Kaizen and Six Sigma are both management philosophies focused on continuous improvement. Both philosophies try to increase the efficiency of a business process by eliminating waste and reducing defects.

History

Kaizen is an ancient Japanese philosophy that strives to continually improve all aspects of a person's life; the Japanese workforce first used it in business shortly after World War II. Six Sigma was first implemented in 1986 by Bill Smith at Motorola.

Function

Kaizen looks to improve all aspects of a business through standardizing processes, increasing efficiency and eliminating waste. Six Sigma focuses more on improving the quality of the final product by finding and eliminating causes of defects, whether by variances in the business process or in manufacturing.

Facts

Kaizen focuses on improvement, looking at every employee from top management to entry level positions. Sigma is a mathematical term that measures a process' deviation from perfection.

Differences

Six Sigma uses more statistical analysis than Kaizen; Six Sigma aims for as close to zero defects as possible, calling for a maximum of 3.4 defects for every million opportunities, which creates a 99.9997 percent success rate.

Benefits

Six Sigma and Kaizen help save money for companies; Motorola has reported saving $17 billion since 2006 because of Six Sigma. More than half of the Fortune 500 companies use Six Sigma, including General Electric and Honeywell. Toyota and Canon both reported saving money and increasing efficiency by using Kaizen.

Kaizen isn't so much a methodology as it needs to be a "belief" system. A recognition that there is always a better way and what is currently being done today, may not be good enough tomorrow.

The method typically read about is a "Kaizen Event" which in essence is just a group continuous improvement event. These events are typically 3-5 days, with the team being made up of cross-functional group (engineering, supervisions, maintenance, etc.) of approximately 5-8 people. Too many people and its easy for people to wander.

Tools employed are typically spaghetti charts, data collection (revolving around time, distance, etc.), brainstorming...in essence, a kaizen event won't typically employ people running around with laptops and Minitab performing Design of Experiments. The target is typically quick, simple solutions which may result in longer term opportunities (better, more robust jigs and fixtures).

Six Sigma is usually broader in scope and more statistically driven. A person will see "Lean Six Sigma" thrown out in abundance nowadays but I think that's more of a marketing gimmick than anything. It is important to remember that Kaizen and Six Sigma have somewhat different purposes, Kaizen largely being targeted at reductions in non-value added activities (although variation reduction does occur through simply designed jigs, fixtures, and workplaces), while Six Sigma's main emphasis is on variation reduction. It's sort of a chicken before the egg thing but if a choice is made....start with waste reduction which can be accomplished in an extremely short period of time.

If I had a choice, my preference, at least initially would be in focusing on waste reduction efforts and not the Six Sigma approach. Having been trained in both, I've run into a few people who have been through the "Lean Six Sigma" hybrid and have not been overly impressed. If your embarking down the road, utilize

your manufacturing extension service in your area for some Lean training and get yourself a good quality engineer. From there, you should be able to handle about 80% of what you'll run into.

As the world grows more and more global, firms find themselves in direct competition with companies all over the planet. Besides strong brands, customer proximity and further sales strategies, quality has become a major component for the competitive advantage of organizations. Today’s philosophy is no longer mass production like in the beginning of the 20th century, but the provision of high quality goods at affordable prices. In order to follow this strategy, organizations have to set a larger focus on quality itself.

The conduct of quality management within many firms is often targeted at simply avoiding that product deficiencies reach the end consumer. This, however, incorporates rework, replacement of parts and other measures, thus resulting in additional costs. Modern quality management intends to avoid these negative characteristics by adding quality already to the process. This is also the basic background of Kaizen and Six Sigma, two modern management methods ensuring the provision of quality in a broader sense, not only in form of the end product, but already within production processes and services. Kaizen and Six Sigma provide increased quality output by improving processes, thereby decreasing costs. Thus, their implementation also increases the profitability of an organization.

Despite their different origin, background and orientation, Kaizen and Six Sigma feature many similarities which form the basis for entering into the question about their compatibility.

On the basis of theoretical analysis as well as empirical interviews conducted with experts in the fields of Kaizen and Six Sigma, the conclusion of this thesis suggests that Kaizen and Six Sigma can complement and support each other in different ways.

This thesis will further provide a guideline for the implementation procedure for quality management based on the assumptions of Kaizen and Six Sigma. This guideline is to support executives willing to apply quality initiatives in their organization to successfully accomplish the implementation.

During the early 1900s the era of craft production at which only one item was produced at a time by well educated and highly skilled technicians started to move towards its end. Craft production was characterized by manufacturing individual products exactly meeting an individual customers requirement. Despite the wonderful idea that every consumer could specify quite individual wishes, craft production also featured negative sides, like the high prices for the end product which were also the driving force for its fall. At a time at which a large mass of people sought for cheap products, for instance automobiles affordable for almost everyone, mass production edged out craft production of its previously strong position. By manufacturing large amounts of automobiles which were characterized by user friendliness and easy handling, Henry Ford, pioneer in the production of automobiles and founder of mass production, managed to supply a major part of the demanding public with passenger vehicles at highly attractive prices. Thus, a great number of more or less equal vehicles had been produced to satisfy the market; however, the low price was offered at the expense of quality.1

By the end of the 20th century consumer demands and purchasing habits underwent a further change. Customers were no longer willing to spend their savings on products with inferior quality, which made rework and reparation necessary; in extreme cases already a short time after the product left the factory.

The living standards of the population increased and thus customers asked for more premium goods promising a longer product life.2 Today, customers are no longer willing to accept inferior quality products regardless of their price. For this reason, quality and quality management methods became a very important part of modern business strategy. Organizations can no longer afford to produce goods featuring minor quality and to pass on this inferiority to the end consumer. Despite the existence of warranty periods, customers will decide against the purchase of a

further product offered by the respective company. In addition, corrections done within the warranty periods result in high additional costs for firms, making the provision of mended quality even more expensive.3

In today’s competitive environment organizations can no longer afford to waste their time with the correction of defects or to cure malicious gossip. A significant portion of companies have recognized the importance of quality and also the importance of providing it from the first moment on, giving the customer a feeling of confidence when purchasing a product provided by this firm. A significant number of companies apply modern management methods focusing on the provision of premium quality to win satisfied customers. Although this may appear as an expensive undertaking, modern quality management provides for ways which will not only result in qualitative superiority, but at the same time also in a reduction of expenses and thus in profitability for the firm.4

Many companies have tried to find an optimum system to efficiently manage production, operations and personnel and thereby they often intend to follow the well known examples of the Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota) and General Electrics (GE), two leading companies in their respective segment having implemented one of two considerable management methods, namely Kaizen and Six Sigma. These two management methods approach companywide quality in both production and process for the main goals of profitability and customer loyalty.5 Kaizen and Six Sigma provide for measures to successfully reduce the amount of defects occurring during a production process by avoiding mistakes from the first instance or by analyzing a company’s current operation level which will then be subject to improvement.6

Modern quality management methods are a valuable asset to companies which, in case applied correctly, can result in a competitive advantage for the business.

Several different management systems are or have been applied by organizations in order to increase process efficiency and quality. By comparing several different strategies with on

another, Kaizen and Six Sigma seemed to have a quite close relationship, which often caused critics to accuse these two methods of incorporating the same concept under two different names.

Firms profit or take a leading position in competitive environments when the quality of their products meets or exceeds the expectations of their customers.7 However, at the outset of the 21st century the conditions of business environment changeddrastically.8 Product quality is an indispensable feature for both the manufacturing and service industry. From the perspective of the customer, service even became part of the overall quality of products, which is thus the reason why business attention moves closer towards the quality of processes.9

Management systems like Kaizen and Six Sigma were designed in order to improve the quality performance of processes and thereby also the final product. These improvement methodologies differ from conventional quality management in several ways. While traditional quality management is simply applied to make sure that defects or inferiority of products do not reach the customer, Kaizen and Six Sigma are already applied during the process of production. They do not seek to mend minor quality at the end of the manufacturing process, but to improve the process responsible for poor results.10

When talking about quality management systems, quite often the question about the roots of the mistakes which are to be avoided under Kaizen and Six Sigma arises. As a matter of fact, no company has the intention to make mistakes and so all organisations undertake some measures to avoid them. However, Kaizen and Six Sigma provide a systematic approach of how to go about these problems. These two methods try to identify and analyze the roots of all defects and eliminate all factors which could harm the quality of the end product. By making mistakes during the process and trying to mend them in the end, a company loses valuable time and resources which could be employed otherwise (in the form of opportunity costs).11

Kaizen and Six Sigma do not only go about avoiding mistakes, but also about improving processes by identifying and eliminating potentialities for defects. At this point, it is important to analyze the status quo at which an organization performs at the moment in time of the implementation of a management method. Both management systems do so in a systematic way which assists companies in their intention of defect elimination and improvement. Both Kaizen and Six Sigma are similarly successful in these undertakings.12

In how far Kaizen and Six Sigma are management systems, is open to discussion. A management system may be defined as a company’s process of strategic planning, and .translating the strategic plan into and execution plan including operational targets..13 Kaizen and Six Sigma may be an element of the execution plan or a management system by itself. In the proceedings of this paper, Kaizen and Six Sigma will be named interchangeably with the terms management system or management method.

Quality is if a product keeps what it promises. It is a product which does not have to be returned to the producer due to defects of any kind.

In summary the survey showed that there is no single definition of quality and it proves the assumption that quality cannot be defined in principle. Despite the fact that the most important authorities in the area of quality management often teach similar approaches, their definitions of quality differ greatly as well.

DEMING, an American statistician and business consultant in quality issues, defines quality as anything that enhances the product from the viewpoint of the customer..15 However, in his book Out of the Crisis he prefers to describe quality with examples, rather than providing a definition.

AGUAYO, author of the book Dr. Deming, The American Who Taught The Japanese About Quality, decided to explain what quality is not, instead of giving an exact wording.

JURAN is also a main authority in quality consultancy, defining quality as .fitness for use or purpose..16 JURAN argues that

quality improvement does not take place coincidently, but it is a planned undertaking performed in form of various projects.17

By defining quality with .conformance to requirement.18, CROSBY, also a consultant in quality matters, introduces the notion of zero defects as quality standard. In his mind, quality is simply anything that corresponds to or satisfies the requirements made. In business, it may be referred to as requirements of customers towards the product or service of an organisation.19 There are several consultants or .gurus. having had major influence on modern forms of quality management, nevertheless, most characteristics of the management methods Kaizen or Six Sigma can be traced back to DEMING.s teachings on which also other quality management authorities build their work.20

Kaizen is based on the idea that no day should pass by without change, or preferably, improvement.35 In the Japanese mind change takes place all the time. An old saying states that if one did not see a man for three days, one should pay special attention and observe how he changed during that time. Kaizen takes place everywhere: in daily life, in households and firms; it may even be the case that people do not know that it is in actual fact part of their life.36

The term Kaizen was introduced to Quality Management by IMAI, author of the book The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success. IMAI was an employee at Philips at the time when the company started to introduce a program for the improvement of quality. He took up on the idea that the program was to improve everything happening at Philips and started to name the process of positive change

Background

Two decades before the oil crisis of the 1970s the world economy boomed. Insatiable demand for new technologies and products, rapidly expanding markets, customer-orientation towards quantity rather than quality and cheap raw materials were typical characteristics of the business climate during this time; a period at which innovative strategies flourished.40

The oil crises of 1973 and 1979 totally altered the business environment. Consumer behavior changed with the demand for higher

quality, at the same time costs for raw materials, energy and labor significantly increased. Moreover, companies were confronted with rising competition in small and saturated markets.41 Despite the drastic changes in foreign trade, Western managers retained innovation as a strategy and ignored warnings and demands from customers that a different approach would have been indispensable. Western managers did not take notice of the approximation of the competitive threat of Japanese firms, a fact that was to cause significant disadvantages for Western companies in the years to follow.42

Particularly in the 1970s and 1980s the efficiency and importance of quality management methods was broadly recognized. The advancement of the Japanese competition gave a first impulse to emulate the characteristics of far Eastern management. The question whether Japanese management methods can also be applied internationally, despite historical and cultural factors, emerged.43

However, quality management is not necessarily a cultural issue, it is rather a mentality.44

.Kaizen..37

Kaizen derives from the two Japanese words Kai and Zen. Kai stands for change and Zen means in a positive sense. Altogether, it stands for continuous improvement.38 Being part of both business and private life, the word Kaizen spread around the world and became known as the most important Japanese management method permanently striving for improvement. Essential is not only improvement on products, but also the improvement of all procedures which include production, commercialization and customer care, as well as the constant and further development of employees.39

Dimensions of Kaizen

In order for Kaizen to have a strong and explicit impact on a company’s operations, it needs to have considerable significance among management. In many companies it enjoys high importance, in others it is just regarded as a minor matter. However, a study conducted by SCHWAGER revealed that only seldom Kaizen as minor

important matter leads to successful improvements. The results of this study reveal that the valuation and comprehension of improvement programs are part of the success and effectiveness of Kaizen. Therefore, it should enjoy top priority and everyone in the company should participate in it.91

Kaizen is too important as to abandon it to only a few experts or to a designated group of people.92 As Figure 6 explains, everyone in the company does not only have a certain position in Kaizen, they are always included in Kaizen processes. Every employee, from top management to workers should actively participate in the three segments into which Kaizen can be divided:

1. Management-oriented Kaizen: The Kaizen process is started by management and usually supported by experts. It involves teams and specialists from top management whose responsibilities have an emphasis on the improvement of systems and procedures.

2. Group-oriented Kaizen: continuous improvement as a component of group work is dealt with within QCs. The members and leader of a group individually act within the scope of their direct field of responsibility.

3. Person-oriented Kaizen: In the scope of .idea-management. and an improved suggestion system, individuals submit ideas for improvements resulting in self-development and higher Kaizen-commitment.93

Each of these three dimensions has specific responsibilities and tasks which all contribute to the success of the whole Kaizen system.94 Six Sigma is a methodology for the measurement of a company’s overall performance. According to HARRY, the indisputable authority behind the Six Sigma theory, it is defined as a business process enabling a company to drastically

improve its results, including waste reduction and increased customer satisfaction.113 The Purpose of this approach is the collection of quantitative data in order to evaluate a company.s sigma level, which represents the quality of its processes in terms of defects per million opportunities (DPMO).114 A company operating on a level of Six Sigma counts about 3.4 DPMO, which means that it strives for near perfection. However, most

companies operate on a three or four sigma level at which between 66,807 to 6,210 DPMO may occur.115

Like in Kaizen, a defect can be defined as anything that falls short of customers.expectations or negatively affects a process or service. Any variation can causesuch unacceptable deviations from the mean. Therefore, Six Sigma seeks toreduce or even eliminate the amount of defects which in turn will lead to anoptimization of processes, productivity improvement and customer retention. 116These are objectives that are followed by most management methods, however,Six Sigma promises an additional, very favourable characteristic. As it will bediscussed in the following pages, a central idea of the Six Sigma concept is thatquality should not cost, but rather save money. Therefore it assumes anaugmentation of profitability and the rate of return, real money a company cansave.117The name Six Sigma derives from the Greek letter ó (sigma) which is used to

describe the standard deviation. The standard deviation is the value which

represents the average distance of a set of scores from the mean. The smaller the

value of the standard deviation of a set of data, the closer it is to the mean.118

113 Kroslid (2003), p. 19

114 iSix Sigma LCC (n.d.a. b), n.p.a.

115 Magnusson (2004), p. 39

116 Harry (2002), p. 22

117 Ibid., p.15

118 Magnusson (2004), p. 6

38

2.3.1. Background

The theory of Six Sigma was developed in the late 1970s by Motorola, a

recognized global technology leader. At a time at which companies put

considerable efforts in the provision of high quality for which substantial

investments seemed necessary, managers at Motorola developed the idea of

decreasing these costs by avoiding mistakes from the first moment on. The costs

for quality include both price of production and expenses for the correction of

qualitative inferior goods, the latter of which was to be eliminated by a production

without errors. Further, it was suggested to reduce waste of supplies.119

These theories were developed by SMITH, an engineer at the Motorola IT

department. Although in the early days confronted with scepticism, the

combination of superior quality with cost reductions formed the basis of today.s Six

Sigma concept, allowing a more active, rather than reactive approach.120

In 1987 Motorola implemented the newly developed quality program Six Sigma in

all areas of the company in order to close on the lead the Japanese electrical

industry had during that time. Already in the first couple of years Motorola was

rewarded with high savings.121

Six Sigma was relatively unknown until the mid 1990s when well-known

companies in both Europe and the Unites States (US) started to follow the

remarkable quality improvement of Motorola. With the implementation of the

quality program at GE, Six Sigma made a name for itself and the concept spread

to other continents and industries. Six Sigma was developed by Motorola; however

GE is the company which made it famous.122

A PROFOUND COMPARISON

Lining up Kaizen and Six Sigma next to each other, the observer will identify a

large amount of similarities between these two systems. The number of similarities

may exceed the amount of differences; however the latter are very significant and

have a major impact. Figure 16 identifies the most important distinctions.

Figure 16: Major Differences between Kaizen and Six Sigma

DEMING

Kaizen Six Sigma

Despite the evidence that both Kaizen and Six Sigma work in practice, they are

still the centre of major criticism. Severe critics of modern quality theories argue

that nothing new had been developed since DEMING taught his thoughts about

quality. They comment that improvement strategies like Six Sigma and Kaizen

simply took on and renamed already existing theories like some companies solely

change the packaging of a product and introduce it to the market as brand-new

commodity. Further arguments revile modern management methods as being all

equal . the same goals, the same concept, and the same tools.

70

On the one side, these opinions are accurate. The Kaizen umbrella unfolds a

variety of measures and includes tools which can be found in the concept of other

management methods. JIT management and Kanban derive from logistics rather

than quality management and for sure have originally been developed for different

reasons than the improvement of the quality of an end product. However, superior

logistic strategies contribute to the quality of the whole process of production and

are therefore applied in quality management.

Six Sigma and the idea of reducing variation is probably more different to

conventional quality management as it uses statistical theories to reach superior

quality. Nevertheless, the idea of input . process . output is also part of logistics

teachings and the all praised DMAIC road map can be traced back to DEMING.s

PDCA cycle. Further, the DPMO concept derives from the theory of defects per

unit, simply represented in a more modern way.227

These thoughts are only the basis of the criticism defining Kaizen and Six Sigma

as very similar or even equal. In fact, these two methodologies have a lot in

common. If one would line up the features characterising them, there would be an

80% overlap.228 Nevertheless, differences having a major impact on the conduct,

practice and outcome do exist and have to be taken seriously.

This chapter will compare Kaizen and Six Sigma with one another and put their

characteristics to discussion. The differences identified will be further investigated

in chapter 4.2, which will also deal with the compatibility of the two methodologies

to the corporate targets of organisations.

227 Ramberg (2000), n.p.a.

228 Rush (2006), n.p.a.

71

4.1. Kaizen and Six Sigma Compared

The majority of similarities between Kaizen and Six Sigma originate in DEMING.s

theories of customer-orientation, process-orientation, waste reduction and defect

elimination. These theories from the early 1900s never lost their validity and still

form the basis of modern quality management. DEMING.s teachings were further

investigated and his theories developed, so that they would suit to the specific

requirements and needs of an organisation. As a matter of fact, the practices of

either Kaizen or Six Sigma are not 100% equal in all organisations around the

globe; there are always additions or combinations with other tools, like for instance

the TPS which Toyota interlinked with its Kaizen operations.

Both Kaizen and Six Sigma strive for improvement and premium quality. Despite

these similar or even equal targets, their approaches to go about them as well as

the obstacles to be overcome to reach the various milestones on the path to best

in class differ in many ways.

4.1.1. Goal- vs. Process-orientation

Process-orientation and its advantageous effect on the end product have already

been sufficiently discussed; therefore its importance should be obvious by now.

Nevertheless, it has been argued, that it is not only process-orientation with which

a company manages to change to the better. A healthy portion of goal orientation

connected to it is indispensable as well.229

Six Sigma primarily intends to reach profitability, to increase the net profit visible

on the corporate financial statements. The process of improvement is rather seen

as a secondary effect, ranked high as it was identified that quality is the driving

force leading to financial profits. Six Sigma.s goal orientation is directed towards

the defined target of profitability, a target which those companies having

implemented this methodology decided to follow. In other words, processorientation

in Six Sigma is the sheer strategy to reach the defined goal.230

229 Rush (2006), n.p.a.

230 Harry (2002), p. 15

72

Goal orientation is important in order to have a focus, a direction in which the

improvement of a process should go. Also at GE, the targets to be reached were

set first, and then it was identified how Six Sigma can go about their achievement

in the most sufficient way. Finally, all projects were reviewed and only those which

were likely to reach the goal were initiated. 231

The objective of Kaizen is put together conversely. In the centre of this philosophy

stand increased quality levels, continuous improvement and never ending change.

These goals are processes that take place continuously and never come to an

end. The Kaizen philosophy states that there is always room for further

improvement. Perfection is seen as illusion and unreachable, however one may

get very close to it. Profitability and financial returns are accompanied by this

movement towards premium quality, but the reason for undertaking all these

efforts remains quality together with customer loyalty.

Several milestones appear during the enduring interplay of continuous

improvement and innovation, but also within leadership, that may be pointed out

as set goals. As far as leadership is concerned, Kaizen intends to make clear to all

employees why an organisation carries it out and how everyone can contribute to

positive change. Reaching employee conviction in that matter could possibly be

defined as a goal, but still it is a goal the persisting success of which needs to be

maintained, thus resulting again in a never ending process.

In fact, both Kaizen and Six Sigma have identified goals. In Kaizen it is superior

quality output, while in Six Sigma profitability as well as reaching a quality level of

six sigma are fundamental. While the latter strategy seems to have accomplished

its goal once operating on a six sigma level, the former proceeds to adhere to its

practices. While Six Sigma identified an overall goal, Kaizen operations do never

end.

CONCLUSION

In the very beginning of this thesis the research question of whether Kaizen and

Six Sigma, two quality management methods which are said to be very alike but

still different, could be connected with or even supplement one another, had been

defined. Kaizen as quality culture involving every single employee of an

organisation and Six Sigma as road map for improvement projects, were designed

to restructure already existing ideas of quality management to become even more

successful than previous strategies.

The previous pages of this thesis disclaimed the assumptions that Kaizen or Six

Sigma were simply fashions and that they were just the same concept or

compilation of tools given different names. It has been made clear that Kaizen and

Six Sigma are different from one another, also because the equal tools applied are

often interpreted differently.

Kaizen and Six Sigma can significantly increase the quality output of a company.

The major focus on process-orientation, customer satisfaction, waste and defect

reduction as well as the consideration of cost of poor quality themselves, already

provide a profound basis for companies to be successful.

What had been asked in the research question of this thesis was whether these

already individually standing strategies could be combined, and if, whether this

combination would cause even more favourable results.

Thus, the first conclusion can be drawn: Kaizen and Six Sigma can exist next to

each other in one organisation.298

Kaizen and Six Sigma can be connected and thereby supplement each other in

three different ways. First of all, both management methods can be applied to a

company.s overall operations or to one single project. To give one example, it has

been mentioned that Six Sigma does not include an employee suggestion system

in the same way as Kaizen makes use of the knowledge and experience of its staff

members. Six Sigma.s VOE barely provides the opportunity to give opinions and

provide ideas by the time an employee has a sudden inspiration, while the

suggestion system under Kaizen allows more independence and therefore

enables employees to submit their ideas at any point in time. The suggestion

system can, without any problems, be attached to daily Six Sigma practices. It

might be the case that other tools under Kaizen may not be as applicable as

employee suggestion system; however, this example showed that a combination is

possible.

Another example would be to state that although Six Sigma is characterized by

immediate perfection, meaning that all steps should be planned and investigated

clearly before action is taken, continuous improvement may also apply in this

case. Although project teams provide a profound basis with planning and

investigating projects, there are always factors which are beyond human control

and thereby a team has to respond to the new situation as quickly as possible.

This can be considered as continuous improvement within the planning or acting

phase of the Six Sigma road map.

The second way how to combine Kaizen and Six Sigma is to identify the most

suitable strategy for each individual project. By going about improvement,

companies undertake a great variety of projects which are in no case absolutely

equal. There are always small characteristics which distinguish one project from

another. Therefore, some projects will be more suitable to Kaizen, while other

improvements should rather be carried out by the application of Six Sigma.

298 Schweiszer (2007), n.p.a.

101

Thereby, an organisation may profit best by applying those methods which

promise the best efforts to each project.

To explain the third way of Kaizen and Six Sigma combination, we will once more

use the example of GE which implemented Six Sigma in every business unit world

wide. In fact, it was not left open to discussion if a business unit would prefer a

different management system to be launched as it could probably identify itself

better with it. WELCH made the decision for Six Sigma implementation for all

employees, for all business units and establishments of GE. However, instead of

forcing all business units to comply with the same strategy launched by the head

office, it is also possible to allow each individual establishment to decide which

quality management method it prefers to implement.299 Siemens is only one

example of firms applying both Kaizen and Six Sigma, not interchangeably but in

individual business units.300

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Aguayo R. (1990); Dr. Deming . The American who taught the Japanese about

quality; New York: Fireside . Simon & Schuster

Bank J. (1992): The essence of total quality management, Hertfordshire: Prentice

Hall International (UK) Ltd.

Brehm S. (2001); Konzepte zur Unternehmensveränderung; Wiesbaden:

Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag

Brue G., Launsby R. G. (2003); Design for Six Sigma; New York: McGraw Hill

books

Deming W. E. (1982); Out of the Crisis . Quality, Productivity, and Competitive

Position; Melbourne/Sydney: Cambridge University Press

Eckes G. (2001); Making Six Sigma Last . Managing the Balance between

Cultural and Technical Change; New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Gamweger J., Jöbstl O. (2006); Six Sigma Belt Training; München, Wien: Carl

Hanser Verlag

Harry M., Schroeder R. (2002); Six Sigma - Prozesse optimieren, Null-Fehler-

Qualität schaffen, Rendite radikal steigern; Frankfurt/Main: Campus Verlag

GmbH

Imai M. (1992); Der Schlüssel zum Erfolg der Japaner im Wettbewerb; München:

Wirtschaftsverlag Langen Müller Herbig

Koboyashi I. (1994); Die Japan Diät: 20 Schlüssel zum schlanken Unternehmen;

Landsberg/Lech: Verl. Moderne Industrie

Kroslid D., Faber K., Magnusson K., Bergmann B. (2003); Six Sigma . Erfolg

durch Breakthrough-Verbesserungen; München, Wien: Carl Hanser Verlag

Liker J. K. (2002); The Toyota Way . 14 Management Principles from the world.s

greatest manufacturer; New York, US: Mcgraw-Hill Professional

Magnusson K., Kroslid D., Bergman B. (2004); Six Sigma umsetzen . Die neue

Qualitätsstrategie für Unternehmen; München, Wien: Carl Hanser Verlag

Mullins L. J. (2002); Managment and Organisational Behaviour, sixth edition;

Financial Times: Prentice Hall

106

Pande P. S., Neuman R. S., Cavanagh R. R. (2001); Six Sigma erfolgreich

einsetzen . Marktanteile gewinnen, Produktivität steigern, Kosten

reduzieren; Landsberg/Lech: Verlag Moderne Industrie

Rehben R., Yurdakul Z. B. (2005); Mit Six Sigma zu Business Excellence .

Strategien, Methoden, Praxisbeispiele; Berlin, München: Siemens Aktien

Gesellschaft

Schneider S. C., Barsoux J. L. (1997); Managing across cultures; Financial

Times: Prentice Hall

Schwager M. (1997); KaiZen . Der sanfte Weg des Reengineering; Freiburg:

Haufe

Sebestyén O. G. (1994); Management-.Geheimnis. KAIZEN . Der japanische

Weg zur Innovation; Wien: Ueberreuter

Simon W. (1996); Die neue Qualität der Qualität: Grundlagen für den TQM- und

KAIZEN-Erfolg; Offenbach: GABAL

Womack J. P., Jones D. T., Roos D. (1990); The Machine that Changed the

World . The Story of Lean Production; New York: Harper Perennial

ARTICLES (WEB and MAGAZINES)

Heid T. (2002); Ideenmanagement: Eine gute Idee ist Gold wert; in:

Wissensmanagement, das Magazin für Führungskräfte; September/Oktober

2002, n.p.a.;

<www.wissensmanagement.net/online/archiv/2002/09_1002/ideenmanage

ment.shtml>; Access: 12.08.2006

Henkoff R. (1989); What Motorola learns from Japan; in: Fortune Magazine; 1984,

n.p.a.;

<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1989/04/24/7189

3/index.htm>; Access 09.01.2007

108

Leonard D., Swap W. (2005); Wissensmanagement: Aus Erfahrung gut; in:

Harvard Business Review . erweiterte deutsche Ausgabe; January 2005,

pp. 20-24

Morris B. (2006); The new Rules; in: Fortune Magazine; 2006, n.p.a.

<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/07/24/8381

625/index.htm>; Access 09.01.2007

Ramberg J. S. (2000); Six Sigma: Fad or Fundamental?; in: Quality Digest; 2000;

n.p.a.; <http://www.qualitydigest.com/may00/html/sixsigmapro.html>;

Access 04.02.2007