Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Since the early 1990s several empirical studies have been undertaken linking quality efforts such as total quality management (TQM) and Six Sigma to organizational performance. In the majority of these studies the organizational performance indicators typically include sales growth, operating income, profits, employee turnover, employee satisfaction, and customer satisfaction. Direct costs and savings of implementing quality management programs have seldom been studied, and many of these studies lack statistical rigor and objectivity. For example, sales growth could be affected by a number of other business environmental factors, so how can one isolate the effect of quality improvement programs on sales growth? Due to these limitations, the results of these studies are mixed, with some showing significant relationships between quality constructs and organizational performance measures and others not. This study also attempts to quantify the financial impact of Six Sigma programs. It differs, however, from previous studies in two ways. First, it evaluates the direct costs and direct operational savings of implementing Six Sigma programs, which, to the authors knowledge, was never done before. Second, it differs in terms of the research methodology used. The author undertook an extensive search of organizational annual reports and other published materials on Six Sigma organizations that provided the actual costs and savings related to implementing Six Sigma in 28 organizations. The main finding of this research is that effective implementation of Six Sigma led to an average savings of 1.7 percent of revenues over the period of implementation and an average return of more than $2 in direct savings for every dollar invested on Six Sigma. The findings of this research are useful for organizations implementing Six Sigma to have realistic expectations of the program and to monitor and benchmark the progress of their programs. Key words: cost-benefit, payback, ROI, Six Sigma, TQM
INTRODUCTION
Organizations are increasingly adopting Six Sigma in a bid to improve the quality of their processes and products, and thus achieve competitive advantage. Six Sigma was developed by Motorola in the 1980s, but gained enormous momentum after its adoption by General Electric (GE) in the mid-1990s. For example, in 2006, 35 percent of organizations in the United States had a Six Sigma program in place, and in 2007, 82 of the 100 largest organizations in the United States had embraced Six Sigma (Crockett and McGregor 2006; Hindo and Grow 2007). Six Sigma is a disciplined approach for dramatically reducing defects and producing measurable financial results (Anand 2006; Goh et al. 2003; Linderman, Schroeder, and Choo 2006). It provides an organizational structure in which improvement projects are led by so-called Black Belts and Green Belts. To guide Black Belts and Green Belts through the execution of an improvement project, the program provides a collection of long-standing management and statistical tools and a problem-solving methodology known as define, measure, analyze, improve, and control (DMAIC). Many authors claim that Six Sigma is a superior program, as it eliminates the weaknesses of total quality management (TQM) (Antony 2004; Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh 2000; Pfeifer, Reissiger, and Canales 2004; Revere and Black 2003). For example, according to Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh (2000), Six Sigma is revealing a potential for success that goes beyond the levels of improvement achieved through the many TQM efforts. Unlike previous quality improvement
www.asq.org 39
methodologies used to measure quality practices and performance measures varied. Quality practices have been assessed/measured in three different ways. The first methodand the most commonis the use of questionnaire surveys of managers and employees of their perceptions of quality practices (Madu, Kuei, and Lin 1995). The second method, often used for a single construct, is the use of quality award-winning criteria as a proxy for quality management practices (Hendricks and Singhal 1997). The third method is the use of secondary sources and subjective assessment of TQM practices through interviews (Easton and Jarrell 1998). Two methods are used to measure organizational performance: the first is perceptions of managers and employees using questionnaire surveys (Madu, Kuei, and Lin 1995), and the second is the use of publicly available financial data (Easton and Jarrell 1998). In general, most experts agree that properly implemented quality systems improve organizational performance (Easton and Jarrell 1998; Hendricks and Singhal 1997; Reger et al. 1994; Wayhan 2004). The improvement is stronger for advanced quality improvement programs. However, implementing a quality improvement program does not guarantee improved performance. It is possible that there are enabling factors that would make a quality improvement program effective in some organizations and ineffective in others (Hendricks and Singhal 1997; Easton and Jarrell 1998). The methodologies used to measure quality practices and performance measures have limitations because many of the research findings on the impact of quality efforts are mixed. Most questionnaire-based surveys are flawed and are superficial, as they allow self-selection of respondents and they rely on the managers perceptions without critical evaluation (Easton and Jarrell 1998; Haim 1993). On the other hand, tying quality improvement programs to financial indicators (revenues, profits, and so on) is a daunting task. There are many ways to measure financial results, and each one comes with complex factors to be aware of or to adjust for (Schonberger 2008). Financial results may also be influenced by events like 9/11 (Foster Jr. 2007) and other industry- and economy-wide influences (Hendricks and Singhal 1997).
www.asq.org 41
TQM, but did not succeed in obtaining any reliable data on annualized costs and savings. However, unlike TQM, a Six Sigma program has a better structure for organizational and operational level implementation (Anand 2006). It is results oriented, and every project is executed using the DMAIC framework. Costs and savings are often documented internally and even audited by financial departments. For example, at GE all costs and savings due to Six Sigma are rigorously audited (Hoerl 2002). At Starwood Hotels, a proprietary Web-based system known as E-Tool is used to monitor performance metrics to gauge the success or failure of a new project (Ante 2007). At Floyd Medical Center, a community hospital in the United States, changes and resulting savings from Lean Six Sigma are validated by the accounting department (Stuenkel and Faulkner 2009). Due to these reasons, the author contends that it should now be possible to capture costs and savings data for at least some organizations. The methodology used to collect these data and the results obtained are discussed in the next two sections. The author found one Web article that discusses costs and savings of quality improvement programs. The Web article by Waxer (n.d.) provides a summary of costs and savings (as a percentage of revenues) collected from organization annual reports, for five organizations, namely, Motorola, Allied Signal, GE, Honeywell, and Ford. Waxer estimates Six Sigma savings as a percentage of revenues to be between 1.2 percent and 4.5 percent. This work by Waxer provided impetus for the research discussed in this paper.
RESULTS
Through an extensive search, the author initially identified more than 120 Six Sigma organizations, spread over several countries, for which some data on costs and savings of Six Sigma are available. However, only 28 of these organizations are included in this study, that is, those for which cumulative savings (from start of implementation) and revenues are available for at least one year of implementation (see Tables 1, 2, and 3). For the remaining organizations, savings could be obtained at the most for specific projects or for only odd years (nonconsecutive), which is of no value for the proposed analysis in this research. For example, JP Morgan and Chase launched Six Sigma in 1998, but data on savings are available for 2001 to 2003 only. Savings as a percentage of revenues could be computed for the period 2001 to 2003, but what about the period from 1998 to 2000? Did they actively implement Six Sigma during
www.asq.org 43
Organization
Commonwealth Health Corp. Transplace Inc. Red Cross Hospital Iomega Crown Equip. Corporation WR Grace Newell Rubbermaid CSX Seagate Technology Cummins Inc. Allied Signal Paccar Johnson Controls Whirlpool Cigna Raytheon Countrywide3 3M DuPont Motorola Bechtel Honeywell Caterpillar Dow Chemicals McKesson
Type of business
Health-related business Logistics management Hospital Manf. of CD and DVD drives Manf. of forklift trucks Chemical manf. industry Marketer of consumer and commercial products Rail and other transport company Computer hardware manf. Manf. of diesel engines Aerospace, automotive, and engineering company Manf. of heavy-duty trucks Car parts manf. Manf. of white ware Health insurance Defense electronics Financial Inst. Diversified global manf. Global chemical and technology conglomerate Mobile phone manf. Engg. construction and project mgmt. Diversified technology and manf. Manf. of construction and mining equipment Chemical manf. Healthcare
Country
USA USA Netherlands USA USA USA USA USA Cayman Islands USA
USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA
$14,973 $18,400 $18,907 $19,101 $23,174 $24,445 $25,269 $26,100 $30,146 $31,400 $36,556 $51,324 $57,514 $106,600
Organization
Bank of America Ford Motor Co. General Electric
Type of business
Financial inst. Motor industry Manf. of aircraft engines, appliances, etc.
Country
USA USA USA
Revenues and number of employees for the latest year available to indicate the size of the Six Sigma organizations in the study sample. Estimated number of employees and budget in 2004 (Heuvel 2006). 3 Acquired by Bank of America in 2008.
this period? If so, what were the savings? This information could not be obtained despite extensive search, and hence this organization was excluded from the study sample. It is considered that cumulative savings over several years of implementation should provide a more robust estimate of savings (as a percentage of revenues) due to Six Sigma. The data collected for Motorola (shown in Table 4) illustrate the type of data that could be collected for each of the 28 selected organizations. Motorola launched Six Sigma in 1986. From an extensive search of published articles, cumulative savings could only be obtained for the following years: 1986 (year 1), 1992 (year 7), 2001 (year 16), and 2004 (year 19). As can be seen from Table 2, for the majority of the 28 organizations in the study sample, cumulative savings could be collected for only some of the years in which they implemented Six Sigma. As can be seen from Table 1, Allied Signal and General Electric launched their Six Sigma programs nearly a decade after Motorola pioneered the program in 1986. The rest of the organizations in the authors sample started implementing Six Sigma subsequently from 1997. The Six Sigma organizations in the study sample represent a wide variety of industry sectors: manufacturing (18), healthcare (4), banking and finance (2), logistics management (2), construction and project management (1), and marketing and distribution (1). The majority of the organizations in the study sample are large American multinationals. The annual revenues (for year 2008) of 24 out of the 28 (86 percent) organizations in the study sample ranged from $1.8 billion to $183 billion (see Table 1), with employee sizes ranging from more than
6,500 to 323,000. The four smaller organizations in the study sample are Commonwealth Health ($52 million in revenues), Transplace ($66 million in revenues), Red Cross Hospital (approximately $101 million annual budget), and Iomega ($337 million in revenues).
www.asq.org 45
Organization
Crown Equip. Corp.
Year Six Sigma Period for which Total revenues for the period Total savings Savings as launched data collected of data collection ($M) ($M) % revenues
2005 1999 2002 2001 2000 2005-08 1999-2002 2002-06 2001 2000-03 2001-04 1997-99 2001-02 2002-05 1999-2004 1995-2002 1997-2008 2001-04 1999-2002 2001-03 2001-03 1999-2003 2001-04 2005-08 1999-2007 1998-2006 1999-2004 1994-97 1998-2001 1998-2000 1986-2004 1998-2000 1998-2001 $6,590 $158,773 $89,610 $8,110 $ 658,970 $403 $29,451 $20,450 $27,716 $117,209 $839,599 $124,918 $ 158,267 $ 111,613 $41,359 $15,661 $132,810 $70,856 $264 $72,130 $61,323 $10,931 $52,961 $73,091 $72,300 $400,695 $4,325 $102 $1.5 $40.0 $100.0 $20.0 $1,700.0 $1.8 $175.0 $138.0 $210.0 $1,000.0 $8,000.0 $1,200.0 $2,000.0 $1,500.0 $625.0 $244.0 $2,200.0 $1,200.0 $5.0 $1,400.0 $1,200.0 $228.0 $1,200.0 $1,800.0 $1,800.0 $17,000.0 $273.0 $7.0 0.02% 0.03% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.3% 1.3% 1.5% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 2.1% 2.3% 2.5% 2.5% 4.2% 6.3% 6.8%
2012, ASQ
27 Ford 3
Red Cross Hospital, Beverwijk 2001 1997 2001 2002 1999 1995 1997 2001 1999 2001 2001 1999 2001 2005 1999 1998 1999 1994 1998 1998 1986 1998 1998
14 Whirlpool 23 Caterpillar 12 Newell Rubbermaid 28 Johnson Controls 26 GE 24 Paccar 13 Bank of America 21 Dow Chemicals 17 Bechtel 19 Countrywide 18 DuPont 2 3M
involved (Singh and Shoura 2006). Further, a Black Belt training typically takes 200 to 400 hours, and completing a Six Sigma project takes three to six months and sometimes up to 12 months (Feng and Manuel 2008;
46 QMJ VOL. 19, no. 4/ 2012, ASQ
Miguel and Andrietta 2009). This gap between initiating a Six Sigma program and actually realizing the benefits explains why the data consist of fewer observations for year one and more observations for years two to four.
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year .. Year Year .. Year .. Year Overall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 16 19
0.02% 0.03% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.02% 0.03% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 0.8% 0.9% 0.1% 0.5% 0.7% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 1.0% 1.3% 1.3% 0.1% 0.9% 1.5% 1.6% 3.7% 1.5% 1.6% 1.7% 1.9% 0.2% 0.7% 2.1% 2.4% 0.8% 1.6% 1.7% 2.3% 2.5% 2.1% 2.3% 2.5% 4.2% 3.3% 4.1% 6.3% 3.2% 4.9% 1.7% 1.3% 1.7% 8 10 12 6.8% 1.6% 14 1.4% 1.5% 6.1% 1.0% 2.0% 5 2 1 1 2 0 0.9% 1.0% 1 1 5.1% 4.2% 1 6.1% 5.1% 4.2% 1.7% 2.1% 1.9% 2.0% 1.7% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.3% 1.3% 1.5% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 2.1% 2.3% 2.5% 2.5% 4.2% 6.3% 6.8% 1.7% 0
2012, ASQ
Red Cross Hospital 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Whirlpool Caterpillar Newell Rubbermaid Johnson Controls GE Paccar Dow Chemicals Bank of America Bechtel Countrywide DuPont 3M Transplace Inc. Cummins Inc. Seagate WR Grace Allied Signal Raytheon Honeywell Motorola Iomega Commonwealth Health Average Count 0.7% 0.6%
www.asq.org 47
Savings
$250
Savings
$250
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23
$5,888 $6,707 $8,250 $9,620 $10,885 $11,341 $13,303 $16,963 $22,245 $27,037 $27,973 $29,794 $29,398 $30,931 $37,580 $27,720 $26,679 $27,058 $31,323 $36,843 $42,879 $36,622 $30,146
$4,000
6.1%
$16,000
5.1%
$17,000
4.2%
Very few organizations reported Six Sigma savings after year four, likely indicating a slowing down of the program or that there was less need to promote the program and hence the savings were no longer reported. Lack of high-impact projects (projects with high financial gains) or the inability of organizations to continue employing Black Belts on a full-time basis
could also be the reasons for lack of data after year four. Typically, Six Sigma Belts work full time for two years and thereafter return to their normal jobs (Harry 1998). Those Black Belts who are recruited in year one work on Six Sigma projects in years one and two. Those who are recruited in year two work in years two and three, and so on. By the end of year
three or four, organizations may be running out of potential Black Belts as well as projects. Some companies continue their improvement efforts incorporating other programs such as lean. For example, in the early 2000s GE launched its At the Customer, For the Customer program, which involves working on specific Six Sigma projects with the customers at their sites (GE Annual Report 2001). This three- to four-year life-cycle theory of Six Sigma programs is not unusual and in fact is a predictable pattern with quality programs. This happened with quality circle programs in the early 1980s and with TQM in the late 1980s and 1990s. For example, based on a survey of 13 organizations that
Table 5 Savings-to-costs ratio of Six Sigma.
Organization
GE
implemented quality circle programs in the 1980s, Hill (1991) observed that quality circles ceased to exist after three years in all of the organizations. In the context of TQM, Peters (1994) says The physical laws of entropy suggest that systems degrade over time unless acted on otherwise. Theoretically, total quality can become an organizations overriding culture, suggesting that it generates its own momentum, but in practice this does not seem to have been realized. In reality, in dynamic environments, it is reasonable to suggest that a never-ending series of initiatives aimed at a constant readjustment and realignment with the marketplace is necessary. This is equally true with Six Sigma. Some organizations continue their improvement efforts by incorporating other programs such as lean, which do not require belts.
Savings-to-Costs Ratio
Despite an extensive search, cumulative costs (that is, the amount invested since the start of their programs) on Six Sigma are available only for two organizations, namely GE and Commonwealth Corporation (see Table 5, and Figures 1 and 2). GE invested $1.6 billion (0.42 percent of revenues) on Six Sigma from 1996 to 1999 and saved $4.4 billion during the same period with a savings-to-costs ratio of 2.6 to 1. Commonwealth invested $2.85 million (0.81 percent
Revenue ($M)
79,200 90,800 100,500 111,600 382,100
Investment
200 400 500 600 1,700 0.60 0.75 0.60
% revenue invested
0.25% 0.44% 0.50% 0.54% 0.44%
Savings
200 1,000 1,300 2,000 4,500 1.20 2.10 2.80
Savings as % of revenues
0.3% 1.1% 1.3% 1.8% 1.2%
2.85
0.81%
6.10
1.7%
2.1
www.asq.org 49
of revenues) on Six Sigma from 1998 to 2001 and saved $6.1 million during the same period, with a savings-to-costs ratio of 2.1. For every dollar invested on Six Sigma, the return (direct savings) was $2.6 for GE and $2.1 for Commonwealth Health, suggesting that Six Sigma is indeed a profitable investment. However, caution must be exercised in interpreting these ratios with only a sample size of only two. The findings of this research on costs (as a percentage of revenues), savings (as a percentage of revenues), and savings-to-costs ratios are consistent with that of Waxer (n.d.) and the opinions of other industry experts. For example, according to Ellen Bovarnick, vice president of Lean Six Sigma and Global Quality, Nortel Networks, Fortune 500 companies implementing Lean Six Sigma spent about 0.6 percent of revenues on Six Sigma and get $8 return for every dollar they spend on the program (that is, a direct savings of 5 percent of revenues) (Bovarnick 2006). Snee and Hoerl (2004) observe that Six Sigma initiatives typically return 2 percent to 4 percent of sales to the bottom line in the second and third years for small companies and 1 percent to 2 percent of sales in the second and third years for large companies. Harry (1998) claims that Six Sigma can save about 6 percent cost reduction each year.
savings as a percent of revenues and the savingsto-costs ratio of implementing Six Sigma. With the exception of one recent study (Link and Scott 2011), no previous studies on Six Sigma or any other quality improvement programs have attempted to estimate such operational performance figures. Second, it differs in terms of the research methodology used. This research undertook an extensive search of annual reports and other published material on Six Sigma organizations that provided the actual costs and savings related to implementing Six Sigma. This method is new, simple, more accurate, and apparently has never been used before in studies that examined the financial impact of quality improvement programs including Six Sigma. However, this research yielded only sparse data on 28 Six Sigma implementations. This makes it difficult to generalize the findings. Nevertheless, this research provides some interesting results that will be useful to managers, Six Sigma practitioners, and researchers. The author has done an extensive search of published material for similar financial data for TQM programs going back to the 1990s, but could not uncover any organization that shared these data. Overall, the results provide some evidence that Six Sigma is a good investment if it is implemented effectively. The cumulative savings over the period of implementation typically ranged from 1 percent to 2 percent of revenues, but can be as high as 6.8 percent. With Six Sigma, therefore, a $100 million organization can expect to save $4 million to $8 million over a four-year period of implementation. The savingsto-costs ratios of implementing Six Sigma were 2.6 and 2.1 to 1, respectively, for GE and Commonwealth Health. Caution should be exercised in generalizing the results on savings-to-costs ratios, as these results are based on just two Six Sigma implementations. In interpreting these results it should be noted that the data sample is not a random sample of organizations from the Unites States or any other country. They are selected from journals and magazines that reported Six Sigma success stories. It is likely that only the organizations that made significant savings from Six Sigma would have reported in their annual reports and publicized their savings. Conversely,
LIMITATIONS
Every effort has been made to ensure that the data collected are as accurate as possible by verifying the data from various sources such as annual reports, journal articles, and Web pages. Even so, there may be errors in estimating costs and savings as a percentage of revenues, as the periods for which costs, savings, and revenues reported are not always matched. Quality improvement programs do not necessarily start at the beginning of a financial year; the estimates of savings are therefore likely to be more robust for organizations for which the data have been reported over several years (such as Motorola, Paccar, Cummins Inc., and Seagate). The term savings is not well defined in the articles from where the data were collected. It is assumed that these savings are direct annualized savings, but savings from an improvement project often continue for several years. It is assumed that future savings are not accounted for when calculating savings for a given year. Also, it is assumed that project implementation costs, if any, have been deducted before calculating the savings; this may or may not be the case for all of the data collected for this study. Sometimes organizations may start with another program, such as lean, and then implement Six Sigma or vice versa. Or, they may have several change programs going on at the same time. The author tried his best to make sure the costs and savings data collected correspond to Six Sigma or Lean Six Sigma only. However, this may or may not be the case with all data collected for this study.
www.asq.org 51
Appendix 1
Data sources for the data collected in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
Organization
3M Allied Signal Bechtel
References1
Marx, M. 2005. 3MSix Sigma. Available at: http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/3m_six_sigma.html. Harry (1998) and Waxer (n.d.) Moreton, M. 2003. Featured company: Bechtel. Six Sigma Forum Magazine 3, no. 1:44. Bechtel Company Annual Report 2003. Available at: http://www.bechtel.com/assets/files/PDF/2003bechtelreport.pdf. Keim, E. M. 2006. Power surge. Electric Light and Power. Tulsa: 84, no. 6:14-15. Business Editors and High Tech Writers. 2001. Bechtel standardizes on Micrografx Six Sigma solutions. Business Wire (July 30):1. Owens, J. W. 2005. Featured company: Caterpillar Inc. Six Sigma Forum Magazine 4, no. 4:56. Hanway, H. E. 2006. Final thoughts: CIGNA Healthcare. Six Sigma Forum Magazine 5, no. 4:48. http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner=iwave&npoId=98312. http://www.asq.org/members/news/aqc/56_2002/18161.pdf http://www.sixsigmazone.com/assets/Schoen_Countrywide_Presentation.pdf. http://blogs.isixsigma.com/index.asp?ci=20&s=category Countrywide Annual Report 2003
2012, ASQ
Bank of America Jones Jr., M. H. 2004. Six Sigma ... at a Bank? Six Sigma Forum Magazine 3, no. 2:13-17.
Crown http://www.privco.com/private-company/crown-equipment-corp Equipment Corp. http://www.heliamericas.com/press.html CSX CSX Annual Report 2001
www.asq.org 53
References1
Marx, M. 2005. Cummins Inc.Six Sigma. Available at: http://blogs.isixsigma.com/index.asp?ci=20&s=category. Solso, T. 2007. Featured company: Cummins Inc. Six Sigma Forum Magazine 7, no. 1:44. Stavropoulos, W. S. 2004. Dow Chemical Co. Six Sigma Forum Magazine 4, no. 1:56. Motwani, J., A. Kumar, and J. Antony. 2004. A business process change framework for examining the implementation of Six Sigma: A case study of Dow Chemicals. The TQM Magazine 16, no. 4:273-83. http://www.dow.com/financial/2002ann/. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/7925/7925dowchemical.html#Anchor-26087. http://www2.dupont.com/Our_Company/en_US/executives/linsenmann.html. http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/dupont_six_sigma.html. Waxer, C. Six Sigma costs and savings. Available at: http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c020729a.asp. http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/ford_motor_company_consumer_driven_6_sigma.html http://www.motorola. com/content.jsp?globalObjectId=3081 Waxer, C. Six Sigma costs and savings. Available at: http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c020729a.asp General Electric annual reports, 1996 to 1999. Business Week, 22 July 2002. Waxer, C. n.d. Six Sigma costs and savings. Available at: http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c020729a.asp. Hill, W. J. and W. Kearney. 2003. The Honeywell experience. Six Sigma Forum Magazine 2, no. 2:34-38. Snee, R. D., and R. W. Hoerl. 2004. Six Sigma beyond the factory floor: Deployment strategies for financial services, health care, and the rest of the real economy, PH Professional Business. Barth, J. M. 2005. Featured company: Johnson Controls. Six Sigma Forum Magazine 4, no. 2:48. Johnson Controls Annual report 2004. http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/publish/etc/medialib/jci/Suppliers/be/training.Par.98241.File.tmp/Continuous%20 Improvement%20Supplier%20Program.pdf. http://www.mckesson.com/en_us/McKesson.com/About%2BUs/Our%2BCompany/Six%2BSigma.html. Kumar, M., J. Antony, C. N. Madu, D. C. Montgomery, and S. H. Park. 2008. Common myths of Six Sigma demystified. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 25, no. 8:878-895. Waxer, C. n.d. Six Sigma costs and savings. Available at: http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c020729a.asp http://www.motorola.com/content.jsp?globalObjectId=3081. http://6sigmaexperts.com/presentations/Six_Sigma_Through_the_Years.pdf. http://www.scribd.com/doc/11344109/Lecture-Material-Six-Sigma. http://europe.isixsigma.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1228:&Itemid=187&tmpl=component&print=1. Newell Rubbermaid Annual report 2004 and 2005. http://ir.newellrubbermaid.com/annuals.cfm PACCAR Annual Reports 2007 and 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SVI/is_2004_August-Nov/ai_n15862597/. http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/raytheon_six_sigma.html. Company annual reports 2001 and 2002. Heuvel, J. 2006. ISO 9001 and Six Sigma in healthcare. Available at: http://publishing.eur.nl/ir/repub/ asset/8465/070126_Heuvel,%20Jaap%20van%20den.pdf download.microsoft.com/download/a/1/b/a1b38fdf.../sixsigma.pdf. http://www.transplace.com/media/LSS_Release_Final_12_9_08.pdf. http://symposium.transplace.com/past/2008/Presentations/Apr24/Managing%20Complexity%20and%20Change%20 in%20the%20Food%20Industry.pdf Whirlpool annual report 1999. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=97140&p=irol-reportsannual.
2012, ASQ
General Electric
McKesson Motorola
Whirlpool WR Grace
1
Company annual reports are accessed using a number of sources: The respective company Web pages, DataStream database, and Buck Master Annual Stockholder Reports (Buck.com).