The role of experience in six sigma project success: An empirical analysis of improvement projects

Abstract

Recent learning‐by‐doing research highlights the importance of examining multiple measures of experience and their relationship to the performance of work teams. Our paper studies the role of individual experience, organizational experience, team leader experience, and experience working together on a team (team familiarity) in the context of improvement teams. To do so, we analyze successful and failed six sigma improvement team projects at a Fortune 500 consumer products manufacturer with multiple business groups. Such improvement project teams focus on deliberate learning, which differs from the primary focus of work teams.Our analysis uses archival data generated by these improvement project teams over a six year time span. Of the four experience variables we study, we find that team leader experience exhibits the strongest relationship with project success, followed by organizational experience. Further, in contrast to prior‐related research on work teams, we find no relationship between individual experience or team familiarity and project success beyond that explained by team leader and organizational experience. These results suggest that a well‐developed and deployed structured problem‐solving process—characteristic of effective six sigma deployments—may reduce the importance of team familiarity in the context of improvement teams.

Strategic management applied to the Six-Sigma suitability appraisal for R&D in FMCG companies

“…Extensive training and managerial changes were pointed out as main weaknesses since they could lead to high expenditures and fragmentation of the current management system, respectively. Experienced managerial staff are highly important for ensuring a smooth transition and promoting the success of the Six-sigma program as also described by Easton and Rosenzweig (2012). Limitation of the creative process due to high volume of statistical standards to follow was mentioned in open-ended question 8 as a drawback, but it was not found as a noteworthy impact by the sample majority (Table 2).…”

“…According to the research of Easton and Rosenzweig (2012), the team leader experience is a decisive factor for success or failure of the program, therefore the selection of the managers during the strategic changes is crucial for its success.…”

Towards a theory-driven research agenda in six sigma quality innovation: linking research opportunities with organization theory typology

“…Some major practitioner oriented outlets, such as Harvard Business Review and Sloan Management Review, have begun publishing articles on SSQI (see for example , Hammer 2002;Sodhi and Sodhi, 2005). Rigorous theory driven research in Six Sigma has also received heightened interest in recent years (see for example, Linderman et al 2003;McAdam and Lafferty 2004;Zu et al 2008;Nair et al 2011;Easton and Rosenzweig 2012;Swink and Jacobs 2012), however, scholars are yet to embrace the full range of perspectives offered by organization theory. This paper seeks to promote research in SSQI by considering a larger set of organizational theories and focuses on the following questions:…”

Contribuição percebida das técnicas de gestão de projetos para os projetos de melhoria de processos

“…Outros autores mencionam que a expressão Seis Sigmas é uma estrutura paralela mesoorganizada para reduzir as variações em processos organizacionais, que utiliza especialistas em melhoria, um método estruturado e as métricas de desempenho, a fim de atingir os objetivos estratégicos (Easton & Rosenzweig, 2012). Nesse sentido, a implantação do Seis…”

“…i) Gestão de escopo: contribui para o desempenho deste projeto, porque quando se tem objetivos claros e consistentes, pode-se garantir que os esforços não serão isolados, tendo uma cooperação de toda a força de trabalho e da gerência (Soares, 2003), além de garantir que todas as áreas funcionais sejam diretamente envolvidas no projeto (Easton & Rosenzweig, 2012). Outro aspecto importante é identificar claramente o escopo do projeto para evitar a confusão entre as equipes, o que resulta em caracteres sobrepostos (Pyzdek, 2003).…”