International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management

An assessment of the critical success factors for Six Sigma implementation in Indian
industries
Darshak A. Desai Jiju Antony M.B. Patel
Article information:
To cite this document:
Darshak A. Desai Jiju Antony M.B. Patel, (2012),"An assessment of the critical success factors for
Six Sigma implementation in Indian industries", International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 61 Iss 4 pp. 426 - 444
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410401211212670
Downloaded on: 20 September 2014, At: 06:27 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 46 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 714 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Jiju Antony, (2004),"Some pros and cons of six sigma: an academic perspective", The TQM Magazine, Vol.
16 Iss 4 pp. 303-306
Ben Clegg, M.P.J. Pepper, T.A. Spedding, (2010),"The evolution of lean Six Sigma", International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 27 Iss 2 pp. 138-155
Jiju Antony, Darshak A. Desai, (2009),"Assessing the status of six sigma implementation in the Indian
industry: Results from an exploratory empirical study", Management Research News, Vol. 32 Iss 5 pp.
413-423

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 173423 []
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 HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

IJPPM
61,4
426
Received 1 September 2011
Revised 24 November 2011
Accepted 30 November 2011
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)
International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management
Vol. 61 No. 4, 2012
pp. 426-444
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0401
DOI 10.1108/17410401211212670
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm
An assessment of the critical
success factors for Six Sigma
implementation in Indian
industries
Darshak A. Desai
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
G.H. Patel College of Engineering and Technology, Anand, India
Jiju Antony
Department of Design, Manufacture and Engineering Management,
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK, and
M.B. Patel
Hasmukh Goswami College of Engineering and Management,
Ahmedabad, India
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present the results from an empirical investigation of Six
Sigma status in Indian industry, especially to highlight critical success factors (CSFs) of Six Sigma
implementation in a developing economy like India.
Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on survey questionnaire suitable for Indian
industries. The results of the study are based on descriptive statistics.
Findings – The results of this exploratory empirical study reflect the impact of different CSFs of Six
Sigma implementation in different sizes and sectors of Indian industries.
Research limitations/implications – The major constraints of the study were the number of
companies surveyed as well as time and budget. Moreover, a detailed impact of different CSFs of Six
Sigma implementation in Indian industry by means of semi-structured interviews could not be
executed due to above constraints.
Originality/value – Very little research has been carried out exploring the status of CSFs of Six
Sigma implementation in Indian industries. This paper will provide value to academics, researchers
and practitioners of Six Sigma by way of providing insight into the CSFs for Six Sigma
implementation, especially in Indian industries.
Keywords Six Sigma, Critical success factors, Implementation, Developing economy,
Industrial performance, India
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Overall operational excellence is one of the most significant key requirements of any
business to have global competence with sustained growth. Indian industries are not
the exception to this. For global competitiveness, Indian industries are trying many
improvement measures. The majority of the measures being tried by them are efficient
enough of producing the desired results but trouble remain with their implementation
 and longer time span to realise the benefits. The requirement is for a break through CSF for Six
strategy, which can deliver multidirectional benefits in relatively shorter duration of Sigma
time. Six Sigma is the methodology having statistical base focusing on removing
causes of variations or defects in the product or core business processes. This
quantitative approach aims at improving efficiency and effectiveness of the
organisation. In the existing dynamic industrial scenario, quality alone is not the
wining criteria. Customers can become happy with consistently good quality products, 427
meeting other implicit requirements and committed delivery schedules.
Six Sigma methodology addresses the major root causes and guarantees the
targeted results, both in terms of improvements desired and time span fixed. It is a
disciplined, data-driven approach and methodology for eliminating defects in any
process – from manufacturing to transactional, from products to services. This
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

breakthrough improvement strategy delivers results of productivity, profitability and

quality improvements based on its highly effective approach (Desai, 2008). Six Sigma
is a systematic, highly disciplined, customer-centric and profit-driven
organisation-wide strategic business improvement initiative that is based on a
rigorous process focused and data-driven methodology (Tang et al., 2007). It drives
customer satisfaction and bottom-line results by systematically reducing variation in
processes and thereby promoting a competitive advantage (Antony and Desai, 2009).
From the researches and surveys conducted and published so far, it appears that Six
Sigma is not being explored by the developing economies to its full potential and
Indian is not an exception in this (Desai and Patel, 2009). Many Indian industries have
successfully exploited this breakthrough business improvement strategy to their
overall benefits. Still the penetration Six Sigma in Indian industries is not as
encouraging as it should be. There are certain issues preventing the full use of Six
Sigma as an overall business improvement strategy by Indian industries (Desai and
Patel, 2010). And there are certain advantages too for Indian industries, which can be
further strengthened to have an edge in the global market by effectively utilising Six
Sigma strategy (Desai and Patel, 2009).
This paper is an attempt to analyse the critical success factors (CSFs) of Six Sigma
implementation is Indian industries. The results of exploratory empirical investigation
are presented in this paper. It also provides exhaustive analysis of cross sectional
study of CSFs of Six Sigma implementation for different sizes and sectors of Indian
industries. There are publications discussing specific implementation cases of Six
Sigma in small- and medium-sized Indian industries (Desai, 2006, 2008). But very little
research has been carried out relating to the CSFs of six sigma implementation in the
Indian industry. Thus this paper will provide value to Six Sigma practitioners,
researchers and academicians.

2. Six Sigma: an overview

2.1 What is Six Sigma?
Since its inception at Motorola, Six Sigma has been defined and redefined by many
experts in many ways. As per earlier versions, Tomkins (1997) defined Six Sigma as a
program aimed at the near elimination of defects from every products, process and
transactions. Harry (1998) defined Six Sigma as a strategic initiative to boost
profitability, increase market share and improve customer satisfaction through
statistical tools that can lead to breakthrough quantum gains in quality.
 IJPPM Technically, sigma (s) is a statistical measure of the quality consistency for a
61,4 particular process/product. The technical concept of Six Sigma is to measure current
performance and to determine how many sigmas exist that can be measured from the
current average until customer dissatisfaction occur. When customer dissatisfaction
occurs, a defect results (Eckes, 2001). Six Sigma is a holistic approach to achieving near
perfection, expressed in terms of no more than 3.4 errors per million opportunities. This
428 near perfection appears to many to be overkill or to some, an impossible ideal.
Nonetheless, Six Sigma has been adopted by many leading companies. The benefits are
well documented for manufacturing industries and increasingly, in service industries
(Wright and Basu, 2008). Breyfogle et al. (2001) emphasise that Six Sigma is an
intelligent blending of the wisdom of the organisation with proven statistical tools to
improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of the organisation in meeting customer
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

needs. The ultimate goal is not improvement for improvement’s sake, but rather the
creation of economic wealth for the customer and provider alike. They recommend that
Six Sigma be viewed as a strategic business initiative rather than a quality program.
As per Park (2002) Six Sigma implies three things: statistical measurement,
management strategy and quality culture. It tells us how good products, services and
processes really are, through statistical measuring of quality level. Six Sigma is new,
emerging, approach to quality assurance and quality management with emphasis on
continuous quality improvements. The main goal of this approach is reaching level of
quality and reliability that will satisfy and even exceed demands and expectations of
today’s demanding customer (Pyzdek, 1999).

2.2 Why Six Sigma is needed?

It is a customer oriented approach for process and/or product improvement. It is a
company-wide initiative to improve both top line and bottom line through sustained
customer satisfaction. The entire movement is driven by the voice of the external
customer and concentrates on what is really important for the customer (Seth and
Rastogi, 2004). Linderman et al. (2003) in defining Six Sigma stress up on process
improvement and new product development by stating that Six Sigma is an organised
and systematic method for strategic process improvement and new product and
service development that relies on statistical methods and the scientific method to
make dramatic reductions in customer defined defect rates.
Six sigma as a philosophy seeks to measure current performance and determine how
desired or optimum performance can be achieved. Any deviation in the performance of
any critical-to-quality characteristic may be considered a defect (Eckes, 2001). Six Sigma
blends management, financial and methodological elements to make improvement to
process and products concurrently (Voelkel, 2002). Snee (2004), by putting thrust on
customer driven aspects of Six Sigma, says that it is a business improvement approach
that seeks to find and eliminate causes of mistakes or defects in business processes by
focusing on process outputs that are of critical importance to customers. While as per
Antony et al. (2005) Six Sigma provides business leaders and executives with the
strategy, methods, tools and techniques to change the culture of organisations.
It is a disciplined, data-driven approach and methodology for eliminating defects in
any process – from manufacturing to transactional, from products to services. This
breakthrough improvement strategy delivers results of productivity, profitability and
quality improvements based on its highly effective approach as highlighted below:
 .
specific and measurable problem definition; CSF for Six
.
effective measurement of the current performance level; Sigma
.
analysis of all possible root causes of poor performance;
.
deriving improvements based on the root causes analysed; and
.
maintaining the improvements through effective control measures.
429
2.3 Six Sigma methodology
There are basically two methodologies in practice for Six Sigma improvement strategy
as illustrated in Figure 1. The process improvement technique is popularly known as
DMAIC (define-measure-analyse-improve-control) and another one aiming for design
improvement is known as DFSS (design for Six Sigma).
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

The original problem solving process for Six Sigma developed by Motorola was MAIC.
Later, DMAIC instead of MAIC was advocated by GE where D stands for “definition”. For
DFSS methodology, there are different approaches in use such as DMADV
(define-measure-analyse-design-verify), IDOV (identify-design-optimise-validate) and
DIDES (define-initiate-design-execute-sustain) (Park, 2002).
The Six Sigma methodology DMAIC offers a structured and disciplined process for
solving business problems. Six Sigma uses tools designed to identify root causes for
the defects in processes that keep an organisation from providing its customers with
the consistent quality of products the customers require on time and at the most
reasonable cost.
The Six Sigma work is normally done through cross-function teams that manage
the project (Zucker, 2007). The essence of Six Sigma is found in the reality that
business processes are inherently unpredictable. Six Sigma provides a way of
measuring the variability in a process as it delivers services to an end-user or customer.
When most people talk about Six Sigma, they are thinking about the DMAIC
methodology. This method is used for improving an existing process when it is not
meeting customer needs (Carey, 2007).
Though more success stories are published from manufacturing sector, Six Sigma is
not confined to one particular sector. Services, IT, healthcare and other service oriented
sectors have started reaping benefits from Six Sigma application. Langabeer et al.
(2009) provided the descriptive results from mixed methods research, combining
survey questionnaire with semi-structured interviews that examined implementation
of two quality improvement initiatives (Lean and Six Sigma) in a cross-sectional

Figure 1.
Six Sigma methodologies
 IJPPM sample of hospitals. Further, as revealed from the first large-scale Six Sigma initiative
61,4 in Swedish healthcare that Six Sigma is a useful concept when trying to improve
healthcare processes. A success rate of 75 per cent is high compared to results reported
from other healthcare improvement efforts and supports the belief that Six Sigma
should be recommended as an addition to the improvement practices used in
healthcare development initiatives (Lifvergren et al., 2010). Another paper (Kaushik
430 et al., 2007) presents a review and a pilot study on six sigma application for library
services with emphasis on necessary critical success factors and key performance
indicators for a project to be successful. This pilot study identified a number of
important critical-to-quality (CTQs) and key performance indicators (KPIs) unique to
libraries, and that it is entirely possible to tailor a range of six sigma tools for various
library services.
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

Although Six Sigma approach to quality and process improvement have been
predominantly used by manufacturing organisations, today the popularity of Six
Sigma in the service organisations is growing exponentially, especially in banks,
hospital sector, financial services, airline industry, utility services and so on. Unlike
manufacturing organisations, in service organisations we do not relate activities in
process terms and therefore the linkage between process metrics and service
performance characteristics is not straight forward (Does et al., 2002). In many service
organisations, the purpose of introducing a Six Sigma program is to establish and map
the key processes which are critical to customer satisfaction. According to Pande et al.
(2000), most service organisations operate at sigma quality levels of between 1.5 and
3.0 (i.e. a defect rate between 455,000 and 66,800). This is not surprising, considering
that service sectors over decades have been neglected in the context of quality
improvement efforts (Does et al., 2002).

3. Critical success factors of Six Sigma: a review of literature and key

findings
Critical factors are those, which are essential for successful implementation of any
quality improvement initiative. The identification of such factors will encourage, their
consideration when companies are developing an appropriate implementation plan
(Mann and Kehoe, 1995). Many researchers have provided a wide-ranging list of CSFs
for the success of Six Sigma. Table I provides a glance on the views of different
researchers on CSFs for Six Sigma implementation.
In an effort to develop and validate an instrument for Six Sigma implementation in
small- and medium-sized enterprises of India, Deshmukh and Lakhe (2009) provided
the amalgamation of the quality literature by identifying 12 critical factors of Six
Sigma. The Instrument consisting 42 items was designed after extinctive literature
review. As stated by them the previously published research presents an ambiguous
picture of the critical success factors for successful Six Sigma implementation for
quality management in different industries.
One of the rare publications on failure of Six Sigma groups its failures into three
broad decision variables, project determinants, organisational determinants and
psychological determinants (Chakravorty, 2009). These failure determinants as
illustrated in this paper are as such deviations from some of the CSFs identified in
different publications.

Contributors
Hahn et al. (1999), Coronado and
Antony (2002), Goh (2002), Kwak and
Anbari (2006)
Antony and Banuelas (2002), Coronado In UK manufacturing and services organisations:
and Antony (2002)
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)
Johnson and Swisher (2003)
Kundi (2005)
Starbid (2002)
Anbari and Kwak (2004)
Martins et al. (2006)
Chakrabarty and Tan (2007)
CSF for Six
Views on CSFs for Six Sigma implementation
Sigma
Top management commitment; identification of process
parameters, i.e. CTQs; application of Six Sigma
methodology, DMAIC and tools; and identification of KPIs
like, quantified financial impact
431
management commitment and involvement; understanding
of Six Sigma methodology, tool, and techniques; linking six
sigma to business strategy; linking Six Sigma to customers;
project selection, reviews and tracking; organisational
infrastructure; cultural change; project management skills;
liking six sigma to suppliers; training
Sustained and visible management commitment; continuing
education and training of managers and participants; clear
expectations, project leaders and strategically important
projects
In UK organisations: effective organisational culture of
change and top management support, effective
communication of Six Sigma program, teamwork, employee
training and education on Six Sigma, effective use of Six
Sigma methodology, and organisational infrastructure for
Six Sigma, use of external consultants and role of IT
Identify core processes, customer needs, and measures;
Select and charter projects and require updates during
existing staff meetings; Leaders must maintain and report
opportunity lists, status of active projects/resources, and
results from finished projects
Management commitment, organisational involvement,
project governance, project selection, planning,
implementation methodology, project management and
control, cultural change, and continuous training
Studied enablers and inhibitors of Six Sigma project
implementation in a Brazilian cosmetic factory. The main
enablers were continuous support of Six Sigma champion,
project management skill of project leader, cross functional
teamwork, knowledge of process of teamwork,
dissemination of positive preliminary results that provided
a positive feedback, and intensive dissemination of results.
The inhibitors were difficulty to acquiring data, uncertainty
regarding the project payoff, difficulty to carry out
experiments interfering in the production process, lack of
previous production process map, and difficulty to
apprehend the control phase of DMAIC
CSFs in service industries in Singapore include top
management commitment, education and training, cultural Table I.
change, customer focus, clear performance metrics, CSFs for Six Sigma
attaching success to financial benefits, and organisational implementation as
understanding of work processes viewed by different
(continued) researchers
 IJPPM Contributors Views on CSFs for Six Sigma implementation
61,4
Kumar et al. (2008) Sequencing and use of tools, upper management active
involvement, linkage to strategy, and measurement of
results tied to the bottom line
Burton and Sams (2005) Establish recognition of the need, provide leadership
432 commitment and support, develop Six Sigma strategy and a
deployment plan, incorporate enterprise wide scope,
mandate linkage to the business plan, make proper
investment in resources, develop communication and
awareness effort, focus on customer and results, structure
around the organisation’s needs, implement regulated
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

program management, build a teaming and employee

involvement culture, manage controversy and
confrontation, demand frequent measurement and feedback,
implement a structured project closeout process, provide
recognition and rewards and leverage successes and stay
the course
Hayes (2002) Executive engagement, management involvement,
communications, resources, projects, disciplines and
consequences
Hendersen and Evans (2000) Upper management support, organisational infrastructure,
training, application of statistical tools and link to human
Table I. resources-based actions (e.g. bonuses, promotions, etc.)

4. Research objectives and methodology

The basic objective of this study was to analyse the critical success factors (CSFs) of
Six Sigma implementation in Indian industries. The objective was to carry out
exploratory empirical investigation of a cross sectional study of CSFs of Six Sigma
implementation for different sizes and sectors of Indian industries. To make the study
exhaustive, entire spectrum of Indian industries were considered as population for the
study. Thus, a specific questionnaire was sent out to different size and type of the
Indian industries.
The CSFs used in this study were derived from existing literature review of TQM
and Six Sigma (Black and Porter, 1996; Yusof and Aspinwall, 1999; Antony and
Banuelas, 2002; Antony et al., 2005; Oakland, 2003). Table II presents the list of 12
major CSFs with their sub elements as generated from the literature review.
The specific objectives (macro and micro) of the study are illustrated as below:
(1) Macro level objective: to know the overall CSFs of Six Sigma implementation in
Indian industries.
(2) Micro level objectives:
.
to find out whether CSFs of Six Sigma implementation are similar for large
as well as small and medium sized Indian industries; and
.
to find out whether CSFs of Six Sigma implementation are similar for
different sectors of Indian industries.
 The first objective illustrates the overall analysis of CSFs of Six Sigma implementation CSF for Six
in Indian industries. This is the macro analysis of 12 major CSFs identified. Sigma
The second and third objectives combined dig into the micro details of CSFs in
different size and sectors of Indian industries. These two objectives of the study
explore the experiences of different sizes of the industries as well as different sectors,
such as manufacturing, services, IT etc.
The research study in question was of descriptive type and cross-sectional one. 433
Further it was exploratory in nature and the data collection method was
interrogation/communication type. Therefore, survey method was selected to get the
responses from different industries. Since structured interviews were not feasible
considering cost and time constraints, a comprehensive survey questionnaire was
prepared covering the CSFs as illustrated in Table II. The respondents were asked to
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

rank the 12 CSFs on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 ¼ least important, 2 ¼ less important,

3 ¼ important, 4 ¼ very important, and 5 ¼ crucial).
The questionnaire was sent out to all variety of industries across the country.
Different databases were used to locate the industries such as industrial directories of
different districts, commercial yellow pages and industrial finders as well as through
management consultants. The industries were randomly selected covering different
sectors and size. The questionnaire was sent through post with a stamped reply cover
and also through e-mails. The replies were received accordingly.
For sampling general stratification was done with an aim to include samples from
all the types, capacities and sectors of the Indian industries. Since the objective was to
capture the responses from organisations practicing Six Sigma the basic sampling
design was nonprobability sampling. To meet the aim of reaching to specific type of
industries the sampling techniques adopted were mainly of convenience type and
purposive sampling. Accordingly, the questionnaire was sent to 586 concerns across
the country and the rate of response was around 15 per cent which, in such type of
surveys, can be considered as fairly good enough. Though the design adopted was
nonprobability sampling, the data were tested for normality and found suitable for
further statistical analysis.
As such the questionnaires were sent to different concerns without any specific
condition that who should respond. However, percentage analysis of the position of
respondents was done to ascertain the seriousness and strength of the responses.
Figure 2 indicates the percentage distribution of the position of respondents. As
revealed from the figure, all highly responsible people of the organisations practicing
Six Sigma have replied to the survey questionnaire. The major distribution of
respondents’ position come from CEO/director/general manager, quality manager and
black belt all combined. This is the indication that survey questionnaire were taken
seriously by the concerns. As majority of the respondents were the top management
representatives, operational/production professional or quality/Six Sigma
professionals, it can strengthen the argument that answers to the questions
regarding critical success factors of Six Sigma implementation were meticulously
answered. This is very much essential for such survey and study to be more realistic.
The responses obtained were analysed in general as well as in specific for different
sizes and sectors of Indian industries. The macro analysis contains the mean score on
the 12 major CSFs as experienced by Indian industries. Along with mean score,
percentage of responses could also have been used to support the findings. However, as
 IJPPM
Sr. no. Critical success factor with sub elements
61,4
1 Management involvement and participation
a Understanding of Six Sigma methodology by top management
b Top management participation in Six Sigma projects
c Project verification by top management
434 d Provision of appropriate budget and resources for project
2 Organisational infrastructure
a Creation of cross-functional teams within the organisation
b To have employees dedicated completely to Six Sigma deployment
c Facilitative leadership behaviour
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

3 Cultural change
a Early and effective communication on the why and how of Six Sigma
b Showing the difference between Six Sigma and other quality improvement initiatives
c Demonstrating the need for Six Sigma in terms of benefits to the employees
4 Training
a Application of the belt system throughout the company
b To identify the key roles of the people directly involved in applying Six Sigma
5 Linking Six Sigma to customers
a Identification of customer (internal/external) needs
b To implement projects with high impact on customer satisfaction
c Understanding your market and evaluating it periodically
6 Linking Six Sigma to business strategy
a Financial appraisal of Six Sigma projects
b Target Six Sigma projects on improvements that have a direct impact on the financial and
operational goals of the company
7 Linking Six Sigma to employees
a To use Six Sigma accomplishments as the key measure for management performance and
compensation
b To make Six Sigma training mandatory for promotion consideration
c To award monetary bonuses based on successful implementation of Six Sigma projects
8 Linking Six Sigma to suppliers
a To involve suppliers in Six Sigma projects
b To have suppliers who have implemented Six Sigma
9 Understanding of Six Sigma methodology
a To understand fully ALL steps of the DMAIC/DFSS/DMEDI/IDOV methodology
b To adapt Six Sigma methodology to your organisation
To use simple tools and techniques during Six Sigma implementation
10 Project management skills
a To develop project management skills
b To establish a project score card
11 Project prioritisation and selection
Table II. a Project selection based on financial returns
Critical success factors b Project prioritisation based on customer requirements
for Six Sigma c Project selection focused on poorly performing areas of the company
implementation (continued)
 Sr. no. Critical success factor with sub elements
CSF for Six
Sigma
12 Leadership for Six Sigma
a Leadership assuring linkage of six sigma to corporate business strategy
b Leadership actions are supported at all levels of decision making through the use of facts and
data
c Leaders’ participation in Six Sigma projects 435
Leaders to be involved in project review/verification
d Leadership to reflect on best and worst management practices in the implementation of
projects
e Leadership encouraging employee participation in Six Sigma implementation
f Leaders to communicate values and beliefs involved in Six Sigma deployment
g Leaders should make sure Six Sigma projects should begin with the determination of
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

internal/external customer requirements

h Leaders to have regular written communication on Six Sigma news and successes of projects Table II.

Figure 2.
Percentage distribution of
the respondents’ position

each of the 12 major CSFs are made up of many individual variables (refer Table II)
calculating individual percentage responses on each category (1 to 5 scale) may
complicate the analysis leading to ambiguous conclusions. Hence percentage responses
are not considered in the analysis.
To get thorough insight further analysis were made for the different size as well as
sectors of the Indian industries. The data were examined through one-way ANOVA
analysis for similarities or otherwise in these two separate categories, that is scale and
sector of Indian industries.

5. Results and analysis

5.1 Industry responses
The response rate of different sizes of Indian industries is illustrated in Figure 3. As
evident from the figure Six Sigma is operational in significant number of large-scale
industries as compared to SMEs.
Figure 4 illustrates the rate of response from different sectors of the Indian
industries. As evident from the figure Six Sigma is more operational in manufacturing
sector followed by IT.

5.2 Preliminary analysis

To meet the macro level objective of ascertaining the overall CSFs of Six Sigma
implementation in Indian industries as a whole the respondents were asked to rate the
CSFs in a scale of 1 to 5 as mentioned above. Accordingly the concerns have provided
their ranking on each of the sub element of all CSFs. Mean score for each CSF was then
 IJPPM calculated based on the individual score of sub elements. Figure 5 indicates the mean
61,4 score of 12 main CSFs as rated by Indian industries.
As evident from the figure “management involvement and participation” (CSF no. 1)
and “organisational infrastructure” (CSF no.2) are the most important factors
considered by Indian industries for successful implementation of Six Sigma. Both are

436
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

Figure 3.
Size distribution of Indian
industries where Six
Sigma is operational

Figure 4.
Sector distributions of
Indian industries where
Six Sigma is operational

Figure 5.
Critical success factors of
Six Sigma implementation
in Indian industries
 with mean score of 4.2. “linking Six Sigma to customers” (CSF no. 5) and “linking Six CSF for Six
Sigma to business strategy” (CSF no. 6) are the second most important factors with Sigma
mean score of 4.1 and 4.0 respectively. Indian industries also felt importance of
effective leadership in the success of Six Sigma drive, as the factor number 12, that is,
“leadership for Six Sigma”, emerged with a mean score of 3.9. The CSFs such as
“linking six sigma to employees” and “linking six sigma to suppliers” were not ranked
very high. 437
5.3 Analysis on critical success factors of Six Sigma implementation in large and
medium scale industries
At micro level analysis the average ratings of the 12 major CSFs are further bifurcated
based on the responses of large and medium scale industries. This was done to create
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

better understanding of critical success factors for Six Sigma implementation with-in
large and medium scale industries individually. Based on the mean ratings on
importance of CSFs by large and medium scale industries, 12 major CSFs are arranged
in their descending order of importance for large and medium scale industries
separately. Tables III and IV indicates these major CSFs in their descending order of
importance as rated by large- and medium-scale industries respectively.

Sr. No. Critical success factor Mean rating

1 Management involvement and participation 4.3

2 Organisational infrastructure 4.2
3 Linking Six Sigma to customers 4.2
4 Linking Six Sigma to business strategy 4
5 Training 3.9
6 Linking Six Sigma to employees 3.9
7 Leadership for Six Sigma 3.9 Table III.
8 Understanding of Six Sigma methodology 3.8 Major CSFs of Six Sigma
9 Project prioritisation and selection 3.8 implementation in
10 Project management skills 3.7 large-scale industries (in
11 Cultural change 3.5 their descending order of
12 Linking Six Sigma to suppliers 3.1 importance)

Sr. No. Critical success factor Mean rating

1 Organisational infrastructure 4.2

2 Linking Six Sigma to business strategy 4.2
3 Management involvement and participation 4
4 Understanding of Six Sigma methodology 4
5 Cultural change 3.8
6 Linking Six Sigma to customers 3.8
7 Project prioritisation and selection 3.8 Table IV.
8 Leadership for Six Sigma 3.7 Major CSFs of Six Sigma
9 Linking Six Sigma to employees 3.6 implementation in
10 Training 3.5 medium scale industries
11 Project management skills 3.2 (in their descending order
12 Linking Six Sigma to suppliers 1.8 of importance)
 IJPPM As evident from the Tables III and IV, for success of Six Sigma, large scale industries
61,4 are considering “management involvement and participation” as the prime important
factor whereas, for medium scale industries two factors combined “organisational
infrastructure and linking Six Sigma to business strategy” are the prime important
factors.
For other factors, ratings of large and medium scale industries are more or less
438 similar except for the factor “linking Six Sigma to suppliers”. Large-scale industries are
rating this CSF as moderately important, whereas, medium scale industries are feeling
that this factor is not important for success of Six Sigma in their organisation.
For further detailed analysis on similarity or otherwise of the importance allocated
to various individual CSFs by large and medium scale industries, one-way ANOVA
was performed. The hypothesis designed for this test is as below:
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

H0. Null hypothesis: There is no difference in allocating importance to various

CSFs for Six Sigma implementation by large- and medium-scale industries.
Ha. Alternative hypothesis: There is difference in allocating importance to
various CSFs for Six Sigma implementation by large- and medium-scale
industries.
Following inferences can be drawn based on the ANOVA calculations:
.
For only three variables calculated F ratio is greater than critical F value of 4.26
with degree of freedom (1, 24) and hence null hypothesis for them is rejected.
Further, since p-value for all of them is also less than the significance level (0.05),
with this also the null hypothesis is rejected. So, it can be concluded that large
and medium scale industries are differing in allocating importance to only three
individual variables.
.
For rest of the variables calculated F ratio is less than critical F value of 4.26 with
degree of freedom (1, 24) and hence null hypothesis for them is accepted. Further,
since p-value for all of them is also greater than the significance level (0.05), with
this also the null hypothesis is accepted. So, it can be concluded that for rest of
the variables there is no difference in allocating importance by large- and
medium-scale industries.

Since out of total 39 variables only in three variables large and medium scale industries
are differing in allocating importance, it can be concluded that by and large,
importance provided by large and medium scale industries to various CSFs for success
of Six Sigma in their organisation, is the same. In other words, the critical success
factors for Six Sigma implementation are the same for large- and medium-scale
industries.

5.4 Analysis on critical success factors of Six Sigma implementation in different

industrial sectors
Analyses similar to what carried out for different scales of the industries were also
performed for different sectors of the industries (manufacturing, manufacturing and
service, IT and others) regarding CSFs of Six Sigma implementation. Table V indicates
the CSFs having mean rating 4 and above (very important and crucial) for success of
Six Sigma for different sectors.
 CSF for Six
Manufacturing and
Manufacturing service IT Others Sigma
1. Management 1. Management 1. Management 1. Management
involvement and involvement and involvement and involvement and
participation participation participation participation
2. Organisational 2. Organisational 2. Oganisational 2. Linking Six Sigma to 439
infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure customer
3. Linking Six Sigma to 3. Linking Six Sigma to 3. Linking Six Sigma to
customers business strategy customers
4. Understanding of Six 4. Linking Six Sigma to
Sigma methodologies employees
5. Leadership for Six 5. Understanding of Six
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

Sigma Sigma methodologies

6. Project prioritisation Table V.
and selection Very important and
7. Leadership for Six crucial CSFs for different
Sigma sectors

For further detailed analysis on similarity or otherwise of the importance allocated to

various individual CSFs by different industrial sectors, one way ANOVA was
performed. The hypothesis designed for this test is as below:
H0. Null hypothesis: There is no difference in allocating importance to various
CSFs for Six Sigma implementation by different industrial sectors.
Ha. Alternative hypothesis: There is difference in allocating importance to
various CSFs for Six Sigma implementation by different industrial sectors.
Following inferences can be drawn based on the ANOVA calculations:
.
For almost 50 per cent of the variables calculated F ratio is greater than critical F
value of 3.05 with degree of freedom (3, 22) and hence null hypothesis for them is
rejected. Further, since p-value for all of them is also less than the significance
level (0.05), with this also the null hypothesis is rejected. So, it can be concluded
that different industrial sectors are differing in allocating importance to these
variables for the success of Six Sigma in their organisations.
.
For rest of the variables calculated F ratio is less than critical F value of 3.05 with
degree of freedom (3, 22) and hence null hypothesis for them is accepted. Further,
since p-value for all of them is also greater than the significance level (0.05), with
this also the null hypothesis is accepted. So, it can be concluded that for rest of
the individual variables there is no difference in allocating importance by
different industrial sectors.

6. Discussions
As revealed from the analysis CSFs for Six Sigma implementation are more or less
same for different sizes of Indian industries. However, different sectors of Indian
industries are differing in their views regarding CSFs for Six Sigma implementation in
their organisations. Large-scale Indian industries have rated all the CSFs above 3,
which means, important and above. While, surprisingly, medium-scale industries have
 IJPPM rated one CSF (linking Six Sigma to suppliers) at 1.8, which means, between least and
less important. Following CSFs are the most crucial for both, large and medium scale
61,4 industries as these are rated 4 and above by both the groups:
.
management involvement and participation;
.
organisational infrastructure; and
440 .
linking Six Sigma to business strategy.
The CSF “management involvement and participation” is unanimously rated as the
most crucial one for all the sectors of Indian industries surveyed. The second most
crucial factors and common to almost all the sectors are “organisational infrastructure”
and “linking Six Sigma to customers”.
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

Critical success factors for Six Sigma implementation in Indian industries as studied
in this paper are more or less in confirmation with the views on CSFs as presented by
different researchers indicated in Table I. However, as revealed from this study Indian
SMEs are having contradictory views for the factor “linking Six Sigma to supplier”
with the findings of some of the authors (Antony and Banuelas, 2002; Coronado and
Antony, 2002; Deshmukh and Lakhe, 2009). Why Indian small and medium sectors are
not considering supplier linkage as important factor for success Six Sigma is the
matter to be researched and discussed in future.

7. Concluding remarks
The study was aimed at finding out the similarity or otherwise of the CSFs of Six
Sigma implementation among different sizes and sectors of Indian industries. As
revealed from the study that with some exceptions, different sizes as well as different
sectors of the Indian industries have similar voice on the CSFs of Six Sigma
implementation. However, above analysis revealed few CSFs where the experiences of
different sizes and sectors of the Indian industries are not the same. Out of total 39
variables under the major 12 CSFs identified, only in 03 variables large and medium
scale industries are differing in allocating their importance. So it can be concluded that
the critical success factors for Six Sigma implementation are the same for large- and
medium-scale Indian industries. The scenario is somewhat different among different
sectors of Indian industries. Different industrial sectors are differing in allocating
importance to total 19 variables for the success of Six Sigma in their organisations, out
of 39 variables under the major CSFs identified.
Indian industries have already recognised Six Sigma as a breakthrough
improvement strategy for overall operational excellence and started experimenting
with the same. A comprehensive study regarding critical success factors of Six Sigma
implementation in Indian industries was required since Six Sigma is gaining
importance among Indian industries. As a whole, this study provided a comprehensive
picture regarding CSFs of Six Sigma among Indian industries. The study provided an
exhaustive analysis of CSFs of Six Sigma implementation in different sizes and sectors
of Indian industries. This can help other industries, who have yet not experimented
with Six Sigma, to become more focused regarding their implementation programme
and results expected. Based on this analysis, individual industry as per their size and
type of operations can tailor their individual Six Sigma implementation strategy.
Since the study was based on survey analysis, the major limitation was about
getting the required number of responses. To cover the entire cross-section the
 questionnaire was sent to the industries across the country. The personal interview CSF for Six
with company executives involved in Six Sigma implementation could not be Sigma
undertaken. However, the CSFs identified were made as comprehensive as possible to
ensure accuracy of the information received. The study analysed the CSFs of Six Sigma
implementation among different sizes and sectors of Indian industries
comprehensively. Further research can be taken up to analyse CSFs based on
individual success stories of Six Sigma implementation among selected industrial 441
sectors and sizes. Similar analysis can be taken up for different countries and then
similarities of success of Six Sigma among different countries can be explored.

References
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

Antony, J. and Banuelas, R. (2002), “Critical success factors for the successful implementation of
Six Sigma projects”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 92-9.
Antony, J. and Desai, D.A. (2009), “Assessing the status of Six Sigma implementation in the
Indian industry: results from an exploratory empirical study”, Management Research
News, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 413-23.
Antony, J., Kumar, M. and Madu, C.N. (2005), “Six Sigma in small and medium sized UK
manufacturing enterprises – some empirical observations”, International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 860-74.
Anbari, F.T. and Kwak, Y.H. (2004), “Success factors in managing Six Sigma projects”, paper
presented at the Project Management Institute Research Conference, London, 11-14 July.
Black, S.A. and Porter, L.J. (1996), “Identification of the critical success factors of TQM”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Breyfogle, F.W. III, 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.
Burton, T.T. and Sams, J.L. (2005), Six Sigma for Small and Mid-sized Organizations, J. Ross
Publishing, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Carey, B. (2007), “Business process reengineering in a Six Sigma world”, available at: www.
iSixSigma.com/library/content/ (accessed May 2007).
Chakrabarty, A. and Tan, K.C. (2007), “A survey on Six Sigma implementation in Singapore
service industries”, Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE IEEM, Singapore, 2-5 December,
pp. 1428-32.
Chakravorty, S.S. (2009), “Six Sigma failures: an escalation model”, Operations Management
Research, Vol. 2, pp. 44-55.
Coronado, R.B. and Antony, J. (2002), “Critical success factors for the successful implementation
of Six Sigma projects in organizations”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 92-9.
Desai, D.A. (2006), “Improving customer delivery commitments the Six Sigma way – case study
of an Indian small scale industry”, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive
Advantage, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 23-47.
Desai, D.A. (2008), “Improving productivity and profitability through Six Sigma: experience of a
small-scale jobbing industry”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality
Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 290-310.
Desai, D.A. and Patel, M.B. (2009), “Impact of Six Sigma in a developing economy: analysis on
benefits drawn by Indian industries”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 517-38.
 IJPPM Desai, D.A. and Patel, M.B. (2010), “Six Sigma implementation barriers in Indian industries –
survey results and case studies”, International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 3 No. 2,
61,4 pp. 142-62.
Deshmukh, S.V. and Lakhe, R.R. (2009), “Development and validation of an instrument for Six
Sigma implementation in small and medium sized enterprises”, Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering and Technology
442 (ICETET-09), Nagpur, 16-18 December, IEEE Computer Society, Piscataway, NJ,
pp. 790-7.
Does, R., van den Heuvel, J. and Koning, A.M.F. (2002), “Comparing non-manufacturing with
traditional applications of Six Sigma”, Quality Engineering, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 177-82.
Eckes, G. (2001), The Six Sigma Revolution: How General Electric and Others Turned Process Into
Profits, Wiley, New York, NY.
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

Goh, T.N. (2002), “A strategic assessment of Six Sigma”, Quality and Reliability Engineering
International, Vol. 18, pp. 403-10.
Johnson, A. and Swisher, B. (2003), “How Six Sigma improves R&D”, Research Technology
Management, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 12-15.
Harry, M.J. (1998), “Six Sigma: a breakthrough strategy for profitability”, Quality Progress, May,
pp. 60-4.
Hahn, G.J., Hill, J.W., Hoerl, R.W. and Zinkgraf, S.A. (1999), “The impact of Six Sigma
improvement – a glimpse into the future of statistics”, The American Statistician, Vol. 53
No. 3, pp. 208-15.
Hendersen, K. and Evans, J. (2000), “Successful implementation of Six Sigma: benchmarking
General Electric Company”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 260-81.
Hayes, B.J. (2002), “Six Sigma critical success factors”, iSixSigma, available at: www.isxsigma.
com (accessed 13 May 2006).
Kaushik, C., Shokeen, A., Kaushik, P. and Khanduja, D. (2007), “Six Sigma application for library
services”, DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 35-9.
Kumar, M., Antony, J., Madu, C.N., Montgomery, D.C. and Park, S.H. (2008), “Common myths of
Six Sigma demystified”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,
Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 878-95.
Kundi, O.H.K. (2005), “A study of Six Sigma implementation and critical success factors”, paper
presented at the 9th Pakistan International Convention on Quality Improvement, 14-15
November, Karachi.
Kwak, Y.H. and Anbari, F.T. (2006), “Benefits, obstacles and future of Six Sigma approach”,
Technovation, Vol. 26, pp. 708-71.
Langabeer, J.R., DelliFraine, J.L., Abbass, I. and Heineke, J. (2009), “Implementation of lean and
Six Sigma quality initiatives in hospitals: a goal theoretic perspective”, Operations
Management Research, Vol. 2, pp. 13-27.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S. and Choo, A.S. (2003), “Six Sigma: a goal-theoretic
perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, pp. 193-203.
Lifvergren, S., Chakhunashvili, A., Gremyr, I., Hellström, A. and Bergman, B. (2010), “Lessons
from Sweden’s first large-scale implementation of Six Sigma in healthcare”, Operations
Management Research, Vol. 3 Nos 3/4, pp. 117-28.
Mann, R. and Kehoe, D. (1995), “Factors affecting the implementation and success of TQM”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 11-23.
 Martins, R.A., Mergulhão, R.C. and de Bortoli, L.S. Jr (2006), “The enablers and inhibitors of Six CSF for Six
Sigma project in a Brazilian cosmetic factory”, paper presented at the 3rd International
Conference on Production Research – Americas Region (ICPR-AM06). Sigma
Oakland, J.S. (2003), TQM: Text with Cases, Elsevier, Oxford.
Pande, P.S., Neuman, R.P. and Cavanagh, R.R. (2000), The Six Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola,
and Other Top Companies Are Honing Their Performance, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Park, S.H. (2002), “Six Sigma for productivity improvement: Korean business corporations”, 443
Productivity, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 173-83.
Pyzdek, T. (1999), The Six Sigma Revolution, Quality America, Tucson, AZ.
Seth, D. and Rastogi, S.C. (2004), Global Management Solutions – Demystified, Thomson Asia,
Singapore.
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

Snee, R.D. (2004), “Six Sigma: the evolution of 100 years of business improvement methodology”,
International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 4-20.
Starbid, D. (2002), “Business excellence: Six Sigma as a management system”, Proceedings of the
56th Annual ASQ Quality Congress, 20-22 May, Denver, CO, pp. 47-55.
Tang, L.C., Goh, T.N., Lam, S.W. and Zhang, C.W. (2007), “Fortification of Six Sigma: expanding
the DMAIC toolset”, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 23, pp. 3-18.
Tomkins, R. (1997), “GE beats expected 13% rise”, Financial Times, 10 October, p. 22.
Voelkel, J.G. (2002), “Something’s missing – an education in statistical methods will make
employees more valuable to Six Sigma corporations”, Quality Progress, May, pp. 98-101.
Wright, J.N. and Basu, R. (2008), “Project management and Six Sigma: obtaining a fit”,
International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 81-94.
Yusof, S.M. and Aspinwall, E. (1999), “Critical success factors for successful implementation of
TQM in SMEs”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4/5, pp. 803-9.
Zucker, D. (2007), “Integrating project management into a Six Sigma system”, available at: www.
isixsigma.com/library/content/ (accessed August 2007).

About the authors

Darshak A. Desai is an academician with a rich industrial background. After graduating in
Production Engineering he earned his post-graduate degree in Industrial Engineering from the
National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai, a unique institution of its kind in Asia. He
completed his doctoral study in the field of Six Sigma. After nine years of extensive experience in
the field of design, operations, projects and marketing, he switched over to academia during
1999. His area of interest is quality and operations management. He has presented and published
25 papers at national and international levels. He has published, as a co-author, six books for
polytechnic students and one for graduate engineering students, in regional language and in
English. He is an invited reviewer for eight international journals. He has successfully executed
implemented Six Sigma and cost of quality systems in small and medium scale enterprises. Dr
Desai is presently Professor and Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, G.H. Patel
College of Engineering and Technology (GCET), Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat, India. Darshak A.
Desai is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: darshak301@yahoo.com
Jiju Antony is a Professor at the Strathclyde Institute for Operations Management (SIOM) and
a Deputy Director of Knowledge Exchange and Commercialization. He is the Director of the
Centre for Research in Six Sigma and Process Improvement (CRISSPE) within SIOM. He has
published more than 200 refereed papers and four textbooks in the area of design of experiments,
Taguchi methods, Six Sigma, total quality management and statistical process control. He
successfully launched the First International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage in
August 2004. He is the Editor of the International Journal of Lean Six Sigma with Emerald Group
 IJPPM Publishing Limited. Professor Antony has been invited several times as a keynote speaker to
national and international conferences on Six Sigma in China, South Africa, The Netherlands,
61,4 Dubai, Greece, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK and Poland. He is on the Editorial Board of
eight international journals and is a regular reviewer of five leading international journals on
quality, operations and production management. He has recently been invited to the Scottish
Parliament to deliver a talk on “Process and Quality Thinking for Creating World Class Business
Leaders in Scotland by 2020”. He has been considered for Who’s Who in the World based on his
444 recent contributions to the field of quality management and Six Sigma, and has recently been
elected to the International Academy for Quality. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Operations
Management, a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, a Fellow of the American Society for
Quality and a certified Six Sigma Black Belt.
M.B. Patel received his PhD in Industrial Engineering from the Indian Institute of
Technology, New Delhi, India in 1989. After serving in various engineering colleges in the state
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)

of Gujarat, India, he is presently Principal of Hasmukh Goswami College of Engineering and

Management, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. He has been in academia for the last 34 years. He has
guided more than ten PG students and three doctoral students. His areas of interest include
industrial engineering, operations and quality management, and quantitative techniques. He has
presented and published 25 papers at national and international levels.

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

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Sunil Sharma, Anuradha R. Chetiya. 2012. An analysis of critical success factors for Six Sigma
implementation. Asian Journal on Quality 13:3, 294-308. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY At 06:27 20 September 2014 (PT)