Continuous improvement implementation models: a reconciliation and holistic metamodel

Figures & data

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

The objective of the presented CI implementation model is to provide guidance on the CI deployment process (prescribing) and; Presence of a sequence of CI implementation steps or activities in the model for implementation of CI in the organization and/ or; Differentiation between phases or levels of CI implementation maturity in the model.

Research exploring or explaining CI implementation outcome based on one, several, or many success or failure factors (incl. literature reviews on these factors); Research exploring or explaining CI implementation processes as an antecedent for other organizational objectives (e.g. sustainability, safety standards); Research exploring, explaining, or prescribing CI project implementations (instead of organizational-level implementation) outcomes based on one or several success factors (e.g. case studies, Delphi studies); Research with the aim to methodologically develop CI- maturity or performance assessment tools, based on CI practice adoption; Published in sources other than a peer-reviewed academic, practitioner, or textbook publications; Published in languages other than English.

Figure 1. Inductive category formation process (based on Mayring 2014).

Figure 2. Research framework for the development of the metamodel.

Table 2. Classification of the evidence.

Source	Empirical	Theoretical	Experience	Total
Academic publications	9	1	4	14	52%
Conference contributions	1		2
International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing			1
International Journal of Production Economics	1
International Journal of Production Research	1
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management	1
Management and Production Engineering Review			1
Omega	1
Technovation	1
The TQM Journal	1
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence	2	1
Practitioner publications	1		6	7	26%
iSixSigma.com			4
Lean Management Institute			1
Quality Progress (ASQ)	1
The Quality Management Forum (ASQ)			1
Textbook publications			6	6	22%
Various authors, see Table 3			6
Total	10	1	16	27
	37%	4%	59%		100%

Table 3. Descriptive analysis of the data.

Organizational dimension:		Structure					Strategy					Systems					Style					Staff					Skills					Values					Total
CI deployment source phase:		1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5
Academic publications
(1) An evolutionary model of CI behaviour (Bessant, Caffyn, and Gallagher 2001)	RF:				•		•		•			•	•	•								•	•	•	•	•											11
	ACT:																																				–
	SF:					•					•					•					•					•										•	6
(2) Generic TQM model (Ghobadian and Gallear 2001)	RF:																																			•	1
	ACT:					•	•	•					•				•		•			•		•									•	•	•		11
	SF:									•																											1
(3) Combining Lean and Six Sigma for results (Cudney, Mehta, and Monroe 2006)	RF:																																				–
	ACT:			•		•			•	•			•				•					•		•													8
	SF:																																				–
(4) How to make Six Sigma last? (Anand 2008)	RF:	•					•													•		•							•	•							6
	ACT:								•			•	•				•					•	•									•					7
	SF:																•																		•		2
(5) Six Sigma programs: implementation model (Chakravorty 2009)	RF:							•												•																•	3
	ACT:						•						•			•								•		•									•		6
	SF:																																				–
(6) Six Sigma implementation frame-work (Kumar, Antony, and Tiwari 2011)	RF:																																				–
	ACT:							•						•	•			•	•		•			•	•	•					•				•		11
	SF:																	•																			1
(7) A conceptual model for LSS deployment (Hilton and Sohal 2012)	RF:					•										•					•					•										•	5
	ACT:																																				–
	SF:																																				–
(8) Modelling CI maturity in the public sector (Fryer and Ogden 2014)	RF:	•		•			•		•			•					•		•		•	•		•		•			•			•		•		•	15
	ACT:																														•			•			2
	SF:										•																										1
(9) Framework for QMS (Garza-Reyes, Rocha-Lona, and Kumar 2015)	RF:												•		•					•					•				•								5
	ACT:						•	•	•				•																•						•	•	7
	SF:																																		•		1
(10) Stepwise ISO TQM approach (Chen et al. 2016)	RF:																														•						1
	ACT:						•											•						•			•	•							•		6
	SF:																																				–
(11) OE assessment framework (Rusev and Salonitis 2016)	RF:				•																	•			•		•	•		•				•			7
	ACT:						•		•			•	•	•	•			•					•	•								•	•	•	•		13
	SF:																								•												1
(12) Implementation of CI based on LSS in SMEs (Timans et al. 2016)	RF:	•											•			•	•						•			•						•					7
	ACT:					•	•	•									•				•	•															6
	SF:																																				–
(13) Lean, simulation and optimization (Uriarte et al. 2017)	RF:								•								•							•			•		•							•	6
	ACT:																																				–
	SF:										•																										1
(14) A roadmap for LSS implementation (Vallejo et al. 2020)	RF:							•				•																									2
	ACT:		•			•	•		•			•					•		•			•	•	•											•		12
	SF:										•																								•		2
Practitioner publications
(15) Learn something about your Six Sigma maturity (He 2009)	RF:					•					•					•					•					•					•					•	7
	ACT:					•																															1
	SF:																																				–
(16) Presenting a LSS maturity model (Watson-Hemphill and Bradley 2012)	RF:	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	35
	ACT:																																				–
	SF:																																				–
(17) How to conduct a LSS maturity assessment (Choudhury 2016)	RF:											•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	25
	ACT:																																				–
	SF:																																				–
(18) Basic LSS maturity model (Lean Enterprise Institute 2016)	RF:			•			•	•	•	•		•	•	•	•							•	•	•	•			•	•	•					•		17
	ACT:																																				–
	SF:																																				–
(19) Steps to successful LSS implementation (Lokesh 2016)	RF:																																				–
	ACT:					•				•						•	•				•		•	•		•											8
	SF:																																				–
(20) Successful Six Sigma deployment (Phadnis 2016)	RF:																																				–
	ACT:						•	•	•	•	•			•		•	•				•																9
	SF:																																				–
(21) Maturity model of Six Sigma evolution (Raje 2016)	RF:						•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•	•				•	•					•	23
	ACT:																																				–
	SF:																																				–
Textbook publications
(22) Managing Six Sigma (Breyfogle, Cupello, and Meadows 2001)	RF:																																				–
	ACT:											•					•					•															3
	SF:																																				–
(23) Lean Six Sigma for service (George 2003)	RF:						•					•					•	•				•	•				•					•					8
	ACT:						•	•	•			•		•	•		•		•			•	•	•	•							•					13
	SF:									•				•	•		•					•	•		•							•			•		9
(24) The Six Sigma handbook: The complete guide (Pyzdek 2003)	RF:																																				–
	ACT:											•	•	•	•		•	•				•	•	•	•			•	•			•					13
	SF:																																				–
(25) Maximizing Lean Six Sigma sustainability (Toppazzini 2013)	RF:	•	•	•	•							•	•	•	•		•	•	•	•		•	•	•	•		•	•	•	•							20
	ACT:																																				–
	SF:																																				–
(26) Successfully implementing Lean Six Sigma (Gardner 2013)	RF:																																				–
	ACT:				•	•	•	•	•			•	•	•	•	•	•	•				•		•	•	•			•		•	•	•			•	21
	SF:																																				–
(27) Holistic improvement with LSS 2.0 (Snee and Hoerl 2018)	RF:																																				–
	ACT:			•	•							•	•	•			•			•		•	•	•						•					•		12
	SF:						•					•										•															3
Totals:	RF:	5	2	4	3	3	7	5	6	3	3	10	8	6	7	6	9	6	5	8	6	10	8	9	8	8	6	5	8	7	5	5	2	4	3	9	209
	ACT:	1	1	3	3	7	10	8	8	3	1	8	10	8	5	4	12	5	4	1	4	11	8	13	5	4	1	2	3	1	3	5	3	3	8	2	178
	SF:	–	–	–	–	1	1	–	–	3	3	1	–	1	2	1	1	1	–	–	1	2	1	0	2	1	–	–	–	–	–	1	–	–	4	1	28
Phase:		1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5
Organizational dimension:		Structure					Strategy					Systems					Style					Staff					Skills					Values
Grand total:																																					415

RF: readiness factor; ACT: activity; SF: sustainability factor.

Table 4. Phase 1 CI implementation metamodel.

Factor		Description
Structure	RF:	Single functional and geographical area is selected for deployment (core processes) Organizational structure is designed according to the functional model
	ACT:	N.A.
	SF:	N.A.
Strategy	RF:	CI projects are conveniently selected; none of the projects are completed Investment in CI deployment typically yields break-even results CI deployment is focussed on the worst-performing parts of the organization Understanding of corporate strategy and organizational priorities clear Understanding of current attitude towards CI (opportunity or threat) No strategic impact on human resources yet
	ACT:	Execution of current state self-assessment based upon proven methods Identification of various opportunities for improvement Creation of a vision for CI and its contribution towards the organization Creation of CI deployment objectives Identification of gaps in realized CI deployment results and approach vs. initial planning
	SF:	N.A.
Systems	RF:	CI project-level metrics are in place Accounting systems provide basic performance data; no involvement of financial control yet Organizational processes have no end to end design and no process owners are in place CI deployment process is designed; opportunity identification, progress monitoring, participation CI project closure and hand-over to business unstructured; no follow-up
	ACT:	Creation and approval of high-level CI deployment plan with detailed planning Creation of CI deployment processes (infrastructure) Identify customer feedback collection methodology
	SF:	N.A.
Style	RF:	1. Limited management alignment and understanding of CI methods and deployment
	ACT:	Involving organizational leaders by training CI philosophies, methods, and leading role Identification of CI deployment sponsor (CEO) and CI deployment executive council
	SF:	1. CI projects have yielded initial results that support the credibility of the CI leaders
Staff	RF:	Execution of CI methodology training for CI core team staff Willingness for involvement in CI deployment by company staff; the first CI project leaders become operational Awareness of own processes only by organizational staff Strategic HR planning is designed; individual goals are aligned in performance evaluations
	ACT:	Execution of organization-wide CI methodology awareness training Identification of CI deployment resource requirements and core team Identification and engagement of key influencers in the organization Implementation of frequent CI deployment communication
	SF:	1. Ensured retaining and building of human capital for competitive advantage
Skills	RF:	Availability of key process (in need of improvement) data is ensured Formalized CI methods are selected and installed Capability to evaluate and advise on the organizational change process is ensured Understanding and experience of organizational staff on CI methods is limited but growing
	ACT:	N.A.
	SF:	N.A.
Values	RF:	Understanding current values and mindset Understanding experiences with previous change initiatives and results Identification of possible objections to CI deployment
	ACT:	Execution of preliminary cultural assessment Identification of key cultural imperatives
	SF:	1. Ensured understanding and willingness to share knowledge throughout the organization

RF: readiness factor; ACT: activity; SF: sustainability factor; N.A.: no guidance available in the models analyzed.

Table 5. Phase 2 CI implementation metamodel.

Factor		Description
Structure	RF:	More than one geographical region is selected for deployment Organizational structure is supportive to end to end process design
	ACT:	N.A.
	SF:	N.A.
Strategy	RF:	CI projects are chosen opportunistically and bottom-up based on managerial discretion Investment in CI deployment still yields break-even results CI deployment is focussed on moderately performing parts of the organization
	ACT:	Recognition and integration of the need for change in corporate strategy Ensure CI resources are devoted to priority problems Reconsider progress, scope, and ambition
	SF:	N.A.
Systems	RF:	In addition to CI project metrics, aggregated progress and impact reporting is designed Incidental involvement of financial control, understanding of the accounting role in CI Organizational processes designed as end to end value streams with process owners CI idea management and result recognition are in place CI project closure is consistently followed up by CI project leader to track benefits
	ACT:	CI deployment plan (implementation framework) is compiled and further refined Creation of CI deployment progress metrics that identify as-is and to-be state gaps Coordinating outreach efforts to capture customer feedback
	SF:	N.A.
Style	RF:	Management moderately endorses the application of CI methods and CI deployment Management demonstrates an understanding of CI methods and deployment CI sponsor in place but not yet deeply engaged
	ACT:	Ensure strong top management commitment Link CI deployment to organizational mission, vision, and values
	SF:	1. Management-defined strategy for CI deployment in a 3–5-year deployment plan
Staff	RF:	CI core team staff is trained in basic CI methods and CI project leader training is executed Involvement of staff in CI deployment driven by personal interest, availability, and eagerness to work in teams; more believers emerge, and a higher portion of participates Awareness grows by initial results; organizational staff understands end to end processes and how own role fits in the CI deployment HR planning and evaluation related to CI contributions and results
	ACT:	Continued selection and training of CI project leaders Implementation of CI deployment resources and core team Engagement of CI core team in shaping CI deployment to meeting their personal goals Recognition and active management of resistance by discarding mediocrity
	SF:	1. Engagement of staff directly and indirectly involved in CI deployment
Skills	RF:	Data collection of process performance is still incidental CI methods applied are mostly basic problem solving; no data-based statistical tools yet Capability to evaluate the organizational change of individual business units is ensured
	ACT:	1. Commence development of organization-specific CI methodology
	SF:	N.A.
Values	RF:	1. CI program and core team in place; engagement primarily at the core team level
	ACT:	Execution of organization-wide cultural assessments (continued and expanded) Identification of key cultural imperatives (continued)
	SF:	N.A.

RF: readiness factor; ACT: activity; SF: sustainability factor; N.A.: no guidance available in the models analyzed.

Table 6. Phase 3 CI implementation metamodel.

Factor		Description
Structure	RF:	CI deployment is performed in multiple geographical locations across all business units Organizational structure is aligned to support organizational value streams
	ACT:	1. Creation of design teams to evaluate and amend product offerings
	SF:	N.A.
Strategy	RF:	CI projects are well-aligned with business priorities and CI is considered key for strategy execution Investment in CI deployment yields 5:1 CI deployment is focussed on sufficiently performing parts of the organization
	ACT:	Focussing of CI projects beyond simple single processes alone Creation of strategy map to track, monitor, and communicate progress Ensure continued resource availability for CI deployment
	SF:	N.A.
Systems	RF:	Consistent and aggregated measures of CI deployment progress and impact are in place Financial control representatives identified, trained, and participating in most CI projects End to end value stream designed and understood, no end to end ownership yet CI deployment process for project selection, prioritization, and management implemented
	ACT:	Create (where not yet in place) CI deployment processes in the organization Identification of core business processes that are in scope for CI deployment Create business process management documentation including incident management instruction Develop services and products based on customer feedback
	SF:	1. Funding of all CI training activities by centralized corporate training budget
Style	RF:	Management is sufficiently participating in CI deployment CI vision, goals, and roadmap are integrated with CI deployment plan CI sponsor is driving the CI deployment and is linked to the top management team
	ACT:	Set up a CI support infrastructure of dedicated resources for line management Making line management accountable for engagement of workforce and adoption of CI methodology
	SF:	N.A.
Staff	RF:	Entire CI core team has been trained and certified Formal selection process is implemented for CI project leads and core team staff Critical mass of organizational staff starts participating in CI deployment CI deployment is linked to performance planning for CI project leads, teams, and sponsor
	ACT:	Provide advanced CI methodology training (train the trainer) Perform CI core team staff selection from all departments throughout the organization Create cross-functional (permanent) CI teams for focussed improvement
	SF:	N.A.
Skills	RF:	Data collection of processes is systematic and efficient; incidental measurement system analysis CI methods regularly applied consist of basic concepts (seven quality tools) Capability to evaluate organizational change ensured for the entire organization
	ACT:	1. Create and establish business knowledge management processes aimed at sharing practices
	SF:	N.A.
Values	RF:	In addition to core team engagement, broad CI awareness across the organization CI deployment program solidly in place, i.e. CI is perceived as a core value
	ACT:	Regular reviews of the CI system throughout the organization Integrate improvement way-of-working in daily work
	SF:	N.A.

RF: readiness factor; ACT: activity; SF: sustainability factor; N.A.: no guidance available in the models analyzed.

Table 7. Phase 4 CI implementation metamodel.

Factor		Description
Structure	RF:	CI deployment expands to processes and support functions across all locations Organizational structure is aligned to support the organization’s value chains
	ACT:	1. CI methodology is integrated into the existing way of working
	SF:	N.A.
Strategy	RF:	CI methodology is considered a key methodology for corporate strategy execution Investment in CI deployment yields 10:1 CI deployment is focussed on well-performing parts of the organization
	ACT:	1. CI projects are focussing on more complex problems using advanced CI methodology
	SF:	CI projects do no drift away from strategic management priorities Tracking of CI project results is accurate and adequate
Systems	RF:	CI deployment-wide metrics exist, including financial impacts and project cycle times Financial control representatives are fully engaged in CI deployment Value stream management is in place with appropriate process ownership CI deployment project selection process has been widely implemented and is linked to strategy
	ACT:	Prepare a detailed roadmap for the next deployment steps Create (where not yet in place) CI deployment processes for evaluating progress Involve customers in organizational decisions
	SF:	Ensure limited undertaking of simultaneous CI projects Ensure stable trends in deployment progress and result indicators
Style	RF:	Management is aligned with vital metrics and do visible project selection and review CI deployment is led and driven by a representative from the executive team
	ACT:	N.A.
	SF:	N.A.
Staff	RF:	The organization has full capability to deliver CI training internally Formal CI project leader selection process is in place The majority of the organization participates in CI deployment CI deployment is linked to performance planning for all employees
	ACT:	Create a continuous training program for (new) organizational staff Procure business knowledge management software
	SF:	Ensure maintaining a new way of working (no falling back into old ways of working) Ensure that CI roles and responsibilities are transitioned to the existing organization
Skills	RF:	Data collection via documentation and dashboards to track improvements Rigorous CI methods are applied and broadly understood Capability to evaluate the organization’s, suppliers’, and customers’ ability to take on change
	ACT:	N.A.
	SF:	N.A.
Values	RF:	Broad CI awareness across the organization and a pull for CI project teams to execute CI projects The CI deployment program is in place with a strong favourable reputation
	ACT:	1. Continuously communicate CI successes
	SF:	Ensure widespread sharing of knowledge and practices Ensure communication and involvement of organizational staff not involved in CI Ensure continued support for CI projects and flag potential issues Ensure that CI deployment does not become isolated

RF: readiness factor; ACT: activity; SF: sustainability factor; N.A.: no guidance available in the models analyzed.

Table 8. Phase 5 CI implementation metamodel.

Factor		Description
Structure	RF:	CI deployment expands to all functional areas in all locations CI deployment focussed on, and further executed with, strategic supply chain partners
	ACT:	CI deployment focussed on creating working cells to reduce waste and control variation Create CI methodology integration plans with key-value streams and corporate functions Further extend the value stream to suppliers and customers
	SF:	1. Ensuring consistency between CI values and behaviour and the organizational context
Strategy	RF:	CI methodology is integrally aligned with the execution of corporate strategy Investment in CI deployment yields 20:1, mentioned in annual reporting CI deployment is focussed on excellent performing parts of the organization Strategy development, product development, and CI are aligned and based on data-based insights
	ACT:	1. Update the strategy map for each core process with customer metrics
	SF:	Ensure the ability to link CI activities to the strategic goals of the organization Ensure continuous improvement of continuous improvement
Systems	RF:	CI deployment metrics are integrated with corporate dashboards Financial control representatives assist business units in linking project benefits to budget planning Value stream management further optimized with appropriate strategic targets The CI project selection process is linked to business strategy
	ACT:	Review CI deployment performance and impact at the organizational, business unit, value stream, and function level Create scorecards with strategic objectives translated to departmental level Create (where not yet in place) process maps for all the core and support processes and identify key metrics for each of these processes
	SF:	1. Ensure consistency between CI values and behaviour and the organizational context
Style	RF:	Management has full understanding of, and faith in, CI methodology CI deployment is led by the CEO
	ACT:	Continuously develop managers who are dedicated to the pursuit of continuous improvement Create ongoing clarity on who owns the CI deployment process
	SF:	Ensure the ability to lead, direct and support the creation and sustainment of CI behaviour Ensure continuous improvement of the CI system
Staff	RF:	Organization has full capability to deliver training internally Formal CI project leader selection process further developed Entire organization participates in CI deployment CI methodology and system adoption linked to performance planning for all employees
	ACT:	Continuously identify, train and develop junior and senior CI project leaders Connect CI involvement to intrinsic motivation of employees
	SF:	Ensure sustained involvement in CI Ensure the ability to move CI activity across organizational boundaries Ensure the ability to enable learning to take place and be captured at all levels
Skills	RF:	CI projects take advantage of all relevant CI methodology Rigorous CI methods are widely applied and understood
	ACT:	1. Create progression towards learning organization
	SF:	N.A.
Values	RF:	Strong continuous improvement culture and zero defects mentality CI deployment is integral to the culture of the business
	ACT:	1. Perform periodical cultural assessments and act upon findings
	SF:	1. Ensure the ability to articulate the basic values of CI

RF: readiness factor; ACT: activity; SF: sustainability factor; N.A.: no guidance available in the models analyzed.

Figure A.1. CI implementation metamodel.

Mayring, P. 2014. Qualitative Content Analysis: theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. Klagenfurt: Social Sciences Open Access Repository.

 Google Scholar

Bessant, J., S. Caffyn, and M. Gallagher. 2001. “An Evolutionary Model of Continuous Improvement Behaviour.” Technovation 21 (2): 67–77. doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(00)00023-7.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ghobadian, A., and D. Gallear. 2001. “TQM Implementation: An Empirical Examination and Proposed Generic Model.” Omega 29 (4): 343–359. doi:10.1016/S0305-0483(01)00030-5.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cudney, E. A., M. Mehta, and R. Monroe. 2006. “Combining Lean and Six Sigma for Optimal Results.” SME Technical Paper: The SME Summit & Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA.

 Google Scholar

Anand, B. 2008. “Becoming Successful at Six Sigma Deployment! How to Make Six Sigma Last?” SAE International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing 1 (1): 661–665. doi:10.4271/2008-01-1277.

 Google Scholar

Chakravorty, S. S. 2009. “Six Sigma Programs: An Implementation Model.” International Journal of Production Economics 119 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.01.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kumar, M., J. Antony, and M. K. Tiwari. 2011. “Six Sigma Deployment Framework for SMEs–a Roadmap to Manage and Sustain the Change.” International Journal of Production Research 49 (18): 5449–5467. doi:10.1080/00207543.2011.563836.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hilton, R. J., and A. 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.

 Google Scholar

Fryer, K. J., and S. M. Ogden. 2014. “Modelling Continuous Improvement Maturity in the Public Sector: key Stages and Indicators.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 25 (9–10): 1039–1053. doi:10.1080/14783363.2012.733262.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Garza-Reyes, J. A., L. Rocha-Lona, and V. Kumar. 2015. “A Conceptual Framework for the Implementation of Quality Management Systems.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 26 (11–12): 1298–1310. doi:10.1080/14783363.2014.929254.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, C. K., K. Anchecta, J. D. Lee, and J. J. Dahlgaard. 2016. “A Stepwise ISO-Based TQM Implementation Approach Using ISO 9001: 2015.” Management and Production Engineering Review 7 (4): 65–75. doi:10.1515/mper-2016-0037.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rusev, S. J., and K. Salonitis. 2016. “Operational Excellence Assessment Framework for Manufacturing Companies.” Procedia CIRP 55: 272–277. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.08.026.

 Google Scholar

Timans, W., K. Ahaus, R. van Solingen, M. Kumar, and J. Antony. 2016. “Implementation of Continuous Improvement Based on Lean Six Sigma in Small-and Medium-Sized Enterprises.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 27 (3–4): 309–324. doi:10.1080/14783363.2014.980140.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Uriarte, A. G., A. H. Ng, M. U. Moris, and M. Jägstam. 2017. “Lean, Simulation and Optimization: A Maturity Model.” IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 1310–1315.

 Google Scholar

Vallejo, V. F., J. Antony, J. A. Douglas, P. Alexander, and M. Sony. 2020. “Development of a Roadmap for Lean Six Sigma Implementation and Sustainability in a Scottish Packing Company.” The TQM Journal 32 (6): 1263–1284. doi:10.1108/TQM-02-2020-0036.

 Google Scholar

He, Z. 2009. Progress Report: Learn Something about your Six Sigma Program's Maturity. Quality Progress (August) 22–28.

 Google Scholar

Watson-Hemphill, K. W., and K. Bradley. 2012. “Does Your Deployment Measure up? Presenting a Maturity Model for Lean Six Sigma.” The Quality Management Forum 38 (3): 1–8.

 Google Scholar

Choudhury, A. 2016. Are you ready? How to conduct a maturity assessment. iSixSigma.com. Accessed April 19 2016. http://www.isixsigma.com/new-to-six-sigma/getting-started/are-you-ready-how-conduct-maturity-assessment/.

 Google Scholar

Lean Enterprise Institute. 2016. Basic LSS Maturity Model. Lean.org.

 Google Scholar

Lokesh, R. 2016. Eight steps to a successful lean six sigma implementation. iSixSigma.com. Accessed April 22 2016. http://www.isixsigma.com/implementation/success-factors/8-steps-successful-lean-six-sigma-implementation/.

 Google Scholar

Phadnis, S. 2016. Successful six sigma deployment. iSixSigma.com. Accessed April 22 2016. http://www.isixsigma.com/implementation/deployment-structure/successful-six-sigma-deployment/.

 Google Scholar

Raje, P. 2016. Maturity model describes stages of Six Sigma evolution. iSixSigma.com. Accessed April 19 2016. http://www.isixsigma.com/implementation/basics/maturity-model-describes-stages-six-sigma-evolution/.

 Google Scholar

Breyfogle, F. W. III, J. M. Cupello, and B. Meadows. 2001. Managing Six Sigma: A Practical Guide to Understanding, Assessing and Implementing the Strategy That Yields Bottom-Line Success. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

 Google Scholar

George, M. 2003. Lean Six Sigma for Service. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

 Google Scholar

Pyzdek, T. 2003. The Six Sigma Handbook: The Complete Guide for Greenbelts, Blackbelts and Managers at All Levels. Revised and expanded edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

 Google Scholar

Toppazzini, K. 2013. Maximizing Lean Six Sigma Sustainability; Secrets to Making Lean Six Sigma Last. Bloomington, IN: WestBow Press.

 Google Scholar

Gardner, K. M. 2013. Successfully Implementing Lean Six Sigma: The Lean Six Sigma Deployment Roadmap. Saline, MI: Pinnacle Press.

 Google Scholar

Snee, R. D., and R. Hoerl. 2018. Leading Holistic Improvement with Lean Six Sigma 2.0. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey (US): FT Press.

 Google Scholar