied
were identified. Finally, the results of Six Sigma use were analysed.
Given the nature of the research issues, the exploratory research strategy adopted
was a survey-based approach, which included a non-probabilistic sampling plan and
the use of eligibility criteria to select valid responses based on the information collected
(Hair et al., 1995). In this study, self-applied questionnaires were sent by conventional
and electronic mail to those responsible for the quality sections of the organisations.
A pre-test was conducted with two organisations prior to sending the questionnaires,
which made it possible to revise the instruments by shortening it, as well as rewording
Constructs Variables References No.
The Six Sigma
program
Six Sigma Strategic focus Basu (2004), Braunscheidel et al. 23
distinctive The focus on financial and (2011), Choo et al. (2007), Connor
characteristics business results, and customer- (2003), Dale et al. (2000), Davison and
oriented metrics Al-Shaghana (2007), De Feo (2000),
Statistical thinking and a Goela and Chen (2008), Hahn et al.
structured method (2000), Harry (1998), Harry and
609
Use of specific metrics (the Schroeder (2000), Ingle and Roe (2001),
capability index) Klefsjö et al. (2001), Kumar and
Improvement specialists in Six Antony (2008), Linderman et al. (2003),
Sigma and Six Sigma role structure Lloréns-Montes and Molina (2006),
Link the metrics for business Pande et al. (2001), Sanders and Hild
process reengineering (BPR) (2000), Schroeder et al. (2008), Shankar
(2003), Snee (2004), Snee and Hoerl

(2002), Van Iwaarden et al. (2008),
Zu et al. (2008)
Six Sigma and ISO 9000 Arauz and Suzuki (2004), Arnheiter 19
other Quality Lean Six Sigma and Maleyeff (2005), Benner and
Management Quality awards Tushman (2002), Chen et al. (2010)
initiatives Quality culture, quality maturity Delgado et al. (2010), Garvin (1988)
(the foundations of quality Hammer (2002), Hoerl (2001), Kumar
improvement models previously and Antony (2008), Kumar et al. (2011),
implemented) Lascelles and Dale (1993), McAdam
Evolutionary perspective and Hazlett (2010), Nabhani and
absorptive capacity perspective Shokri (2009), Shah et al. (2008),
Shankar (2003), Thomas et al. (2008),
Timans et al. (2012), Van Iwaarden
et al. (2008), Zu et al. (2008)
Six Sigma critical CSFs Alsmadi et al. (2012), Antony (2004), 15
success factors Link to business strategy Antony and Banuelas (2002), Antony,
and practices Link to the customer et al. (2008), Arauz and Suzuki (2004),
(tools and Link to human resource Buch and Tolentino (2006), Davison
techniques) Link to supplier and Al-Shaghana (2007), Johnson and
Involvement and commitment of Swisher (2003), Kumar and Antony
top management and leadership (2008), Kwak and Anbari (2006), Scott
Cultural change et al. (2009), Shah et al. (2008),
Organisational infrastructure Timans et al. (2012), Yeung et al. (2006),
Training Zu et al. (2008)
Project management skill ( project
prioritisation and selection,
reviews and tracking)
Review and tracking
Understanding the SS
methodology
Tools and techniques
Vision and plan
IT and innovation
Employee participation
Rewards and awareness
Communication
Personal LSS-experience of top
management
Table I.
(continued ) Theoretical framework
JMTM Constructs Variables References No.
25,5
Development of the project leader’s
soft skills
Supply chain focus
Practices
The cause and effect diagram
610 Statistical process control (control
charts)
Pareto diagram
Regression analysis
Quality function deployment
(QFD)
Hypothesis testing
Failure mode and effects analysis

(FMEA)
Process capability analysis
Error proofing
Six Sigma and Impact on stock prices Choi et al. (2012), De Feo (2000), Goela 10
performance Impact on operational performance and Chen (2008), Goh et al. (2003),
Impact on customer satisfaction Kumar and Antony (2008),
Impact on corporate Linderman et al. (2003), Schroeder
competitiveness et al. (2008), Swink and Jacobs (2012),
Table I. impact on return on assets (ROA) van Iwaarden et al. (2008)
questions that were unclear to respondents and including a glossary. The survey
was performed among large Brazilian firms across the country and across sectors. The
sample was extracted from the list of the one thousand largest Brazilian companies,
obtained from the chamber of industry database.
The questionnaire was designed based on the literature review, as summarised in
Table I. This research instrument was composed of three blocks: a characterisation of
the company and the interviewee; an analysis of the Six Sigma program (CSF, quality
management practices, role structure); and the Six Sigma results. The five-point Likert
scale was used to gather respondents’ perceptions. The summary of the questionnaire
is provided in the Appendix.
Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and the
software SPSS.
To understand dependency relations among the facilitating factors in the
implementation of Six Sigma, an exploratory factor analysis was applied (For more
details, see Johnson and Wichern, 2007). According to Everitt (2007), in many areas
of research, it is not possible to measure directly the concept of interest. Instead,
researchers examine concepts indirectly by collecting other variables that can be
measured or observed directly. Such related measures, referred to as manifest variables,
act as indications of the concepts of the real interest, which are referred to as latent
variables. The method of analysis used to uncover the relationship between the latent
variables and the manifest variables is exploratory factor analysis. Essentially, such
analysis can be viewed as multiple regression, in which manifest variables are used as
response variables and the manifest variables and the latent variables as auxiliary
variables (in this context, they are known as common factors, and the coefficients of the
regression are the factor loadings). One of the restrictions on the application of factor
analysis is the presence of missing values. Thus, an alternative was used that consisted The Six Sigma
of classifying the group of facilitating factors into ad hoc dimensions and then applying a program
separate factor analysis for each dimension. The results are very interesting, although
they should be viewed as an exploratory analysis and cannot be extrapolated to the
universe of business due to the relatively small size sample and a non-probabilistic
sampling plan. The covariance or correlation matrix of the manifest variables is the
essential input for the factor analysis. Thus, for manifest variables measured using a 611
Likert scale, it is possible to obtain measures of correlation such as Spearman’s,
Kendall’s or even Pearson’s. In the current study, the factor analysis was applied to the
matrix of correlation and the factors extracted using the principal component method.
The number of factors is determined by the number of eigenvalues higher than 1.
For better identification of the factors, the varimax rotation was applied to the axes of
the factors.
4. Results and discussion

4.1 Six Sigma diffusion in Brazil
The findings of this survey contribute to outline Six Sigma implementation patterns in
Brazilian companies and compare them with previous empirical studies (Antony and
Banuelas, 2002; Arauz and Suzuki, 2004; Kumar and Antony, 2008; Van Iwaarden et al.,
2008; Antony et al., 2008; Zu et al., 2008; Shah et al., 2008).
Of 198 valid questionnaires, only 46 (23 per cent) organisations responded that they
had implemented Six Sigma.
The 46 companies surveyed that implemented Six Sigma can be characterised as
manufacturing companies with annual revenues of over 50 million Reals (86.7 per cent)
and more than 1,000 employees (84.8 per cent). These results are consistent with the
literature (Eckes, 2001; Pande et al., 2001; Snee and Hoerl, 2002; Ingle and Roe, 2001;
Pinto et al., 2008)
The presence of Six Sigma in 24 industrial sectors can be verified. The greatest
concentration is in the manufacturing sector (87 per cent), whereas the lowest is in
the service sector, which included only three companies in the sample: a hospital, a
maintenance medical equipment firm, and an information service provider. Note that
the sectors with the highest occurrences were the “metal-mechanics” and “automotive
vehicles and auto parts” sectors, both with (15 per cent), followed by the “chemical and
petrochemical” sector (8 per cent). The electric-electronic and steel sectors were tied at
6.5 per cent, followed by companies from the pharmaceutical, telecommunications
and textile sectors with 4.3 per cent each.
The implementation of Six Sigma in the companies of the sample is not recent; the
average start of implementation was more than six years ago, which differs from others
studies, in which the implementation is more recent (Zu et al., 2008). The average
program adoption time was six years and nine months. Among the 46 companies in
the sample, the minimum time was three years and the maximum was found for Six
Sigma pioneer, which implemented the program in Brazil in 1987. The most frequent
implementation time is five years.
4.2 Six Sigma characteristics

Observing the belts categories, it can be seen that 50 per cent of firms have the master
black belt category, 86 per cent have the black belt category and 75 per cent have green
belts, whereas only 6 and 11 per cent, respectively, adopted the yellow and white belt
categories.
JMTM As highlighted in the literature, the use of a belts’ parallel-meso structure to operate
25,5 Six Sigma was observed in the companies studied; a similar nomenclature to refer to
the specialists was adopted, as suggested by several authors (Schroeder et al., 2008;
Sinha and Van de Ven, 2005; Barney, 2002). However, this study identified different Six
Sigma role structures. Although the literature review presents a three-level structure,
composed of champions, black belts and green belts (Schroeder et al., 2008; Barney,
612 2002; Sinha and Van de Ven, 2005), the findings obtained in this study suggest three
configurations, as shown in Figure 1.
The first configuration, which represents a quarter of the studied companies, is
similar to the hierarchical structure described in the literature in which the champions
support key Six Sigma projects, whereas the black belts are the project leaders,
as well as the mentors of green belts, who are heavily involved in project execution.
The second configuration, and the most common in the large Brazilian companies
studied, includes an additional 4th level in the structure, occupied by the master black
belt, who handles the Six Sigma program as a whole and aids the champion in
following up key projects. The third configuration is rarer (6 per cent) and involves
several types of belts (white, yellow, green and black) and differences in the Six Sigma
training program.
In synthesis, there are three possible configurations for this structure; the
most common utilises three levels of belts (master, black and green), who report to a
champion (see Figure 1). These different structures reveal differences in the training
process and in the amount of time dedicated by the specialist to the Six Sigma
program. Configuration 1 involves well-trained and skilled specialists, who are charged
with strategic projects, but these projects do not cascade down through the
organisation. Configuration 2 appears to be more balanced than others. Configuration 3
(a) (b) (c)
Champion
Master Black Belts

Champion
Champion Black Belt
Master Black Belts
Green Belt
Black Belt Black Belt
Yellow Belt
Green Belt
Green Belt White Belt
number of levels
hours of training
Figure 1.
Configurations of the
Six Sigma structure Notes: (a) Configuration 1:25 per cent of the sample; (b) configuration 2:50 per cent of
the sample; (c) configuration 3:6 per cent of the sample
involves a broader set of people, because Six Sigma training and involvement in The Six Sigma
projects cascade down from high levels to individual business units, but the scope of program
projects and the skills of the specialists (belts) are limited, as the amount and content
of training are significantly less than that in configuration 1.
Another interesting issue relates to the meaning of Six Sigma, because it appears
to be distinctive, according to the role structure configurations. In configuration 3, the
term “Six Sigma philosophy” is widespread, whereas in other configurations, the terms 613
“program” and “improvement method” are more often used. Thus, it is important to
perform new research to allow for comparison with the findings of Van Iwaarden et al.
(2008) and relation to the Six Sigma structure configuration in the organisation.
There is strong employees’ involvement and commitment to the program in all
configurations, because employee receptiveness was considered high by the majority
of respondents, which corroborates the findings of Buch and Tolentino (2006). It is
important to note that the receptivity of the employees involved in Six Sigma program
was rated as “high” by the majority of respondents (84.2 per cent). Furthermore, 72.5
per cent of companies intended to expand the programs in the coming years, with only
one company reporting that it intended to reduce its scope.
When analysing the major departments that have implemented Six Sigma
programs at the companies studied, it is observed that the majority of projects are
concentrated in the “manufacturing” and “financial” areas. With respect to the average
number of projects, there is wide variation among the companies in the sample; the
greatest number of projects per year was 200, whereas the average for these companies
was 14 per year. It is worth noting that 15 companies did not report the number of
Six Sigma projects implemented per year. Although the questionnaire requested the
number of projects implemented over a five-year period, none of the companies
indicated the entire time period, demonstrating that the emergence of control of this
indicator is still recent. The number of projects per year has increased by 45 per cent
per year on average, considering a three-year period.
The most common frequency of monitoring Six Sigma projects portfolios was by
semester (28 per cent), followed by quarterly (26 per cent). However, for 46 per cent of
the sample, there is no established frequency of monitoring project portfolios. Only one
company reported that Six Sigma projects were being audited. Finally, it is noteworthy
that 89 per cent of the companies adopted some type of award granting program and,
of these companies, 22 per cent utilised a cash prize.
4.3 Six Sigma and other quality management initiatives

The majority of the companies in the sample have adopted Six Sigma in combination
with other quality management approaches. The most common combination is made
with the ISO 9000 (84.8 per cent), followed by an association with the ISO 14000
(65.2 per cent) and an association with TQM (28.3 per cent), as shown in Figure 2.
Only three companies (6.5 per cent) reported using Six Sigma alone. Moreover, 13
companies (28 per cent) report adopting Six Sigma in association with corporate
programs that mix diverse improvement approaches such as lean production, best
practices and total productive maintenance.
It is noteworthy that the concomitant utilisation of several programs is very
common, and 67.4 per cent of companies adopted three or more quality approaches.
The most common combination (58.7 per cent) is that of Quality Management norms
and Environmental Management (ISO 9000 and 14000) with Six Sigma. Furthermore,
observe that 27 per cent of the companies in the sample enrolled to compete for quality
JMTM
25,5
614
Figure 2.
Intersection between Six Six Sigma and ISO 9000:2000 (84.8%)
Sigma and ISO 9000:2000
and 14000 norms Six Sigma and ISO 14000 (65.2%)
Six Sigma and ISO 9000:2000 and ISO 14000
awards, 50 per cent competing for the National Quality Award (PNQ) and the others for
different awards, such as those of Brazilian industry associations (CNI and SESI).
The hypothesis which suggesting that the organisations that implemented Six
Sigma are those with the most evident tradition of quality was supported; the majority
of companies surveyed adopt Six Sigma in association with other quality management
approaches. A single company applies only Six Sigma. It suggests that Six Sigma
dependency is related to other improvement approaches.
As suggested by the literature (Van Iwaarden et al., 2008; Arauz and Suzuki, 2004;
Shankar, 2003; Zu et al., 2008), this study indicates both a certain level of quality
maturity and an incremental pattern of quality models implementation (Lascelles and
Dale, 1993; Garvin, 1988; Benner and Tushman, 2002). The majority of the studied
companies first implemented quality initiatives during the 1980s and have possessed
ISO 9000 certification for more than ten years. Actually, the average adoption time
for the Six Sigma program was six years and nine months, and the most frequent
implementation time is five years, whereas in the Zu et al. (2008) research sample over
half of the plants had been implementing the program for less than three years.
Most likely, the scenario will change significantly in further studies, involving analysis
from the perspective of SMEs in Brazil.
4.4 Six Sigma: motivations, CSFs and practices
The motivations reported by the majority of companies surveyed to implement
Six Sigma were as follows. The primary reason reported by the majority of
companies was to “improve quality and productivity”, chosen with high concordance
by 37 companies (average ¼ 2.92; SD ¼ 0.27), followed by the options “imposition by
headquarters” (average ¼ 2.00; SD ¼ 0.85), “customer demand” (average ¼ 1.90; SD ¼ 0.98),
“marketing” (average ¼ 1.83; SD ¼ 0.91) and “export” (average ¼ 1.57; SD ¼ 0.84).
The majority of companies (70 per cent) also reported contracting outside
consultants to facilitate the implementation of Six Sigma. Furthermore, note that 90
per cent of companies reported that the consultants played a facilitating role in the The Six Sigma
process of Six Sigma implementation. program
The most important factor for implementing Six Sigma, indicated by 69.6 per cent
of respondents, was the “involvement and commitment of top management to the
program”. Only five companies reported difficulties in the implementation process
resulting from a lack of support from top management.
Another two CSFs indicated by surveyed companies as being facilitators of 615
implementation were “availability of financial resources” and “support from top
management”, identified by 67 and 65 per cent, respectively. These CSFs were also
stressed by the other studies (Antony and Banuelas, 2002; Kwak and Anbari, 2006;
Johnson and Swisher, 2003; Zu et al., 2008).
Among the factors that rendered the implementation of Six Sigma difficult
were “availability of employees” and “complexity of the operations”, chosen by 46 and
35 per cent, respectively.

As in the literature, the sample was divided with respect to “training”. A total of 57
per cent judged that training was a factor that facilitated Six Sigma implementation,
whereas 43 per cent reported that it was a factor that rendered program implementation
difficult.
Through the factor analysis described in the previous section, three ad hoc
dimensions (“human resources”, “infrastructure” and “organisational”) emerged and
were deployed with factors, as presented, respectively, in Tables II-IV.
Two factors, internal factors (firm human resources) and external factors
(consultants), were extracted for the “human resource” dimension and explain 70.6
per cent of the total variance (47.1 and 23.5 per cent for the first and second factors,
respectively). The factor loadings for each factor after the rotation of the axes (with the
communalities) and the coefficients of the score of the factors are provided in Table II.
Table III provides the results of the factor analysis of the facilitators related to the
“infrastructure” dimension. Three factors were obtained that explain 82.3 per cent of
the total variance (33.3, 25.7 and 23.2 per cent for the first, second and third factors,
respectively). The first factor encompasses “IS and statistical tools”; the second
Rotated factor loadings

and communalities Factor score
Varimax rotation coefficients
Factor Factor
Dimension Factor Variables 1 2 Communality 1 2
Human (1) Internal Internal training 0.726 0.095 0.536 0.324 0.068
resourcesa
Use of internal 0.822 0.366 0.810 0.310 0.168
personnel for
implementation
Employees’ education 0.797 0.157 0.661 0.413 0.325
levels
Employee availability 0.712 0.286 0.588 0.275 0.116
(2) External Consultancies used 0.098 0.962 0.934 0.164 0.895
Variance 2.355 1.174 3.529 Table II.
% Var 0.471 0.235 0.706 Factor analysis for the
“human resources”
Notes: a28 cases used; 18 cases contain missing values dimension
25,5
616
JMTM
dimension
Table III.
analysis of the
“infrastructure”
Results of factor
Rotated factor loadings and
communalities varimax rotation Factor score coefficients
Factor Factor
Dimension Factor Variables 1 2 3 Communality 1 2 3
Infrastructurea (1) IS and Statistical Tools Support software 0.917 0.101 0.248 0.912 0.599 0.156 0.202
Use of instruments 0.884 0.230 0.260 0.902 0.550 0.059 0.230
(2) Project Typology Complexity of operations 0.151 0.803 0.259 0.734 0.129 0.691 0.66
Determination of earnings 0.144 0.761 0.316 0.700 0.110 0.624 0.233
(3) Documents Production of documents 0.014 0.004 0.931 0.866 0.008 0.044 0.804
Variance 1.666 1.287 1.162 4.114
%Var 0.333 0.257 0.232 0.823
Notes: 21 cases used; 25 cases contain missing values

Rotated factor loadings and

communalities varimax rotation Factor score coefficients
Factor Factor
Dimension Factor Variable 1 2 3 Communality 1 2 3
Organizational issuesa (1) Resources Internal audits 0.944 0.043 0.131 0.910 0.629 0.250 0.062
Availability of financial resources 0.877 0.319 0.110 0.883 0.508 0.040 0.121
(2) Commitment Support from top management 0.191 0.975 0.071 0.991 0.197 1.032 0.107
(3) Quality historical Implementation history 0.028 0.068 0.995 0.995 0.041 0.110 0.991
Variance 1.697 1.058 1.024 3.779
%Var 0.424 0.265 0.256 0.945
Notes: 16 cases used; 30 cases contain missing values
dimension
“organisational issues”
analysis of the
Table IV.
The Six Sigma
program
617
Result of the factor

JMTM encompasses the complexity of the operations and determination of earnings, which
25,5 was called “project typology”. Note that the loadings of these factors exhibit
contradictory signs, indicating that the more complex the operations, the lower
earnings should be (or vice versa). The third factor is related to the production of
“documents”.
The results of the factor analysis of the “organisational issues” dimension are
618 provided in Table IV. Three of the extracted factors explain 94.5 per cent of the total
variance (42.4, 26.5 and 25.6 per cent for the first, second and third factors,
respectively). The first, “resources”, aggregates the availability of financial resources
and the support of internal audits, the second, “commitment”, refers to support from
top management and, the third, “quality historical”, measures the history of
implementation of quality programs in the organisation.
The quality of factor analysis was satisfactory because in all cases, the
communalities were all higher than 0.5 and the factor loadings higher than 0.7, but the
results should only be used in a provisional manner because of the small sample size
used for each factor analysis. For this reason, we decide not to execute a confirmatory
factor analysis because no inferential procedures are performed. The alternative of
classifying the facilitating factors into groups promoted a larger sample size than the
final sample size would most likely be if opting to exclude all missing values and then
execute a factor analysis.
The three groups of factors could be identified (see Table II-IV): “infrastructure”,
“organisational issues” and “human resources”. Of those factors, the “organisational”
aspects, which include “resources”, “commitment” and “quality historical”, have been
emphasised in the literature, which encompass: Hoerl (2001), Antony and Banuelas
(2002), Hammer (2002), Kwak and Anbari (2006), Johnson and Swisher (2003), Zu et al.
(2008), Benner and Tushman (2002), Shah et al. (2008), Shankar (2003), Zu et al. (2008),
Arnheiter and Maleyeff (2005) and Chen et al. (2010).
The human resource factor group can be deployed not only internally, as suggested
by Buch and Tolentino (2006), but also externally (consultants). The results show
that 70 per cent of the companies surveyed use consultants to aid Six Sigma
implementation and training. It was expected because our sample was composed by
large firms and, as suggested by Kumar and Antony (2008), even Six Sigma SMEs
have sought the help of external consultants more often for training than ISO certified
firms, where in-house training was more common.
Table V presents the results of seek the help of external consultants in Six Sigma
companies compared with non-Six Sigma.
The supports of the holding to the subsidiaries were more common in Six Sigma
companies (10.9 per cent) than in non-Six Sigma (3 per cent).
The last factor, “infrastructure”, is also not well covered in the literature. It should
be noted that the Six Sigma project typology appears to be a relevant issue, and some
contingent approach (one-size-does-not-fit-all) should be applied, as well established in
the project management literature (Shenhar et al., 2005).
Yes (%) Partial (%) No (%) n

Table V.
External consultants: Six Non-Six Sigma 44.5 25.2 30.3 152
Sigma and non-Six Sigma Six Sigma 60.9 22.4 16.7 46
The primary difficulties encountered in implementing the program were the The Six Sigma
“availability of employees”, which could indicate competition for human resources program
resulting from the use of distinctive improvement approaches, as suggested by Hoerl
(2001) and Hammer (2002), because more than 85 per cent adopted Six Sigma
concurrently with at least one other approach.
All of the Six Sigma companies in the sample adopted the DMAIC cycle, and 38 per
cent of the companies researched adopt in addition the Design for Six Sigma. 619
The most frequently used quality tools were the following: analysis of variance and
cause-effect diagram (84.8 per cent), FMEA, histogram and test of hypothesis (78.3 per
cent each), SPC and Pareto diagrams (76.1 per cent each), dispersion diagrams (69.6 per
cent), and design of experiment (DOE) (65.2 per cent). Note that even the more complex
statistical tools, such as DOE, analysis of variance and statistical hypothesis testing
are widely used in Six Sigma projects (more than 70 per cent), which was also identified
by Antony and Banuelas (2002). In non-Six Sigma companies the use of more complex
statistical tools is significant lower. Table VI presents the results of tools and
techniques in Six Sigma companies compared with non-Six Sigma.
4.5 Six Sigma impact on organisational performance

The primary results of using Six Sigma reported by the companies studied were
“better quality” (85 per cent) and financial gains (83 per cent). A total of 78 per cent also
reported “greater productivity”, 70 per cent “greater internal customer satisfaction”
and, 67 per cent “greater external customer satisfaction”.
For questions that attempted to quantify the earnings obtained against investment
using the Six Sigma program, only the respondents who reported both, amounts
invested and financial earnings, were considered for analysis. The average point of
each interval range for earnings obtained was used to calculate the average earnings
obtained by the companies. The results are displayed in Table VII. It can be noted that
there is no positive correlation between amount invested and earnings obtained. What
is noteworthy is that companies that had lower investments had better average
earnings; however, the standard deviation of this group was also large, indicating a
wider variation of earnings.
Non-Six Sigma Six Sigma
Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) 43.9% 78.3%

Statistical process control (control charts) 59.8% 76.1%
Quality function deployment (QFD) 14.0% 30.4%
The cause and effect diagram 81.7% 84.8%
Histograms 62.8% 78.3%
Pareto diagram 75.6% 76.1%
Dispersion diagram 34.8% 69.6%
Box Plot 7.9% 45.7%
Statistical hypothesis testing 12.2% 78.3%
Analysis of variance 20.7% 84.8%
Nonparametric tests 1.8% 26.1% Table VI.
5S 56.1% 39.1% Tools and
Design of experiments (DOE) 3.0% 65.2% techniques: Six Sigma
Sample (n) 152 46 and non-Six Sigma
JMTM Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the majority (73 per cent) of companies studied did
25,5 not consolidate their earnings through a financial division or a controller. This practice
was observed in only eight companies (18 per cent). This result could explain the
difficulty in determining which earnings were obtained with Six Sigma.
The verification of earnings obtained from Six Sigma projects was performed using
the net present value (65 per cent), followed by direct cost reduction calculated (30
620 per cent). Other reported indicators were as follows: indirect cost, economic value
added and ROI.
Despite several authors’ focus on the financial results in the literature (De Feo, 2000;
Schroeder et al., 2008; Linderman et al., 2003; Zu et al., 2008), in the majority of
companies studied (73 per cent), there is no system for verifying earnings obtained
through the Six Sigma projects as a whole. For the companies that reported
having analysed earnings obtained from and investments in Six Sigma, it was not
possible to identify a positive relationship between the amount invested and the
earnings obtained.
Other results achieved with quality initiatives were shown in Table VIII, comparing
Six Sigma and non-Six Sigma companies.
5. Conclusions
The findings obtained in this survey facilitate the outlining of Six Sigma
implementation patterns in Brazilian companies and allow for comparison with
previous empirical studies (Antony and Banuelas, 2002; Arauz and Suzuki, 2004;
Kumar and Antony, 2008; Van Iwaarden et al., 2008; Antony et al., 2008; Zu et al., 2008;
Shah et al., 2008).
It was verified that in Brazil, Six Sigma was diffused in 23 per cent of the surveyed
companies, whereas a similar study in the UK indicated 37 per cent (Antony and
Banuelas, 2002). More recently, Alsmadi et al. (2012) state that in Saudi Arabia 32
Average earnings Standard deviation No. of

Range of amounts invested R$ ( 103) R$ ( 103) respondents
From R$50,000 to R$99,999 681 454 5

Table VII. From R$100,000 to R$249,999 425 239 7
Average earnings by From R$250,000 to R$499,999 275 141 2
range of investment From R$500,000 to R$1,000,000 437.5 153 6
in Six Sigma Over 1,000,000 500 217 3
Results Non-Six Sigma Six Sigma
Impact on financial metrics 81.1% 82.6%

Impact on productivity 85.4% 78.3%
Impact on quality 93.9% 84.8%
Impact on external customer satisfaction 91.5% 67.4%
Table VIII. Impact on internal customer satisfaction 87.2% 69.6%
Quality programs Impact on market share 70.7% 45.7%
results: Six Sigma Impact on exportation 64.0% 50.0%
and non-Six Sigma Sample (n) 152 46
per cent of the surveyed firms applied Six Sigma. The implementation of Six Sigma in The Six Sigma
Brazilian companies is not recent, which differs from others studies (Zu et al., 2008). program
The primary reason for adopting Six Sigma was to improve quality and productivity.
Thus, the focus on efficacy suggested by the literature was not confirmed (Harry, 1998;
Klefsjö et al., 2001; Sanders and Hild, 2000; Connor, 2003; Snee, 2004), on the contrary, the
results suggest an emphasis on efficiency.
The results suggest a synergic and incremental pattern of quality model 621
implementation, as suggested by the literature (Van Iwaarden et al., 2008; Arauz and
Suzuki, 2004; Shankar, 2003; Zu et al., 2008). The study reveals that companies that
have adopted Six Sigma have a long history of implementing quality programs,
which suggest certain level of quality maturity (Lascelles and Dale, 1993; Garvin, 1988;
Benner and Tushman, 2002). The studied companies perceive in Six Sigma an
incremental evolution, which can be combined with earlier initiatives and strong
provides synergy with ISO 9000.

The findings obtained in this study confirm the distinctive Six Sigma role structure
as suggested by several authors. However, three possible role structure configurations
were found that differs in terms of training and the dedication of human resources
entailed by the Six Sigma program. These findings have implications for top
management trying to promote the strategic alignment (Prieto and Carvalho, 2011).
The CSFs were clustered in three main factors: “human resources”, “organisational
issues”, and “infrastructure”. The first one can be deployed in internal human
resources, as suggested by Buch and Tolentino (2006), but also external (consultants).
The second one, organisational issues, has been emphasised by the literature (Hoerl,
2001; Antony and Banuelas, 2002; Hammer, 2002; Kwak and Anbari, 2006; Johnson and
Swisher, 2003; Zu et al., 2008; Benner and Tushman, 2002; Shah et al., 2008; Shankar,
2003; Zu et al., 2008; Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005; Chen et al., 2010). The second,
infrastructure encompasses IT and statistic tools, project typology and document
management.
5.1 Managerial implication

Some important managerial implications of this study are related to the Six Sigma
structure adopted. The capillarity of the program in the organisation as a whole can be
related to the type of role structure configuration adopted. This structure can have an
impact in terms of both numbers and employees’ and managers’ degree of involvement,
as well as the type of training provided.
Conversely, the impact of Six Sigma results on organisational performance was not
conclusive.
The relation between Six Sigma with others improvement initiatives seems to be
synergic, but also conflictive because all these initiative compete for the same type
of internal human resource.
5.2 Future research

The results focus on large Brazilian companies and the scenario may change
significantly for SMEs in Brazil, thus it should be investigated in depth in future
researches.
There is lack of the understanding of the role of consultants. It is an important issue
because the majority of companies surveyed use consultants to aid in Six Sigma
implementation and training. Thus, the role of consultants in implementing Six
Sigma should be more deeply studied.
JMTM In the CSFs the infrastructure is not well covered by the literature, particularly the
25,5 Six Sigma project typology appears to be a relevant issue and some contingent
approach should be investigated.
The configuration of the role structures should be addressed by future research,
since it could impact on the investments in Six Sigma program, as well as in its potential
for successful implementation. Furthermore, the selection of the role structure appears to
622 be related to the meaning of Six Sigma program in organisation.
The majority of surveyed companies apply Six Sigma with the ISO 14000 for
environmental management. This issue is poorly addressed by the literature and
should be investigated.
5.3 Limitations
This study demonstrates the inherent limits of the research method adopted, which
involves a non-probabilistic sample and a reliance on self-reported perceptions,

and only large companies, which introduces a bias to the analysis that could not be
generalised. Nevertheless, several leading Brazilian companies in various sectors and
cross-country responded to this study, the majority of which have practiced Six Sigma
for more than 5 years, which permitted tracking of the analysis of the trend towards
the implementation of this program in Brazil.
References
Abrahamson, E. (1996), “Management fashion”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 254-285.
Ahire, S., Golhar, D. and Waller, M. (1996), “Development and validation of TQM constructs”,
Decision Science, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-56.
Alsmadi, M., Lehaney, B. and Khan, Z. (2012), “Implementing Six Sigma in Saudi Arabia:
an empirical study on the fortune 100 firms”, Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, Vol. 23 Nos 3-4, pp. 263-276.
Antony, J. (2004), “Six Sigma in the UK service organisations: results from a pilot survey”,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 1006-1013.
Antony, J. and Banuelas, R. (2002), “Key ingredients for the effective implementation of Six
Sigma program”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 20-27.
Antony, J., Kumar, M. and Labib, A. (2008), “Gearing six sigma into UK manufacturing SMEs:
results from a pilot study”, Journal of The Operational Research Society, Vol. 59 No. 4,
pp. 482-493.
Arauz, R. and Suzuki, H. (2004), “ISO 9000 performance in Japanese industries”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 3-33.
Arnheiter, D.A. and Maleyeff, J. (2005), “The integration of lean management and Six Sigma”,
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Barney, M. (2002), “Macro, meso, micro: Six Sigma”, The Industrial Organizational Psychologist,
Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 104-107.
Basu, R. (2004), “Six-Sigma to operational excellence: role of tools and techniques”, International
Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 44-64.
Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M. (2002), “Process management and technological innovation:
a longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 676-706.
Black, S.A. and Porter, L.J. (1996), “Identification of the critical factors of TQM”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Braunscheidel, M.J., Hamister, J.W., Suresh, N.C. and Star, H. (2011), “An institutional theory The Six Sigma
perspective on Six Sigma adoption”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 423-451. program
Buch, K. and Tolentino, A. (2006), “Employee perceptions of the rewards associated with six
sigma”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 356-364.
Chen, J.C., Li, Y. and Shady, B.D. (2010), “From value stream mapping toward a lean/sigma
continuous improvement process: an industrial case study”, International Journal of 623
Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 1069-1086.
Choi, B., Kim, J., Leem, B., Lee, C.Y. and Hong, H. (2012), “Empirical analysis of the relationship
between Six Sigma management activities and corporate competitiveness: focusing on
Samsung Group in Korea”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 528-550.
Choo, A.S., Linderman, K.W. and Schroeder, R.G. (2007), “Method and psychological effects on
learning behaviors and knowledge creation in quality improvement projects”,

Management Science, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 437-450.
Clifford, L. (2001), “Why you can safely ignore Six Sigma”, Fortune, 22 January, p. 140.
Connor, G. (2003), “Benefiting from Six Sigma”, Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 130 No. 2,
pp. 53-59.
Dale, B.G., Boaden, R.J. and Lascelles, D.M. (1994), “Total quality management – an overview”,
in Dale, B.G. (Ed.), Managing Quality, Prentice Hall, New York, NY, pp. 3-40.
Dale, B.G., Williams, R.T. and Wiele, T. (2000), “Marginalisation of quality: is there a case to
answer?”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 266-274.
Davison, L. and Al-Shaghana, K. (2007), “The link between Six Sigma and quality culture – an
empirical study”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 18 Nos 3-4,
pp. 249-265.
De Feo, J.A. (2000), “Six Sigma: new opportunities for HR, new career growth for employees”,
Employment Relations Today, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 1-6.
Delgado, C., Ferreira, M. and Branco, M.C. (2010), “The implementation of lean Six Sigma in
financial services organizations”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 512-523.
Douglas, T.J. and Judge, W.Q. (2001), “Total quality management implementation and
competitive advantage: the role of structural control and exploration”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 158-169.
Eckes, G. (2001), The Six Sigma Revolution: How General Electric and Others Turned Process into
Profits, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Everitt, B. (2007), An R and S-Plus Companion to Multivariate Analysis, Springer, London.
Flynn, B.B., Schoeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1994), “A framework for quality management
research and associated measurement instrument”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 339-366.
Garvin, D.A. (1988), Managing Quality: The Strategic and Competitive Edge, Harvard Business
School, New York, NY.
Goela, S. and Chen, V. (2008), “Integrating the global enterprise using Six Sigma: business
process reengineering at general electric wind energy”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 113 No. 2, pp. 914-927.
Goh, T.N., Low, P.C., Tsui, K.L. and Xie, M. (2003), “Impact of Six Sigma implementation on stock price
performance”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 753-763.
Hahn, G.J., Doganaksoy, N. and Hoerl, R. (2000), “The evolution of Six Sigma”, Quality
Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 317-326.
JMTM Hair, Jr, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings, 4th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, NJ.
25,5
Hammer, M. (2002), “Process management and the of Six Sigma”, MIT Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 26-32.
Harry, M. and Schroeder, R. (2000), Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy
Revolutionizing the World’s Top Corporations, Currency, New York, NY.
624 Harry, M.J. (1998), “Six Sigma: a breakthrough strategy for profitability”, Quality Progress,
Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 60-64.
Hoerl, R. (2001), “Six Sigma black belts: what do they need to know”, Journal of Quality
Technology, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 391-406.
Ingle, S. and Roe, W. (2001), “Six Sigma”, Black Belt Implementation, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 273-280.
Johnson, A. and Swisher, B. (2003), “How six sigma improves R&D”, Research Technology

Johnson, R.A. and Wichern, D.W. (2007), Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 6th ed.,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey, NJ.
Juran, J.M. (1962), Quality Control Handbook, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Klefsjö, B., Wiklund, H. and Edgeman, R.L. (2001), “Six sigma sees as a methodology for total
quality management”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 31-35.
Kumar, M. and Antony, J. (2008), “Comparing the quality management practices in UK SMEs”,
Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 108 No. 9, pp. 1153-1166.
Kumar, M., Antony, J. and Tiwari, M.K. (2011), “Six Sigma implementation framework for SMEs
– a roadmap to manage and sustain the change”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 49 No. 18, pp. 5449-5467.
Kwak, Y. and Anbari, F. (2006), “Benefits, obstacles, and future of Six Sigma approach”,
Technovation, Vol. 26 Nos 5-6, pp. 708-715.
Lascelles, D.M. and Dale, B.G. (1993), The Road to Quality, IFS Ltd, Bedford.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S. and Choo, A. (2003), “Six Sigma: a goal-theoretic
perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 193-203.
Lloréns-Montes, J.F. and Molina, L.M. (2006), “Six Sigma and management theory: processes,
content and effectiveness”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 4 No. 17, pp. 485-506.
McAdam, R. and Hazlett, S.-A. (2010), “An absorptive capacity interpretation of Six Sigma”,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 624-645.
McAdam, R. and Lafferty, B. (2004), “A multi-level case study critique of six sigma: statistical
control or strategic change?”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Martı́nez-Lorente, A.R., Dewhurst, F. and Dale, B.G. (1998), “Total quality management: origins
and evolution of the term”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 378-386.
Mitchell, B. (1992), “The Six Sigma appeal”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 41-47.
Motwani, F. (2001), “Critical factors and performance measures of TQM”, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 292-300.
Nabhani, F. and Shokri, A. (2009), “Reducing the delivery lead time in a food distribution SME
through the implementation of six sigma methodology”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 957-974.
Pande, P.S., Neuman, R.P. and Cavanagh, R.R. (2001), Estratégia Seis Sigma. Como a GE,
a Motorola e outras grandes empresas est~
ao aguc¸ando seu desempenho, Qualitymark,
Rio de Janeiro.
Pinto, S.H.B., Carvalho, M.M. and Ho, L.L. (2008), “Main quality programs characteristics in large The Six Sigma
size Brazilian companies”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 276-291. program
Powell, T.C. (1995), “Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical
study”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Prieto, V.C. and Carvalho, M.M. (2011), “Strategic alignment and performance: Brazilian
companies in the medical diagnostic sector”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 31 No. 13, 625
pp. 1405-1427.
Sanders, D. and Hild, C.R. (2000), “Six Sigma on business processes: common organizational
issues”, Quality Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 603-610.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), “An instrument for measuring the critical
factors of quality”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-829.
Schroeder, R.G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C. and Choo, A.S. (2008), “Six Sigma: definition and
underlying theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 536-554.

Scott, B.S., Wilcock, A.E. and Kanetkar, V. (2009), “A survey of structured continuous improvement
programs in the Canadian food sector”, Food Control, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 209-217.
Shah, R., Chandrasekaran, A. and Linderman, K. (2008), “In pursuit of implementation patterns:
the context of Lean and Six Sigma”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46
No. 23, pp. 6679-6699.
Shankar, N.K. (2003), “ISO 9000: integration Europe and North America”, European Quality,
20-29 September.
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Milosevic, D., Mulenburg, J., Patanakul, P., Reilly, R., Ryan, M., Sage, A.,
Sauser, B., Srivannaboon, S., Stefanovic, J. and Thamhain, H. (2005), “Toward a NASA-
specific project management framework”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 8-16.
Sinha, K.K. and Van de Ven, A.H. (2005), “Designing work within and between organizations”,
Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 389-408.
Snee, R.D. (2004), “Six-Sigma: the evolution of 100 years of business improvement methodology”,
International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 4-20.
Snee, R.D. and Hoerl, R.W. (2002), A Step-by-Step Guide Based on Experience with GE and Other
Six Sigma Companies, Financial Times, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, NJ.
Swink, M. and Jacobs, B.W. (2012), “Six Sigma adoption: operating performance impacts
and contextual drivers of success”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 6,
pp. 437-453.
Thomas, A., Barton, R. and Chuke-Okafor, C. (2008), “Applying lean six sigma in a small
engineering company – a model for change”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Timans, W., Antony, J., Ahaus, K. and van Solingen, R. (2012), “Implementation of Lean Six
Sigma in small- and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises in the Netherlands”, Journal
of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 339-353.
Van Iwaarden, J., Van Der Wiele, T., Dale, B., Williams, R. and Bertsch, B. (2008), “The Six Sigma
improvement approach: a transnational comparison”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 46 No. 23, pp. 6739-6758.
Yeung, A.C.L., Cheng, T.C.E. and Lai, K. (2006), “An operational and institutional perspective
on total quality management”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 156-170.
Zeitz, G., Johannesson, R. and Ritchie, J.E. (1997), “An employee survey measuring total quality
management practices and culture”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 414-444.
JMTM Zu, X., Fredendall, L.D. and Douglas, T.J. (2008), “The evolving theory of quality management:
the role of Six Sigma”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 630-650.
25,5
Further reading
Akao, Y. (Ed.) (1991), Hoshin Kanri: Policy Deployment for Successful TQM, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA.
626 Bohoris, G.A.A. (1995), “Comparative assessment of some major quality awards”, International
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 9, pp. 30-43.
De Mast, J. (2004), “A methodological comparison of three strategies for quality improvement”,
The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 198-213.
Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts Institute for Technology, Center for
Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA.
King, B. (1989), Hoshin Planning: The Developmental Approach, Goal/QPC, New York, NY.
Montgomery, D.C. (2001), Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Olexa, R. (2003), “Flying high with Six Sigma”, Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 130 No. 2,
pp. 69-73.
Senapati, N.R. (2004), “Six Sigma: myths and realities”, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 683-690.
Taguchi, G. (1986), Introduction to Quality Engineering: Designing Quality into Products and
Process, Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo.
Vokurka, R., Stading, G.L.E. and Brazeal, J.A. (2000), “Comparative analysis of national and
regional quality awards”, Quality Progress, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 41-49.
(The appendix follow overleaf.)

Questions Alternatives Scale
Improvement initiatives and certifications ISO 9000 Yes/no Appendix

ISO 14000 If yes, when started it?
TS 16949
QS 9000
Six Sigma
Lean Six Sigma
Quality awards
CSFs Link to business strategy Five points Likert scale
Link to the customer
link to human resource
Link to supplier
Involvement and commitment of top management and leadership
Cultural change
Organisational infrastructure
Training
project management skill ( project prioritization and selection,
reviews and tracking)
Review and tracking
Understanding the SS methodology
Tools and techniques
Vision and plan
IT and innovation
Employee participation
Rewards and awareness
communication,
Personal LSS-experience of top management,
Development of the project leader’s soft skills
Supply chain focus
Tools and techniques Failure mode and effects Analysis (FMEA) Yes/no
Statistical process control (control charts)
Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
(continued )
The Six Sigma
program
Questionnaire
627
Table AI.
25,5
628
JMTM
Table AI.
The cause and effect diagram

Histograms
Pareto diagram
Dispersion diagram
Box Plot
Statistical hypothesis testing
Analysis of variance
Nonparametric tests
5S
Design of experiments (DOE)
Regression analysis
Process capability analysis
Six Sigma and performance Impact on financial metrics (ROA, etc.) Five points Likert scale
Impact on productivity, operational performance
Impact on quality
Impact on external customer satisfaction
Impact on internal customer satisfaction
Impact on market share and corporate competitiveness
Impact on exportation
Impact on stock prices
Belts role structure Champion Yes/no
Master Black Belt
Black Belt
Green Belt
Yellow Belt
White Belt
(continued )
Belts dedication to Six Sigma Champion Full time/partial

Master Black Belt
Black belt
Green Belt
Yellow Belt
White Belt
External consultants Brand image and advertising Yes/no/partial
Motivations to Six Sigma Implementation Competitive pressures Five points Likert scale
Customer pressures
Increasing efficiency
Internal organisation improvement
Marketing
Opportunity of business becomes more attractive to investors
Part of the strategic plan
Difficulties to Six Sigma Implementation Employees’ resistance to change Five points Likert scale
Difficulty in understanding the methodology,
tools and techniques involved
High implementation costs
Lack of employees’ skills
Lack of organisational infrastructure
Low commitment by middle management
Low support from top management
The Six Sigma
program
629
Table AI.
JMTM About the authors
Marly Monteiro de Carvalho is an Associate Professor at the University of S~ao Paulo in
25,5 Brazil. She is the Coordinator of Project Management Lab (www.pro.poli.usp.br/lgp) and the
Coordinator of QEP-Quality and Product Engineering research group of CNPq (Brazilian Federal
Research Agency). She holds Production Engineering Degree at the University of S~ao Paulo, MSc
and PhD in the same area at the Federal University of Santa Catarina, and Post Doctoral
630 programme at the Polytechnic of Milan. Her work is within the area of quality management,
project and innovation management. She has published ten books and a number of articles
within the same areas. Associate Professor Marly Monteiro de Carvalho is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: marlymc@usp.br
Linda Lee Ho is a Full Professor at the University of S~ao Paulo in Brazil. She is also the Editor
of Produc¸~
ao Journal, which belong to the Production Engineering Brazilian Association
(ABEPRO). She holds Statistic Bachelor Degree at the University of S~ao Paulo, MSc and PhD in
Production Engineering in the same university. Her work is within the area of quality
engineering. She has published a number of articles within this area.
Silvia Helena Boarin Pinto is an Associate Professor in the Business Administration
Department of ESEG-Superior School of Engineering and Management. She was a Post Doctoral
Researcher in the Department of Production Engineering in the Polytechnic School at the
University of S~ao Paulo in Brazil.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Evangelos Psomas Department of Business Administration of Food and Agricultural Enterprises,

University of Patras, Agrinio, Greece . 2016. The underlying factorial structure and significance of the
Six Sigma difficulties and critical success factors. The TQM Journal 28:4, 530-546. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
2. SiddiquiSiddra Qayyum Siddra Qayyum Siddiqui UllahFahim Fahim Ullah ThaheemMuhammad
Jamaluddin Muhammad Jamaluddin Thaheem GabrielHamza Farooq Hamza Farooq Gabriel Department
of Construction Engineering and Management, National University of Sciences and Technology,
Islamabad, Pakistan National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan . 2016. Six
Sigma in construction: a review of critical success factors. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 7:2,
171-186. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Rameshwar Dubey, Angappa Gunasekaran, Stephen J. Childe, Samuel Fosso Wamba, Thanos
Papadopoulos. 2015. Enablers of Six Sigma: contextual framework and its empirical validation. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence 1-27. [CrossRef]

JMTM 04 2012 0045

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

JMTM 04 2012 0045

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JMTM 04 2012 0045

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

The Six Sigma program: an empirical study of Brazilian companies

Downloaded on: 02 September 2016, At: 20:20 (PT)

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

Furthermore, the Six Sigma program depends on the foundations of quality

Lloréns-Montes and Molina (2006) highlight the following primary distinctive

by the prior implementation of other improvement approaches. Furthermore, the Six

2.3 Six Sigma diffusion and CSFs

2.4 Six Sigma and performance

(2003), Snee (2004), Snee and Hoerl

Failure mode and effects analysis

4. Results and discussion

4.2 Six Sigma characteristics

(a) (b) (c)

Master Black Belts

4.3 Six Sigma and other quality management initiatives

35 per cent, respectively.

Rotated factor loadings

Notes: 21 cases used; 25 cases contain missing values

Rotated factor loadings and

Notes: 16 cases used; 30 cases contain missing values

Result of the factor

Yes (%) Partial (%) No (%) n

4.5 Six Sigma impact on organisational performance

Non-Six Sigma Six Sigma

Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) 43.9% 78.3%

Average earnings Standard deviation No. of

From R$50,000 to R$99,999 681 454 5

Results Non-Six Sigma Six Sigma

Impact on financial metrics 81.1% 82.6%

provides synergy with ISO 9000.

5.1 Managerial implication

5.2 Future research

involves a non-probabilistic sample and a reliance on self-reported perceptions,

learning behaviors and knowledge creation in quality improvement projects”,

Management, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 12-15.

underlying theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 536-554.

(The appendix follow overleaf.)

Questions Alternatives Scale

Improvement initiatives and certifications ISO 9000 Yes/no Appendix

The cause and effect diagram

Questions Alternatives Scale

Belts dedication to Six Sigma Champion Full time/partial

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

1. Evangelos Psomas Department of Business Administration of Food and Agricultural Enterprises,

You might also like