This article was downloaded by: [Heriot-Watt University]

On: 04 November 2014, At: 16:26

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Total Quality Management & Business

Excellence
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

Lean Six Sigma and Innovation –

Click for updates
an exploratory study among UK
organisations
a b c
Jiju Antony , Djoko Setijono & Jens J. Dahlgaard
a
Department of Business Management, School of Management and
Languages, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
b
Department of Design Manufacture and Engineering
Management, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
c
Division of Quality Technology and Management, Linköping
University, Linköping, Sweden
Published online: 29 Sep 2014.

To cite this article: Jiju Antony, Djoko Setijono & Jens J. Dahlgaard (2014): Lean Six Sigma and
Innovation – an exploratory study among UK organisations, Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2014.959255

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2014.959255

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014
 Total Quality Management, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2014.959255

Lean Six Sigma and Innovation – an exploratory study among UK

organisations
∗
Jiju Antonya , Djoko Setijonob and Jens J. Dahlgaardc
a
Department of Business Management, School of Management and Languages, Heriot-Watt
University, Edinburgh, UK; bDepartment of Design Manufacture and Engineering Management,
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK; cDivision of Quality Technology and Management,
Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

Although research has been carried out linking Total Quality Management and
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

Innovation, it was found that there is a dearth of literature exploring the relationship
between Lean Six Sigma (LSS) and Innovation. The purpose of this paper is to
explore the link between LSS and Process/Product/Service Innovation. A number of
interviews were carried out with 10 UK-based companies to explore how LSS and
Process/Product/Service Innovation are linked. The interviewees (Six Sigma Black
Belts and Master Black Belts) were carefully chosen to ensure that sound and valid
conclusions could be derived from the investigation. Due to constraints of limited
time, the number of people who participated in the study was relatively small.
However, the authors argue that this study can provide a good foundation to various
researchers and practitioners to further explore the nature of the relationship between
one of the most popular business process improvement methodologies (LSS) and
Process/Product/Service Innovation. Based on the interviews of 10 companies in the
UK engaging with LSS initiatives, the authors found that LSS is commonly viewed
as fostering Process/Product/Service Innovation, Incremental Innovation, or
Innovation Capability. The authors also identify seven features specific to LSS that
are likely to have significant influence on the above types of Innovation.
Keywords: quality; Lean Six Sigma; Innovation; process excellence; Innovation
Capability

1. Introduction
In the global and fast-paced economy of today, Innovation is crucial for firms’ survival and
growth, and most firms competing in the global economy are paying increasing attention to
Innovation as the key driver of competitiveness (Dervitsiotis, 2010). There are many pub-
lications providing lists of various factors in an organisation that lead to Innovation. A
number of scholars (e.g. Hung, Lien, Yang, Wu, & Kuo, 2011; Prajogo & Sohal, 2003;
Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-Gonzales, 2007) have examined the relationships between
Total Quality Management (TQM) and Innovation. In particular, many of them identify
the mechanistic (i.e. the ‘hardware’ emphasising on control) and organic (i.e. the ‘soft-
ware’, often associated with learning/cognitive) elements of TQM and their influence
on various types of Innovation (e.g. radical vs. incremental). The majority of those publi-
cations found that, in general, the organic element of TQM leads to Innovation (usually
incremental), while the mechanistic element has little or no influence on Innovation.
However, the article by Hoang, Igel, and Laosirihongthong (2006) proves that the mechan-
istic element of TQM (i.e. process management) does have an influence on Innovation, in

∗
Corresponding author. Email: j.antony@hw.ac.uk

# 2014 Taylor & Francis

 2 J. Antony et al.

terms of both the number of new products or services that firms have developed and the
level of newness (which may refer to entering a new market, new method of production,
entirely new product/service).
A recent study has suggested that managing the quality of the Innovation process for
survival and excellence in adaptation requires a systematic view of the Innovation process
(Dervitsiotis, 2011). Despite the acceptance of general Quality Management/TQM – Inno-
vation relationship theories (views), published articles examining the relationship between
Lean Six Sigma (LSS) and Innovation are almost non-existent (Hoerl & Gardner, 2010;
Xu, Sikdar, & Gardner, 2006). As scholars in the area of LSS, the authors are intellectually
challenged because despite the obvious overlap or connection between LSS and TQM
(continuous improvements, customer focus, employee involvement, etc.), the following
two questions are basically left unanswered: Does LSS lead to Innovation? What
aspects of LSS are influential with regard to Innovation?
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

The authors first review the literature examining the relationship between TQM and
Innovation. We turn our attention to TQM for two reasons. Firstly, Lean and Six Sigma
are very closely connected to TQM. As a matter of fact, Six Sigma inherits some of
TQM’s genetic materials, and Lean is often viewed as a concept overlapping with
TQM. Secondly, published articles dealing with the issue of the relationship between
LSS and Innovation are extremely rare, almost non-existent. The literature review pro-
vides fundamental understanding/knowledge regarding: (a) the extent of TQM’s influence
on Innovation, and (b) the influence of various types of TQM elements on various types of
Innovation. In this article, we aim to answer whether or not LSS fosters Innovation, and if
so to identify the LSS characteristics that are likely leading to Innovation. Furthermore, we
develop frameworks to examine the LSS – Innovation relationships.

2. Theoretical background
2.1. TQM – Innovation relationships
The existing literature, which examines the relationships between TQM and Innovation,
provides the two contradictory views that the relationship can be both positive and nega-
tive. There are many explanations as to why such results have been produced, but a closer
look at the reviewed articles indicates that the nature of such relationships seems to be con-
tingent upon: (a) the way each construct is being conceptualised and (b) the direction of the
relationship, i.e. whether TQM influences Innovation or Innovation influences TQM.
Articles conveying the TQM – Innovation relationships may define TQM as a multidi-
mensional construct consisting of both mechanistic and organic elements (Prajogo &
Sohal, 2004). It is common that, in the articles examining a TQM – Innovation relationship,
two opposite types of Innovation are utilised to represent the richness of the Innovation
construct, i.e. radical– incremental (Abrunhosa & Moura, 2008; Lopez-Mielgo, Montes-
Peon & Vazquez-Ordas, 2009), process – product (Prajogo & Sohal, 2003), perform-
ance – capability (Perdomo-Ortiz, González-Benito, & Galende, 2006; Prajogo,
McDermott, & Goh, 2008; Wang, Lu, & Chen, 2008), and invention – adoption (Abrun-
hosa & Moura, 2008). A mechanistic-TQM construct usually yields a higher slope
when regressed against a Process – Innovation construct compared to when regressed
against a Product – Innovation construct. Hence, the direction (positive or negative) and
the magnitude of the TQM – Innovation relationship depend heavily on the combination
of sub-constructs selected.
Instead of splitting the TQM concept into organic and mechanistic elements, there are
studies (Hung et al., 2011; Prajogo et al., 2008; Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-Gonzales,
 Total Quality Management 3

2007) that empirically examine the effect of TQM as a single construct on Innovation, and
the results suggest that, generally, TQM as a single construct has a better ability to explain
(predict) Process Innovation, Product Innovation, innovativeness, organisational Inno-
vation culture, and a set of Innovation performance measures (consisting product,
process, and organisational Innovation).
A recent study carried out by Martinez-Costa and Martinez-Lorente (2008) has shown
that there is evidence from Spanish companies that those who apply TQM and develop
organisational Innovation capabilities gain more operational and financial benefits than
companies that do not. It appears that the relationship between TQM and Innovation is a
two-way relationship, i.e. TQM may affect Innovation and vice versa. The elements of
TQM, in particular the organic element, affect Innovation (Prajogo & Sohal, 2003, 2004),
but firms with a high level of Innovation are likely to adopt TQM, especially the ‘hardware’
or mechanistic element (Lopez-Mielgo et al., 2009). The same is the case with LSS, where
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

innovative companies implement LSS for Incremental Innovation or Process Innovation

(Hoerl & Gardner, 2010; Montgomery & Woodhall, 2008; Xu et al., 2006).

2.2. TQM-based determinants of Innovation

Empirically tested models of TQM – Innovation relationships suggest that the following
factors are proven to positively and significantly influence various types of Innovation:
leadership (Hoang et al., 2006; Prajogo & Sohal, 2003, 2004; Santos-Vijande &
Alvarez-Gonzales, 2007); top management support (Hung et al., 2011); people or
human resource management (Abrunhosa & Moura, 2008; Hoang et al., 2006;
Perdomo-Ortiz et al., 2006; Prajogo & Sohal, 2003, 2004; Santos-Vijande &
Alvarez-Gonzales, 2007); process management (Hoang et al., 2006; Perdomo-Ortiz
et al., 2006; Prajogo & Sohal, 2003; Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-Gonzales, 2007); continu-
ous improvements (Hung et al., 2011); open organisation (Hoang et al., 2006); empower-
ment (Hoang et al., 2006); employee involvement (Hung et al., 2011) in (e.g.) determining
a quality improvement goal (Naveh & Erez, 2004); education and training (Hoang et al.,
2006); R&D or product design (Perdomo-Ortiz et al., 2006; Prajogo et al., 2008); com-
munication (Abrunhosa & Moura, 2008); teamwork (Abrunhosa & Moura, 2008) or
quality improvement team (Naveh & Erez, 2004); supplier management (Prajogo et al.,
2008) or partnership (Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-Gonzales, 2007); strategic planning/
management (Hoang et al., 2006; Prajogo & Sohal, 2003; Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-Gon-
zales, 2007); customer focus (Hung et al., 2011; Prajogo & Sohal, 2003); information and
analysis (Prajogo & Sohal, 2003).
Currently, the reviewed articles do not enable the authors to determine the weight
(importance) of each determinant or identify those that are common across studies
because there is a tendency to ‘aggregate’ several determinants when defining the mechan-
istic and organic TQM constructs (e.g. Prajogo & Sohal, 2004). Table 1 presents the deter-
minats of Innovation in the general Quality Management and TQM literature.

2.3. Lean Six Sigma

The last two decades have witnessed an increased pressure from customers and competi-
tors for greater value from their purchases whether based on quality, faster delivery, or
lower cost (or a combination of all three) in both the manufacturing and service sectors
(George, 2002). This has encouraged many industries to adapt either Six Sigma
(as their process improvement and problem solving approach) or Lean Manufacturing
 4
J. Antony et al.
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

Table 1. Determinants of Innovation in TQM literatures.

Hoang Hung Naveh and Perdomo- Prajogo and Prajogo and Prajogo Santos-Vijande
Abrunhosa and et al. et al. Erez Ortiz et al. Sohal Sohal et al. and Alvarez-
Moura (2008) (2006) (2011) (2004) (2006) (2003) (2004) (2008) Gonzales (2007)
Leadership X X X X
Top management support X
People (human resource X X X X X X
management)
Process management X X X X
Continuous improvements X
Open organisation X
Empowerment X
Employee involvement X X
(e.g. determining quality
improvement goal)
Education and training X
R&D (product design) X X
Communication X
Teamwork, quality X X
improvement team
Supplier management/ X X
partnership
Strategic planning/ X X X
management
Customer focus X X
Information and analysis X
 Total Quality Management 5

(for improving speed to respond to customer needs and overall cost) as part of a manage-
ment strategy to increase market shares and maximise profit (Arnheiter & Maleyeff, 2005;
Schroeder, Linderman, & Zhang, 2005).
However, many organisations have struggled with the dilemma of which strategy to
use for tackling a problem – Lean, Six Sigma or a combination of both (Antony, Esca-
milla, & Caine 2003; Snee & Hoerl, 2007). In the Lean school of study, the problem is
typically some form of waste. A good definition of waste has been provided by Dahlgaard
and Dahlgaard-Park (2006) as ‘everything that increases cost without adding any value in
the eyes of the customer’. They have also highlighted that the problem with waste is that
you will not have an overview of its size because it is never measured as a whole in the
company’s management accounting system. By utilising Lean tools and techniques, the
waste can be reduced to a desirable level, but the tools and techniques that are applied
need to be related to the overall strategy and the principles of lean in order to be successful
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

(Dahlgaard, Pettersen, & Dahlgaard-Park, 2011).

Lean focuses on the speed with which a process can perform its function, be it the time
it takes to obtain a new mortgage approval or a new credit card or open a new bank account
(George, 2002). A Lean strategy often addresses problems that are very visible (e.g. exces-
sive inventory, excessive motion, etc.) and data are less important. The Lean methodology
is very useful for improving floor space usage and cleanliness, reducing cycle time of pro-
cesses, creating a healthy work environment, etc. According to Spear (2004), the basic sets
of operating principles (e.g. experiments, coaching/training, and teamwork) do have
greater influences on the success behind Lean than tools and techniques such as
Just-in-Time (JIT)/Kanban, pull system, cellular manufacturing, etc. Many scholars
(e.g. Pil & Fujimoto, 2007; Schonberger, 2007) share the same view on these operating
principles although they expand the list by registering more factors, for example, learning
(Black, 2007; Schonberger, 2007; Towill, 2007); leadership (Black, 2007; Towill, 2007);
employee relationship practice (Pil & Fujimoto, 2007); top management commitment
(Black, 2007); communication (Black, 2007); employee involvement (Black, 2007; Schon-
berger, 2007); cross functionality (Schonberger, 2007); multiple and cumulative capabili-
ties (Schonberger, 2007); partnership within a supply chain (Schonberger, 2007).
In the Six Sigma school of study, a problem is tackled (assume the solution is unknown)
depending on the nature of the problem and the degree of complexity involved in the deter-
mination of solutions. According to Kwak and Anbari (2006), proper understanding of Six
Sigma would increase the needs for coaching, mentoring, and training, as well as enabling
organisations to better support their strategic directions. The six-step implementation model
of Six Sigma, as suggested by Chakravorty (2009), implies that Six Sigma should be strat-
egy-oriented, market/customer driven, and reliance on process management (in terms of
working cross-functionally and applying tools such as process mapping).
However, many practitioners and academics argue that both Lean and Six Sigma must
be integrated for optimising business profitability and revenue growth. According to Arn-
heiter and Maleyeff (2005), in a highly competitive environment, diminishing returns may
result when either Lean or Six Sigma is implemented in isolation. LSS is a powerful meth-
odology that increases process performance and capability, resulting in enhanced custo-
mer experience and improved bottom-line impact measured in hard-cash savings.
Although LSS has been widely accepted as a problem-solving methodology in many
organisations today, the authors argue that its linkage with Innovation has not been
explored previously via any empirical studies. This paper makes an attempt to understand
and critically evaluate the relationship between LSS and Process/Product/Service
 6 J. Antony et al.

Innovation. As Six Sigma is a proven data-driven methodology, it was highly desirable to

have some evidence to see if LSS fosters or hinders Innovation.

3. Research methodology
In our attempt to investigate the impact of LSS on Product or Service Innovation, it was
pivotal to conduct exploratory enquiries in the form of a pilot study in firms implementing
LSS. It was absolutely important in the authors’ view that this study was carried out to
explore the relationship between LSS and Innovation and of course to seek some empirical
evidence if LSS can either foster or hinder Innovation. This led to the choice of an induc-
tive approach, where theory is built based on data collected from the firms under investi-
gation (Saunders et al., 2009). The inductive approach influenced the choice of research
strategy to explicate the research questions posed in this study.
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

In the study, we attempt to scout how LSS is related to Product or Service Innovation
in an organisation and then try to find out if the relation is similar or contrasting in other
organisations in the same context. Every organisation under consideration is treated as a
whole and as an individual case, and upon interviewing the representatives from each
organisation; the immediate research goal is the replication of these findings in the
other individual cases. Hence a holistic multiple-case study design is employed in our
study (Yin, 2009). So, an exploratory case study approach was conducted in 10 UK-
based firms, or firms having operations in the UK, based on convenience sampling
methods in order to select a range of manufacturing, service, and consulting firms (Yin,
2009). Another reason for the choice of sampling method was the geographical region
where the research was conducted due to time and finance constraints. Firms selected
have been involved in LSS implementation for a minimum of three years. Other details
of participating firms are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Profile of interviewed companies.

LSS
experience Geographical
Company Type Size (years) location Interviewee
A Consulting Small 12 Global LSS consultant
B Consulting Small 9 Local LSS consultant
C Manufacturing Large 3.5 Global Black Belt
D Service Large 9 Global Master Black Belt
E Consulting Small 3 Local Owner/master black
belt
F Manufacturing Large 4 Local LSS transformation
leader
G Mixed Large 8 Global Software architect/
(manufacturing, black belt
service)
H Manufacturing Large 10 Global Lean transformation
leader
I Mixed Large 4 Global Innovation
(manufacturing, manager/black
service) belt
J Mixed Large 6–10 Global Head of global
(manufacturing, delivery/lean
service) leader
 Total Quality Management 7

In our study, we were particularly concerned with the context in which LSS and
Product or Service Innovation worked together in an overall picture. Hence, as suggested
by Saunders et al. (2009), a small sample size of the subjects is more appropriate than a
large number.
The primary data collated through semi-structured interviews was triangulated with
company documents on LSS and using secondary literature. The interviews were con-
ducted in person with Black Belts and Master Black Belts in 10 firms, with each interview
lasting over an hour. The list of questions for the semi-structured interviews was con-
structed with utmost care in view of achieving the two primary goals of addressing the
objectives of the research and a smooth conversational flow (Frey & Oishi, 1995).
Some of the questions asked during an interview session were related to: (1) the respon-
dent’s view on whether LSS inhibits or spurs Innovation, (2) the success factors as well as
the challenges faced by LSS in aiming for Innovation and creating an Innovation culture
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

and (3) the contribution of LSS in facilitating change to create the environment conducive
for Innovation.
A small number of interviewees were contacted again by telephone or email to resolve
queries or if responses to a question were vague. The written documents used as secondary
data collection comprised mainly of published books and journal articles. The details of a
project’s purpose, sponsor and the progress made to date were briefly mentioned when
opening the interview and a participant’s right to confidentiality, anonymity and the right
to avoid answering any question, or stop the interview at any moment, were carefully
emphasised (Saunders et al., 2009). In order to minimise bias from the interviewees, the
researchers assured the participants of each company that their responses to the questions
would be kept confidential and there were no right or wrong answers to the questions
(Polit & Beck, 2004). Moreover, all the interviews were carried out based on an interview
protocol prepared by the interviewer well in advance (Yin, 2009). Finally, the interviews
were carried out over an appropriate time length (one hour) with all interviewees to avoid
fatigue and minimise bias in their responses (Barratt, Choi, & Li., 2011). The authors
would like to highlight some of the limitations of semi-structured interviews used in this
study and these include: lack of standardisation (i.e. changing the wording or sequence of
questions, etc.) raising concerns on the reliability and bias; being time consuming (transcrib-
ing the data and arranging the interview sessions with relevant people can be a tedious
process) and difficulty in generalising the findings due to unrepresentative sample size (East-
erby-Smith, Thorpe, & Jackson, 2011; Scandura & Williams, 2000). The authors would like
to point out that single interviews within each participating company could be a limitation of
the research but this can be rectified with more interviews as part of further investigation.
With the aforementioned choice of research strategy and data collection methods, we
aim to specify the types of Innovation that are suitable or relevant in the LSS context, as
well as the factors (characteristics) that may influence or lead to Innovation in companies
implementing LSS. These factors are then subject to empirical examination, if they have
direct and/or indirect influences on Innovation. Table 2 shows the profile of companies that
participated in the study.

4. Results and analysis

4.1. Does LSS foster Innovation?
The majority of respondents at the 10 interviewed companies clearly stated that LSS
does foster Innovation, while the remaining did not confirm their support of the
 8 J. Antony et al.

proposition (statement) that LSS affects Innovation. Some of the responses from intervie-
wees include:
The Innovations mainly happening in our company are process Innovations . . . , LSS is more
about process Innovation. (Company G)
Incremental Innovations always happen, Innovation always happen in the process [for
example by] . . . modifying the old process. (Company I)
No big Innovations, but Innovation was in [the] picture. (Company J)
Although possible, most of the companies engaging with the LSS initiative focus less on
Radical or Product Innovation. The experiences of a LSS consulting firm (company E) in
dealing with its clients seem to indicate that LSS is adaptable for an environment where the
level of Innovation (especially invention) is quite high.
[LSS] need not directly lead to radical Innovation. (Company I)
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

. . . product Innovations are not frequent . . . . (Company G)

Most of our clients focus more on radical Innovation than incremental Innovation.
(Company E)
Nearly all interviewees agreed and recognised that LSS plays an important role in building
an Innovation (innovative) culture, which is defined by, for example, Claver, Llopis,
Garcia, and Molina (1998, p. 61) as:
a way of thinking and behaving that creates, develops and establishes values and attitudes
within a firm, which may in turn raise, accept and support ideas and changes involving an
improvement in the functioning and efficiency of the firm, even though such changes may
mean a conflict with conventional and traditional behaviour.
If we compare the above definition with Innovation Capability (for an exhaustive review, see
Martı́nez-Román, Gamero, & Tamayo, 2011), i.e. the ability to transform knowledge and
ideas into new products/processes/services or the aptitude to generate new or improved pro-
ducts and/or production processes (Lawson & Samson, 2001; Lopez-Mielgo et al., 2009) or
Technological Innovation Capability, which refers to the comprehensive characteristic in an
organisation facilitating and supporting an Innovation strategy (Wang et al., 2008), it is argu-
able that Innovation (innovative) culture and Innovation Capability are, to a large extent,
congruent and/or overlapping. In fact, innovative capability is an important factor that facili-
tates an innovative organisational culture (Akman & Yilmaz, 2008), and that organisational
culture is an aspect of Innovation Capability (Lawson & Samson, 2001).
The following response indicates that a firm engaged with an LSS initiative will likely
be able to reinforce its Innovation Capability through LSS projects.
Innovation always comes in the background of each [LSS] project . . . , there are certain cri-
teria of Innovation in all projects. (Company E)
Both industry respondents and consulting-firm respondents indicate that LSS strongly trig-
gers Process Innovation, Incremental Innovation, and Innovation Capability. The consult-
ing firm respondents indicate that LSS may also have an impact on Product Innovation,
Radical Innovation, and Problem-driven Innovation. Hence, the LSS – Innovation relation-
ship is the most explicit when Innovation is defined in terms of Process Innovation, Incre-
mental Innovation, and Innovation Capability, and thus less strong if Innovation is being
referred to as Product and Radical Innovation (Figure 1). For such a reason, we focus on
Process Innovation, Incremental Innovation, and Innovation Capability when presenting
the frameworks linking LSS and Innovation. Table 3 suggests that the influence of LSS
on Innovation is strongly experienced by (and is the most apparent in the) hybrid compa-
nies (which offer both goods and services).
 Total Quality Management 9
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

Figure 1. LSS and its influence on various types of Innovation.

Table 3. The influence of LSS on Innovation according to firm types.

Manufacturing Service Hybrid
Process Innovation † †
Product Innovation †
Incremental Innovation V V †V
Innovation Capability †V †V †V
Radical Innovation V V V
Problem-driven Innovation V V V
Notes: † indicated by industry respondents; V indicated by consulting-firm respondents.

4.2. What makes it happen? Where?

Companies engaging with LSS initiatives experience a positive effect of LSS on Process
Innovation, Incremental Innovation and Innovation Capability. A further question to be
asked is which companies have or would have been able to gain such benefits?
The demographic information about the interviewed companies reveal that large,
service-oriented companies (or companies with a service component in their offering)
operating globally with long and extensive experiences of implementing LSS are the
most likely to be able to sense the importance or contribution of LSS in fostering Inno-
vation or creating an Innovation culture. One of our respondents articulates the long-
term impact of investing in an LSS initiative as follows:
. . . after a threshold it starts spurring Innovation . . . , Recently, we have seen that change when
one YB [i.e. Yellow Belt] has trained Innovation in Six Sigma [and] we have seen impact in
[the] development centre’, . . . over the next coming two years, we would see more emphasis
[given to start embracing] Innovation in Six Sigma. (Company H)
Firms with a significant service component in their offering seem to be able to foster or
cultivate an Innovation culture while implementing LSS. This is because service is
 10 J. Antony et al.

linked to, and dependent on, the service processes. Changes in the processes will cause
changes in the delivery of service, which then may then appear as Innovation.
Regardless of types of firms, customers are an important driver of Innovation. For
manufacturing and hybrid companies there are additional drivers of Innovation such as
technology and suppliers.

4.3. LSS features leading to Innovation

When asked about their perception regarding the success factors (as well as factors that
would become hindrances) in developing and institutionalising an Innovation our respon-
dents answered by mentioning, for example, the voice of the customers, communication,
management commitment (support), leadership, learning, creativity, and teamwork,
which are described in further detail in Table 4. These factors are, to a large extent,
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

consistent with the existing literature regarding the TQM characteristics which have
significant impacts on Innovation (Hoang et al., 2006; Prajogo & Sohal, 2003, 2004;
Santos-Vijande & Alvarez-Gonzales, 2007).
The interviewees tended to view LSS as a facilitator or a motivator of the above-
mentioned success factors.
LSS can provide powerful tools for proper communication within the organisation and within
the team, . . . a culture of sharing, trust, open dialogue, and idea sharing which is facilitated by
LSS. (Company B, authors’ emphasis)
In a [certain] way, LSS can facilitate learning culture. (Company C, authors’ emphasis)
LSS can create a learning environment. (Company G, authors’emphasis)
LSS facilitates inculcating innovative minds, [LSS] will inculcate innovative mind in people.
(Company I, authors’ emphasis)
Interestingly, we found quite surprising answers when we asked how LSS drives, or con-
tributes to creating the organisation environment supportive of Innovation. We noticed
that the interviewees started to link LSS features that they perceived as having an
impact on Innovation. The following responses from our respondents suggest that the
TQM-based determinants of Innovation may be overlapped, if not distinct, from the
unique ‘features’ associated with the practice of LSS.
LSS supports the mechanism to promote better communication in the project teams, If any-
thing LSS contributes something on Innovation, because you are seeking solutions to pro-
blems. (Company A, authors’ emphasis)
Because LSS is in place, people will improve their problem solving skills and in the long run
this will help in developing an innovative culture. (Company I, authors’ emphasis)
. . . [to] some [extent,] Innovation always take place in every [LSS] project, When we are
trying to do a project [which could be] some processes change . . . which is in a way Inno-
vation taking place. (Company I, authors’ emphasis)
Innovative ideas are encouraged from employees . . . . (Company D, authors’ emphasis)
Solving problems (as a means of continuous improvement) in the form of projects has been
a long tradition of Six Sigma. Within Lean, ‘project’ may be defined in a more ‘relaxed’
way due to the fact that: (i) prior to the formation of quality circles (a vehicle for improve-
ment in Lean Production) there might be no explicit organisation for improvement activi-
ties or that problems might be solved spontaneously (Karlsson & Ahlstrom, 1996), (ii)
quality circle systems have reduced vertical and horizontal demarcations over ownership
of problems (Adam, 1991; Goldstein, 1985). Responses from the interviewees suggest that
projects should be selected strategically in order to increase the impact of LSS on Inno-
vation. Since experimentation is encouraged by the practice of Toyota Production
 Total Quality Management 11

Table 4. Enablers and hinders of Innovation in LSS organisations.

Perceived enablers Perceived hinders
Teamwork ‘Teamwork and collaboration’ (C)
Empowerment ‘Encouraging and supporting
employee decision making’ (C)
Management of Cross-functionality (C)
business process
Customer voice ‘Keeping the voice of customers in
mind’ (D)
Motivation ‘Recognition of the best ideas . . . ‘ . . . environment where the team
support from the project manager/ members . . . are supported for
leader . . . ’ (G) Innovation . . . else the members get
complete de-motivated . . . ’ (G)
Top management ‘ . . . support from senior ‘Top management supports’ (H)
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

management’ (E)
‘Top management attention’ (H)
‘Senior management openness’ (J)
Communication ‘A communication system that
allows the free-flow of ideas’ (B)
Creativity ‘A group of people that help pull
ideas and explore ideas . . . ’ (B)
‘People coming up with new ideas’
(C)
‘Top management encourages
people to be imaginative’ (I),
‘Lean Six Sigma upgrades
peoples’ new ideas . . . ’ (I)
Learning ‘A learning system or environment ‘Organisations with no learning
in the organizations’ (I)
Attitude towards
risk
‘Readiness of the management’ (I),
‘Encouragement by top
management’ (I)
‘Communication’ (C)
‘Communication in the organization’
(I)
‘Companies that do not allow . . .
creative thinking’ (B), ‘A culture
that does not reward those that
challenge the status quo . . . [and]
new ideas and change’ (B)
culture will not grow in Innovation’
(C)
‘ . . . guiding organisation to become
less risk averse’ (A)
‘ . . . accepting risk-taking as an
acceptable mode of practice’ (C)
‘Risk averse culture’ (H, I)

System (Spear & Bowen, 1999) and is recognised as an important element of Lean (Pil &
Fujimoto, 2007; Spear, 2004), the nature of problem solving fostered by LSS needs to be
directed towards exploration if Innovation is the desired effect. The root-cause analysis, a
commonly used tool in Six Sigma (as well as TQM), can be seen as the first step to encou-
rage and develop explorative problem-solving skills. While solving problems or finding
improvement opportunities, both Lean and Six Sigma methodologies openly acknowledge
the importance of employee suggestions. Therefore, the existence of a proper system to
gather ideas and suggestions from employees is essential for Innovation. This is well
aligned with the view that employee involvement is necessary in the Innovation process
(Bessant, 1998). These results lead to the understanding that strategic LSS project
 12 J. Antony et al.

selection, explorative problem solving, and employee suggestion system are perceived as
having a positive influence on Innovation.
Dealing with ill-structured problems (which are the majority of problems in the real
world) requires learning by doing or adaptive learning in which problem identification
and diagnosis emerge during the interaction among problem solvers (Li & Rajagoalan,
2008; MacDuffie, 1997). During this interaction, sensemaking (i.e. a process of organising,
the interplay between action and interpretation when there is no obvious way to engage to
the world) arose (see Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obsteld, 2005 for an exhaustive review). Hence,
explorative problem solving will be enabled or supported by factors such as: learning, crea-
tivity, autonomy, and teamwork. Strategic selection of LSS projects (Schroeder et al., 2005)
would involve leadership, top management commitment, communication, and teamwork.
In the organisations engaging with Six Sigma, improvement projects are selected, exe-
cuted, led and monitored by individuals in the various ranks of the ‘belt’ system. From the
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

experience of company H in our study (where a Yellow Belt has been empowered to train-
ing for Innovation), the proper institutionalisation of the ‘belt’ system would likely have a
positive effect on Innovation. To establish and institutionalise the ‘belt’ system, leader-
ship, teamwork, communication, and top management commitment are undeniably
important.
The following responses provide more evidence that the TQM-based determinants of
Innovation are not necessarily the same as LSS unique features, but it can be said that the
unique features of LSS may accommodate, or are associable with, those determinants
commonly found in the existing literature examining the relationships between TQM
and Innovation. Hence, we do not reject the previous findings examining
TQM – Innovation relationships, but we argue that a certain composition or formation of
those determinants can manifest into or explain a certain feature unique to LSS.
We are widely using the QFD [Quality Function Deployment] which contain the voice of the
customers [also recognisable in terms of market orientation or focus on customers] in a pro-
cessed form to screen the innovative ideas generated. (Company G)
We capture extensive data regarding the customer requirements and convert them into mea-
surable characteristics of products using CTQ [Critical to Quality]. (Company I)
The use of tools such as QFD and CTQ may support and/or reflect the first (also the
second) principle of Lean, i.e. identification of ‘value’. In fact, the notion of value is
acknowledged also in Six Sigma, although ‘value creation’ currently receives too little
attention in either Lean or Six Sigma. Based on the following, properly managed value
seems to be a main ‘ingredient’ for Innovation, especially Radical Innovations.
‘Total Value Management (TVM) is one of the practices which encourage breakthrough Inno-
vation’ (Company D).
Therefore, we propose that orientation on value is a feature of LSS (accommodating or
representing market orientation) that may have a positive influence on Innovation. Con-
sistent with Harry and Crawford (2005) and Liker (2004), orientation on value will be
an essential issue in the future development of LSS.
Our respondent from company C also suggests that a lack or low level of cross-func-
tionality will hinder the development of an Innovation culture, which is consistent with
Perdomo-Ortiz et al. (2006) and Prajogo and Sohal (2003) that process management
does contribute to Innovation (either performance or capability). The determinants of
Innovation identified by, and/or emerging from LSS literature and field research (inter-
views) in organisations implementing LSS are listed in Table 5.
 Total Quality Management 13

Table 5. LSS-based determinants of Innovation.

Type of
Determinant Support
Explorative problem solving Empirical A, I
Literature Spear (2004), Pil and Fujimoto (2007)
Strategic project selection Empirical I
Employee suggestion system Empirical D
Literature Bessant (1998)
Institutionalisation of ‘belt’ Empirical H
system
Mentorship Literature Spear and Bowen (1999)
Orientation on value Empirical D (G, I)
Literature Harry and Crawford (2005), Liker (2004)
Process management Empirical C
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

Literature Perdomo-Ortiz et al. (2006), Prajogo and Sohal

(2003)

4.4. LSS – Innovation relationships

A technique for examining the relationship between LSS and Innovation may be
regression analysis in which the seven LSS features (Table 4 in the previous sub-
section) are the independent variables and one of the following: Process Innovation, incre-
mental Innovation, and Innovation Capability becomes the dependent variable. Since the
importance (or the influence power) of each LSS feature on Innovation (based on valid
empirical result) is relatively unknown/unavailable, this method may be advantageous
because it enables the identification of the direct influence of each (individual) LSS
feature on, for example, Process Innovation (Figure 2). Consequently, LSS features that
have higher influential power compared to the others may be identified and hence be
the focus of LSS-adopting organisations in their pursuit of Innovation.
Applying a regression analysis between LSS as a single construct and each type of
Innovation (Figure 3) may uncover which particular features are theoretically coherent
for both Lean and Six Sigma and contextually consistent amongst LSS-adopting organis-
ations, as well as the influence/significance of LSS as a unified concept on Innovation.

Figure 2. ‘Direct’ influence of LSS features on (Process) Innovation.

 14 J. Antony et al.
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

Figure 3. LSS –Innovation relationship with LSS as a single construct.

5. Conclusion and agenda for future research

The results of our research suggest that LSS does foster Innovation, although we need to
specify that by ‘Innovation’, we mean Process Innovation, Incremental Innovation, or
Innovation Capability. However, our research also indicates that LSS does have the poten-
tial to influence radical/breakthrough Innovation. For the long-term success of organis-
ations, a balanced approach to business improvement is needed – focusing on
approaches to continuous improvement and problem solving, such as LSS, and also on
approaches to identifying opportunities for Radical Innovation using Design for Lean
Six Sigma (Hoerl & Gardner, 2010). In addition, the findings from another research
carried out in Japan showed that Six Sigma can potentially be used as an Innovation
tool for leveraging organisational performance (Aziz & Osada, 2010). Detractors claim
that LSS is stifling Innovation as following a disciplined Define-Measure-Analyse-
Improve-Control (DMAIC) methodology may inhibit creativity. But if you are, or have
been, involved in carrying out LSS projects, you may understand that DMAIC defines
an approach to problem solving where you need to use your own creativity to brainstorm
ideas, select specific tools, and to conduct and interpret statistical analysis and results.
When you are applying the LSS methodology to solve a complex problem with
unknown solutions, you often need to be innovative to complete the project successfully.
In this article, we also identified and listed seven features of LSS that are likely to influ-
ence Innovation, i.e. orientation on value, process management, strategic LSS project
selection, institutionalised ‘belt’ system, mentorship, employee suggestion system, and
explorative problem solving. Here, we present the view that the TQM-based determinants
of Innovation are accommodated or associable with the LSS features that we previously
mentioned. In fact, it is possible that certain LSS features and TQM-based determinants
of Innovation are so similar that they tend to be greatly overlapping. The authors argue
that these features of LSS can be very generic across various industrial sectors and even
countries, however, the impact of these features on Innovation could be different in differ-
ent sectors and countries and therefore need to be explored further. The authors highlight
the point that the findings of this study are valid and certainly form a solid foundation for
further research, but the small number of interviews and single interviews within the par-
ticipating companies could be a major limitation of this exploratory study.
 Total Quality Management 15

According to Takeuchi, Osono, and Shimizu (2008) Lean is a culture of contradiction

between the forces of expansion and integration, which are congruent with exploration and
exploitation, respectively. This contradiction is reflected through Toyota’s flexibility, as
well as its ability to balance integrated control functions and uniqueness & creativity
(Black, 2007). Recent publications in the LSS literature suggest that future LSS may be
required to possess and reflect ambidextrous characteristics, a balance between explora-
tion and exploitation. Six Sigma projects provide firms with a foundation to either incre-
mentally develop their existing processes or radically change their entire processes (Parast,
2011). Considering the increasing pace and complexity of business environments, LSS
should balance both new and existing operational capabilities through: (i) incorporating
control features within process design while at the same time providing opportunities
and motivation (for employees) to experiment and learn and (ii) balancing projects that
are intended to improve existing process capabilities and those that seek to design new pro-
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

cesses (Anand, Ward, Tatikonda, & Schilling, 2009). According to Schonberger, Linder-
man, Liedtke and Choo (2008), Six Sigma would enable organisations to become more
ambidextrous by switching structures, acting organically when being challenged by new
ideas and operating mechanically in focusing on efficiency. This finding implies that
Six Sigma, as similar to Lean, also contains contradictive tensions. Hence our future
research activities will try to address questions such as: (a) ‘What are the elements of
these explorative and exploitative forces?’ (b) ‘Does the explorative force in LSS have
stronger influence on Radical Innovation? and (c) ‘Does the exploitative force in LSS
better predict Incremental/Process Innovation?’

References
Abrunhosa, A.P., & Moura, E. Sa. (2008). Are TQM principles supporting innovation in the
Portuguese footwear industry? Technovation, 28, 208–221.
Adam, E.E., Jr. (1991). Quality circle performance. Journal of Management, 17(1), 25 –39.
Akman, G., & Yilmaz, C. (2008). Innovative capability, innovation strategy and market orientation:
An empirical analysis in Turkish software industry. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 12(1), 69 –111.
Anand, G., Ward, P.T. Tatikonda, M.V., & Schilling, D.A. (2009). Dynamic capabilities
through continuous improvement infrastructure. Journal of Operations Management,
27(6), 444 –461.
Antony, J., Escamilla, J.L., & Caine, P. (2003). Lean Sigma. Manufacturing Engineer, 82(2), 40 –42.
Arnheiter, E.D., & Maleyeff, J. (2005). The integration of Lean management and Six Sigma. The
TQM Magazine, 17(1), 5– 18.
Azis, Y., & Osada, H. (2010). Innovation in management system by Six Sigma: An empirical study
of world-class companies. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 1(3), 172–190.
Barratt, M., Choi, T.Y., & Li, M. (2011). Qualitative case studies in operations management: Trends,
research outcomes, and future research implications. Journal of Operations Management, 29,
329 –342.
Bessant, J. (1998). Developing continuous improvement capability. International Journal of
Innovation Management, 2(4), 409 –429.
Black, J. (2007). Design rules for implementing Toyota production system. International Journal of
Production Research, 45(16), 3639 –3664.
Chakravorty, S. (2009). Six Sigma programs: An implementation model. International Journal of
Production Economics, 119(1), 1– 16.
Claver, E., Llopis, J., Garcia, D., & Molina, H. (1998). Organizational culture for innovation and new
technological behavior. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 9(1), 55 –68.
Dahlgaard, J.J., & Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2006). Lean production, Six Sigma quality, TQM and
company culture. The TQM Magazine, 18(3), 263– 281.
 16 J. Antony et al.

Dahlgaard, J.J., Pettersen, J., & Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2011). Quality and lean health care: A system
for assessing and improving the health of healthcare organisations. Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, 22(6), 673 –689.
Dervitsiotis, K.N. (2010). A framework for the assessment of an organisation’s innovation excel-
lence. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 21(9), 903–918.
Dervitsiotis, K.N. (2011). The challenge of adaptation through innovation based on the quality of the
innovation process. Total Quality Management and Business Excelence, 22(5), 553–566.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. (2011). Management research. London: Sage.
Frey, J.H., & Oishi, S.M. (1995). How to conduct interviews by telephone and in person. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
George, M. (2002). Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six Sigma quality with lean speed. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Goldstein, S.G. (1985). Organisational quality and quality circles. Academy of Management Review,
10(3), 504 –517.
Harry, M., & Crawford, D. (2005). Six Sigma – The next generation. Machine Design, 77(4),
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

126 –132.
Hoang, D.T., Igel, B., & Laosirihongthong, T. (2006). The impact of total quality management on
innovation: Findings from a developing country. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 23(9), 1092–1117.
Hoerl, R., & Gardner, M.M. (2010). Lean Six Sigma, creativity, and innovation. International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 1(1), 30 –38.
Hung, R.Y.Y., Lien, B.Y.H., Yang, B., Wu, C.-M., & Kuo, Y.M. (2011). Impact of TQM and organ-
isational learning on innovation performance in the high-tech industry. International Business
Review, 20, 213– 225.
Karlsson, C., & Ahlstrom, P (1996). Assessing changes towards lean production. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(2), 24 –41.
Kwak, Y.H., & Anbari, F.T. (2006). Benefits, obstacles, and future of Six Sigma approach.
Technovation, 26(5–6), 708 –715.
Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). Developing innovation capability in organisations: A dynamic
capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), 377– 400.
Li, G., & Rajagopalan, S. (2008). Process improvement, learning, and real options. Production and
Operations Management, 17(1), 61 –74.
Liker, J.K. (2004). The Toyota way. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lopez-Mielgo, N., Montes-Peon, J.M., & Vazquez-Ordas, C.J. (2009). Are quality and innovation
conflicting activities? Technovation, 29, 537 –545.
MacDuffie, J.P. (1997). The road to ‘root-cause’: Shop-floor problem-solving at three auto assembly
plants. Management Science, 43(4), 479 –502.
Martinez-Costa, M., & Martinez-Lorente, A.R. (2008). Does quality management foster or hinder
innovation? An empirical study of Spannish companies. Total Quality Management and
Business Excellence, 19(3), 209– 221.
Martı́nez-Román, J.A., Gamero, J., & Tamayo, J.A. (2011). Analysis of innovation in SMEs using an
innovative capability-based non-linear model: A study in the province of Seville (Spain).
Technovation, 31, 459 –475.
Montgomery, D.C., & Woodhall, W.H. (2008). An overview of Six Sigma. International Statistics
Review, 76(3), 329– 346.
Naveh, E., & Erez, M. (2004). Innovation and attention to detail in the quality improvement para-
digm. Management Science, 50(11), 1576–1586.
Parast, M.M. (2011). The effect of Six Sigma projects on innovation and firm performance.
International Journal of Project Management, 29(1), 45 –55.
Perdomo-Ortiz, J., González-Benito, J., & Galende, J. (2006). Total quality management as a fore-
runner of business innovation capability. Technovation, 26 (10), 1170–1185.
Pil, F.K., & Fujimoto, T. (2007). Lean and reflective production: The dynamic nature of production
models. International Journal of Production Research, 45(16), 3741–3761.
Polit, D.F., & Beck, C.T. (2004). Nursing research: Principles and methods (7th ed.). Philadelphia,
PA: Williams and Wilkins.
Prajogo, D., McDermott, P., & Goh, M. (2008). Impact of value chain activities on quality and inno-
vation. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 28(7), 615– 635.
 Total Quality Management 17

Prajogo, D.I., & Sohal, A.S. (2003). The relationship between TQM practices, quality performance,
and innovation performance: An empirical examination. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 20(8), 901–918.
Prajogo, D.I., & Sohal, A.S. (2004). The multidimensionality of TQM practices in determining
quality and innovation performance. Technovation, 24, 443–453.
Santos-Vijande, M.L., & Alvarez-Gonzales, A.I. (2007). Innovativeness and organizational inno-
vation in total quality oriented firms: The moderating role of market turbulence.
Technovation, 27, 514 –532.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Essex:
Pearson Education.
Scandura, T.A., & Willaims, E.A. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current practices,
trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1248 –
1264.
Schonberger, R. (2007). Japanese production management: An evolution – with mixed success.
Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 403– 419.
Downloaded by [Heriot-Watt University] at 16:26 04 November 2014

Schonberger, R.G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C., & Choo, A.S. (2008). Six Sigma: Definition and
underlying theory. Journal of Operations Management, 26(4), 536–554.
Schroeder, R.G., Linderman, K., & Zhang, D. (2005). Evolution of quality: First fifty issues of
production and operations Management. Production and Operations Management, 14(4),
468 –481.
Snee, R.D., & Hoerl, R. (2007). Integrating lean and Six Sigma: A holistic approach. Six Sigma
Forum Magazine, 6(3), 15 –21.
Spear, S., & Bowen, H.K. (1999). Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system. Harvard
Business Review, 77(5), 96 –106.
Spear, S.J. (2004). Learning to lead at Toyota. Harvard Business Review, 82(5), 78 –86.
Takeuchi, H., Osono, E., & Shimizu, N. (2008). The contradictions that drive Toyota’s success.
Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 96 –104.
Towill, D.R. (2007). Exploiting the DNA of the Toyota production system. International Journal of
Production Research, 45(16), 3619 –3637.
Wang, C., Lu, I., & Chen, C. (2008). Evaluating firm technological capability under uncertainty.
Technovation, 28, 349 –363.
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organising and the process of sensemaking.
Organization Science, 16(4), 409– 421.
Xu, K., Sikdar, C., & Gardner, M.M. (2006). Six Sigma roles in innovation. IEEE international
conference on management of innovation and technology, Singapore.
Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research (4th ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.