Special Issue Article

([Link]) DOI: 10.1002/qre.1852 Published online 31 July 2015 in Wiley Online Library

Lean Six Sigma Implementation in a Food

Processing SME: A Case Study
Manoj Dora*† and Xavier Gellynck
Lean manufacturing has been acknowledged as a methodology to eliminate waste, while Six Sigma has been regarded as a
diagnostic tool to improve processes by eliminating variation. The important objective of both of the methodologies is to
identify the most critical processes to generate savings for an organization. Lean Six Sigma integrates these two
approaches into an effective hybrid method, which combines the variability elimination tools from Six Sigma with the
waste elimination practices from lean manufacturing. This paper aims to study the application of Lean Six Sigma in a
medium-sized confectionary. The results show that the company successfully applied the Lean Six Sigma methodology
and saved a considerable sum of money by reducing overfilling of final product (ginger bread). This study proposes a Lean
Six Sigma framework to reduce overfill and rework. The proposed framework integrates lean tools and Six Sigma Define,
Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control methodology to reduce overfill and rework to enhance the bottom-line results.
The result of this study will help food small- and medium-sized enterprises to effectively apply Lean Six Sigma to reduce
variability and consequent waste in their production process. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2015
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: lean; Six Sigma; food processing; SME

1. Introduction
mproving product/process quality and reducing operational costs are very important aspects for European manufacturers to

I compete with low-cost South Asian economies. ‘Quality Improvement (QI) is a systematic approach to improve an organization by
changing people and processes to improve quality performance’.1 Empirical studies have demonstrated the positive impact of QI
practices, i.e., Lean and Six Sigma, on the business performance variables such as productivity, quality, delivery, employee satisfaction,
and customer satisfaction.2–4 Shah and Ward define lean production in the following terms:
“The core thrust of lean production is that the practices such as just-in-time, quality systems, work teams, cellular
manufacturing, supplier management can work synergistically to create a streamlined, high quality system that produces
finished products at the pace of customer demand with little or no waste.” 5
‘Similarly, Snee explains Six Sigma as a well-established approach that seeks to identify and eliminate defects, mistakes or failures
in business processes or systems by focusing on those process performance characteristics that are of critical importance to
customers’.6 The principle of Six Sigma is to minimize the defect rate down to 3.4 in one million opportunities and control variations
in every process. Six Sigma follows the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control (DMAIC) 7 (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve,
Control) methodology inspired by Deming’s Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle .8,9 Six Sigma uses several tools such as the Pareto chart, process
mapping, and regression analysis in the DMAIC framework .10,11
The Lean Six Sigma methodology (LSM) is a combination of two quality improvement initiatives: Lean and Six Sigma. Snee defines
Lean Six Sigma (LSS) as
“a business improvement strategy used to improve business profitability, to drive out wastes, to reduce cost of poor quality,
and to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of all operations so as to meet or even exceed customers’ needs and
expectations”.6
Lean is a horizontal approach for process improvement whereas Six Sigma is a vertical approach to improve quality and
performance in the organization.12 As discussed earlier, Six Sigma is a structured and very specific problem-solving methodology that
reduces variability within processes, whereas Lean manufacturing focuses on identifying and eliminating wastes, thereby rationalizing
the value stream of business processes. The combination of Lean and Six Sigma techniques address problems both horizontally and

Department of Agriculture Economics, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium

1151

*Correspondence to: Manoj Dora, Department. of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Gent, Belgium.
†
E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1151–1159
 M. DORA AND X. GELLYNCK

vertically. Snee further summarizes the relevance and effectiveness of LSM as follows: ‘first, it integrates both human and process
elements of improvement; second, it has a clear focus on getting bottom-line results; and third, it is a method that sequences and
links improvement tools into an overall approach .6,13’
Literature signifies the maturity of LSM within process and discrete industries. However, there are limited studies that focus on the
implementation of LSM within small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) operating in the food sector12,14,15. The reason might be
attributed to the complex characteristics of food, the food chain, and its production processes16. The food sector is unique because of
the short shelf-life of food products, heterogeneous raw materials, seasonality, varied harvesting conditions, and a complicated supply
chain.17–19 These factors hugely affect storage, conditioning, processing, packaging, and quality control, which make implementation
of LSM further complicated .16 Furthermore, the implementation of LSM depends on organizational factors such as the size of the
organization, the type of suppliers, and customers, the degree of automation, and the type of products and quality assurance
requirements .20,21 Furthermore, past studies illustrated that there is a concern and fear of using statistical tools especially in SMEs.22,23
However, studies also claim that statistics becoming the number one discipline for businesses irrespective of the sizes.24 The purpose
of this paper is to demonstrate the usefulness of LSM in a food SME environment to reduce overfilling. The next section provides the
reader with details of the case study.

2. LSM in a medium-sized confectionary

Literature reveals that the change initiative in an organization often comes from a crisis situation or market demand .25 This study
found a similar pattern in a medium-sized confectionary producing a traditional product. The confectionary is a family-owned food
manufacturing company. It is one of the major producers of ginger bread in Europe. There are 70 people employed in the company.
Production takes place 5 days per week in two shifts per day. Main values of the company are the use of natural ingredients, tradition
and craftsmanship, quality and safety, innovation and product development, sustainability, and employee satisfaction. The annual
review meeting of the confectionary reveals the continuous decline of production in the last 3 years (Figure 1).
Moreover, there was a continuous increase in customer complaints concerning the quality of the product and variation in product
weight. The top level management convened a meeting with operators and senior managers of different departments to discuss the
changes required in the current practices for increasing the market share and customer satisfaction. A cross-functional team was
formed that spent many hours on the shop floor in order to understand different problems associated with the production and
packaging line. The management decided to implement QI initiatives i.e., LSM method to bring changes in the operations and
improve efficiency. In the first phase the management decided to focus on the packaging section, reducing defects and controlling
overfilling of products in the packets. The prime reason for this was to pick the ‘low hanging fruits’ or ‘gain quick results’.
Lean as well as a systematic data-driven approach, DMAIC methodology, was applied to reduce defects and improve the quality of
the ginger bread production in a confectionery. Ginger bread production processes include cooing, mixing, resting, kneading,
forming, baking, cooling, cutting, and packaging. During this study, the processes considered for improvement were cutting and
packaging. Lean techniques such as 5S and visual management help in eliminating waste and non-value added activities from the
packaging section and the streamlining of the operations. LSM has been shown to produce improved quality, and at the same time
reduce costs. It was decided to adopt the LSM methodology (DMAIC) to make process improvements as it is essential to have a
deeper analysis of the process to reduce the mean and variation in product packaging. The activity plans were developed after a
number of meetings with top and middle level management. Table I presents the activity plan for the selected lean six sigma project
following DMAIC methodology.
The following are explanations for all the steps taken in the study and results achieved from the study.

2.1. Define phase

A clear definition of the problem statement is an essential element of the define phase in the LMS execution. In this study, a team was
formed with the operations manager as the team leader. The other team members included a quality manager, one IT executive, and
two members of the packaging staffs. Brainstorming sessions of team members were conducted to identify critical to quality (CTQ)
characteristics based on the voice of customer input. In the meeting the problem of the rework, overfill, and machine downtime
1152

Figure 1. Production (volume)

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1151–1159
M. DORA AND X. GELLYNCK

Table I. Activity plan following DMAIC methodology

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
• Problem definition • Define performance • Select CTQ • Design of experiment • Control chart plotting
characteristics
• Brainstorming • Measurement system • Cause and effect • Screen potential • Share the lessons
analysis diagram causes learnt
• Current state map • Material balance • Identify variation • Discover variable • Mistake proofing
analysis sources relationships exercise
• Project charter

and its impact were discussed. The goal of the team members was to identify the root cause of problems and to reduce the defects
occurring in the product.
In order to obtain an insight, a high level current state map was developed, which gives a closure look at the process so that
opportunities for improvement can be identified. The current state map starts with mother dough preparation and extends all the
way through to shipping. Relevant data such as process cycle time, machine uptime, percentage rework, and overfill are collected
based on interactions with the workers at different work stations. Figure 2 shows the current state map of the ginger bread product.
The current state map identified the work in progress that are partly finished products at various stages of the production process,
especially between process step 1 (mother dough) and step 2 (final dough). Work in progress at various stages was result of rework,
overfill, and machine downtime. Based on the current state map, every possible alternative was prioritized by using the priority
matrix. Criteria being considered to select the most critical projects included the effects on key performance indicators, impact on
customers, data accessibility, hard savings, and the time needed to reach the improvement goal. Among all these candidate projects,
lowering the product weight variation was considered the critical, as it is highly correlated to key performance indicator and
customer impact.
The team leader (operations manager in this case) was responsible for reviewing the project periodically in order to provide
necessary support, i.e., financial and human resource. The team members were trained in collecting data from the respective
processes and acting as change agents. The organization hired an external consultant to support and train the responsible team
members. The team, after detailed discussion, prepared a charter with all the necessary details of the project such as roles and
responsibilities and outlined the project objectives as well as the main stakeholders. The project charter prepared in this study
included a project title, the background and reasons for selecting the project, a goal statement, the team, and a schedule for
the project.

1153

Figure 2. current state map

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1151–1159
 M. DORA AND X. GELLYNCK

2.2. Measure phase

A team was assigned to monitor the rework and overfill occurring in each process step. A high level material balance analysis revealed
a very interesting composition. Out of 100% material that went into the oven only 70% could bring revenue to the company. Thirteen
percent of the material was re-used (essential for the final product), 2.4% cannot be reused (animal feed), 4.6% evaporates in the oven,
and most importantly, around 10% is wasted because of overfill of the final product. Figure 3 provides an overview of the material
balance and an example of overfill ginger bread. Consequently, a project to reduce the product weight variation was eventually
approved by the management.
At the outset, basic descriptive statistics was used to see the variation and intensity of the loss. The following histograms show
the variation in weight of three different types of packets (250 g, 300 g) (Figures 4 and 5). For example, the 300 g pack can vary
between 259 and 525 g. Calculation shows that almost 10% extra ginger bread is being given away. An overview of overfill is
presented in Table II. The team aimed for a target to reduce overfill by 5% in a 3 months’ timeframe.

2.3. Analysis phase

The objective of the team members was to determine the root causes of overfill and identify the significant process parameters
causing the problem. The project team members discussed factors that may lead to a variation in weight by in a brainstorming
session and summarized all the factors in the cause-and-effect diagram (Figure 6). The root causes were discussed in accordance with
method, material, measurement, machine, manpower, and environment. Based on the x-y matrix eight ‘vital few’ factors were
selected: mother dough temperature (MDT), mother dough humidity (MDH), mother dough resting time (MDR), stiffness, damaged
starch, composition of flour, viscosity of the mix (MDV), and dough amount in the depositor (MDD).
After the cause-and-effect analysis, it was essential to identify significant parameters that are tuned properly to achieve only the
desired range of overfill based on three important barriers: data availability, impact on variation, and controllability of factors. In this
phase, two types of analysis were performed: first, statistical analysis for readily available data and second, failure mode effect analysis
for the variables where data were difficult to obtain. For the statistical analysis, the ginger bread packets were collected from each

Figure 3. Measurement of material balance

1154

Figure 4. Weight variation in 300 g packet

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1151–1159
M. DORA AND X. GELLYNCK

Figure 5. Weight variation in 250 g packet

Table II. Overview of overfill (giveaway)

Items Pack of 250 g Pack of 300 g

Total production 1595.789 1070.093

Extra (give away) 159.0387 101.393
Percent 9.97 9.47

1155

Figure 6. Cause and effect diagram

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1151–1159
 M. DORA AND X. GELLYNCK

plate, 30 times during 2 weeks. The ANOVA test was carried out to analyze the data and to know the effect of each factor on the
weight of the ginger bread (Table III). Previous studies, especially in the food sector, used the same quantitative method to estimate
the effects of relevant factors.26 Parameters such as MDT, MDH, MDR, stiffness, damaged starch, and composition of flour, MDV, and
MDD seemed to be influential to the overfill rate.
Similarly, a Pareto chart was prepared to identify the most important factors responsible for overfill. The Pareto chart shown in
Figure 7 illustrates the top reasons that cause overfill.
Further, failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) were carried out to evaluate the risk and priority assessment. Failures are
prioritized according to how serious their consequences are, how frequently they occur, and how easily they can be detected.27
The purpose of the FMEA is to take actions to eliminate or reduce failures, starting with the highest-priority ones. First, all the
manufacturing steps were listed by the team members and all potential failure modes were identified in each step. The effects of
all possible failure modes were then analyzed. Score is assigned for each factor, i.e., severity (SEV), occurrence rate (OCC), and the
ability to detect cause in this process (DET). According to the data gathered in the analysis, all failure modes were ranked by the risk
priority number (RPN), which was calculated by multiplying SEV, OCC, and DET. The higher the RPN of a failure mode is, the more
urgently this failure must be considered for remedial action. The four most critical failure modes are listed according to their RPN
values: MDR (294), MDD (252), MDT (180), and composition of the floor (150). Table IV helps us to understand for which process
function corrective action needs to be applied.
The recognition of potential failure modes associated with each type of failure (MDR, MDD, MDT, and composition of the floor)
helped the team members to initiate corrective actions.
Based on the results of the FMEA, an action plan was proposed to prevent recurrent failures illustrated in Table V.

2.4. Improve phase

The goal of the improve stage is to implement solutions that eliminate the causes of problems and reduce the variation in a process.
Hence, the project team needs to develop ideas to remove root causes and standardize solutions. In this case, the team decided to
carry out a design of experiment (DoE) to optimize the significant process parameters affecting the weight of the ginger bread.
Previous studies suggest the use of a DOE, a statistical technique to investigate effects of multiple factors in the ‘improve’ phase .28,29

Table III. ANOVA tests result for each factor

Variable name P-value Decision

Mother dough temperature P = 0.001 < 0.05 Significant

Mother dough humidity P = 0.003 < 0.05 Significant
Mother dough resting time P = 0.001 < 0.05 Significant
Stiffness P = 0.065 < 0.05 Marginal
Damaged starch P = 0.073 < 0.05 Marginal
Composition of flour P = 0.005 < 0.05 Significant
Viscosity of the mix P = 0.007 < 0.05 Significant
Dough amount in depositor P = 0.001 < 0.05 Significant
1156

Figure 7. Pareto chart for factors responsible for overfill

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1151–1159
M. DORA AND X. GELLYNCK

Table IV. Failure mode and effect analysis

Process Effect of Cause of Current
No function Failure mode failure SEV failure OCC process DET RPN
1 Mother Early or late Impact weight 7 Stocking 7 Stock and 6 294
dough pick up and taste pattern pick
resting time
2 Dough Manual Change in 7 Manual 6 Manual 6 252
amount in measurement weight and measurement measurement
depositor shape
3 Mother High or low Defective 6 No 6 Temperature 5 180
dough temp. size temperature control
temperature control
4 Composition Imbalance Unstructured 6 Human error 5 Manual 5 150
of flour mix mixing

Table V. Proposed action plan and RPN value

No Action Action results SEV OCC DET
1 FIFO storage Proper resting time 7 7 6
2 Dough amount in depositor Proper measurement system 7 6 6
3 Controlled room temperature Temperature under control 6 6 5
4 Standard mixing procedure Controlled mixing 6 5 5

In this project, the team decided to perform a design experiment with the previous five process parameters identified from the
analysis phase. Each process parameter was studied at two levels in order to keep the size of the experiment at a minimum as well
as to minimize time and cost constraints. DoE was conducted using the process parameters identified from the previous phase, such
as MDT, MDH, MDR, MDV, and the MDD. A coded design matrix for the five significant variables (MDT, MDH, MDR, MDV, and MDD)
was created. A two1-full factorial design was chosen so that both the main effects and the interaction effects among the parameters
could be investigated. In order to have sufficient degrees of freedom for studying both the main effects and interaction effects, each
trial condition was replicated twice.
The average dough amount before the experiment was 15 kg. As the objective of the experiment was to find the right dough
amount, the first target of the analysis was to determine the effect of process parameters and to understand the presence of any
interactions, if present. Confirmation trials were carried out using optimal settings and the average dough amount was computed
to be 13.700 kg. Moreover, the process variability was significantly reduced as well. The process capability has improved from 0.79
to 1.12, which indicates a significant improvement to the process performance.
A non-DoE qualitative improvement was proposed for the factors such as stiffness of the dough, damaged starch, and composition
of flour. The DoE analysis demonstrates that the MDD was the most critical factor. The measurement system was installed to control
the amount of the dough in the depositor. It is important to note that it was not possible to measure every parameter quantitatively;
hence, some of the parameters, such as damaged stretch, were discussed in the group and suitable local actions were taken.

2.5. Control phase

The main purpose of the SM is not only to improve the process performance but also to have the improved results sustained in the
long run. Hence, the standardization of the optimal process parameters setting was prepared. In this case ‘MDD’ was used as a quality
characteristics. The actions, such as precise measurement of dough in the depositor, temperature, and rest time were implemented
sequentially, and the results were monitored in a control phase. To give a visual demonstration, control charts were plotted
prominently at the shop floor as shown in Figure 8.

3. Bottom-line
The bottom-line result of the LSS project carried out in a confectionery is very encouraging, especially considering the fact that the
1157

confectionery is a medium-sized enterprise. From this single project, an estimated 28 125 euro per month is being saved. The yearly
saving was estimated to be 337 500 euro illustrated in Table VI.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1151–1159
 M. DORA AND X. GELLYNCK

Figure 8. Counteraction plan for overfill

Table VI. Bottom-line

Before (July 2011) After (August 2011 onwards)
Average production per month: 450 000 kg Average production per month: 450 000 kg
Average overfill: 10% (45 000 kg) Overfill reduced by: 5% (22 500 kg)
Cost of production: 1 kg = 1.25 € Cost of production: 1 kg = 1.25 €
Loss because of overfill: 56 250 € per month Savings because of LSM project: 28 125 € per month
Estimated saving: 28 125 € per month, Estimated saving per year: 337 500 €

The most important benefit of this project was a rise in the confidence level of the management as well as employees to carry out
such projects. The team was able to overcome several constraints (lack of time, statistical skill, and financial resources) to make it a
successful project. Furthermore, the team also started another project to reduce defects in packaging—the second most wasteful
aspect in the company.

4. Key takeaway
The biggest takeaway from this LSM project for the company is the target-oriented team work as a cross functional team. This was
one of the first quality improvement projects undertaken in a confectionary environment. The study draws out valuable lessons for
the academics, consultants, researchers, and practitioners of continuous improvement initiatives such as LSS. The following points
summarize the results and difficulties of the LSS implementation in a food processing SME:
1. The natural factors (humidity, temperature, and moisture) are critical and very difficult to control in a cost effective way.
2. Variation in raw materials (floor and honey) were other important barrier.
3. The traditional setup and layout and the quality assurance requirements were found to be the important constraints.
4. The role of the top management and team work were key to success of the project.
5. Organizational factors such as structure, remuneration, and change agent substantially affected the LSS implementation.

5. Conclusions
This case study illustrates the application of LSM to resolve the problem of overfill and defects in a medium-sized confectionary. The
objective of this study was to explore the practical implication of a LSM model in a food processing environment. The successful
implementation of a LSS framework provided stimulus for establishing best practice within the whole process. The methodological
implementation accomplished the reduction in overfill and defects. The improvement led to an increase in cycle time and a reduction
of machine breakdown. Overfill was one of the prime reasons of machine downtimes because wrong package sizes or out of size
specifications often causing hindrances to the machine operations. A significant improvement was observed in the key performance
metrics after the implementation of the LSM strategy. The study further helped with increasing the employees’ morale and team
feeling. Further, the managerial implication of this study is significant in the food processing industry compared with typical
1158

production, where the application of LSS methods is standard, like automotive industry. The core challenge for the food industry
are the perishability of the product and the role of the climatic condition, which are often difficult to control. In most cases, food

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1151–1159
M. DORA AND X. GELLYNCK

processing SMEs lack control over such critical processes. This study helped the management to review the metrics related to the
process performance. One critical lesson learnt from this project is that use of data and proper statistical analysis improved the
confidence level of the employees as well as the top management even in a SME environment.

References
1. Shokri A, Nabhani F, Hodgson S. Supplier development practice: arising the problems of upstream delivery for a food distribution SME in the UK.
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 2010; 26:639–646.
2. Mann R, Kehoe D. An evaluation of the effects of quality improvement activities on business performance. International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management 1994; 11:29–44.
3. Samson D, Terziovski M. The relationship between total quality management practices and operational performance. Journal of Operations
Management 1999; 17:393–409.
4. Kumar M, Antony J. Comparing the quality management practices in UK SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems 2008; 108:1153–1166.
5. Shah R, Ward P. Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance. Journal of Operations Management 2003; 21:129–149.
6. Snee RD. Lean Six Sigma–getting better all the time. Sigma 2010; 1:9–29.
7. Lynch RL, Cross KF. Measure up!: yardsticks for continuous improvement. Wiley: Oxford, 1995.
8. Dean J Jr, Bowen D. Management theory and total quality: improving research and practice through theory development. Academy of Management
Review 1994; 19:392–418.
9. Lee KL, Wei CC. Reducing mold changing time by implementing Lean Six Sigma. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 2010; 26:387–395.
10. Harry MJ, Schroeder RR. Six sigma: the breakthrough management strategy revolutionizing the world’s top corporations. Broadway Business:
New York, 2000.
11. Goh TN. Six Sigma in industry: some observations after twenty-five years. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 2011; 27:221–227.
12. Dora M et al. Food quality management system: reviewing assessment strategies and a feasibility study for European food small and medium-sized
enterprises. Food Control 2013; 31:607–616.
13. Brady J, Allen T. Six Sigma literature: a review and agenda for future research. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 2006; 22:335–367.
14. Abdulmalek FA, Rajgopal J, Needy KLS. A classification scheme for the process industry to guide the implementation of lean. Engineering
Management Journal 2006; 18:15–25.
15. Mahalik NP. Editorial. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2010; 21:115–116.
16. Dora M et al. Operational performance and critical success factors of lean manufacturing in European food processing SMEs. Trends in Food Science
& Technology 2013; 31:156–164.
17. Luning P, Marcelis W, Jongen W. Food quality management: a techno-managerial approach. CSIRO: Wageningen, 2002.
18. Gellynck X, Molnar A. Chain governance structures: the European traditional food sector. British Food Journal 2009; 111:762–775.
19. Shokri A, Nabhani F, Hodgson S. Supplier development practice: Arising the problems of upstream delivery for a food distribution SME in the UK.
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 2010; 26:639–646.
20. Dora M et al. Application of lean practices in small and medium-sized food enterprises. British Food Journal 2013; 116:125–141.
21. Dora M, Kumar M, Gellynck X. Determinants and barriers to lean implementation in food-processing SMEs–a multiple case analysis. Production
Planning & Control 2015:1–23; doi: 10.1080/09537287.2015.1050477.
22. Nonthaleerak P, Hendry L. Exploring the six sigma phenomenon using multiple case study evidence. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 2008; 28:279–303.
23. Dora M, Gellynck X. House of lean for food processing SMEs. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2015; 44:272–281.
24. Wynn H, Ograjenšek I. Is statistics becoming the number one discipline for business and industry? Quality and Reliability Engineering International
2010; 26:789–793.
25. Fink SL, Beak J, Taddeo K. Organizational crisis and change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 1971; 7:15–37.
26. Hung H-C, Sung M-H. Applying six sigma to manufacturing processes in the food industry to reduce quality cost. Scientific Research and Essays 2011;
6:580–591.
27. Stamatis DH. Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution. ASQ Quality Press: Milwaukee, 2003.
28. Stamatis DH. Six Sigma Fundamentals: A Complete Introduction to the System, Methods, and Tools. SteinerBooks: New York, 2004.
29. Gijo E, Rao T. Six sigma implementation–hurdles and more hurdles. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 2005; 16:721–725.

Authors' biographies
Dr. Manoj DORA is a Ford Foundation fellow and completed his master degree at Vanderbilt University in the USA. His doctoral thesis
is on ‘Lean manufacturing in small-sized and medium-sized food processing enterprises: practice, performance, and its determining
factors’. He has more than 12 years of experience in research, training, and consultancy services in the area of applied economics and
agri-business management worldwide (Asia, America, Europe, and Africa). He is currently working on operational efficiency
improvement in organizations at Ghent University, Belgium. He has delivered talks at many international conferences and seminars
on Business Process Excellence topics.
Professor Dr. Xavier GELLYNCK graduated with a degree in Master of Science in Industrial Economics at Ghent University, Belgium.
He obtained an MBA degree in Marketing Management of Service Industries from the Business School IAAE at the University of Aix-
Marseille in France. Since 1991, he has worked at Ghent University, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Department Agricultural
Economics and Division Agro-Food Marketing. His main fields of research interest are situated in the domain of agro-food marketing
and chain management. He is the author of about 300 scientific publications of which several have been published in peer-reviewed
scientific journals and books.
1159

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2015, 31 1151–1159