The Importance of Analysis Cycles in Defining Criteria for Selecting Digital Era Projects

  • Cassiano Souza BellerEmail author
  • Luiz Felipe Pierin Ramos
  • Eduardo de Freitas Rocha Loures
  • Fernando Deschamps
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 280)


The technological advances of the Digital Era can be a success depending on the quality of the data for decision making. There are many opportunities to invest in solutions for quality improvement. Many technologies promise to identify faults and even resolve them automatically. There is a gap in identifying the criteria that support decision making. It has been perceived the need to describe how the flow is for decision making of quality improvement projects and innovation within an automotive company. The purpose of this article is to examine and identify how an industry, which invests in high technology, is addressing the advances of these technological transformations. The applied methodological design is the explanatory research carried out in the form of a case study through the combination of document analysis, direct observations and semi-structured interviews. The contribution of this research highlights the importance of using criteria that best demonstrate the benefits, constraints and risks in the decision-making process for solving quality problems with the adoption of new technological resources. The main results indicate a convergence with the already existing data in the literature, considering, for example, the local culture. There is a need to consider other criteria to better inform decision-making in the adoption of technological artifacts.


Criteria Decision-making Quality Continuous improvement and digital era projects 



This work was supported by Production and Systems Engineering Research Group (PPGEPS) about Industry 4.0 from PUC-PR, Araucaria Foundation for Science and Technology/FA-PR under Grant 40/2017 and Renault of Brazil


  1. 1.
    Berman, S.: Digital transformation: opportunities to create new business models. Strat. Leadersh. 40(2) (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chryssolouris, G., Mavrikios, D., Papakostas, N., Mourtzis, D., Michalos, G., Georgoulias, K.: Digital manufacturing: history, perspectives, and outlook. Department of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, University of Patras, Patras, Greece (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sundar, R., Balajib, N., Satheesh Kumar, R.: A review on lean manufacturing implementation techniques. College of Engineering, Pottaplayam, Tamilnadu (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shah, R., Ward, P.: Defining and developing measures of lean production. J. Oper. Manag. (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCahon, C., Rys, M., Ward, K.: The impact of training technique on the difficulty of quality improvement problem solving. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 96(7), 24–31 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moen, R., Norman, C.: Evolution of the PDCA cycle—Society, University of West Georgia (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Werkema, C.: Lean Seis Sigma: Introdução às ferramentas do lean manufacturing. Rio de Janeiro, RJ (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Satolo, E., et al.: Análise da utilização de técnicas e ferramentas no programa Seis Sigma a partir de um levantamento tipo survey. Prod. 19(2), 400–416 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pacheco, D.: Teoria das Restrições, Lean Manufacturing e Seis Sigma: limites e possibilidades de integração, UFRGS, Rio Grande do Sul (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ray, S., Das, P.: Six Sigma project selection methodology. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 1(4), 293–309 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hagemeyer, C., Gershenson, J., Johnson, D.: Classification and application of problem solving quality tools: a manufacturing case study. TQM Mag. 18 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vargas, R.: Utilizando a programação multicritério (analytic hierarchy process—ahp) para selecionar e priorizar projetos na gestão de portfólio. In: PMI Global Congress, North America (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Noro, G.: Tomada de decisão em Gestão de Projetos: um estudo realizado no setor de construção civil. Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Padovani, M., Muscata, A., Camanho, R., Carvalho, M.: Looking for the right criteria to define projects portfolio: multiple case study analysis. University of São Paulo, SP (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mourão, Y., Gomes, F.: Priorização de Projetos de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento na Indústria do Petróleo: Uma Aplicação Da Teoria Dos Prospectos, Rio de Janeiro (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: ABNT NBR ISO 9001:2015—Sistemas de gestão da qualidade—Requisitos. Rio de Janeiro (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    International Organization for Standardization (n.d.)—ISO 9000 family—Quality management. Accessed 9 March 2018
  18. 18.
    Nakane, J., Hall, R.: Ohno’s method creating a survival work culture. AME—Association for Manufacturing Excellence, 380 West Palatine Road (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dinh, T., Barbara, I., Tritos, L.: The impact of total quality management on innovation: findings from a developing country. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 23(9), 1092–1117 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thiagarajan, T., e Zairi, M.: A review of total quality management in practice: understanding the fundamentals through examples of best practice applications—Part I. TQM Mag. 9(4), 270–286 (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cassiano Souza Beller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Luiz Felipe Pierin Ramos
    • 1
  • Eduardo de Freitas Rocha Loures
    • 1
  • Fernando Deschamps
    • 1
  1. 1.Pontifical Catholic University of Parana (PUC-PR)CuritibaBrazil

Personalised recommendations