Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the extent of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) implementation within manufacturing companies in the West of Ireland. It examines the key success and failure factors, benefits and quality tools influencing LSS projects deployment. Design/methodology/approach The study adopted a mixed research method (quantitative and qualitative approach). Research data were collected through a structured survey questionnaire to the target population followed by interview case studies with four manufacturing companies to gather additional insight. The targeted respondents were manufacturing engineers, quality engineers, process improvement managers, operations managers, R&D engineers, LSS experts and validation engineers. Findings LSS initiatives are still relatively unknown to many SMEs organisations, whereas large companies have adopted LSS for some time. Top management commitment, understanding the LSS methodology, tools and techniques, integrating LSS to business strategy, organisational cultural change and training and education were the topmost key success factors. Organisational strategy, lack of top management support, expensive cost for LSS projects, unclear prioritisation of LSS projects and cost effectiveness were the most important failure factors influencing LSS implementation. Originality/value This research is the original work provided by the author and is expected to address the shortcomings of both SMEs and large organisations in the West of Ireland. The recommendations and frameworks reported in this paper can be used by manufacturing and service companies in Ireland for efficiency, competitiveness and continuous improvement.

One of the biggest engineering concerns in the Middle East is the major delays in infrastructural projects which impact on both their quality and cost. A significant number of projects do not finish on time, are subject to cost overruns and are not completed to the specified quality. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) claims losses of the order of $ 40 Billion per annum as a result of these issues. Information on the factors contributing to project delays was studied. A literature review which determined the main project delay factors was first carried out. An online survey incorporating 66 of these was then developed with the purpose of identifying the most critical factors contributing to project delays. The survey was administered to over 200 specialists in the area of project engineering. This cohort included; Consultants, Business Owners, Project Directors, Project Engineers, Safety and Quality Managers and Contracting Managers. The resulting delay factors were ranked in order of priority based on a weighted index incorporating dimensions of Frequency and Severity. The non-linear relationships between "customer attributes" and "critical delay factors" in infrastructural projects was modeled using a "House of Quality Tool "with an innovative double roof. The method enabled the identification of the top 20 delay factors with respect to the following customer attributes; "Time, Cost, Quality, Safety and Environment". The highest ranked factors which impacted on all the customer attributes were; the shortage of technical professionals, unrealistic specified times and inadequate design and specification. The lowest ranked factors included; contractor cash flow problems and slow decision making by the client. The Double-Roof House of Quality Tools proved to be useful in determining and representing the relationships between "customer attributes" and "critical delay factors". The next phase of the work is to model the non-linear nature of the relationship using Fuzzy Logic. The ultimate goal is to provide expert guidance on strategy with respect to the focus on delaying factors in major infrastructural projects.

The impact of project delays is usually intolerable and difficult to recover from. A significant number of projects don't finish on time or aren't completed up to the specified quality and are subject to cost and time overruns. Public projects in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) claimed losses of the order of $ 40 Billion per annum as a result of project overruns and many were delivered below quality standards. A proposed solution involving eight stages was developed in order to tackle most of the project delay issues that were determined by the author and accordingly ranked based on severity and frequency. These stages have detailed processes with control gates so that these projects will be moved steadily meeting all requirements at each entry gate. The eight stages are; the proposal stage, preliminary review & investigation stage, validation stage, classification stage, consultation-a stage, consultation-b stage, kickoff stage, and finally handover/takeover stage. All selected projects will be gathered at the proposal stage and then will be preliminarily reviewed before they move to the stage of validation. In the validation stage, the unnecessary projects will be postponed or canceled by the higher authority of projects which is proposed to be created. The classification stage is a very critical stage where all filtered projects will be classified based on eleven criteria. A scoring method was developed with respect to these criteria. Accordingly each project gets a proper parachuting so that the consultation-A phase would confirm the project's adequacy, readiness, and the availability of all related documents and studies. The Consultation-B stage's role is to link the top country's vision "2030", objectives, and targets. Accordingly, the higher consultants committee will assure the compliance of the government strategy of in-house sourcing plan, technology transfers and national recruiting "Saudization". The last two stages are the "kick-off and the takeover" which will be referred to the contract management, final project review, and proper closing process. The project classification matrix was used as an effective tool for many projects classification in KSA. The paper classified "King Abdullah Stadium" in KSA-2014 Category-A with a score of 44 out 55 which accordingly is subject to the highest project management level of control. The ultimate goal of this new project management protocol is to establish a higher projects authority to assure the implementation of 2030 strategy with special guidance and support with respect to the main project delay factors on the major infrastructural projects. 1