Production Planning & Control

The Management of Operations

ISSN: 0953-7287 (Print) 1366-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

Using Lean Six Sigma to improve mobile order

fulfilment process in a telecom service sector

Mohammad Shamsuzzaman, Mariam Alzeraif, Imad Alsyouf & Michael Boon

Chong Khoo

To cite this article: Mohammad Shamsuzzaman, Mariam Alzeraif, Imad Alsyouf & Michael Boon
Chong Khoo (2018): Using Lean Six Sigma to improve mobile order fulfilment process in a telecom
service sector, Production Planning & Control, DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2018.1426132

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1426132

Published online: 19 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 80

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppc20
Production Planning & Control, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1426132

Using Lean Six Sigma to improve mobile order fulfilment process in a telecom service
sector
Mohammad Shamsuzzamana,b  , Mariam Alzeraifa,b, Imad Alsyoufa,b and Michael Boon Chong Khooa,c
a
Sustainable Engineering Asset Management (SEAM) Research Group, Research Institute of Sciences & Engineering, University of Sharjah, Sharjah,
UAE; bDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, College of Engineering, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE; cSchool of
Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden, Malaysia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study proposes and follows a specific and systematic framework for implementing Lean Six Sigma Received 2 February 2017
(LSS) methodology in a telecom company in order to improve customer satisfaction by minimizing the Accepted 20 December 2017
company’s response time to customer requirements. The goal of this study was achieved by utilizing several
KEYWORDS
LSS tools under five phases of the DMAIC methodology. Unlike previous studies in the telecom sector that Lean Six Sigma; process
used only qualitative method, in this study, both qualitative and quantitative methods were utilized to improvement; service
draw meaningful conclusions. As a result of the implementation of the LSS methodology, the average management; lead time;
order fulfilment lead time for sales orders (SO) and value-added service (VAS) orders was reduced from 10.3 telecom service
to 5.9 days and from 1.5 to 0.5 days, respectively. The reduction in lead time resulted in an increase in the
sigma level for SO and VAS orders from 0.44 to 1.26 and from 0.73 to 2.66, respectively. These improvements
were expected to lead to a financial benefit in savings of over $600,000 per year in operational costs,
enhancements to customer experience and an increase in revenue generating opportunities. Moreover,
this article enriches the existing literature on the application of LSS concept in the service industry, and
helps the company to speed up the response to customer requirements.

1. Introduction This raises the need for telecom service providers to optimize
the business process and adopt continuous process improve-
Telecommunications have turned the world into a more con-
ment initiatives. As LSS has a significant impact on business pro-
nected, more globalized place and have been a major contribu-
cess improvement and customer satisfaction (Kumar, Antony,
tor to increased economic efficiency and productivity in almost
and Tiwari 2011; Psychogios, Atanasovski, and Tsironis 2012;
all industries. The telecom service sector is a strategic and signif-
Thomas et al. 2016), it was decided to implement LSS in order
icant sector, owing to its crucial role in driving economic growth.
to improve the business process and customer satisfaction in a
In today’s world, telecom service providers face numerous obsta-
telecom service provider company.
cles to continued success. This is due to the sector becoming
The structure of this paper is organized as follows: Section
extremely competitive and customers increasingly demanding
2 provides a brief review of the research on the application of
more services and better performance at reduced prices (GCC
LSS methodology, especially in telecom industries, while Section
Telecom Operators 2011). In such circumstances, all telecom ser-
3 provides a description of the research methodology used in
vice providers need to perform well to survive and be profitable.
this study, and focuses on the background of the case company.
The customer is key to the continued success of telecom service
Section 4 presents the LSS implementation framework proposed
providers. Customers’ loyalty and their satisfaction are impor-
in this study, and discusses the results obtained from testing the
tant factors for the success of the company (Athanassopoulos
implementation framework in the case company. Section 5 dis-
and Iliakopoulos 2003; Gerpott, Rams, and Schindler 2001). A
cusses the managerial implications and lessons learned from the
study in a telecommunication industry showed that four service
study. Finally, the conclusions are presented in Section 6.
quality factors such as understanding business needs, operating
hours, fault reporting centre and response time have significant
effects on the customers’ loyalty and satisfaction (Khatibi, Ismail, 2.  Literature review
and Thyagarajan 2002). Thus, it is essential that the telecom ser- The Lean production is a process improvement methodology
vice providers offer a unique customer experience. This means used to maximize the customer value while eliminating waste
that the telecom service providers should provide a competitive and non-value-added (NVA) activities across the organisation
advantage not only by focusing on the creation of attractive (Dinis-carvalho et al. 2015). It provides a way to do more with
offers for customers but more so in providing high quality ser- less while coming closer and closer to providing customers with
vices and excellence in the business processes (Kocova 2014). exactly what they want (Laureani, Antony, and Douglas 2010).

CONTACT  Mohammad Shamsuzzaman  mshamsuzzaman@sharjah.ac.ae

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2   M. SHAMSUZZAMAN ET AL.
On the other hand, Six Sigma is a well-established custom-
er-oriented business improvement strategy that uses statistical
methods to identify and eliminate defects, mistakes or failures
in business processes by focusing on the process performance
characteristics that are critical to customers (Zhang et al. 2015).
The term ‘Six Sigma’ refers to a statistical measure of defect rate
within a system which is equal to 3.4 defects per million oppor-
tunities (DPMO). While both Lean and Six Sigma have been
known for many decades, they were not integrated until the
late 1990s and early 2000s. Lean Six Sigma (LSS) works better
than previous methodologies because it integrates the human
aspects, such as management leadership, customer focus, cul-
tural change and project team; and process aspects, such as pro-
cess improvement, analysis of variation, process management
and statistical thinking of process improvement (Snee 2010).
LSS has been used extremely successfully in the manufacturing
industry as a continuous process improvement tool over the last
two decades (Albliwi, Antony, and Lim 2015; Antony, Gijo and
Childe 2012; Gijo, Scaria, and Antony 2011; Jirasukprasert et al.
2014; Roth and Franchetti 2010; Srinivasan et al. 2016). However,
the service industry faces challenges in the application of LSS
concepts because of invisible work processes, less control over
human behaviour and lack of facts and data (George 2003;
Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh 2000). Although the application
of LSS is limited in the service industries, its acceptance in ser-
vice organisations is growing rapidly, especially in health care
(Bhat, Gijo, and Jnanesh 2014; Gijo et al. 2013), banking and
finance (Kumar, Wolfe, and Wolfe 2008; White et al. 2009), cus-
tomer call centre (McAdam et al. 2009; Laureani, Antony, and
Douglas 2010; Sunder and Antony 2015), small and medium
enterprises (Kumar, Antony, and Tiwari 2011; Nabhani and
Shokri 2009) and education (Antony 2008; Antony et al. 2012;
Kaushik and Khanduja 2010). Even though telecommunications
play an important role in today’s economy, it is noticeable that
the application of LSS in telecom services has not been explored
thoroughly (Shuttleworth 2015). To the best of our knowl-
edge, very few articles can be found in the available literature
that discusses the applications of LSS or Six Sigma in telecom
industries. Table 1 provides a systematic review of those stud-
ies. Nonetheless, all of the articles (Table 1) have methodolog-
ical limitations and devoid of scientific evidence and statistical
analysis. In addition, none of these articles focuses on ‘response
time’, one of the important service quality factors having signifi-
cant effects on customers’ loyalty and satisfaction in the telecom
industry (Khatibi, Ismail, and Thyagarajan 2002).
3.  Research methodology
Here we discuss issues related to research methodology and
present the case company as a unit of analysis.
3.1.  Case study research methodology
Case study is defined as an empirical inquiry that investigates
a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context (Yin
2014). Usually, the case study method is considered as a less
desirable form of inquiry than other research methods as the
former lacks rigor and the little basis for scientific generalisation;
in addition, it takes long time (Gomm, Hammersley, and Foster
2009). However, Yin (2014) clarifies that the lack of rigor also
exists in other research strategies, but in case study research it
has been more frequently encountered and less frequently over-
come. Regarding the generalisation problem, he shows that
case studies could be generalized to theoretical propositions
and not to populations or universally. Therefore, while using the
case study method, a previously developed theory is used as a
template with which the empirical results of the case study are
compared.
3.2.  Case company background
The selected company in this study was a telecom service pro-
vider company. The company offers mobile and fixed telephone
and broadband connectivity services to individuals, homes and
businesses. The company places heavy emphasis on the level
of its customer service, which helps the company to succeed.
However, offering a product or service that customers want or
need is not always enough. In fact, a successful business must be
able to receive and fulfil customers’ orders efficiently and within
a reasonable timeframe. This process is known as an order ful-
filment process and involves the basis for earning revenue. The
company received a series of complaints from dissatisfied cus-
tomers about delays in fulfilling their mobile orders. Hence, the
decision was made to initiate an LSS program to improve the
mobile order fulfilment process.
4.  Proposed LSS implementation framework and
application
A literature review was undertaken using relevant search key-
words to identify the previous relevant improvement initiatives
carried out to address LSS implementation in the service indus-
try and in particular in the telecom services. Information was
also collected from the case organisation. Finally, based on the
literature, input from the case organisation and theoretical and
industrial experience of authors, a specific and systematic meth-
odological framework was developed as illustrated in Section
4.1. Researchers suggest that specially designed frameworks
for implementing LSS projects to handle specific problems are
more effective than standard versions (Garza-Reyes et al. 2016;
Zhang et al. 2015).
4.1.  LSS implementation framework
The proposed implementation framework is an integrated
approach of Lean and Six Sigma and is shown in Figure 1. It is
based on the traditional five phases of the DMAIC Six Sigma
improvement model: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and
Control. Each phase of the DMAIC methodology utilizes several
Lean and Six Sigma tools in order to improve the mobile order
fulfilment process.
In this study, both qualitative and quantitative data were col-
lected from multiple sources. Qualitative data were obtained from
direct observations in the field and unstructured interviews with
team leaders, experienced team members and systems experts,
while quantitative data were obtained from the company’s his-
torical records. Several tools and techniques, such as a Pareto
chart, value stream mapping (VSM), cause-and-effect analysis,
Table 1. A systematic review of LSS applications in telecom industries.
Source
Shuttleworth (2015)
Psychogios, Atanasovski, and
Tsironis (2012)
Bhargava, Bhardwaj, and
Rathore (2010) and Kocova
(2014)
Pranoto and Nurcahyo (2014)
Qureshi et al. (2012)
Article type
Conceptual study supported by case study
Qualitative approach supported by case study
Descriptive study
Descriptive qualitative–quantitative approach
supported by case study
Qualitative approach supported by case study
Data collection and key tools and tech-
DMAIC/Lean cycle used niques employed
None Qualitative data obtained from interviews with
managers at different management levels
None Qualitative data obtained from interviews with
top-level managers, companies’ documents,
written procedures and quality assurance
policies
A general description of the DMAIC cycle No evidence of data collection and analysis
has been provided
DMAIC cycle Data obtained from both direct customers
through direct care workers or by phone, and
used FMEA (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis),
Fishbone diagram, DPMO (Defects Per Million
Opportunities) and Process capability analysis
None Qualitative data obtained from interviews with
customers and conducted a Pareto analysis
Brief review
Examined the impact of top management’s
support for the application of LSS methodol-
ogy in a South African telecom company, and
concludes that the middle management is
more aware of LSS than the top management
in the studied company
Explored the nature of LSS application in two
South Eastern European telecom industries,
and focuses on the critical factors that con-
tribute to the successful implementation of
the LSS
Discussed the challenges in the application of
Six Sigma in telecom industries, and concludes
that the proper implementation of Six Sigma
in telecom industries requires not only the
effective operational strategies, but also the
fulfilment of customers’ needs and satisfaction
Used Six Sigma and Importance Performance
Analysis (IPA) approach to improve quali-
ty of High Speed Downlink Packet Access
(HSDPA) network in a telecom industry. They
identify Call Setup Success Rate (CSSR) as
the critical-to-quality (CTQ) parameter of the
HSDPA network, and show the efficacy of the
implementation of Six Sigma for improving the
HSDPA network
Implemented Six Sigma to identify the type of
problems that the existing customers were
facing in the customer service centre of a
telecom company in Pakistan, and concludes
that the problems are related to network, SIM
registration, billing and SIM blocking issues
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 
 3
4   M. SHAMSUZZAMAN ET AL.
Figure 1. LSS implementation framework.
process capability analysis, ANOVA, a control chart and Five-Why
analysis, were used through the DMAIC methodology. All statis-
tical analyses of data (at a 5% level of significance) and graphical
presentations were performed using Minitab statistical software.
4.2.  Application of LSS implementation framework
4.2.1.  Define phase
Since the success of LSS projects is largely dependent on the
involvement of people at various managerial levels (Bhat, Gijo,
and Jnanesh 2014), forming a cross-functional team was the
first step within this phase to assure that the project achieved
its objectives. The LSS project implementation team that was
formed for this project included the Head of Business Excellence
Department (Champion), an Academician (Master Black Belt)
and a graduate student (Black Belt). The other members of the
team were the HR Manager, IT Manager, Logistics Manager,
Finance Manager and leaders of different work groups such as
Figure 2. Pareto chart of mobile by type of order.
the resolver group (RG), order management team (OMT), sales
team and activation team.
As mentioned earlier, this project focused on the mobile order
fulfilment process lead time. Currently, the mobile order fulfil-
ment process is responsible for fulfilling various types of orders
such as SO, VAS, mobile migration, mobile number portability
(MNP) and other special orders. As there are different types of
orders with different targeted lead times for each type, the Pareto
chart (Montgomery 2013) was used to determine the most fre-
quent mobile orders during a month. Consequently, it was decide
to limit the scope of this project only to the mobile SO and VAS
orders fulfilment as they are the most contributing ones of the
total number of orders as shown in Figure 2.
Next, a project charter (Appendix 1) was developed that con-
tains all details of the project. The creation of a project charter
for any LSS project is very important, as it offers the LSS team a
roadmap of the project boundaries and aligns the goals with crit-
ical business needs (Lee, Tai, and Sheen 2013). To ensure that the
boundaries of the project have been defined and to understand
the big picture of the process (Pyzdek and Keller 2014; Shaffie
and Shahbazi 2012), a SIPOC (Supplier–Input–Process–Output–
Customer) process definition and a detailed process flow map
(Appendix 2) were created. A SIPOC diagram along with a process
flow map is highly helpful for clearly understanding the process
steps, scope of the project and inputs, outputs, suppliers and cus-
tomers of the process (Gijo, Scaria, and Antony 2011).
Finally, based on the management decision, the CTQ charac-
teristics for the project were identified as ‘SO fulfillment lead time’
and ‘VAS order fulfillment lead time’ and measured in days. It was
also decided that the time from when the customer places the
order to the time that the order is activated would be defined as
the ‘order fulfillment lead time.’ The specifications for the CTQs
are shown in Table 2.
4.2.2.  Measure phase
The purpose of this phase is to understand the baseline perfor-
mance level of the CTQs selected for the project. For this pur-
pose, a data collection plan was prepared as is presented in
Table 3.
The mobile order fulfilment process for both SO and VAS order
starts when a customer places his/her order. After receiving an
order, it goes through a series of steps of the fulfilment process

Table 2. CTQ’s specifications.
CTQ Measure
SO fulfilment lead time Lead time from customer places the order to
activation
VAS orders fulfilment lead time Lead time from customer places the order to
activation
Table 3. Data collection plan.
How meas- Sampling
Characteristic Data type ured notes conditions
SO fulfilment Variables Historical 100% of Start date,
lead time record orders for
(day) two weeks
VAS orders ful- Variables Historical 100% of Start date,
filment lead record orders for
time (day) two weeks
as shown in the process flow map (see Appendix 2), and finally,
the process ends when the customer receives the order and the
delivery report is sent to relevant team for activation. The com-
pany records the date and time of receiving and fulfilment of
each order, either the order is placed by a printed application
form or online form. As mentioned earlier, all the quantitative
data (i.e. lead time) used in the study were calculated based on
company’s historical records on receiving and fulfilment times
of 489 SO and 218 VAS orders that took place within two weeks
period in June 2015.
Before evaluating the baseline performance, the collected data
were tested for normality by the ‘Anderson Darling Normality Test.’
The results showed that both SO and VAS order data were from a
non-normal population (P-values < 0.005). Furthermore, the data
were tested for all known distributions but failed to identify any
particular distribution for the data. Thus, it was decided to trans-
form the data using the Johnson system of distributions, which
optimally selects a function from three families of distributions of
a variable, which could convert the non-normal data to a normal
distribution (Ray and John 2011). These three distributions are
labelled SB, SL and SU, where the subscripts, B, L and U refer to the
variable being bounded, bounded from below or lognormal and
unbounded, respectively (Chou, Polansky, and Mason 1998). The
Johnson transformation results for both SO and VAS order data
are shown in Figure 3.
Next, the transformed data of SO and VAS order lead times
was used to check whether there were any special causes of
variation in the process by designing an individual control chart
(Montgomery 2013). As shown in Figure 4, both charts are in-con-
trol, indicating that no special cause of variation in the process
exists. The process capability analysis (Montgomery 2013) of
transformed SO and VAS orders lead time data were performed
to find the actual state of the process by specifying the upper
specification limit for SO (= 5 days) and for VAS orders (= 1 day)
as shown in Figure 5. From the process capability analysis, the
existing nonconforming parts per million (PPM) levels of the pro-
cess for SO and VAS orders and their existing process sigma levels
were found (Pyzdek and Keller 2014). The summary of the results
are shown in Table 4. The baseline performance of the process
and sigma level indicates that there are many opportunities for
improvement in the process.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL   5
Specification Defect definition Kano status
5 days Any order with lead time more than 5 days Lesser the better
1 day Any order with lead time more than 1 day Lesser the better
4.2.3.  Analysis phase
Related The purpose of this phase is to identify the influencing factors
and causes that determine the CTQ’s behaviour (Bhat, Gijo, and
Jnanesh 2014). It was decided to conduct a process analysis to
End date, identify the NVA activities and the bottlenecks of the process.
Order type
More data were collected by tracking the movement of 230
End date, orders throughout the process. A VSM was prepared based on
Order type the collected data to visualize and understand the flow of mate-
rials and information required to bring a product or service to
a customer (Figure 6). From the VSM, it was deduced that the
current state VSM consists of 280 h (84%) of NVA activities.
During the development of VSM, eight types of waste (Douglas,
Antony, and Douglas 2015) were investigated, and the three types
identified as belonging to the current state of the process are as
follows:
• Waiting Time: Long waiting time between two consecutive
process steps.
• Transportation: A large amount of unnecessary information
movement within the process, especially when email was a
method of communication.
• Defect: Some steps supplied missing or incorrect informa-
tion, and some missed the timeline for the step, which cre-
ates unnecessary work for correction.
The solutions were identified for these NVA activities during the
improvement phase of the project. In addition to the identified
NVA from the VSM, three brainstorming sessions were conducted
with all the people involved in the process to identify the potential
causes for long order fulfilment lead times. Five main causes and
the corresponding sub-causes were indentified from the brain-
storming sessions, as presented in the cause-and-effect diagram
(Figure 7). The diagram helps to uncover the root causes and
provide ideas for further improvement. All the potential causes
presented in the cause-and-effect diagram were validated to
determine the actual root causes. The cause validation plan was
prepared depending on the availability of the required data, as
outlined in Table 5. Moreover, when there were no measurable
data to be collected for a certain potential cause, it was decided
to observe the process for a specific period of time to conclude
whether the cause is a root cause or not – this method of cause
validation is generally known as GEMBA investigation (Womack
2011).
4.2.3.1.  Cause validation using GEMBA investigation.  For all
potential causes outlined in Table 5, where GEMBA
investigation was conducted as a method of validation,
the following actions were taken:
◦ Identified the desired states for each cause.
◦ Observed each cause for a week.
◦ Wrote a conclusion about each cause.
6   M. SHAMSUZZAMAN ET AL.
Figure 3. Johnson transformation of SO and VAS orders lead time data.
The GEMBA investigation results summary is presented in
Table 6, and the solutions for the root causes were identified
during the improvement phase of this project.
4.2.3.2.  Cause validation using statistical analysis.  According
to the plan given in Table 5, each cause was validated
as follows:
Invalid order information.  To complete the booking of sales
order steps, it is necessary to include all order information
correctly, such as customer order proposal, customer official
documents and credit verification (CV) approval email. In some
cases, OMT receives activities with invalid order information,
which requires reassigning the activity to the sales team for
correction. To examine this cause, one week of data were
collected, and a one-way ANOVA test was performed. The
results showed that there is a significant relationship between
the validity of order information and the order fulfilment lead
time (P-value = 0.00). There were five different sales teams who
provided order information for OMT. It was suspected that
there was a possibility of team-to-team variation with respect
to the validation of order information that affected the order
fulfilment lead time. To study this variation, one week of data
from all five sales teams were collected, and a two-factor
factorial experiment was performed. The results showed that
the interaction effect of the validation of order information
and the sales team on the order fulfilment lead time was not
significant (P-value  =  0.492), which ensures that there is no
team-to-team variation with respect to the validation of order
information.
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL   7

Figure 4. Individual chart of transformed SO and VAS orders lead time data.

Further investigation was conducted with the sales team using

the Five-Why analysis to find the main reason behind the invalid
order information, as illustrated in Figure 8. The Five-Why analysis Figure 5. Process capability analysis of transformed SO and VAS orders lead time
is a logic diagram depicting the cause and effect relationship (Wee data.
and Wu 2009). From the analysis, it was found that the sales team
performance and commission were currently measured based on
the quantity of sales only, without considering the quality of sales; Table 4. Process baseline performance.
thus, they were more focused on increasing the number of orders. CTQ Mean SD PPM Sigma level
SO orders fulfilment lead time 10.3 5.47 854,805.73 0.44
Mismatch of information in SO and PR.  The Logistics (day)
Department (Appendix 2(a)) needs to ensure that the VAS orders fulfilment lead 1.5 1.47 779,816.51 0.73
time (day)
information in booked sales orders matches the information in
PR in order to start the preparation of the order. In some cases,
a mismatch between the information in SO and PR was found, collected, and a one-way ANOVA test was performed. It was
which led to a delay in the order preparation until the correct determined that there is no significant relationship between
information was provided. To examine this cause, one week of the delay in sending the delivery report and the order fulfilment
data were collected, and a one-way ANOVA test was performed, lead time (P-value  =  0.393). Moreover, a delay of more than 6
which showed that there was no significant relationship h in sending the delivery report was not acceptable from the
between a mismatch of information in SO and PR with the order management point of view. The same data were used to test the
fulfilment lead time (P-value = 0.419). hypothesis if the mean delay time is equal to or more than 6
h. The results showed that the mean delay time is significantly
Delay in sending delivery report.  It was suspected that there greater than 6 h (P-value = 0.00).
was a possibility of a delay in sending the delivery report from
the Logistic Department, which leads to a delay in the order Delay in assigning activity from RG.  The RG was responsible for
activation and thus causes a long order fulfilment lead time. assigning the activity created from sales to OMT if the activity is
Before examining the cause, it was decided to arrange the delay an SO order or to the activation team if the activity is a VAS order.
in sending the delivery report into four levels, depending on It was suspected that there was a possibility for delay in assigning
how many hours of delay existed from order delivered until the the activity, which delayed the next step and caused long order
delivery report was received as follows: 0 < A < 6 h, 6 < B < 12 fulfilment lead time. Before examining the cause, it was decided
h, 12  <  C  <  18 h, 18 h  <  D. After that, one week of data were to arrange the delay in assigning the activity into four levels,
8   M. SHAMSUZZAMAN ET AL.
Figure 6. Current VSM for mobile order fulfilment process.
Figure 7. Cause-and-effect diagram for long order fulfilment lead time.
depending on how many hours of delay existed from the activity
being created until it was assigned to the related team as follows:
0 < A < 12 h, 12 < B < 24 h, 24 < C < 36 h, D > 36 h. After that,
one week of data were collected, and a one-way ANOVA test was
performed for both SO and VAS order data. The results showed that
there is a significant relationship between the delay in assigning
the activity and the SO fulfilment lead time (P-value = 0.024). The
same was concluded for the VAS order data (P-value = 0.00).
4.2.4.  Improve phase
The first step of the improvement phase is to generate solution
ideas for each root-cause that was determined in the analysis
phase. The LSS implementation team conducted three brain-
storming sessions with relevant stakeholders in order to gen-
erate as many solution ideas as possible. All collected solution
ideas were reviewed and evaluated with respect to the follow-
ing five criteria:
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL   9

• Customers notice the change • Order type fields will be added to the activity in the system,
• High impact of the solution which will allow the automatic assigning of the activity.
• No new technology/system required • A share point will be created with the sales team, OMT and
• High probability of quick results Logistics for daily stock report.
• Easy to implement • The delivery report will be sent three times per day instead
of the previous practice of twice per day.
The relative importance of each evaluation criterion was first
determined, and then all thirteen proposed solution ideas were The selected solutions were used to revise the existing mobile
judged with respect to each evaluation criterion using prioriti- order fulfilment process. Afterwards, several meetings were con-
sation matrices (Arnheiter and Maleyeff 2005). Finally, based on ducted with the relevant teams to discuss the implementation
the total scores, the following six solution ideas were selected of the selected solutions and the required changes. All teams’
for implementation: responsibilities were identified, and two weeks were set as a time-
line for implementation.
• Design special training program for sales team.
The implementation of the pilot study was conducted for
• Measure performance and commission of sales team based
all SO and VAS orders within a sales team. Due to project time
on quality of sales in addition to the quantity of sales.
constraints, one week of data after the implementation of the
• Design a standard form for CV request with clear require-
pilot study was collected to evaluate the selected solutions and
ments and add it to the activity in the system, which means
to verify the improvement for each CTQ’s. Similar steps for eval-
that the approval will be linked to the activity and will be
uating the baseline performance in the measurement phase fol-
obtained through the system.
lowed. Before measuring the improvement, the collected data
were tested for normality by the ‘Anderson Darling Normality
Table 5. Cause validation plan. Test’ which led to the conclusion that the data were from a
non-normal population (P-value  <  0.005). Thus, the data were
Cause Plan for validation
transformed using the Johnson system of distributions, which
Delivery report not received GEMBA investigation
Missing SIM/Handset serial number GEMBA investigation ensured the normality of the SO (P-value = 0.072) and VAS orders
Delay in sending delivery report ANOVA, One-Sample t test (P-value = 0.308) data. Furthermore, an individual control chart
Systems issue GEMBA investigation analysis was carried out on the transformed SO and VAS order lead
Delay in assigning activity from RG (VAS and SO) ANOVA
Unavailability of order GEMBA investigation time data, which ensured that there was no evidence of special
Mismatch SO with PR ANOVA causes in the data. The process capability analysis of transformed
Multiple connection method GEMBA investigation SO and VAS orders lead time data was performed to measure the
Invalid order information DOE
Incorrect approval request GEMBA investigation improvement, as shown in Figure 9. From the process capability
Incomplete approval request GEMBA investigation analysis, it was found that the PPM decreased from 854,805.73 to
Approval request not received GEMBA investigation 557,692.31 for SO orders and from 779,816.51 to 122,222.22 for
No standard procedure outlined GEMBA investigation
Sales does not check documents before confirm- GEMBA investigation VAS orders; based on these values, the process sigma levels were
ing the order found to be 1.26 and 2.66 for SO and VAS orders, respectively. The
Customer provides correct documents late GEMBA investigation improvement achieved by the implementation of the LSS project
Customer is unreachable to confirm delivery date GEMBA investigation
and time is summarized in Table 7.
Customer is not available GEMBA investigation
No training for sales GEMBA investigation

Table 6. Cause validation by GEMBA investigation.

Causes Desired states Observation Remarks

Systems issue
Delivery report not receipt
Missing SIM/Handset serial number
Unavailable order
Incorrect CV approval request
Incomplete CV approval request
Approval request not received
Customer provides correct documents late
Multiple connections method
No training for sales
Customer is not available
No standard procedure outlined
Sales does not check documents
Customer unreachable
The required system should be run during order This was observed during 5 times in a week Not a root cause
activation
Available space in Mailbox Not observed during one week Not a root cause
PR should have SIM/ Handset Serial number This was observed during 3 times in a week Not a root cause
Any placed order should be available This was observed during 19 times in a week A root cause
All information should be correct This was observed during 32 times in a week A root cause
All required document should be submitted This was observed during 41 times in a week A root cause
with request
Available space at CV mailbox This was observed during 2 times in a week Not a root cause
Customer provides correct documents on the This was observed during 17 times in a week A root cause
same day
The status of order should be clear and under- This was observed during 2 times in a week Not a root cause
standable
Sales should receive training No one in Sales received training A root cause
Customer should be available to receive order This was observed during 6 times in a week Not a root cause
The procedure should be clear No procedure outlined and explained to the A root cause
team
The order should contain all correct documents This was observed during 53 times in a week A root cause
before confirming
Customer should be contacted at 3 different This was observed during 4 times in a week Not a root cause
times
10   M. SHAMSUZZAMAN ET AL.

Table 7. Project improvement summary.

Sigma
CTQ Mean SD PPM level
SO orders ful- Before 10.3 5.47 854,805.73 0.44
filment lead improve-
time (day) ment
After 5.9 2.18 557,692.31 1.26
improve-
ment
Change −42.7% −60.1% −34.8% 186.4%
percent
VAS orders Before 1.5 1.47 779,816.51 0.73
fulfilment improve-
lead time ment
(day) After 0.5 0.77 122,222.22 2.66
improve-
ment
Change −66.7% −47.6% −84.3% 264.4%
percent

4.2.5.  Control phase

The objective of the control phase is to ensure that the improve-
ments made in the improve phase can be sustained over time
(Breyfogle 2003). Sustainability of the results requires establish-
ing a control mechanism such as Poka-Yoke, standardisation of
Figure 8. Five-WHY analysis for invalid order information.
the improved methods and introduction of a monitoring system
(Fisher 1999). The first control mechanism introduced was Poka-
Yoke. The Poka-Yoke mechanism was stated as follows:

• No order to be placed with invalid documents and informa-

tion, hence, the Sales Department should review the order
documents before forwarding it to the next step.
• No activity will be created before checking the stock report
and making sure that the order is available.
• Activity cannot be created in the information system with-
out all mandatory information and document attachment
fields.

Next, all methods were standardized, and all procedures

were documented and published in the knowledgebase of the
company in order to make it available to all teams and process
stockholders. The revised process flow map was also docu-
mented in the information system with all information such as
process objective, scope, description, process owner and RACI
(Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed) matrix. In
addition, the individual control chart was introduced to moni-
tor the process over time. The service fulfilment manager was
responsible for collecting the order fulfilment lead time data from
the process and preparing a monthly performance report for the
process owner. Then, it was suggested that the process owner
have a monthly meeting with all process stockholders to discuss
the results and identified issues.

5.  Managerial implication and lessons learned from

Figure 9.  Process capability analysis of SO and VAS orders lead time after
improvement.
the study
This study presents a successful process improvement project
by adopting the Lean principle and Six Sigma DMAIC methodol-
ogy. It was found that LSS is a powerful methodology for process
improvement, which helps to improve the process dramatically
by eliminating the root causes of the problem.

This LSS project implementation was one of the first initiatives
to establish an LSS program for process improvement in the case
company. The success of this project made the top management
aware of the opportunities that the application of LSS created in
the telecom service sector. It also gave them the confidence to
adopt this methodology extensively in the company by providing
LSS training, such as Green Belt and Black Belt, to the relevant
employees. They were also encouraged to give the LSS teams
their full support and commitment.
The critical successful factor of this project was due to the top
management support and their resulting commitment. Other fac-
tors also played a pivotal role in the success of this project, such
as customer focus, communication and relationship building skills
and aligning the project with the company business objectives.
These critical successful factors are consistent with a number
of researchers’ opinions (Antony 2006; Breyfogle, Cupello, and
Meadows 2001; Hilton and Sohal 2012; Sunder and Antony 2015).
Three main difficulties that were faced during the execution
of the project were the lack of support from middle manage-
ment, difficulties in recognizing waste in the service process and
the challenges during data collection. The lack of support from
middle management at the beginning of the project implementa-
tion was high. However, their support was gained through proper
communication and building relationships with the individuals.
Most of the work in the service process is invisible; thus, recog-
nizing the waste within the process was a challenge. However,
it was overcome through process knowledge that was gained
by walking the process, process observation and participation in
some work steps. Finally, the collection of data from the process
during DMAIC phases of the LSS implementation project was dif-
ficult and consumed much time, since the demand fulfilment pro-
cess depended on multiple systems that were not linked to each
other. Some of the data could not be extracted automatically,
which required tracking the movement of each order through the
history of the system. Finally, the main learning points obtained
from the study are summarized as follows:
• The LSS tools along with the DMAIC methodology provide
a systematic approach towards problem solving.
• Successful implementation of the LSS tools can dramati-
cally improve the process within a short time.
• The LSS project starts and ends with the customers.
• Success of the LSS implementation process relies on top
management commitment.
• Effective communication through different stakeholders is
vital in the LSS implementation.
• The sales team performance and commission should be
measured based on quality of sales in addition to the quan-
tity of sales.
6. Conclusions
This article presents a real application of LSS methodology in a
telecom company in order to improve mobile order fulfilment
processes by reducing the lead times of SO and VAS orders. The suc-
cessful implementation of the project reduced the average order
fulfilment lead time for SO and VAS orders from 10.3 to 5.9 days
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL   11
and from 1.5 to 0.5 days, respectively. This reduction resulted in
an increase in SO and VAS order sigma levels from 0.44 to 1.26 and
from 0.73 to 2.66, respectively. The reduction in lead time of the
mobile order fulfilment would result in financial benefit of more
than $600,000 in operational cost savings per year. In addition to
the financial benefits, a higher increase in customer satisfaction is
expected, as the order fulfilment process was improved by more
than 50% on average. The study shows that the application of
LSS can improve, among other metrics the ‘response time’ that
has significant impact on customer retention, loyalty and satis-
faction in telecom industry. The managerial implications and the
lessons learned from the study help the case company establish a
continuous improvement culture and increase employee aware-
ness and confidence in the process improvement methodology.
Although the results obtained from the study are based on a case
study, which has less basis for scientific generalisation than other
research methods, the general results of this study comply with
the results of other similar studies in other context.
This article contributes in different ways. Firstly, it clearly iden-
tifies the limitations of the existing literature on the application
of the LSS methodology in the telecom industries and highlights
the necessity of further research in this area. Secondly, a specific
framework, instead of a standard version for implementing LSS
project in the telecom industries has been proposed and fol-
lowed, which may guide managers and engineers for improving
processes in similar organisations. Next, unlike previous studies in
the telecom sector that used only qualitative analysis, this study
employed both qualitative and quantitative research methods
and used several tools and techniques, such as a Pareto chart,
VSM, cause-and-effect analysis, process capability analysis,
ANOVA, GEMBA investigation, control chart, Five-Why analysis,
and brainstorming sessions through the specially designed LSS
framework, and finally, this article enriches the existing body of
knowledge on the application of the LSS concept in the service
industry, and helps the company to minimize the response time
to customer requirements.
Due to time constraints, a cost/benefit analysis was not con-
ducted in this project. However, it is recommended to perform a
cost/benefit analysis for an LSS project so that the actual benefit
of the project can be clarified. This project only focused on two
types of orders. The proposed methodological framework can
also be implemented to improve other fulfilment processes that
may provide large dividends to the company. Building a multi-
ple regression model and carrying out an extensive analysis to
automate the process of developing measures to reduce the lead
time might be an interesting topic. Future research may imple-
ment this idea, especially in the improvement phase of the DMAIC
cycle.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the editor Dr Stephen J. Childe and the
anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions that have
improved this article significantly.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
12   M. SHAMSUZZAMAN ET AL.
Notes on contributors
Mohammad Shamsuzzaman is an associate professor in
the Department of Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management at University of Sharjah, UAE.
He obtained his PhD in Systems and Engineering
Management in 2005 from Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore. His current research focuses on
quality control and improvement, reliability, simulation
and multi-criteria decision-making. He is a member of
the American Society for Quality.
Mariam Alzeraif is a professional engineer, received her
BEng and MEng degrees in Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management from University of Sharjah,
UAE. She is currently continuing her PhD studies at the
same university. Her research interests include quality
control and improvement, and optimisation.
Imad Alsyouf is an associate professor of Industrial
Engineering at the University of Sharjah (UoS), UAE. He is
the director of the Sustainability Office and the coordina-
tor of Sustainable Engineering Asset Management
(SEAM) Research Group at UoS. He received his PhD in
Maintenance Engineering from Linnaeus University,
Sweden, in 2004. He has about 27 years of industrial and
academic experience. His research interests include relia-
bility, quality and maintenance engineering, lean pro-
duction, productivity improvement, performance
measurement, life cycle cost analysis and optimisation.
He has developed and taught more than 25 post and
undergrad courses covering a wide range of IEEM fields.
Michael Boon Chong Khoo is a professor in the School of
Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM).
He received his PhD in Applied Statistics in 2001 from the
Universiti Sains Malaysia. His research interests include
statistical process control and reliability analysis. He is a
member of the American Society for Quality and serves
as a member of the editorial board of Quality Engineering.
ORCID
Mohammad Shamsuzzaman   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1242-9627
References
Albliwi, Saja Ahmed, Jiju Antony, and Sarina Abdul Halim Lim. 2015. “A
Systematic Review of Lean Six Sigma for the Manufacturing Industry.”
Business Process Management Journal 21 (3): 665–691. doi:10.1108/BPMJ-
03-2014-0019.
Antony, Jiju. 2006. “Six Sigma for Service Processes.” Business Process
Management Journal 12 (2): 234–248. doi:10.1108/14637150610657558.
Antony, Jiju. 2008. “What Is the Role of Academic Institutions for
the Future Development of Six Sigma?” International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management 57 (1): 107–110.
doi:10.1108/17410400810841263.
Antony, Jiju, E. V. Gijo, and S. J. Childe. 2012. “Case Study in Six Sigma
Methodology: Manufacturing Quality Improvement and Guidance for
Managers.” Production Planning & Control 23 (8): 624–640. doi:10.1080/0
9537287.2011.576404.
Antony, Jiju, Netasha Krishan, Donna Cullen, and Maneesh Kumar. 2012.
“Lean Six Sigma for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs): Challenges,
Barriers, Success Factors, Tools/Techniques.” International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management 61 (8): 940–948.
doi:10.1108/17410401211277165.
Arnheiter, Edward D., and John Maleyeff. 2005. “The Integration of
Lean Management and Six Sigma.” The TQM Magazine 17 (1): 5–18.
doi:10.1108/09544780510573020.
Athanassopoulos, Antreas D., and Anastasios Iliakopoulos. 2003. “Modeling
Customer Satisfaction in Telecommunications: Assessing the Effects of
Multiple Transaction Points on the Perceived Overall Performance of
the Provider.” Production and Operations Management 12 (2): 224–245.
doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2003.tb00502.x.
Bhargava, Manish Dr., Awdhesh Bhardwaj, and A. P. S. Rathore. 2010.
“Six Sigma Methodology Utilization in Telecom Sector for Quality
Improvement- A DMAIC Process.” International Journal of Engineering
Science and Technology 2 (12): 7653–7659.
Bhat, Shreeranga, E. V. Gijo, and N a Jnanesh. 2014. “Application of Lean Six
Sigma methodology in the registration process of a hospital.” International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 63 (5): 613–643.
doi:10.1108/IJPPM-11-2013-0191.
Breyfogle, Forrest W. III 2003. Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter Solutions
Using Statistical Methods. New York: Wiley.
Breyfogle, Forrest W. III, James M. Cupello, and Becki Meadows. 2001.
Managing Six Sigma: A Practical Guide to Understanding, Assessing, and
Implementing the Strategy That Yields Bottom-Line Success. New York:
Wiley.
Chou, Youn-Min, Alan M. Polansky, and Robert L. Mason. 1998. “Transforming
Non-Normal Data to Normality in Statistical Process Control.” Journal of
Quality Technology 30 (2): 133–141.
Dinis-carvalho, José, Francisco Moreira, Sara Bragança, Eric Costa, and
Anabela Alves. 2015. “Waste Identification Diagrams.” Production Planning
& Control 6 (3): 235–247. doi:10.1080/09537287.2014.891059.
Douglas, Jacqueline Ann, Jiju Antony, and Alexander Douglas. 2015.
“Waste Identification and Elimination in HEIs: The Role of Lean Thinking.”
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 32 (9): 970–981.
doi:10.1108/IJQRM-10-2014-0160.
Fisher, Michael. 1999. “Process Improvement by Poka‐yoke.” Work Study 48
(7): 264–266. doi:10.1108/00438029910294153.
Garza-Reyes, Jose Arturo, Mustafa Al-Balushi, Jiju Antony, and Vikas Kumar.
2016. “A Lean Six Sigma Framework for the Reduction of Ship Loading
Commercial Time in the Iron ore Pelletising Industry.” Production Planning
& Control 27 (13): 1092–1111. doi:10.1080/09537287.2016.1185188.
GCC Telecom Operators. 2011.“GCC Telecom Operators Can Avoid the Slippery
Slope by Improving Profitability, While Providing Customers with the
Latest Services at Low Flat Rates.” https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/me/
home/press%7B_%7Dmedia/management%7B_%7Dconsulting%
7B_%7Dpress%7B_%7Dreleases/article/49954665.
George, Michael L. 2003. Lean Six Sigma for Service : How to Use Lean Speed
and Six Sigma Quality to Improve Services and Transactions. Group. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Gerpott, Torsten J., Wolfgang Rams, and Andreas Schindler. 2001. “Customer
Retention, Loyalty, and Satisfaction in the German Mobile Cellular
Telecommunications Market.” Telecommunications Policy 25 (4): 249–269.
doi:10.1016/S0308-5961(00)00097-5.
Gijo, E. V., Jiju Antony, Jose Hernandez, and Johny Scaria. 2013. “Reducing
Patient Waiting Time in a Pathology Department Using the Six Sigma
Methodology.” Leadership in Health Services 26 (4): 253–267. doi:10.1108/
LHS-02-2012-0004.
Gijo, E. V., Johny Scaria, and Jiju Antony. 2011. “Application of Six Sigma
Methodology to Reduce Defects of a Grinding Process.” Quality and
Reliability Engineering International 27 (8): 1221–1234. doi:10.1002/
qre.1212.
Gomm, Roger, Martyn Hammersley, and Peter Foster. 2009. Case Study
Method. London: Sage.
Hilton, Roger John, and Amrik Sohal. 2012. “A Conceptual Model for the
Successful Deployment of Lean Six Sigma.” International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management 29 (1): 54–70. doi:10.1108/02656711211190873.
Jirasukprasert, Ploytip, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, Vikas Kumar, and Ming
K. Lim. 2014. “A Six Sigma and DMAIC Application for the Reduction of
Defects in a Rubber Gloves Manufacturing Process.” International Journal
of Lean Six Sigma 5 (1): 2–21. doi:10.1108/IJLSS-03-2013-0020.
Kaushik, Prabhakar, and Dinesh Khanduja. 2010. “Utilising Six Sigma for
Improving Pass Percentage of Students : A Technical Institute Case Study.”
Educational Research and Reviews 5 (9): 471–483.
Khatibi, Abod Ali, Hishamuddin Ismail, and Venu Thyagarajan. 2002. “What
Drives Customer Loyalty: An Analysis from the Telecommunications
Industry.” Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 11
(1): 34–44. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740065.

Kocova, Frosina Geceva. 2014. “Lean 6 Sigma for Improvement of the
Telecommunication.” In 8th International Quality Conference, 303–308.
Kumar, Maneesh, Jiju Antony, and M. K. Tiwari. 2011. “Six Sigma
Implementation Framework for SMEs – A Roadmap to Manage and
Sustain the Change.” International Journal of Production Research 49 (18):
5449–5467.
Kumar, Sameer, Anthony D. Wolfe, and Katherine A. Wolfe. 2008. “Using
Six Sigma DMAIC to Improve Credit Initiation Process in a Financial
Services Operation.” International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management 57 (8): 659–676. doi:10.1108/17410400810916071.
Laureani, Alessandro, Jiju Antony, and Alex Douglas. 2010. “Lean
Six Sigma in a Call Centre: A Case Study.” International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management 59 (8): 757–768.
doi:10.1108/17410401011089454.
Lee, Kuo-liang, Cheng-Ting Tai, and Gwo-Ji Sheen. 2013. “Using LSS to
Improve the Efficiency and Quality of a Refund Process in a Logistics
Center.” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 4 (4): 409–424. doi:10.1108/
IJLSS-04-2013-0023.
McAdam, Rodney, John Davies, Bill Keogh, and Anthony Finnegan.
2009. “Customer-orientated Six Sigma in Call Centre Performance
Measurement.” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.
26: 516–545. doi:10.1108/02656710910966110.
Montgomery, Dc. 2013. Introduction to Statistical Quality Control. New York:
Wiley.
Nabhani, Farhad, and Alireza Shokri. 2009. “Reducing the Delivery Lead Time
in a Food Distribution SME Through the Implementation of Six Sigma
Methodology.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 20 (7):
957–974. doi:10.1108/17410380910984221.
Pande, Peter S., Robert P. Neuman, and Roland R. Cavanagh. 2000. “The Six
Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola, and Other Top Companies Are Honing Their
Performance.” Quality Progress 34 (May): 120. doi:10.1036/0071376674.
Pranoto, Slamet, and Rahmat Nurcahyo. 2014. “Implementation of
Integrated System Six Sigma and Importance Performance Analysis
for Quality Improvement of HSDPA Telecommunication Network and
Customer Satisfaction.” International Conference on Industrial Engineering
and Operations Management Bali, Indonesia, January 7–9, 1544–1553.
Psychogios, Alexandros G., Jane Atanasovski, and Loukas K. Tsironis.
2012. “Lean Six Sigma in a Service Context: A Multi-Factor Application
Approach in the Telecommunications Industry.” International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 29 (1): 122–139.
doi:10.1108/02656711211190909.
Pyzdek, Thomas, and Paul Keller. 2014. The Six Sigma Handbook. New York:
Mc Graw Hill. doi:10.1036/0071415963.
Qureshi, Muhammad Imran, Nazia Bashir, Khalid Zaman, Nadia Sajjad, and
Shazia Fakhr. 2012. “Customer Satisfaction Measurement and Analysis
Appendix 1
Figure A1. Project charter.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL   13
Using Six Sigma in Telecom Sector of Pakistan.” European Journal of
Sustainable Development 1 (1): 53–68.
Ray, Sanjit, and Boby John. 2011. “Lean Six‐Sigma Application in Business
Process Outsourced Organization.” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma
2 (4): 371–380. doi:10.1108/20401461111189443.
Roth, Nicholas, and Matthew Franchetti. 2010. “Process Improvement for
Printing Operations through the DMAIC Lean Six Sigma Approach: A Case
Study from Northwest Ohio, USA.” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma
1 (2): 119–133. doi:10.1108/20401461011049502.
Shaffie, Sheila, and Shahbaz Shahbazi. 2012. The McGraw-Hill 36-Hour Course:
Lean Six Sigma. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shuttleworth, C. C. 2015. “Management Support for the Application of Lean
Six Sigma Methodology to Improve Customer Satisfaction in a South
African Telecommunications Company.” Problems and Perspectives in
Management 13 (4): 205–214.
Snee, Ronald D. 2010.“Lean Six Sigma – Getting Better All theTime.”International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma 1 (1): 9–29. doi:10.1108/20401461011033130.
Srinivasan, K, S Muthu, S R. Devadasan, and C Sugumaran. 2016.
“Enhancement of Sigma Level in the Manufacturing of Furnace Nozzle
through Six Sigma DMAIC Approach : A Case Study.” Production Planning
& Control 27 (10): 810–822. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/09537287.201
6.1143130.
Sunder, Vijaya, and Jiju Antony. 2015. “Six-Sigma for Improving Top-Box
Customer Satisfaction Score for a Banking Call Centre.” Production
Planning & Control 26 (16): 1291–1305. doi:10.1080/09537287.2015.102
1879.
Thomas, A. J., M. Francis, R. Fisher, and P. Byard. 2016. “Implementing Lean
Six Sigma to Overcome the Production Challenges in an Aerospace
Company.” Production Planning & Control 27 (7–8): 591–603. doi:10.1080
/09537287.2016.1165300.
Wee, H. M., and Simon Wu. 2009. “Lean Supply Chain and Its Effect on
Product Cost and Quality: A Case Study on Ford Motor Company.”
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14 (5): 335–341.
doi:10.1108/13598540910980242.
White, M., J. L. García, J. A. Hernández, and J. Meza. 2009. “Cycle Time
Improvement by a Six Sigma Project for the Increase of New Business
Accounts.” International Journal of Industrial Engineering : Theory
Applications and Practice 16 (3): 191–205.
Womack, James. 2011. Gemba Walks. Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise
Institute, Inc.
Yin, Robert K. 2014. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Vol. 26.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zhang, Min, Wei Wang, Thong Ngee Goh, and Zhen He. 2015. “Comprehensive
Six Sigma Application: A Case Study.” Production Planning & Control 26 (3):
219–234. doi:10.1080/09537287.2014.891058.
14   M. SHAMSUZZAMAN ET AL.

Appendix 2

Figure A2. SIPOC diagram and process flow map of mobile order fulfilment process (a) SIPOC diagram for mobile order fulfilment process and (b) Mobile order fulfilment
process flow map.