Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Implementing Integrated Lean Six Sigma for Software Development: A Flexibility Framework for Managing the Continuity: Change Dichotomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Continuity and change are the twin characteristics of any software development process as it evolves from the traditional life cycle approach to incorporating and managing flexibility from an end-user perspective. Business requirements constantly change till the release of a software product though the features of continuity are evident in the software development process itself. The idea of Lean, as borrowed from the Lean manufacturing context, is an agile methodology for managing change while the Six Sigma approach emphasizes continuous improvement as part of a defect reduction strategy. We propose a software development approach that holds together the aspects of both continuity and change under a flexible management system and illustrate the application of the continuity, change framework using an integrated Lean Six Sigma for software development in a practical context. The present research reflects the Lean Six Sigma application and implementation in the software industry, using the commonly used statistical and non-statistical tools, software engineering tools and other frameworks used within software business. We also examine some of the critical success factors (CSFs) for a successful Six Sigma initiative in the software/IT industry. The research brings out that Lean Six Sigma, when used for achieving operational excellence, can, as it turns out, do more than simply improve processes. The paper also brings out how Lean Six Sigma helps discovering innovation opportunities far beyond operations, and enhances financial performance. This paper focuses on integrated lean six sigma programs in practice, rather than dwell on the theoretical basis or a motivationally based argument. It is hoped that the adoption of methodologies outlined in this paper would enable software companies to attain improvements in terms of cost, schedule and quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beck, K. (1999). Extreme programming explained. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breyfoggle, F. W. (1999). Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter solutions using statistical methods. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chreim, S. (2005). The continuity-change duality in narrative texts of organizational identity. Journal of Management Studies, 42(3), 567–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colin, H. (2005). Rooted in supervision, branching into management: Continuity and change in the role of first- line manager. Journal of Management Studies, 42(3), 471–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, M. L. (2002). Lean Six Sigma: Combining six sigma quality with lean speed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, M. L. (2003). Lean Six Sigma for service: How to use lean speed and six sigma quality to improve services and transactions. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation. New York, NY: Harper Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harry, M., & Schroeder, R. (2000). Six Sigma: The breakthrough management strategy revolutionizing the world’s top corporations. New York, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harter, D. E., Krishnan, M. S., & Slaughter, S. A. (2000). Effects of process maturity on quality, cycle time, and effort in software development. Management Science, 46, 451–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaac, G., Rajendran, C., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2004). A holistic framework for TQM in the software industry: A confirmatory factor analysis approach. The Quality Management Journal, 11(3), 35–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, G., & Moerke, A. (2005). Continuity and change in corporate governance: Comparing Germany and Japan. Corporate Governance, 13(3), 351–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jalote, P. (2000). CMM in practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic, V., & Shoemaker, D. (1997). ISO9001 standard and software quality improvement. Benchmarking for Quality Management and Technology, 4, 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubiak, T. (2003). An integrated approach system. Quality Progress, 36(7), 41–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasserre, P. (2003). Global strategic management. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, R., & Evans, A. (2004). The organizational contextual factors affecting the implementation of Six-Sigma in a high technology mass-manufacturing environment. International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 1(1), 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nave, D. (2002). How to compare Six Sigma, Lean and the theory of constraints: a framework for choosing what’s best for your organization. Quality Progress, 35(3), 73–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phan, D. D., George, J. F., & Vogel, D. R. (1995). Managing software quality in a very large development project (case study). Information and Management, 29, 277–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pranckevicius, D., Diaz, D. M, & Gitlow, H. (2008). A Lean Six Sigma case study: An application of the 5s techniques. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 5(I), 63–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for change. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwaber, K. (2004). Agile project management with scrum. USA: Microsoft Press, A Division of Microsoft Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Su, C.-T., Chiang, T.-L., & Chang, C.-M. (2006). Improving service quality by capitalizing on an integrated Lean Six Sigma methodology. International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 2(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil. (2000). Cornerstones of enterprise flexibility, Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sushil. (2001). SAP-LAP framework. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 2(1), 51–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sushil. (2005). A flexible strategy framework for managing continuity and change. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 1(1), 22–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A., Barton, R., & Chiamaka, C. (2009). Applying lean six sigma in a small engineering company: A model for change. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20(1), 113–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H. (1998). Building the flexible firm: How to remain competitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking (pp. 90–98). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York, NY: Maxwell Macmillan International.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashok K. Pundir.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pillai, A.K.R., Pundir, A.K. & Ganapathy, L. Implementing Integrated Lean Six Sigma for Software Development: A Flexibility Framework for Managing the Continuity: Change Dichotomy. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 13, 107–116 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-012-0009-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-012-0009-2

Keywords

Navigation