Advertisement

Operations Management Research

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 15–23 | Cite as

Constructing useful theory: The case of Six Sigma

  • Suzanne de Treville
  • Norman M. Edelson
  • Anilkumar N. Kharkar
  • Benjamin Avanzi
Article

Abstract

Organizational practices related to Six Sigma are believed to have resulted in improved organizational outcomes. The academic community, however, continues to lack understanding of the constructs and causal relationships underlying Six Sigma. Hence, discussion of Six Sigma is buffeted by anecdotal experience reported from practice. We evaluate Six Sigma through the lens of literature on theory development to explain why the Six Sigma constructs, assumptions, and causal relationships are inconsistent with theory development principles.

Keywords

Six Sigma Theory development Process improvement Linking theory and practice Process consistency 

References

  1. Adler PS, Goldoftas B, Levine DI (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organ Sci 10:43–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amundson SD (1998) Relationships between theory-driven empirical research in operations management and other disciplines. J Oper Manag 16:341–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antonakis J, House RJ (2002) An analysis of the full-range leadership theory: the way forward. In: Avolio BJ, Yammarino FJ (eds) Transformational and charismatic leadership: the road ahead. JAI, Amsterdam, pp 3–34Google Scholar
  4. Antonakis J, House RJ (2004) On instrumental leadership: beyond transactions and transformations. Paper presented at the Gallup Leadership Institute, University of NebraskaGoogle Scholar
  5. Antonakis J, Avolio BJ, Sivasubramaniam N (2003) Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X). Leadership Quart 14:261–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Antonakis J, Cianciolo AT, Sternberg RJ (2004) The nature of leadership. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  7. Bacharach SB (1989) Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation. Acad Manage Rev 14:496–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bass BM (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectation. The Free Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  9. Crosby PB (1979) Quality is free. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. de Treville S, Edelson NM, Watson R (1995) Getting Six Sigma back to basics. Quality Digest 15:42–47Google Scholar
  11. Dubin R (1969) Theory building. The Free Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  12. Dubin R (1976) Theory building in applied areas. In: Dunette MD (ed) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Rand McNally, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Harry MJ, Lawson JR (1992) Six Sigma producibility analysis and process characterization. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Latzko WJ (1995) Notes on the Six Sigma concept. Available via http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/pub/den/six_sig.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2008
  15. Levinthal DA, March JG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strategic Manage J 14:95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewin K (1945) The research center for group dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sociometry 8:126–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Linderman K, Schroeder RG, Zaheer S, Choo AS (2003) Six Sigma: a goal-theoretic perspective. J Oper Manag 21:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Locke EA, Latham GP (2004) What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Acad Manage Rev 29:388–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lowe KB, Gardner WL (2000) Ten years of The Leadership Quarterly: contributions and challenges for the future. Leadership Quart 11:459–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meredith J (1993) Theory building through conceptual methods. Int J Oper Prod Man 13(5):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Monden Y (1983) Toyota production system. Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Institute of Industrial Engineers, Norcross, GAGoogle Scholar
  22. Motorola (2008) Motorola University Six Sigma Dictionary. Available online via http://www.motorola.com/content.jsp?globalObjectId=3074-5804. Accessed May 26, 2008
  23. Olifant J (2008) Can anyone define what Six Sigma really is? Available online via http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8741. Accessed May 26, 2008
  24. Osigweh CAB (1989) Concept fallibility in organizational science. Acad Manage Rev 14:579–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Popper KR (1995/1989) Conjectures and refutations, 5th edn (reprinted). Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Pyzdek T (1999) Non-normal distributions in the real world. Available via http://www.qualitydigest.com/dec99/html/nonnormal.html. Accessed January 29, 2005
  27. Schonberger RJ (1982) Japanese manufacturing techniques: nine hidden lessons in simplicity. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Schroeder RG, Linderman K, Liedtke C, & Choo AS (2008) Six Sigma: definition and underlying theory. J Oper Manag 26:536–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Siviy J (2008) Six Sigma. Available online via http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/descriptions/sigma6_body.html. Accessed May 26, 2008
  30. Tushman M, O’Reilly III, CA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manage Rev 3(4):8–30Google Scholar
  31. Van de Ven AH (1989) Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Acad Manage Rev 14:486–489Google Scholar
  32. Vroom VH (1964) Work and motivation. Wiley, New York, NY (republished by Jossey-Bass 1994)Google Scholar
  33. Wacker JG (2004) A theory of formal conceptual definitions: developing theory-building measurement instruments. J Oper Manag 22:629–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weick KE (1989) Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Acad Manage Rev 14:516–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Whetten D (1989) What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Acad Manage Rev 14:490–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suzanne de Treville
    • 1
  • Norman M. Edelson
    • 2
  • Anilkumar N. Kharkar
    • 3
  • Benjamin Avanzi
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Business and EconomicsUniversity of LausanneLausanne-DorignySwitzerland
  2. 2.Norm Edelson Manufacturing Improvement Co.ChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Corning IncorporatedCorningUSA
  4. 4.Faculty of Business and EconomicsUniversity of LausanneLausanne-DorignySwitzerland

Personalised recommendations