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

Learn More →

Study on Lean Six Sigma frameworks: a critical literature review

Study on Lean Six Sigma frameworks: a critical literature review PurposeThe literature in the field of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) is escalating with frameworks, but, till date, no effort has been made in existing literature to critically reviewing LSS frameworks. The aim of this paper is to investigate the literature about Lean, Six Sigma and LSS frameworks and critically reviewing the existing literature over numerous parameters.Design/methodology/approachThis study focuses on a literature review of Lean, Six Sigma and LSS frameworks. The time span of this analysis is 30 years. The analysis is restricted to searching online databases such as Elsevier Science direct, Taylor and Francis, Emerald, Springer link, Wiley Inter-Science and Inder-Science. A total number of 58 frameworks have been used as sample size for this study. The study focuses on reviewing these 58 frameworks based on measures such as the novelty of frameworks, source of frameworks, framework verification, approach of verification and identification of vital elements/tools/constructs of frameworks and lastly comparative analysis of all these 58 frameworksFindingsThe analysis has identified major discrepancy such as laxity of researcher toward utilizing existing frameworks, lack of participation of practitioners and consultants in the development of LSS frameworks, and the elements/constructs used in structuring the frameworks are highly incoherent. Higher proportions of frameworks are verified through various modes of verification such as survey, case study, simulation, which encourages other researchers for applicability of the frameworks. Case study is found most popular research design method for verification of frameworks. Various frameworks are highly abstract or superficial. Some of the frameworks do not show how each construct/element are related to implementation in the organization. Out of 58 frameworks, the only single framework is highly comprehensive. A coherent framework for LSS is still lacking.Research limitations/implicationsThis analysis is limited to peer review articles from Elsevier Science direct, Taylor and Francis, Emerald, Springer link, Wiley Inter-Science and Inder-Science databases and contains the search keywords in title only.Originality/valueThis study is first of its kind attempt, making an effort to the knowledge of the authors to critically review Lean, Six Sigma and LSS frameworks. This analysis will assist to recognize the LSS filed trends and framework applicability. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Lean Six Sigma Emerald Publishing

Study on Lean Six Sigma frameworks: a critical literature review

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/study-on-lean-six-sigma-frameworks-a-critical-literature-review-RudM0uVfsZ
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
2040-4166
DOI
10.1108/IJLSS-02-2016-0003
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

PurposeThe literature in the field of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) is escalating with frameworks, but, till date, no effort has been made in existing literature to critically reviewing LSS frameworks. The aim of this paper is to investigate the literature about Lean, Six Sigma and LSS frameworks and critically reviewing the existing literature over numerous parameters.Design/methodology/approachThis study focuses on a literature review of Lean, Six Sigma and LSS frameworks. The time span of this analysis is 30 years. The analysis is restricted to searching online databases such as Elsevier Science direct, Taylor and Francis, Emerald, Springer link, Wiley Inter-Science and Inder-Science. A total number of 58 frameworks have been used as sample size for this study. The study focuses on reviewing these 58 frameworks based on measures such as the novelty of frameworks, source of frameworks, framework verification, approach of verification and identification of vital elements/tools/constructs of frameworks and lastly comparative analysis of all these 58 frameworksFindingsThe analysis has identified major discrepancy such as laxity of researcher toward utilizing existing frameworks, lack of participation of practitioners and consultants in the development of LSS frameworks, and the elements/constructs used in structuring the frameworks are highly incoherent. Higher proportions of frameworks are verified through various modes of verification such as survey, case study, simulation, which encourages other researchers for applicability of the frameworks. Case study is found most popular research design method for verification of frameworks. Various frameworks are highly abstract or superficial. Some of the frameworks do not show how each construct/element are related to implementation in the organization. Out of 58 frameworks, the only single framework is highly comprehensive. A coherent framework for LSS is still lacking.Research limitations/implicationsThis analysis is limited to peer review articles from Elsevier Science direct, Taylor and Francis, Emerald, Springer link, Wiley Inter-Science and Inder-Science databases and contains the search keywords in title only.Originality/valueThis study is first of its kind attempt, making an effort to the knowledge of the authors to critically review Lean, Six Sigma and LSS frameworks. This analysis will assist to recognize the LSS filed trends and framework applicability.

Journal

International Journal of Lean Six SigmaEmerald Publishing

Published: Aug 7, 2017

References