International Journal of Logistics: Research and

Applications

ISSN: 1367-5567 (Print) 1469-848X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjol20

A conceptual model for the application of

Six Sigma methodologies to supply chain
improvement

Graeme Knowles , Linda Whicker , Javier Heraldez Femat & Francisco Del
Campo Canales

To cite this article: Graeme Knowles , Linda Whicker , Javier Heraldez Femat & Francisco Del
Campo Canales (2005) A conceptual model for the application of Six Sigma methodologies to
supply chain improvement, International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 8:1,
51-65, DOI: 10.1080/13675560500067459

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13675560500067459

Published online: 23 Jan 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1084

Citing articles: 29 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjol20
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications
Vol. 8, No. 1, March 2005, 51–65

A conceptual model for the application of Six Sigma

methodologies to supply chain improvement
GRAEME KNOWLES*†, LINDA WHICKER‡, JAVIER HERALDEZ FEMAT† and
FRANCISCO DEL CAMPO CANALES†
†Warwick Manufacturing Group, International Manufacturing Centre, University of Warwick,
Coventry, West Midlands CV4 7AL, UK
‡Operations Management Division, Nottingham University Business School, Jubilee Campus,
Nottingham University, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK

This paper hypothesises that, whilst Six Sigma as a change and improvement strategy is delivering
significant business benefit to practitioner organisations, it has not been successfully adapted to deliver
similar benefits across supply chains. It demonstrates by reference to the literature that most published
applications of Six Sigma in supply chains are related to the application of traditional internal Six
Sigma methodologies to the internal processes of a supplier to the “Six Sigma Organisation”. In
this paper, the issues particular to an application of Six Sigma in a broader supply chain context are
discussed, with reference to specific supply chain issues. It is concluded that Six Sigma does have
something novel to offer organisations over and above the contribution of existing approaches to supply
chain improvement, and a conceptual model is proposed that is consistent with the literature and has
potential to support such an introduction. The model integrates the Balanced Scorecard, SCOR model
(Supply Chain Reference model) and Six Sigma DMAIC (define, measure, analyse and improve)
methodology in a two-level framework. This is a strategic-level cycle, developing focused projects to
generate maximum business benefit, and an operational-level cycle, applying Six Sigma and lean tools
in a DMAIC cycle to deliver supply chain improvements. Cautions and requirements for the success
in practice of such a model are discussed and it is concluded that the model should be tested in practice
to validate and develop further the methodology.

Keywords: Six Sigma; Supply chain improvement; Lean; SCOR model; Variability reduction

1. Introduction

Supply chain performance is a topic of much significance in organisations today. There has
been much activity in both academic and industrial circles aimed at generating improvements.
The principal focus of this activity has been waste reduction. Little effort has been expended
on the reduction of variation. However, variation in supply chains can be shown to have a
significant effect on performance and thus deserves more consideration. Six Sigma has been

*Corresponding author. Email: g.knowles@warwick.ac.uk

International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications

ISSN 1367-5567 print/ISSN 1469-848X online © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/13675560500067459
52 G. Knowles et al.

shown to be successful in delivering business benefit through variation reduction in many

internal processes, but is unproven in the reduction of supply chain variation.

2. Objectives and structure

The objectives of this paper are:

• to establish the potential of the Six Sigma approach as a mechanism for generating signif-
icant improvement across a supply chain, rather than just within an organisation’s internal
processes;
• to formulate a model that would support such an introduction;
• to establish some key factors that might contribute to the success or failure of such a model.

The structure of the paper is a review of the literature on supply chain performance improve-
ment and Six Sigma, followed by the development of a model and a discussion of the key
factors that might support its success or failure.

3. Supply chain management

Supply management has been defined in terms of a chain (Simchi-Levi et al. 2000),
supply chain management (SCM) (Slack et al. 2001) and a network (Ganeshan and
Harrison 1995, Harland 1996, Christopher 1998, Poirier 1999), which, with relationships
between upstream and downstream players, should involve them thinking and acting as one
(Towill 1997). Christopher (1998) noted that it is no longer viable for an organisation to
operate as an “isolated and independent entity” in competition with other, similar organisa-
tions. Instead, organisations must seek to work with others in the supply chain to identify
sources of competitive advantage. According to Porter (1990) and Poirier (1999), competition
is moving to being between effective value systems or supply networks rather than individual
corporations. Porter goes on to argue that, increasingly, improving competitive advantage is
as much about how well a company manages its external linkages as its internal ones. This
moves the focus for improvement on to the supply chain as a whole, rather than the individual
organisations within it.

3.1 SCOR model

The Supply Chain Council considers SCM to be the mechanism for integrating the key business
processes in any supply chain. The Supply Chain Reference (SCOR) model was developed
and endorsed by the Supply Chain Council (SCC 2001) as a cross-industry standard for eval-
uating and improving enterprise-wide supply chain performance and management (Stewart
1997). Today, many organisations are beginning to use SCOR standards to drive consensus on
terminology, processes and expectations among trading partners. The SCOR model integrates
the well-known concepts of business process re-engineering, benchmarking and process mea-
surement by integrating these techniques into a cross-functional framework (SCC 2001). Five
core processes have been identified: plan, source, make, deliver and return (see figure 1).
The SCOR model can be used to describe supply chains that are very simple or very complex
using a common set of definitions. As a result, disparate industries can be linked to describe
the depth and breadth of virtually any supply chain (SCC 2001).
 Six Sigma methodologies 53

PLAN

PLAN PLAN PLAN PLAN

SOURCE MAKE DELIVER

Supplier Customer
Suppliers Internal or Internal or Customers
Supplier External External Customer
RETURN

SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

Figure 1. Integration and management of core business processes (SCC 2001).

3.2 Key issues in supply chain improvement

The lean focus in supply chains is well established and clearly offers very significant benefits in
driving down levels of waste and therefore contributing to supply chain improvement (Womack
et al. 1990, Womack and Jones 1996, Taylor and Bunt 2000, Hines et al. 2000b). However,
there is no focus within this methodology on variation reduction and, whilst the two areas have
significant overlap (removing a non-value-adding activity will address the variation associated
with the process, and reducing variation in a process will reduce waste), there are unique
aspects to each. Also, lean principles of waste reduction do not address in their entirety the
costs associated with inconsistent (in terms of either quality or time) performance of activities
or processes (Mena et al. 2002). Swartwood (2001) contends that the SCOR model provides the
foundation for analysing supply chain performance, broadly indicating where problems lie and
their potential impact on operations. He advocates the combination of SCOR with Six Sigma
as they have complementary capabilities, with SCOR providing fundamental understanding
of supply chain issues, while Six Sigma can be deployed to implement improvement projects.
In the search for ways to manage efficiently supply chain operations, academics and prac-
titioners have encountered several key issues that must be addressed for success. The most
commonly agreed issues are (Slack et al. 1995, Christopher 1998, Beamon 1999, Kanji and
Wong 1999, Geary et al. 2002):

• View the supply chain as a single entity. As noted earlier, viewing the supply chain in a
systemic fashion is the only way to generate significant improvement.
• It requires a new approach; integration not simple interface. Stevens (1989), cited in
Christopher (1998), suggested a four-stage evolution model to achieve an integrated supply
chain; ranging from complete functional independence even within each organisation in the
supply chain to a truly integrated supply chain, with management scope extending upstream
to suppliers and downstream to customers.
• Supply chain management calls for strategic decision-making. In recent years, SCM has
been widely recognised as a strategically important centrepiece for achieving competitive
advantage (Gattorna and Walters 1996). Successfully managing supply chain performance
requires precision, commitment and effective communication of management strategies.
• Focus on satisfying end customer. “Responsive organisations not only seek to put the cus-
tomer at the heart of the business, but they design all its processes and operations with
the main objective of improving the speed of response and the reliability of that response”
54 G. Knowles et al.

(Christopher 1998). Kanji and Wong (1999) see continuous improvement mechanisms as
being crucial to meeting the constantly shifting requirements of the customer.
• Foster seamless supply chains. Geary et al. (2002) suggested that companies streamline
supply chains through simplifying processes, increasing flexibility, inventory reductions;
smooth material flow; reducing the time between order and fulfilment by reducing sources
of waste and delay.
• Effective performance measurement (PM) systems. The importance of effective PM sys-
tems has been emphasised by many authors. Oakland (1993), cited in Amaratunga et al.
(2001), suggested that measurement plays an important role in quality and productivity
improvements.
Clearly, any model for generating, implementing and sustaining improvement must consider
these key elements. In addition to these success factors, a number of approaches to supply
chain improvement have been developed and some of the key initiatives will be addressed
here.

4. The significance of variation in supply chains

Variation occurs for different reasons and yields ranges of values on particular activities (De
Meyer et al. 2002), processes, products or services. Variation is studied and analysed by
statistics, where statistical thinking follows these premises: “Variation is all around us and
present in everything we do; all works is a series of interconnected processes and identify-
ing, characterizing, quantifying, controlling, and reducing variation provide opportunities for
improvement” (Snee 1990). De Mast et al. (2000) argue that these ideas on variation guide
process improvement strategies that are used by companies.
Pullim (2002) believes supply chain performance is impaired because of different variation
causes, such as: demand fluctuations, supplier deliveries quantities and quality, people and
equipment inconsistencies. The effects of variation can be seen in such things as lead times,
fill rates, on-time deliveries, inventories (Lambert and Pohlen 2001), forecasts and prices.
McGuffog and Wadsley (1999) summarise key contributors to supply chain variation in terms
of supply and demand (table 1).
George (2002) and Geary et al. (2002) describe the effects of variation in lead times for
supply networks, creating a huge variation that the supply chain has to cope with by use of
excess inventories, expediting, etc. Billinge (2002) noted that “variance in operations between
trading partners represents the greatest inefficiency in commerce”. Figure 2 indicates some of
the costs to the organisation of excessive variation in lead times.
Variation early in the supply chain can be amplified further along the chain. The demand
distortion created in this manner is known as the Forrester effect, bullwhip effect or whiplash

Table 1. Contributors to variation in the supply chain (adapted

from McGuffog and Wadsley 1999).

Demand Supply

Timing of orders Lead time to supply

Size and composition of orders Quantity to supply
Institutional and random factors affecting
demand information Quality
Data accuracy on products Data accuracy
Prices Prices
Delivery points and timings
 Six Sigma methodologies 55

Supply > Demand Demand > Supply

-Excess Inventory -Stock outs Supply > Demand Demand > Supply
-Obsolescence -Lost market share
-Breakage -Idle Shelf space

6sigma

Early Late
Deliveries Deliveries
On time delivery On time delivery
On time delivery On time delivery

Figure 2. Reducing variation to meet customer request (Billinge 2002).

effect (Forrester 1961, Metters 1997, Simchi-Levi et al. 2000) and has been shown to have
damaging effects on the operation of the supply chain. Additional work on demand ampli-
fication has expanded the discussion to include the effects of funnelling—the prioritisation
of customers for information processing and production planning—and demand variability
between how customers are treated. Both these issues were shown to distort the efficient
operation of the automotive supply chain that was studied (Hines et al. 2000a).

5. The need for a variation-driven approach

Overall, it can be seen that variation both within and between elements of the supply chain has
significant potential to disrupt and damage the supply chain process. From this it is possible to
conclude that variation reduction ought to form a significant strand of any approach to supply
chain improvement.
The lack of such a focus has already been noted, but since little work has been done in the
area it is difficult to estimate how much value might be added by the application of variation-
reducing approaches such as Six Sigma. Rare examples such as Raytheon’s work with some
suppliers to achieve 100% on-time delivery of components (Velocci 2002) give an indication of
practical benefit, but without full quantification. A survey of aerospace companies conducted
for Aviation Week & Space Technologies also revealed 100% agreement that intercompany
exchanges would benefit from the standardised application of Six Sigma, and that no such
framework existed (Velocci 2002).
These issues argue strongly for variation reduction in supply chains. The model presented
in this paper is not intended to replace current approaches, but to add a further dimension to
both the structure and the conduct of supply chain improvement activity.

6. Six Sigma

Six Sigma is the latest in a long line of approaches to quality and performance improvement.
Immense financial benefits have been claimed by various authors and organisations from its
combination of rigorous process improvement methodology, highly trained operatives and
56 G. Knowles et al.

bottom-line focus (e.g. Hoerl 2001, Hendricks and Kelbaugh 1998). It is defined in a variety
of ways by several authors, but for the purposes of this paper the definition from Pande et al.
(2000) will be used:

A comprehensive and flexible system for achieving, sustaining and maximising business success. Six Sigma is
uniquely driven by close understanding of customer needs, disciplined use of facts, data, and statistical analysis,
and diligent attention to managing, improving, and reinventing business processes.

Six Sigma focuses on reduction of defects and variation and drives towards excellence mea-
sured in terms of defects per million opportunities (dpmo). Harry (1994) defines 3.4 dpmo
as Six Sigma performance, where a defect can be any deviation from the product or process
specifications. Further, it links improvements in this measure to bottom-line profits. Success
has been claimed in a wide variety of organisations, from the well-publicised work in manu-
facturing of Motorola & GE (Henderson and Evans 2000) to banks and hospitals (Hendricks
and Kelbaugh 1998).
A strong structure and clear alignment to organisational goals (particularly financial) are
key parts of the Six Sigma approach as defined by Harry and Schroeder (2000). Leadership
is provided by a team of champions: senior champion, deployment champion and project
champion at corporate, unit and department levels, respectively, supported by a team of experts.
The experts are referred to as Black Belts (who usually work full time on projects at process
level to solve critical problems and achieve bottom-line results) and Master Black Belts (who
provide mentoring, training and expert support to the Black Belts).

6.1 Six Sigma process

The driving force of Six Sigma is the define, measure, analyse, improve, control (DMAIC)
process, which is used to structure the individual projects. Various versions of this mechanism
appear in the literature (e.g. Henderson and Evans 2000, Pande et al. 2000), but all agree on
the central tenets of the approach. Figure 3 summarises the steps and key outputs.
The essence of the process is that it is an exploratory approach, which is a refinement of
Deming’s plan, do, check, act cycle (Deming 1990). The first phase is focused on understanding
the process under investigation from the point of view of customers, suppliers and operators.
The second phase seeks to measure current performance, the third to analyse contributors to
poor performance and variation. The fourth phase uses the outputs of the earlier phases to
define, test and operationalise improvements and the final phase seeks to ensure that changes
are embedded, successful and, where appropriate, transferred to other processes.

6.2 Six Sigma tools and techniques

There is a myriad of tools and techniques available for application within the DMAIC process.
Whilst it is not the purpose of this paper to explore them in detail, an indicative (but non-
exhaustive) list is provided in table 2 to illustrate the range of tools and the point in the process
where they would normally be applied.
Different approaches are available for Six Sigma project selection, but they are essentially
top down. Harry (1994) advocates that the projects should be selected by a group of senior
managers and Eckes (2001) mentions project selection by a council of senior managers. This
approach is in order to ensure that projects are not only of financial benefit, but also are aligned
as much as possible with corporate goals.
 Six Sigma methodologies 57

Process understanding
Customer requirements
Define Defined opportunity
Likely benefits
Possible contributors

Measure Current Performance

Sources of Variability

Analyse Key Variables

Relationships

Improve Implemented solution

Predicted & tested results

Key variables controlled

Control Plan for stability
Training plan
Transfer as appropriate

Measure of benefits achieved

Figure 3. The Six Sigma DMAIC process and key outputs (Knowles and Antony 2002).

Table 2. Six Sigma tools and techniques (RSMC 2000).

D M A I C D M A I C

Affinity diagram

Pareto chart

Brainstorming


Planning tools (Gantt charts)

Business case
Prioritisation matrix


Cause-and-effect diagram
Process capability


Charter
Process Sigma


Consensus
Quality control process chart

Control charts



Regression

CTQ (critical-to-quality) tree
Rolled throughout yield

Data collection formats



Sampling




Data collection plans



Scatter plots

DOE (design of experiments)

SIPOC diagram

Flow diagrams




Stakeholder analysis


Histogram/frequency plots



Standardisation

FMEA

Stratification




Gage repeatability & reproduceability
Stratified frequency plots

Hypothesis test
Time series plots (run charts)

Kano model
VOC (voice of the customer)

58 G. Knowles et al.

6.3 Success factors for Six Sigma

There is a variety of important success factors for Six Sigma programmes. These range from
generic issues such as senior management commitment (Breyfogle 1999) and good cultural
fit (Harry and Schroeder 2000) to specific issues such as good training in tools (Harry and
Schroeder 2000) and strictly following the DMAIC methodology (Pande et al. 2000). Particu-
larly pertinent to this paper are the comments of Banuelas and Antony (2002), who noted that
Six Sigma should begin and end with the customer, and that every Six Sigma project must be
linked to organisational strategy.
Perhaps the principal focus of Six Sigma is on bottom-line results. Harry and Schroeder
(2000), for example, noted that Six Sigma is “first and foremost designed to generate imme-
diate improvements in profit margins”. Since Poirier (1999) estimated that between 65 and
85% of total costs can be related directly to supply chain operation, it makes sense to apply
cost reduction strategies such as Six Sigma to the supply chain as well as internal processes.
However, there is little evidence of application of Six Sigma across the supply chain. Trent
(2001) noted that original equipment manufacturers are spreading Six Sigma through the
supply chain by offering training to suppliers. George (2002), Montgomery (2001) and Basu
(2001) all advocate the integration of lean principles and tools with Six Sigma. Avery (2001),
Moore (2002) and Baljko Shah (2002) discuss companies’ use of Six Sigma with their sup-
pliers, but it is clear that in most cases these are only applications of the approach in different
elements of the supply chain, rather than across the chain.

7. Developing a conceptual improvement model

The Supply Chain Conceptual Improvement model (SCCIM), shown in figure 4, was developed
to address the issues raised in previous sections based on the DMAIC methodology. It
addresses the following points:
• The need to link improvement activities strongly to strategy.
• The need to view the supply chain as a single entity.

Define Objectives
Strategic Cycle

Measure & Control

Control Define Project

Operational Improvement
Cycle
Improve Model & Measure

Analyse

Figure 4. The Supply Chain Conceptual Improvement model.

 Six Sigma methodologies 59

• The need to integrate improvement actions across the entire supply chain.
• The need to focus on the end customer.
• The need to develop effective performance measurement systems for the supply chain.
• The need to incorporate variation reduction into any improvement approach for maximum
effect.
The model is composed of seven distinct steps:
• Define objectives.
• Measure and assess.
• Define project.
• Model and measure.
• Analyse.
• Improve.
• Control.
These seven phases are organised in two complementary cycles, the strategic cycle (DM&C)
and the operational cycle (DM&MAI). This aligns with the results of the Aviation Week &
Space Technologies survey (Velocci 2002), which indicated that Six Sigma project objectives
need to be tied to organisational objectives to ensure success.
In the model, the strategic cycle ensures that the organisational strategies are developed
into useful objectives and deployed into a set of measures for supply chain performance
that are consistent with and aligned to organisational drivers. The organisation’s performance
against the measures is the key driver for operational-level improvement projects and activities.
Projects will be defined that are seen as having maximum strategic impact on key goals and
areas of poor performance and driven by a largely standard Six Sigma process, with some
additional tools suggested to support the implementation in supply chain applications. On
project completion, the operational cycle feeds back into the strategic cycle by refining the
data on improved performance as an outcome of the project.

7.1 Tools, techniques and activities within the model

The model in itself moves us some way towards successful application of Six Sigma in supply
chains, but to make it a viable proposition it requires the supporting tools, techniques and
actions to be defined. Figure 5 shows those elements required over and above the standard Six
Sigma tools and techniques identified earlier.

7.1.1 The strategic cycle. The use of the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton 1992) in
the improvement process (model) will enable organisations to link supply chain performance
to strategy. Brewer and Speh (2000) advanced the argument that it is a good response to
the challenges of measurement in supply chains facing many organisations. The Balanced
Scorecard allows the strategic goals and the focus of the supply chain improvement model to
be derived from a rigorous performance measurement and management system and provides
a clear linkage between operational measures and strategic direction.
Brewer and Speh (2000) noted that the Balanced Scorecard is not ideally designed for
supply chain usage in its original form. However, the focus on supply chain operations can
be increased with the use of the SCOR model, which offers an excellent complement to the
Balanced Scorecard, particularly in the definition of performance objectives and measures.
Thus, the intention is that the SCOR model will provide the identification and definition of the
critical supply chain processes and metrics while the Balanced Scorecard will provide ongoing
60 G. Knowles et al.

Balanced Scorecard

Define Objectives

Strategic Cycle
Measure & Control
Benefits Sharing SCOR model
& Communication Collaboration
set-up
Control Define Project
Operational
Scorecard Process Mapping Tools
Operational Improvement
Time Compression Tools
Cycle
Improve Model & Measure
Simulation Operational
Tools Scorecard
Analyse

Lean Analysis Tools

Figure 5. Additional tools, techniques and activities to be used in the model.

guidance to ensure the achievement of the strategic goals. As noted by Christopher (1998), if
suitable performance measures can be identified that link with the achievement of strategic
goals they can become the basis for a more appropriate scorecard than might otherwise be the
case.
It is worth noting here that, although the model recommends the Balanced Scorecard, it is
not intended to exclude other techniques or methods for linking supply chain performance
to business strategy. If an organisation is already using another approach (Hoshin Kanri, for
example), the model is flexible enough for this to replace the Balanced Scorecard provided it
fulfils the same purpose.

7.1.2 The operational cycle. Supply chain improvement activities must take place in the
context of the complex organisational relationships that exist within the chain. This situation
is recognised to be messy and pluralistic, unlike the relatively simple and aligned nature of
internal processes. There has been a significant amount of research conducted into issues
surrounding collaboration in supply chains (e.g. Sabath and Fontanella 2002, Velocci 2002,
Corbett et al. 1999). Based on the research in this area, it is possible to recommend some
activities at the front end of an improvement project that will help to engender success:

• Agree interested parties and the organisation principally driving the improvement activity.
• Establish agreed principles and practice for resource input and gain sharing.
• On the basis of the above and expected benefits, establish buy-in from all involved parties
and agree a scope for the project.
• Select a team from the interested organisations.

In the diagram this is referred to as “set-up collaboration” in the “define” stage. In the “model
and measure”, “analyse”, “improve” and “control”, standard Six Sigma approaches would
be used but supplemented by appropriate time compression techniques and an operational
scorecard linking the performance on key measurables back to performance on the higher-
level measurements. Time compression techniques have been developed through the lean focus
on supply chains. Many researchers, including Hines et al. (2000b), Lamming (1993) Taylor
 Six Sigma methodologies 61

and Bunt (2000) and Beesley (1997), have developed approaches such as lean supply, value
stream management and time-based process mapping (TBPM). The latter was developed by the
Time Compression Programme at the University of Warwick to identify and eliminate waste in
processes (Gregory and Rawling 1997). TBPM is a visual tool that incorporates the concepts
of “business process” and “value-added/non-value-added time”. The operational scorecard
is the deployment of organisational goals to the key measurable elements of the process and
serves to focus effort on improvement of critical factors. The “model and measure” stage
focuses on the creation of a “big picture” of the supply chain (George 2002) and breaking
this picture down by means of detailed process mapping—using more sophisticated mapping
techniques such as the SCOR model mapping tool (SCC 2001). The “analyse”, “improve” and
“control” phases would also incorporate the previously mentioned lean systems for identifying
waste and standard Six Sigma tools for driving variation out. Verification of the improvement
during the “improve” stage would require the use of simulation techniques in order to test
improvements in a controlled fashion prior to “going live”. The final stage is to ensure that
benefits gained are shared as per the pattern agreed in the initial collaboration agreement and
that the results and actions from the project are shared across the interested parties.

8. Benefits of the approach

The likely benefits of this system are:

• A strong linkage to strategic objectives for the supply chain should ensure that improvement
activity focuses on the most important areas and is not ad hoc in nature.
• Collaboration issues are actively addressed at the start of the process so that they do not
become an issue later.
• By using the SCOR model a supply chain focus is applied to the Balanced Scorecard so
that it is more useful in this application.
• The combination of waste reduction and variation reduction tools during the project allows
for the complementary benefits of taking out non-value-added activities and reducing
variation in the remaining “core” activities.
• Feedback from the operational level to the strategic level allows for refinement of the focus
for improvement for future projects.
• The systematic approach should deliver robust solutions to supply chain issues.

9. Validation of the model

Validation can occur at many different levels from discussion and feedback with relevant
parties to a comprehensive application in industry. Each form of validation provides a robust
feedback loop via the public exposure of the research in question and has an associated time-
scale for completion. In the two types previously mentioned, the former can be completed in
a relatively short period of time whilst the latter requires a more comprehensive study usually
covering a much longer time period. Given that this research is preliminary in nature, the
validation of this conceptual model has taken two forms that were chosen from the shorter
time period end of the validation spectrum. The validation of the model was qualitative in
nature and included both academic and industrialist viewpoints. The initial validation was
with two key fact-holders from industry who looked at the model with the view to applying
it in their own organisations. Secondly, a more advanced form of validation was pursued
62 G. Knowles et al.

that involved collaboration with another research study at Cranfield University. Both will be
described here.
The initial validation comprised a set of semi-structured interviews with Six Sigma practi-
tioners in industry. The interview protocol entailed ascertaining the current problems within the
supply chain, introducing the model and investigating the feasibility of applying the model
in the respective supply chains. The two interviewees held positions within the extended
supply chain environment; one was a Master Black Belt, Logistics Manager at a Ford Distri-
bution Centre in the UK, and the other the leader of Six Sigma, Latin America, for GE Power
Systems. They were interviewed extensively about the applicability of the model in their
working environment and discussed the practical benefits and challenges that might result.
Key comments made included the confirmation that the model “made sense” and addressed
“issues which are important in supply chain management”. It was also stated that the model
offered a “good approach to integrating a proven methodology like Six Sigma into the supply
chain”. Some contingent factors were also raised by the practitioners, who indicated that the
success of such an approach would depend upon a number of factors:

• Who is driving the implementation and their relative power and position within the supply
chain.
• Attitudes of the companies involved to information sharing.
• Political “game playing” and the degree of genuine acceptance of Six Sigma theory and
practice within the companies.
• Resource availability (linked to organisation size) for the activities.
• Careful consideration of the cost/benefit model which would impact resource allocation
and buy-in.

These factors could roughly be said to align with factors increasing complexity in supply chain
management, as identified by Rice and Hoppe (2002).
The second form of validation for the model involved an association with a separate research
programme into supply chain resilience (Christopher and Peck 2003). This took the form
of an advanced validation because the model had been incorporated into another research
approach as a robust mechanism for studying specific supply chain issues. The supply chain
resilience research team, led by Prof. Martin Christopher at Cranfield University in association
with the Department of Transport, have identified this model and included it in their supply
chain toolkit in the published report on supply chain resilience. Consequently, this research
model has been accepted as a useful tool by academics and industrialists. Furthermore, this
model is now in the public domain and, as a result, no critical feedback via any channel
has been received. Therefore, the authors believe that this process is an appropriate form of
validation.

10. Implications for future research

The model raises several questions for further research in terms of how the model will perform
in a practical situation with respect to ease of use, understanding of tools and approach and
the financial and other benefits that will be gained by the organisation.
The increased structure should encourage various supply chain players to support the
improvement process, but this will need to be tested. However, the cultural issues between
players in the supply chain may dominate, having a detrimental effect on any attempts at
improvement. Another aspect of the issue is the effect on these outcomes of ownership of
the process and relationships within the supply chain. There is recognition in the work of
 Six Sigma methodologies 63

Lamming et al. (2001) that supply relationships are not consistent and have a significant
impact on the performance of the supply chain. For example, transaction cost economic the-
ory indicates that improvements such as those suggested in this paper will be impacted by
political manœuvrings by different parties within the supply chain.
It is necessary to establish the resource requirements for applying this model in comparison
with the likely benefits. This could be through the use of a questionnaire that assesses the
practicalities of the application of the model within the supply chain resilience toolkit whilst
identifying potential improvements. A further interesting point would be to investigate the
relationship between when the model is applied in a company and its effectiveness. These
issues will be the focus of further research in the area.

11. Conclusions

Six Sigma thinking offers the potential to refine current approaches to supply chain improve-
ment. It offers likely benefits in delivering reduced variation over and above the elimination
of waste and non-value-added activity delivered by existing approaches. However, if it is to
be successful, particularly in the messy pluralistic context of supply chains, it needs to have
strong linkages to strategy, a clear collaborative framework and a combination of tools for
addressing the twin goals of waste and variation reduction. The SCCIM addresses these issues
and meets the criteria in the literature for a successful supply chain improvement approach. It
has been conceptually validated and will be validated further in practice in the near future.

References
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D. and Sarshar, M., Process improvement through performance measurement: the Balanced
Scorecard methodology. Work Study, 2001, 50(5), 179–188.
Avery, S., Linking supply chains saves Raytheon $400 million. Purchasing, 2001, August, 27–33.
Baljko Shah, J., Raytheon reaches out to vendors. EBN, 2002, 1323, 27.
Banuelas, R. and Antony, J., Critical success factors for the successful implementation of Six Sigma projects in
organisations. The TQM Magazine, 2002, 14(2), 92–99.
Basu, R., Six Sigma to fit Sigma. IIE Solutions, 2001, July, 28–33.
Beamon, B.M., Measures of supply chain performance. Int. J. Operations & Production Management, 1999, 19(3),
275–292.
Beesley, A., Time compression in the supply chain. Logistics Information Management, 1997, 10(6), 300–305.
Billinge, C., The business case for Six Sigma in GE—changing the culture. Available online at: www.gegxs.com
(accessed 27 February 2002).
Brewer, P.C. and Speh, T.W., Using the Balanced Scorecard to measure supply chain performance. J. Business
Logistics, 2000, 21(1), 75–94.
Breyfogle, F.W., Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter Solutions Using Statistical Methods, 1999 (John Wiley:
New York).
Christopher, M., Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 1998 (Financial Times, Prentice Hall).
Christopher, M. and Peck, H., Creating resilient supply chains: a practical guide, Cranfield University, Cranfield,
2003.
Corbett, C.J., Blackburn, J.D. and Wassenhove, L.N.V., Partnerships to improve supply chains. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 1999, Summer 40(4), 71–83.
Cranfield University School of Management, on behalf of Department for Transport Local Government and the
Regions, Home Office and Department of Trade and Industry Supply, Chain vulnerability, Final Report, 2002.
De Mast, J., Schippers, W.A.J., Does, R.J.M.M. and van den Heuvel, E.R., Steps and strategies in process improvement.
Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 2000, 16(4), 301–311.
De Meyer, A., Loch, C.H. and Pich, M.T., Managing project uncertainty: from variation to chaos. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 2002, 43(2), 60–67.
Deming, W.E., The New Economics, 1990 (MIT CAES: Cambridge, MA).
Eckes, G., The Six Sigma Revolution: How General Electric and Others Turned Processes into Profits, 2001 (John
Wiley: New York).
Forrester, J.W., Industrial Dynamics, 1961 (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA).
Ganeshan, R. and Harrison, P.T., An introduction to supply chain management, Pennsylvania State University, 1995.
64 G. Knowles et al.

Gattorna, J.L. and Walters, D.W. Managing the Supply Chain. A Strategic Perspective, 1996 (MacMillan:
Basingstoke, UK).
Geary, S., Childerhouse, P. and Towill, D., Uncertainty and the seamless supply chain. Supply Chain Management
Review, 2002, 6(4), 52–61.
George, M.L., Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six Sigma with Lean Production Speed, 1st edn, 2002 (McGraw-Hill:
New York).
Gregory, I.C. and Rawling, S.B., Profit from Time: Speed up Business Improvement by Implementing Time
Compression, 1997 (Macmillan Press: Bristol).
Harland, C., Supply chain management: relationships, chains and networks. British J. Management, 1996, 7, S63–S80.
Harry, M., The Vision of Six Sigma. Roadmap for Breakthrough, 1994 (Sigma: Phoenix, AZ).
Harry, M. and Schroeder, R., Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy, 2000 (Currency: New York).
Henderson, K.M. and Evans, J.R., Successful implementation of Six Sigma: benchmarking General Electric Company.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 2000, 7(4), 260–281.
Hendricks, C.A. and Kelbaugh, R.L., Implementing Six Sigma at GE. J. for Quality and Participation, 1998, 21(4),
48–53.
Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Sullivan, J., Waves, beaches, breakwaters and rip currents, a three-dimensional view of
supply chain dynamics. Int. J. Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 2000a, 30(10), 827–846.
Hines, P., Lamming, R., Jones, D., Cousins, P. and Rich, N., Value Stream Management, 2000b (Prentice Hall:
Harlow).
Hoerl, R.W., Six Sigma Black Belts: What do they need to know? J. Quality Technology, 2001, October 33(4),
391–401.
Kanji, G.K. and Wong, A., Business Excellence Model for supply chain management. Total Quality Management,
1999, 10(8), 1147–1168.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., The Balanced Scorecard—measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review,
1992, Jan./Feb., 171–179.
Knowles, G. and Antony, J.A., Six Sigma and organizational learning: An opportunity missed?, in Quality, Inno-
vation and Knowledge Conference, 18–20 February 2002, Kuala Lumpar, Malaysia. Available online at:
www.monash.edu.au/oce/qikconference.
Lambert, D. and Pohlen, T., Supply chain metrics. Int. J. Logistics Management, 2001, 12(1), 1–19.
Lamming, R., Beyond Partnership: Strategies for Innovation and Lean Supply, 1993 (Prentice Hall International:
Harlow).
Lamming, R., Caldwell, N., Harrison, D. and Phillips, W., Transparency in supply relationships: concept and practice.
J. Supply Chain Management, 2001, 37(4), 4–10.
McGuffog, T. and Wadsley, N., The general principles of value chain management. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 1999, 4(5), 218–225.
Mena, C., Whicker, L., Templar, S. and Bernon, M., Costing the supply chain. Manufacturing Engineer, 2002, 81(5),
225–228.
Metters, R., Quantifying the bullwhip effect in supply chains. J. Operations Management, 1997, 15(2), 89–100.
Montgomery, D.C., Beyond Six Sigma. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 2001, 17(4), 3–4.
Moore, K.G., Six Sigma: driving supply chain success at Ford. Supply Chain Management Review, 2002, 6(4), 38–42.
Oakland, J.S., The Route to Improving Performance, 1993 (Butterworth-Heinnemann: Oxford).
Pande, P.S., Neuman R.P. and Cavanagh, R.R., The Six Sigma Way, 2000 (McGraw-Hill: New York).
Poirier, C.C., Advanced Supply Chain Management, 1999 (Berrett-Koehler: California).
Porter, M.E., The Competitive Advantage of Nations, 1990 (MacMillan: London).
Pullim, J., Success comes in threes. Professional Engineering, 2002, 15(8), 28.
Rice, J.B. and Hoppe, R.M., Supply chain vs supply chain. Supply Chain Management Review, 2002, 5(5), 47–54.
RSMC, RATH & Strong Management Consultants, Six Sigma Pocket Guide, 2000 (AON Management Consulting).
Sabath, R.E. and Fontanella, J., The unfulfilled promise of supply chain collaboration. Supply Chain Management
Review, 2002, 6(4), 24–29.
SCC, Supply Chain Council, Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model Overview, August 2001.
Simchi-Levi, D., Kaminski, P. and Simchi-Levi, E., Designing and Managing the Supply Chain, 2000 (Irwin, McGraw-
Hill: Boston).
Slack, N., Chambers, S., Harland, C, Harrison,A. and Johnstone, R., Operations Management, 1995 (Pitman: London).
Slack, N., Chambers, S. and Johnstone, R., Operations Management, 3rd edn, 2001 (Financial Times, Prentice Hall).
Snee, R., Statistical thinking and its contribution to quality. American Statistician, 1990, 44(2), 116–121.
Stevens, G.C., Integrating the supply chain. Int. J. Physical Distribution and Materials Management, 1989, 19(8),
3–9.
Stewart, G., Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR): the first cross-industry framework for integrated supply-
chain management. Logistics Information Management, 1997, 10(2), 62–67.
Swartwood, D., How to SCOR with Six Sigma, 2001 (Supply Chain Council).
Taylor, D. and Bunt, D., Manufacturing Operations and Supply Chain Management: The Lean Approach, 2000
(Thompson Learning: Surrey).
 Six Sigma methodologies 65

Towill, D., The seamless supply chain: the predator’s strategic advantage. Int. J. Technology Management, 1997,
13(1), 37–56.
Trent, R.J., Applying TQM to SCM. Supply Chain Management Review, 2001, May/June, 70–78.
Velocci, A.L., Full potential of Six Sigma eludes most companies. Aviation Week & Space Technologies, 2002, 157(14),
56–61.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T., Lean Thinking, 1996 (Simon & Schuster: London).
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Ross, D., The Machine That Changed the World, 1990 (Maxwell Macmillan
International: Oxford).