International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

A hybrid framework based on SIPOC and Six Sigma DMAIC for improving process
dimensions in supply chain network
Pratima Mishra Rajiv Kumar Sharma
Article information:
To cite this document:
Pratima Mishra Rajiv Kumar Sharma , (2014),"A hybrid framework based on SIPOC and Six Sigma DMAIC
for improving process dimensions in supply chain network", International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 31 Iss 5 pp. 522 - 546
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-06-2012-0089
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

Downloaded on: 23 December 2014, At: 22:32 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 66 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 493 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Anupama Prashar, (2014),"Adoption of Six Sigma DMAIC to reduce cost of poor quality", International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 Iss 1 pp. 103-126 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJPPM-01-2013-0018
Jiju Antony, Jiju Antony, Anmol Singh Bhuller, Maneesh Kumar, Kepa Mendibil, Douglas C.
Montgomery, (2012),"Application of Six Sigma DMAIC methodology in a transactional environment",
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 29 Iss 1 pp. 31-53 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656711211190864
Sameer Kumar, Michael Sosnoski, (2009),"Using DMAIC Six Sigma to systematically improve shopfloor
production quality and costs", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 58
Iss 3 pp. 254-273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410400910938850

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 289728 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

IJQRM
31,5
522
Received 21 June 2012
Revised 22 March 2013
Accepted 19 August 2013
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)
International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management
Vol. 31 No. 5, 2014
pp. 522-546
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-671X
DOI 10.1108/IJQRM-06-2012-0089
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm
QUALITY PAPER
A hybrid framework based on
SIPOC and Six Sigma DMAIC for
improving process dimensions in
supply chain network
Pratima Mishra
Department of Management and Social Sciences,
National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur, India, and
Rajiv Kumar Sharma
Mechanical Engineering Department and Department of Management and
Social Sciences, National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur, India
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce a hybrid framework (suppliers, inputs, process,
output and customers þ define, measure, analyze, improve and control (SIPOC þ DMAIC)) aimed at
improving supply chain management (SCM) process dimensions in a supply chain (SC) network.
Design/methodology/approach – Based upon the critical review of literature, process dimensions
(average outgoing quality limit (AOQL), average outgoing quality (AOQ), process Z, defect per million
opportunity) critical to SCM performance were identified. A framework consisting of three phases,
i.e., design, implementation and results has been conceptualized and a case from paint industry is
investigated. Implementation framework makes use of SIPOC model and Six Sigma DMAIC methodology.
The goals of the study were achieved by using Six Sigma tools such as brainstorming sessions; root cause
analysis, histograms, statistical tools such as control charts and process capability analysis.
Findings – Authors made an attempt to propose a conceptual framework for improving process
dimensions in a SC network. It is observed from the results that selection of appropriate strategies
for improving process performance based upon experiences, and use of statistical tools by cross-
functional teams with an effective coordination, guarantees success. Metrics such as AOQL shows the
maximum worst possible defective or defect rate for the AOQ. Process Z helps to know about sigma
capability of the process.
Research limitations/implications – The framework so developed is tested in a single company
manufacturing batches of paint. The study has important implications for the industry since it tries to
integrate SCM process dimensions which would help in successful implementation of SCM practices
in firm by following the DMAIC process. The framework enables the practitioners to investigate the
process and demonstrate improvements using DMAIC which makes use of statistical tools.
Originality/value – Although process dimensions related to SCM are critical to organization
competitiveness, research so far has tended to focus on supply chain operations and reference model,
balanced scorecard, total quality management, activity-based costing, just in time, etc., but in literature
hardly any description of the SIPOC-DMAIC model to improve SCM process performance is provided.
The use of statistics in DMAIC provides better insight into the process performance, and process control.
Keywords DMAIC, Statistical process control, Paint process, SCM dimensions, SIPOC, Six Sigma
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In today’s highly competitive environment, supply chain (SC) performance is very vital
for the survival of firms because customers judge the performance of firms based on
their SC performance. Competition is no longer between firms but between entire SCs.
 So, SC has become an important dimension for firms to give maximum attention in SIPOC and Six
order to excel in a competitive environment. The field of supply chain management Sigma DMAIC
(SCM) is growing day by day. More than 1,000 articles per year are published in
different academic journals around the world. As per this evidence, SCM has become a
key strategic factor/tool for firms to improve their performance and secure their
competitiveness in a market place. In order to successfully implement SCM, all firms
within a SC must reduce functional silos and adopt a process approach (Mentzer, 523
2001). In recent years, SCM performance has become very vital for the survival of
the firms because customers judge the performance of firms based on their SC
performance. From the literature it has been observed that a well planned and executed
SCM will enable organizations to reduce their inventories, have better customer
services and have reductions in costs and inventory turns (Chong and Ooi, 2008).
The short-term objective of SCM is to enhance productivity and reduce inventory and
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

lead time whereas, on the other hand, the long-term objective is to increase companies’
market share and have external integration of the SC process (Tan et al., 1998; Li et al.,
2006; Koh et al., 2007).
The process focus in SC is well established and clearly offers very significant
benefits in driving down levels of waste and therefore contributing to SC improvement.
Donlon (1996) described the latest evolution of SCM practices, which includes
supplier partnership, outsourcing, cycle time compression, continuous process flow
and information technology sharing. Tan et al. (1998) used purchasing, quality and
customer relations to represent SCM practices, in their empirical study. Gunasekaran
et al. (2004) developed a framework for SCM performance measures and metrics listed
for SC process (plan, source, make, deliver) and level of management (strategic, tactical,
operational levels). Li et al. (2005) attempted to develop and validate a measurement
instrument for SCM practices. Their instrument has six empirically validated and reliable
dimensions which include strategic supplier partnership, customer relationship,
information sharing, information quality, internal lean practices and postponement but
the paper is silent about key process and output dimensions which are very important.
Koh et al. (2007) describe some operational performance constructs which include
flexibility, reduced lead time in production, forecasting, resource planning and
cost saving and reduced inventory level. Khang et al. (2010) proposed six dimensions
of SC practices which include customer orientation, knowledge sharing, IT adoption,
partnership, leadership and training to examine their impact of organizational
performances. Jabbour et al. (2011) identified the factors affecting the adoption of SCM
practices such as SC integration, information sharing, customer service management,
customer relationship, supplier relationship, postponement. Agus and Hajinoor (2012)
describe several variables measuring lean production practices such as setup time
reduction, continuous improvement programs, pull production system, shorter lead time,
and small lot size for enhancing product quality and business performance. Zeng et al.
(2013) proposed SCM practices which include top management leadership, strategic
planning, quality information, process management, work force management and
product design process to see the impact on quality performance (such as conformance
quality and customer satisfaction). Table I presents the summary of different dimensions
of SC practices proposed and analyzed by various researchers.
As Six Sigma is a process focussed program and aims to improve the process
through systematic methodology. SCM is also focussed on processes within SC
(Nabhani and Shokri, 2009). It has been argued that it is a good idea to use six sigma in
SC projects in order to improve SC metrics. According to Breyfogle et al. (2001),
 IJQRM Donlon (1996) Tan et al. (1998) Li and O’Brien (1999)
31,5 Supplier partnership Purchasing Profit
Outsourcing Quality Lead-time performance
Cycle time compression Customer relations Delivery promptness
Continuous process flow Waste elimination
Information technology sharing
Beamon (1999) Naylor et al. (1999)
524 Resource Lead time The supply chain level
Output Service The organization level
Flexibility Cost The process level
Quality
Tan et al. (2002) Ulusoy (2003) Chen and Paulraj (2004)
Supply chain integration Logistics Supplier base reduction
Information sharing Supplier relations Supplier involvement
Supply chain characteristics Customer relations Cross functional teams
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

Customer service management Production Communication

Geographical proximity
Just in time capability
Min and Mentzer (2004)
Agreed vision and goals
Information sharing
Risk and award sharing
Cooperation
Process integration
Long-term relationship
Agreed supply chain leadership
Koh et al. (2007)
Close partnership with suppliers
Close partnership with
customers
Just in time supply
Strategic planning
Supply chain benchmarking
Few suppliers
E-procurement
Outsourcing and 3PL
Jabbour et al. (2011)
Supply chain integration
Information sharing
Customer service management
Table I. Customer relationship
SCM practices Supplier relationship
in the literature Postponement
Li et al. (2005)
Strategic supplier partnership
Customer relationship
Information sharing
Information quality
Internal lean practices
Postponement
Zhou and Benton (2007)
Supply chain planning
Just in time production
Delivery practices
Agus and Hajinoor (2012)
Setup time reduction
Continuous improvement
programs
Pull production system
Shorter lead time
Small lot size
Long-term relationship
Li et al. (2006)
Strategic supplier partnership
Customer relationship
Level of information sharing
Quality of information sharing
Postponement
Bayraktar et al. (2009)
Strategic collaboration
Lean practices
Supplier selection practices
Procurement practices
Zeng et al. (2013)
Top management leadership
Strategic planning
Quality information
Process management
Work force management
Product design process

Six Sigma is a team-based approach to solving and process improvement. In the

pursuit of improved operational performance and higher customer satisfaction, Six
Sigma has been recognized as a systematic and structured methodology that attempts
to improve process capability through focussing on customer needs (Harry, 1998;
Dasgupta, 2003). Trent (2001) in his work explained that original equipment manufacturers
are spreading Six Sigma through the SC by offering training to suppliers. Pullim (2002)
believes SC performance is impaired because of different variation causes, such as
demand fluctuations, supplier deliveries, quantity and quality, people and equipment
inconsistencies which need to be controlled or worked upon. Wang et al. (2004)
 investigated how quality management can be employed in SCM to improve the SIPOC and Six
performance of various issues in the whole SC network using Six Sigma methodology. Sigma DMAIC
Antony et al. (2005) used the define, measure, analyze, improve and control (DMAIC)
methodology to integrate human aspects (culture change, training and customer focus)
and process aspects (process stability and capability, variation reduction) within the
Six Sigma implementation. Knowles et al. (2005) concluded that Six Sigma does have
something novel to offer organizations over the contribution of existing approaches to 525
SC improvement. They proposed a conceptual model that integrates the balanced
scorecard (BSC), supply chain operations and reference model (SCOR) and Six
Sigma DMAIC methodology in strategic and operational-level cycles. Yang et al. (2007)
stated in their work that both 6s and SCM are two pillars of business improvement.
Amer et al. (2008) stated the importance of introducing the concept of Six Sigma
as an effective methodology for monitoring and controlling SC variables. Kumar et al.
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

(2008) has also applied Six Sigma in the context of SC design. They used DMAIC
approach to analyze mitigation of container security risk. Nabhani and Shokri (2009)
presented a case study to reduce the delivery lead time in food distribution with
the implementation of DMAIC procedures based on the Six Sigma methodology.
Table II presents some literature studies which make specific use of Six Sigma
methodology to improve SCM performance. Keeping in view the importance of Six
Sigma in SC environment, the study makes use of Six Sigma methodology to improve
SC process performance.

1.1 Existing SCM performance framework

(i) SCOR. SCOR was developed by the Supply Chain Council. It defines SC as the
integrated process of plan, source, make, deliver and return. It contains five levels of
analysis, i.e. process type, process categories, process elements, implementation and
performance metrics. However, measurement models for SC performance evaluation
have their limitations. First, there are too many individual measures being used in
the SC context. For example, Shepherd and Günter (2006) have summarized single
SC performance indicators related to cost (39), time (22), quality (or reliability) (35),
flexibility (28) and innovativeness (8), respectively. Though these measures offer
valuable information for decision making, selecting and trading off so many measures
to obtain effective and crucial improvement strategies is a difficult task for different SC
participants. Second, these models do not provide definite cause-effect relationships
among numerous (and hierarchical) individual key performance indicators

References Six Sigma applications

Lanyon (2003) Use of Six Sigma improves human resource management process
Wang et al. (2004) To improve the performance of various issues in the supply chain using
Six Sigma methodology
Antony et al. (2005) Used DMAIC methodology to integrate human aspects and process
aspects
Knowles et al. (2005) Used Six Sigma for supply chain improvement
Yang et al. (2007) Six Sigma and SCM are two pillars of business improvements
Kumar et al. (2008) Applied Six Sigma in the context of supply chain design
Nabhani and Shokri (2009) Reducing the delivery lead time in a food distribution through the
implementation of Six Sigma methodology Table II.
Kumar et al. (2011) Six Sigma implementation framework for SMEs Six Sigma application
 IJQRM Cai et al. (2009). According to Persoon and Araldi (2009), SCOR is basically used
31,5 for the static operations of SC rather than the dynamic effects like changes in
production rate, poor quality in raw materials and other effects related to the bullwhip
behavior of a SC.
(ii) BSC. The concept of the BSC was first introduced by Kaplan and Norton (1992)
in an article in the Harvard Business Review in 1992, The BSC – measures that drive
526 performance. Kaplan and Norton’s (1993) “BSC” consists of four perspectives: financial,
customers, internal business process, innovation and learning. BSC is designed to
complement “financial measures of past performance with their measures of the
drivers of future performance”. The name of their concept reflects intent to keep score
of a set of items that maintain a balance between short-term and long-term objectives,
between financial and non-financial measures, between lagging and leading indicators,
and between internal and external performance perspectives. The BSC model proposed
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

for SCM evaluation by Bhagwat and Sharma (2007a) in their model suggests putting
different SCM metrics into different BSC perspectives to give a balanced picture of SCM
performance evaluation. Further they Bhagwat and Sharma (2007b) expanded the
BSC framework to include analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in determining which
measures to include and at which level of the organization (strategic, tactical or
operational) these measures reflect. Although existing models (e.g. BSC) do illustrate
the cause and effect relationship between different goal-related key performance
indicators (Martinsons et al., 1999), they are inadequate for quantitative analysis of the
intricate intertwined relationships.
Criticism of the BSC and its applications include the exclusion of people,
competitive environments, environmental and social aspects of industry (Paranjape
et al., 2006; Barber, 2008). Epstein and Weisner (2001) argued that there is no rule for
the right number of measures to include in a BSC, although including too many can
distract from pursuing a focussed strategy. It is interesting to note that Kaplan and
Norton (2000) have recently moved their ground slightly in that their original
BSC gave no special weighting to any of the four factors, However, this most recent
work acknowledges that a hierarchy within the BSC performance measurement
system may have to be applied – a point identified some time ago by Eccles and
Pieburn (1992). According to Neely et al. (2000), although the BSC is a valuable
framework suggesting important areas in which performance measures might be
useful, it provides little guidance on how the appropriate measures can be identified,
introduced and ultimately used to manage business. It does not specify any
mathematical logical relationship among the individual’s scorecard criteria. BSC
is more of a strategic tool rather than a true complete performance measurement
system (Gomes et al., 2004).
(iii) AHP. The AHP is a robust and flexible multi-criteria decision-making tool
developed by Satty (1980). The AHP is a systematic procedure for representing the
element of any problem, hierarchically. AHP is also used to prioritize the different BSC
perspectives for SCM evaluation. The AHP can be the best tool for prioritizing and
choosing the best measure and metric for day-to-day business operations (Bhagwat
and Sharma, 2007b). However, it is argued that AHP is not stable in its theoretical
foundation and could cause revision in decision-maker’s preference because a pair
wise comparison metrics fails to perfectly satisfy the consistency required by the AHP
approach (Cao et al., 2008). Meanwhile, using AHP is only to determine the “weight”
or relative importance of individual key performance indicators, it does not specify
the relationships among SCM key performance indicators and their role in
 accomplishment efforts, which are very important factors for continuous SC SIPOC and Six
performance improvement in a dynamic environment (Cai et al., 2009). Sigma DMAIC
As is evident from the above literature studies, authors have worked upon various
frameworks for measuring SCM performance, i.e. BSC, SCOR, AHP and maturity
models (Kaplan and Norton, 1992, 1996; Gunasekaran et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2004;
Bhagwat and Sharma, 2007b; Li et al., 2011) to integrate and analyze SCM dimensions.
At the same time they stressed upon the need for the development of an integrated type 527
of framework for measuring SCM performance. Due to growing importance of SCM in
the global market, large business houses are heavily dependent on small- to medium-
sized enterprises for good quality of products at low costs. This has forced the
enterprises to imbibe and practice quality culture in their business activities which
may help to minimize waste and reduce variability, improve consistency, and increase
efficiency and productivity (Gunasekaran et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2004; Li et al., 2011).
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

In a more recent study Charlene A. Yauch (2011) identified seven variables related to
agility improvement and assessed their importance across an entire SC rather than
for single manufacturing enterprise which includes customer satisfaction, quality
improvement, cost minimization, delivery speed, new product introduction, service-
level improvement and lead time reduction. Knowles et al. (2005) in their paper
“A conceptual model for the application of Six Sigma methodologies to supply chain
improvement” emphasized on the development and investigation of such a model.
Aboelmaged (2010) in his work identified that Six Sigma research is growing rapidly
day by day with a large volume of literature on Six Sigma existing but still there is
need to construct and clearly present the application of Six Sigma within each domain
in proposed framework or generic model. He also encouraged mapping the efforts
of Six Sigma research in manufacturing and service organizations to a proposed
framework and then providing a thorough analysis on each element of framework.
Although process dimensions are critical to organization competitiveness, research so
far has tended to focus on SCOR, BSC, total quality management, activity-based
costing, just in time, etc., but in literature hardly any description of an integrated
framework which measures process dimensions critical to the success of SCM is
available. Recently in our paper “Reengineering the supply chain human dimensions
using Six Sigma framework” we have identified ten human dimensions to improve
SCM performance (Mishra and Sharma, 2011). To bridge the gap between theory and
practice, in the present paper, we have tried to measure process dimensions critical
to SCM performance using a case study approach as in the literature there is no
integrated SC framework to measure the process performance. Section below presents
the rationale behind the framework development.

1.2 Rationale behind the framework

(1) To focus on satisfying the end customer: According to Christopher (1998),
“Responsive organisation not only seeks to put the customer at the heart
of the business, but they design all its processes and operations with the
main objective of improving the speed of response and the reliability of that
response”. Kanji and Wong (1999) acknowledged that continuous improvement
mechanisms as being important to meeting the constantly changing
requirement of the consumers/process. Study makes use of Plan-Do-Check
and Act (P-D-C-A) approach as continuous improvement mechanism under
DMAIC process.
 IJQRM (2) To Foster seamless SC with integrated framework: Geary et al. (2002)
31,5 suggested that companies make more efficient SCs through simplifying
processes, increasing flexibility, inventory reduction, smooth material flow,
reducing time between order and fulfillment by reducing sources of waste and
delay. Thus, their study necessitated the development of a framework which
makes use of Six Sigma methodology to improve SCM performance with
528 process focus for reducing waste. Kumar et al. (2011) presented the Six Sigma
implementation framework for SMEs but they divulge that improvement,
enhancement and further development of integrated framework is still
required. The proposed framework with process focus aims to reduce waste.
Various metrics such as average outgoing quality limit (AOQL), average
outgoing quality (AOQ), process Z, defect per million opportunity (DPMO) are
computed with an aim to improve process performance.
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

(3) To develop effective performance measurement systems: The importance

of effective performance measurement systems has been emphasized by many
authors. Amaratunga et al. (2001) suggested that measurement plays an
important role in quality and productivity improvements. According to Nabhani
and Shokri (2009), Six Sigma is a powerful strategy that enables companies
to use simple and powerful statistical methods to drastically improve their
performance. Yang et al. (2007) stated in their work that both 6s and SCM are
two pillars of business improvement which needs to be further investigated for
development of effective performance measurement systems.
(4) Process as source of competitive advantage: authors Michael and Rafeekh
(2001), in their work stated the importance of process (which they define as
“any production/operations process that used materials and suppliers, capital
equipment, labor and information to convert inputs to products/services”) as a
source of competitive advantage in terms of improvement in perceived quality
and reduction in defects. Yang et al. (2007) also emphasized the role of Six
Sigma and SCM techniques for process and quality improvement with the help
of real industry case study.
So, the main motivation of using the hybrid model (as shown in Figure 1) is that both
SCM and Six Sigma are process – oriented approaches. The adoption of the structured
approach of DMAIC helps to define Six Sigma metrics and other statistical measures
(Process Z, AOQL, operating characteristics (OC) curve, AOQ, rejectable quality level
and DPMO) to calculate how well a process is performing. The proposed framework
consists of three phases, i.e. design, implementation and results framework. The brief
introduction to the phases is presented below.
Phase-I: design phase – SC design is a critical and difficult process. In general, in
this phase, we must consider how to structure the SC, location, capacities of production
and warehousing facilities. It involves choosing which products to manufacture, which
markets/customer’s to serve, what technology to acquire or to develop, which suppliers
to source from, where to locate plants and warehouses and which facility to use to serve
different markets. Most of the decisions are strategic in nature (Chopra and Meindle,
2001). A firm ensures that the SC configuration supports its strategic objectives during
this phase. It consists of four steps SCM network, SCM process, SCM dimensions and
suppliers, inputs, process, output and customers (SIPOC) model as shown in Figure 1.
SC design decisions are typically made for long term and are very expensive to alter on
 Phase-I Design
SIPOC and Six
Sigma DMAIC
Supplier

F S
L C 529
O Manufacturer
M
W F
S L D
C O O
F I
M W M
Distributors S I P O C
N I O E
E N F N
T F S
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

W O G Wholesaler I IV
O R O O
R M O N
K A D Retailer S
T S
I
O
N Customer

I II
III

Six Sigma Methodology

Phase-II Implementation
P
D M A I C D
A
C

Phase-III Results SCM Process Performance attributes

Process/product quality Process capability Cost

AQL Process Z Internal failure cost Figure 1.
RQL Mean SIPOC model þ DMAIC
AOQ framework to improve
Standard deviation
AOQL SCM performance
attributes

short notice. As shown in Figure 2 different entities are used to show the various
elements critical to SC design.
Step I: SCM network – SCM network is pictorial representation of facilities and
distribution options that perform various SCM functions such as procurement
of materials, transformation of these materials into intermediate and finished
products, and finally the distribution of these finished products to customers.
The network shown in Figure 2 presents the various entities involved, through
upstream and downstream links, in a typical SC. For instance, entity 1-5 denotes
(suppliers), entity 6 (manufacturing facility), entity 7 (warehouse), entity 8, 9 (distributor),
entity 10-12 (wholesaler), entity 13-15 (retailer) and entity 16, 17 (customers to serve),
respectively.
 IJQRM Supplier 1
Entity 1 Flow of product
31,5
Supplier 1
Entity 2 Retailer
Distributor Wholesaler Customers
Entity 8 Entity 10 Entity 13
Entity 16

530 Supplier 1 Manufacturer Warehouse

Wholesaler Retailer
Entity 3 Entity 6 Entity 7
Entity 11 Entity 14

Supplier 1 Distributor Customers

Wholesaler Retailer
Entity 4 Entity 9 Entity 17
Entity 12 Entity 15

Figure 2. Supplier 1
Supply chain network Orders
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

Entity 5

Step II: SCM process – SCM process depicts flow of goods/flow of information
in a network consisting of supplier, manufacturer, distributor, wholesaler, retailer and
customer linked together via the feed forward flow of materials and the feedback flow
of information. These entities are involved in providing and delivering final products
from the suppliers to the customers in the whole process.
Step III: SCM dimensions – SCM practices are a set of activities undertaken in an
organization to promote effective management of various SC dimensions that may be
classified as human, process and output dimensions. In our model we have considered the
process dimensions of the paint industry for improving the SCM performance. The impact
of human dimensions (such as managerial support, communication and cooperation,
training and education, self-management, information sharing, leadership, team flexibility,
employee participation feedback and reward and process improvement) to improve
SCM performance is considered earlier in our study (Mishra and Sharma, 2011).
Step IV: SIPOC is the acronym for SIPOC. Suppliers are those who supply goods or
services. Inputs are resources such as people, raw material, information and finance
that are put into a system to obtain a desired output. Process converts inputs into
outputs. Finally, it reaches to the customers of the SC. In the study SIPOC diagram is
constructed to identify the real problems in the manufacturing process, internal
or external customers, their requirement for the product as well as input, and outputs
of the process.
Phase-II: implementation phase – It consists of DMAIC methodology. Improving the
quality of all SC processes leads to cost reduction, improved resource utilization
and improved process efficiency (Wang et al., 2004; Knowles et al., 2005; Nabhani and
Shokri, 2009). The main steps of DMAIC are:
Define: What is the problem? Does it exist? What type of defects exist?
Measure: How is the process measured? How is it performing?
Analyze: What are the most important causes of defects?
Improve: How do we remove the causes of defects?
Control: How can we maintain the improvements?
The entire approach is based on Deming’s P-D-C-A cycle.
Phase-III: results phase – Phase-III consists of results framework to achieve desired
SCM performance attributes. These are the output of a process which is to be improved
 by analyzing inputs and process dimensions critical to SCM performance. Output SIPOC and Six
measures include: quality, process capability and process cost. Measuring the quality Sigma DMAIC
performance of the processes by statistical process control helps to determine the
process Z, (Sigma capability). Cost is related to failure cost, i.e. both internal and
external failure cost of the product. Table III presents the KPI’s adopted in the hybrid
model proposed in the study.
531
2. Illustrative case
This case study deals with implementation of the proposed framework (based
on SIPOC þ Six Sigma) to improve process performance attributes related to SC.
The company situated in northern part of India is in the process of an ongoing program
of application of Six Sigma methodology with an aim to improve its SC performance.
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

2.1 Design phase

The manufacturing process entity shown in the SC network model (Figure 2) is
investigated using DMAIC process. SIPOC diagram is used to categorize how various
entities interact with each process, dividing the scope into convenient segments. The
various process dimensions critical to the paint manufacturing process investigated
in the study are AOQL, AOQ, process Z, Mean, Standard deviation and DPMO, etc.
In brief, the paint manufacturing process involves mixing, grinding, homogeneity
checking, thinning/dilution, filtration and finishing, and packaging and storage. The
stages involved in the whole process are shown in Figure 3 with the help of SIPOC
diagram. The paint is produced in batches. There are many types of equipment which
are used in the production process such as high-speed dispersion mixer, mills, filters,
packing machines, sand mills, high-speed agitators and tanks, etc. Raw materials
include solvents, resins, pigments, and additives comprising inorganic and organic
chemicals. The pigments give paint color; solvents make it easier to apply; resins
help it dry; and additives serve as everything from fillers to anti fungicidal agents.
The cleaning of the equipment units is the main source of waste generation in paint
production. Since cleaning is required when the product is changed, the number of
changes is also to be minimized. The paint is produced in batch process so it requires
a strong network from raw material to finished products and from the suppliers to
the customers.
In brief, the various constituents of the SIPOC model are discussed below.
Raw materials supplier: the industry is raw material intensive. Suppliers are the person
or groups providing key materials, or other resources to the process. In our case,
suppliers (entity 1-5) provide all the raw materials which are needed for paint making
or filling and packing.
Inputs: inputs are those items which are consumed during the process. It can be raw
materials, information or products to the process. Raw materials are pigments, binders,
solvents, fillers, driers and plasticizers, etc.
Mixing: all the raw materials put into the mechanical mixtures for mixing.
Grinding: after mixing, the mixture (batch) is transferred to the mills for further
mixing, grinding and homogenizing. The type of mill used is related to the type of
pigments, vehicle and fillers.
Homogeneity checking: after grinding, the batch is transferred to an intermediate
storage tank, because the batch may need further grinding to obtain the required
degree of homogeneity.
 Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

31,5

532
IJQRM

Table III.
Key process
performance indicators
Performance attributes Indicators Description

Quality Average outgoing quality limit (AOQL) AOQL is the maximum AOQ over all possible levels of the
incoming quality for a known acceptance sampling plan
Acceptable quality level (AQL) The worst quality that you will accept on a regular basis
OC curve
Rejectable quality level (RQL) The quality level that you will reject
Average outgoing quality (AOQ) The worst possible average for the outgoing quality
Process capability Process Z Process Z helps to know about sigma capability of a process
performance
Mean The mean is the arithmetic average of a set of values, or
distribution
Standard deviation Standard deviation is a measure of variability of a process
Defects per million opportunity (DPMO) DPMO is a measure of process performance
Number of defects  1; 000; 000
DPMO ¼
Number of units  Number of opportunity per unit

Cost Failure cost Failure costs are incurred to correct quality in products and
services before (internal) or after (external) delivery to the
customer
 Outputs Customers
SIPOC and Six
Inputs
Pigments * Quality
*Wholesalers
*Offices
Sigma DMAIC
Binders Requirements
Suppliers *Houses
Solvents * Process Right product
Raw Material Process *Factories
Fillers capability Right time
*Furniture
Driers Right quality
shops
Plasticizers * DPMO Right quantity
*Industries

* Cost
*Architectural
Dept.
533

Figure 3.
Mixing Grinding Homogeneity Thinning/ Filtration and Packaging Paint production process
Checking Dilution Finishing and Storage
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

Thinning/dilution: the batch is then transferred from the intermediate storage

tank to a mixer for thinning and dilution, where solvents and other additives
are added.
Filtration and finishing: after thinning, the batch is filtered in a filter, to remove
non-dispersed pigments and any entrained solids. Metal salts are added to enhance drying.
Packaging and storage:z finally, the paint is poured into cans or drums, labeled, packed
and moved to storage, from where it is sent to the customer according to an agreed
schedule.
Output: it is the final product of the process, i.e. paint and is measured in terms of
quality (process capability, defect per million opportunity).
Customers: customers are the persons, group or process that receives the output.
Customers are the last stage of the SC who buys finished goods from manufacturer
or retailers.
Requirements: requirements of the customer is to get the right product at the right time,
with the right quality and right quantity.

2.2 Implementation phase

As shown in Figure 1, implementation phase consists of various stages of DMAIC
process which are explained as under.
2.2.1 Define phase. A cross-functional team was formed from production, quality;
marketing departments to identify the critical to quality characteristics during the
production process of paint. Leadership is provided by a team of champions: senior
champion, deployment champion and projects champion at corporate, unit and
department level, respectively, supported by a team of experts. The experts are
referred to as Master Black Belts who provide mentoring, training and expert support
to the Black Belts. Black Belts usually work full time on projects at process level
to solve critical problems and achieve bottom-line results and Green Belts are the
employees who take up Six Sigma implementation along with their job responsibilities,
operating under the guidance of Black Belts. Yellow Belt employees have basic training
in Six Sigma tools. As shown in the SIPOC diagram, the manufacturing process starts
from mixing of raw material and finishes with packaging and storage. The teams spent
many hours on observing the process in order to identify the root cause of problems.
Based on historical records and observations, the different types of defect found in
process were categorized as: shrinkage, blending, grinding, thinning and dilution,
filtration and finishing, packaging and storage. Table IV provides the detail log of
defects for twelve months of the year 2011.
 Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

31,5

534

Table IV.
IJQRM

Data table of defects

Types of defects (gallons)
Spoilage Total defects
Production Number of production Thinning and Filtration and Packaging and
month (Gallons) Shrinkage Blending Grinding dilution finishing storage Gallons

January 2011 15,000 3,000 550 300 200 190 300 4,540
February 2011 15,000 2,500 550 350 350 250 250 4,250
March 2011 15,000 3,500 750 500 400 300 250 5,700
April 2011 15,000 2,500 500 300 200 200 150 3,850
May 2011 15,000 2,400 550 450 300 150 100 3,950
June 2011 15,000 2,000 600 400 350 200 150 3,700
July 2011 15,000 1,200 300 250 200 200 100 2,250
August 2011 15,000 2,000 500 350 300 150 100 3,400
September 2011 15,000 2,200 450 350 250 200 150 3,600
October 2011 15,000 1,500 500 300 300 150 100 2,850
November 2011 15,000 3,000 650 450 350 150 150 4,750
December 2011 15,000 2,000 600 400 300 180 200 3,680
Total 180,000 27,800 6,500 4,400 3,500 2,320 2,000 46,520
 2.2.2 Measure phase. Data are counted and Pareto diagram (Figure 4) is drawn to know SIPOC and Six
the percentage contribution of each type of defects in the process. It is observed from Sigma DMAIC
Figure 4 that shrinkage is the main dominant cause as it contributes to 59.76 percent
of total defects. Other defects with considerable percentage were blending, grinding,
thinning and dilution, etc. This prioritization of defects using Pareto helps the
teams to focus on improvement actions that are linked with defects. Further, the cause
and effect diagram is drawn to display the causes behind the problem. To determine 535
overall distribution of percentage defective for the defects, histograms are drawn
as shown in Figure 5(a-d) and statistical details such as mean, standard deviation are
presented in Table V.
2.2.3 Analyze phase. In this stage, brainstorming sessions were undertaken by
interdisciplinary process team managers in order to identify potential factors that
could result in rejection due to shrinkage, and spoilage. To have a clear picture of
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

parameters affecting the shrinkage process, a cause and effect diagram was constructed
as shown in Figure 6. Shrinkage is caused during evaporation, leakage and oxidation,
improper blending, over baking, equipment cleaning, or quality failure during the
manufacturing process. The histogram shows the percentage defective, i.e. proportion
and frequency, as for shrinkage 0.1544 which is greater than all others defects.
This variation is also captured by using individual and moving range (I-MR) control
charts, as shown in Figure 7. The control chart for individual batch measurement shows
that sample 12 is out of control and also the samples 11 and 12 plotted outside the control
limits on the moving range chart. This has occurred because the large value of defect
associated with sample 12. LCL and UCL values in columns 4 and 5 in Table VI presents
the descriptive statistics of defects using I-MR chart (Montgomery, 2005).
To detect a shift in the process fraction non-conforming from the nominal value ( p )
to some other value p, OC curve is drawn as shown in Figure 8. The OC curve plots the

Pareto Chart of Defects

30,000 100.00
90.00
25,000
80.00
Cumulative frequency

70.00
No. of occurance

20,000
60.00
15,000 50.00
40.00
10,000
30.00
20.00
5,000
10.00
0 0.00
ni d n

g
ng

ng
ge

n
D g

Fi an ratio

St an gin
tio
d nin
di

di
ka

ilu

a
en

rin
rin

an hin

ck
lte

or d

Figure 4.
e
G
Bl

in
Sh

Pa

ag
Fi
T

sh

Pareto chart showing

type of defects
Types of Defects
 IJQRM (a) Histogram of Shrinkage defects
Normal
(b) Histogram of Blending defects
Normal
31,5 25 20

20
Frequency 15

Frequency
15
10
536 10

5
5

0 0
0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Proportion Proportion

(c) Histogram of Grinding defects (d) Histogram of Thinning and Dilution defects
Normal Normal
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

16
9
14 8
12 7
Figure 5.
Frequency

Frequency
10 6
(a) histogram of shrinkage 5
8
defects, (b) histogram 4
6
of blending defects, 3
(c) histogram of grinding 4
2
defects, (d) histogram 2 1
of thinning and 0 0
dilution defect 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
Proportion Proportion

Defects
Descriptive statistics Shrinkage Blending Grinding Thinning and dilution

Table V. n 48 48 48 48
Statistical details Mean 0.1544 0.03611 0.02444 0.01944
of defects SD 0.05277 0.008650 0.007891 0.005653

probabilities of accepting a lot and the lot percentage defective. From each batch
of 3,750 gallons, only 32 samples are needed to be inspected. AOQ curve and average
total inspection (ATI) were also investigated. AOQ curve represents the average
quality of the lot. The AOQL is 4.232 at 6.924 percent defective represents the
worse case outgoing quality level. ATI curve representing the average number of
inspected items after additional screening is also plotted which shows that for the
quality level of 16 percent defective, the average total number of gallons to be inspected
per lot is 3,397.8. The different numerical values are shown in Table VII. Given the
quality level of the incoming product, minimize the ATI thus by reducing total cost
of inspection.
2.2.4 Improvement phase. In this phase the improvement plans were generated
during brainstorming sessions to improve the process and reduce the defects. The
improvement efforts were planned to reduce variation in a process on continuous scale
Deming’s P-D-C-A cycle. Application of I-MR chart helps in finding the variation which
results in process defects. Table VIII presents the list of improvement changes and
references which were initiated by Six Sigma project teams and others, i.e. people on
 Cause and effect diagram for Shrinkage defect SIPOC and Six
Manpower Method EFFECT
Sigma DMAIC

Training Humidity level

Morale Temperature
537
Lack of inspection Oxidation

Carelessness Evaporation
Shrinkage
Loss
Quality Temperature control
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

Improper storage Over baking

Composition Control parameters
Colour specification Improper maintenance
Inspection Improper blending Figure 6.
Cause and effect diagram
Material Machines for shrinkage defect

I-MR Chart of shrinkage defect

1
0.3 UCL=0.2773
Individual Value

0.2
X=0.1544
0.1
LCL=0.0316
0.0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46
Week
1 1
0.16
UCL=0.1509
Moving Range

0.12

0.08
__ Figure 7.
0.04 MR=0.0462 Individual values and
LCL=0
moving range (I-MR)
0.00
control charts for
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46
shrinkage defect
Week

Sl. no. Defect type Mean SD Lower control limit Upper control limit

1 Shrinkage 0.1544 0.05277 0.0316 0.2773

2 Blending 0.03611 0.008650 0.01752 0.05470 Table VI.
3 Grinding 0.02444 0.007891 0.00306 0.04583 Basic descriptive
4 Thinning and dilution 0.01944 0.005653 0.00413 0.03476 statistics for defects
 IJQRM Attribute acceptance sampling plan of Shrinkage
Average Outgoing Quality (AOQ) Curve
31,5 Operating Characteristic (OC) Curve
4

(% Defective)
1.0
3

AOQ
2
Probability of Acceptance

0.8
1
538 0
0.6 0 10 20 30
Incoming Lot % Defective
0.4 Average Tota lInspection (ATI) Curve
3,500

Average Total
Inspection
0.2 2,500
1,500
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

0.0
Figure 8. 500
Attribute acceptance 0 10 20 30
sampling plan of 0 10 20 30
Lot % Defective
shrinkage Lot % Defective
Sample Size = 32, Acceptance Number = 2

Sl. no. Defect type AQL/RQL AOQ ATI AOQL

1 Shrinkage (AQL) 2 1.932 127.8 4.232

(RQL) 16 1.503 3,397.8
2 Blending (AOQ) 1 0.900 375.5 1.218
(RQL) 4 0.377 3,396.2
3 Grinding (AQL) 1 0.856 539.7 1.029
(RQL) 3 0.269 3,414.2
Table VII. 4 Thinning and dilution (AQL) 1 0.640 1,351.5 0.673
Quality statistics (RQL) 2 0.134 3,499.5

Sl. no. Defect type Six Sigma team initiated Other initiated Total improvement

1 Shrinkage 4 3 7
Table VIII. 2 Blending 2 1 3
Number of 3 Grinding 3 2 5
improvement actions 4 Thinning and dilution 1 2 3

the shop floor. The improvement actions include a mix of 5S and total productive
maintenance activities. Some of these are listed below:
(1) avoiding over baking by prolonged heating/temperature;
(2) use of additives, solvents, pigments, etc. in right quantity at right time;
(3) regulating work in process storage during production process;
(4) checking the composition of raw materials (color specification, etc.); and
(5) employee education and training on various process parameters.
 2.2.5 Control phase. The objective of Six Sigma is not only to improve the process SIPOC and Six
but also to control the process to continue for the long run. The Six Sigma team Sigma DMAIC
instituted the P-D-C-A approach to monitor the activities for identification and
elimination. Data before initiating the improvement action were processed using
MINITAB software. Calculated summary statistics for the process studies shows that
the percentage defective for shrinkage category amounts to 15.44 percent with process
Z 1.0176. Thinning and dilution shows process Z above 2. But with reference to other 539
defects, i.e. shrinkage, blending, grinding, it is below 2, so needs improvement. The
higher process Z, the better the process performance. Ideally a process Z should
be of two or more (Nabhani and Shokri, 2009; Vassilakis and Besseris, 2010).
After implementing improvement actions and exercising control actions, discussed
under improvement phase, a considerable improvement in the reduction of process
defects has been observed. As shown in Figure 9, the percentage defective for
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

shrinkage has brought down with mean 0.06317 with standard deviation 0.007417.
Similar trend can be seen for other defects too, i.e. blending, grinding, thinning and
dilution mean is 0.01796, 0.01071, and 0.004892 and standard deviation is 0.002893,
0.002590 and 0.002092. A control plan has been developed to monitor the key inputs
and outputs from the paint manufacturing process. The plan is based on following
core concepts:
(1) Continuous improvement: though the implementation of framework takes a
considerable time after successful inception. But, if the improvement process is
started in a systematic manner, the results of successful implementation can be
visualized with in two or three years. The team approach and participation of
members in problem solving techniques helps to continually improve the
process based on Deming’s P-D-C-A cycle.

Histogram for Shrinkage defects Histogram for Blending defects

6.0 0.01796
12
n n

4.5
9
Frequency
Frequency

3.0 6

1.5 3

0.0 0
0

4
05

05

06

06

07

07

08

01

01

01

02

02
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

Proportion Proportion

Histogram for Grinding defects Histogram for Thinning and Dilution

8
8
n n
6 6
Frequency

Frequency

4 4

2 2

0
Figure 9.
0
Histogram for defects
0

8
6

08

10

12

14

16

00

00

00

00

00
00

(after improvement)
0

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

Proportion Proportion
 IJQRM (2) Total employee involvement: as DMAIC steps are embedded into the SIPOC
31,5 model to improve SCM performance, the involvement of all employees, i.e.
manager, engineers and technicians both vertically and horizontally was
encouraged. Cross-functional teams were formed to achieve the goal and benefits
from the program implementation.
(3) Process documentation: the documentation aims to record the physical
540 observation and quantitative data related to process input/output, so that
variations, if any observed, may be controlled after initiating corrective actions.
To show case the improvement in percentage of defects, for shrinkage, Run chart has
been drawn as shown in Figure 10. The numbers of defects were reduced from 15.44 to
6.32. In order to validate the improvement results, the verification analysis has been
carried out through paired sample t-test as shown in Table IX. The t-test supports
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

the significance of the difference in the means of before and after implementation of
SIPOC þ DMAIC framework, i.e. t(31) ¼ 9.556. The Sig. (two-tailed) value, so obtained
is 0.000. As this value is less than 0.05 we can conclude that statistically significant
difference between the means exist.

3. Results and discussion

One of the major objectives of this study is to introduce a hybrid framework
(SIPOC þ DMAIC) aimed at improving SCM performance attributes in terms of
process/product quality, process capability and reduction in failure cost. The different
metrics has been calculated such as AOQL which shows the maximum worst possible
defective or defect rate for the AOQ to know the process performance. Process Z helps
to know about sigma capability of the process. The control chart of shrinkage defect
has been drawn to capture the variation by using I-MR charts, as shown in Figure 7.
The Run chart has also been drawn as shown in Figure 10.

SPC Run Chart for Shrinkage Defects

0.35
Prior - Improvement Post - Improvement
0.30 Mean = 15.44 or 0.1544 Mean = 6.32 or 0.06317

0.25
Proportion

0.20

0.15

0.10

Figure 10. 0.05

SPC Run chart for
shrinkage defects 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Week

Sig.
Mean n SD SE mean t-value df (two-tailed)
Table IX.
Paired sample t-Test Before implementation of 6s þ SIPOC 595.4688 32 210.17980 37.15489 9.556 31 0.000
for shrinkage After implementation of 6s þ SIPOC 236.9063 32 27.81431 4.91692
 Table X provides the comparison of key performance attributes. After incorporating SIPOC and Six
the improvement actions and exercising process control with reference to the Sigma DMAIC
paint production process, the process Z has shown remarkable improvement, i.e.
2.02 for shrinkage, 2.29 for blending, 2.46 for grinding and 2.74 for thinning and
dilution with an average of 2.38. Based on the Z value, the corresponding value of
DPMO has been also calculated to see process performance. It means that the defects
are in a controlled state as the DPMO value shows a decreasing trend as shown 541
in Figure 11. The substantial improvement in process Z before (1.71) and after (2.38)
resulted in financial savings of approximately 223,750 units in total.

4. Conclusions
Six Sigma is a process focussed program which aims to improve the process following
a systematic methodology based on the DMAIC cycle. SCM is also focussed on
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

processes within SC (Nabhani and Shokri, 2009). It has been argued that it is a good
idea to use Six Sigma in SC projects in order to improve SC metrics. This has later been
supported through daily 6s work in Samsung that 6s and SCM would be two pillars
of business improvement (Yang et al., 2007). In our study we have tried to develop a
hybrid model based on SIPOC and Six Sigma DMAIC for improving SC performance
attributes related to process dimensions. The paper presents the step by step
application of proposed methodology for reducing the level of defects in a paint

Before After Before

Sl. no. Defect type process Z process Z DPMO After DPMO Savings/units

1 Shrinkage 1.0176 2.02 690,000 308,000 382,000

2 Blending 1.7977 2.2979 382,000 212,000 170,000
3 Grinding 1.9696 2.4606 308,000 158,000 150,000 Table X.
4 Thinning and dilution 2.0654 2.7454 308,000 115,000 193,000 Process improvement
Average 1.71 2.38 422,000 198,250 223,750 actions

800,000
Before
700,000
Before
600,000 After
DPMO Level

500,000
Before
400,000
After Before Before
300,000
After
200,000 After
After
100,000

0
Shrinkage Blending Grinding Thinning and Figure 11.
Dilution DPMO-level trends
Nature of Defects
 IJQRM manufacturing process. Several statistical methods were effectively utilized to realize
31,5 the benefits of DMAIC methodology during the process. The proposed approach
facilitates to identify the root cause of the problem. The use of tools like brainstorming,
Pareto analysis, cause and effect analysis, etc. helps us to identify, prioritize the issues
and find effective solutions to the problems. As shown in Figure 9, the percentage
defective for shrinkage has brought down the mean 0.06317, and standard deviation
542 0.007417. Similar trends are obtained for other defects too. As a result, the percentage
of defects for shrinkage was reduced from 15.44 to 6.32 (Figure 10).
The unified structure provided in the framework encourages various SC players to
support the improvement process, based on the P-D-C-A cycle. The management can
get the feedback from the operational level which helps in enhancing improvements
within the process. From the study it is concluded that Six Sigma (DMAIC) with
integration of SIPOC model has been established as winning practice in improving the
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

manufacturing process, the key entity in SC network. The success of framework can
encourage the various stakeholders to use the presented methodology to improve and
reduce losses in their process after identification of key performance attributes related
to process dimensions. Thus, the present study is an attempt to justify the application
of the proposed hybrid model which is normally presumed to be in the domain of
various manufacturing and process industries worldwide. The model not only be used
to evaluate process dimensions but also can be extended to study various output SC
dimensions, critical to SCM performance.

Glossary
AHP analytic hierarchy process
AOQ average outgoing quality
AOQL average outgoing quality limit
AQL acceptable quality level
ATI average total inspection
BSC balanced scorecard
DMAIC define, measure, analyze, improve and control
DPMO defects per million opportunity
I-MR chart individual and moving range chart
OC operating characteristics
PDCA plan-do-check and act
RQL Rejectable Quality Level
SCM supply chain management
SCOR supply chain operations reference model
SIPOC suppliers, inputs, process, output and customers

References
Aboelmaged, M.G. (2010), “Six Sigma quality: a structured review and implications for future
research”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 268-317.
Agus, A. and Hajinoor, M.S. (2012), “Lean production supply chain management as driver
towards enhancing product quality and business performance, case study of
manufacturing companies in Malaysia”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 92-121.
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D. and Sarshar, M. (2001), “Process improvement through performance
measurement: the Balanced Scorecard methodology”, Work Study, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 179-188.
 Amer, Y., Luong, L., Lee, S.-H. and Ashraf, M.A. (2008), “Optimizing order fulfillment using SIPOC and Six
design for Six Sigma and fuzzy logic”, International Journal of Management Science and
Engineering Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 83-99. Sigma DMAIC
Antony, J., Kumar, M. and Tiiwari, M.K. (2005), “An application of Six Sigma methodology
to reduce the engine-overheating problem in an automotive company”, Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B. Journal of Engineering Manufacturer, Vol. 219
No. 8, pp. 633-646.
543
Barber, E. (2008), “How to measure the value in value chains”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 685-698.
Bayraktar, E., Demirbag, M., Lenny Koh, S.C., Tatoglu, E. and Zaim, H. (2009), “A causal analysis
of the impact of information systems and supply chain management practices on
operational performance: evidence from manufacturing SMEs in Turkey”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 133-149.
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

Beamon, B.M. (1999), “Measuring supply chain performance”, International Journal of Operation
and Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 275-292.
Bhagwat, R. and Sharma, M.K. (2007a), “Performance measurement of supply chain management:
a balance scorecard approach”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 53 No. 1,
pp. 43-62.
Bhagwat, R. and Sharma, M.K. (2007b), “Performance measurement of supply chain management
using the analytical hierarchy process”, Production Planning & control, Vol. 18 No. 8,
pp. 666-680.
Breyfogle, F.W., Cupello, J.M. and Meadows, B. (2001), Managing Six Sigma: A Practical Guide to
Understanding, Assessing, and Implementing the Strategy that Yields Bottom-line Success,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Cai, J., Liu, X., Xiao, Z. and Liu, J. (2009), “Improving supply chain performance management: a
systematic approach to analyzing iterative KPI accomplishment”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 512-521.
Cao, D., Leung, L.C. and Law, J.S. (2008), “Modifying inconsistent comparison matrix in
analytic hierarchy process: a heuristic approach”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 44 No. 4,
pp. 944-953.
Chen, I.J. and Paulraj, A. (2004), “Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs
and measurements”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 119-150.
Chong, A.Y.L. and Ooi, K.B. (2008), “Adoption of inter-organizational system standards in supply
chains: an empirical analysis of Rosetta net standards”, Industrial Management and Data
Systems, Vol. 108 No. 4, pp. 529-547.
Chopra, S. and Meindle, P. (2001), Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning and Operation,
India (ISBN: 81-7808-272-1), Pearson Education (Singapore) Pte. Ltd, Singapore.
Christopher, M. (1998), Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Financial Times, Prentice Hall,
London.
Dasgupta, T. (2003), “Using the six – sigma metric to measure and improve the performance of a
supply chain”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 355-366.
Donlon, J.P. (1996), “Maximizing value in the supply chain”, Chief Executive, Vol. 117, pp. 54-63.
Eccles, R. and Pieburn, P. (1992), “Creating a comprehensive system to measure performance”,
Management Accounting UK, Vol. 70 No. 10, pp. 41-44.
Epstein, M.J. and Weisner, P.S. (2001), “Good neighbors: implementing social and environmental
strategies with the BSC”, Balanced Scorecard Report, Reprint Number B0105C 33, Harvard
Business School, Cambridge, MA.
Geary, S., Childerhouse, P. and Towill, D. (2002), “Uncertainty and the seamless supply chain”,
Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 52-61.
 IJQRM Gomes, C.F., Yasin, M.M. and Lisboa, J.V. (2004), “A literature review of manufacturing
performance measures and measurement in an organizational context: a framework and
31,5 direction for future research”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 15
No. 6, pp. 511-530.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and McGaughey Ronald, E. (2004), “A framework for supply chain
performance measurement”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3,
pp. 333-347.
544
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and Tirtiroglu, E. (2001), “Performance measures and metrics in a
supply chain environment”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2, pp. 71-87.
Harry, M. (1998), “Six Sigma: a breakthrough strategy for profitability”, Quality Progress, Vol. 31
No. 5, pp. 60-64.
Jabbour, A.B.L.S., Filho, A.G.A., Viana, A.B.N. and Jabbour, C.J.C. (2011), “Factors affecting the
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

adoption of supply chain management practices: evidence from the Brazilian electro-
electronic sector”, IIMB Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 208-222.
Kanji, G.K. and Wong, A. (1999), “Business excellence model for supply chain management”,
Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 No. 8, pp. 1147-1168.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The balanced scorecard – measures that drive
performance”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71-79.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1993), “Putting balanced scorecard to work”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 71 No. 5, pp. 134-142.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), “Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management
system”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 75-86.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2000), “Having trouble with your strategy? Then map it”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 167-176.
Khang, T.S., Arumugam, V., Chong, A.Y.-L. and Chan, F.T.S. (2010), “Relationship between
supply chain management practices and organizations performance: a case study in the
Malaysian service industry”, International Journal of Modeling in Operation Management,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 84-106.
Knowles, G., Linda, W., Femat, J.H. and Canales, F.D.C. (2005), “A conceptual model for the
application of Six Sigma methodologies to supply chain improvement”, International
Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 51-65.
Koh, S.C., Demirbag, M., Bayraktar, E., Tatoglu, E. and Zaim, S. (2007), “The impact of supply
chain management practices on performance of SMEs”, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 103-124.
Kumar, M., Antony, J. and Tiwari, M.K. (2011), “Six Sigma implementation framework for SMEs
– a roadmap to manage and sustain the change”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 49 No. 18, pp. 5449-5467.
Kumar, S., Jensen, H. and Menge, H. (2008), “Analyzing mitigation of container security risk
using Six Sigma DMAIC approach in supply chain design”, Transportation Journal,
Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 54-67.
Lanyon, S. (2003), “At Raytheon Six Sigma works, too, to improve HR management processes”,
Journal of Organizational Excellence, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 29-42.
Li, D. and O’Brein, C. (1999), “Integrated decisions modeling of supply chain efficiency”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 59 Nos 1/3, pp. 147-157.
Li, L., Su, Q. and Chen, X. (2011), “Ensuring supply chain quality performance through
applying the SCOR model”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 1,
pp. 33-57.
 Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T.S. and Rao, S.S. (2005), “Development and validation of a SIPOC and Six
measurement for studying supply chain management practices”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 618-641. Sigma DMAIC
Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T.S. and Rao, S.S. (2006), “The impact of supply chain
management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance”,
International Journal of Management Science, Omega, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 107-124.
Martinsons, M., Davison, R. and Tse, D. (1999), “The balanced scorecard: a function for the 545
strategic management of information systems”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 71-88.
Mentzer, T.J. (2001), Supply Chain Management, Sage Publication, London.
Michael, A.M. and Rafeekh, M.V. (2001), “Managing supplier involvement in process improvement
in manufacturing”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 48-53.
Min, S. and Mentzer, J.T. (2004), “Developing and measuring supply chain concepts”, Journal of
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

Business Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 63-99.

Mishra, P. and Sharma, R.K. (2011), “Reengineering the supply chain human dimensions using
Six Sigma framework”, International Journal for Quality Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 193-203.
Montgomery, D.C. (2005), Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, 5th ed., Arizona state
university, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, NY.
Nabhani, F. and Shokri, A. (2009), “Reducing the delivery lead time in a food distribution SMEs
through the implementation of Six Sigma methodology”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 957-974.
Naylor, B., Naim, M.M. and Berry, D. (1999), “Leagality: integrating the lean and agile
manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 62 Nos 1/2, pp. 61-73.
Neely, A., Bourne, M. and Kennerley, M. (2000), “Performance measurement system design:
developing and testing a process-based approach”, International Journal of Operations &
Management, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 1119-1145.
Paranjape, B., Rossiter, M. and Pantono, V. (2006), “Performance measurement systems:
successes, failures and the future – a review”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 4-14.
Persoon, F. and Araldi, M. (2009), “The development of a dynamic supply chain analysis tool –
integration of SCOR and discrete event simulation”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 121 No. 2, pp. 574-583.
Pullim, J. (2002), “Success comes in threes”, Professional Engineering, Vol. 15 No. 8, p. 28.
Satty, T.L. (1980), The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Shepherd, C. and Günter, H. (2006), “Measuring supply chain performance: current research and
future directions”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 55 Nos 3/4, pp. 242-258.
Tan, K.C., Kannan, V.R. and Handfield, R.B. (1998), “Supply chain management: supplier
performance and firm performance”, International Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 2-9.
Tan, K.C., Lyman, S.B. and Wisner, J.D. (2002), “Supply chain management: a strategic
perspective”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 22
No. 6, pp. 614-631.
Trent, R.J. (2001), “Applying TQM to SCM”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 70-78.
Ulusoy, G. (2003), Business Excellence and E-business Strategies in Equipment Manufacturing
Industry, TUSIAD Competitiveness Strategies Series No. 8, TUSIAD, Istanbul, in Turkish.
 IJQRM Vassilakis, E. and Besseris, G. (2010), “The use of SPC tools for a preliminary assessment of an
aero engines’ maintenance process and prioritization of aero engines’ faults”, Journal of
31,5 Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Wang, G., Huang Samuel, H. and Dismukes John, P. (2004), “Product – driven supply chain
selection using integrated multi-criteria decision-making methodology”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
546 Yang, H.M., Choi, B.S., Park, H.J., Suh, M.S. and Chae, B. (2007), “Supply chain management
Six Sigma: a management innovation methodology at the Samsung group”, Supply Chain
Management. An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 88-95.
Yauch, A.C (2011), “Measuring agility as a performance outcome”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 384 404.
Zeng, J., Phan, C.A. and Matsui, Y. (2013), “Supply chain quality management practices and
performance: an empirical study”, Operations Management Research, Vol. 6 Nos 1/2,
Downloaded by University of Reading At 22:32 23 December 2014 (PT)

pp. 19-31.
Zhou, H. and Benton, W.C. (2007), “Supply chain practice and information sharing”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1348-1365.

About the authors

Pratima Mishra is a Research Scholar in the Department of Management and Social Sciences,
National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur, (HP), India. Pratima Mishra is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: pratima_mishra1@rediffmail.com
Dr Rajiv Kumar Sharma is an Assistant Professor in the Mechanical Engineering
Department and Adjunct Faculty in the Department of Management and Social Sciences at the
National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur, (HP), India.

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

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints