Measuring Six Sigma Project Effectiveness using Fuzzy Approach

Abstract

Six Sigma methodology for process improvement is being used by industries to improve customer satisfaction, business results or both. The success of Six Sigma implementation can be measured by evaluating the effectiveness of the completed projects. The other objective of project effectiveness measurement scheme is to keep the team focused and motivated. A good measurement system should be able to measure and compare projects of various types and need, including benefits from the projects. The project effectiveness measurement scheme should include success factors like project selection, involvement of management, results achieved, conduct of the project and monitoring and review of the project. A Six Sigma project effectiveness evaluation system is generally based on the perception of people that can result in unreliable measurement. To overcome this deficiency, we used a fuzzy approach based on linguistic variables and fuzzy numbers for measuring the project effectiveness in this study by using the perception of management. Two methods for measuring effectiveness of selected sample projects are suggested. The outcome from this research would be helpful for the practicing industries to use this methodology for an unbiased evaluation of completed projects. . In his 14-year research career, he has published more than 180 refereed papers and five textbooks in the areas of reliability engineering, design of experiments, Taguchi methods, Six Sigma, total quality management and statistical process control.S. RAY ET AL.

Six Sigma enablers in Mexican manufacturing companies: a proposed model

“…Most of the time, management use cost savings as a measurement of project effectiveness. However, the savings from the project cannot be the only criterion for effectiveness, since many projects may not have any financial benefit (customer satisfaction), or the savings potential of two different projects can be different (Ray et al, 2013). Here top-level managers see change as an opportunity to strengthen the business by aligning operations with strategy (Szeto and Tsang, 2005).…”

Prioritisation of operations improvement projects in the European manufacturing industry

“…This was done by considering the success of the improvement projects carried out after they were prioritised by either using an objective or a subjective method, as perceived by the respondents. Although some other factors will certainly contribute to the success of improvement projects, their effective selection through appropriate prioritisation will play a major role in this (Davis, 2003;IAEA, 2006;Sharma and Chetiya, 2010;Ray et al, 2012). The results are shown in Figure 6, with the associated significance values shown in Table 7.…”

“…Breyfogle et al (2001) reinforce this, stating that for projects to be successfully implemented, the organisation must have a "truly effective and strategic process for selecting, sizing, and executing projects". Sharma and Chetiya (2010) and Ray et al (2012) believe that prioritising projects according to some rational criteria to narrow down the potential list of projects is likely to increase the chance of a project being successful; an example suggested by these authors is the objective method of creating a prioritisation matrix. According to Bondale (2007), when looking to prioritise projects, the initial approach taken by many organisations is to prioritise subjectively into low, medium or critical priorities.…”

Personality characteristics and Six Sigma: a review

“…Positively related to GTPP (Morgeson et al, 2005;Mount et al, 1998) High variance of scores positively related to GTPP (Neuman and Wright, 1999) Neuroticism (negative pole of emotional stability) negatively related to GTPP Wiesner, 1997, 1998) Neuroticism (negative pole of emotional stability) negatively related to Self-Efficacy, which mediates relationship with GTPP (Thoms et al, 1996) Better predictor of Team Leadership, a mediator of GTPP, under reduced Project Uncertainty (increased project stability) (Aronson et al, 2006 Basu, 2004;Brady and Allen, 2006;Brun, 2011;Byrne, 2003;Caulcutt, 2001;Cho et al, 2011;Choo et al, 2007a;DeFeo, 2000;Gijo and Rao, 2005;Hahn, 2005;Henderson and Evans, 2000;Hilton and Sohal, 2012;Hilton et al, 2008;Ismyrlis and Moschidis, 2013;Johannsen et al, 2011;Kwak and Anbari, 2006;Laosirihongthong et al, 2006;Linderman et al, 2003;McAdam and Lafferty, 2004;Moorman and Rosemann, 2010;Montgomery and Woodall, 2008;Nair et al, 2011;Nakhai and Neves, 2009;Ray et al, 2013;Sabry, 2014;Schroeder et al, 2008;Shanmugam, 2007;Shokri et al, 2014;Swami andPrasad, 2010, Timans et al, 2012;Zu et al, 2008)…”