Trends in Food Science & Technology 82 (2018) 122–133

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Trends in Food Science & Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tifs

Review

Lean, six sigma and lean six sigma in the food industry: A systematic T
literature review
Luana Bonome Message Costaa,∗, Moacir Godinho Filhoa, Lawrence D. Fredendallb,
Fernando José Gómez Paredesa
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos, Washington Luís Road, s/n, São Carlos, SP, 13565-905, Brazil
b
Department of Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 29634, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Background: The food industry is an important sector of the world economy, that faces many challenges pro-
Lean manufacturing viding a wide range of products with short delivery times and at low-cost. Continuous Improvement (CI) in-
Six sigma itiatives could assist this industry manage its challenges as the global market endures economic and political
Lean six sigma crises. Lean and Six Sigma are two widely used and recognized CI initiatives and are often hybridized as Lean Six
Continuous improvement
Sigma. However, it is not clear how appropriate these strategies are for the food industry.
Food industry
Systematic literature review
Scope and approach: A systematic literature review was performed to identify the appropriateness of Lean, Six
Sigma and Lean Six Sigma initiatives (L&SSi) for improvement in the food industry. The aim is to consolidate the
existing knowledge about the application of L&SSi in the food industry, analyze the L&SSi evolution within the
sector and identify the relevant aspects of implementation such as drivers of adoption, critical success factors,
tools and methods applied, barriers faced and benefits obtained.
Key findings and conclusions: The review suggests that L&SSi are effective in the food industry context. Their
implementation in the sector is still growing. Their use was found to reduce costs and increase productivity.
Human factors and the food industry characteristics were identified as the main barriers to implementing these
initiatives. Future research to investigate the degree that L&SSi practices were adopted in the food industry and
to identify the best practices to implement these initiatives is suggested.

1. Introduction individual elements cannot be disassembled and then reassembled

The global food industry faces multiple challenges that are forcing
companies in the industry to improve their productivity and quality
strategies to remain competitive. The companies deal with powerful
retailers that demand a wide range of products, short delivery times,
frequent deliveries and regular price reductions (Jain & Lyons, 2009).
Furthermore, industry characteristics such as the perishability of pro-
ducts, require effort to reduce lead times as much as possible (Mahalik
& Nambiar, 2010) to avoid wasting product that cannot be sold as re-
maining shelf life expires (Pauls-Worm, Hendrix, Alcoba, & Haijema,
2014).
Other specific characteristics of this industry are its long sequence-
dependent process, long set-up times between product types and the
separation of processing and packaging to ensure quality (Dora, Van
Goubergen, Kumar, Molnar, & Gellynck, 2014; Van Donk, 2001; Van
Wezel, Van Donk, & Gaalman, 2006). It is classified as a process in-
dustry, since its finished products are often blends of food, so the
(Panwar, Nepal, Jain, & Rathore, 2015). The ability of a company to
manage these characteristics affects the market segment that it can
serve.
In this way, modern manufacturing management's improvement
initiatives could be valuable for the food process industry. Lean, Six
Sigma and the hybrid Lean Six Sigma approach are popular perfor-
mance improvement programs not only in manufacturing, but also in
the service and public sectors (Albliwi, Antony, Lim, & Wiele, 2014;
Drohomeretski, da Costa, de Lima, & Garbuio, 2014).
Lean is a term first coined by Womack, Jones, and Roos (1990) to
describe the Toyota Production System. This system emerged from the
need faced by Japanese industry in the period after World War II, in
which the market required the production of small quantities of many
varieties under low demand conditions (Ohno, 1997). Lean is a way to
specify value, align the actions that create value in the best sequence,
and effectively perform these activities without interruption upon re-
quest; in other words, to do more with less while offering customers

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: luana@dep.ufscar.br (L.B.M. Costa).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.10.002
Received 3 April 2018; Received in revised form 15 August 2018; Accepted 6 October 2018
Available online 12 October 2018
0924-2244/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L.B.M. Costa et al.
exactly what they want (Womack et al., 1990). Lean provides a fun-
damental framework for enhancing efficiency, reducing waste (opera-
tions that are not needed, excessive setup times, unreliable machines
that can be made more reliable, rework that can be eliminated, etc.)
and less obvious, reducing variability (in process times, delivery times,
yield rates, staffing levels, demand rates, etc.) (Hopp & Spearman,
2004). The causes of waste need to be identified to reduce their nega-
tive effects (Hopp & Spearman, 2004), so the manager's challenge is to
find the mix of policies that best minimizes them in each environment.
Six Sigma is an initiative for business improvement that was de-
veloped at Motorola by the engineer Bill Smith in the mid-1980s (Snee,
2010). Sigma, σ, is a letter in the Greek alphabet used by statisticians to
measure the variability in any process (Pyzdek & Keller, 2010). The
name Six Sigma suggests a goal of 3.4 defects per million opportunities
(Linderman, Schroeder, Zaheer, & Choo, 2003). Six Sigma seeks to find
and eliminate causes of mistakes or defects in business processes by
focusing on outputs that are of critical importance to customers (Snee,
2000). One key to the success of the Six Sigma initiative is the step-by-
step approach or roadmap for improvement - define, measure, analyze,
improve and control (DMAIC) methodology (Antony & Banuelas,
2002). DMAIC organizes the use of a large range of tools during Six
Sigma projects. As people master these tools and carry out more and
more projects, they stand to gain experience in scientific problem sol-
ving (Arumugam, Antony, & Linderman, 2014).
The focus of Lean is to improve process flow and reduce waste and
variability, Six Sigma mainly concentrates on improving the processes
by identifying problems and gathering and analyzing data to identify
and eliminate the root causes of these problems (Timans, Ahaus, van
Solingen, Kumar, & Antony, 2014). Lean Six Sigma integrates the Lean
and Six Sigma problem solving programs to address the firm's root
causes of poor performance. Lean Six Sigma is a business strategy and
methodology to increase process performance, to enhance customer
satisfaction and improve bottom-line results (Snee, 2010). It emerged as
a hybrid method to maximize shareholder value in the early 2000s to
achieve faster rates of improvement in customer satisfaction, cost,
quality, process speed and invested capital (George, 2002). Lean Six
Sigma fuses Six Sigma's ability to control processes with Lean's ability to
improve process speed and reduce invested capital (George, 2002). It
allowed the organizations to increase their potential for improvement
(Bhuiyan & Baghel, 2005).
The benefits of L&SSi have been demonstrated by several studies in
different sectors (Albliwi, Antony, & Lim, 2015; Costa & Godinho Filho,
2016; Godinho Filho, Ganga, & Gunasekaran, 2016; Grima, Marco-
Almagro, Santiago, & Tort-Martorell, 2013; Henrique, Rentes, Godinho
Filho, & Esposto, 2016; Kumar, Antony, & Tiwari, 2011; Zu, Fredendall,
& Douglas, 2008). However, there is a lack of literature on how to
implement Lean, Six Sigma or Lean Six Sigma initiatives (L&SSi) in the
food industry context. So, their appropriateness for improvement in the
food industry is not known. According to Scott, Wilcock, and Kanetkar
(2009), managers in Food Industry have been interested in those con-
tinuous improvement initiatives, but Schug (2017) points out the con-
tinuing challenge of how to translate a program's success in manu-
facturing to the food industry.
This systematic literature review of relevant research, collects and
critically analyzes the existing knowledge on L&SSi implementation in
the food industry and aims to understand how L&SSi is evolving within
the food industry as well as how L&SSi is implemented in the food in-
dustry. The L&SSi evolution within the sector is analyzed by the
number of publications through the years to each improvement in-
itiative, by their presence in different countries and in different types of
food industries, and finally, it is analyzed by the research method most
used to study this field. To assess L&SSi's implementation in the food
industry, it is analyzed the implementation team that is conducting the
implementation process and the support of external members (from
consultancy and/or academy researchers). It is also analyzed what
drivers the adoption of L&SSi in the sector, the critical success factors
123
Trends in Food Science & Technology 82 (2018) 122–133
that enable the implementation of L&SSi in the food companies, the L&
SSi tools, techniques and methods used to apply the initiatives, the
barriers faced, the benefits obtained, and the actions to continue and
sustain them through the years.
2. Methods
This literature review of L&SSi in the food industry uses the sys-
tematic method Denyer and Tranfield (2009) and Tranfield, Denyer,
and Smart (2003) developed in a medical science context, to ensure
rigor, replicability and consequently relevant results. This review con-
sists of three main stages: planning, conducting, and reporting/dis-
semination (Tranfield et al., 2003). Each stage consists of a set of well-
defined steps that precisely detail how to conduct the review and pro-
vides practitioners with a relevant and reliable basis to formulate de-
cisions and take action.
In the Planning Stage, a review protocol is explicitly documented
before the review starts, to ensure that the systematic review was
carefully executed and consistently conducted (Moher & Shamseer,
2015). The protocol contains the research topic and questions, the
search strategy and the criteria to include/exclude studies.
In this study two main research questions were defined: How is L&
SSi evolving within the food industry? and How is L&SSi implemented
in the food industry? The studies were identified by searching the
Scopus, Web of Science and Engineering Village databases, from the oldest
year available in the database to June 2018. The search terms used to
refer to Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma were: “Lean manu-
facturing” OR ″Toyota Production System” OR ″Lean production” OR
″Lean management” OR ″Lean thinking” OR “Lean methods” OR “Lean
practices” OR “Lean philosophy” OR “Lean principles” OR “Lean tools”
OR “Lean enterprise” OR “Lean assessment” OR “Lean culture” OR
“Lean transformation” OR “Lean concept” OR “Lean initiative” OR
“Lean techniques” OR “Lean strategy” OR “Lean approach” OR “Six
Sigma” OR “Lean Six Sigma” combined with “food”. They were sear-
ched in Title, keywords and abstract fields.
The search targeted papers from peer-reviewed journals to ensure
the quality of information, written in English and Portuguese. Manuals,
editorials, commentaries and conference papers were excluded as well
as studies whose main subject was not Lean or Six Sigma or Lean Six
Sigma and whose main sector was not the food industry.
In the conducting stage, through the database search, a total of 492
papers were obtained. After removal of 142 doubles papers, the re-
maining 350 papers were analyzed based initially on title and abstract
screening. After that, 205 articles were rejected considering the defined
exclusions criteria. A full review was conducted of the remaining 95
studies. Following this review, 44 papers were retained based on the
inclusion/exclusion criteria, and another 14 papers identified in the
references of those papers were read in their entirety (i.e., snowball
approach) and were included. In sum, a total of 58 papers were com-
prehensively analyzed.
An extraction sheet was used to systematically record and code the
data from the 58 studies to answer both research questions. To address
the first question about the evolution of L&SSi within the food industry,
5 data elements were examined (improvement initiative used, year of
publication, country of study, type of food industry and research
method applied). They are usually considered in literature review pa-
pers (Albliwi et al., 2015; Bhamu, Sangwan, & Singh Sangwan, 2014;
Cherrafi, Elfezazi, Chiarini, Mokhlis, & Benhida, 2016; Jasti & Kodali,
2015; Negrão, Godinho Filho, & Marodin, 2016; Tjahjono et al., 2010).
To address the second research question about analysis of L&SSi
implementation in the food industry, another 7 elements were used
(implementation team, drivers of adoption, critical success factors,
tools and methods, barriers, benefits, and continue/sustain actions).
These elements are often considered in Lean, Six Sigma and/or Lean Six
Sigma models (Anvari, Zulkifli, & Yusuff, 2013; Arumugam et al., 2014;
Cherrafi et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2011; Ramesh & Kodali, 2012;
L.B.M. Costa et al.
Fig. 1. Evolution and implementation characteristics.
Fig. 2. Growth of Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma publications in food industry.
Shahin & Alinavaz, 2008). For each element, a list of components was
obtained after reading the 28 implementation studies found. Twenty-
two different drivers of adoption and 31 different benefits were iden-
tified. These were classified as cost, defect, time and value related, as
suggested by Anvari et al. (2013). The critical success factors and im-
plementation barriers were classified as being managerial, business (the
food sector characteristics), supply chain and operational as proposed
by Lim, Antony, and Albliwi (2014). The 44 tools and methods used in
these 28 implementation papers were classified as assessment, im-
provement and monitoring tools as proposed by Radnor, Holweg, and
Waring (2012). These element classifications were then refined by 5
experts in the field.
In the Reporting and Dissemination stage, a descriptive analysis
(classification and analysis results) was performed and the findings
(discussion and conclusion) were reported. All studies (58 papers) were
classified and analyzed according to Evolution Characteristics, as
124
Trends in Food Science & Technology 82 (2018) 122–133
illustrated by Fig. 1. Furthermore, the 28 implementation studies were
classified and analyzed according to their Implementation Character-
istics (Fig. 1). Then, in the discussion and conclusion, the main findings
were reported to consolidate the existing knowledge, bring more in-
formation and direct future studies about the field.
3. Classification and analysis results
A database was created to classify the 58 papers with the purpose of
grouping the 12 elements defined to answer both research questions.
This section describes the evolution characteristics of sampled papers
and the implementation characteristics found in the reviewed studies.
3.1. Evolution characteristics
The search identified only 58 relevant papers about L&SSi in the
L.B.M. Costa et al.
food industry. The limited research about continuous improvement
implementation in the food industry was also identified in previous
studies (Dora et al., 2014; Lim et al., 2014).
Most papers examined Lean Manufacturing initiative (74%), fol-
lowed by Six Sigma (16%) and then by Lean Six Sigma (10%). Fig. 2
presents the publication distribution over time of these 58 papers. The
first publication was one Six Sigma study from 2004 (see Fig. 2). Only
in 2011 was the number of Six Sigma studies higher than the number of
Lean studies within the food industry. In 2011, the number of papers
increased, possibly motivated by the review paper published in this
journal by Mahalik and Nambiar (2010). This prior review paper
highlighted the importance of reducing wastes and shortening lead
times for food industry to be competitive in the global market. In 2015,
a peak in the number of publications was observed, nine papers were
published, but three of these were written by the same group of authors,
possibly the result of the PhD research of one of them.
This growth in recent years indicates a gradual increase in the in-
terest of researchers and practitioners in the L&SSi's implementation in
a sector that focuses primarily on quality assurance to satisfy regulatory
requirements and improve food quality safety (Dora, Kumar, Van
Goubergen, Molnar, & Gellynck, 2013; Lim et al., 2014).
Considering the geographical application of L&SSi, Fig. 3 shows that
there are publications widespread in four continents (America, Africa,
Fig. 3. Distribution of reviewed papers by geographical location.
125
Trends in Food Science & Technology 82 (2018) 122–133
Asia, Europe), however, the majority is concentrated in Europe (54%),
followed by Asia (30%). In Europe, the United Kingdom had 35% of the
studies and Belgium had 18%. In Asia, India had 42% of the studies,
followed by Malaysia with 26%, and 5 other countries had 32% of the
remaining studies. In America (South and North), Brazil had 57% of the
studies, while 3 other countries published only one (Canada, Uruguay
and Ecuador). In Africa only two countries have published papers in
this field, Uganda, twice, and Nigeria, just once.
These results differ from other Lean, Six Sigma or Lean Six Sigma
literature reviews, which found that the majority of studies were pub-
lished in North America, in the United States (Albliwi et al., 2015; Costa
& Godinho Filho, 2016; Jasti & Kodali, 2014; Marodin & Saurin, 2013;
Yadav & Desai, 2016). It is a possibility that US food industry im-
plementation articles are in magazine articles (e.g. Higgings, 2006).
Another aspect that has been analyzed is the type of food industries
that implement L&SSi. In this review, the food industries were grouped
in 11 different categories (Animal Slaughtering and Processing, Seafood
Product Preparation and Packaging, Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and
Specialty Food Manufacturing, Grain and Oilseed Milling, Dairy
Product Manufacturing, Animal Food Manufacturing, Bakeries and
Tortilla Manufacturing, Sugar and Confectionery Product
Manufacturing, Coffee, Beverage, and Other Food Manufacturing).
Animal Slaughtering and Processing (21%), Sugar and
L.B.M. Costa et al. Trends in Food Science & Technology 82 (2018) 122–133

Fig. 4. Distribution of reviewed papers by type of food industry.

Note: Reference: A-Ufua, Papadopoulos, and Midgley (2018); B-Zarei, Fakhrzad, and Jamali Paghaleh (2011); C-Mu, Li, Zhang, and Gao (2011); D-Knowles, Johnson,
and Warwood (2004); E-Chabada, Dreyer, Romsdal, and Powell (2013); F-Haq and Boddu (2017); G-Dora and Gellynck (2015b); I-Dora, Kumar, and Gellynck (2015);
K-Vlachos (2015); M-Psomas,Antony, & Bouranta (2017); N-Sharma, Khatri, and Mathur (2016); Q-Desai, Kotadiya, Makwana, and Patel (2015); R-Lopes and Freitas
(2015); S-Haq and Boddu (2015); U-Dora, Van Goubergen, Kumar, Molnar, and Gellynck (2014); V-Folinas, Malindretos, Voulgarakus, & Trantafillou (2014); W-
Manzouri, Rahman, Saibani, and Zain (2013); X-Maheshwar (2012); AA-Mohammadi, Jomhari, Razavi, and Mohammadi (2011); AB- Gkionis, & Besseris (2011); AC-
Hung & Sung (2011); AD-Jain and Lyons (2009); AF-Cox, Chicksand, and Palmer (2007); AG-Zokaei and Simons (2006); AH-Taylor (2005); AI-Cox and Chicksand
(2005); AJ-Simons and Zokaei (2005); AK-Wesana et al. (2018); AL- Satolo, Hiraga, Goes, & Lourenzani (2017) AM-Ramlan, Ahmad, Omar, and Suhaimi (2017); AN-
Powell, Lundeby, Chabada, and Dreyer (2017); AP-Moya, Déleg, Sánchez, and Vásquez (2016); AQ- Manzouri, Ab-Rahman, Zain, and Jamsari (2014); AR- Tanco,
Santos, Rodriguez, and Reich (2013); AS-Dora, Kumar, Van Goubergen, Molnar, and Gellynck (2013); AT-Perez, castro, Simons, & Gimenez (2010); AU-Simons and
Taylor (2007); AV-Taylor (2006); AX-Chakrabrtty, Biswas, & Ahmed (2013); BA-Jiménez, Tejeda, Pérez, Blanco, & Martinez (2011); BB-Lehtinen and Torkko (2005);
BC-Oro and Morales (2014); BD-Rao and Thejaswini (2014); BE-Seth, Seth, and Goel (2008)

Confectionery Product Manufacturing (14%) and Bakeries and Tortilla
Manufacturing (14%) were the most frequently observed. In the animal
slaughtering and processing industry, the first studies of L&SSi were in
UK, result of a government and industry response to the several crises
and extensive changes faced by the sector (Cox & Chicksand, 2005; Cox,
Chicksand, & Palmer, 2007; Simons & Taylor, 2007; Simons & Zokaei,
2005; Taylor, 2005, 2006; Zokaei & Simons, 2006). Sugar and Con-
fectionery Product Manufacturing were mainly studied in Belgium by
the same group of authors in 4 different works (Dora et al., 2014; Dora
& Gellynck, 2015; Dora, Kumar, & Gellynck, 2015; Dora, Kumar, Van
Goubergen, et al., 2013). Bakeries and Tortilla Manufacturing sector
was most studied in India (Haq & Boddu, 2015; Maheshwar, 2012;
Upadhye, Deshmukh, & Garg, 2010).
Animal Food Manufacturing (1%) and Coffee (1%) were the least
found. However, Fig. 4 shows that at least one study has been found for
each category. This indicates a great potential of L&SSi adoption for any
type of food industry.
Finally, the most commonly used research method were case studies
(57%). The dominant use of case studies was also found by Sanchez and
Blanco (2014) in their review of continuous improvement literature.
This case study dominance of research methodology indicates that re-
search in the food industry is still in its initial development stages. The
second most used research method was Surveys (22%), followed by
Action Research (17%). The least used method was the Theoretical-
conceptual (3%), indicating the potential of this research in fill this gap.
3.2. Implementation characteristics
Twenty-eight papers studied the implementation of L&SSi in the
food industry. The following subsections detail the three steps of the
implementation process, highlighting the 7 elements analyzed in each
of these studies, as presented in Fig. 1. The first step, Pre-im-
plementation, includes analyses of the implementation team. The
second step, Implementation, analyzes the drivers of adoption, the tools
and methods, the critical success factors, the barriers and the benefits.
Finally, the Post-Implementation step, examines the results of the
continue/sustain actions to maintain and sustain the initiatives.
3.2.1. Pre-implementation
In the 28 studies examined, only 14 papers cited the implementation
team members (Bamford, Forrester, Dehe, & Leese, 2015; Đekic, 2012;
Dora & Gellynck, 2015; Dora et al., 2015; Hung & Sung, 2011; Jiménez,
Tejeda, Pérez, Blanco, & Martínez, 2011; Knowles, Johnson, &
Warwood, 2004; Lopes & Freitas, 2015; Maheshwar, 2012; Powell,
Lundeby, Chabada, & Dreyer, 2017; David H.; Taylor, 2005; David
Helliwell; Taylor, 2006; Ufua, Papadopoulos, & Midgley, 2018;
Vlachos, 2015). Thirteen of these 14 papers used external support to
implement the initiatives in their settings and just one study, Knowles
et al. (2004), used only internal resources. This demonstrates a lack of
awareness of the importance in choosing the team members, which can
negatively affect the implementation process and, consequently, the
results obtained. Other factors mentioned are: members’ experience in
improvement projects, leadership challenge and the influence of the
size of the implementation team. Those factors are little discussed in the
reviewed papers.
3.2.2. Implementation
L&SSi are influenced by a variety of drivers to their implementation
(Cherrafi et al., 2016). Fig. 5 summarizes the drivers of adoption which
encourage food industries to implement the L&SSi. The 22 drivers of
adoption and the 31 benefits were grouped as cost, defect, time and
value related (Anvari et al., 2013). In this way, it is possible to show
their relation. Considering the drivers, most of them are cost related
(58%), followed by defect (18%), value (13%) and time (11%). The
review shows that the L&SSi implementation in the food industry is
mainly driven (53%) by 6 different factors (process variation reduction,
waste reduction, competitiveness improvement, cost reduction, in-
ventory reduction and, process efficiency increase). The process varia-
tion is often associated with deviation in product size/weight (Desai,
Kotadiya, Makwana, & Patel, 2015; Dora et al., 2015; Dora & Gellynck,
2015; Knowles et al., 2004) in the food industry. Its reduction was also
the main driver to the food industry adopting the Statistical Process
Control (Lim et al., 2014) and to the Canadian food companies im-
plementing continuous improvement programs (Scott et al., 2009).
The food industry has benefited from L&SSi implementation. Thirty-
one different benefits were found in the implementation studies
(Fig. 5). The first three benefits (productivity increase, cost reduction
and inventory reduction) are cost related, representing 23% of the
benefits obtained. Dora et al. (2014), in Europe, also found cost im-
provements as the main benefit of lean practice implementations in

126
L.B.M. Costa et al. Trends in Food Science & Technology 82 (2018) 122–133

Fig. 5. Drivers of adoption and benefits of L&SSi implementation in the food industry.
Note: Reference: A-Ufua, Papadopoulos,& Midgley (2018); C-Mu et al. (2011) D-Knowles et al. (2004); G-Dora and Gellynck (2015b); I-Dora et al. (2015); K-Valchos
(2015); N-Sharma et al. (2016); Q-Desai et al. (2015); R-Lopes and Freitas (2015); T-Bamford, Forrester, Dehe, and Leese (2015); V-Folinas, Aidonis, Malindretos,
Voulgarakis, and Triantafillou (2014); X-Maheshwar (2012); AA-Mohammdi, Jomhari, Razavi, & Mohammadi (2011); AB-Gkionis, Souliotis, and Besseris (2011); AC-
Hung and Sung (2011); AH-Taylor (2005), AM-Ramlan et al. (2017); AN-Powell et al. (2017); AP-Moya, Deleg, Sanchez, & Vasquez (2016); AQ-Manzouri, Ab-
Rahman,Zain, & Jamsari (2014); AV-Taylor (2006); AX-Chakrabortty, Biswas, and Ahmed (2013); AY-Dekic (2012); BA-Jimenez, Tejeda, Perez, Blanco, & Martinez
(2011); BB-Lehtinen and Torkko (2005); BC-Oro and Morales (2014); BD-Rao and Thejaswini (2014); BF-Upadhye, Deshmukh, and Garg (2010)

food industry (cost reduction, profitability increase, productivity in-
crease). Additionally, machine availability, financial improvement, loss
reduction, lead time reduction and process capability increase are
among the most cited benefits, representing 53% of them.
The result also shows that the implementation of L&SSi are suc-
cessfully producing the improvements desired by the food industry. The
main benefits obtained through the initiatives implementation, pro-
ductivity increase, cost reduction, inventory reduction, machine avail-
ability increase, lead time reduction, financial improvement, loss re-
duction and process variation reduction are in the list of drivers of
adoption. Also, the main benefits obtained are cost related (43%),
which address the main motivations that lead the food industries to
implement L&SSi in their settings. Improvement related to time, value
and defect were also achieved with L&SSi implementation, however,
they were less frequently observed, 27%, 21% and 10%, respectively
(Fig. 5).
To achieve these desired results 44 different tools and methods were
used in the implementation studies. Fig. 6 illustrates the frequency tools
and methods applied in the industry by using different letter sizes and
different color intensity (the higher frequency, the more emphasized
tool). The tools are classified in assessment, improvement and mon-
itoring, according to the framework presented by Radnor et al. (2012).
Assessment tools review the performance of existing organizational
processes in terms of their waste, flow or capacity to add value. Im-
provement tools support and improve processes, and they should be
chosen according to the specificities of the food industry. Monitoring
tools are used to measure the processes and any improvement made.
Forty-five percent of the studied tools and methods were used no
more than twice, so they are not well explored. The most used tools and
methods (51%) were: value stream mapping (8%), cause and effect
diagram (7%), 5S (6%), brainstorming (6%), DMAIC (6%), pareto chart
(5%), process mapping (5%), control charts (4%), visual management
(4%). The cause and effect diagram and 5S were also among the five
common tools identified by Albliwi et al. (2015) in different industrial
sectors. They also found, that these tools and techniques were used as
part of DMAIC method in almost all cases. These are simple tools, that

127
L.B.M. Costa et al.
Fig. 6. Tools and methods classification.
do not contain any statistical equations or formulas, which Albliwi et al.
(2015) thought might account for their common use.
Most tools have been used in the food industry, expect Nemawashi,
A3, Dashboard, Belt system, identified as useful in other industries (see
Kumar, Antony, Singh, Tiwari, & Perry, 2006; Liker & Meier, 2006;
Monden, 2012; Pyzdek & Keller, 2010). However, these tools were not
identified in the reviewed papers.
Fig. 7 shows the critical success factors and barriers that were found
in the 28 implementation studies. Both were categorized in terms of
their nature as proposed by Lim et al. (2014): managerial, business (the
food sector characteristics) and operational, and also related to the
supply chain.
The great majority of critical success factors (89%) are managerial,
i.e. human related. The most cited, which represent 50% of the total,
are management commitment, training program, skilled workers and
change agent participation. Lack of skilled workers is also between the
barriers most cited, with lack of knowledge and resistance to change.
All of them are components of the managerial category, that represents
47% of the barriers cited.
Considering the barriers, not only managerial barriers are im-
portant. The food industry characteristics also play a very important
role (41%) in the implementation of L&SSi in the sector. Thirteen dif-
ferent characteristics were found in the papers reviewed. The most cited
is demand uncertainty, followed by high cleaning time, high set-up
time, traditional layout, perishability, seasonality, sequence depen-
dence and variation in raw materials quality and supply.
3.2.3. Post-implementation
No paper clearly explained how the company sought to continue
and sustain the programs implemented and the results obtained. These
are important concerns in a changing world (Latham, 2008). Knowles
et al. (2004) found that the team continued, without prompting, to
apply the tools to other problems and opportunities, demonstrating
their acceptance of the tools and process. Hung and Sung (2011) also
found that the case company decided to continue implementing Six
Sigma projects over the long range.
This lack of information makes difficult to develop a general ana-
lysis of post-implementation. This suggests that the sector is still in the
early stage of L&SSi implementation, since continuing and sustaining
the initiatives does not seem to be a concern to the sector.
128
Trends in Food Science & Technology 82 (2018) 122–133
4. Discussion
This systematic literature review sought to consolidate the existing
knowledge on adoption of L&SSi in the food industry to verify its ap-
propriateness in an important economic sector both in developed
(Amorim, Curcio, Almada-Lobo, Barbosa-Póvoa, & Grossmann, 2016;
Bigliardi & Galati, 2013) and developing countries (Haq & Boddu,
2017; Mohezar & Nor, 2014). This sector deals with high demand un-
certainty, perishable products, quality assurance requirements to de-
liver safe and competitive products to powerful retailers and de-
manding customers.
Only 58 papers, a relatively low number, were found. The case
study research methodology was dominant. This plus the late adoption
of the initiatives, and the lack of awareness of the need to sustain and
continue actions indicate that research in this field is still in the initial
development stages. This can be associated with the fact the food in-
dustry are often considered to be conservative, slow to change and
investing little in research (Bigliardi & Galati, 2013; Hung & Sung,
2011), while being primarily concerned with compliance with food
laws and regulations to ensure safety products (Trienekens & Zuurbier,
2008).
Although the number of L&SSi papers in the food industry is
growing in the recent years, their adoption in some countries still very
low. In Brazil, 75% of the food industries that took part in a Six Sigma
survey study did not implement the initiative (Santos & Antonelli,
2011). In Canada, 44,8% of the respondents said their current employer
in the food industry did not use any continuous improvement meth-
odologies (dashboard metrics, Six Sigma, Lean Manufacturing, TQM
and HACCP) (Scott et al., 2009). In Malaysia, more than 70% of the
Halal food supply chain companies did not implement Lean Supply
Chain Management in their firms (Manzouri, Rahman, Saibani, & Zain,
2013).
These findings express the uncertainty of food industries regarding
the gains they may achieve with L&SSi implementation. Hence, to
better understand how companies in the sector have been implemented
L&SSi, and the results of the implementation to the sector, the following
part of this section details the elements studied in pre-implementation
and implementation phase. The continue/sustain actions element is
omitted since in section 3.2.3 was not found studies in the papers re-
viewed.
L.B.M. Costa et al. Trends in Food Science & Technology 82 (2018) 122–133

Fig. 7. Critical success factors and barriers classification of the reviewed papers.
Note: References: A-Ufua, Papadopoulos,& Midgley (2018); C-Mu, Li, Zhang & Gao (2011) D-Knowles, Johson, & Warwood (2004); G-Dora and Gellynck (2015b); I-
Dora, Kumar, & Gelly (2015); K-Vlachos (2015); N-Sharma, Khatri, & Mathour (2016); Q-Desai et al. (2015); R-Lopes and Freitas (2015); T-Barmford, Forrester, Dehe,
& Leese (2015); V-Folinas, Aidoais, Malindretos, Voulgarakis, & Triantafillon (2014); X-Maheswar (2012); AA-Mohammdi, Jomhari, Razavi, & Mohammadi (2011);
AB-Gkionis, Souliotis, & Beseris (2011); AC-Hung and Sung (2011); AH-Taylor (2005); AM-Rarnlan, Ahmad, & Mohammdi (2017); AN-Powell, Lundby, Chabada, &
Dreyer (2017); AP-Moya et al. (2016); AR-Tanco, Santos, Rodrigenz, &Reich (2013); AV-Taylor (2006); AX-Chacrabortty, Biswas, & Ahmed (2013); AY-Đekic (2012);
BA-Jiménez, Tejeda, pérez, Blanco, & Martinez (2011); BB-Lehtinen and Torkko (2005); BC-Oro and Morales (2014); BD-Rao and Thejaswini (2014); BF-Upadlye,
Deshmukh, & Garg (2010)

4.1. Implementation team
Knowles et al. (2004) recommend that implementation team
members have significant experience of the area in which the project is
conducted to ensure the success of L&SSi. Powell et al. (2017) also
recommend the team should be selected carefully to prevent group
members from fronting their own interests rather than focusing on the
project goal, and the project leader must be able to understand the
process to challenge the established “truths”. To Taylor (2005), the
team should meet the following criteria: a) be of sufficient seniority to
liaise directly with the board of directors, b) have sufficient authority to
access all divisions of the company and gain the cooperation of func-
tional managers in providing information, c) be capable of taking an
holistic view of the whole business rather than a restricted functional
perspective, and d) have an openness to new approaches and ideas.
Those characteristics of the team explains why 13 studies of 14 that

129
L.B.M. Costa et al.
declared implementation team aspects had reported external support,
like a consultancy to implement these improvement initiatives.
The size of implementation team is also a concern. According to
Dora et al. (2015), large groups make difficult to involve everyone
during the problem-solving activities and lead the group can be a
challenging. Moreover, smaller cross-functional teams help in con-
sensus building, and create a sense of ownership and responsibility to
get things done among team members.
4.2. Drivers and benefits
The drivers and benefits of L&SSi implementation in the food in-
dustry are predominantly cost related. This fact could be explained by
the high pressure of powerful retailers that requires regular price re-
duction in the food products (Jain & Lyons, 2009).
The relation of some cost related drivers are explicit in the original
initiatives, as reported by Hopp and Spearman (2004). For example, the
cost reduction depends on the level of waste reduction and process
variation reduction, and it enhance the competitiveness improvement.
According to Liker and Meier (2006), the waste reduction also includes
other individual drivers identified in this review, as defect reduction,
waiting time reduction among others, related to other drivers’ cate-
gories rather than cost. However, they are not easily identified on the
papers because the studied organization may not have a performance
measurement system that explains how they are related.
Some benefits of those drivers are productivity increases as a result
of a cost reduction, that depends on the lead time reduction, and also is
a consequence of waste reduction, as exemplified by Monden (2012).
Other observed benefits are the increase of the machine availability and
process capability, that also depends on losses and defective reduction.
These benefits could be not the main drivers, because measures as
Overall Equipment Efficiency (OEE) only become perceived when the
initiative is implemented (e.g. Dudbridge, 2011). Upadhye et al. (2010)
provide a detailed analysis of how the strategic choice for the initiative
implemented led to several benefits.
4.3. Tools and methods
The most used tools and methods are considered universally ap-
plicable (e.g. cause and effect diagram, value stream mapping, 5S, vi-
sual management, standardizing work, Kaizen) offering the potential
for significant gains with relatively low investments (Abdulmalek,
Rajgopal, & Needy, 2006; Albliwi et al., 2015). This is explained be-
cause they are simple tools, that do not contain any statistical equations
or formulas, which Albliwi et al. (2015) thought this might account for
their common use. Other tools such as SMED, JIT, Kanban are more
appropriate for some type of food industries (Abdulmalek et al., 2006;
Dora & Gellynck, 2015a; Jiménez et al., 2011). SMED can be very
helpful to reduce set-up times in batch type industries, Kanban is pos-
sible in process industries when products take discrete shape early in
the process (Abdulmalek et al., 2006). For JIT, Abdulmalek et al. (2006)
observed that small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) cannot im-
plement it because of their very uncertain demand fluctuation.
The beverage industry tends to have high product volume and a
continuous process flow, it is hard to rearrange their equipment into a
cellular configuration and to use pull systems. However, the continuous
flow creates a high need for total productive maintenance to ensure
high equipment reliability. The lack of flexible and multiple-use
equipment in resource-constrained food processing SMEs also makes
them less likely to implement cellular layouts (Dora & Gellynck, 2015).
Jiménez et al. (2011) found that cellular manufacturing is also in-
applicable in the wine industry, because the machinery and tanks are
usually too large.
Some L&SSi tools were not identified in the reviewed studies (e.g.,
Nemawashi, dashboard, A3 format and the Belt System). They may not
be used due to cultural constraints and not industry constraints. Small
130
Trends in Food Science & Technology 82 (2018) 122–133
firms may have consensus decision making without the need for a
special term such as Nemawashi. The dashboard and A3, as standardized
problem-solving approach, can certainly be used in the food industry,
so their lack of use may be due to the need to integrate them into the
management system. The “Belt system” is a method to organize im-
provement expertise in a company and it may not be appropriate for
small companies.
4.4. Critical success factors and barriers
The success of L&SSi is not entirely based on application of appro-
priate tools and methods alone but also in knowing the critical success
factors and the barriers that should be overcome. Critical success fac-
tors refers to an element that is necessary for an organization or project
to achieve its mission (Ribeiro de Jesus, Antony, Lepikson, & Peixoto,
2016). Moreover, for any change in an organization to take hold and
succeed, the resistance forces or barriers need to be identified and
understood (Jadhav, Mantha, & Rane, 2014). This knowledge is espe-
cially important when a sector with a lower level of L&SSi im-
plementation is analyzed.
Managerial factors have the strongest influences as critical success
factors when continuous improvement initiatives are adopted (Bhuiyan
& Baghel, 2005; Timans et al., 2014). The result of this review also
found that, since they were identified as the most important (89%) to
food industries. The high number of barriers human related identified
in the studies (managerial category) possibly is a reflect of the lack of
use of Belts system, previously highlighted in tools and methods topic,
and the lack of concern that seems to exist in the team member choice,
discussed in the pre-implementation topic. A reason for lack of
knowledge and resistance to change may be the focus used by external
support members to train the implementation team. The low value of
operational factors may also explain the lack of the problem-solving
tools, as A3 and dashboard.
Food industry characteristics are the second most faced barrier in
the implementation cases and seem to impact the applicability of some
L&SSi practices. This suggests that specific production characteristics
on the food industry (i.e. demand uncertainty, seasonality, type of
equipment, variety of products/raw material, among others) affect the
choosing of one strategy. The demand uncertainty was also observed as
a limitation for changeover reduction (Vlachos, 2015) and as difficulty
for streamline production and inventory planning (Dora et al., 2015). It
is a concern in the food industry environment, where the risk for ob-
solete inventories is higher (Van Kampen & Van Donk, 2014). As
highlighted in the studies, this barrier needs a special attention when
the initiatives are being implemented, and for selecting the most ap-
propriated L&SSi tools and methods to solve this problem. Their se-
lection can also play a critical role in the benefits achieved (Anvari,
Zulkifli, & Arghish, 2014; Anvari, Zulkifli, Sorooshian, & Boyerhassani,
2014). This role is exemplified in Dora et al. (2015), when Kanban
system failed due to poor reliability of forecast and uncertain demand,
in a company. Other factors of the Kanban system could have also
committed as the appropriated solution for that company.
According to Dora et al. (2014) Lean practices such as total pro-
ductive maintenance, employee involvement, and customer relation-
ships are used more often than pull and flow in the food sector. Ac-
cording to Dora et al. (2015), applying Lean Manufacturing in an
industry where production and packaging sections have to be separated
due quality assurance requirements is an issue, because this causes
extra movement for the operator which results in a waste of time.
However, it is still necessary more empirical research that cate-
gorize the sector and provide the best practices, tools and methods to
implement L&SSi to each type of food industry.
5. Conclusion and future research agenda
This study aims to analyze the state of the art concerning L&SSi in
L.B.M. Costa et al.
the food industry, through a systematic literature review, to identify
relevant aspects about their application in the food industry context, an
important sector to the world economy, that faces multiple challenges,
and present specific characteristics that turn the initiatives im-
plementation quite unique.
This study contributes to the food industry literature by providing
academics and practitioners with insights about some aspects concern
the implementation of L&SSi in the sector. The review showed a low
number of papers about the subject, only 58 publications; however,
there was an increase in the number of publications from 2011 and a
peak in 2015, which indicate a raise in the interest about the topic.
Another point observed was late examination of Lean Six Sigma in
the food industry and the low number of papers (6 studies published).
The first study was performed only in 2013, thirteen years after the
emergence of the first publications about Lean Six Sigma in other in-
dustries during the early 2000′s. Consequently, there is a wide oppor-
tunity to do research in this field and to expand research to more
countries, outside of Europe and Asia.
The food industry applied a large number of different tools to im-
plement L&SSi, mainly to reduce process variation and cost, to increase
productivity and competitiveness. These initiatives face some barriers
to implementation, including human factor and food industry char-
acteristics.
The managerial factor is most associated with lack of knowledge
and lack of skilled workers, which can explain the high necessity found
of external members (consultants and researchers) to support the im-
plementation process of L&SSi in the food industry. The lack of
awareness that seem to exist in the selection of team members can also
affect the success of L&SSi implementation.
The results showed that the food industry characteristics can impact
the adoption of some tools and methods, which make their choice cri-
tical to L&SSi implementation. However, only few implementation
papers showed a concern in select the most appropriate tools and
methods concern their companies’ characteristics.
Despite of this challenges, there is a great opportunity for the sector
to improve their performance by implementing L&SSi. A large number
of benefits were obtained by the food industry related to L&SSi im-
plementation. This demonstrates that these continuous improvement
initiatives can assist the sector and should be more widely implemented
to support the food industries to face the obstacles of the new global
scenario and remain competitive.
Future research could potentially use the insights of this paper to
build survey and case studies to better explore the field, and then
provide practitioners with an operational model that considers the
sector context. Therefore, more investigations about the adoption de-
gree of L&SSi practices in the food industry context, a better in-
vestigation about the relationship of food industry characteristics in
that adoption, and the other barriers that affect the initiatives im-
plementation, would be important to the sector growing. Moreover, it
was noted a lack of information, such as team of implementation, and
continue/sustain actions, that should be addressed in future studies to
assist the better understanding of L&SSi implementation process.
Declarations of interest
None.
Funding
This work was supported by CAPES (a Foundation within the
Ministry of Education in Brazil).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.10.002.
131
Trends in Food Science & Technology 82 (2018) 122–133
References
Abdulmalek, F. A., Rajgopal, J., & Needy, K. L. (2006). A classification scheme for the
process industry to guide the implementation of lean. Engineering Management
Journal, 18(2), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2006.11431690.
Albliwi, S. A., Antony, J., & Lim, S. A. H. (2015). A systematic review of Lean Six Sigma
for the manufacturing industry. Business Process Management Journal, 21(3), 665–691.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-03-2014-0019.
Albliwi, S., Antony, J., Lim, S. A. H., & van der, W.,T. (2014). Critical failure factors of
lean six sigma: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 31(9), 1012–1030. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-09-2013-
0147.
Amorim, P., Curcio, E., Almada-Lobo, B., Barbosa-Póvoa, A. P. F. D., & Grossmann, I. E.
(2016). Supplier selection in the processed food industry under uncertainty. European
Journal of Operational Research, 252(3), 801–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.
2016.02.005.
Antony, J., & Banuelas, R. (2002). Key ingredients for the effective implementation of Six
Sigma program. Measuring Business Excellence, 6(4), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13683040210451679.
Anvari, A., Zulkifli, N., & Arghish, O. (2014). Application of a modified VIKOR method for
decision-making problems in lean tool selection. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 71(5–8), 829–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-
5520-x.
Anvari, A., Zulkifli, N., Sorooshian, S., & Boyerhassani, O. (2014). An integrated design
methodology based on the use of group AHP-DEA approach for measuring lean tools
efficiency with undesirable output. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 70(9–12), 2169–2186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5369-z.
Anvari, A., Zulkifli, N., & Yusuff, R. M. (2013). A dynamic modeling to measure lean
performance within lean attributes. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 66(5–8), 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4356-0.
Arumugam, V., Antony, J., & Linderman, K. (2014). A multilevel framework of six sigma:
A systematic review of the literature, possible extensions, and future research. Quality
Management Journal, 21(4), 36–61.
Bamford, D., Forrester, P., Dehe, B., & Leese, R. G. (2015). Partial and iterative lean
implementation: Two case studies. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 35(5), 702–727. https://doi.org/. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-
2015-0216.
Bhamu, J., Sangwan, K. S., & Singh Sangwan, K. (2014). Lean manufacturing: Literature
review and research issues. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 34(7), 876–940. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-08-2012-0315.
Bhuiyan, N., & Baghel, A. (2005). An overview of continuous improvement: From the past
to the present. Management Decision, 43(5), 761–771. https://doi.org/10.1108/
00251740510597761.
Bigliardi, B., & Galati, F. (2013). Innovation trends in the food industry: The case of
functional foods. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 31(2), 118–129. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tifs.2013.03.006.
Chabada, L., Dreyer, H. C., Romsdal, A., & Powell, D. J. (2013). Sustainable food supply
chains: Towards a framework for waste identification. IFIP Advances in Information
and Communication Technology, 397, 208–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
40352-1_27.
Chakrabortty, R. K., Biswas, T. K., & Ahmed, I. (2013). Reducing process variability by
using DMAIC model: A case study in Bangladesh. International Journal for Quality
Research, 7(1), 127–140.
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Chiarini, A., Mokhlis, A., & Benhida, K. (2016). The integration
of lean manufacturing, six sigma and sustainability: A literature review and future
research directions for developing a specific model. Journal of Cleaner Production,
139, 828–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.101.
Costa, L. B. M., & Godinho Filho, M. (2016). Lean healthcare: Review, classification and
analysis of literature. Production Planning & Control, 27(10), 823–836. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09537287.2016.1143131.
Cox, A., & Chicksand, D. (2005). The limits of lean management thinking: Multiple re-
tailers and food and farming supply chains. European Management Journal, 23(6),
648–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2005.10.010.
Cox, A., Chicksand, D., & Palmer, M. (2007). Stairways to heaven or treadmills to ob-
livion?: Creating sustainable strategies in red meat supply chains. British Food Journal,
109(9), 689–720. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700710780689.
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. The sage handbook of
organizational research methods. London: Sage Publications.
Desai, D. A., Kotadiya, P., Makwana, N., & Patel, S. (2015). Curbing variations in
packaging process through Six Sigma way in a large-scale food-processing industry.
Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 11(1), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40092-014-0082-6.
Dora, M., & Gellynck, X. (2015a). House of lean for food processing SMEs. Trends in Food
Science & Technology, 44(2), 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.03.008.
Dora, M., & Gellynck, X. (2015b). Lean six sigma implementation in a food processing
SME: A case study. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 31(7), 1151–1159.
https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.1852.
Dora, M., Kumar, M., & Gellynck, X. (2015). Determinants and barriers to lean im-
plementation in food-processing SMEs – a multiple case analysis. Production Planning
& Control, 27(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1050477.
Dora, M., Kumar, M., Van, G.,D., Molnar, A., & Gellynck, X. (2013). Operational per-
formance and critical success factors of lean manufacturing in European food pro-
cessing SMEs. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 31(2), 156–164. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tifs.2013.03.002.
Dora, M., Van Goubergen, D., Kumar, M., Molnar, A., & Gellynck, X. (2014). Application
L.B.M. Costa et al.
of lean practices in small and medium-sized food enterprises. British Food Journal,
116(1), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2012-0107.
Drohomeretski, E., da Costa, S. E. G., de Lima, E. P., & Garbuio, P. A. da R. (2014). Lean,
six sigma and lean six sigma: An analysis based on operations strategy. International
Journal of Production Research, 52(3), 804–824. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.
2013.842015.
Dudbridge, M. (2011). Handbook of lean manufacturing in the food industry (1st ed.).
Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
Folinas, D., Aidonis, D., Malindretos, G., Voulgarakis, N., & Triantafillou, D. (2014).
Greening the agrifood supply chain with lean thinking practices. International Journal
of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 10(2), 129. https://doi.org/10.
1504/IJARGE.2014.063580.
George, M. L. (2002). Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six Sigma quality with lean production
speed. New York: McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1036/0071385215.
Gkionis, N. P., Souliotis, A. S., & Besseris, G. J. (2011). Six Sigma's DOE application on the
mechanical effects of apple quality in industrial-level storage operations. International
Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 6(3), 197–223. https://doi.org/10.
1504/IJSSCA.2011.039718.
Godinho Filho, M., Ganga, G. M. D., & Gunasekaran, A. (2016). Lean manufacturing in
Brazilian small and medium enterprises: Implementation and effect on performance.
International Journal of Production Research, 7543(June), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00207543.2016.1201606.
Grima, P., Marco-Almagro, L., Santiago, S., & Tort-Martorell, X. (2013). Six sigma: Hints
from practice to overcome difficulties. Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, 25(3–4), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.825101.
Haq, A. N., & Boddu, V. (2015). An integrated fuzzy QFD and TOPSIS approach to en-
hance leanness in supply chain. International Journal of Business Performance and
Supply Chain Modelling, 7(2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPSCM.2015.
069924.
Haq, A. N., & Boddu, V. (2017). Analysis of enablers for the implementation of leagile
supply chain management using an integrated fuzzy QFD approach. Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing, 28(1)https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-014-0957-9.
Henrique, D. B., Rentes, A. F., Godinho Filho, M., & Esposto, K. F. (2016). A new value
stream mapping approach for healthcare environments. Production Planning &
Control, 27(1), 24–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1051159.
Higgins, K. T. (2006). State of food manufacturing the quest for continuous improvement.
Food Engineering, 78(9), 61–70.
Hopp, W. J., & Spearman, M. L. (2004). To pull or not to pull: What is the question?
Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 6(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.
1287/msom.1030.0028.
Hung, H. C., & Sung, M. H. (2011). Applying six sigma to manufacturing processes in the
food industry to reduce quality cost. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(3), 580–591.
https://doi.org/10.5897/SRE10.823.
Jadhav, J. R., Mantha, S. S., & Rane, S. B. (2014). Exploring barriers in lean im-
plementation. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 5(2), 122–148. https://doi.org/
10.1108/17465681011017255.
Jain, R., & Lyons, A. C. (2009). The implementation of lean manufacturing in the UK food
and drink industry. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 5(4),
548–573. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2009.024584.
Jasti, N. V. K., & Kodali, R. (2014). A literature review of empirical research methodology
in lean manufacturing. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
34(8), 1080–1122. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2012-0169.
Jasti, N. V. K., & Kodali, R. (2015). Lean production: Literature review and trends.
International Journal of Production Research, 53(3), 867–885. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00207543.2014.937508.
Jiménez, E., Tejeda, A., Pérez, M., Blanco, J., & Martínez, E. (2011). Applicability of lean
production with VSM to the Rioja wine sector. International Journal of Production
Research, 50(7), 1890–1904. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.561370.
Knowles, G., Johnson, M., & Warwood, S. (2004). Medicated sweet variability: A six
sigma application at a UK food manufacturer. The TQM Magazine, 16(4), 284–292.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780410541936.
Kumar, M., Antony, J., Singh, R. K., Tiwari, M. K., & Perry, D. (2006). Implementing the
lean sigma framework in an indian SME: A case study. Production Planning & Control,
17(4), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537280500483350.
Kumar, M., Antony, J., & Tiwari, M. K. (2011). Six Sigma implementation framework for
SMEs - a roadmap to manage and sustain the change. International Journal of
Production Research, 49(18), 5449–5467. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.
563836.
Latham, J. R. (2008). Building bridges between researchers and practitioners: A colla-
borative approach to research in performance excellence. Quality Management
Journal, 15(1), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2008.11918053.
Lehtinen, U., & Torkko, M. (2005). The lean concept in the food industry: A case study of
a contract manufacturer. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 36(3), 57–67.
Liker, J. K., & Meier, D. (2006). The Toyota way fieldbook: A practical guide for implementing
Toyota's 4Ps. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781107415324.004.
Lim, S. A. H., Antony, J., & Albliwi, S. (2014). Statistical Process Control (SPC) in the food
industry – a systematic review and future research agenda. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 37(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.03.010.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., Zaheer, S., & Choo, A. S. (2003). Six sigma: A goal-
theoretic perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 21(2), 193–203. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00087-6.
Lopes, R. B., & Freitas, F. (2015). Application of lean manufacturing tools in the food and
beverage industries. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 10(3),
120–131. https://doi.org/. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242015000300013.
Mahalik, N. P., & Nambiar, A. N. (2010). Trends in food packaging and manufacturing
132
Trends in Food Science & Technology 82 (2018) 122–133
systems and technology. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 21(3), 117–128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2009.12.006.
Maheshwar, G. (2012). Application of six sigma in a small food production plant of India:
A case study. International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 7(2/3/4),
168–180. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCA.2012.053446.
Manzouri, M., Ab-Rahman, M. N., Zain, C. R. C. M., & Jamsari, E. A. (2014). Increasing
production and eliminating waste through lean tools and techniques for Halal food
companies. Sustainability, 6(12), 9179–9204. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6129179.
Manzouri, M., Rahman, M. N. A., Saibani, N., & Zain, C. R. C. M. (2013). Lean supply
chain practices in the Halal food. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 4(4),
389–408. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-10-2012-0011.
Marodin, G. A., & Saurin, T. A. (2013). Implementing lean production systems: Research
areas and opportunities for future studies. International Journal of Production Research,
51(22), 6663–6680. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.826831.
Mohammadi, P., Jomhari, N., Razavi, S. V., & Mohammadi, H. (2011). Lean software tool
for lead time reduction. International Journal of the Physical Sciences, 6(22),
5345–5352. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJPS11.566.
Moher, D., & Shamseer, L. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and
meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1.
https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
Mohezar, S., & Nor, M. N. M. (2014). Could supply chain technology improve food op-
erators' innovativeness? Adeveloping country's perspective. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 38(1), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.04.003.
Monden, Y. (2012). Toyota production system: An integrated approach to just-in-time (4th
ed.). New York: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Moya, J. V., Déleg, E. M., Sánchez, C. V., & Vásquez, N. R. (2016). Implementation of lean
manufacturing in a food enterprise ( Implementación de manufactura esbelta en una
empresa alimenticia ). Enfoque UTE, 7(1), 1–12.
Mu, G., Li, L., Zhang, W., & Gao, G. (2011). Study on expanded food quality improving
based on six sigma. Advanced Materials Research, 201–203, 2521–2525. https://doi.
org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.201-203.2521.
Negrão, L. L. L., Godinho Filho, M., & Marodin, G. (2016). Lean practices and their effect
on performance: A literature review. Production Planning & Control, 7287(October),
1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2016.1231853.
Ohno, T. (1997). O sistema Toyota de Produção. Bookman. https://doi.org/Estante.de
Casa 3a prateleira.
Oro, A. C. P., & Morales, D. (2014). “Methodology application of Lean Six Sigma in a
manufacturing process of soy milk” [Aplicação da metodologia Lean Seis Sigma em
um processo industrial de leite de soja]. Revista Produção Industrial & Serviços, 1(1),
45–59.
Panwar, A., Nepal, B. P., Jain, R., & Rathore, A. P. S. (2015). On the adoption of lean
manufacturing principles in process industries. Production Planning & Control, 26(7),
564–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2014.936532.
Pauls-Worm, K. G. J., Hendrix, E. M. T., Alcoba, A. G., & Haijema, R. (2014). Order
quantities for perishable inventory control with non-stationary demand and a fill rate
constraint. International Journal of Production Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2015.10.009.
Perez, C., Castro, R., De_Simons, D., & Gimenez, G. (2010). Development of lean supply
chains: A case study of the Catalan pork sector. Supply Chain Management:
International Journal, 15(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541011018120.
Powell, D., Lundeby, S., Chabada, L., & Dreyer, H. (2017). Lean six sigma and environ-
mental sustainability: The case of a Norwegian dairy producer. International Journal
of Lean Six Sigma, 8(1)https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-06-2015-0024.
Psomas, E., Antony, J., & Bouranta, N. (2017). Assessing lean adoption in food SMEs.
Evidence from Greece. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 35(1),
64–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-01-2017-0019.
Pyzdek, T., & Keller, P. (2010). The Six Sigma handbook. Search (3 rd). McGraw-
Hillhttps://doi.org/10.1036/0071415963.
Radnor, Z. J., Holweg, M., & Waring, J. (2012). Lean in healthcare: The unfilled promise?
Social Science & Medicine, 74(3), 364–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.
2011.02.011.
Ramesh, V., & Kodali, R. (2012). A decision framework for maximising lean manu-
facturing performance. International Journal of Production Research, 50(8),
2234–2251. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.564665.
Ramlan, R., Ahmad, A. N. A., Omar, S. S., & Suhaimi, A. H. (2017). Continuous im-
provement with value stream mapping (VSM): A case study in SME food processing
industry. Advanced Science Letters, 23(1), 674–678. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.
2017.7295.
Rao, R. H. G., & Thejaswini, M. L. (2014). Six sigma concept for food industry.
International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 2(2), 52–58.
Ribeiro de Jesus, A., Antony, J., Lepikson, H. A., & Peixoto, A. L. A. (2016). Six Sigma
critical success factors in Brazilian industry. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 33(6), 702–723. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-08-2014-
0120.
Sanchez, L., & Blanco, B. (2014). Three decades of continuous improvement. Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, 25(9), 986–1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14783363.2013.856547.
Santos, A. B., & Antonelli, S. C. (2011). “Application of statistical approach in the context
of quality management: A study in food industries in the state of são Paulo”
[Aplicação da abordagem estatística no contexto da gestão da qualidade: Um survey
com indústrias de alimentos de São Paulo]. Gestão & Produção, 18(3), 509–524.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-530X2011000300006.
Satolo, E. G., Hiraga, L. E., de, S., Goes, G. A., & Lourenzani, W. L. (2017). Lean pro-
duction in agribusiness organizations: Multiple case studies in a developing country.
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 8(3), 335–358. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-
01-2017-0019.
L.B.M. Costa et al.
Schug, D. (2017). State of food manufacturing survey. Food Engineering, 2017.
Scott, B. S., Wilcock, A. E., & Kanetkar, V. (2009). A survey of structured continuous
improvement programs in the Canadian food sector. Food Control, 20(3), 209–217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2008.04.008.
Seth, D., Seth, N., & Goel, D. (2008). Application of value stream mapping (VSM) for
minimization of wastes in the processing side of supply chain of cottonseed oil in-
dustry in Indian context. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 19(4),
529–550. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380810869950.
Shahin, A., & Alinavaz, M. (2008). Integrative approaches and frameworks of lean six
sigma: A literature perspective. International Journal of Process Management and
Benchmarking, 2(4), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPMB.2008.021791.
Sharma, D., Khatri, A., & Mathur, Y. B. (2016). Application of value stream mapping in
budjia manufacturing. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering & Technology,
7(6), 443–448.
Simons, D., & Taylor, D. (2007). Lean thinking in the UK red meat industry: A systems and
contingency approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 106(1), 70–81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.04.003.
Simons, D., & Zokaei, K. (2005). Application of lean paradigm in red meat processing.
British Food Journal, 107(4), 192–211. https://doi.org/10.1108/
00070700510589495.
Snee, R. D. (2000). Impact of six sigma on quality engineering. Quality Engineering, 12(3),
9–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08982110008962589.
Snee, R. D. (2010). Lean Six Sigma – getting better all the time. International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, 1(1), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461011033130.
Tanco, M., Santos, J., Rodriguez, J. L., & Reich, J. (2013). Applying lean techniques to
nougat fabrication: A seasonal case study. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 68(5–8), 1639–1654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-
013-4960-7.
Taylor, D. H. (2005). Value chain analysis: An approach to supply chain improvement in
agri-food chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
35(10), 744–761. https://doi.org/DOI.10.1108/09600030510634599.
Taylor, D. H. (2006). Strategic considerations in the development of lean agri-food supply
chains: A case study of the UK pork sector. Supply Chain Management: International
Journal, 11(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540610662185.
Timans, W., Ahaus, K., van Solingen, R., Kumar, M., & Antony, J. (2014). Implementation
of continuous improvement based on Lean Six Sigma in small- and medium-sized
enterprises. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 1–16. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14783363.2014.980140.
Tjahjono, B., Ball, P., Vitanov, V. I., Scorzafave, C., Nogueira, J., Calleja, J., ... Yadav, A.
(2010). Six sigma: A literature review. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 1(3),
216–233. https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461011075017.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British
Journal of Management, 14, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
133
Trends in Food Science & Technology 82 (2018) 122–133
Trienekens, J., & Zuurbier, P. (2008). Quality and safety standards in the food industry,
developments and challenges. International Journal of Production Economics, 113(1),
107–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.02.050.
Ufua, D. E., Papadopoulos, T., & Midgley, G. (2018). Systemic lean intervention:
Enhancing lean with community operational research. European Journal of
Operational Research, 268(3), 1134–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.08.
004.
Upadhye, N., Deshmukh, S. G., & Garg, S. (2010). Lean manufacturing in biscuit manu-
facturing plant: A case. International Journal of Advanced Operations Management, 2(1/
2), 108–139. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAOM.2010.034589.
Van Donk, D. P. (2001). Make to stock or make to order: The decoupling point in the food
processing industries. International Journal of Production Economics, 69(3), 297–306.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(00)00035-9.
Van Kampen, T., & Van Donk, D. P. (2014). Coping with product variety in the food
processing industry: The effect of form postponement. International Journal of
Production Research, 52(2), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.
825741.
Van Wezel, W., Van Donk, D. P., & Gaalman, G. (2006). The planning flexibility bottle-
neck in food processing industries. Journal of Operations Management, 24(3), 287–300.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2004.11.001.
Vlachos, I. (2015). Applying lean thinking in the food supply chains: A case study.
Production Planning & Control, 26(16), 1351–1367. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09537287.2015.1049238.
Wesana, J., De Steur, H., Dora, M. K., Mutenyo, E., Muyama, L., & Gellynck, X. (2018).
Towards nutrition sensitive agriculture. Actor readiness to reduce food and nutrient
losses or wastes along the dairy value chain in Uganda. Journal of Cleaner Production,
182, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.021.
Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world: The
story of lean production. Philadelphia: HarperCollins Publishers.
Yadav, G., & Desai, T. N. (2016). Lean six Sigma : A categorized review of the literature.
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 7(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-05-
2015-0015.
Zarei, M., Fakhrzad, M. B., & Jamali Paghaleh, M. (2011). Food supply chain leanness
using a developed QFD model. Journal of Food Engineering, 102(1), 25–33. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.07.026.
Zokaei, K., & Simons, D. (2006). Performance improvements through implementation of
lean practices: A study of the U.K. Red meat industry. The International Food and
Agribusiness Management Review, 9(2), 30–53.
Zu, X., Fredendall, L. D., & Douglas, T. J. (2008). The evolving theory of quality man-
agement: The role of Six Sigma. Journal of Operations Management, 26(5), 630–650.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2008.02.001.
Đekic, I. (2012). Lean manufacturing in two Serbian food companies - case studies.
International Journal for Quality Research, 6(2), 131–136.