ScienceDirect

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia
Available CIRP
online 00 (2019) 000–000
atonline
www.sciencedirect.com
Available at www.sciencedirect.com
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 00 (2017)
Procedia 000–000
CIRP 98 (2021) 535–540
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering
28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering
Business Sustainability in Post COVID-19 Era by Integrated LSS-AM Model
Business Sustainability inDesign
in Manufacturing:
28th CIRP Post COVID-19
A Structural
Conference, Era
May byNantes,
Equation
2018, France LSS-AM Model
Integrated
Modeling
in Manufacturing: A Structural Equation Modeling
A new methodology to analyze the functional and physical architecture of
Nidhi Mundraa,Rajesh P. Mishrab*
existing products for an assembly
Nidhi oriented
Mundra a
,Rajeshproduct family
P. Mishra b* identification
a
Research scholar, Department of Mechanical Engineering BITS Pilani, Vidhya Vihar Campus, Pilani, Raj. 333031, India

b a
Associate
Paul Stief *, Jean-Yves Dantan, Alain Etienne, Ali Siadat
Research scholar,
Professor, Department
Department of Mechanical
of Mechanical Engineering
Engineering BITSBITS Pilani,
Pilani, Vidhya
Vidhya Vihar
Vihar Campus,
Campus, Pilani,
Pilani, Raj. Raj. 333031,
333031, IndiaIndia
École Nationale
b Supérieure
Associate d’ArtsDepartment
Professor, et Métiers, of
Arts et MétiersEngineering
Mechanical ParisTech, LCFC EA 4495,
BITS Pilani, 4 Rue
Vidhya Augustin
Vihar Fresnel,
Campus, Metz
Pilani, Raj.57078, France
333031, India

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000. E-mail address: rpm@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 3 87 37 54 30; E-mail address: paul.stief@ensam.eu
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000. E-mail address: rpm@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in

Abstract
Abstract
Abstract
The Manufacturing sector has suffered to a great extent due to global pandemic COVID-19. This pandemic is forcing the manufacturing
In today’s business environment, the trend towards more product variety and customization is unbroken. Due to this development, the need of
industries to look forward to a long term and sustainable business plan, which ensures sustainability in three different aspects i.e. Social,
agile
The and reconfigurable
Manufacturing production
sector systems
has suffered to aemerged to cope
great extent duewith variouspandemic
to global products COVID-19.
and product Thisfamilies. To design
pandemic and optimize
is forcing production
the manufacturing
Economic, and Environment. This demands a never before need of higher value to the customer in lesser resources. Implementation of
systems as to
industries well as to
look choosetothe
forward optimal
a long term product matches, product
and sustainable businessanalysis methods
plan, which are needed.
ensures Indeed,inmost
sustainability threeofdifferent
the known methods
aspects aim to
i.e. Social,
innovative approaches of integrated manufacturing practices i.e. Lean Six Sigma (LSS) and Agile Manufacturing (AM) are need of the hour for
analyze
Economic,a product or one productThis
and Environment. family on the physical
demands a never level.
beforeDifferent
need ofproduct
higher families,
value to however, may differ
the customer largely
in lesser in termsImplementation
resources. of the number and of
long-term business sustainability which can be done by ensuring waste elimination and by adjusting the dynamic changes in the demands and
nature of components.
innovative approaches This fact impedes
of integrated an efficient
manufacturing comparison
practices andSix
i.e. Lean choice
Sigma of(LSS)
appropriate
and Agileproduct family combinations
Manufacturing (AM) are need for the production
of the hour for
requirements simultaneously without compromising in quality. However, the strategic linkage between LSS and AM practices with the three
system.
long-termA new methodology
business is proposed
sustainability which canto analyze
be doneexisting products
by ensuring in view
waste of theirand
elimination functional and physical
by adjusting architecture.
the dynamic changesThe aimdemands
in the is to cluster
and
pillars of sustainability has yet not been described in the literature. In this study an integrated model which consists of six constructs i.e.
these products simultaneously
requirements in new assemblywithoutorientedcompromising
product families for the optimization
in quality. However, theofstrategic
existing assembly lines and
linkage between the and
LSS creation
AM of future reconfigurable
practices with the three
Managerial practices (C1), Organizational culture practices (C2), Technological practices (C3), Economical Aspects (C4), Social Aspects (C5)
assembly
pillars ofsystems. Based has
sustainability on Datum
yet notFlow
beenChain, the physical
described structure of
in the literature. In the
thisproducts
study anis integrated
analyzed. Functional
model which subassemblies
consists of aresix identified,
constructs and
i.e.
and Environmental Aspects (C6) was developed. The purpose of the paper is to scrutinize the relationships between the integrated LSS and AM
aManagerial
functional practices
analysis is(C1),
performed. Moreover,
Organizational a hybrid
culture functional
practices and physical architecture
(C2), Technological practices (C3), graph (HyFPAG)
Economical is the (C4),
Aspects outputSocial
whichAspects
depicts(C5)
the
practices and three aspects of sustainability through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique.. The results of this study depict that there
similarity between product
and Environmental Aspectsfamilies
(C6) wasbydeveloped.
providingThe design support
purpose to paper
of the both, isproduction system
to scrutinize planners andbetween
the relationships productthe designers.
integratedAn LSSillustrative
and AM
is a correlation exists between integrated LSS –AM practices and sustainability pillars that leads to the improvement of firms' business
example
practicesofanda nail-clipper
three aspects is used to explain the
of sustainability proposed
through methodology.
Structural EquationAn industrial(SEM)
Modeling case study on twoThe
technique.. product
resultsfamilies
of this of steering
study depictcolumns of
that there
competitiveness. This is one of the premier attempts to develop integrated LSS-AM practices structural model with the sustainability aspects.
thyssenkrupp
is a correlationPresta France
exists is thenintegrated
between carried outLSS to give
–AM a first industrial
practices and evaluation of the
sustainability proposed
pillars that approach.
leads to the improvement of firms' business
©competitiveness.
2017 The Authors. ThisPublished by Elsevier
is one of the premier B.V.
attempts to develop integrated LSS-AM practices structural model with the sustainability aspects.
© 2020 The Authors, Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
© 2021 The under responsibility
Authors. of the scientific
B.V.committee of the 28th CIRP Design Conference 2018.
This is an open accessPublished by Elsevier
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
© 2020 The Authors, Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license of the 28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering.
This is an Assembly;
Keywords:
Peer-review open access
under Design method;
article
responsibility ofFamily
under the
the CC identification
BY-NC-ND
scientific committeelicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
of the 28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering.
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering.
Keywords: Lean Six Sigma; Agile Manufacturing; Sustainability; Structural Equation Modelling.

Keywords: Lean Six Sigma; Agile Manufacturing; Sustainability; Structural Equation Modelling.
1. Introduction of the product range and characteristics manufactured and/or
1. Introduction assembled
health andin this system.
safety, In this context,
downsizing the main challenge
of manpower and other in
Due to the fast development in the domain of modelling and analysis is now not only to cope
financial burdens because of production loss and closure of with single
1. Introduction and an ongoing trend of digitization and
communication health and
products, safety,product
a limited downsizing
range orof manpower
existing product and other
families,
The global pandemic COVID-19 has highly affected the some sites [1]. This pandemic also increased strain on
digitalization, financial burdens because of production loss and closure of
manufacturingmanufacturing enterprises
sector. This sector are facing
contributes important
to a significant but also to be able
manufacturing to analyze
sector and to compare
to minimize waste, toproducts to define
meet dynamic
The
challenges global pandemic
in the
today’s COVID-19
market has highly
environments: affected
a continuing the some
new sites
product [1]. This pandemic also increased strain on
proportion of total GDP (Gross Domestic product) of any demands of families.
customersIt in cana be observed
minimum that-time
lead classical
and existing
that too
manufacturing
tendency towards sector. This of
reduction sector contributes
product to a significant
development times and manufacturing
product families sector
are to minimize
regrouped in waste,
function of to meetor dynamic
clients features.
country. Although the pandemic has reduced global carbon without compromise in quality. This has further increased the
proportionproduct
shortened of the lifecycles.
total GDP In (Gross Domestic
addition, there product)
is of any
an increasing demands of
However, customers
assembly in a product
oriented minimum lead -time
families are and that
hardly too
to find.
emissions and improved environmental sustainability, it has importance of sustainability as a competitive priority [2]. The
country.ofAlthough
demand the pandemic
beingtheathasthe reduced global carbon without
On thecompromise in quality. This has further increased the
affected thecustomization,
industries across globe same time
in terms in
of aworkers
global industries product family
are required level, products
to develop differand
new mainly in two
innovative
emissions and improved environmental sustainability,
competition with competitors all over the world. This trend, it has importance of sustainability as a competitive priority
main characteristics: (i) the number of components and (ii) the [2]. The
affected
which is the industries
inducing the across the globe
development in terms
from macrooftoworkers
micro industries
type are required
of components to developelectrical,
(e.g. mechanical, new and innovative
electronical).
2212-8271 © 2020 The Authors, Published by Elsevier B.V.
markets, results
This is an open accessinarticle
diminished lotBY-NC-ND
under the CC sizes duelicense
to augmenting Classical methodologies considering mainly single products
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
product
2212-8271 varieties
© 2020 (high-volume
The Authors, to
Published low-volume
by Elsevier production)
B.V. [1]. or solitary,
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Conference already
on Life existing product families analyze the
Cycle Engineering.
Thiscope
To is an open
withaccess article under thevariety
this augmenting CC BY-NC-ND
as welllicense
as to(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
be able to product structure on a physical level (components level) which
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering.
identify possible optimization potentials in the existing causes difficulties regarding an efficient definition and
production system, it is important to have a precise knowledge comparison of different product families. Addressing this
2212-8271 © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an©open
2212-8271 2017access article Published
The Authors. under theby CC BY-NC-ND
Elsevier B.V. license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of scientific
of the the scientific committee
committee of the of theCIRP
28th 28thDesign
CIRP Conference
Conference2018.
on Life Cycle Engineering.
10.1016/j.procir.2021.01.147
536 Nidhi Mundra et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 535–540
2 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000

approaches, which ensure sustainability in economic, relation between measured variables (directly measured) and
environmental and social aspects. The Manufacturing the constructs (not directly measured), While the structural
strategies such as LSS and AM which help in eliminating model depicts the interrelationships among the constructs.
waste and respond quickly to the dynamic demands of When both these models integrated, the model is called a full
customers can be applied to achieve long term structural model. Vinodh and Asokan [10] has applied SEM
sustainability.[3] for analyzing the effect of the LSS practices considering
sustainability on business performance. In this paper to
.LSS deployment has given promising results from the last develop full structural model methodology developed by
two decades. LSS is a business strategy and methodology that Sangwan et al. [11] is adopted. The data statistics were done
enhances process performance which ultimately augments in SPSS and AMOS software. Following are the steps used:
customer satisfaction and improves the bottom line results [4].
AM can be defined as the Competency to survive and flourish
in a competitive environment of volatile demand by reacting Development of Indicators - Total 23
responsively and effectively to fulfill the customize demands indicators were identified through a
of customers [5]. The Integration of these two approaches vast literature review as shown in table
(LSS& AM) will capitalize the benefits of each one. Along 1.
with this integrated approach for long term sustainability in
the market place organizations must pay attention to the Triple
Bottom Line (TBL). i.e. Economic; Social and Environment Development of Questionnaire - To
aspects of sustainability [6].According to the TBL approach, rate the indicators on 10 points Likert
beside economic performance, organization must engaged scale
activities which impose positive results towards the
environment and society [7]. In this paper, the structural
model has been developed by SEM to analyze the linkage Data Collection – 150 questionnaires
between the Integrated LSS - AM practices and TBL. For this
sent to manufacturing industries, 100
purpose, six constructs Managerial practices (C1),
sound reply received
Organizational culture practices (C2), Technological practices
(C3), Economical aspects (C4), Social aspects (C5) and
Environmental aspects (C6) and their 23 indicators were
developed. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) based SEM
Data Analysis - Checked reliability and
was adopted for this study. A questionnaire was developed
validity of the data set and factor
based on indicators identified from the literature (see table 1)
analysis was performed in SPSS.
and sent to the manufacturing industries experts across the pan
Acceptable values Cronbach’s α
India. .Internal consistency and validity of the collected data
(>0.70)[12], KMO Value (>0.50) [13],
was checked by Cronbach’s alpha. Exploratory Factor
CITC (>0.40) [14];[15]
Analysis (EFA) was performed to develop constructs. The
measurement model was developed and validated by
confirmatory factor analysis. The Structural Model was
developed to depict the relationship among constructs. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): 23
Hypothesis testing tested this hypothesized relationship. Indicators were reduced into 6
Results reveal that there is some correlation exists among the constructs (see table 1)
integrated LSS and Agile practices and Sustainability aspects,
which leads the organizations to improve their business
performance. The paper is organized in to four sections, which
are introduction section followed by methodology, Results & Development of Measurement Model
discussion, and conclusion sections respectively.
Findings of EFA was validated by
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
2. Methodology
SEM
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a comprehensive Development of structural model:
collection of statistical techniques which allow to set the
relationship among the observed and latent variables to be Interrealtionship among the constructs
examined [7] and also test the hypothesis about the relation were validated through hypothesis
between independent variables (IVs) and dependent variables testing
(DVs) [8]. SEM is a combination of factor analysis and path
analysis which sets the practitioners to up think about SEM’s fig.1. Research Methodology
two primary components: the measurement model and the Table 1: Indicators identified from Literature adopted from Mundra
structural model [9]. The measurement model depicts the &Mishra [16]
 Nidhi Mundra et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 535–540 537
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000 3

S. Constructs Description Indicators 3. Results and Discussion

N.
1 Managerial
3.1. Reliability and Sample Adequacy results
Top management of an I1 Top management
organization must set a vision and commitment The data set has given promising results (see table 2).
align strategies throughout the I2 Supplier relationship
value chain. Top management’s Cronbach’s α is .873 which is well above .70. The CITC
I3 Alignment of strategy
commitment towards the values of 19 indicators are above .40 and of 4 indicators are
implementation of lean and agile I4 Project selection and near to .40. Since deleting these indicators will not improve
methodology is imperative for the prioritization
sustainability of the organization. I5 Financial capabilities
the reliability further so they are taken into consideration. The
[17];[18];[19];[20];[21];[22] KMO value is .736 and Barlett’s test of sphericity has given
I6Customer relationship
management and market sufficiently high value at a significance level of p <.001 which
information fulfill the criteria of sample adequacy for factor analysis.
2 Organization Culture
Table 2:Data Statistics of LSS-AM & Sustainability Indicators
are made up of the values of its I7 Multi-skilled workforce
employees. An organization can Cronbach's
Corrected
achieve sustainable business by I8 Link to human resource- Std. Alpha if
Indicators Item-Total
empowering its employees and based actions (promotions , Deviation Item
Correlation
harvesting in the intellectual bonuses) Mean Deleted
capital. I1 7.2 0.9847 0.584 0.866
Organizational culture also plays I9 Knowledge / Intellectual I2 7.22 1.0208 0.497 0.868
a vital role in its adaptation of capital management I3 7.26 1.1247 0.499 0.867
new and emerging technology for I4 7.06 1.2857 0.498 0.867
a better future, such as lean and I10 Systematic learning and I5 6.24 1.6151 0.445 0.868
agile manufacturing Development of employees. I6 7.04 1.4628 0.569 0.864
[16];[21][22];[23];[24];[25];[26] I7 7.14 1.0733 0.546 0.866
I11 Employee empowerment I8 5.16 1.1783 0.358 0.87
3 Technological I9 7.18 1.1404 0.492 0.867
I10 9 1.378 0.328 0.871
To survive in the competition, an I12 Organization infrastructure. I11 7.02 1.2225 0.463 0.868
organization must invest in the I12 6.52 2.2315 0.453 0.869
new and emerging technology. I13 Virtual enterprise I13 6.5 2.227 0.438 0.869
The Organization’s investment in I14 6.42 2.1704 0.445 0.869
ecofriendly technology shall I14 Use of IT for better I15 3.28 1.596 0.515 0.866
result in a positive impact on the communication I16 3.24 1.6025 0.453 0.867
environmental aspect of I17 3.24 1.525 0.557 0.864
sustainability.[16];[18];[24];[26]; I18 7.46 1.2012 0.357 0.872
[27];[28];[29];[30] I19 7.2 1.101 0.422 0.869
I20 5.22 1.1333 0.37 0.87
4 Economic Aspects I21 6.4 2.2918 0.448 0.869
I22 6.72 2.3531 0.568 0.864
To sustain the business, an I15 Organizational performance
I23 6.71 2.3151 0.532 0.865
organization must attract and return on investment to
stakeholders financially. It is shareholders.
possible by better return on
investment, a good product to I16 Price and cost of operations
customers at appropriate pricing, 3.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
and making customers loyal by I17 Customer satisfaction for
their satisfaction. sustainable business.
To reduce the 23 indicators into a few constructs EFA has
[31];[32;[33];[34]
5 Social Aspects been carried out. The EFA assumes that any indicators may be
I18 Serving community needs associated with any constructs. Six constructs (C1 to C6) have
For a sustainable business an via employees, customers, been extracted based on the Maximum likelihood method,
organization must understand the suppliers and, other
community requirements and try stakeholders. varimax rotation,Kaiser criterion (eigen value > 1) in SPSS
to give back to society directly by software. Indicators from I1 to I6 ; I7 to I11; I12 to I14; I15-
CSR activities or indirectly by I19 Social and welfare by CSR I17;I18 to I20 and I21 to I21 are grouped in constructs named
suppliers, employees and activities.
customers
as Managerial practices (C1), Organizational culture
[25];[26];[29];[30] I20 Solving social needs by practices(C2), Technological practices (C3), Economical
technological advancement aspects (C4), Social aspects (C5) and Environmental aspects
6 Environmental Aspects (C6) respectively. The factor loading value of all indicators
To keep business sustainable an I21 Safe and clean operations. is greater than .45 [11] (see table 3) which denotes indicators
organization must pay attention to
the health and safety of I22 Innovation for ecofriendly
are enough to measure the constructs.
employees. The Organization solutions.
must also keep a keen interest un
the impact on the environment I23 Raising awareness about 3.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
by its operations. environment preservation
[26];[27];[31];[33];[37];[38];[39] through different
 538 Nidhi Mundra et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 535–540
4 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000

Table 3:CFA Loading statistics

Factor loading Regression Weight*

Indicators C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Estimate S.E.** C.R.***

I1 0.957 1
I2 0.927 0.968 0.049 19.697
I3 0.832 0.992 0.066 14.971
I4 0.807 1.093 0.081 13.409
I5 0.64 1.124 0.129 8.735
I6 0.58 0.956 0.121 7.875
I7 0.937 1
I8 0.793 0.893 0.082 10.87
I9 0.761 0.888 0.077 11.486
I10 0.64 0.849 0.111 7.621
I11 0.613 0.78 0.097 8.037
I12 0.983 1
I13 0.978 0.993 0.017 57.168
I14 0.884 0.879 0.044 20.107
I15 0.972 1
I16 0.9 0.954 0.04 23.864
I17 0.822 0.821 0.058 14.177
I18 0.907 1
I19 0.864 1.004 0.087 11.561
I20 0.727 0.882 0.099 8.88
I21 0.925 1
I22 0.837 1.011 0.059 17.066
I23 0.531 0.676 0.089 7.555
Notes: * Unstandardized. P<0.001 for all coefficients
** S.E. – Standard Error
*** C.R. –Critical Ratio

The unidimensionality of constructs cannot be measured value. These results represent that the measurement model is
by EFA alone [40]. To verify the results of the EFA, valid.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is required .The output of
the EFA model was transferred to AMOS software for CFA
.The results of the CFA are presented in table 3. Results show 3.4 Structural Model
that critical ratio values are well above the minimum
recommended value i.e. |2|, which is significant at the Structural model presents the casual relationship among
p<0.001 level. the constructs. The hypothesis is articulated to test the validity
of full structural model. Following hypothesis are stated on
Table 4: Model Fit statistics the basis of conclusions obtained from the literature that deals
Index Estimated value Recommended Reference about the selected constructs and their relationship with LSS-
value AM and sustainable aspects.
CMIN 325.491 -
DF 215 - H1: Managerial construct (C1) leads to Organizational culture
constructs (C2).
p-value 0 < 0.005 [8];[32]
H2: Managerial construct (C1) leads to Technology constructs
CMIN/DF 1.514 < 5.0 [8];[32] (C3).
RMSEA .072 <.08 [8];[32] H3: Technological constructs (C3) leads to Social Aspects
SRMR 0.076 < 0.08 [8];[32]
(C5).
H4: Organizational culture constructs (C2) leads to
GFI 0.811 Close to one [8];[32]
Environment aspects (C6)
AGFI 0.757 Close to one [8];[32] H5: Organizational culture constructs (C2) leads to Economic
CFI 0.95 > 0.90 [8];[32] Aspects (C4)
H6: Economic Aspects (C4) leads to Social Aspects (C5)
All the values obtained in model fit (see table 4) are H7: Managerial construct (C1) leads to Economic aspects
under the permissible limit and close to the recommended (C4)
H8: Social Aspects (5) leads to Environmental Aspects (C6)
 Nidhi Mundra et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 535–540 539
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000 5

construct of Integrated LSS and AM considering the TBL of

Table 5: Result of Hypothesis testing sustainability.
β
Hypothesis value p-value Result
0.219 0.044
H1 C1C2 Accepted
0.487 0.032
H2 C1C3 Accepted
0.067 0.131
H3 C3C5 Rejected
0.773 ***
H4 C2C6 Accepted
0.403 ***
H5 C2C4 Accepted
0.25 ***
H6 C4C5 Accepted
0.548 ***
H7 C1C4 Accepted
0.248 0.152
H8 C5C6 Rejected

IDE C1C2C6 0.992 0.019 Significant

0.001
IDE C1C4C5 0.798 Significant
0.006
IDE C2C4C5 0.653 Significant

*IDE: Indirect Effect

The full structural model is shown in figure 2. 6 constructs

are represented as an oval shape and their corresponding
indicators are represented by rectangular shape. Measurement
errors are presented by small elliptical shape heading towards
indicators (e1….e21) while residual error is denoted by
elliptical shapes heading towards (R1…R6). The results of the
full structural model tested by maximum likelihood estimation
are given in table 5.
Hypothesis H1;H2;H4;H5;H6;H7 have p- value <. .05 and
high β value are accepted while Hypothesis H3&H8 is
rejected because of low β value and of p value>.05. From the
bootstrapping steps of two tail indirect effects, multiple
mediating effects were found. Results depict integrated LSS-
AM practices that leads to achieve the all three aspects of
sustainability. The managerial practices play a pivotal role to
achieve the three pillars of sustainability. Indicators of a
managerial constructs such as the alignment of strategy and
top management commitment impact the organization’s
capability towards accepting the change which is an indicator
of organizational culture construct. Indicators from
managerial construct such as strategic alignment and top
management commitment play an important role in
investment in the new technology, at the same time
organizational culture can impact the acceptability of the
changing technology by employees. Strategic decisions are
taken by top management and their commitment towards the
sustainable business impacts economic construct directly
whereas it indirectly impacts the social and environmental
aspects. An organization can impact directly or indirectly all
three aspect of sustainability by its empowered and aware
employees which are an indicator of organizational culture
construct. However, The impact of technological construct on
sustainability could not be established based on the collected
data, however it is recommended in literature as an impotent
Fig.2: Structural Model of Integrated LSS-AM practices lead to TBL aspects
of sustainability
4. Conclusion
The current study present that the integrated practices of
LSS-AM play a powerful role to achieve the triple bottom line
of sustainability. The results of the present work provide a
solid foundation of linkage between the integrated LSS-AM
implementation practices and sustainability aspects. The study
concluded that managerial practices of organization lead to
achieving the organization culture, technology advancement,
economic, social and environmental aspects, While the
organization culture has also a significant positive effect on
TBL aspects. The study also highlights the effect of
technological advancement towards the economical; social
and environment are insignificant. The outcome of this study
will be helpful for researchers and decision-makers to develop
integrated strategies of LSS-AM considering long-term
business sustainability. However the present work has some
shortcomings also. Firstly the data considering in this study
came from the Indian manufacturing sector only while
identified indicators of this work came from global literature.
For this purpose, data can be collected from two-three
countries. Secondly, only 100 valid responses have considered
in this study and by increasing the sample size the model fit
can be improved. Thirdly the role of technology construct in
TBL of sustainability needs to be further investigated.
540 Nidhi Mundra et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 535–540
6 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
References
[1] Kumar A, Luthra S, Mangla SK, Kazançoğlu Y. COVID-19 impact on
sustainable production and operations management. Sustainable
Operations and Computers. 2020 Jan 1;1:1-7.
[2] Ciccullo F, Pero M, Caridi M, Gosling J, Purvis L. Integrating the
environmental and social sustainability pillars into the lean and agile
supply chain management paradigms: A literature review and future
research directions. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018 Jan 20;172:2336-
50.
[3] Venugopal V, Saleeshya PG. Manufacturing system sustainability through
lean and agile initiatives. International Journal of Sustainable
Engineering. 2019 May 4;12(3):159-73.
[4] Snee RD. Lean Six Sigma–getting better all the time. International Journal
of Lean Six Sigma. 2010 Mar 26.
[5] Gunasekaran A. Agile manufacturing: enablers and an implementation
framework. international journal of production research. 1998 May
1;36(5):1223-47
[6] Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Jafarian A. A fuzzy multi criteria approach
for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple
bottom line approach. Journal of Cleaner production. 2013 May 1;47:345-
54.
[7] Hoyle RH. The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts
and fundamental issues.
.[8] Ullman JB, Bentler PM. Structural equation modeling. Handbook of
psychology. 2003 Apr 15:607-34.
[9]Weston R, Gore Jr PA. A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The
counseling psychologist. 2006 Sep;34(5):719-51.
[10] Vinodh S, Asokan P. Development of structural equation model for Lean
Six Sigma system incorporated with sustainability considerations.
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma. 2020 Feb 13.
[11] Sangwan KS, Bhamu J, Mehta D. Development of lean manufacturing
implementation drivers for Indian ceramic industry. International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management. 2014 Jun 3.
[12]Gliem JA, Gliem RR. Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s
alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research-to-
Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community
Education.2003
[13]Shen Q, Liu G. Critical success factors for value management studies in
construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and management. 2003
Oct;129(5):485-91.
[14] Moghaddam JF, Nakhaee N, Sheibani V, Garrusi B, Amirkafi A.
Reliability and validity of the Persian version of the Pittsburgh Sleep
Quality Index (PSQI-P). Sleep and Breathing. 2012 Mar 1;16(1):79-82.
[15] Ware Jr JE, Gandek B. Methods for testing data quality, scaling
assumptions, and reliability: the IQOLA Project approach. Journal of
clinical epidemiology. 1998 Nov 1;51(11):945-52.
[16]Mundra,N. Mishra R.P. Recent Advances in Mechanical Engineering:
Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering 2020(Communicated)
[17] Yadav G, Desai TN. Analyzing lean six sigma enablers: a hybrid ISM-
fuzzy MICMAC approach. The TQM Journal. 2017 Apr 10
[18] Antony J, Krishan N, Cullen D, Kumar M. Lean Six Sigma for higher
education institutions (HEIs). International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management. 2012 Oct 26.
[19] Setijono D, Laureani A, Antony J. Critical success factors for the
effective implementation of Lean Sigma. International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma. 2012 Nov 23.
[20] Timans W, Antony J, Ahaus K, van Solingen R. Implementation of Lean
Six Sigma in small-and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises in the
Netherlands. Journal of the Operational Research Society. 2012 Mar
1;63(3):339-53.
[21] Kaswan MS, Rathi R. Analysis and modeling the enablers of green lean
six sigma implementation using interpretive structural modeling. Journal
of cleaner production. 2019 Sep 10;231:1182-91.
[22] Raval SJ, Kant R, Shankar R. Lean Six Sigma implementation:
modelling the interaction among the enablers. Production Planning &
Control. 2018 Sep 10;29(12):1010-29.
[23]Henderson KM, Evans JR. Successful implementation of Six Sigma:
benchmarking general electric company. Benchmarking: an international
journal. 2000 Oct 1.
[24] Sharp JM, Irani Z, Desai S. Working towards agile manufacturing in the
UK industry. International Journal of production economics. 1999 May
20;62(1-2):155-69.
[25] Hasan MA, Shankar R, Sarkis J, Suhail A, Asif S. A study of enablers of
agile manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial and Systems
Engineering. 2009 Jan 1;4(4):407-30.
[26] Antony J, Manville G, Greatbanks R, Krishnasamy R, Parker DW.
Critical success factors for Lean Six Sigma programmes: a view from
middle management. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management. 2012 Jan 6.
[27] Pandey H, Garg D, Luthra S. Identification and ranking of enablers of
green lean Six Sigma implementation using AHP. International Journal of
Productivity and Quality Management. 2018;23(2):187-217.
[28]Singh M, Rathi R, Garza-Reyes JA. Analysis and prioritization of Lean
Six Sigma enablers with environmental facets using best worst method: A
case of Indian MSMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020 Aug
12;279:123592.
[29] Gunasekaran A, Yusuf YY, Adeleye EO, Papadopoulos T, Kovvuri D,
Geyi DA. Agile manufacturing: an evolutionary review of practices.
International Journal of Production Research. 2019 Aug 29;57(15-
16):5154-74.
[30] Goswami M, Kumar G. An investigation of agile manufacturing enablers
in Indian automotive SMEs using structural equation model. Measuring
Business Excellence. 2018 Aug 20
[31]Matawale CR, Datta S, Mahapatra SS. Interrelationship of
capabilities/enablers for lean, agile and leagile manufacturing: an ISM
approach. International Journal of Process Management and
Benchmarking. 2013 Jan 1;3(3):290-313.
[32] Milne MJ, Gray R. W (h) ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the
global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal
of business ethics. 2013 Nov 1;118(1):13-29.
[33]Willard B. The new sustainability advantage: seven business case
benefits of a triple bottom line. New Society Publishers; 2012 Apr 10.
[34]Jänicke M. “Green growth”: from a growing eco-industry to economic
sustainability. Energy Policy. 2012 Sep 1;48:13
[35]Goerner SJ, Lietaer B, Ulanowicz RE. Quantifying economic
sustainability: Implications for free-enterprise theory, policy and practice.
Ecological Economics. 2009 Nov 15;69(1):76-81.
[36]Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek M. The role of ergonomics in implementation of
the social aspect of sustainability, illustrated with the example of
maintenance. Occupational Safety and Hygiene. 2013 Apr 4:47-52.
[37] Stojanovic T, McNae HM, Tett P, Potts TW, Reis J, Smith HD,
Dillingham I. The “social” aspect of social-ecological systems: a critique
of analytical frameworks and findings from a multisite study of coastal
sustainability. Ecology and Society. 2016 Sep 1;21(3).
[38]Aguado S, Alvarez R, Domingo R. Model of efficient and sustainable
improvements in a lean production system through processes of
environmental innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2013 May
1;47:141-8.
[39]Ogunbiyi O, Goulding JS, Oladapo A. An empirical study of the impact
of lean construction techniques on sustainable construction in the UK.
Construction innovation. 2014 Jan
[40] Koufteros XA. Testing a model of pull production: a paradigm for
manufacturing research using structural equation modeling. Journal of
operations Management. 1999 Jun 1;17(4):467-88.
[41] Hopper, D. & Coughlan, Joseph & Mullen, M.R.. (2008). Structural
equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic
Journal of Business Research Methods. 2008. 6. 53-60.