952891 (First Year Project)
Developing the execution model for Lean Six Sigma strategy by linking two critical
forces; ROFO PRINCIPLES and KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT. A study on
professionals and unskilled workers in manufacturing organizations.
By
GOH AH BEE
ID # 532152010
Course # 952891
Date 15 February 2011.
1
CONTENTS
1. TITLE
2. ABSTRACT
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
4. THE PROBLEM STATEMENT
5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.
6. FINDINGS AND RESULTS
7. DISCUSSION/ CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
8. CONCLUSION
9. APPENDICES
10. REFERENCES
2
1. TITLE
Developing the execution model for Lean Six Sigma strategy by linking two critical
forces; ROFO PRINCIPLES and KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT. A study on
professionals and unskilled workers in manufacturing organizations
2. ABSTRACT
As companies strive to compete in this fast changing world , numerous strategies
and initiatives have been developed. For example , in the eighties , TOTAL
QUALITY MANAGEMENT program was popular and many companies embarked
on it but not many were able to realize its full benefits ( survey conducted by
Arthur D. Little , Taylor , 1992a on 500 top US companies ). No matter what sort of
strategies or programs a company adopts ( can be cost reduction or improving the
yield or simply a new product strategy and etc), the ability to execute holds the key
to success. When companies fail to deliver based on their strategic plan, the most
common explanation for failure is wrong strategy. Very seldom, wrong strategy is
the root cause . In the author’s experience the most common root cause is inability
to execute a strategy ( Larry Bossidy” Execution” , 2002, Jack Welch, “ winning”).
Lean Manufacturing concepts has its origin from Toyota and was founded by Ohno
and if implemented successfully can propel a company to an exceptional level of
performance as demonstrated by Toyota’s profess to conquer General Motors as the
world number one in producing cars. Six sigma was first started by Motorola and
has gained popularity ever since. Put it simply, it is an effective tool to control
process so that products ( or services) of outstanding quality are achieved. These
two initiatives ( Lean and six- sigma) combined together would give rise to a
powerful competitive advantage. The question remains is ; “ how can they be
executed successfully?”. It is the objective of the research to develop an effective
model to execute Lean Six- sigma.
Key words; ROFO , Knowledge competency , Lean manufacturing, six sigma,
wastes, Execution.
3
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
a. The Knowledge Creating Company by I. Nonaka
Nonaka says that knowledge plays a big role in gaining competitive
advantage. He believes that Japanese companies’ success are due to their
ability to link knowledge between outside and inside.
There are two kinds of knowledge and he begins by drawing on Michael
Polanyi’s distinction between tacit and explicit. Tacit knowledge is
personal , context specific and difficult to formalize and communicate.
Michael Polanyi said “ we know more than what we can tell”. Explicit
knowledge is codified knowledge and can be expressed verbally ,
documented in procedures or simply by conversing with each other.
Polanyi contends that human beings acquire knowledge by actively
creating and organizing their experiences. Therefore , knowledge that can
be expressed in numbers and in documentations represents only a small
portion of the entire body of knowledge.Nonaka proposes four models of
conversion knowledge. This is shown in fig. 3.0-2.
Tacit
Tacit
Socialization
Externalization
Linking
Explicit
Knowledge
Internalization
Combination
Learning by
Doing
Explicit
Tacit
Field
Building
Explicit
Explicit
Tacit
Dialogue
Explicit
Fig. 3.0-2
4
i)
Tacit to tacit - Socialization
Tacit knowledge occurs when individuals share knowledge and
experiences in the form of mental models without using languages. It is
through observations that one learn to acquire tacit knowledge.
ii)Tacit to Explicit-Externalisation
It is a process of articulating tacit knowledge into explicit concepts.
Nonaka believes an effective way is to use tacit knowledge in the form of
metaphors and analogies.
iii)Explicit to explicit- Combination
This mode of conversion involves combining different bodies of explicit
knowledge. Individuals come together to exchange ideas . This is
normally achieved through media ,, documentations, meetings or
telephone conversations etc. By combining and sorting of explicit
knowledge , new knowledge can occur. Formal education and training is
one form of combination of knowledge
iv) Explicit to tacit- Internalization
It is the process of embodying explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge. It
is strongly related to “ learning by doing”. One way for tacit knowledge
to happen is to ensure that knowledge is verbalized or stored in the form
of documents which a easily understood by others.
b. Single loop and double loop learning- by Chris Argyris.
Chris Argyris says that before an organization becomes a learning
organization, it must resolve a dilemma ; competitive success depends
increasingly on learning, but most people don’t know how to learn.
i). Model I- theory in – use.
 It deals with defensive reasoning and routines. If we asked
people the rules they use to govern their actions, they will tell
you as what Chris Aryris calls “ esposed theory “ of action.
But this espoused theory of action has very little to do with
their day to day action. He coins a term calls theory – in use
5
which is different from the espoused theory. Why? People
consistently act inconsistently, unaware of the contradictions
between their espoused theory and their theory in use. He
names this theory in – use as model I and it rests on a set of
governing variables.
ii)
Model II.
Model I deals with deeply entrenched with defensive routines but model
II intends to correct it , It will motivate people to move away from model
I to model II. Model II fosters double loop learning.
iii) Single loop and double loop learning.
Learning involves detection and correction of error. When there is an
error , the first mental frame of work is to look for solution that will
address and work within the governing variables. This is single loop
learning. A better way is to question the governing variables and subject
them to critical scrutiny. This is double loop learning.Such learning may
then lead to the modification of governing variables. This will lead to a
shift in such a way that new strategies and consequences will occur.
This is shown in fig. 3.0-3
6
Single and double loop
Governing
variables
match
actions
consequences
mismatch
Single loop
Double loop
Fig. 3.0- 3
c) Learning in action by David A. Garvin.
Garvin says continuous improvement programs are widespread
in industries in their quest to better themselves. Unfortunately ,
there are more failures than successes. Why? Because most
companies have not grasped the basic truth about learning.
Three critical issues must be addressed first before a company
can become a learning organization. They are;
 Meaning of learning organization.
He defines a learning organization is an organization skilled at
creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at
modifying its behaviuor to reflect new knowledge and insights.

Management.
7
Management need to set clear guidelines for practice, filled with
operational advice rather than high sounding aspirations.
 Measurement.
We need better tools to measure learning. This is to ensure
benefits have been obtained from learning. He encourages the
use of Balanced Score Card (BSC) by Kaplan and Norton.
Once these three Ms ( Meaning, Management, Measurement)
are addressed , managers will have a foundation for launching
learning organizations. There are five main activities for
learning organizations such as ;
1. Systematic problem solving.
It uses the philosophy and methods of the Total Quality
Movements. Under pinning such philosophy are ;
 The use of scientific method rather than guesswork
for solving problems. A good example is the use of
PDCA (Deming’s cycle; Plan Do Check action).
 Insisting on data and not assumptions for analysis
and decision making.
 Using simple statistical tools like Pareto Charts,
Fishbone diagrams, Histograms to draw inferences.
2. Experimentation.
This activity is concerned with systematic searching of new
ideas and knowledge. It uses scientific method and it bears
similarity as the problem solving technique but it is more
concerned with expanding the knowledge horizon rather
than reacting on the problem just detected.
3. Learning from past experience.
The objective is learn from past mistakes and make sure
they are not repeated in the future. Boeing, Xerox use such
techniques.
4. Learning from others.
Not all learning occurs inside organization. Outside
knowledge is equally important. Organizations do so by
benchmarking with others. Benchmarking is a method to
source for knowledge and sometimes it helps a great deal in
benchmarking with customers.
5. Transferring of knowledge.
For learning to happen , it has to be spread quickly
throughout the organization. Organization gains a lot if
8
knowledge is broadly shared rather than shared among a
few individuals.
d). The ROFO Model by Ah Bee Goh
ROFO stands for ;
R- responsibility.
O- ownership.
F- focus.
O- on- time corrective action.
Goh has worked in industries for a few decades and he has
encountered many situations that problems that are obvious and can
be solved promptly remain unsolved for days or sometimes even
weeks and months. In his search for answer, he realizes that people
are generally responsible for what they do. The disturbing point is
that if people are responsible , why is it that problems are not
corrected on- time?. He realizes that there is a fine difference between
responsibility and ownership. The difference is best explained by
using the coffee powder example.

The coffee powder example.
Imagine a Swiss customer is visiting an organization, let’s say AB
company Ltd . at 9 am. A cup of coffee has to be served. Before a cup
of coffee can happen, the following events must occur;
1. Coffee powder to be bought yesterday.
2. Sugar and creamer must be bought and be ready yesterday.
3. Water to be boiled early this morning.
Suppose the secretary discovers that at 8.00 am that there is no coffee
powder available (event 1 has not occurred). The person who is
responsible for replenishing the coffee powder is the purchasing clerk
and not the secretary Obviously the purchasing clerk has missed her
duties. What would the secretary do?. She has two options;
Option 1:
Does nothing and informs her superior that no coffee
can be served as the office clerk had failed to purchase the coffee
powder.
9
Option 2:
Immediately on her own initiative, goes out to purchase
the coffee powder and prepare the cup of coffee.
Later, she informs the office clerk that she has missed purchasing the
coffee powder and would appreciate she takes appropriate action the
next time.
If the secretary takes option 1, two unfavourables will occur;
Option 1 Outcome
Unfavorable 1 -The office clerk gets blamed for not doing her job
well.
Unfavorable 2-The Swiss customer will not be satisfied as he is not
being treated as a guest. He has traveled 10,000 miles to come to AB
company and it will be a horrendous experience for him if AB
company cannot organize a cup of coffee on- time. How would the
customer think ? What impression will he harbour ? Certainly he will
not believe that AB company will deliver the goods on- time.
If the secretary takes option 2, she behaves in a ROFO manner and
this is exactly what the management wants her to act. By taking
option2, the customer is oblivious of what is happening but the
important point is that the cup of coffee is being served on- time. The
secretary takes full ownership of the entire process and ensures that
the final objective is fulfilled. In accordance to ROFO model , even
though the secretary has served the cup of coffee , her action is still
incomplete as what she does is only reactive i.e on-time correcting the
problem and this is only the first part . The other part of the duty is to
make sure that the same mistake will not be repeated and it refers
specifically to “prevention”. She has to inform the purchasing clerk
politely that she has corrected the problem and trust her ( purchasing
clerk) that she will not miss replenishing the coffee powder.
If the secretary were to take option 1, she will not be penalized as it is
not her duty to replenish the coffee powder and if we examine
further, it reveals that she is also behaving in a responsible manner
as ;
 she discovers the problem and she informs her
superior on- time.
 It is not her duty to replenish the coffee powder.
The irony is that the cup of coffee remains not served even though she
has behaved responsibly. Therefore she has to expand her
10
responsibility so that she will own the entire process. Fig.3.0-4
illustrates the entire process.
Action
1
Ownership
Focu
s
Responsi
bility
Ownership
she goes out to
buy coffee
powder herself
generate
on-time
correctiv
e action
Action
2
she politely
informs the
office clerk about
the missed
purchase
©AB Goh 1991
Fig. 3.0-4
Another strength of the ROFO model is that when individuals
practicing it , an environment is created for team learning as in the
above coffee powder example ; the secretary learns to take ownership
and the purchasing clerk learns not to repeat the mistake in a friendly
and co- operative spirit.
In accordance to GOH’s thinking, people tend to behave in
accordance to the job description he has been given when he first
enters the factory door. He defines word by word that made up
ROFO as shown in fig. 3.0-7. It is always GOH’ s assertion that being
responsible is not good enough. He argues that too many unsuccessful
events have happened not because people are not behaving in a
responsible manner but because people are not keen to take full
ownership of the entire process.
GOH states that if organization is able to cascade ROFO throughout
the entire company , it will use much less resources than their
competitors . For example , ROFO was applied so successful in one
11
company ( Leica Intruments Singapore Pte. Ltd) that its entire
quality department ( about 40 staff including quality manager ,
engineers and inspectors) was disbanded as the control of quality is in
the hands of the workers. Production workers own it.
Fig. 3.0 -6 shows the team learning concept. From this figure , if a staff is
confronted with a problem/ task that requires typical knowledge ( indicated in blue
arrow) , he will search for the appropriate staff with the right knowledge to assist
him in solving the problem/task . This is indicated in blue arrow. The ROFO cycle
continues until the whole task is successfully executed.
1
Requires more than
one action
Team learning
Team learning
Staff with
Right knowledge
1
Team learning
R
Team learning
Tasks completed
successfully
and on – time.
O
Gaps still unclosed
O
Fig. 3.0-6 – The ROFO model
F
Team learning
12
















RESPONSIBILITY
Commitment or duty.
To fulfill tasks in accordance to job description.
In work, we refer to the duties you are normally assigned and obliged to
carry out. Normally these duties are apparent in nature.
For example, Materials Manager is duty bound to purchase the right
materials at the right costs and delivered at the right time.
OWNERSHIP
It goes beyond responsibility.
It extends your responsibility areas.
It gives you a sense of duty to own the “ TOTAL PROCESS”
Committed to fulfill the tasks successfully and wholeheartedly.
FOCUS
Pay attention to a certain area. Do not deviate from the original problem
area.
Constantly keep in mind that you need to do something.
Analyze , plan and develop (alternative) solutions.
ON TIME CORRECTIVE ACTION
Two key words “ ON- TIME & ACTION “.
“ ON- TIME” means now and don’t wait for to - morrow.
“ ACTION “ signifies doing it. “ ACTION “ has two parts; one is’ reactive ‘
means correcting the problem immediately and the other is ‘ preventive’
means preventing the problem from happening again.
It means doing it and implementing what you have decided to correct the
problem.
It could also mean doing it and implementing what you have decided to
improve the situation.
Fig. 3.0-7 ROFO DEFINITION
e) The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) by Kaplan and Norton.
13
In 1992, Professor Kaplan and Norton came up with the concept of Balanced
Scorecard (BSC). They stress that what you measure is what you get. The BSC is a
measurement system which includes not only financial measures but also an
integrated set of measurements that link to strategy of the company, customer,
internal process and employee performance and system performance .
Kaplan and Norton advocate that if you can’t measure it , you can’t manage it.
There are 4 aspects to be considered as shown in fig. 3.0-8
Financial
Customer
Vision
Mission
Strategy
Learning
and growth
Internal
Business
process
Fig. 3.0- 8
14
1). Financial perspective.
Financial measures alone are inadequate as they are lagging indicators. In the BSC
model, the financial perspective is linked to other perspectives as shown in fig.3.0-8.
2). Customer perspective.
In the customer perspective of BSC, managers identify the customer and market
segments in which the business unit will compete and the measures of the business
unit’s performance in these targeted segments.
3) Internal business perspective.
In the internal business perspective, executives identify the critical internal
processes in which the organization must excel
4) Learning and growth perspective.
It identifies the infrastructure that the organization must build to create long term
growth and improvement. It also helps to measure learning gains . It complements
well with Garvin’s concept of learning in action . Garvin states that an organization
must be able the gains that have resulted from implementing the learning concepts.
f) Total Quality Management school.
Proponents of this school are Walter Shewart (1931) who first pioneered using
statistical process control methods to control processes. Deming (1986)who
introduced his famous 14 points to manage quality. Juran (borned 1904) who called
for company – wide quality control, Kaoru Ishikawa (1915- 1989) who pioneered the
quality circles in Japan, Genuchi Taguchi ( borned 1924) who stresses that quality
starts from design, Shigeo Shingo ( 1909-1990) who developed sourced inspection to
prevent defectives from entering the factory floor and Philip Crosby (1979) who
wrote the famous book, “ Quality is free”. Although proponents of this school are
numerous but are the few who had made a significant impact on Total Quality
Management. This school emphasizes the following;
a) Use scientific facts and methods to solve problems and control processes.
b) Continuous improvements.
c) Set quantitative measures and targets.
d) Management based on facts.
e) Continuous training.
f) Total involvement of workforce. etc
15
In the author’s opinion ( Ah Bee Goh), of all the Quality Gurus, none is more
outstanding than Edwards Deming. The author shall discuss some of his work.
W Edwards Deming- Deming was famous for his work in Japan. He worked with
W.A Shewart who was the pioneer in developing control charts. Deming knew the
variability in manufacturing was the main cause for poor quality. He uses SPC (
Statistical Process Control) to control the processes. He went further in formulating
a famous tool called PDCA cycle ( also called Deming’s cycle) as shown in fig. 3.0-9
Deming’s PDCA CYCLE
PLAN
ACT
DO
CHECK
Fig.3.0-9
Deming’s significant contribution was in Japan. The Japanese was very grateful for
his work in lifting Japan out of poor Quality image in the West especially in the
period right after the second world war. Japan bestowed him with many honours
including the Japan’s premier Imperial Order, the SECOND ORDER OF THE
SACRED TREASURE. When Deming came back to North America , his work was
not successful as many resisted from both the management and the workforce.
16
Deming came up with 14 points to help the North American industry. These 14
points are widely applied not only in America but also in many industries that span
the globe. His 14 points are;
1) Create constancy of purpose to improve product and service.
2 ) Adopt a new philosophy for the new economic age with management
learning what their responsibilities are, and by assuming leadership for
change.
3) Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality by building quality
into the product.
4) End awarding business on price. Award business on total cost and move
toward single suppliers.
5) Aim for continuous improvement of the system of production and service
to improve productivity and quality, and to decrease cost.
6) Institute training on the job.
7) Institute leadership with the aim of supervising peole to help them to do a
better job.
8) Drive out fear so that everyone can work effectively together for the
organization.
9) Break down barriers between departments. Encourage research, design,
sales and production to work together to foresee difficulties in production
and use.
10) Eliminate slogans, exhortations and numerical targets for the workforce
since they are divisive and anyway difficulties belong to the whole system.
11) Eliminate quotas or work standards and management by objectives or
numerical goals; leadership as declared in7 above should be substituted
instead.
12) Remove barriers that rob people of their pride in work.
13) Institute a vigorous education and self- omprove,ent program.
14) Put everyone in the company to work to acconmlish the transformation.
g) Brief review on the the book , “ EXECUTION” by Larry Bossidy and Ram
Charan.
Larry Bossidy , Chairman and former CEO of Honeywell International (Fortune
100 company), says that most companies fail because they are not able to execute
well. He studied leaders in organizations and he said that they placed too much
emphasis on what some call high level strategy, on intellectualizing and
philosophizing , and not enough on execution. Execution is not only the issue facing
business to- day , it is also something nobody explains well. He said that many talked
17
about strategy which could be easily developed by anyone by just employing the
right consultants. This is the gap many victims have fallen to. To him, execution is
simply not something that gets or do not get done. Execution is a specific set of
behaviours and techniques that companies need to master in order to have
competitive advantage.
Many CEOs lost their jobs because they do not understand the true meaning of
execution. In the year 2000, forty CEOs of the top 200 companies in Fortune 500 list
were either fired or made to resign. This trend keeps continuing. When companies
fail to deliver on their promises, the most apparent explanation is the CEO’s
strategy is wrong or not appropriate. In Larry Bossidy’s thinking strategies fail
because of poor execution. He has many examples to illustrate such as ;
1. When the Compaq board fired the CEO, the board chairman and founder
Ben Rosen painfully explained that the strategy was fine and the change as
said by him was “ in execution…….Our plans are to speed up decision
making and make the company more efficient”.
2. When Lucent’s board dismissed CEO Richard McGinn in October 2000, his
replacement, Henry Schacht, explained ; “ Our issues are ones of execution
and focus”.
If execution is so important, why is it people don’t get it? To be sure most are not
oblivious to it but what most do aware is its absence. This is what he terms a GAP
nobody knows.
To understand execution, he lists 3 points;
1. Execution is a discipline and integral to strategy.
2. Execution is the major job of the business leader.
3. Execution must be a core element of an organisation’s culture.
h. Lean Six- Sigma
1. Lean Manufacturing Concepts
It was originated by Taiichi Ohno who wrote book . “ TOYOTA
PRODUCTIONSYSTEM” . Basically it is about removing wastes in the company.
Ohno said there are 7 potential wastes ( muda , in Japanese) namely;
1. Over- production- producing items earlier or in bigger quantities than
needed by customers. The more you produce the more you will generate
wastes such as more manpower is needed and more transportation and
storage areas etc.
2. Waiting- Any waiting is considered a waste such as waiting for materials
or watching to serve automated machine.
3. Transportation- moving work in process (WIP) from one location to
another.
4. Over processing and incorrect processing- Taking unneeded steps to
processthe parts- Inefficient processing due to poor tools or jigs.
18
5. Excess inventory- Excess raw materials, WIP and finished goods which give
rise to obsolescence.
6. Unnecessary motion- Employees have to move in an unnecessary manner
which will not add any value .
7. Defects and quality problems.- Producing defective parts which have to be
scrapped or reworked.
7 Wastes In Manufacturing
Over
Production
Unnecessary
Over
motion
Processing
S e v e n W a s te s
Rejects
and
Inefficient
Transportation
Defects
Waiting
Excess
Times
inventory
Fig. 3.0-10
As shown in fig. 3.0-10, the 7 wastes should be kicked into the waste basket.
According to Ohno , over- production is the most serious waste as it hides other
waste.
2. Six – Sigma
19
It was developed by Motorola in the 1980s and has now spread throughout the
world. Mathematically , it means if a company achieves 6 sigma , it will attain a
quality level no more than 3.4 defects per million (ppm). It starts from +/- 6 sigma
with mean centred as shown in fig. 3.0-11.
Fig. 3.0-11
Notation;
USL- upper specification limit
T- target value which coincides with the mean.
20
Fig. 3.0- 11
21
With 6 sigma from the mean indicated by “T”, it reveals that at this point , it is two
defects per billion with 50% design margin. In order to cater to design shift , the
margin is reduced by 1.5 sigma. This is shown in fig. 3.0-11. At this point it shows
3.4 defects per million.
To implement six- sigma , it usually uses the following steps;
1. DEFINE- the problem and scope of the work.
2. MEASURE- the current processor performance. Identify what data is
available and develop a plan to gather it.
3. ANALYZE- the current performance to isolate the problem. Through
analysis , both statistical and qualitative, begin to formulate test hypothesis
as well as determining the root cause.
4. IMPROVE- by solving the problem. Brainstorm on potential solutions.
Prioritise and implement.
5. CONTROL- the improved process or product performance to ensure the
targets are met. Once the solution is effective, the improvement must be
sustained and standardized.
4. THE PROBLEM STATEMENT
Louis V. Gerstner , former CEO who turned around IBM says, “ So ,execution is
really the critical part of a successful strategy. All the great companies in the world
out -execute their competitors day in and day out in the market place , in their
manufacturing….”. He added that execution- the ability to get things done is the
most unappreciated skill of a business executive. Larry Bossidy , former CEO of
Allied Signal echoed the same phrase that “ execution “ is the gap nobody knows.
Lean manufacturing concepts first originated from Toyota( called TPS- Toyota
Production Systems) in the 1950s and Motorola in 1980s pioneered the 6 six- sigma
( Founding father is Bill Smith) . The combination of Lean and Six- sigma will form
indeed a powerful strategy for any company. It is undeniably true that successful
execution of aforesaid strategy would lead to competitive advantage over the
competitors. So , why is it that companies are not taking advantage of?. In the
author’s opinion, there is no lacking of companies willing to take advantage of
either Lean manufacturing or Six – sigma. The issue is about the ability to
implement the strategy Therefore the big question is , “ how to execute it
successfully?”. The author had been in the manufacturing industries for nearly 4
decades and numerous CEOs had lamented that they had initiated Lean
Manufacturing and Six – sigma but had been hardly successful. This confirms there
is a gap ( Larry Bossidy, former CEO of Allied Signal), which nobody knows and
hardly is appreciated by others ( Louis Gerstner, former CEO of IBM). In the
search of scientific journals and past literature , many factors surfaced which are
attributed to implementation issues . The factors are so varied and numerous that
the author feels could hardly help the practitioners in the industries. So the gap of
inability to execute Lean sigma is real as shown in fig . 4.0a In fig. 4.0a there are
only 3 main possibilities and it is clear that possibilities 2 and 3 constitute
22
a gap . In the author’s experience , two fundamental forces are vital if the gap is to
be closed. They are i) lack of knowledge and ii) willingness ( fig. 4.0b). Both forces
must be present in order to execute the strategy well.
1.executed successfully
2. started halfway but
remains incomplete.
execute
Lean sigma strategy
3.Executed only at surface
level ( as good as nonexecuted at all).
Fig. 4.0a
23
F1 AND F2 FULFILLED
F1-LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
F2- WILLINGNESS
GAP
GAP CLOSED
FIG. 4.0b
5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.1 Structure of the study
The basic structure of the study is shown in fig. 5.1a.
24
Structure of the study
Observations
Interviews
Experiments
Quantitative
Survey questions
Qualitative
Descriptive
Observe
emerging
patterns
Normative
Random sample plus
control groups will be
applied. ANOVA and
interaction effects will
be studied
Structure interview with
two persons per
category of knowledge
workers
In agreement with
experiments and
interviews
Correlative
Impact
Both methods will be
compared to deduce the
results
Fig 5.1a
The dependent and independent variables as intended in the research are ;
 Independent variables – are i) knowledge competency and ii) willingness
(ROFO)
 Dependent variable is successful execution of Lean 6- sigma ( e,g quality
yield, output units increased etc)
 Basically is shown in fig. 5.1b.
25
Knowledge
competency
Leads to
Willingness
(ROFO)
Execution of
Lean 6- sigma
Fig.5.1b
It is important that the survey questions will cover the following;
1. Descriptive- It deals with what is happening. For example ; Do you have
Daily production meeting? What is the on- time delivery of the products?
2. Normative-It deals with what is happening compared to what should happen.
For example ; What is the knowledge competency of category one workers
compared to category two workers?
3. Correlative-What is the relationship and the strength of the relationship
between one variable (X) and the other variable (Y) ?. For example; Does
the factor , “ relevant knowledge” influence on the ability to execute a task
successfully?
4. Impact- In contrast to correlative question, impact question tries to establish
a causal relationship. For example; Does increased Lean sigma training
improve the productivity of the output?.
5. The survey questions are shown in appendix I.
26
5.2. Categorization of knowledge workers
For the study to be meaningful, the author categorizes the knowledge workers in
the organization. This is shown below.
Category 1- The Professionals- They are the accountants., engineers,
sourcing specialists, planners, tooling specialists , designers and HR
executives etc. They report normally to either the top or middle managers.
Category 2- The Supervisors- They are the ones who have the expertise at the
shop floor level and they supervise the production workers to ensure that
they produce efficiently .
Category 3- The technicians- They are the repairers and maintenance of
machines. They also assist the engineers to carry testing of products and
recording of data.
Category 4- The production workers- They are the workers who assemble
the parts into a final product ready to be delivered to customers.
5.3. Categorisation of skills set
Not all knowledge workers possess the same skills set or knowledge
competency in order to do the jobs properly. It is vital for any organization to
ask themselves what knowledge competencies they want to nurture for their
organization. The knowledge competency table is shown in table 5.3a.
27
Levels
Skills/ competency/ knowhow
0
Don’t have any idea
1
Basic concepts. Very fundamental knowhow of the job. E.g
Ability to assemble in accordance to simple instructions like
tightening screws in sequence.
Six- sigma knowledge= no knowledge at all
2
3
Procedures knowhow. Understand the procedures as specified
by the company . E.g assemble the choke into the housing
without scratching or breaking the wire. Perform an
electrical function and able to read whether test is passed
within tolerance or failed to fulfill the tolerance.
Six- sigma knowledge= basic such as awareness
Problem solving skills and knowhow. This is first level and
requires only basic simple tools to solve the problems like
PDCA, Pareto chart, 5 why analysis etc. Also at this level , the
problems presented are assumed not complex.
Six – sigma knowledge = good grasp of the underlying
principles . Ability to apply onto manufacturing processes and
use six- sigma analytical skills. Strong foundation of statistical
reasoning and principles.
4
Research / experimental experience in problem solving and
presenting solutions. This is the second level of problem
solving skills . Some detail analysis is required using advance
statistical methods ;ike ANOVA and hypothesis testing. Coordinating and project management skills are required.
Six- sigma knowledge= In- depth understanding of six-sigma
principles . Ability to use six – sigma problem solving methods
and apply across a variety of problems / issues. Very
analytical based on scientific reasoning.
5
Creativity and innovation skills/ knowhow etc in problem
solving and executing the tasks. This is the advance level of
28
problem solving skills . Problems confronted are complex and
may require the search of external knowhow. Co- ordinating
and project management skills are required.
Six- sigma knowledge = the same as level 4.
6
General management skills/ knowhow. It is a combination of
all the levels of the skills ( Levels 1 to 5). Important skill is the
ability to allocate resources and make relevant and right
decisions when confronted with simple to complex problems. Coordinating , leading , coaching , managing skills are
required at this level.
Table 5.3a
5.4. Qualitative methods
The number of organizations to be studied are ;
1. There will be two organizations to be studied in Thailand;
o Schaffner EMC Co . Ltd .
o Another selected factory in Lamphun.
2. Three organizations will be studied in Singapore;
o Leica Instruments Pte. Ltd.
o Aluputer Co. Pte . Ltd .
o Amax Co. Pte . Ltd.
3. Between 30 and 50 companies will be selected using the survey questions as
shown in Appendix I. The survey questions can be descriptive, normative,
correlative and impact. The author is constantly refining the questions.
29
4. The following notations will apply to the companies , knowledge workers and
levels of knowledge competency;
 Companies;
o Schaffner EMC Co. Ltd…………………………T1
o Another Lamphun co……………………………T2
o Leica Instruments Singapore Pte. Ltd………….S1
o Aluputer Co. Pte . Ltd……………………….......S2.
o Amax Co. Pte. Ltd……………………………….S3.
 Knowledge workers;
o The Professionals………………………………...K1.
o The Supervisors………………………………….K2
o The Technicians………………………………….K3.
o The Front line workers………………………….K4
 Levels of knowledge competency
o From table 5.3a it is noted as L1 to L6 with L1 as the lowest to L6 as the
highest.
5.5 Interview.
The author will conduct in depth interviews for each company ( T1, T2, S1,
S2 and S3) . The author will randomly select two candidates from each category of
knowledge workers. Only K1 and K2 workers will be included in the study. Briefly
the steps are;
1. Randomly select two candidates for the interview , for example in
Thailand it will be denoted as follows;
a. T1K1-A, T1k1- B
b. T1K2-A, TIK2-B
2. A structured interview will be carried out based primarily on the
survey questions.
3. The author will rate the points to be scored based on the answers
from the candidates.
4. The author will capture the expressions and body language of each
candidate and any abnormal answer , the author may consider
seriously whether it should be included. For example , the respondent
may say , “ I will give the lowest score for all the questions related to
my superior”.
5. The author will calculate the scores of each candidate based on the
scale in the question.
6. The author will perform a measurement agreement between the two
knowledge workers in each category. For example ;
a. To what degree does T1K1- A agree with T1K1-B.
30
b. The measurement to be carried out is KAPPA statistics .
c. Kappa measures the agreement between the evaluations
carried out by two appraisers when both are judging the same
subject. Kappa is defined as ;
i. K = (po - pe)/ (1 – pe)
ii. po---is the relative agreement among raters.
iii. pe---is the hypothetical probability of agreement by
chance, using the observed data to calculate the
probability of each observer randomly assigning each
category.
iv. 1- pe represents the margin of possible agreement not
due to chance.
v. Table 5.5a shows the kappa index.
KAPPA INDEX
AGREEMENT LEVEL
<0
No agreement
0 to 0.2
Slight
0.21 to 0.4
Fair
0.41 to 0.6
Moderate
0.61 to 0.8
Substantial
0.81 to 1.00
Almost perfect
Table 5.5a
31
5.6. Observations.
The author will conduct obsrvations on each category of workers in the shop floor in
each of the companies. When conducting observations , the author will observe all
the categories of workers in particular of the following areas;
1. Any pattern of behaviour.
2. What sort of learning style/s they generally adopt.
3. The knowledge competencies of each category of workers .
4. What sort of instructions do they receive from their superiors.
5. How do they share information and knowledge with each other.
6. The problem solving skills of knowledge workers.
7. The general culture of learning and teamwork.
The author will also attend their production meetings for a number of occasions as
well as their schedule communication sessions.
Material notes
Primary
observation
Audio
tapes
Reflection &
recall
jolted notes
Pre- analysis
Experiential
data
Forward
planning
Data 1field notes
Data 2primary
analysis
Video
tapes
photos
Preliminary
written records
memory
Fig. 5.6a data gathering process
from Ellen ( adapted 1987).
32
The process of collecting the data is in accordance to the model as shown in fig. 5.6a.( adapted
from Ellen 1987).







Primary observations- In chronological order, observations will be made on people,
their surroundings, behaviours, and conservations. Each set of field notes is dated and
the time of occurrence is noted also.
Reflection and recall- It can be triggered from jolted and material notes. Some events
may not appear important at first but may present different picture later on.
Pre- analysis data- Initial ideas and inferences may emerge but will not be censored at
this stage.
Experiential data- This can be personal feelings and impressions and can be a source of
analytic insights at a later stage.
Forward planning- This might involve planning to visit the sight again to collect missing
data .
Field notes data 1- They are combined with Video, audio and photos of the organization
to form permanent records .
Data 2- Primary analysis can be performed in conjunction with other data.
5.7. Quantitative methods
This will be carried out in two approaches ; one is a control experiment in a factory
and the other is analysis from the survey results.
1. Experiment
The experiment will be carried out only in Schaffner EMC Co Ltd in Thailand.
It will be based on the model in fig. 1.0a.The reason why only one company is
selected is because the study will involve a lot of resources and time. The experiment
is intended on K4 knowledge workers. The design of the experiments is as follows;
a. Randomly select 30 frontline workers from a pool of 600 workers. The
qualifying factor is that the 600 workers must be well trained on the
job and have at least one year experience. Note; qualified here means
passed the company’s official skills test. All the workers’ skills have
been graded as very good, good and average.
b. Randomly assign them into 3 separate groups namely groups “A” .
“B” and “C”. In this case all the groups will assume to have the same
33
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
skills set. In short , the knowledge competency level of each group is
the same.
Group “A” will be the control group. Group”B” and “C” will be the
experimental groups.
All the groups will be producing the same products for a certain
period ( may be a week).
Groups “B” and “C” will be given targets as shown in table 4.1a
The dependent variable is output units and the independent variable
is willingness ( ROFO).
All the 3 groups will be given the same product to be built using all
the good parts which are pre- inspected 100%.
No instructions will be given to group “A” and no monetary rewards
will be promised to groups “B” and “C”. They are told that the
company needs to fulfill an urgent order and need their cocooperation.
At the end of the experiment , we will assess whether there is a
difference in outputs between “B” & “C”. Null and alternative
hypothesis will be set up.
If there is positive increase in output in one group verses the other ,
then we need to correlate whether it is due to the strong willingness
(ROFO).
In the above , we only study one independent variable-willingness but
another experiment will be carried out to test the other independent
variable- knowledge competency.
Group
normal target
100units/ wk
1st target
120 units / wk
A
Just use the normal targets.
2nd target
130 units/ wk
3rd target
140 units /
week
B
C
Actual units
achieved
34
Table 5.7a
2. Survey results
The survey is intended to be carried out into two groups;
a.The 5 companies as listed above; T1, T2, S1, S2 and S3.
b. Between 30 and 50 companies will be surveyed by sending out the
questionnaires.
From the results obtained in “a” and “b” above , hypothesis setting will be
formalized.
5.8. Tools and technique
In summary the tools and techniques are shown in table 5.8a.
Activities
Tools and Techniques Results
1.Literature review
Critical review of
journals and books.
Knowledge
management theories.
ROFO model
TQM. PDCA. 5WHY
Proof of the gap from
existing data available.
Data compilation.
Categorisation of
schools of thought.
2. Investigate whether Structure interview.
the gap exists in
Surveys.
industries.
Survey data- proof of
gap existing or not in
private industries.
3. Investigate the
Survey
knowledge competency questionsSURVEY
of the workers
QUESTIONS.doc
random sampling.
Categorisation of
knowledge content in
industries. High ,
average or low.
4.Investigate gap exists Regression and
Significant or nonbetween industries and correlation analysis. significant correlation.
academic research.
Correlation coefficient.
Hypothesis testing.
H0; H1 hypothesis.
35
5. Investigate whether
there is a gap in
execution culture
among the various
categories of staff.
6. Investigate whether
there is a difference in
learning culture
7. Forward planning
and revisit the
interviewees
8. Experiments
Tests of significance.
Intereviews, Random
sampling.
Observations.
Qualitative judgment.
Tests of significance.
Intereviews .
Observations.
Experimental group.
Qualitative judgment.
Personal judgment.
Field notes. Audio and
video records.
Mind mapping
Significant or not
among the categories of
difference.
Significant difference
among the factories and
levels of staff
Permanent records for
primary data analysis.
Separate into groups; Significant difference
A, B &C. Identify
between group “B” &
dependent/
“C”
independent variables
ANOVA
Table 5.8a
6. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND RESULTS
6.1 Interview
An interview was carried on the following persons based on the survey questions (
appendix rev0) ;
1. Chamnannin Santi, Co- Ordinating manager. Schaffner EMC Co.
Ltd. Thailand.
2. Kriengkraiwat On- U – Ma , Division manager for Logistics and
Planning. Schaffner EMC CO. Ltd . Thailand.
3. Thamthitiwat Sudsiri, Human Resources manager, Schaffner EMC
Co. Ltd , Thailand.
4. Danny Lu, General Manager of Leica Geosystems Co. Ltd , China.
5. Ong Chee Wee , Supply Chain manager, Leica Microsystems Pte. Ltd
Singapore.
6. Albert Lim, Managing Director, Aluputer Co. Pte. Ltd Singapore.
7. KT Yeo, Technical Director , Hitachi Co. Pte Ltd, Singapore.
36
Note; On- U – Ma, Danny Lu , Ong Chee Wee and Albert Lim are top managers .
KT Yeo, Thamthitiwat Sudsiri and Santi are middle managers.
The interview was to gauge their views on why on the following;



Why productivity and quality tasks are not executed on- time.
The learning environment in their companies.
Ownership and execution culture.
6.2 Results.
For simplicity in analysis , we will rename the candidates with notations assigned as
follows;
1. C1 =Kriengkraiwat On- U – Ma , Division manager for Logistics and
Planning. Schaffner EMC CO. Ltd . Thailand.
2. C2= Chamnannin Santi, Co- Ordinating manager. Schaffner EMC
Co. Ltd.
3. C3=Thamthitiwat Sudsiri, Human Resources manager, Schaffner
EMC Co. Ltd , Thailand.
4. C4=Danny Lu, General Manager of Leica Geosystems Co. Ltd ,
China.
5. C5=Ong Chee Wee , Supply Chain manager, Leica Microsystems Pte.
Ltd Singapore.
6. C6= Albert Lim, Managing Director, Aluputer Co Pte. Ltd Singapore.
7. C7= KT Yeo,Technical Director, Hitachi Co. Pte Ltd, Singapore.
6.2.1 Results of the interview
C1 =Kriengkraiwat On- U – Ma , Division manager for Logistics and Planning.
Schaffner EMC CO. Ltd . Thailand.
1. Key points of the interview (Before 2007).
1. Daily production meeting took more than 1 hr and many issues were
unsolved and carried forward from previous meetings.
2. KPIs were limited to some quality, production and inventory targets
but not concrete enough for the whole organisation.
3. It was common to have weekly backlog around 500k to 800k CHF.
4. OTD was poor probably 80% or below.
5. Managers and engineers just work based on the instructions of the top
managers.
6. Some staff worked hard till the late hours but many were not ( mostly
followed the official closing time).
7. There were many quality and missing parts took too long to solve.
8. We received many customers’ complaints.
37
2. Key points of the interview ( after 2006).
1. Real working behaviour only changed in the year 2008.
2. Staff are now more responsible.
3. The ROFO , Lean Cells manufacturing and 5S trainings have been
effective in increasing productivity of the organisation.
4. Weekly backlog has now reduced to less than 100k CHF.
5. OTD is now improved to above 95% ( sometimes to 99%).
6. Daily production meeting is about 15 minutes.
7. People are now keen to learn .
8. Quality and production issues are being executed faster and on- time.
C2-Chamnannin Santi, Co- Ordinating manager. Schaffner EMC Co. Ltd.
Thailand.
1. Key points of the interview (before 2007)
1. We had many things to do but they did not seem to be completed.
2. Problems and work kept multiplying. We did not have clear ideas
why they were happening in this manner.
3. We did not have clear measurement indicators. In short , there was
lacking of direction from the management.
4. We did know how well we performed from the customers and
financial points of view.
5. The co- operative spirit among the staff was not apparent . Staff
cared only on their main responsibility areas.
6. Whenever you approached staff from another department for help,
they would decline saying they had other priorities to take care first.
2.Key points of the interview ( after 2006).
1. I could see improvements after 2007. The major improvements came
in years 2009 and 2010.
2. The most significant improvements are the daily production meetings
where actions are addressed within a day.
3. As a consequence of the daily production meetings OTD improves
tremendously.
4. The coaching of ROFO principles has helped a great deal. People are
not only responsible but also take ownership.
5. We now have fewer customers’ complaints . Sometimes ,we do receive
compliments from customers.
6. Staff nowadays stay back late to finish their jobs and also at times
they come in the weekends to complete important tasks such as
shipments to customers.
38
C3=Thamthitiwat Sudsiri, Human Resources manager, Schaffner EMC Co. Ltd ,
Thailand.
1. Key points of the interview (before 2007)
1. There was no sense of urgency.
2. Many tasks that did not require special abilities remained unsolved.
There was a waiting game.
3. Learning was not apparent in the company although there were
training programs installed for all new employees.
4. In her opinion , it was not that staff did not have the knowledge or
abilities to do the jobs right but the willingness was simply not
enough.
5. Bureaucracy was apparent and work had to be done in a hierarchical
manner.
6. Staff were keen to complete the jobs that were in line with their duties
or responsibilities and rarely they would go extra mile to help others
. Each took care of his / her job.
7.
2. Key points of the interview ( after 2006).
1. Motivation of the staff had improved. They work with satisfaction and
took tasks assigned to them seriously.
2. The big leap of improvements happened in year 2009 and sense of
ownership has increased significantly.
3. Lean cells improvements have been significant innraising the
productivities of the Thailand plant.
4. Of importance is corporate staff from headquarters in Luterbach,
Switzerland who visited Thailand had comented that Thailand is now
a completely new plant with forward looking team eager to serve and
improve.
5. Sudsiri is pleased many Thai managers had moved up to take the
positions which were previously held by European staff.
C4 = Danny Lu, General Manager of Leica Geosystems Co. Ltd , China.
1. Key points of the interview.
1. Two points are very important for any successful business;
 Building knowledge and create a learning environment.
 Instill ownership into the staff that they must take
responsibility for the tasks assigned to them.
2. The top leader must lead by example and must take action by
removing barriers to success. Very often , top leader just let nonperformers keep on staying in the company.
3. Non- execution of tasks are very common in organisations and most
CEOs just ignore them.
39
4. Most staff just do what are required of them and in order to leapfrog
competition , staff have to go that extra mile.
5. Most CEOs stress so much on crafting a brilliant strategy . What is
the point of having the best strategy in the world if nothing or very
little is executed in accordance to the strategy.
C5=Ong Chee Wee , Supply Chain manager, Leica Microsystems Pte. Ltd
Singapore.
1. Key points of the interview.
1. The leader is the most important person in the organisation. He must
be able to understand what to focus.
2. Most CEOs focus on short- term issues. Long term- issues are like
learning , innovation and networking.
3. After listening from Mr. Goh’s ROFO principle , it is clear that
ownership is extremely important to be taught and incorporated in
the organisation.
4. Willingness and abilities cannot be separated if jobs are to be
executed successfully and on- time. Ong said that in Leica there is
strong ownership and if jobs are not completed on-time , it is mainly
due to knowledge.
5. Leaders and top managers must be able to motivate staff to perform
and at the same time be able to identify poor performers for further
development or training.
C6= Albert Lim, Managing Director, Aluputer Co Pte. Ltd Singapore.
1. Key points of the interview
1. For any successful work to be accomplished , leaders and top
managers must build trust in the organisation.
2. Many jobs in the organisation can be effectively completed without
the necessity of special knowledge. It depends greatly on the
individuals whether they want to do or not.
3. Staff must have passion and self – motivation to do well and embrace
company values.
4. In his company he tries to give his staff time to learn as well as enough
time for them to execute their jobs successfully. He added that very
often he has to be involved in order to get jobs done.
5. He supports fully that every employee should learn continuously the
right knowledge.
6. Ownership and responsibility must be inculcated into everyone so that
they have a sense of belonging.
40
C7= KT Yeo,Technical Director, Hitachi Co. Pte Ltd
1. Key points of the interview
1. He thinks that the main and only key point is lack of willingness
which cause most jobs not completed successfully.
2. Management theories hardly address this point why staff are not
completing jobs on- time; Why simple jobs take many days to be
completed instead of just a couple of hours?. If they ever do , it just
add on to another round of theories of discussion. Practitioners could
hardly know how to implement.
3. Leaders have a lot of share of responsibility in this respect but many
leaders do not even want to recognize the gap of non- completing of
tasks.
4. We need practitioners’ advice and not management theories…..
6.3 Observations / data
1. Schaffner EMC Co.,Ltd.
It is located in Northern Region Industrial Estate, Lamphun and employs about
1000 staff. It started to embark lean cell manufacturing in September 2007 and to
day 75% of its operations are in Lean cells. Dramatic improvements in productivity
have been realized.
1.1 Key facts
a. Fig. 6.3a shows the Lean cell implementation since September 2007. The lean
conversion continues to be transformed.
70
50
40
30
23
23
23
24
24
25
25
25
21
19
20
15
13
11
8
10
5
0
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
3
10
10
M
ay
-
M
ar
-
Ja
n10
Se
p09
N
ov
-0
9
09
M
ay
-0
9
Ju
l-0
9
M
ar
-
Ja
n09
ov
-0
8
N
Ju
l-0
8
Se
p08
08
M
ay
-0
8
M
ar
-
Ja
n08
0
Se
p07
N
ov
-0
7
Number of Lean Cell
60
MonthYear
Fig. 6.3a
41
Lean cell q'ty
Benefit Comparison of FN280 Series (Twin fuses) Lean Cell
Item
Efficiency
(%)
Working Area
(m2)
Traveling Path
(m)
Manpower
(Persons)
UPH Per
Person
Throughput
(Days)
Traditional
line
Lean Cell
81.7%
110%
39.52
26.65
213
12
10
8
4
6
~6
~1.5
Fig. 6.3b
42
b. Fig. 6.3b shows the benefits of the product FN280 series. With implementation of
Lean cell , travelling distance has decreased from 213 meters to 12 meter, an
improvement of 18 times. Throughput time has been reduced from 6 days to 1.5
days , again dramatic improvement of 4 times.
c. The most significant improvement was done on the RN chokes. Schaffner was
losing share to its competitors. Before 2005 , Schaffner was selling about a million
units a year. By the year 2008 Schaffner was selling less than 700000 units, a sign
that it was losing market share. A lean conversion was started for this project and
Schaffner was able to reduce its cost of products by about 25%. It is capturing the
market share back. Fig. 6.3d shows the steep increase in output as the result of lean
conversion.
d. Schaffner achieved the following awards;





ISO 9000.
ISO 14000
OHS 1801
TS16949.
SONY PARTNER AWARD.
43
Item
Efficiency
(%)
Working
Area
(m2)
Traveling
Path
(m)
Manpower
Tradition Lean Cell
al
line 100.40%
76.80%
19.7
16.7
69.8
12.6
8
8
22
28
~4
~2
(Persons)
UPH Per
Person
Throughput
(Days)
Fig. 6.3c Benefit Comparison of RN Choke Lean Cell
44
RN Choke output
Out put
1200000
1000000
pcs
800000
Forcast
All RN choke reduce labor
time 20 %
Start reduce labor time 20 %
F Linear
600000
E
400000
C
A
200000
(Forcast)
D
B
Ap
r
M - 09
ay
Ju 09
nJu 0 9
l
Au -09
gSe 09
p
O - 09
ct
No 09
v
De -0 9
cJa 0 9
n
Fe -1 0
b
M - 10
ar
Ap 10
r- 1
M 0
ay
Ju 10
nJu 1 0
l-1
0
0
Month
Event
A :Completed RN choke cell 1
B :Re-layout all cells to be 5 couple cells/Completed RN choke cell 2.
C :Completed RN choke cell 3.
D :Re-design new oven from 1 layer to 2 layers.
E :Modify moulding machine by add hot air gun/Completed RN
choke cell 4,5 .
F: Create new Hi-pot jig/Implement counter optic sensor in coiling
machine/Add roller at assembly table for
control WIP and transfer
part simple.
Fig. 6.3d
45
2. Leica Instruments Singapore Pte. Ltd (fig. 6.3e).
It is situated in the western part of Singapore. Leica has been embarking on lean
conversion and six – sigma for the last ten years. It has executed well the lean sigma
strategy and has won many accolades.
2.1 Milestones /awards













Awarded ISO 9002 Quality System Certification by PSB
1992
Awarded ODS-Free Certification by PSB Jul 1994
- 1st multi-national corporation in Singapore
- 1st Leica subsidiary to receive this award
Awarded “SILVER” Award for Good Safety Performance
1994
by Ministry of Labour
Awarded ITE On-Job-Training Center (COJTC) Certification Jan 1995
Awarded ISO 9001 Quality System Certification by PSB
Apr 1995
Awarded Plaque of Commendation for Good Union-Employee
Relationship by Metal Industries Workers Union
Oct 1995
Awarded ISO 14001 Environmental Management
Apr 1997
System Certification by PSB
Awarded National Productivity Award (Individual) for Apr 1997
outstanding contribution to productivity improvement by PSB
Awarded Singapore Quality Class (SQC) organisation for
Sep 1997
achieving commendable level in Total Quality
Management (TQM) by PSB
Awarded National Productivity Award (Individual) for Apr 1998
outstanding contribution to productivity improvement by PSB
Awarded by PSB at 15th International Exposition of Quality Nov 1998
Circles 98 for outstanding performance in QC movement
- 1998 Outstanding Circle of the Year Award
- 1998 Outstanding QC Manager
Quality function is successfully integrated into
manufacturing operations Aug 1999
Awarded Outstanding Newcomer QC Organisation Award
Nov 1999
46











National QC Awards
- 1 gold and 2 silver Oct 2000
- 1 bronze Aug 2001
Singapore H.E.A.L.T.H Award (Bronze) by MOH
July 2002
A People Developer organisation. Certification by SPRING
July 2002
Singapore H.E.A.L.T.H Award (Bronze) by MOH
Sep 2003
National QC Awards – 1 gold and 1 silver Sep 2003
Successful Renewal for Singapore Quality Class (SQC) Sept 2003
R&D Partnership Recognition Award by A-STAR
Oct 2003
Successful Renewal of COJTC certification by ITE
Apr 2004
Successful Renewal for People Developer Standard
Jun 2005
Singapore H.E.A.L.T.H. Award (Gold) by Ministry of Health Oct 2005
Leica was judged as one of the top best 6 companies in Singapore by a panel
of international and localjudges. The award is called MANUFACTURING
EXCELLENCE AWARD ( MAXA) Nov. 2006
MAXA was organised by MIT, NTU, McKinsey & EDB. The President of
Singapore presented the award to the 6 winners.
Fig. 6.3e
47
6.4 Survey results
Table 6.4 shows the score from the survey questions handed to the 7 participants.
C4 was not able to hand in the completed survey questions but he participated in the
interview
Participants
Before Jan 2007
Points scored
Now as at Dec 2010.
Points scored
C1
70
128
C2
88
137
C3
68
140
C4
-------
-----
C5
NA
145
C6
NA
93
C7
NA
122
Table 6.4
The survey was conducted in the month of December based on Survey questions rev.
0. The survey did not ask any questions on lean sigma directly but rather deals with
the company’s ability to execute productivity and quality tasks.
7. DISCUSSION/ CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
48
The interviews conducted on 7 participants ( C1 to C7) were intensive and the
author managed to clarify some issues directly . For example , C2 put in the survey
form that the motivation level of all categories of staff from top to the lowest rank
was about the same between period I and period II but in period II the execution
culture was better than in period I ( period I is before Jan 2007 and period II is after
2006). What C2 was saying is that the motivation of the entire staff’s is always good
but the willingness to go beyond the extra mile is different. The outcome of the
interviews boils down to two fundamental factors for tasks or strategy to be
executed successfully;
1. The necessary knowledge to do the job.
2. The willingness to do the job.
What is more surprising is that factor 1 is not that significant compared to factor2
as C3 ( Khun Sudsiri – Hr manger, Schaffner) even confirmed that most jobs do
not require special knowledge to be executed. Only C5 ( Ong Chee Wee , Leica )
stated that jobs in Leica are executed efficiently and if they are not completed or
delayed , they are due to insufficient knowledge. But all agree that the two factors
are required for any tasks or strategy to be executed well. All the participants have
worked in industries ever since they graduated from their universities and together
they command more than 150 years of working experience . These participants are
from the school of hard knocks and they confirmed that most mangers or CEOs do
not understand well when jobs are not executed. Some managers keep beating
around the bush whereas others just simply ignore them for unfinished jobs. Some
even said that CEOs focus on short term gains and keen on developing a brilliant
strategy. What is the use of having a brilliant strategy with incomplete
implementation?.
Not many industrial researches have been carried out on this topic, “ why
companies cannot execute strategy or tasks that required them to be successful?”. If
they ever do , they are very theoretical in nature and offer little help to
practitioners. For example , there are ample theories on motivation such as ;
1. Theory X and Theory Y- Douglas Mcgregor.
2. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
3.Expectant Theory.
4. Equity Theory .
5. etc
Such motivation theories are useful in helping practitioners to have an academic
platform but are of limited use pertaining to shop floor application.
The inability to execute is indeed a gap which requires more research to be done.
Some capable CEOs and top mangers realize and when they pay attention to close
this gap , their companies soar with outstanding results.
There are many companies which are very successful and here are some examples ;
49
1. Dell computer –
Steven Holzner , author of the book,” How Dell Does IT” devotes one whole chapter
entitled “ Always Adapt , Always Execute”, ( Chapter 6 - pages 107 to 128). On 7 of
March 2005 , Fortune magazine named Dell Inc. as the most admired company in
the United States. “ And you don’t get there unless you know what the heck you are
doing”, stated Steven Holzer. Some examples of Dell’s execution are;
 Dell’s commodities work better when they are delivered.
 When Dell’s commodities don’t work , they are fixed or replaced faster.
 Dell keeps less inventory on hand to build its commodities.
 Dell needs less of a sales force because a large portion of its orders come
directly from the Internet.
2. IBM
Louis V. Gerstner, Jr, former CEO of IBM who was credited to turn around the
company . He authored the book, “ Who Says Elephants Can’t dance?”. He also
devoted a chapter ( chapter 24, pages 229 to 234) entitled , “ Execution – Strategy
Goes Only So Far. He offered the following advice;
 It is extremely to develop an unique strategy to differentiate yoiurself from
others. If you have one , it will incur high risk. At the end of the day , most
competitors fight using the same strategy.
 To win, one must execute faster than the competitors.
 In his own words, “ all the great companies in the world out- execute their
competitors day in and day out in the marketplace, in their manufacturing
plants, in their logistics, in their inventory- in just about everything they do.
Rarely do great companies have a proprietary position that insulates them
from the constant hand- to hand combat of competition”.
3. GE
Jack Welch- the legendary CEO of GE , authored a book called , “ Winning”
and in chapter 6 , titled , “ Hiring- what winners are made of, (pages 81 to 96) “
says he looks for 4Es as ;
 The first E is positive energy.
 The second E is ability to energize others.
 The third E is edge- the courage to make tough yes or no decisions.
 The fourth E is – execute – the ability to get the job done.
GE, Dell , Allied Signal ( Honeywell) and IBM are companies that know how to
execute strategies successfully and they are well ahead of the pack. All the CEOs
in the above companies stress the importance of “EXECUTION”. They know
50
strategy is just one part but the other part is “execution” IBM CEO even said that it
is difficult to develop an unique strategy to beat up competitors (and if you have one
, it will be copied anyway) . What is more important is to out- execute your
competitors.
Thomas A. Stewart and Louise O’ Brien interviewed Dell founder , Michael Dell
and his Vice – President , Kevin Rollins and later published in Harvard Business
stated that the secret of Dell’s success goes beyond its famous business model . High
expectation and disciplined , consistent execution are embedded in the company’s
DNA. Michael and Rolllins were asked that their strategy of going “direct” is not a
secret and everybody knows it and why other companies cannot copy their model?
Rollins answered in his words, “ The same reason why Kmart can’t imitate
Walmart. What Walmart does isn’t rocket science- its retailing. Why can’t
everybody be Walmart or Jet Blue or Samsung or whatever the best company in
their industry is?. Because it takes more than strategy. It takes years of consistent
execution for a company to achieve sustainable competitive advantage…….”.
The key words in DELL strategy are “ consistent execution” and this confirms that
for lean sigma strategy to succeed , its success lies mainly in the ability to execute.
The above discussion centers around CEOs but there is an important piece of
research done by Nitin Nohria and colleagues also confirmed that execution is key.
Nitin Nohria ( et al) carried out research on 200 well – established management
practice as they were employed over a ten year period by 160 companies. It is a
ground breaking five year study and later they published their findings in Harvard
Business Review under the simple title , “ What Really Works”. Their study reveals
4 primary practices;
1. Strategy- Devise and naintain a clearly stated, focused strategy.
2. Execution- Develop and maintain flawless operational execution.
3. Culture – Develop and maintain a performance – oriented culture.
4. Structure – Build and maintain a fast, flexible flat organization.
7.1 Leica and Schaffner
In the author’s study of two companies , Schaffner and Leica , both have
implemented lean manufacturing concepts successfully. Leica is ahead in
implementing Six sigma and Schaffner has just started its six- sigma program.
1. Schaffner EMC Co. Ltd. Thailand.
Before 2007 ( period I), there was no culture of execution and many tasks did
not require special abilities remained unsolved ( C3- khun Sudsiri ref. 6.2.1 results
of the interview). After 2006 , the author instituted the training on ROFO, 5S and
lean manufacturing concepts on company wide basis. The lean conversion was
51
successfully executed ( refer figs. 6.3a, 6.3b, 6.3c, & 6.3d). In period II , there was
dramatic improvements in terms of productivity, customer satisfaction and quality
compared to period I. This was confirmed by the interview of Schaffner C1,C2 &
C3. Also the score points as shown in table 6.4 by the 3 candidates also point in the
same direction. So what makes Schaffner successful in implementing lean
manufacturing concepts? In the author’s opinion, what really changed was the
coaching on ROFO and creating an environment for staff to learn and acquire new
concepts.
2. Leica Instruments Singapore Pte. Ltd. Singapore
It was a company which excels in best practices . The staff have been
consistently using ROFO principles to guide and execute their tasks successfully.
The lean six- sigma was successfully executed. ROFO,5S, lean concepts are so
ingrained in everyone that there is no need of quality inspectors to inspect their
work pieces. The achievement of quality lies in the hands of the production workers
. There is no quality department or quality engineer or manager and yet they
produce world class quality microscopes and surgical instruments without the aid
of quality controllers. The surgical instruments are used in hospitals for eye and
brain surgeries and the microscopes are used in research laboratories as well as in
industries. Customers are extremely satisfied with quality of Leica products.By
practicing ROFO principles , workers have pride in producing quality products and
they do not want others to inspect their work. Leica won many awards as shown in
section 6 ( 2.1 milestones / awards). Staff in Leica have strong execution culture and
are willing to go extra mile to help others.
7.2 What should be the execution model for lean six sigma ?.
The above intensive discussion confirms the author’s hypothesis that two
fundamental forces are required to execute lean sigma strategy. The author
attempts to develop a conceptual model for further research. This is shown in the
following figures;
Fig. 7.2a- Develop a learning systems to coach the knowledge workers. This is to
ensure the knowledge competency of lean sigma. To create a knowledge
environment , one must understand the learning behaviour of the company. Here
learning behaviour theories are apllied appropriately.
Fig. 7.2b- shows the development of force F1.
Fig. 7.2c- shows the ROFO model to develop force F2. This is to create a culture of
ownership, willingness to go that extra mile to execute.
Fig. 7.2d – shows the overall model to execute the lean six sigma strategy.
52
Learning behavior theories
Knowledge
management
professionals
compentency levels 5
Action Learning
Problem central
Competency level 6
Supervisors/ technicians
compentency levels 4
Training Procedure
Competency - based
Production workers
compentency levels 3
Competency levels 1&2
Sitting with Nellie
Competency levels
Learning behavior theories
Categories of knowledge workers
Learning systems
Fig. 7.2a
53
Knowledge
management
Action learning
Problem central
Training
procedure
Competency
based
Sitting with
Nellie
Level 6
Level 5
Professionals
Level 4
F1
Production
workers
technicians
Level 3
Knowledge competency
Level 2
Level 1
Fig.7.2b
R
O
RESPONSIBILTY
OWNERSHIP
F2
O
F
ON- TIME CORRECTIVE
ACTION
Ownership of
total process
FOCUS
Fig. 7.2c
54
learning
behaviour
Knowledge
management
Action
learning
Problem
central
Training
procedure
Competency
based
Sitting with
Nellie
Professionals
gap
Level 6
Supervisors
and technicians
Production
workers
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
F1
Execution of
Lean Six –
sigma
Strategy
Gap closed
Level 2
Level 1
learning
behaviour
F2
R
O
F
O
Fig. 7.2d
8. CONCLUSION
It has been conclusively discussed that the two fundamental forces are required to
execute the lean six sigma strategy.
9. APPENDICES
Appendix I survey questions.
APPENDIX I Rev.0
SURVEY QUESTIONS
1. How long have you been working in your company?
----years.
2. What is your designation? -----------------------3. Where would you place your hierarchical position in accordance to the matrix
below?
55
a. Top manager………………
b. Middle manager…………..
c. Professionals………………
d. Supervisors/ technicians…..
e. Production workers……….
f. Others………………………
4. Does your company has daily production meeting? ( daily production meeting is
one which discusses and solves issues directly related to customers’ delivery
plan).
a. Yes……
b. No…….
c. Others ( please specify e.g weekly)………………………………………..
d. What is the average duration of a production
meeting?…………………….minutes.
Poor
e. Do you agree the meeting is effective 1 2 3
average
4 5 6 7
8
strong
9 10
5. Does your company has daily Quality meeting? ( quality meeting is to discuss and
solve all quality issues).
a. Yes…………
b. No …………
c. Others ( please specify)………………………………….
d. What is the average duration of each meeting ?………………..minutes.
Poor
average
strong
e. Do you agree the meeting is effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
6. Please mark only when your company has the following ( leave the box blank if
your company does not have it) ;
a. Vision/ mission.
b. Quality policy.
c. Suggestion scheme.
56
d. Formalized training and development.
e. Succession planning.
f. ISO 9000.
g. TS16949
h. ISO14000.
i. OHS 1801
j. Supplier management system
k. Goods receiving inspection system.
l. In- process control system
m. Outgoing quality control system.
n. Off- site meetings.
o. Formalized Kaizen ( continuous improvement) program.
p. Work instructions.
q. Company wide quality control procedures.
r. Major KPIs;
i. Financial indicators.
ii. Internal business indicators.
iii. Customers indicators.
iv. Innovation and learning indicators.
7. Employee welfare program.
8. Calibration and maintenance program.
9. Do you have monthly operations meeting to discuss the KPIs?.
57
a. Yes……
b. No…..
10. In your opinion , how effective is for each KPI;
a. Financial indicators
Poor
average
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
strong
9 10 NA
b. Internal business indicators
Poor
1 2
3
average
4 5 6
7
8
strong
9 10 NA
7
8
strong
9 10 NA
c. Customers indicators
Poor
1 2
3
average
4 5 6
d. Innovation and learning indicators
Poor
1 2
3
average
4 5 6
7
strong
8 9 10 NA
11. In your opinion , what is the on- time delivery to your customers?.
Poor
1 2
3
average
4 5 6
7
strong
8 9 10 NA
12. In your opinion , what is the quality of the output products?
Poor
1 2
3
average
4 5 6
7
8
strong
9 10 NA
13. In your opinion how effective is your organization in solving quality and
productivity issues?.
Poor
average
strong
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA
58
14. Do you think your organization has the right level of knowledge to solve quality and
productivity issues?
Poor
1 2
3
average
4 5 6
7
8
strong
9 10 NA
15. In your opinion, mark the level of motivation of category of staff in your
organization.
1. Top managers.
Poor
1 2
average
3 4 5 6
7
strong
8 9 10 NA
7
8
strong
9 10 NA
7
8
strong
9 10 NA
7
8
strong
9 10 NA
7
strong
8 9 10 NA
2. Middle managers
Poor
1 2
3
average
4 5 6
3. Professionals
Poor
1 2
3
average
4 5 6
4. Supervisors/ technicians.
Poor
1 2
3
average
4 5 6
5. Production workers.
Poor
1 2
3
average
4 5 6
16. How do you rate the execution culture of your company?
Poor
1 2
3
average
4 5 6
7
8
strong
9 10 NA
17. How do you rate the learning culture of your company?
Poor
average
strong
59
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA
18. Do you think that jobs normally assigned in your company have taken too long to be
completed.
Strongly
barely
strongly
Disagree
agree
agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA
19. Do you think that most of the jobs that are not completed on-time are mainly due to
the following factors ( tick one or both if applicable);
a. Lack of knowledge or abilities
b. Lack of willingness
c. others
60
10.REFERENCES





















Quality is free- Crosby, P. B. Mentor , New York, 1979,
Managing- Henry Mintzberg, FT Prentice Hall, 2009.ISBN# 978-0-27370930-5The Goal- by Eliyahu M.Goldratt and Jeff Cox. North River Press.
2nd edition, 1992. ISBN #088427-061-0.
Execution- the discipline of getting things done by Larry Bossidy and Ram
Charan. Crown Busines, New York. ISBN# 0-609-61057-0
The Tacit Dimension- Michael Polanyi , The Univerity of Chicago Press
1966. ISBN 13-978-0226-67298-4.
Knowing and Being- essays by Michael Polanyi . Edited by Marjorie Grene.
The University of Chicago Press.1969.ISBN( cloth bound) 0-26-67284-0 ISBN
(paper back) 0-226-67285-9.
Measuring Performance For Business Results-Mohamed Zairi. Chapman
and Hall. ISN # 0 412 57400 4.
The Knowledge Creating Company- I. Nonaka.
On Organisational Learning-Chris Argyris. 2nd edition. Blackwell Business
1999. ISBN # 0-631-21308-2
Intellectual Capital-Johan Roos, Goran Roos, Nicola Carlo Dragonetti and
Leif Edvinsson. Maxmillan Business. 1997. ISBN # 0-333-69479-1.
Harvard Business Review on Knowledge management- a Series of knowledge
articles Libray of Congress Catalogue Card nimber 98-234096.1998.
Marching On- published by Leica Instruments Singapore Pte. Ltd. 2000.
Linking the Balanced Scorecard to strategy-by Kaplan and Norton.
California Management Review Vol.39. No 1, fall 1996, pp53-79.
Putting the Balanced Score card to work- by Kaplan and Norton. Harvard
Business Review Sept.- Oct 1993 pp 134-147.
Using the Balanced Scorecard as a strategic Management system-Kaplan and
Norton. Harvard Business Review Jan- Feb. 1996.
The Balanced Scorecard-by Kaplan and Norton. 1996 Harvard Business
School Press.
The Strategy Focused Organization- Kaplan and Norton. 2001. Harvard
Business School Press.
Transforming the balanced Scorecard from Performance Measurement to
Strategic Management- by Kaplan and Norton. 2001 American Accounting
Association Horizons. Vol 15 No 2 June 2001.pp147 -160.
Disbanding the Quality department in Leica Instruments Singapore- by Ah
Bee Goh. Published in Singapore Quality Institute Yearbook , 2001.
Statistical Techniques applied to manufacturing process problem- by Ah Bee
Goh Published by Quality Assurance vol.13 no.3. Sept 1987pp 91- 95.
Supplier Quality Management – by Ah Bee Goh. Published by Singapore
Quality Institute Annual Yearbook 1995/96.pp66-72.
Out of Crisis- by W. Edwards Deming. 1986 .Cambridge University Press.
61
















Total Quality Control ; Feigenbaum A.V 3rd edition.1983.Mcgraw Hill Book
Co.
Dr. Nopasit of Chiang Mai university lecture notes.
Learning from the Mars Rover Mission: scientific discovery, learning and
memory. Charlotte Linde. Journal of Knowledge Management. Vol. 10 No. 2
2006. pp90-102.
Harvard Business Review on Knowledge management- a Series of knowledge
articles Libray of Congress Catalogue Card nimber 98-234096.1998.
Winning – Jack Welch and Suzy Welch. Harper Collins Publisher. 2005.
ISBN#0 00719769 1.
How Dell Dose It- Steven Holzner. Tata- McGraw Hill Publishing
Company.ISBN # 0-07-061181-5.
Research Methods for managers – John Gill & Phil Johnson. 3rd 2002.
SAGE Publications Ltd. ISBN # 0 7619- 4001- 4.
Doing a Literature Research - Chris Hart. SAGE Publications Ltd.2001.
ISBN #0 7619 6809 1.
Statistics for management- Richard I. Levin. 4th edition. Prentice – Hall
International editions. 1987. ISBN # 0-13-845207-5 01.
Modern Elementary Statistics- Freund & Sinon.1997. Prentice Hall , Inc.
ISBN# 0-13 – 859844-4.
Practioner’s guide to Statistics and Lean Six- Sigma for process
improvements. Mikel J. harry, Prem S. mann, Offia C. De Hodgins, Richard
L. Hulbert, Christopher J. Lacke. John Wiley and Sons , INC .2010. ISBN #
978-0-470-11494-0
Implementing Six Sigma. Forrest W. Breyfogle III. 2nd edition. John Wiley
and Sons INC. 2003. ISBN # 0-471-26572-1.
The Goal- by Eliyahu M.Goldratt and Jeff Cox. North River Press. 2nd
edition, 1992. ISBN #088427-061-0. Winning – Jack Welch and Suzy Welch.
Harper Collins Publisher. 2005. ISBN#0 00719769 1.
What Really Works. Nitin Nohria, William Joyce and Brice Roberson.
Harvard Business Review. July 2003 pp42-52.
Execution without excuses. The HBR Interview on Michael Dell and Kevin
Robins by Thomas A. Stewart and Louise)’ Brien. Harvard Business Review
. March 2005. pp102-111.
Process Management and the future of six- sigma. Michael Hammer. MIT
Sloan management Review. Winter 2002 Vol. 43 no2. pp26- 32.
62