Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Quantitative analysis of Six Sigma, Lean and Lean Six Sigma research publications in last two decades

Quantitative analysis of Six Sigma, Lean and Lean Six Sigma research publications in last two... <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title> <jats:p>The purpose of this paper is to extend previous studies to a hybrid analysis of three business improvement practices of Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma (LSS) within last two decades and identify the research gaps and focusses in more comprehensive and robust classification framework.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title> <jats:p>A secondary data collection and a literature review were conducted to collect information about peer-reviewed journal articles under six dimensions of a tested classification framework. The frequency and distribution analysis was conducted followed by Pearson’s <jats:italic>χ</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> test to analyse any relationship between dimensions of framework in order to identify the gap.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title> <jats:p>Despite a relatively great deal of regular research outputs about Six Sigma, Lean and LSS, academic journal articles have been found mainly limited to a few industries, themes and countries. “General manufacturing”, “healthcare”, “automotive” and “electronic industries” as sectors; and “tools and techniques”, “benefits” and “success factors” as key themes have been mostly approached by LSS, Six Sigma and lean management articles. It was also found that there is still a great disparity amongst researchers and journals to publish about these three business improvement practices.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Research limitations/implications</jats:title> <jats:p>The research publications for LSS, Six Sigma and lean management should have wider approach towards various manufacturing and service sectors, countries and journal publications. A greater level of research/enterprise activities has been found in relation to LSS and Six Sigma articles compared to lean management articles.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title> <jats:p>This research aims to identify the gaps in research publications during last two decades about three major business improvement practices in one package and through more comprehensive robust classification framework and also through comparative analysis.</jats:p> </jats:sec> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management CrossRef

Quantitative analysis of Six Sigma, Lean and Lean Six Sigma research publications in last two decades

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management , Volume 34 (5): 598-625 – May 2, 2017

Quantitative analysis of Six Sigma, Lean and Lean Six Sigma research publications in last two decades


Abstract

<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title>
<jats:p>The purpose of this paper is to extend previous studies to a hybrid analysis of three business improvement practices of Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma (LSS) within last two decades and identify the research gaps and focusses in more comprehensive and robust classification framework.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title>
<jats:p>A secondary data collection and a literature review were conducted to collect information about peer-reviewed journal articles under six dimensions of a tested classification framework. The frequency and distribution analysis was conducted followed by Pearson’s <jats:italic>χ</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> test to analyse any relationship between dimensions of framework in order to identify the gap.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title>
<jats:p>Despite a relatively great deal of regular research outputs about Six Sigma, Lean and LSS, academic journal articles have been found mainly limited to a few industries, themes and countries. “General manufacturing”, “healthcare”, “automotive” and “electronic industries” as sectors; and “tools and techniques”, “benefits” and “success factors” as key themes have been mostly approached by LSS, Six Sigma and lean management articles. It was also found that there is still a great disparity amongst researchers and journals to publish about these three business improvement practices.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Research limitations/implications</jats:title>
<jats:p>The research publications for LSS, Six Sigma and lean management should have wider approach towards various manufacturing and service sectors, countries and journal publications. A greater level of research/enterprise activities has been found in relation to LSS and Six Sigma articles compared to lean management articles.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title>
<jats:p>This research aims to identify the gaps in research publications during last two decades about three major business improvement practices in one package and through more comprehensive robust classification framework and also through comparative analysis.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>

Loading next page...
 
/lp/crossref/quantitative-analysis-of-six-sigma-lean-and-lean-six-sigma-research-Q5J9W0OdIB
Publisher
CrossRef
ISSN
0265-671X
DOI
10.1108/ijqrm-07-2015-0096
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

<jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title> <jats:p>The purpose of this paper is to extend previous studies to a hybrid analysis of three business improvement practices of Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma (LSS) within last two decades and identify the research gaps and focusses in more comprehensive and robust classification framework.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title> <jats:p>A secondary data collection and a literature review were conducted to collect information about peer-reviewed journal articles under six dimensions of a tested classification framework. The frequency and distribution analysis was conducted followed by Pearson’s <jats:italic>χ</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> test to analyse any relationship between dimensions of framework in order to identify the gap.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title> <jats:p>Despite a relatively great deal of regular research outputs about Six Sigma, Lean and LSS, academic journal articles have been found mainly limited to a few industries, themes and countries. “General manufacturing”, “healthcare”, “automotive” and “electronic industries” as sectors; and “tools and techniques”, “benefits” and “success factors” as key themes have been mostly approached by LSS, Six Sigma and lean management articles. It was also found that there is still a great disparity amongst researchers and journals to publish about these three business improvement practices.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Research limitations/implications</jats:title> <jats:p>The research publications for LSS, Six Sigma and lean management should have wider approach towards various manufacturing and service sectors, countries and journal publications. A greater level of research/enterprise activities has been found in relation to LSS and Six Sigma articles compared to lean management articles.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title> <jats:p>This research aims to identify the gaps in research publications during last two decades about three major business improvement practices in one package and through more comprehensive robust classification framework and also through comparative analysis.</jats:p> </jats:sec>

Journal

International Journal of Quality & Reliability ManagementCrossRef

Published: May 2, 2017

References