scispace - formally typeset
Journal ArticleDOI: 10.1108/IJLSS-11-2017-0130

Top ten reasons for process improvement project failures

04 Mar 2019-International Journal of Lean Six Sigma (Emerald Publishing Limited)-Vol. 10, Iss: 1, pp 367-374
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to provide the top ten reasons of process improvement projects termination or failure to Lean and Six Sigma professionals and researchers.,The top ten reasons of process improvement projects termination or failure are based on literature, interaction of authors with Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belts, consultants, practitioners and trainers on various topics of Lean, Six Sigma, general quality management and continuous improvement along several years’ experience of the authors.,The top ten reasons in our opinion include lack of commitment and support from top management; poor communication practices; incompetent team; inadequate training and learning; faulty selection of process improvement methodology and its associated tools/techniques; inappropriate rewards and recognition system/culture; scope creepiness; sub-optimal team size and composition; inconsistent monitoring and control; and resistance to change.,The top ten reasons mentioned in this study are based on only literature and authors’ opinion. The authors of this paper have been pursuing a global study to critically evaluate the reasons behind process improvement projects failure based on a case-study approach.,The chief operations officers and senior executives of various businesses can use these top ten reasons to develop project failure risk mitigation strategies and save significant cash-savings associated with such project terminations or failures in some other cases. more

Topics: Lean Six Sigma (59%), Six Sigma (54%)

Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1108/IJLSS-07-2019-0076
Abstract: There is convincing evidence that companies need a special form of leadership to succeed with lean transformations. The general advice for lean leaders, however, is often obvious or unrealistic. The purpose of this paper is to propose and discuss specific lean leadership practices for top-managers, middle managers and front-line managers.,In this conceptual paper, the authors draw on their rich experience from researching, leading and consulting in lean transformations in a large number of firms.,Leaders must adapt lean leadership practices to their hierarchical levels. This paper provides a framework to understand and debate lean leadership at different levels of the organisational hierarchy.,This paper demystifies lean leadership by offering a discussion of specific lean leadership practices at different hierarchical levels. The paper offers a new perspective for researchers studying lean leadership behaviours and contains helpful advice for firms seeking lean transformations. more

  • Table 1: Hierarchical levels of management
    Table 1: Hierarchical levels of management
  • Figure 1: Kaizen hierarchy and responsibility of different management levels.
    Figure 1: Kaizen hierarchy and responsibility of different management levels.
Topics: Lean manufacturing (63%), Middle management (51%)

22 Citations

Journal ArticleDOI: 10.1108/IJLSS-05-2019-0050
Abstract: The purpose of this study is to identify, evaluate and develop a structured model to measure the interrelation between critical failure factors (CFFs) that affects the implementation of the sustainable Lean Six Sigma (SLSS) framework in a manufacturing organization. Further solution approaches have been provided that inhibit those CFFs and help in successful implementation of the framework.,To find the interrelation among the selected CFFs and develop a systematic structured model, a total interpretive structural modeling (TISM) approach has been used. A 13-level model for selected CFFs has been formed after the application of the TISM approach. Further classification of CFFs has been performed for a better understanding of their nature through MICMAC analysis.,A total of 26 SLSS CFFs have been identified through a detailed study of case organization, various literature reviews and experience of panel experts toward developing a systematic model of CFFs. The solution approach has been provided by panel experts based on their industrial experiences after observing the role of CFFs in the developed model. Based on the analysis, it was found that most dependent and dominant CFFs affect the implementation of the SLSS framework in the case organization.,This study helps SLSS practitioners, project managers, decision-makers and academicians of manufacturing industries to a better understanding of the failure factors and their interrelations while implementing the SLSS framework in manufacturing organizations. This study also guides the systematic solution approach which helps in tackling such problems that occurred in manufacturing organizations.,In this study, the TISM-based structural model of CFFs for implementing the SLSS framework in manufacturing organizations has been proposed which is a very new effort in the area of a manufacturing environment. more

Topics: Lean Six Sigma (55%)

21 Citations

Open accessJournal ArticleDOI: 10.1108/IJQRM-03-2019-0093
Abstract: Process improvement initiatives, such as Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma, typically have common characteristics that are carried through projects Whilst a project’s performance is an important determinant of the successful implementation of continuous improvement (CI) initiatives, its failure can undermine the impact of any CI initiative on business performance As a result, an understanding of the reasons of process improvement project failures is crucial The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a pilot survey highlighting the most common reasons for process improvement project failures,This paper presents a pilot survey of 42 Brazilian manufacturing specialists who have been involved in process improvement projects The participants of this survey were Six Sigma Master Black Belts, Black Belts, Green Belts and Six Sigma champions from manufacturing companies in Brazil The survey questionnaire was piloted with five experts in the field in order to ensure that the questions were valid and technically sound,The execution of Six Sigma projects in organizations results in a moderate rate of project failures These failures can cost organizations several millions of dollars especially within the context of larger organizations The main reasons for project failure, as cited by the specialists include: resistance to change, lack of commitment and support from top management and incompetent teams,The authors report the findings from a pilot survey having a limited sample size Moreover, the data have been collected from one country and primarily from large manufacturing companies,To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first empirical study looking into the reasons for process improvement project failures The authors argue that if the top reasons for such failures are understood, a framework can be developed in the future that can mitigate the chance of project failures during project execution This could potentially lead to significant savings to the bottom-line of many organizations more

Topics: Lean Six Sigma (60%), Project management (56%), Six Sigma (56%)

21 Citations

Journal ArticleDOI: 10.1108/BPMJ-10-2018-0279
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the mediator role that knowledge sharing plays between organisational culture, organisational structure, and technology infrastructure and process improvement in a knowledge management context in manufacturing enterprises operating in the food, beverage and textile industry.,An empirical study is conducted with a sample of 200 food, beverage and textile companies. Data are obtained by means of a survey questionnaire applied to general managers in each of the sample firms. The impact of the factors organisational culture, organisational structure and technology infrastructure on process improvement via knowledge sharing is assessed. Structural equation modelling and maximum likelihood estimation are applied to find the direction and strength of the relationships.,The main findings indicate the significant relationships between knowledge sharing and process improvement, between organisational culture and knowledge sharing, and between organisational structure and knowledge sharing. The relationship between technology infrastructure and knowledge sharing is found not to be significant.,The findings of the present study are limited to the food, beverage and textile industry. Future research could incorporate data from other manufacturing sectors or service companies.,This study provides practical guidance for general managers who wish to implement process improvement programmes.,Several authors have noted that there are few research studies concerning the interaction between each phase of knowledge management and total quality management practices. This study is interested in knowledge sharing and its impact on process improvement in a knowledge management context. more

Topics: Knowledge sharing (72%), Empirical research (52%), Organizational culture (52%) more

8 Citations

Journal ArticleDOI: 10.1109/TEM.2020.3009935
Abstract: A low success rate of improvement projects is one of the causes of the discontinuity of lean six sigma (LSS) initiatives in companies. It is essential to identify and evaluate the reasons why LSS improvement projects fail in order to enable LSS, Lean, and six sigma sustainability. This article presents the findings from a global survey conducted with 201 LSS experts around the world in both the service and manufacturing sectors. The results of this article point out the significant failure rates for LSS projects and alert that projects had higher termination rates in the measure and analyze phases [define, measure, analyze, improve, and control (DMAIC)]. Failures occur primarily at the corporate level. The main causes of project failures identified were the lack of commitment by top management, resistance to change, inadequate rewards and recognition mechanisms, inconsistent monitoring and control of the projects, and poor communication. This article shows that there are some minor differences in terms of ranking of these factors between the manufacturing and service sectors, but there is a significant difference in terms of continent and belt level (master black belts, black belts, and green belts). more

Topics: Lean Six Sigma (63%), DMAIC (57%), Six Sigma (55%)

7 Citations


Book ChapterDOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-20317-8_21
Abstract: Few organizational change efforts tend to be complete failures, but few tend to be entirely successful either. Most efforts encounter problems; they often take longer than expected and desired, they sometimes kill morale, and they often cost a great deal in terms of managerial time or emotional upheaval. More than a few organizations have not even tried to initiate needed changes because the managers involved were afraid that they were simply incapable of successfully implementing them. more

Topics: Change management (62%), Social change (50%)

1,806 Citations

Journal ArticleDOI: 10.1145/287831.287843
Abstract: We've all heard tales of multimillion dollar mistakes that somehow ran off course. Are software projects that risky or do managers need to take a fresh approach when preparing for such critical expeditions? Software projects are notoriously difficult to manage and too many of them end in failure. In 1995, annual U.S. spending on software projects reached approximately $250 billion and encompassed an estimated 175,000 projects [6]. Despite the costs involved, press reports suggest that project failures are occurring with alarming frequency. In 1995, U.S companies alone spent an estimated $59 billion in cost overruns on IS projects and another $81 billion on canceled software projects [6]. One explanation for the high failure rate is that managers are not taking prudent measures to assess and manage the risks involved in these projects. is Advocates of software project risk management claim that by countering these threats to success, the incidence of failure can be reduced [4, 5]. Before we can develop meaningful risk management strategies, however, we must identify these risks. Furthermore, the relative importance of these risks needs to be established, along with some understanding as to why certain risks are perceived to be more important than others. This is necessary so that managerial attention can be focused on the areas that constitute the greatest threats. Finally, identified risks must be classified in a way that suggests meaningful risk mitigation strategies. Here, we report the results of a Delphi study in which experienced software project managers identified and ranked the most important risks. The study led not only to the identification of risk factors and their relative importance, but also to novel insights into why project managers might view certain risks as being more important than others. Based on these insights, we introduce a framework for classifying software project risks and discuss appropriate strategies for managing each type of risk. Since the 1970s, both academics and practitioners have written about risks associated with managing software projects [1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8]. Unfortunately , much of what has been written on risk is based either on anecdotal evidence or on studies limited to a narrow portion of the development process. Moreover, no systematic attempts have been made to identify software project risks by tapping the opinions of those who actually have experience in managing such projects. With a few exceptions [3, 8], there has been little attempt to understand the … more

Topics: Software (59%)

743 Citations

Journal ArticleDOI: 10.1108/09544780210416702
01 Apr 2002-The Tqm Magazine
Abstract: Six sigma is a popular approach to drive out variability from processes using powerful statistical tools and techniques. Although originally introduced by Motorola in 1986 as a quality performance measurement, six sigma has evolved into a statistically oriented approach to process and product quality improvement. Many organisations have reported significant benefits as a result of six sigma project implementation, though not all are yet success stories. This paper reviews the literature related to the critical success factors for the effective implementation of six sigma projects in organisations. more

Topics: Design for Six Sigma (70%), Six Sigma (64%), Human performance technology (62%) more

588 Citations

Journal ArticleDOI: 10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00060-1
Paul Crawford1, Paul Bryce1Institutions (1)
Abstract: Aid agencies are required to conform to stringent project reporting requirements in order to satisfy the wide range of stakeholders. Project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) information systems (IS), frequently a requirement for funding, are believed to inform the reporting process. The logical framework approach (LFA) is widely used throughout the aid industry for project design and appraisal, and although much of the literature also promotes the use of the LFA for the purposes of M&E, it has proved inadequate. This article reviews the key limitations of the conventional LFA for M&E and proposes an extension to the LFA matrix (the “logframe”) in order to facilitate its application beyond the design phase. This is achieved by adding a time dimension, more precisely defining the elements of the project MIS, and integrating other project management tools. more

Topics: Project charter (63%), Project management triangle (63%), Project planning (62%) more

319 Citations

Journal ArticleDOI: 10.1177/0149206313503014
Abstract: Although teams are considered to be the building blocks of modern organizational designs and numerous theoretical models, and narrative and meta-analytic reviews of the literature exist, there is a lack of coherence, integration, and understanding of how team composition effects relate to important team outcomes. Accordingly we have five primary goals for this article. First, we categorize team composition models into four types and highlight theory and research associated with each one. Second, we offer an integrative framework that represents members’ attributes as simultaneously contributing variance to each of the four model types. Third, we overlay temporal considerations that suggest different team compositional mixes will be more or less salient at different periods of performance episodes or stages of team development. Fourth, we integrate membership dynamics into our model. And fifth, we advance an integrative optimization algorithm that incorporates implications from all for the four previous ap... more

293 Citations

No. of citations received by the Paper in previous years