Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120221

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A statistical analysis of critical quality tools and companies’

performance
A. Cohen a, *, I. Alhuraish b, C. Robledo b, A. Kobi b
a
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida, 32514, USA
b
LARIS-Systems Engineering Research Laboratory, University of Angers, 49000, Angers, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: When implementing continuous improvement methodologies such as Lean and Six Sigma, one crucial
Received 7 June 2019 aspect is to determine which quality tools to implement to achieve a performance objective. The purpose
Received in revised form of this article is to determine the critical quality tools and their effects on companies’ performance. The
20 January 2020
data was collected using a questionnaire that was conducted within French industries, in Pays de la Loire
Accepted 21 January 2020
Available online 25 January 2020
region. A multiple correspondence analysis is performed first to explore and describe the data. Second,
ordinal regression models are developed to determine what are the critical quality tools that support the
Handling editor: M.T. Moreira companies’ performance in terms of quality, cost, and productivity. This case study shows that the critical
quality tools to improve quality performance would be implementing One Piece Flow and GEMBA tools.
Keywords: Next, implementing Value Stream Mapping and Takt Time tools would significantly reduce the cost
Company performance compared to not implementing those tools. The analysis shows improvement in productivity can be
Continuous improvement achieved by implementing KANBAN tool. The findings have the potential to guide companies to deter-
Ordinal regression mine which quality tools are most likely effective in improving quality, productivity, and reducing cost.
Lean six sigma
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Quality improvement
Multiple correspondance analysis

1. Introduction
Global environmental and climate change awareness has led
companies to comply with environmental regulations to remain
competitive in the global market. Besides, companies are managing
efficiency, innovation, and operating processes for optimal perfor-
mance. Lean manufacturing and Six Sigma are the most popular
methodologies for achieving not only a competitive edge but also
environment-friendly products and services (Cherrafi et al., 2016,
2017; García-Alcaraz et al., 2018; Caldera et al., 2017; Zhu et al.,
2018). In fact, Lean manufacturing is a methodology that helps
companies to continuously reduce waste (e.g. overproduction,
waiting time) while Six Sigma is used to reduce the variation in
processes for the ultimate goal of improving quality production and
performance (George, 2002; Alhuraish et al., 2017). Research
studies have shown that when companies implement Lean and Six
Sigma their performance consistently and continuously improves
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: acohen@uwf.edu (A. Cohen), ibrahim.alhuraish@gmail.com
(I. Alhuraish), christian.robledo@univ-angers.fr (C. Robledo), abdessamad.kobi@
univ-angers.fr (A. Kobi).
(Delgado et al., 2010; George, 2002; Alhuraish et al., 2016; Lins
et al., 2019).
Many research studies have investigated the critical success
factors (CSFs) for the implementation of Lean and Six Sigma
(Bortolotti et al., 2015; Netland, 2016; Knol et al., 2018; Marzag~ ao
and Carvalho, 2016; Ribeiro de Jesus et al., 2016). Most of the
studies have tended to emphasize the critical success factors such
as Top management commitment and support, Education and
training, Communication, Culture change, Understanding the tools
and techniques within Six Sigma methodology, and others. Suc-
cessful implementation of such methodologies implies also using
the essential quality tools that would positively impact companies’
performance. It is one thing to successfully implement quality tools,
select which quality tools that would significantly improve the
organization performance is another thing. One of the challenges
when implementing quality tools, in the Lean and Six Sigma
methodologies, is to select those tools that are the most effective for
improving the main operational performance (cost reduction,
productivity, and quality). This is because not all quality tools are
essential to a specific project. Indeed, this study, using advanced
statistical models, does show more insight about quality tools and
their companies’ performance.
Therefore, a gap has been observed in the literature in that no

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120221
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 A. Cohen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120221
published studies have conducted an investigation to examine the
critical quality tools (CQTs) such as Kaizen Team, Poka-yoke, Value
Stream Mapping (VSM), Gemba, Kanban, Control Chart (CC), Takt
Time (TT), Design of Experiment, Cellular Layout, and many others.
Thus, this study focuses on this gap by determining quality tools
that are beneficial for a particular purpose such as reducing cost,
improving quality, or improving productivity.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 is a literature re-
view about critical quality tools when implementing Lean
manufacturing and Six Sigma. Section 3 presents the research data
and the methods used in this paper. The results of the study and
discussion are presented in Section 4. Section 5 presents the con-
clusions and future research.
2. Literature review
Lean manufacturing philosophy aims at improving the produc-
tion process by minimizing wastes stemming from overproduction,
wait times, transport, extra processing, inventory, motion, and
defects. Thus, waste pertains to anything that is not necessary for
the production of a product or service (Nave, 2002; Bortolotti et al.,
2015; Jasti and Kodali, 2015; Garza-Reyes, 2015). Although Lean
tools was developed in the automotive industry the concept
evolved from a shop floor improvement method to become a ho-
listic approach that aims at creating value for stakeholders (Hines
et al., 2004; Mathaisel, 2005). It is also shown that a focus on
value creation for customers is an important element of Lean tools
because the same outcomes are achieved by reducing costs of
suppliers and avoiding waste, hence ensuring the effective use of
resources (Hines et al., 2004). Shah and Ward (2007) explained that
Lean tools production is a socio-technical system that avoids waste
by simultaneously reducing supplier, customer, and internal
variability.
Six Sigma approach deals with improving efficiency by identi-
fying deficiencies in existing processes. It deals also with imple-
menting and controlling a modified or new process to improve
customer value and process efficiency. Researchers describe Six
Sigma tools as a data-driven approach to problem-solving that in-
corporates statistical methods into management (Blakeslee Jr,
1999; Braunscheidel et al., 2011). Pyzdek and Keller (2014)
considered it to be a rigorous approach to improve quality in or-
ganizations because of the use of standardized tools and methods.
Furthermore, studies have documented various benefits of imple-
menting Six Sigma tools such as an increase in savings, increase in
perceived innovation (Braunscheidel et al., 2011), improvements in
knowledge transfer and organizational learning (Choo et al., 2007),
and improvements in overall quality of products or services (Levine
and Toffel, 2010). Recently, Lean and Six Sigma methodologies have
been associated also with concepts such as eco-efficiency, sus-
tainability, and Green (Moreira et al., 2010; Maia et al., 2013; Abreu
et al., 2017; Garcia-Alcaraz et al., 2018; Amaro et al., 2019). Lean
tools have improved financial and environmental performance of
the organization, which also helped to achieve sustainability
(Henao et al., 2019; Lermen et al., 2018; Abu et al., 2019).
Successful implementation of Lean and Six Sigma approaches is
driven by successful application of quality tools. Those widely used
in Lean manufacturing include Kaizen, Kanban, Brainstorming,
Value stream Map (VSM), 5S, Total productivity Maintenance
(TPM), Kaizen team, Work cell optimization, Mistake proofing &
prevention (Poka-yoke), Gemba, PDCA, Standardized Work, Takt
time, Visual Control, Once Piece Flow, and Single Minute Exchange
of Die (SMED). On the other side, Six Sigma often uses statistical
tools such as Voice of customer (VOC), Cause and Effect Diagram,
Check Sheet, Design of Experiment (DOE), Defect Per Million Op-
portunities (DPMO), Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA),
Pareto Diagram, Process Flow Chart, Control Chart, and regression
analysis (George, 2002; Basu, 2004; Montgomery, 2005).
Clegg et al. (2010) suggested that there is a great need to select
appropriate quality tools for a particular project. Moreover, addi-
tional research is needed regarding critical quality tools for a
particular performance aspect, thus there is still much to learn
about critical quality tools with regard to the integration of Lean
and Six Sigma tools for business practices. Talib et al. (2016) focused
on the state of usage of quality tools in Indian service industries.
Castello et al. (2019) also presented the integration of quality tools
into the ISO 9001:2008 standard in a wind power sector supply
chain. Most studies mentioned before did not link the importance
of quality tools to a specific organization’s performance. Those
tools, if known, can be critical to ensure performance improvement
in a specific aspect such as quality and cost reduction. More
recently, Yadav et al. (2020) proposed a framework for enhancing
the adoption of lean manufacturing processes as a leading frame-
work of quality improvement systems.
The quality tools, similar to the success factors, have various
levels of importance. It is, therefore, important that companies are
aware of the critical quality tools that effectively impact the per-
formance. This will allow the organization to design Lean Six Sigma
implementation strategies with a focus on CQTs that improve a
performance aspect (e.g cost reduction, quality improvement).
There is a clear lack of literature on the critical quality tools
compared to critical success factors. To the best of our knowledge
there is no published studies that investigated the critical quality
tools such as Kaizen Team, Poka-yoke, Value Stream Mapping,
Gemba, Kanban, Control Chart, Takt Time, Design of Experiment,
Cellular Layout, and others, and their impact on organizations’
performance. Thus, this study focuses on this gap by determining
quality tools that are beneficial for a particular performance pur-
pose such as reducing cost, improving quality, and improving
productivity.
3. Material and methods
A survey was designed to gather data on the implementation of
Lean and Six Sigma tools within companies in Pays de La Loire,
France. This may be the first study of its kind in France. The survey
participants were also required to respond to questions by indi-
cating whether or not they agreed with a statement with a certain
level of agreement or disagreement as follows, Strongly Disagree
(1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4), Strongly Agree (5). A score
of (5) represents the highest value of agreement and (1) represents
the maximum value of disagreement. The response variables have a
Likert scale then.
The goal is to investigate the impact of the implementation of
Lean and Six Sigma tools on the companies’ performance in terms
of three criteria, quality improvement (Q), productivity (P), and cost
reduction (C). The data collected are used to develop regression
models where each criterion is the response variable of a model,
thus three models are developed. Thirty-three companies
completed the survey. Various sectors of industries and businesses
completed the questionnaire, including 10 companies from the
electronics industry, 7 companies from automotive industry, 4
companies from the health industry, 2 companies from the trans-
portation industry, 6 companies from service, and 4 companies are
from other industry such as energy, oil and gas, food and aerospace
industries. Fourteen quality tools (independent variables) are
included in this study. Table 1 shows the percent of the imple-
mentation of each quality tool within our sample of 33 companies.
For example, Regression analysis as a quality tool is only imple-
mented within 13 companies. Three criteria are given to assess the
performance of the companies (dependent variables).
 A. Cohen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120221 3

Table 1
Independent variables (quality tools) considered in the analysis.

Variables Type Percent of implementation in the sample

- Kaizen Team Categorical; 1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented 81.8%

- Poka-yoke Categorical; 1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented 81.8%
- Value Stream Mapping (VSM) Categorical; 1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented 81.8%
- Gemba Categorical; 1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented 78.8%
- Kanban Categorical; 1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented 78.8%
- Single-Minute Exchange of Dies (SMED) Categorical; 1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented 72.7%
- Control Chart (CC) Categorical; 1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented 72.7%
- Takt Time (TT) Categorical; 1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented 69.7%
- Design of Experiment Categorical; 1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented 63.6%
- Defects Per Million Categorical; 1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented 60.6%
Opportunities (DPMO)
- One Piece Flow (OPF) Categorical; 1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented 57.6%
- Define, Measure, Analyze, Categorical; 1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented 57.6%
Improve and Control (DMAIC)
- Cellular Layout (CellLay) Categorical; 1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented 48.5%
- Regression Analysis (Reg) Categorical; 1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented 39.4%

Fig. 1 presents the performance perceived by the companies
through the Likert scale. For instance, most of the companies has
received a satisfactory quality improvement (Q) since 19 companies
responded Agree (4) and 12 answered Strongly Agree (5), a total of
31 out of 33.
3.1. Multiple correspondence analysis
Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) allows us to study the
relationships of several categorical variables. It can be seen as a
generalization of principal component analysis (PCA) when the
variables are categorical instead of continuous (Benze cri, 1977;
Abdi and Valentin, 2007). It is useful to describe, explore, sum-
marize, and visualize information contained within a data table of I
individuals described by M categorical variables. It is an extension
of correspondence analysis (CA) to the case of more than two cat-
egorical variables (Husson and Josse, 2014). Consider each cate-
P the proportional odds model is the parallel regression assumption,
gorical variable has Jq levels and Mq¼1 Jq ¼ J. Given I individuals, the
I  J indicator matrix is denoted X. Computing a correspondence
analysis on the indicator matrix provides two sets of factors scores
(rows and columns). The proportion matrix P is then calculated, by
dividing the element of X by the total of all number in X, and
denoted P ¼ Xij =nX . The total rows and the columns of P are equal
to r ¼ P1 and c ¼ P’1, respectively; where 1 is an appropriately
dimensioned vector of ones. Let’s define the two matrices Dr ¼
diagðrÞ1=2 and Dc ¼ diagðcÞ1=2 . The factor scores are obtained
from the singular value decomposition, as follows:
 
Dr P  rcT Dc ¼ Z DQ T
where D is the diagonal matrix of the singular values. Z and Q are
matrices from the singular value decomposition. The row and col-
umns factor scores are given as follows, respectively:
F ¼ Dr Z D
G ¼ Dc Q D
The MCA helps in exploring the data by providing a typology of
the companies and the similarities between the companies from a
multidimensional perspective. In addition to assessing the re-
lationships within the quality tools being implemented in regard to
the companies.
3.2. Ordinal logistic regression
Many different regression models for analyzing ordinal
response variables were being developed during the past decades
(Harrell Jr, 2015; McCullagh, 1980; McKelvey and Zavoina, 1975).
Ordinal regression model is included in the general framework of
generalized linear models (GLM), where various models may result
from the use of different link functions (logistic, loglog, probit). The
most commonly used ordinal regression model is the proportional
odds (PO) model (McCullagh, 1980). Let’s consider a response var-
iable Y having levels 1; 2; …; k, the logit ordinal regression equation
is given as follows:
 
PðY  jjXÞ
logit½PðY  jjXÞ  ¼ log ¼ aj þ bX; (4)
1  PðY  jjXÞ
where j2f1; 2; …; k  1g. For a given level j (say j ¼ 2 corresponds
to “Disagree” in our survey), the model is a logistic regression for
the event Y  j and has its own intercept. A crucial assumption for
where it is assumed to have the binary logits with identical slopes
and different intercepts. To check whether or not the parallel
regression assumption holds, one can use the Likelihood ratio test,
the graphical diagnostics, or the Brant test (Brant, 1990).
4. Results and discussion
This investigation starts by applying the multiple correspon-
dence analysis to the quality tools. “The Design of Experiment” tool
was excluded because of its high association with the “Control
Chart” tool (Spearman’s rank correlation ¼ 0.81, p-value
(1) < 0:00001). The data matrix consists of 33 rows (companies) and 13
columns (quality tools).
Fig. 2 (left) shows the biplot of individuals (companies pre-
sented by numbers) and variables categories into the first two di-
mensions of the MCA. The percentage of variability explained into
the two dimensions is equal to 55.9% ¼ 39.9% (Dim1) þ 16% (Dim2).
(2) In the biplot, the distance between any points (companies or var-
iable categories) gives a measure of similarity that shows a general
pattern in the data. For example, companies 13, 8, 5, and 3 form an
(3)
isolated cluster from the other companies, showing that they have
overall similar answers to the questions, which means these com-
panies are using similar quality tools, such as Control Chart (CC) and
SMED, but not all of them. In addition, this cluster is far from the
center of the biplot, which means that these companies forming the
cluster are not implementing most of the quality tools. The closer
4 A. Cohen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120221

Fig. 1. Companies’ performance reported in the survey, based on the implementation of the quality tools, in terms of Quality (Q), Cost (C), and Production (P).

the companies are to the center the more quality tools they
implement. A company that exactly falls in the center would
implement all quality tools being investigated. Note that most
variables are well presented by the two dimensions as shown in
Fig. 2 (right), that is the squared correlations between the variables
and each dimension are used as coordinates. The variables Poka-
yoke (Poka) and Takt Time (TT) are the most correlated variables
with dimension 1. Similarly, DMAIC and SMED are the most
correlated with dimension 2. It can be seen that the variables
GEMBA and VSM are well presented in both dimensions (1e2).
Fig. 3 presents the individuals (companies) by groups using the
levels of the variables (1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented). A
95% confidence ellipse is used around the mean point of each group
assuming a multivariate t-distribution. This result helps to indicate
which variables clearly separate the two groups of companies
(1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented). For example, the control
chart (CC) tool does not provide a discriminative feature for the
companies being questioned, as well as Reg (Regression analysis),
DPMO, and CellLay (Cellular Layout). On the other side, there is a
clear discriminative pattern regarding companies that whether or
not use GEMBA. An identical pattern can be recognized for VSM.
Furthermore, looking at the ellipses in Fig. 3, one can observe
similar patterns such as for GEMBA-VSM, Kaisen-KANBAN, and
OPF-TT-SMED. These similarities indicate that those variables
(quality tools) are whether or not implemented within the same
companies. For instance, the companies that implement GEMBA
will most likely implement VSM and vice-versa. From this explor-
atory statistical analysis, It is expected that tools such as GEMBA,
KANBAN, and VSM would have a significant impact on the com-
panies’ performance.
Next, thirteen tools are used as factors in the ordinal regression
models where quality (Q), cost reduction (C), and productivity (P)
are the response variables. The ordinal logistic regression is used to
study the relationship between the tools and the performance. A

Fig. 2. The multiple correspondence analysis.

 A. Cohen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120221 5

likelihood ratio test was performed to make sure that the parallel
regression assumption is met.
The estimated coefficients of the predictors in the ordinal lo-
gistic regression models are given in Table 2. There are three
models one for each response variable. Bold typeface values indi-
cate statistically significant predictors (p-value < 0:1Þ. For the
Quality (Q) full model, two tools are statistically significant, that are
OPF and DPMO. In terms of the sign/direction of the coefficients.
The OPF estimate is positive, which means when OPF is “imple-
mented” the company’s statement about quality improvement is
more likely to be “Strongly Agree” than companies that do not
implement OPF. On the other side, the DPMO estimate is negative,
which tells us that when the DPMO tool is not implemented the
company response about the quality improvement is most likely to
be “Disagree”. Regarding the Cost model (C), the only significant
predictor is Cellular Layout tool and has a negative estimate. The
Productivity model (P) has two significant predictors, that are
KANBAN and SMED, in a positive direction.
Further, Table 3 provides the reduced models where all the
predictors are statistically significant. The Likelihood Ratio test
compares the log likelihoods of the two models (full vs. reduced), if
this difference is statistically significant, then the model with more
variables is said to fit the data significantly better than the more
restrictive model. The resulting test statistic is distributed chi-
squared, with degrees of freedom equal to the number of param-
eters that are constrained.
The reduced model of Quality (Q) shows a significant association
between GEMBA, OPF, and DPMO implementation and how likely
the company will perceive a better quality performance. The odds
ratios can help interpret the result. For instance, a company that
goes from not implement (¼1) to implement (¼2) GEMBA tool has
odds of answering “Strongly Agree”, about the quality improve-
ment versus answering “Neutral” and “Agree”, 9.216 greater, given
that all other variables in the model are held constant. The same

Fig. 3. 95% Confidence ellipses grouping companies based on the variables categories (1 ¼ not implemented, 2 ¼ implemented) using a multivariate t-distribution.
6 A. Cohen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120221

Table 2
Full ordinal logistic regression models (10% is level of significance).

Predictors Ordinal Logistic Regression Model with Response Variable

Quality Cost Productivity

Estimate SE P-value Estimate SE P-value Estimate SE P-value

VSM 0.1391 3.3410 0.9668 2.9128 1.9626 0.13777 0.99221 2.13659 0.6424
GEMBA 4.3119 2.9532 0.1443 1.9241 1.5879 0.22560 1.29724 1.62342 0.4242
Poka 0.7509 1.7763 0.6725 0.5739 2.0955 0.78419 1.45231 1.89129 0.4426
KANBAN 2.2269 2.2476 0.3218 2.5199 1.9069 0.18635 4.32320 2.00322 0.0309
TT 0.5339 1.5553 0.7314 1.4046 1.4864 0.34468 1.32455 1.35590 0.3286
Kaizen 0.5907 1.8844 0.7539 2.2181 1.8944 0.24164 1.94919 1.65009 0.2375
SMED 0.8911 1.5016 0.5529 2.2127 1.5934 0.16493 2.33915 1.41836 0.0991
DMAIC 1.6513 1.7101 0.3342 0.1337 1.3508 0.92114 1.46815 1.48276 0.3221
OPF 3.8409 2.2000 0.0808 0.1352 1.7253 0.93752 0.38800 1.53841 0.8009
Reg 1.9378 1.5975 0.2251 0.3629 1.3100 0.78175 1.60543 1.37059 0.2415
CellLay 1.3559 1.3021 0.2977 3.7996 1.6240 0.01930 1.58243 1.29882 0.2231
DPMO 4.0665 1.9158 0.0338 0.2186 1.3847 0.87457 0.32822 1.22352 0.7885
CC 1.6058 1.3029 0.2178 1.6291 1.2917 0.20726 1.15690 1.21825 0.3423

Log-likelihood 20.5025 25.3933 28.5941

AIC 73.0051 82.7867 89.1881

thing for OPF with an odds ratio of 13.22. On the other side, DPMO
shows an odds ratio less than one, which means the odds of
answering “Strongly Agree” about the quality improvement versus
answering “Neutral” and “Agree” decreases with a multiple of ð1 
0:055Þ ¼ 0:945.
The reduced model Cost (cost reduction) has three predictors,
that are CellLay, VSM, and TT. The odds ratios are given in Table 3.
For VSM (Value Stream Mapping) tool, the odds of a company
answering “Strongly Agree” about reducing the cost versus
answering “Neutral” and “Agree” combined are 13.503 greater,
when all other variables in the model are held constant and the
VSM goes from not implemented to implemented. A similar
conclusion is given for TT (Takt Time) tool with an odds ratio of
10.697. Regarding CellLay tool the odds ratio is less than one.
The Productivity model shows that KANBAN tool has a big role
to improving productivity. The odds ratio is 10.777, which means a
company that implements KANBAN would show “Strongly Agree”
answer about productivity improvement versus “Neutral” and
“Agree” combined. The increase is a multiple of 10.777.
It is crucial to be aware that not all organizations, and in
particular small and medium enterprises (SMEs), have the capacity
to implement quality tools, simultaneously or as needed, because of
shortage of funds, expertise, or time. This is important because this
goes along with which critical quality tools that should be imple-
mented to achieve a specific performance goal. Indeed, organiza-
tions will focus on implementing those CQTs, if known, that most
likely will increase the odds of improving their performance met-
rics. Consequently, more research should be conducted to investi-
gate the critical quality tools that organizations should implement
effectively and efficiently to achieve a performance objective.
This study explored 13 quality tools or techniques related to
Lean manufacturing and Six Sigma. An exploratory analysis was
conducted using multiple corresponding analysis to discover the
similarities among companies, and also among quality tools. The
data used in this study was ordinal. Therefore, an ordinal regression
model was developed to investigate the impact of every single
quality tool on a particular performance goal. The findings show
that 1) the critical quality tool to improve quality performance
would be implementing One Piece Flow and GEMBA tools, 2)
implementing Value Stream Mapping and Takt Time tools would
significantly reduce the cost within a company compared to not
implementing these tools, and 3) An improvement in productivity
can be achieved by implementing the KANBAN tool. The findings
can be useful to guide companies to direct their resources or efforts
to the critical quality tools instead of implementing all the tools
equally.
It is worth noting that generalization would be difficult to
consider outside France because of the nature of the sample. Next,
future work should definitely focus on collecting a larger sample or
building a new case study to support the statistical analysis and
findings of this study. There is a huge lack in the literature about
critical quality tools and their impact on performance compared to

Table 3
Reduced ordinal logistic regression models (10% is level of significance).

Predictors Reduced Ordinal Logistic Regression Models with Response Variable

Estimate SE P-value Odds Ratio P-value Likelihood Ratio Test

Quality (Full vs. Reduced)

GEMBA 2.221 1.283 0.0835 9.216 0.891

OPF 2.582 1.321 0.0501 13.22
DPMO 2.895 1.314 0.0276 0.055

Cost

CellLay 2.08366 0.9046 0.0213 0.1244 0.702

VSM 2.60298 1.1762 0.0269 13.503
TT 2.36993 1.0261 0.0209 10.697

Productivity

KANBAN 2.37742 0.89971 0.0082 10.777 0.5695

 A. Cohen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120221
critical success factors. We believe future studies should include
more factors such as the nature of the project, timeline for the
implementation, and any other factors that may contribute to
improve the performance. It is important to account for most fac-
tors that may be confounded with the effects of the critical quality
tools such as employees incentives initiatives. This work could be
extended to include the cost of implementing the quality tools as
well their environmental impacts.
5. Conclusions
This paper investigated the critical quality tools using a survey
to question french companies about their performance and the
status of implementation of quality tools. The ordinal regression
models being developed helped understand the importance of
some of the quality tools, which we called critical quality tools. A
sample of 33 companies was obtained. The findings showed that
critical quality tools to improve quality performance would be
implementing One Piece Flow and GEMBA tools. Furthermore,
implementing Value Stream Mapping and Takt Time tools would
significantly reduce the cost within a company compared to not
implementing these tools. The analysis suggested also that an
improvement in productivity can be achieved by implementing the
KANBAN tool. Therefore, a recommendation to the companies
would be to making sure the effective implementation of these
critical quality tools and all resources should be made available to
achieve a successful implementation.
Contributions of authors
Achraf Cohen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Data
curation, Writing e Original Draft and Reviewing and Editing,
Ibrahim Alhuraish: Conceptualization, Investigation, Data curation,
Writing - Reviewing and Editing, Abdessamad Kobi: Supervision.
Christian Robeldo: Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
References
Abdi, H., Valentin, D., 2007. Multiple Correspondence Analysis. Encyclopedia of
measurement and statistics, pp. 651e657.
Abreu, M.F., Alves, A.C., Moreira, F., 2017. Lean-green models for eco-efficient and
sustainable production. Energy 137, 846e853.
Abu, F., Gholami, H., Saman, M.Z.M., Zakuan, N., Streimikiene, D., 2019. The
implementation of lean manufacturing in the furniture industry: a review and
analysis on the motives, barriers, challenges, and the applications. J. Clean. Prod.
234, 660e680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.279.
Alhuraish, I., Robledo, C., Kobi, A., 2016. Impacts of lean manufacturing and six
sigma. In: 22nd ISSAT International Conference on Reliability and Quality in
Design-RQD.
Alhuraish, I., Robledo, C., Kobi, A., 2017. A comparative exploration of lean
manufacturing and six sigma in terms of their critical success factors. J. Clean.
Prod. 164, 325e337.
Amaro, P., Alves, A.C., Sousa, R.M., 2019. Lean Thinking: A Transversal and Global
Management Philosophy to Achieve Sustainability Benefits. Springer Interna-
tional Publishing, Cham, pp. 1e31.
Basu, R., 2004. Implementing Quality: a Practical Guide to Tools and Techniques:
Enabling the Power of Operational Excellence. Cengage Learning EMEA.
Benzecri, J.-P., 1977. Sur l’analyse des tableaux binaires associe s a
 une corre-
spondance multiple. CAD 2, 55e71.
Blakeslee Jr., J.A., 1999. Implementing the six sigma solution. Qual. Prog. 32 (7), 77.
Bortolotti, T., Boscari, S., Danese, P., 2015. Successful lean implementation: organi-
zational culture and soft lean practices. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 160, 182e201.
Brant, R., 1990. Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal
logistic regression. Biometrics 1171e1178.
Braunscheidel, M.J., Hamister, J.W., Suresh, N.C., Star, H., 2011. An institutional
theory perspective on six sigma adoption. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 31 (4),
423e451.
Caldera, H., Desha, C., Dawes, L., 2017. Exploring the role of lean thinking in
7
sustainable business practice: a systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 167,
1546e1565.
Castello, J., De Castro, R., Marimon, F., 2019. Use of quality tools and techniques and
their integration into iso 9001. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 37 (1), 68e89. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-07-2018-0171.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Chiarini, A., Mokhlis, A., Benhida, K., 2016. The integration of
lean manufacturing, six sigma and sustainability: a literature review and future
research directions for developing a specific model. J. Clean. Prod. 139,
828e846.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Govindan, K., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Benhida, K., Mokhlis, A.,
2017. A framework for the integration of green and lean six sigma for superior
sustainability performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 55 (15), 4481e4515.
Choo, A.S., Linderman, K.W., Schroeder, R.G., 2007. Method and psychological effects
on learning behaviors and knowledge creation in quality improvement projects.
Manag. Sci. 53 (3), 437e450.
Clegg, B., Rees, C., Titchen, M., 2010. A study into the effectiveness of quality
management training: a focus on tools and critical success factors. The TQM
Journal 22 (2), 188e208.
Delgado, C., Ferreira, M., Castelo Branco, M., 2010. The implementation of lean six
sigma in financial services organizations. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 21 (4),
512e523.
García-Alcaraz, J., Alor-Hern andez, G., Sa nchez-Ramírez, C., Jime nez-Macías, E.,
Blanco-Fern andez, J., Latorre-Biel, J., 2018. Mediating role of the six sigma
implementation strategy and investment in human resources in economic
success and sustainability. Sustainability 10 (6), 1828.
Garcia-Alcaraz, J.L., Alor-Hern andez, G., Sa nchez-Ramírez, C., Jimenez-Macías, E.,
Blanco-Fern andez, J., Latorre-Biel, J.I., 2018. Mediating role of the six sigma
implementation strategy and investment in human resources in economic
success and sustainability. Sustainability 10 (6), 1828.
Garza-Reyes, J.A., 2015. Lean and greenea systematic review of the state of the art
literature. J. Clean. Prod. 102, 18e29.
George, M., 2002. Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six Sigma Quality with Lean Pro-
duction Speed. McGraw Hill Professional.
Harrell Jr., F.E., 2015. Regression Modeling Strategies: with Applications to Linear
Models, Logistic and Ordinal Regression, and Survival Analysis. Springer.
Henao, R., Sarache, W., Go  mez, I., 2019. Lean manufacturing and sustainable per-
formance: trends and future challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 208, 99e116.
Hines, P., Holweg, M., Rich, N., 2004. Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary
lean thinking. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 24 (10), 994e1011.
Husson, F., Josse, J., 2014. Multiple Correspondence Analysis. Visualization and
Verbalization of Data, pp. 165e184.
Jasti, N.V.K., Kodali, R., 2015. Lean production: literature review and trends. Int. J.
Prod. Res. 53 (3), 867e885.
Knol, W.H., Slomp, J., Schouteten, R.L., Lauche, K., 2018. Implementing lean practices
in manufacturing smes: testing ‘critical success factors’ using necessary con-
dition analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (11), 3955e3973.
Lermen, F.H., Echeveste, M.E., Peralta, C.B., Sonego, M., Marcon, A., 2018.
A framework for selecting lean practices in sustainable product development:
the case study of a brazilian agroindustry. J. Clean. Prod. 191, 261e272.
Levine, D.I., Toffel, M.W., 2010. Quality management and job quality: how the iso
9001 standard for quality management systems affects employees and em-
ployers. Manag. Sci. 56 (6), 978e996.
Lins, M.G., Zotes, L.P., Caiado, R., 2019. Critical factors for lean and innovation in
services: from a systematic review to an empirical investigation. Total Qual.
Manag. Bus. Excel. 1e26.
Maia, L.C., Alves, A.C., Lea ~o, C.P., 2013. Sustainable work environment with lean
production in textile and clothing industry. International Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management 4 (3), 183e190.
Marzaga ~o, D.S.L., Carvalho, M.M., 2016. Critical success factors for six sigma projects.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (8), 1505e1518.
Mathaisel, D.F., 2005. A lean architecture for transforming the aerospace mainte-
nance, repair and overhaul (mro) enterprise. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 54 (8),
623e644.
McCullagh, P., 1980. Regression models for ordinal data. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B 109e142.
McKelvey, R.D., Zavoina, W., 1975. A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level
dependent variables. J. Math. Sociol. 4 (1), 103e120.
Montgomery, D., 2005. Introduction to Statistical Quality Control. John Wiley,
Hoboken, N.J.
Moreira, F., Alves, A.C., Sousa, R.M., 2010. Towards eco-efficient lean production
systems. In: International Conference on Information Technology for Balanced
Automation Systems. Springer, pp. 100e108.
Nave, D., 2002. How to compare six sigma, lean and the theory of constraints. Qual.
Prog. 35 (3), 73.
Netland, T.H., 2016. Critical success factors for implementing lean production: the
effect of contingencies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54 (8), 2433e2448.
Pyzdek, T., Keller, P.A., 2014. The Six Sigma Handbook. McGraw-Hill Education, New
York.
Ribeiro de Jesus, A., Antony, J., Lepikson, H.A., Peixoto, A.L., 2016. Six sigma critical
success factors in brazilian industry. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 33 (6), 702e723.
Shah, R., Ward, P.T., 2007. Defining and developing measures of lean production.
J. Oper. Manag. 25 (4), 785e805.
Talib, F., Rahman, Z., Qureshi, M., 2016. Survey on the usage of total quality man-
agement tools and techniques in indian service industries: an empirical anal-
ysis. Int. J. Qual. Innovat. 2 (2), 105e119. Talib, F., Rahman, Z. and Qureshi, MN
(2013)’Survey on the usage of total quality management tools and techniques in
8 A. Cohen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 255 (2020) 120221

Indian service industries: an empirical analysis’. 118726.

Yadav, G., Luthra, S., Huisingh, D., Mangla, S.K., Narkhede, B.E., Liu, Y., 2020. Zhu, Q., Johnson, S., Sarkis, J., 2018. Lean six sigma and environmental sustain-
Development of a lean manufacturing framework to enhance its adoption ability: a hospital perspective. In: Supply Chain Forum: an International Journal,
within manufacturing companies in developing economies. J. Clean. Prod. 245, vol. 19. Taylor & Francis, pp. 25e41.