See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349291311

Development and validation of DMAIC based framework for process

improvement: a case study of Indian manufacturing organization

Article  in  International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management · February 2021

DOI: 10.1108/IJQRM-10-2020-0332

CITATIONS READS

2 392

3 authors:

Pramod Kumar Dharmendra Singh

13 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   
Government Engineering College Bikaner
44 PUBLICATIONS   405 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Jaiprakash Bhamu
Government Engineering College, India, Bikaner
32 PUBLICATIONS   927 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effect of heat treatment and uniaxial deformation on thermal stability and wear behavior of AA 2014 alloy View project

Application of Kaizen Lean approach to reduce rejections and failure cost at Shop floor of a wire harness manufacturing company View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pramod Kumar on 12 October 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0265-671X.htm

Validation of
QUALITY PAPER DMAIC based
Development and validation of framework

DMAIC based framework

for process improvement:
a case study of Indian Received 2 October 2020
Revised 10 January 2021

manufacturing organization Accepted 26 January 2021

Pramod Kumar, Dharmendra Singh and Jaiprakash Bhamu

Mechanical Engineering, Government Engineering College Bikaner, Bikaner, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop and validate an extended Define-Measure-Analyze-
Improve-Control (DMAIC) based framework through a case study of an Indian fasteners manufacturing
organization.
Design/methodology/approach – Research methodology is established on the development of the existing
DMAIC framework through an extensive literature review of 25 LSS/DMAIC based frameworks and
discussions held with practitioners. This paper also depicts a case study of Indian manufacturing organization
for validation of the developed framework.
Findings – The study proposed an extended DMAIC based framework for effective implementation of Lean
Six Sigma (LSS) methodology. Furthermore, this framework has been implemented successfully in the Indian
manufacturing organization and showed encouraging results. The in-house rejections of Nut Cylinder Head
(NCH) were brought down to 966 from 2910 PPM and sigma level was improved by 0.40. The case organization
has achieved significant improvements in the process capability, customer satisfaction, and cost savings of
US$ 0.25 million in one financial year. Intangible benefits like improvements in employee’s morale,
communication, housekeeping and decision-making capabilities were also observed significantly.
Practical implications – The proposed DMAIC based framework has been implemented successfully in the
Indian case organization, and the results will enable the policymakers, specifically practitioners, to strategically
leverage the resources for successful implementation of the LSS in healthcare, aerospace, service sectors etc.
Originality/value – This research develops a DMAIC based framework which can be used to implement LSS
effectively in different industries. Moreover, the pre (initial/introduction) and post (validation/verification)
implementation phase provides the top management, an edge to think strategically into broader
improvement areas.
Keywords Lean six sigma, DMAIC, Framework, Defects, Process capability, Rejections, Quality level
Paper type Case study

1. Introduction
Lean Six Sigma integrates different strategies for business improvement whether it be in the
service or manufacturing sectors to increase customer satisfaction levels in the competitive
market for the organization. Customers expect on-time delivery of their desired products
without additional costs for quality (Seth et al., 2017). Every organization is striving for the
cost reduction by reducing the defects or variations in the processes and products to obtain
better bottom line results than their competitors. To meet such challenges, manufacturing
companies strive to develop innovative methodologies/ technologies or other quality
improvement practices to provide value to the customer. Lean Six Sigma is a widely used
competent technique that renders the improvements in the quality of a product. It is a data International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management
driven methodology that facilitates improved business performance by minimizing waste, © Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-671X
removing non-value-added activities and reducing process variations (Trehan et al., 2019; DOI 10.1108/IJQRM-10-2020-0332
IJQRM Ben Ruben et al., 2017), to achieve operational excellence at reduced cost (Seth et al., 2017;
Lande et al., 2016; Lolli et al., 2014). These practices are being used in industries with new
concepts/frameworks to reduce non-value added activities, wastes, defects and non-
conformities came across several processes (Drohomeretski et al., 2013; Yadav and Desai,
2018a). Basically, it includes the rapidness of Lean and robustness of Six Sigma (Sunder and
Antony, 2018), thereby increasing the effectiveness of machines, tools and equipment (Bhamu
and Sangwan, 2014). As a quality improvement technique, LSS has achieved recognition and
success in manufacturing and services industries (Pepper and Spedding, 2010).
The manufacturing sector, globally as well as in India is facing the challenges of
shrinking margins, more demands of quality products, inventory issues, reduction in
wastes, variety and service level constraints (Ben Ruben et al., 2017; Yadav et al., 2018b).
Managements are implementing the LSS for handling the waste and quality issues. LSS
implementation requires a proper understanding of tools/techniques/practices by
management and employees of the organization. Based on the extensive literature
review, it was observed that several articles were published on the LSS frameworks, but
some of them were industry specific, while some were complex in nature. To bridge the gap,
a generalized framework has been developed by the authors. Considering the expert views
of the practitioners, a generic LSS framework is proposed and the same is validated in real-
world applications.
This paper is structured as: Section 2 presents the systematic literature review of research
trends in LSS and a review of 25 frameworks for LSS implementation. Section 3 defines
methodology used for development of framework. Sections 4 proposes a framework and its
description followed by the validation of the framework through the case study in section 5.
Section 6 presents the results and discussion, and conclusions with future scope in research in
Section 7.

2. Literature review
To gain competitive advantages in current market situations, companies are implementing
meliorated methodologies/approaches to improve product or service characteristics and
productivity with customer satisfaction. One such practice is the integration of Lean and Six
Sigma to provide the desired product to the customer without compromising the quality and
delivery (Tenera and Pinto, 2014). Lean facilitates elimination of wastes through simple and
visual techniques, whereas Six Sigma focuses on reduction in process variations using
statistical tools. LSS is blended approach, which leads to enhancement in performance of a
system. This performance improvement is the measure of cost, quality and satisfaction level
of the customers (Snee, 2010; Garza-Reyes et al., 2016). Effective deployment of the LSS
concept is vital for any firm to minimize the process variations, lead time and sustain the
business (Ben Ruben et al., 2017; Jeyaraman and Kee Teo, 2010; Albliwi et al., 2014). Prior to
implementation of the LSS, organizations must use a proper framework to achieve the
requirements of waste reduction and quality improvement. The framework emphasizes the
need to identify appropriate tools/techniques/practices throughout supplier, input, process,
output, and customer to implement LSS across the entire supply chain (Bhamu and Sangwan,
2016). Many practitioners have shown their interest to understand, absorb and apply LSS-
based frameworks (Yadav and Desai, 2018a; Hilton and Sohal, 2012; Chaurasia et al., 2016).
Sodhi et al. (2020) reviewed articles on Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma integration
frameworks, and formulated an advanced model that may be applied in manufacturing
organizations to reduce scrap, enhanced productivity and increase quality of products. A
framework of Lean and Six Sigma tools was implemented in the bulb manufacturing firm in
India (Trehan et al., 2019), and mentioned reduction in aging failure rate to 0.13% from 9.4%
and a commensurate reduction in customer complaints. Sodhi et al. (2019) discussed a case
study to improve waste management using a theoretical Lean Six Sigma model. The model Validation of
was designed by reinforcing Lean Manufacturing tools in Six Sigma approach (DMAIC) and DMAIC based
implemented the same in foundry industry to reduce variations in processes. Nascimento
et al. (2019) proposed LSS framework applicable for continuous and incremental
framework
improvement in the oil and gas sector. The conceptual framework combines Lean, Six
Sigma (DMAIC) and Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle for problem solving in oil and gas
settings. A Six Sigma framework was developed through questionnaire survey, expert
opinion and interview method for business processes which was implemented in chemical
industry to improve quality levels (Motwani et al., 2004). Wei et al. (2010) used efficient tools
and techniques of Six Sigma DMAIC methodologies to achieve operational excellence in the
replenishment process. Zhang et al. (2014) implemented DMAIC methodology to improve
process capability of a cold roll mill in China.
Similarly, Banawi and Bilec (2014) formulated a framework combining a green approach
with Lean and Six Sigma to reduce the environmental affects created by construction processes
and was validated through a case study in a construction company. Jevgeni et al. (2015)
introduced a framework for continuous improvement that makes production processes reliable
and enables engineers to define and measure failures of production operations. It also reduced
lead time by integrating Six Sigma DMAIC, Failure Mode and Effect Analysis and others.
Cabrita et al. (2015) applied Lean Six Sigma model in a Portuguese bolts manufacturing
company to reduce the production cost. The proposed project discussed some valuable Lean and
Six Sigma tools utilizing the DMAIC approach leading to a 50% cost reduction. The stock levels
between two working stations was reduced which makes availability of stamping machine 10%
more, which finally resulted in 15% improvement in production capacity. Similarly, Nunes
(2015) proposed a model that integrates LSS and ergonomics aspects of production engineering,
associated with a potential tool Decision Support System (DSS) for proper implementation of
proposed framework specifically in SMEs for continuous improvement.
Pugna et al. (2016) used DMAIC Six Sigma methodology along with statistical tools, i.e.
control charts, Pareto chart etc. to enhance the assembly process in an automotive in
Romania. Swarnakar and Vinodh (2016) developed a framework, applying Lean tools with
DMAIC methodology of Six Sigma that facilitates elimination of non-value added operations
to enhance bottom line results. The framework was tested by deploying it in production line
of an automotive part manufacturing industry. Ben Ruben et al. (2017) portrayed LSS
framework by considering environmental impacts of production processes and validated the
framework through a case study performed in Indian automotive organization. A significant
reduction in internal defects from 16,000 ppm to 6,000 ppm and environmental impacts from
42Pt to 33Pt was observed. This was an effective initiative to increase sigma level along with
reducing environmental impacts. Deeb et al. (2018) presented a generic framework regarding
adoption of Six Sigma in SMEs. The proposed framework was formalized by meta-model and
defined the requirements of each phase of the DMAIC approach.

2.1 Comparative study of different existing frameworks

A comparative study of existing literature based on Lean and Six Sigma frameworks was
conducted to develop the proposed framework on the basis of following dimensions:
(1) Research method used in the framework: It denotes that the framework is descriptive
types, empirical type or conceptual type. Descriptive framework is based on
explanatory research, while empirical framework is based on observed and
measured phenomenon. Conceptual framework belongs to organization of ideas.
(2) Framework design method used: It represents the type of design method followed to
develop framework i.e. review, interview, survey, expert opinion etc.
IJQRM (3) Application orientation: In this dimension, frameworks are compared according to
their application domain i.e. manufacturing, design engineering sector, process,
service sector, health-care sector, education, others.
(4) Complexity in implementation: In this comparative section, frameworks are
categorized as per their implementation complexities considering three
parameters (flexible, moderate and complicated).
(5) Validation method/approach: In this section, frameworks are compared based on
validation methods applied i.e. case study, software support, simulation, and
analysis tool.
(6) Performance criteria: Frameworks are categorized according to their performance
criteria i.e. operational (waste management, production cost etc.), sustainable and
environment.
(7) Effectiveness of framework: Represents the end results of the framework i.e. cost
effectiveness, time effectiveness, quality effectiveness, productivity and
effectiveness in decision making.
(8) Process metrics: It represents the metrics of process evaluated or measured through
the developed framework i.e. cycle time, work in process, lead time, and process
variations.
(9) Six sigma prerequisites before implementation: Represents the prerequisites followed
before implementation of the proposed framework i.e. training and awareness,
motivation/team building, and employee involvement.
(10) Focus strategy: It represents the strategy aimed while developing framework i.e.
customer satisfaction, cost reduction, variations reduction, and business excellence.
Table 1 represents a comparative analysis of 25 existing frameworks based on the different
dimensions. It was observed from the existing literatures that the frameworks designed by
Tenera and Pinto (2014), Chaurasia et al. (2016) and Deeb et al. (2018) were based on
descriptive research. Whereas, few had used empirical research method (Ben Ruben et al.,
2017; Garza-Reyes et al., 2016; Cabrita et al., 2015; Nunes, 2015; Sreeram and Thondiyath,
2015; Jie et al., 2014; Thomas et al., 2016; Ramphal, 2017; Rathilall and Singh, 2018; Raja
Sreedharan et al., 2018) in the development of frameworks. All other articles (Sunder and
Antony, 2018; Yadav et al., 2018b; Jevgeni et al., 2015; Swarnakar and Vinodh, 2016; Mishra
and Sharma, 2014; Kowang et al., 2016; Panagopoulos et al., 2017) have considered conceptual
theory to develop the framework. Chaurasia et al. (2016) conducted brainstorming sessions to
design the proposed framework for oil export companies. Yadav et al. (2018b) carried out
review and discussed with experts to design the framework. Jevgeni et al. (2015) followed
expert’s opinion in developing the proposed conceptual framework. All other empirical and
conceptual frameworks have carried out review of existing literatures to prepare the
frameworks. Chaurasia et al. (2016), Jevgeni et al. (2015), Nunes (2015) and Man et al. (2015)
applied their designed framework in process industries. Some frameworks (Ben Ruben et al.,
2017; Yadav et al., 2018b; Swarnakar and Vinodh, 2016; Jie et al., 2014; Thomas et al., 2016;
Rathilal and Singh, 2018; Raja Sreedharan et al., 2018; Mishra and Sharma, 2014; Cherrafi
et al., 2017) were designed for manufacturing industries. The framework proposed by Sunder
and Antony (2018), Chaurasia et al. (2016), Nunes (2015), Deeb et al. (2018), Ramphal (2017),
Kowang et al. (2016), Owad et al. (2014), Buestan et al. (2016), and Aldairi et al. (2016) were not
supported with practical validation, but validated through case studies. None of the
framework has included the pre and post implementation phases.
 Dimensions
Author/s D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 Limitations

Chaurasia Descriptive Brain- Process (Oil- Flexible Not used Operational Cost Work in process Team Business Uncertainties
et al. (2016) storming exporting) building for excellence of business
with Brain- strategies are
experts storming not
incorporated
Yadav et al. Conceptual Review Manufacturing Complicated Case study Operational Decision Process variations No Business Cannot be
(2018b) and supported making excellence optimized.
Expert with Applicable to
opinion Sensitivity other
Analysis manufacturing
sector after
modifications
Ben Ruben Empirical Review Manufacturing Moderate Case study Operational Costand Process Team Cost Specific to
et al. (2017) and quality variations þ Lead building reduction automobile
Sustainable time and sector
reduced
variations
Jevgeni et al. Conceptual Expert Process Flexible Case study Operational Time Lead time No Business Framework is
(2015) opinion effective excellence supported by
theoretical
approach
Nunes (2015) Empirical Review Process Moderate Not Sustainable – – – Business Validation is
conducted, excellence based on
validation preliminary
supported- studies
preliminary
studies
Deeb et al. Descriptive Other Others Flexible No Operational Cost – – Cost No validation
(2018) validation reduction
Tenera and Descriptive Review Service (tele- Flexible Case study Operational Cost þ time Process variations Employee Cost Applicable in
Pinto (2014) communication) involvement reduction service
industries
Sreeram and Empirical Review Design Moderate Multiple Operational Time Working process Employee Business Limited to
Thondiyath engineering case studies effective involvement excellence design
(2015) engineering

(continued )
framework
DMAIC based

Comparison of
Validation of

Table 1.

different frameworks
 Table 1.
IJQRM
Dimensions
Author/s D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 Limitations

Sunder and Conceptual Review Service Flexible No Other Quality of – Team Business Education
Antony (2018) (Education) education building excellence sector
and
customer
satisfaction
Mishra and Conceptual Review Manufacturing Moderate Case study Operational Quality Process variations – – Limited to
sharma (2014) Supply Chain
Process
Panagopoulos Conceptual Other Design Moderate Case study Other Quality Process variations – Business Limited to
et al. (2017) Engineering excellence aviation safety
and system
customer
satisfaction
Swarnakar Conceptual Review Manufacturing Flexible Case study Operational Quality Lead time – Reduce Limited to
and Vinodh andcycle time variations automobile
(2016) sector
Jie et al. (2014) Empirical Review Manufacturing Flexible Case study Operational Cost and Lead time Employee Cost No experts
time involvement reduction opinion
Garza-Reyes Empirical Review Process Flexible Case study Operational Time Cycle time – Business Addition of
et al. (2016) excellence more tools is
needed to
implement in
other domain
Thomas et al. Empirical Review Manufacturing Flexible Case study Operational Cost and Cycle time – Cost Specific
(2016) time reduction application
Kowang et al. Conceptual Review Manufacturing Flexible No Sustainable – – Motivation – Validation is
(2016) andcase validation not proper
study
Ramphal Empirical Review Service Flexible No – – – Motivation – Not Validated
(2017) validation
Owad et al. Conceptual Survey Healthcare Moderate No Operational Time time Employee Customer Validation not
(2014) validation involvement satisfaction included
Cabrita et al. Empirical Review Manufacturing Flexible Case study Operational Cost Reduce variations Motivation Cost Basic
(2015) reduction methodology
adopted

(continued )
 Dimensions
Author/s D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 Limitations

Buestan et al. Conceptual Review Healthcare Moderate No – – – – Customer Basic

(2016) validation satisfaction methodology
used
Aldairi et al. Conceptual Review Design Complicated No Sustainable Quality Process variations – Customer Specific
(2016) Engineering validation satisfaction application
Man et al. Conceptual Other Process Flexible Case study Operational Time Cycle time Motivation Customer Specific
(2015) effective satisfaction application
Cherrafi et al. Conceptual Review Manufacturing Moderate Case study Operational Quality Process variations Training Customer Mixed model
(2017) and and satisfaction
Sustainable awareness
Environmental
Rathilall and Empirical Review Manufacturing Flexible Analysis Sustainable Quality – Training – Specific model
Singh (2018) andSurvey and
awareness
Raja Empirical Review Manufacturing Complicated Analysis Sustainable Quality – Training – No practical
Sreedharan and and Survey and validation
et al. (2018) Survey awareness
Note(s): D1: Research method of the framework: empirical/descriptive/conceptual/others, D2: Framework design method used: review/interview/survey/expert opinion/
others, D3: Application orientation: manufacturing/design engineering sector/Process/Service sector/healthcare sector/education/others, D4: Complexity in
implementation: flexible/moderate/complicated, D5: Validation method/approach: case study/software support/simulation/analysis tool, D6: Performance criterion:
operational (waste management, production cost), sustainable, environment other, D7: Effectiveness of framework: cost effective/time effective/quality/productivity/
decision making, D8: Process matrices: cycle time/work in process/lead time/process variations, D9: Six sigma prerequisites before implementation: training and
awareness/motivation/team building/employee involvement, D10: Focus strategy: customer satisfaction/cost reduction/reduce variations/business excellence
framework
DMAIC based
Validation of

Table 1.
IJQRM 2.2 Research gap
Since the inception of LSS concept, a significant number of frameworks have been developed
by various academicians and practitioners based on the five phase methodology termed as
DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, improve and Control). Each and every phase is originated
through statistical and qualitative tools to accomplish the objectives during process of
implementation (Deeb et al., 2018). In line with the literature review of existing frameworks
related to application of DMAIC method, there is need to ensure practical validation of the
studies (Swarnakar and Vinodh, 2016) and to develop a new generalized framework/
theoretical model which may be validated through practical application in service/
manufacturing industry to get better outcomes in terms of waste reduction and improved
quality.
Exploring the literature on Lean Six Sigma frameworks development and their
implementation in manufacturing organizations, it was found that many LSS frameworks
which were developed and implemented in the organizations (Ben Ruben et al., 2017; Cabrita
et al., 2015; Nunes, 2015; Deeb et al., 2018; and Pugna et al., 2016) are based on the DMAIC six
sigma methodology. But, so far none of the academician/practitioners discussed the pre
(initial/introduction) and post (validation/verification) implementation phase which is
proposed in the present model. Pre and post implementation phase helps to make the
organization ready and optimize the implementation results. The developed framework
includes initial or introduction phase before going to the define phase of DMAIC for
identification of problems in production processes and their categorization.
Also, there is a need for validation and verification of results which are expected on
implementation of LSS at the end of control phase. Therefore, verification phase is included in
proposed framework and validated in a manufacturing organization. Detail discussion of
each phase is mentioned in Section 4.1.

3. Methodology used for development of framework

Initially detailed literature review of studies related to Lean and Six Sigma frameworks was
conducted by finding key points regarding the development of DMAIC based framework.
Based on the key findings from the existing literatures and with the help of experts from the
manufacturing domain, the proposed framework in this study was developed. Figure 1 shows
the various steps followed to develop the proposed framework. Case study methods were
attempted for practical validation of the proposed framework. This is a basic approach, which
has the power to observe true experiments and best fitted for validation of developed
frameworks. Case organization was selected from the manufacturing domain.

4. Proposed framework and description

The DMAIC based framework developed in this study is proposed to be used in
manufacturing organizations for the process improvement by way of reducing defects.
The framework has a step by step procedure and each step has certain activities that are to be
followed by the practitioners to achieve the best bottom line results. The framework has the
target to remove the problems existing in the processes. The proposed framework as
expressed in Figure 2 includes all five phases of DMAIC approach. The two new phases are
also included namely initial or introduction phase and verification phase. Initial phase is
added before going on to the define phase and similarly verification phase is incorporated
after the control phase of standard DMAIC methodology.
The said framework is developed to provide a DMAIC based problem solving approach
and the certain set of activities were mapped in each phase with incorporation of LSS and
statistical tools, i.e. Pareto analysis, cause and effect diagram, project charter, ABC analysis,
 Validation of
DMAIC based
framework

Figure 1.
Methodology used for
development of the
framework

process capability chart, SIPOC chart and other statistical tools listed in Figure 3. These
improve the manufacturing processes as well reduce rejections. The detailed description of
the framework is given in the next section.

4.1 Description of the different phases of the developed framework

4.1.1 Initial phase/Introduction phase. Based on the insights from studied frameworks from
the literature review and peer discussion with practitioners, the decision was made to add the
initial phase before the define phase of DMAIC six sigma approach. The purpose is
initialization of the project and identification of all the problems existing at the production
area of the organization. This consists of a certain set of activities and Lean tools, i.e. brain
storming, ABC analysis and Pareto chart. In the first stage of this phase, all the problems that
increase the rejections/defects level in the process are to be identified and listed with the help
of employee’s suggestion and through brainstorming. Afterwards identified problems are
classified according to ABC analysis. The problems which come under “A” category are
further analyzed by rating analysis on the basis of criterion decided through the brain
storming for final selection of the problem. The problem which plays a major role in
increasing the rejection level and reduces the process capability is finally selected for further
course of action.
4.1.2 Define phase. After identifying the main/critical problem in the initialization phase,
the define phase of DMAIC approach is adopted. The main aim is to define and elaborate the
IJQRM Problems Identification Criterion Decision for Selection
of Problem
INITIAL
PHASE
Rating Analysis of Potential
Problems Categorization
Problems

Develop Vision for Selected Project Charter Formation

Problem DEFINE
PHASE
Definition & Description of Activity Plan Development
Problem

Data Collection for Defects Estimate Current Level

MEASURE
Identify CTQs PHASE Audit Report of Measurement

Problem Analysis Data Analysis

ANALYSE
PHASE
Probable Causes Identification Root Cause Analysis

Determine Possible area of Improvement Plan to Reduce

Improvements Rejection
IMPROVEMENT
Improve through Kaizen Tool PHASE
Trial Implementation

Action Plan Development &

Incorporation Corrective Action Monitoring
CONTROL
Monitoring Sheet Incorporation PHASE
Effective Monitoring with
Results
Tangible Benefits Verification
Customer Complain Verification
Figure 2. VERIFICATION
Developed DMAIC Non Tangible Verification PHASE
Cost Verification
based framework

problem and set a clear vision for the project for solving the same. This phase also includes
the project charter formation consisting of problem statement, goal statement, project scope
and other information about the case problem. An activity plan should also be developed for
the project. To understand the detail of the actual problem, combination of lean and statistical
tools (project charter, process flow diagram etc.) are used in the define phase.
4.1.3 Measure phase. This phase collect and measures the data through a valid measuring
tool or measurement system to interpret the current state of the process, which aims to
identify critical quality parameters of the process. Data is collected to capture the current
state of the process and to find the capability through a process capability chart.
4.1.4 Analyze phase. The aims of this phase is to analyze the collected data related to the
critical/identified problem. Potential causes of the problem should also to be identified on the
basis of results of the measure phase. A cause and effect diagram is used to determine the root
cause/s of the problem.
4.1.5 Improve phase. Plan for improvements must be developed in this phase and root
cause solutions are identified and generated to improve the processes. Continuous kaizen
improvement activities should also be performed in parallel to the root cause solutions to
remove other potential causes of rejections. Impact of each improvement or trial is evaluated
and a suitable improvement is selected for implementation. Probable resistance in
implementing the improvement/s must be defined in this phase.
 Identification of all existing problems Brain storming Validation of
DMAIC based
Categorization of identified problems ABC Analysis framework
Initial Phase
Decision criterion for problem selection
Brain storming
Rating Analysis of ‘A’ category problems

Final selection of problem Pareto Analysis

Develop vision for selected

SIPOC
Definition and Description of the problem
Define Phase Project charter
Formation of project charter

Development of activity plan Activity chart

Data collection of process/product defects

Brain storming
Identify CTQ’s metrics
Measure Phase Process capability
Estimate current level of defects
chart
Audit Report perparation

Analysis of problem Histogram

Analyze Phase
Identification of probable causes Brainstorming

Data analysis Capability Analysis

Identification & exploration of actual root causes

Cause & Effect
Diagram
Improvement Determination of possible areas of improvements
Phase
Make improvement plan Brain storming

Improve through Kaizen activities Kaizen

Trial implementation

Action plan development Corrective action monitoring

Control Phase
Team work

Monitoring sheet Effective monitoring with results

Figure 3.
Customer complain verification Activities involved and
Tangible benefits verification
lean /statistical tool
Verify Phase
used in the proposed
Cost effectiveness verification Non tangible benefits verification framework

4.1.6 Control phase. Improvement actions planned in the improve phase, must be
implemented in this phase and tested in a controlled manner, so that it may result in
process improvements and reduction in rejection level. Potential merits and impacts are to be
compared for control of the process parameters. Action plans and monitoring sheets should
be incorporated for regular checkup.
4.1.7 Verification phase. This phase is actually included in the framework because
verification of all the results is needed to match the progress of the improvements in the
IJQRM process. It is also required to check the generated savings of the projects. Tangible and
intangible benefits of the process improvements and customer satisfaction level are verified
in this phase.

5. Validation of the framework through case study

The XYZ company selected for validation of the proposed framework and implementation, is
a pioneer unit of manufacturing domain. It manufactures a variety of cold forged high tensile
fasteners including large varieties with diameter range of M1.3 to M30 and length range from
6–300 mm. The company is manufacturing precision fasteners and auto components
including a wide range of products such as socket head cap screw, hexagonal head screw,
collar screw, flange screw, shoulder bolt, ring nut, wheel nut, connecting rod bolt, stud and
special fasteners, and is situated in north central region of India. The company supplies
fasteners to cover the needs of various sectors, i.e. locomotives, automobiles, energy and
agriculture. The case product is a Nut Cylinder Head (NCH) which is used in the assembly of a
cylinder head with the engine cylinder. This component has internal tapping at one end and
has a head on another end. Proposed framework was implemented as per Figures 2 and 3 of
Section 4.

5.1 Initial/introduction phase

5.1.1 Identification of existing problems. In the initial phase brain storming was conducted and
20 problems were identified that were responsible for diminishing the process capability and
promoting the rejections in the case company. Brainstorming includes shop floor supervisors
and concerned operators of the machine.
Team members had arranged 15 meetings and identified the various problems, i.e. slot out
in drive shaft, oil leakage from the machines, wrong thread problem in rolling, setting pieces
mix-up in rolling and others which are listed in Table 2.
5.1.2 Classification or categorization of the identified problems. The problems identified in
Table 2, are classified by conducting ABC analysis. ABC analysis is usually practiced as
inventory, material and supply chain material management tool for categorizations of the
items according to their level of importance. But here this method is used to categories the
identified problems at shop floor of the case organization. The identified problems are
categorized into A, B and C category. The problems fall under “A” category are those
problems which can be solved by the concerned department only while the problems in “B”
category will be solved with the help of other departments and “C” category problems
required support from management also. With the use of ABC analysis, 20 identified
problems were grouped into three categories according to their estimated importance. Out of
20 problems, eight problems fall under “A” category that plays an important role in rejections.
Eleven problems fall under “B” category that are important and one problem falls under “C”
category has marginal share in rejections as listed in Table 2. Therefore, our concern is to
select a major problem which has a significant contribution in increasing the rejection level or
decreasing the process capability.
5.1.3 Decision criterion for selection of the major problem. Through the brain storming
session, four basic decision criterion/parameters were identified as per the impacts of
problems. A rating was assigned to each criterion on discussion with the employees and
members of brainstorming team. Criterion and its rating value are shown in Table 3. If due to
any problem, in-house rejections are below 1,000 ppm, then 2 is assigned, and for rejections
above 1,000 ppm, 3 is allotted. Similarly, if any problem results in generation of a new
customer complain, then 4 is assigned, and for customer complaints in repeated manner 6 is
allotted.
S. No Problem Category
Validation of
DMAIC based
1 Slot out in drive shaft B framework
2 Oil leakage from the machines B
3 Without rolling product A
4 Wrong thread problem in rolling A
5 Shank rolling A
6 Setting piece mix-up in rolling A
7 Thread out/concentricity out in nut cylinder head A
8 Oil leakage from trays B
9 Rejection due to improper stamping B
10 Thread damage in rolling C
11 Rusty material problem after grinding A
12 Coolant coming with CNC chips in trolley B
13 Lobbing problem at center less B
14 Magnetic separator not working B
15 Control plan not available at shop floor B
16 Delay in job approval B
17 Coolant spillage at shop floor B Table 2.
18 Variable speed drive not working at FTRD B List of identified
19 Washer missing problem in double washer bolts A problems through
20 Hole out in M12X45 bolt A brainstorming

Parameter Criterion/Rating

Process improvement planning 1

In house rejection (PPM) 2
Customer complain new 3 (Below 1000 PPM) Table 3.
4 (Above 1000 PPM) Criterion and rating for
Customer complain for repeated complain 6 selection of problems

5.1.4 Rating analysis of “A” category problems. After assigning the rating to the four
parameters in above step and on the basis of these four parameters and their rating value,
rating analysis of “A” type problems is performed. The results from rating analysis are
shown in Table 4. After conducting rating analysis, pareto chart is drawn to clearly define the
impact of the problems (Figure 4).
Problem listed at serial no. 5 in Table 4 has severe rating value of 72 and have 30%
contribution level according to the Pareto analysis. Problem no. 4 and 7 also have a total value
of 48 in rating analysis. But, the problem related to thread out or concentricity out in Nut
Cylinder Head is finally selected to solve, as it makes a major contribution in rejections and is
also a Voice of Customer (VOC).
5.1.5 Final selection of the problem. As per the rating and Pareto analysis, the problem
related to the thread or concentricity out in Nut Cylinder Head was selected to solve first. This
problem has the severe impact in increasing the rejection level in the company. Repeated
customer complaints were arising due to this problem and quality of the product was also
diminishing. So, it was decided to overcome this problem keeping on priority.

5.2 Define phase

5.2.1 Develop vision for selected problem. The vision is to reduce the rejection level of the case
product by applying the developed framework. The average rejection during the six months
period for this product was 2910 PPM and targeted to reduce below 1000 PPM. The study
IJQRM Repeated
S. Process In process Customer customer
No Problem improvement rejections complaint complaints Total

1 Without rolling product 4 6 24

(customer complaints)
2 Wrong thread problem in 4 6 24
rolling (Customer
complaints repeated 2
times)
3 Shank rolling 2 4 8
4 Setting piece mix-up in 1 2 4 6 48
rolling (Customer
complaints repeated 2
times)
5 Thread out/concentricity 1 3 4 6 72
out in nut cylinder head
(Customer complaints
repeated 3 times)
6 Rusty material problem 1 2 4 8
after grinding (Customer
complaint)
7 Washer missing problem in 1 2 4 6 48
double washer bolts
Table 4. (Customer complaints
Results for rating repeated 3 times)
analysis of “A” 8 Hole out in M12X45 bolt 1 2 4 8
category problems (Customer complaint)

Pareto Chart of Problem

250
100

200
80
Defect

150
Percent

60

100 40

50 20

0 0
Problem t s
H p g u d 5 g
NC ixu sin od re
a
8x
4 pc llin
n m is pr th tM st
y ro
ti s m g ng Ru nk
ou pc h er l lin o ou a
ad ng as ro wr le Sh
re tti w o Ho
Th Se w/

Defect 72 48 48 24 24 8 8 8
Figure 4. Percent 30.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 3.3 3.3 3.3
Pareto analysis Cum % 30.0 50.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 93.3 96.7 100.0
aims to increase the process capability by trial implementation on three different machines Validation of
and checking probable resistance. DMAIC based
5.2.2 Definition and description of the problem. The problem which was identified to solve
at priority has uneven concentricity in Nut Cylinder Head (Plate 1). The flow chart of
framework
manufacturing process of the component is presented in Figure 5. At first, forging process
was performed and then component was sent for the next machining operation. Facing,
pointing, drilling, chamfering, and tapping operations was performed at the machine shop of
the company. Afterwards the component was sent for heat treatment, pickling, oiling, and
followed by hydrogen de-embrittlement. After performing all operations, final inspection was
done in quality department. Supplier-Input-Process-Output-Customer (SIPOC) chart shown
in Table 5 was drawn to identify the materials required and the sequence of operations in
manufacturing of the product.
5.2.3 Formation of project charter and team. Project charter was prepared as mentioned in
Table 6. It consists of information about the project, like problem statement, business case,
goal statement, project scope, name of the organization and name of the product. Project team
consists of total 6 members as; 1 Champion, 1expert, 1 coordinator and 3 other members
having different responsibilities.
5.2.4 Development of the activity plan. After observing six months rejection level (as shown
in Figure 6), an activity plan was developed to implement the proposed framework in the case
company. The case study presented in this paper involves different sequential steps carried
out during May 2019 to November 2019 and a team was formed to conduct the study. In the
first week of May 2019, 20 problems were identified by the team members through

Plate 1.
Problem definition; (a)
case product with
defect, (b) Plan view

Forging Facing and Pointing Drilling and Chamfering

Heat Treatment Receipt Inspection Tapping

Pickling Oiling Hydrogen De-

embrittlement

Figure 5.
Process flow chart of
Packing and Final Inspection Oiling manufacturing Nut
Dispatch Cylinder Head
IJQRM observations. A problem having highest rating in rating analysis and a Pareto analysis was
considered to solve first.
In second week of May 2019, the problem was defined and analyzed on the basis of their
effects. Further probable causes of the problem were identified in next week and root cause

Supplier Input Process Output Customer

X1 Order received from the After inspection of raw material Nut A

X2 customers and raw material received. Material passes through Cylinder B
Table 5. received from registered the processes as shown in Figure 5 Head C
SIPOC chart suppliers

Project charter

Problem statement
To reduce the in-house rejections of Nut Cylinder Head by resolving the concentricity out problem and to
improve the process capability index of the drilling process by performing trials on three different machines.
The current in house rejections of six month average is 2910 PPM and process capability index (Cpk) on drill
machine is 0.41
Business case
The case company is willing to apply the developed DMAIC six sigma based framework, to reduce the rejection
level and to increase sigma quality level
Goal statement
(1) To bring down the in-house rejections
(2) To improve the process capability index (Cpk) of drilling process from 0.41 to above 1.0
Project scope: Collect the data of defective components of Nut Cylinder Head used in assembly of head to
cylinder and provides sustainable improvement actions to reduce the same
Name of the organization: XYZ company of manufacturing domain
Name of the component taken for consideration: Nut Cylinder Head
Tools and Techniques to be used
Brainstorming, ABC analysis, Pareto chart, SIPOC chart, Process capability chart, Kaizen activities etc.
Project team
Champion -Mr. A
Expert -Mr. B
Table 6. Coordinator -Mr. C
Project charter Three members namely - Member-1, Member 2, Member 3

Figure 6.
Six months
rejection level
analysis was performed. After identifying the root causes, counter measures were suggested Validation of
to implement against root causes. In June 2019, trials were carried out for implementation and DMAIC based
in series regular implementation was performed. A review report was also prepared after
follow up. The major defect observed was concentricity out in NCH, and at this time the
framework
rejection and sigma level was 2910 PPM and 4.3 respectively. In a six months period of
observation, 7,35,000 units of nut were inspected and 2,140 units were found defective.

5.3 Measure phase:

5.3.1 Data collection of process/product defects. A survey was conducted to collect the data of
six months in-house rejections and counted in PPM to identify the current status of rejection
of NCH. It has been observed from the collected data and their representation in Figure 6, that
components are rejected at mean of 2910 PPM with sigma level of 4.3. Thus, it was clear that
the process producing the components was not capable and centered. Maximum rejections
were found in the month of March, so it may be reasoned to occur due to some other probable
causes.
5.3.2 Identify the CTQs. With the analysis of data and mapping tools utilized to collect
information referring the process, Critical to Quality (CTQ) parameter/s were identified. On
the basis of complaints received from the customers, uneven concentricity or thread out was
the main CTQ parameter that was promoting the rejections of the product. The developed
framework was properly implemented to align the CTQs with strategy of the company to
ensure and reduce the in-house rejection rate.
5.3.3 Estimate the current levels of process. As the product passes through different
operations, i.e. drilling, reaming and boring, process capability analysis was performed to
understand the current level of the process on drill machine. A total of 50 observations were
taken in 10 subgroups, and using Mini tab, six pack process capability reports (Figure 7) were
prepared to determine process capability to perform within the specification limits. Only the
upper specification limit was specified for the concentricity. The components having
concentricity out beyond 0.15 mm were considered as defective or rejected.
5.3.4 Audit report preparation. Team members along with experts conducted an audit in
December 2018 to identify the discrepancies existed in measurement, record, display etc. at
different work stations of the process flow for different specifications. During the visit on
Traub machine where facing, chamfering and rough drilling operations were carried out, it
was observed that work instructions were not revised; plug gauge and length gauge were not
available to verify drill diameter and depth respectively. Measurement record was also not
maintained properly. During the visit at other work stations for operations of final drilling
(Capstan lathe), counter and reamer (Drill machine), rough and final tapping (Tapping M/C),
barreling, 100% sorting and dispatching, more or less similar discrepancies were found.
These discrepancies were also creating confusion among employees that further enhanced
the rejections. Thus, it was found that all the activities involved in producing the case product
needed to be inspected thoroughly.
In final drilling, counter boring and reaming operation, gauges were not available at the
machine to verify the desired dimensions. In the report presented, it was also observed that
during tapping operation, work instructions were not displayed on machine and tapping
gauge was also not available. At the final tapping stage, record of the inspection report was
not maintained, and also thread profile was not checked with profile projector.
Finally, after visiting and inspecting each operation, it was clear that most of the activities
were performed without work instructions and in-process inspection facilities. These
discrepancies were also playing a role in elevating the rejections. So, the team members
decided to remove these discrepancies. Concerned operators of the respective machines were
instructed to attend the training programs of the company.
IJQRM

Figure 7.
Six pack analysis on
Drill Machine

5.4 Analyze phase

Process inefficiencies and problems identified in previous phase, i.e. measure phase were
analyzed to identify the potential/root causes of the rejections. This phase also suggested the
improvement activities that could be adopted in the next phase of the framework.
5.4.1 Analysis of the problem. Based on the data collected in measure phase (Figure 6) and
the audit report of processes, it was observed that rejections were high and the process
capability index was very low.
5.4.2 Identification of probable causes. Brainstorming sessions were conducted to
determine the potential causes of the problem. After attending sessions, team members found
five measured probable causes of rejections, i.e. drill machine center out, low machine
accuracy, play in moving slide, non-availability of inspection gauges, unskilled operator.
5.4.3 Data Analysis. Machining processes/operations were transferred for trial on three
different machines, and process capability analysis was performed using Mini Tab. At first,
the product was machined on CNC machine. Concentricity was measured in 50 observations
with 10 subgroups and upper specification limit of concentricity was taken as 0.15 mm.
Process capability six pack report for CNC machine is shown in Figure 8 which indicates
that process capability index (Cpk) as 1.29. This value signifies that the process was statically
capable to perform machining within specification limits and less variation exists in process.
In this analysis standard deviation was observed as 0.02424 that means the process is
centered. After first trial on CNC machine, second trial was performed on Capstan lathe with
50 observations in 10 subgroups. Six-pack capability analysis was performed in Minitab as
shown in Figure 9. It was found that the process was less capable as compared to CNC
because process capability index (Cpk) was 0.89.
Process was not centered, although it was within the specification. Third trial was
performed on Traub machine with 50 observations and capability analysis was performed
 Validation of
DMAIC based
framework

Figure 8.
Six pack analysis on
CNC Machine

Figure 9.
Six pack analysis on
Capstan lathe
IJQRM using Minitab is expressed in Figure 10. The improvement in process capability index (Cpk)
was 1.22. However, as compared to CNC machine this value was less, but as compared to
capstan lathe it has higher. It was clear that the process is more capable than the capstan lathe
and lesser components fall out of the specification limits.
5.4.4 Identification and exploration of root causes. The probable causes of the problem
were pictured in the cause and effect diagram as expressed in Figure 11. The team members
had conducted a meeting to check significance of these causes through brain storming
session and validation of each probable cause was carried out. After the opinions of the team
members, it was concluded that the causes which significantly increase the rejections were
center out of the drill machine, play in slide and low capability of the machining process at
drill machine.

5.5 Improve phase:

5.5.1 Determination of possible areas of improvement. After brainstorming, inspecting and
observing all the processes involved in manufacturing of Nut Cylinder Head, following
possible areas of improvements were identified.
(1) At each workstation there must be availability of corresponding inspection gauges
and work instructions. Proper arrangements for making records of rejections should
also be made.
(2) Unskilled operators should be trained.
(3) Poor working conditions should be improved.
(4) Centre out problem of drill machine should be removed.

Figure 10.
Six pack analysis on
Traub machine
 Man Machine Validation of
DMAIC based
Centre out of m/c
Unskilled Operator
Education
Tool sharping angle not
framework
Play in slide
Trainin right
Poor work condition Experience
Thread out in
Nut cylinder
Check sheets Work instructions Bend Head
Wrong m/c used Wrong sample collection Dent

Less sampling Not availability of Handling

inspection gauges

Figure 11.
Method Material Root cause diagram

(5) Accuracy of machine should be improved and play in moving slide should be
removed.
5.5.2 Make improvement plans. All the employees involved in the manufacturing process
were motivated to support continuous improvement activities. It was planned that the
product should be transferred to the capstan and Traub machine for machining processes. All
team members planned to implement kaizen activities at every place of the company, and
employees should be made aware about the same.
5.5.3 Improve through kaizen activities. The discrepancies found during the audit at
different work stations were removed on applying kaizen activities. For inspecting hole
diameter and depth, inspection gauges were made available at workstations. Revised work
instructions and check sheets regarding the machine were provided at each work station. A
new machine for 100% inspection was also made available to check the product. Training
about calibration of available measuring instruments was conducted for awareness to the
operators. Thread inspection gauge was made available at tapping operation also.
5.5.4 Trial implementation. Nut Cylinder Head was machined on three different machines,
i.e. CNC, Capstan and Traub machine. Process capability analysis of each machine was
carried out with Minitab. Process capability for the CNC machine was observed highest as
1.29 (Figure 8), but the production cost was very high as compared to sales of the product.
Therefore, management of the case company refused to implement this trial. Second trial was
performed on the capstan machine and process capability observed was 0.89 (Figure 9).
Although, it was not good, but would be adopted for counter machining. Process on capstan
machine was successful, except few rejections due to the operator’s minor mistake. Third trial
was performed on the Traub machine and process capability was found to be 1.22 which was
very good, and product was transferred for machining on the Traub machine. A cam of
60 mm was designed (Plate 2 and incorporated on Traub machine to achieve the proper depth
of hole.

5.6 Control phase

5.6.1 Action plan development. After improvements, an action plan was developed and
implemented to get the desired results. Product was transferred to the Traub machine for
chamfering and drilling operations, and later on to the capstan lathe for other machining
operations. An auto checking machine as shown in Plate 3(a) was used for proper control and
100% inspection. Also, one Poka-yoke pin as shown in Plate 3(b) was designed and installed
IJQRM for frequent inspection. It was easy to check out the dimensions of the product with the help of
this pin accurately.
Table 7 shows the control parameters for inspection gauges at each operation stage/
station. Proper checking of the product dimensions must be carried out by the trained
manpower and should be ensured during the project implementation. After successful
implementation of these activities, it was observed that rejections of the product decreases. It
was made possible by checking the drilling length, thread length and concentricity between
hole and outer body. Earlier the company was following only manual inspection of
dimensions.
5.6.2 Monitoring sheet incorporations. For proper monitoring of the process, a monitoring
sheet for NCH was drafted and incorporated at the shop floor. The sheet is countersigned by
concerned supervisor and engineer and should be verified by the production manager. It was
also observed operators were assigned to jobs without knowing their skills and type of work.
Therefore, a skill matrix was also drafted and provided at shop floor. This skill matrix shows
the skills of the operators and the job assigned to the operator. Four categories of operator
(Type A, B, C and D) were mentioned and elaborated in matrix as; A (Know, can work, can
teach, can take responsibility), B (Know, can work, cannot teach), C (Know but cannot work)
and D (Don’t know).
5.6.3 Corrective action monitoring. It has been suggested to ensure the daily monitoring of
the processes of product on Capstan; 60 mm cam should also be used for proper drilling
length. The operator should ensure the counter on the Traub machine, daily rejection review,
monthly process audits and monthly review meeting should also be encouraged. The
company has incorporated all the above actions suggested at the shop floor level.
5.6.4 Effective monitoring with results. After following action monitoring and
implementation of suggested framework, the data was collected regularly for four months.

Plate 2.
(a) After improvement
(CAM is success in
80% cases whenever
material is soft), (b)
Image of part
mentioned by an arrow
in (a)

Tapping Length 17.0 mm Drilling Length 40 mm

Plate 3.
(a) Auto checking m/c
for 100% inspection, Total Length 60 mm
(b) Inspection pin for
mistake proofing
(a) (b)
It was observed that rejection level were drastically reduced as compared to the previous Validation of
month’s average. Figure 12 shows the rejection (PPM trend) observed for June–November19, DMAIC based
and the Sigma level achieved was 4.7. The difference from targeted PPM was found as 816
PPM and 280 PPM for months of June and July 2019 respectively.
framework
In the month of August, industry matched the targeted PPM and only 846 PPM rejections
were observed. With further inspection during next three months only 758 PPM, 590 PPM
and 504 PPM rejection were observed. Average rejection was reduced by 966 PPM
significantly demonstrating the improvement in quality of the case product. No customer
complaints were received during these four months. Prior to improvement, sigma level
observed was 4.3 and after improvement it was 4.7, showing raise in Sigma level by 0.4.

5.7 Verification phase

5.7.1 Customer complaints verification. Improvements suggested in the present study were
implemented in the case company and monitoring sheets were provided to verify the results.
During the six months verification period, no customer complaints were received regarding
the Nut Cylinder Head. Prior to improvement, repeated customer complaints were received
for the concentricity out of cylinder head.

S.
No Station Gauge type Control parameter

1 Facing, chamfering, drilling Plug gauge/Length Dia. 6.3–6.7 mm

(Traub machine) gauge Length 5 20 ± 1.0 mm
2 Final drilling (Capstan lathe) Plug gauge/Length Dia. 6.4–6.7 mm
gauge Length 5 59.6–60.4 mm
3 Counter (Drill machine) Angle gauge Angle 908
4 Reamer (Drill machine) Plug gauge/Length Dia. 6.7–6.85 mm, Length 5 59.9–
gauge 60.40 mm
5 Final tapping (Tapping machine) Thread plug gauge Thread M8 3 64 Table 7.
Thread length 5 17.50–19.0 mm Control parameters for
6 100% Sorting SPM Thread missing part, Thread tight chip process gauges made
inside thread for inspection

Figure 12.
Six month rejection
level (after
improvement)
IJQRM 5.7.2 Cost effectiveness verification. It was also verified that cost effectiveness increased
after improvements. Cost savings of US$ 0.25 million were achieved in one financial year by
reducing the cost of poor quality, customer’s complaints and in house rejections.
5.7.3 Tangible benefits verification. After implementation of suggested improvements,
apart from the cost savings; six sigma quality levels was improved by 0.4, process capability
by 0.81 and in-house rejections were reduced from 0.29% to 0.09% per month.
5.7.4 Intangible benefits verification. After verification from four months, it was noticed
that intangible benefits were also found, beyond the tangible benefits. They were increased
customer satisfaction level, improvement in product quality, participative change in attitude
of the employees, team building with feeling of unity, and enrichment in knowledge and
presentation skills. These intangible benefits will significantly improve the case company’s
efficiency and operational effectiveness, which ultimately results in financial benefits.

6. Result and discussion

This study presents the LSS implementation framework which is extended version of the
DMAIC methodology, the proposed framework was developed after extensive review of 25
existing frameworks and in consultation with industry experts. The integrated framework
has a degree of generalizability outside the specific context of manufacturing industries. It is
designed in such a way that it provides an opportunity to establish best practices to ensure
process improvements and reduction in defects. The study presented in this paper, reveals
the usefulness and capability of the DMAIC method to deal with consolidated improvements
in existing processes. The proposed framework represents different aspects of five phases of
DMAIC methodology and test implemented in the selected manufacturing company to
remove rejections and improve quality. Ben Ruben et al. (2017), Swarankar and Vinodh (2016),
and Thomas et al. (2016) mentioned that strategic implementation of DMAIC, helps to achieve
improved efficiency in production, and reduction in variation of specific projects. Apart from
the five phases, two new phases namely pre (initial/introduction) and post (validation/
verification) implementation phase have been added to the existing methodology to achieve
better results. The developed framework attempts to drive significant improvements in the
process performance with the application of Lean and Six Sigma to inaugurate best practices
in the case company (Thomas et al., 2016).
On successful implementation of the presented framework, the case organization has
improved the sigma quality level by reducing the rejections of Nut Cylinder Head. With the
improvements made in the process and team efforts, the in-house rejections were reduced to
0.29–0.09% and average rejection from 2,910 to 966 PPM, whereas, sigma level was improved
by 0.40. These finding are in line with the results (Ben Ruben et al., 2017; Garza-Reyes et al.,
2016; Cabrita et al., 2015; Swarnakar and Vinodh, 2016). The process capability of the
machining process was increased from 0.41 to 1.22 by transferring the product on the Traub
machine and was increased to 0.89 with the capstan lathe.
Figures 12 and 13 shows the tangible benefits in terms of reduction in rejection percentage,
and the increase in quality and process capability level after implementation of the
framework. Total cost saving achieved were US$ 0.25 million in one financial year after
implementation of the suggestions made by the authors. On removing the other discrepancies
incurred during the audit of the workstations, the work instructions were revised and
updated, and inspection gauges were made available at each workstation. Proper
implementation of these kaizen activities during this project in the company ensured
many intangible benefits like enhancement in team spirit, employee participation and self-
confidence. Improvement in communication skills, less manual fatigue of the workers was
also noticed.
It can be concluded from the study, that for the success of such type of projects, a cross
functional team is needed with full dedication and commitment towards their work for best
 Validation of
DMAIC based
framework

Figure 13.
Tangible benefits after
implementation

results. The members should be well trained and must have knowledge of various Lean tools
and be aware of the philosophy of the Six Sigma approach.

7. Conclusion and future research scope

For the improvement in the quality, the initiatives must be aligned with the objectives and
strategies of the organization so that implementation of these initiatives may result in
increased process efficiency, customer satisfaction and reduction in defects. The developed
framework has been designed in a way that it would achieve better results for solving the
problems originating at the shop floor of the manufacturing organizations. It provides an
opportunity for the companies to establish a culture of best practices for quality improvement
that can ensure enhancement in sigma level. The authors believe that before actual
implementation of the proposed framework, sincere efforts and careful examination is
required. Also there is need to select appropriate statistical tools in each phase of the
framework according to the objectives of the case. On successful implementation of the
developed framework in the case organization, substantial monetary saving and reduction in
rejection level were achieved.
The framework provides scope to solve the problems contributing to rejections and can be
tailored according to the specific requirements of the companies. The firms should ensure
careful observations and honest efforts for the proper deployment of this framework. The
organization should make their employees aware of Lean and statistical tools used in each
phase of the DMAIC methodology. They must follow specific guidelines for successful
implementation of the framework to get competitive advantages through substantial
improvements. The framework presented in this study is best tested in fasteners
manufacturing company, but in the future may be deployed in other manufacturing
companies working on similar operational conditions and manufacturing processes.

References
Albliwi, S., Antony, J. and Lim, S. (2014), “Critical failure factors of Lean Six Sigma: a systematic
literature review”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 31 No. 9,
pp. 1012-1030.
IJQRM Aldairi, J.S., Khan, M.K. and Munive-Hernandez, J.E. (2016), “A hybrid knowledge-based Lean Six
Sigma maintenance system for sustainable buildings”, in Ao, S., Yang, G.C. and Gelman, L.
(Eds), Transactions on Engineering Technologies, Springer, Singapore, pp. 355-369, doi: 10.1007/
978-981-10-1088-0_27.
Banawi, A. and Bilec, M.M. (2014), “A framework to improve construction processes: integrating Lean,
Green and Six Sigma”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 45-55.
Ben Ruben, R., Vinodh, S. and Asokan, P. (2017), “Implementation of Lean Six Sigma framework with
environmental considerations in an Indian automotive component manufacturing firm: a case
study”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 28 No. 15, pp. 1193-1211.
Bhamu, J. and Sangwan, K.S. (2014), “Reduction of post-kiln rejections for improving sustainability in
ceramic industry: a case study”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 26, pp. 618-623.
Bhamu, J. and Sangwan, K.S. (2016), “A Framework for lean manufacturing implementation”,
International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 313-333.
Buestan, M., Perez, C. and Desintonia, E. (2016), “A proposed framework for implementing Lean Six
Sigma methodology in Ecuadorian children hospital”, Proceedings of the fourteenth
International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education, and Technology-Engineering
Innovations for Global Sustainability, pp. 20-22.
Cabrita, M.D.R., Domingues, J.P. and Requeijo, J. (2015), “Application of Lean Six-Sigma methodology
to reducing production costs: case study of a Portuguese bolts manufacturer”, International
Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 222-230.
Chaurasia, B., Garg, D. and Agarwal, A. (2016), “Framework to improve performance through
implementing Lean Six Sigma strategies to oil exporting countries during recession or
depression”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 65 No. 3,
pp. 422-432.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S. and Govindan, K. (2017), “A framework for the integration of Green and Lean
Six Sigma for superior sustainability performance”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 55 No. 15, pp. 4481-4515.
Deeb, S., Haouzi, H.B.-E. and Aubry, A. (2018), “A generic framework to support the implementation of
Six Sigma approach in SMEs”, IFAC-PapersOnLine, Vol. 51 No. 11, pp. 921-926.
Drohomeretski, E., Gouvea da Costa, S.E. and Pinheiro de Lima, E. (2013), “Lean, six sigma and lean
six sigma: an analysis based on operations strategy”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 804-824.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., Al-Balushi, M., Antony, J. and Kumar, V. (2016), “A Lean Six Sigma framework for
the reduction of ship loading commercial time in the iron ore pelletizing industry”, Production
Planning and Control, Vol. 27 No. 13, pp. 1092-1111.
Hilton, R.J. and Sohal, A.S. (2012), “A conceptual model for the successful deployment of Lean Six
Sigma”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 54-70.
Jevgeni, S., Eduards, S. and Roman, Z. (2015), “Framework for continuous improvement of production
processes and product throughout”, Proceedings of twenty fifth International Symposium on
Intelligent Manufacturing and Automation, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 100, pp. 511-519.
Jeyaraman, K. and Kee Teo, L. (2010), “A Conceptual framework for critical success factors of Lean
Six Sigma: implementation on the performance of electronic manufacturing service industry”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 191-215.
Jie, J.C.R., Kamaruddin, S. and Azid, I.A. (2014), “Implementing the Lean Six Sigma framework in a
small medium enterprise -a case study in a printing company”, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, pp. 387-396.
Kowang, T.O., Yong, T.S. and Rasli, A. (2016), “Lean Six Sigma sustainability framework: a case
study on an automotive company”, Asian Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 9, pp. 279-283.
Lande, M., Shrivastava, R.L. and Seth, D. (2016), “Critical success factors for lean six sigma in SMEs Validation of
(small and medium enterprises)”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 613-635.
DMAIC based
Lolli, F., Ishizaka, A. and Gamberini, R. (2014), “New AHP-based approaches for multi-criteria
inventory classification”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 156 No. C,
framework
pp. 62-74.
Man, S.M., Zain, Z. and Nawawi, M.K.M. (2015), “Cycle time reduction using Lean Six Sigma in make-
to-order (MTO) environment: conceptual framework”, AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1691.
Mishra, P. and Sharma, R.K. (2014), “A hybrid framework based on SIPOC and Six Sigma DMAIC for
improving process dimensions in supply chain network”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 522-546.
Motwani, J., Kumar, A. and Antony, J. (2004), “A business process change framework for examining
the implementation of Six Sigma: a case study of Dow chemicals”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 273-283.
Nascimento, D.L.D.M., Goncalvez Quelhas, O.L. and Gusm~ao Caiado, R.G. (2019), “A Lean Six Sigma
framework for continuous and incremental improvement in the oil and gas sector”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 1-19.
Nunes, I.L. (2015), “Integration of ergonomics and lean six sigma. A model proposal”, Procedia
Manufacturing, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 890-897.
Owad, A.A., Karim, M.A. and Ma, L. (2014), “Integrated Lean Six Sigma approach for patient flow
improvement in hospital emergency department”, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 834-836,
pp. 1893-1902, doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.834-836.1893.
Panagopoulos, I., Atkin, C. and Sikora, I. (2017), “Developing a performance indicators lean-sigma
framework for measuring aviation system’s safety performance”, Transportation Research
Procedia, Vol. 22, pp. 35-44.
Pepper, M.P. and Spedding, T.A. (2010), “The evolution of lean six sigma”, International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 138-155.
Pugna, A., Negrea, R. and Miclea, S. (2016), “Using Six Sigma methodology to improve the assembly
process in an automotive company”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 22,
pp. 308-316.
Raja Sreedharan, V., Raju, R. and Rajkanth, R. (2018), “An empirical assessment of Lean Six Sigma
awareness in manufacturing industries: construct development and validation”, Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 29 Nos 5-6, pp. 686-703.
Ramphal, R.R. (2017), “Lean Six Sigma framework for the hospitality industry”, African Journal of
Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 1-15.
Rathilall, R. and Singh, S. (2018), “A Lean Six Sigma framework to enhance the competitiveness in
selected automotive component manufacturing organizations”, South African Journal of
Economic and Management Science, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Seth, D., Seth, N. and Dhariwal, P. (2017), “Application of value stream mapping (VSM) for lean and
cycle time reduction in complex production environments: a case study”, Production Planning
and Control, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 398-419.
Snee, R.D. (2010), “Lean Six Sigma- getting better all the time”, International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-29.
Sodhi, H.S., Singh, D. and Singh, B.J. (2019), “Developing a Lean Six Sigma conceptual model and its
implementation: a case study”, Industrial Engineering Journal, Vol. 12 No. 10, pp. 1-19.
Sodhi, H.S., Singh, D. and Singh, B.J. (2020), “A conceptual examination of Lean, Six Sigma and Lean
Six Sigma models for managing waste in manufacturing SMEs”, World Journal of Science,
Technology and Sustainable Development, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 20-32.
Sreeram, T.R. and Thondiyath, A. (2015), “Combining lean and six sigma in the context of systems
engineering design”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 290-312.
IJQRM Sunder, M.V. and Antony, J.A. (2018), “Conceptual Lean Six Sigma framework for quality excellence in
higher education institutions”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 857-874.
Swarnakar, V. and Vinodh, S. (2016), “Deploying lean six sigma framework in an automotive
component manufacturing organization”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 267-293.
Tenera, A. and Pinto, L.C. (2014), “A Lean Six Sigma (LSS) project management improvement model”,
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 119, pp. 912-920.
Thomas, A.J., Francis, M., Fisher, R. and Byard, P. (2016), “Implementing Lean Six Sigma to overcome
the production challenges in an aerospace company”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 27
Nos 7-8, pp. 591-603.
Trehan, R., Gupta, A. and Handa, M. (2019), “Implementation of Lean Six Sigma framework in a large
scale industry : a case study”, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 23-41.
Wei, C.C., Sheen, G.J. and Tai, C.T. (2010), “Using Six Sigma to improve replenishment process in a
direct selling company”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 3-9.
Yadav, G. and Desai, T.N. (2018a), “Strengths and challenges of Lean Six Sigma in context of
manufacturing industries”, Industrial Engineering Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 14-19.
Yadav, G., Seth, D. and Desai, T.N. (2018b), “Application of hybrid framework to facilitate lean six
sigma implementation: a manufacturing company case experience”, Production Planning and
Control, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 185-201.
Zhang, M., Wang, W. and Goh, T.N. (2014), “Comprehensive Six Sigma application: a case study”,
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 1-16.

About the authors

Pramod Kumar received his B. E. in Mechanical Engineering from M.B.M. Engineering College, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan) and earned Master of Technology from Jagannath University, Jaiur. Pramod is currently
pursuing Doctoral Research for Ph. D. from Government Engineering College, Bikaner. He is working as
an Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering at Vivekakanda Global University
Jaipur, Rajasthan India. He has 12 years’ of experience in teaching and research work. He has published
papers in several national and international conferences as well as journals.
Dr. Dharmendra Singh received his B. E. in Mechanical Engineering from MBM Engineering College,
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) and M. Tech. in Production Technology from Institute of Technology (BHU),
currently known as IIT BHU, Varanasi (UP) India. He completed his Ph. D. in Materials from IIT Roorkee.
Dr. Singh is employed as Assistant Professor in Department of Mechanical Engineering at Government
Engineering College, Bikaner and has over 16 years teaching experience. His areas of interest are
Production and Industrial engineering, Materials engineering. He has published papers in International
Journals and National/International Conferences. He is member of Institution of Engineers, India.
Dr Jaiprakash Bhamu received his B. E. in Mechanical Engineering from the MBM Engineering
College, Jodhpur (Rajasthan), M. Tech. in Manufacturing System Engineering from the Malaviya
National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, India and Ph. D. from the Birla Institute of Technology and
Science, Pilani, India. He is presently employed as an Associate Professor in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering at Government Engineering College, Bikaner (Raj.), India and has over 20 years
teaching experience. His research areas are lean manufacturing, life cycle engineering, Industry 4.0 and
sustainable manufacturing. He has published papers in national/international conferences and
international journals. Jaiprakash Bhamu is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
bhamujp@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats