An institutional theoryperspective on Six Sigma

adoptionMichael J. Braunscheidel

Department ofManagement andMarketing, Richard J.Wehle School of Business,Canisius College, Buffalo, New York, USA

James W. HamisterDepartment of Information Systems and Operations Management,

Raj Soin College of Business, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, USA, and

Nallan C. Suresh and Harold StarDepartment of Operations Management and Strategy, School of Management,

State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is, first, to utilize institutional theory to assess motivation for theadoption of Six Sigma. Second, to examine the role of an organization’s innovation implementationclimate and the fit between the innovation considered and the values of the organization’s members onthe implementation of Six Sigma. Third, to study the impact that the adoption and implementation ofSix Sigma has on organizational performance.

Design/methodology/approach – Methods advocated in case study research were employed in theconduct of seven case studies. The research protocol consisted of identifying organizations in a varietyof manufacturing industries, and conducting focused interviews with a minimum of three respondentsin each company in order to improve validity.

Findings – This paper suggests that institutional theory proves to be an effective means by which toexamine the adoption of Six Sigma. In addition, support for innovation implementation model suggestedby Klein and Sorra is found. Each of the studied firms reported performance improvements as a result ofthe adoption and implementation of Six Sigma.

Originality/value – This paper contributes to a better understanding of Six Sigma adoption,implementation, and implementation effectiveness of Six Sigma by exploring how it is applied indifferent manufacturing contexts.

Keywords Quality management, Six Sigma, Organizational processes, Organizational theory,Manufacturing industries

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionThis paper describes an exploratory research project of firms practicing Six Sigma inorder to better understand the firms’ motivations for adopting and implementing

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-3577.htm

The research team thanks the seven anonymous organizations that were willing to share theirvaluable time and experiences relating to their Six Sigma efforts. This paper has also benefitedgreatly from the insightful comments and suggestions made by the editors and three anonymousreviewers.

Six Sigmaadoption

423

Received December 2008Revised December 2009,

June 2010,September 2010

Accepted October 2010

International Journal of Operations &Production Management

Vol. 31 No. 4, 2011pp. 423-451

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0144-3577

DOI 10.1108/01443571111119542

Six Sigma methodologies, as well as its impact on the adopting firm’s performance andcompetitive advantage.

Six Sigma is one of the more recent quality management innovations which manyorganizations have adopted, with the intent to significantly improve performance andcustomer service. Six Sigma initiatives are closely related to total quality management(TQM) initiatives (Goeke and Offodile, 2005; Amheiter and Maleyeff, 2005; Thawani,2004). One of the major differences between Six Sigma and TQM is Six Sigma’s focus onprofitability (Goeke and Offodile, 2005). Recently, there has been little published empiricalresearch into the application and implementation of Six Sigma methodologies, with somerecent notable exceptions (McAdam and Lafferty, 2004; Linderman et al., 2003;Nonthaleerak and Hendry, 2008; Schroeder et al., 2008; Zu et al., 2008; Gutierrez et al., 2009).While this literature has been very helpful with respect to providing suitable definitions ofSix Sigma and establishing theoretical support for Six Sigma, very little research has beenconducted on the motivation for the adoption of Six Sigma and its impact on performance.

A review of research literature reveals a general lack of empirical research withrespect to the reasons for Six Sigma adoption. This paper argues that institutionaltheory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) is a useful approach in explaining the adoption ofSix Sigma in organizations. Institutional theory posits that organizations do not justcompete for resources and customers but also cope with pressure to conform to “sharednotions of appropriate forms and behaviors, since violating them may call into questionthe organization’s legitimacy and thus affect its ability to secure resources and socialsupport” (Teo et al., 2003). DiMaggio and Powell (1983) described three mechanisms ofinstitutional isomorphic change by which firms adopt similar organizational processesand structures. Institutional theory has been used to help explain the adoption of TQM(Westphal et al., 1997), interorganizational linkages (Teo et al., 2003), interorganizationalbusiness process standards (Bala and Venkatesh, 2007), and business continuityplanning (Zsidisin et al., 2005).

In addition to investigating the effects of institutional theory on the adoption ofSix Sigma, we also employ the model of the determinants of the effectiveness oforganizational implementation developed by Klein and Sorra (1996). In this model, it isposited that both an organization’s climate for innovation implementation and theperceived fit between an innovation and the values of the targeted users of theinnovation are important for effective implementation of an innovation.

The paper is organized as follows. First a brief literature review discusses majorfindings in the quality literature that are relevant to this research, as well as a discussionof institutional theory and its application to Six Sigma adoption. Pertinent informationrelated to Klein and Sorra’s (1996) implementation effectiveness model is presented.Research questions and propositions are then offered. This is followed by a review of theresearch methodology employed and a brief synopsis of the company profiles, includingSix Sigma history, implementation, and results. This is followed by a proposedtheoretical model, methods, discussion of findings, future research opportunities, andconclusions and limitations of this research.

2. Literature reviewThe following section provides a summary of the academic literature that is relevant tothis study. It includes a section on Six Sigma from an academic perspective, institutionaltheory, and the determinants of innovation implementation effectiveness.

IJOPM31,4

424

2.1 Six SigmaSix Sigma was introduced by Motorola in the early 1980s in response to competitivepressures by Japanese firms in the semiconductor industry (Raisinghani et al., 2005;Amheiter and Maleyeff, 2005). From a statistical point of view, Six Sigma is associatedwith 3.4 defects per million opportunities (DPMO) (Raisinghani et al., 2005; Antony,2004). In the practitioner literature, Six Sigma has been defined as:

[. . .] a comprehensive and flexible system for achieving, sustaining and maximizing businesssuccess. Six Sigma is uniquely driven by close understanding of customer needs, disciplineduse of facts, data and statistical analysis, and diligent attention to managing, improving, andreinventing business processes (Pande et al., 2000).

Other definitions include: a “high performance data-driven approach to analyzing the rootcauses of business problems and solving them” (Blakeslee Jr, 1999), a disciplined approachand statistically based approach for improving product and process quality (Hahn et al.,1999) and a “business process that allows companies to drastically improve their bottomline by designing and monitoring everyday business activities in ways that minimizewaste and resources while increasing customer satisfaction” (Harry and Schroeder, 2000).

Since the introduction and initial success of the Six Sigma concept by Motorola, it hasbeen emulated by many organizations, notably General Electric and Allied Signal, withthe objective of step-change performance improvements. Six Sigma initiatives arehaving a major impact on the culture, operation and profitability of many largeorganizations such as Asea Brown Bavari, Allied Signal, General Electric, Motorola, andTexas Instruments (Hahn et al., 1999). While there has been a relative abundance ofpapers and information in the practitioner literature, in the academic literature there hasbeen a relative paucity of empirical research with respect to Six Sigma, its adoption andimplementation (Linderman et al., 2003; Schroeder et al., 2008; Zu et al., 2008). Recently,however, Six Sigma has begun to receive more attention from the academic community.The following paragraph provides a brief review of papers pertaining to Six Sigma.

Linderman et al. (2003, p. 195) proposed that a goal theoretic perspective be used as astarting point for understanding the Six Sigma phenomenon. In this research, theauthors offered a definition of Six Sigma in “an attempt to develop the concepts andprinciples underlying Six Sigma.” Using this definition as a foundation, the authors thenemployed a goal theoretic perspective to better understand Six Sigma. Linderman et al.(2003) proceeded to develop but not test propositions with respect to Six Sigma and goaltheory. The authors concluded that goal theory is one of the many potentially usefultheories that might be employed in the pursuit of understanding the Six Sigmaphenomena. McAdam and Lafferty (2004, p. 545) conducted a multilevel case study thatanalyzed Six Sigma from both a process and people perspective. They concluded thatSix Sigma has “some way to go before it is accepted as a broad change philosophy,applicable across a range of organizational types.” McAdam and Lafferty (2004) proposea conceptual model of their findings where Six Sigma is not a replacement for TQM butas a means for refocusing business deliverables. Linderman et al. (2006) empirically testthe role of goals in Six Sigma improvement teams. They find that when teams employthe appropriate Six Sigma tools and methods, setting goals can be effective. However,if Six Sigma tools and methods are not rigorously followed, challenging goals can beproblematic. Schroeder et al. (2008) employ a grounded theory approach to proposean initial definition and theory of Six Sigma. In this research, they find that TQM andSix Sigma differ primarily in four areas:

Six Sigmaadoption

425

(1) focus on financial and business results;

(2) the rigor of following structured methods and the level of training ofimprovement specialists;

(3) use of specific metrics (e.g. DPMO, critical to quality); and

(4) the use of full-time improvement specialists.

The authors conclude that much research remains to be completed and providesuggestions for future research.

Nonthaleerak and Hendry (2008) conducted a multiple case study of Thai companiesthat had implemented Six Sigma and sought to investigate weaknesses in Six Sigmaimplementations, differences in implementation between manufacturing and serviceorganizations and success factors that are critical to Six Sigma implementation. Some oftheir findings from this study include:

. in the define phase, care needs to be taken during project selection to ensure thatSix Sigma projects are properly aligned with corporate goals;

. in the control phase, a good quality control system along with managementsupport are necessary to sustain the identified improvements;

. statistical tools and quality tools may create a fear of Six Sigma especially amongthose who are not mathematically skilled or have an engineering background; and

. full-time black belts may not be feasible for small organizations, projectchampions should be process owners and coaching advice regarding Six Sigmatools should be readily available.

Zu et al. (2008) sought to investigate the criticism that Six Sigma is just a reformulation ofTQM. Their empirical findings identified three new practices that are necessary for thesuccessful implementation of Six Sigma. These new practices include: a Six Sigma rolestructure, a Six Sigma structured improvement procedure and a focus on metrics. Theyconclude that these new practices are complementary to traditional TQM practices andthat they enhance both quality and business performance. Gutierrez et al. (2009)investigated the effects of Six Sigma teamwork and statistical process control (SPC) onorganizational shared vision. They concluded that while teamwork and SPC positivelyaffected organizational shared vision, there was no impact on organizational performance.

While each of these papers have served to enhance our knowledge of Six Sigma, itsdefinition, theoretical underpinnings, and differences from TQM, this research streamdoes not appear to answer the question “What motivates the adoption of Six Sigma inorganizations?” Simply stating “to improve performance” is not enough justification asthere are many avenues available to firms that are seeking performance improvement.In addition, with the exception of Zu et al. (2008), Schroeder et al. (2008), and Gutierrez et al.(2009), none of these studies directly investigated the impact of Six Sigma onperformance. The practitioner literature is replete with examples of how Six Sigma hasimproved the performance of firms that adopted and implemented Six Sigma (Pande et al.,2000; Harry and Schroeder, 2000). Zu et al. (2008, p. 643) found that “Six Sigma practicesand traditional QM practices work together to generate improved quality performance,which then leads to higher business performance” while Gutierrez et al. (2009) did notfind a significant link between shared vision and organizational performance. A studyconducted by Goh et al. (2003) indicated that the long run stock performance

IJOPM31,4

426

of organizations that adopt Six Sigma initiatives was not better than the S&P 500. Hence,there is a divergence of findings with respect to Six Sigma adoption and performance.

2.2 Institutional theoryA common reason given for the adoption of Six Sigma is to facilitate change (Choo et al.,2007) and improve performance (Schroeder et al., 2008). This suggests that organizationsstrive for economic fitness and the allocation of scarce resources. DiMaggio and Powell(1983) maintain that where free and open competition exists, competitive isomorphism asespoused by Hannan and Freeman (1977, p. 150) assumes that a “market rationality thatemphasizes market competition, niche change and fitness measures” exists. Competitiveisomorphism may explain early adoption of an innovation but does not present a completeview of organizations. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) then proceed to argue that marketplaceand competitive pressures may no longer be sufficient to explain why firms adopt certaininnovations and structures for their organizations. There may be other mechanisms atwork that may provide an explanation for the adoption of Six Sigma. Institutional theoryseeks to explain the process of institutional isomorphic change that exists inorganizations. DiMaggio and Powell (1983), in keeping with Hawley (1968), maintainthat organizations, faced with the same environmental conditions, adopt similarstructures and processes. Institutional theory argues that forces exist that encourage theconvergence of business practices (Zsidisin et al., 2005). The three institutional isomorphicchange mechanisms are: coercive, mimetic, and normative. These three mechanisms,while analytically different, are not necessarily empirically distinct. DiMaggio and Powell(1983) posited that these three isomorphic mechanisms may act individually or in concertwith each other to influence the changes that occur in organizations.

DiMaggio and Powell (1983, p. 150) maintain that coercive isomorphism results from“both formal and informal pressures exerted on organizations by other organizationsupon which they are dependent, and by cultural expectations in the society within whichthe organizations function.” With respect to Six Sigma, an example of coerciveisomorphism would be the customer requirement that a supplier adopt and implement thepractices of Six Sigma. Organizations can apply coercive pressure formally throughthe use of contract specifications and the like or informally by suggesting and discussingthe benefits to be gained through the adoption of Six Sigma. The second isomorphicmechanism is mimetic. Mimetic isomorphism results from environmental uncertainty.When environmental conditions are uncertain, firms may copy or imitate the practices ofsimilar firms especially if these other firms are perceived as being successful. As initialadopters of Six Sigma, Motorola, General Electric, Allied Signal may be perceived to besuccessful as a result of the adoption and implementation of Six Sigma. Otherorganizations may be more inclined to adopt and implement these practices as a result ofthis perceived success. The last mechanism is normative isomorphism and is a resultof professionalization. Two important aspects of professionalization are the result offormal education provided by university specialists and the growth of professionalnetworks that span organizations and allow for the rapid diffusion of new models ofchange. With respect to Six Sigma, professional societies such as the American Society forQuality (ASQ) and other organizations such as SixSigma would be examplesof organizations that promote the diffusion of quality practices such as Six Sigma.Furthermore, many colleges and universities offer classes in Six Sigma methodologiesand other quality management initiatives, which can also promote isomorphism.

Six Sigmaadoption

427

2.3 Innovation implementation effectivenessKlein and Sorra (1996) state that “innovation implementation within an organization isthe process of gaining targeted employees’ appropriate and committed use of aninnovation” (p. 1055). They define implementation effectiveness as “the quality andconsistency of targeted organizational members’ use of an adopted innovation” (p. 1056).The two determinants of implementation effectiveness are the organization’s climate forimplementation and the perception of fit between the intended innovation and the valuesof the targeted organization’s members:

An organization’s climate for the implementation of a given innovation refers to targetedemployees’ shared summary perceptions of the extent to which their use of a specificinnovation is rewarded, supported, and expected within their organization (p. 1060).

While group values are implicit or explicit views, shared to a considerable extent by membersof a group within an organization, about the external adaptation and internal integration ofthe organization and of the group itself (p. 1063).

Klein and Sorra (1996) focused on user-based models of innovation implementation thattake the point of view of the user. Examples of such innovations include TQM, SPC, andmanufacturing resource planning.

An organization’s climate for implementation was categorized by Klein and Sorra(1996) as strong or weak. Characteristics of a strong innovation implementation climateincluded “(a) ensuring employee skill in innovation use, (b) providing incentives forinnovation use and disincentives for innovation avoidance and (c) removing obstacles toinnovation use” (p. 1060). Some examples of items that organizations that exhibit a strongclimate for innovation use include: providing training (Fleischer et al., 1988; Rousseau,1989), user support (Rousseau, 1989), time to experiment with the innovation (Zuboff, 1988),financial incentives (Lawler and Mohrman, 1991), supervisory support and praise and jobreassignment or job elimination for those who do not use the innovation (Klein et al., 1990).

A strong implementation climate may promote compliant behavior through the useof incentives and disincentives for the use of an innovation. However, this does notensure alignment of the innovation with that of the targeted group’s values. Thus, thepresence of a strong climate is a necessary but not sufficient element in theimplementation of an innovation (Klein and Sorra, 1996).

However, there are limits to the climate for implementation. In their work, Klein andSorra (1996, p. 1061) maintain that the limit of climate is the provision that “employeesare committed to innovation use.” This limitation is referred to by Klein and Sorra (1996)as the innovation-values fit.

Klein and Sorra (1996) theorized the commitment to use an innovation “is a function ofthe perceived fit of the innovation to employees’ values” (p. 1062). “Innovation-values fitdescribes the extent to which targeted users perceive that use of the innovation will foster(or, conversely, inhibit) the fulfillment of their values” (p. 1063). Klein and Sorra (1996)classified innovation-fit into good, neutral, and poor. A good innovation-values fit occurswhen the innovation and values are highly compatible while a poor innovation-values fithappens when there is little or no compatibility between the two. A neutralinnovation-values fit comes about when the fit between innovation and values is neithergood nor bad.

Some examples of poor innovation-values fit include the following. Members of amanufacturing facility value production more than change and learning and thus resist

IJOPM31,4

428

the implementation of an SPC system (Bushe, 1988). In many organizations, managers mayfavor a hierarchal system whereas information technology specialists assume that a flatterorganization is better (Schein, 1992). Yet in a third example of poor innovation-values fit,a manufacturing organization with a flexible, unstructured system resisted the rigidityand structure of a new computerized inventory system (Klein et al., 1989).

From these two categorizations, Klein and Sorra (1996) developed a two-by-threematrix that predicted the impact of these two determinants on employees’ responses anduse of the innovation. From their matrix it can be determined that there are six outcomesrelated to employee reaction and innovation use. When the implementation climate isstrong and the innovation-values fit is poor, there will be compliant innovation use, at best.If the innovation-values fit is neutral, there will be adequate innovation use and for goodinnovation-values fit, there will be committed, consistent and creative innovation use.However, if the implementation climate is weak, there will be essentially no innovation useif the innovation-values fit is poor or neutral and when the innovation-values fit is good,there will be sporadic and inadequate use of the innovation. For a more in-depth discussionof this subject please see Klein and Sorra (1996).

So far we have provided a review of the academic literature with respect to Six Sigmaand have found that there is a gap in academic study into the motivations for the adoptionof Six Sigma by organizations. In addition, with the exception of a few academic studies,there is a lack of clear empirical evidence that establishes a positive link between theadoption and implementation of Six Sigma and performance improvement. In the nextsection, we propose three research questions that will help to address these gaps. We thenadvance several propositions that we will test using the information collected fromseven case studies of firms that have or are in the process of implementing Six Sigma.

3. Research questions and propositionsBased on the gaps in the literature noted in Section 2 above, it is the intent of this researchto investigate Six Sigma and its adoption and implementation in organizations.The three research questions to be explored are:

RQ1. Based on the institutional theory framework, what motivates the adoption ofSix Sigma in organizations?

RQ2a. What role does the organizational climate for implementation play inSix Sigma implementation?

RQ2b. What role does the perception of fit of the innovation to organizational valuesplay in Six Sigma implementation?

RQ3. What impact does the adoption and implementation of Six Sigma have onorganizational performance?

3.1 PropositionsIn the literature review section of this paper, both Six Sigma (Section 2.1) andinstitutional theory (Section 2.2) have been discussed. It is believed that the threeisomorphic mechanisms from institutional theory will, individually or collectively,play a significant role in a firm’s decision to adopt Six Sigma. Figure 1 shows the modeland propositions that are investigated in this research.

Six Sigmaadoption

429

The first isomorphic mechanism discussed by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) is coercive innature. According to this mechanism, pressure from external sources such as themarketplace, customers or suppliers play a significant role in a firm’s decision to adopt aparticular practice or structure. These coercive forces may be either formal or informal innature. For example, customers may insist on the adoption of Six Sigma as a condition fordoing business, as we document in our research. Under these circumstances, firms havethe choice of either conceding to customer demands or foregoing that businessrelationship. Informal coercive pressures may also be brought to bear in commercialrelationships, where supplier firms feel pressured to demonstrate a mechanism forcontinuous improvement, and Six Sigma may serve as that mechanism. A customer’sperceived success with Six Sigma may also motivate that customer to pressure itssuppliers to adopt similar improvement mechanisms. Adoption of Six Sigma may be arequirement of an important customer or may be considered to be either an order winneror an order qualifier in a particular industry. Therefore, we offer the following proposition:

P1. Coercive isomorphic mechanisms will be evident in firms that adopt Six Sigma.

The next isomorphic mechanism is concerned with the emulation or mimicking ofsuccessful practices that have already been adopted and implemented by otherorganizations that are perceived to be successful. Thus, mimetic isomorphic mechanismsinvolve the replication of current practices that have been deemed to be successful and canbe considered a form of modeling behavior, where the focal organization attempts to imitatethe mechanisms employed by another organization which is perceived as successful withina domain. The modeled organization may or may not be aware of this imitative activity.Organizations will surely take note of the success of organizations such as 3M, Motorola,and General Electric who have adopted Six Sigma and have publicized their results andsuccesses as a result of this adoption. In an effort to imitate these well-known companiesand their success stories, other firms will be inclined to copy these early adopters ofSix Sigma. This modeling behavior may diffuse practices, both intentionally andunintentionally, through a variety of mechanisms, such as employee transfers, managerparticipation in industry trade groups, and engagement of consulting organizations:

P2. Mimetic isomorphic mechanisms will be evident in firms that adopt Six Sigma.

Figure 1.Proposed model

Coercive

Normative

MimeticSix sigmaadoption

Performanceimprovements

Isomorphicchange

mechanisms

P1

P2

P3

P5Six sigma

implementation

Climate forimplementation

Innovation-values fit

P4

P4

IJOPM31,4

430

Normative isomorphism is the third influence mechanism suggested by institutionaltheory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Professionalism is the primary basis for thisinfluence mechanism and works in one of the two ways:

(1) university education which creates a shared mental model of the environment;and

(2) trade and professional organizations that transcend organizational boundariesand facilitate the communication and dissemination of normative ideasregarding how organizations should behave and respond to their environment.

The growth and involvement of organizations such as the ASQ will likely play a role inthe dissemination of the practice of Six Sigma. Additionally the promulgation ofpractitioner-oriented literature will also have a normative effect on organizations, sincethere is an emerging body of knowledge with respect to implementation methodologiesthat may encourage a consistency in executing Six Sigma programs:

P3. Normative isomorphic mechanisms will be evident in firms that adoptSix Sigma.

As presented earlier in this paper, Klein and Sorra (1996) created a two-by-three matrixused to predict how implementation climate and innovation-values fit affects employeeresponse to innovation and the use of that innovation. In this research the innovation isSix Sigma. It is our intention to provide additional evidence in support of Klein andSorra’s research and to demonstrate that effective implementation of Six Sigma leadsto improved performance as stated in P5 below. Therefore, P4 is as follows:

P4. Six Sigma implementation will be influenced by an organization’s climate forimplementation and the targeted user’s innovation-values fit as predicted bythe Klein and Sorra implementation effectiveness model.

There are mixed reviews from both the practitioner and academic literature regarding theimpact of Six Sigma on firm performance and customer satisfaction. Research fromthe innovation adoption literature indicates that, in general, innovation is adopted with theintention to improve the performance or effectiveness of the organization (Damanpour,1991). Klein and Sorra (1996, p. 1058) used the term innovation effectiveness to describe“the benefits an organization receives as a result of its implementation of a giveninnovation (e.g. improvements in profitability, productivity, customer service, andemployee morale).” With the emphasis of Six Sigma on profitability, variation reductionand customer focus, it seems that improved performance would be a consequence of theadoption and implementation of Six Sigma. This leads to the following proposition:

P5. The adoption and effective implementation of Six Sigma will lead toperformance improvements in the adopting organizations.

4. Research methodsCase study research is a research strategy that focuses on the dynamics present withinsingle settings and is appropriate for fairly new topic areas and for the development ofnew theories (Eisenhardt, 1989; Meredith, 1998; Voss et al., 2002). Another advantage ofcase study research is the ability of the researchers to acquire both qualitativeand quantitative data. Case study research allows for an in-depth investigation of

Six Sigmaadoption

431

the subjects covered. Follow-up questions can be immediately solicited so that acomprehensive understanding can be achieved. Therefore, case study research wasemployed to enhance the understanding of the implementation of Six Sigma initiatives inthe firms to be studied. In this section, we discuss the research methodology, includingthe protocol followed, our interview process, and the analytical strategy.

4.1 Research protocolConsistent with case study research methods advocated (Eisenhardt, 1989; Pagell, 2004;Yin, 1999), the research protocol consisted of four elements: a structured questionnaire,focused interview process, identification of respondents, and an analysis plan. A focusedinterview employs a predetermined list of questions that are to be asked of each of theinterviewees. This enables the case study researchers to maintain a consistency among therespondents. The use of a focused interview does not preclude the updating orimprovement of the question set after each replication (Eisenhardt, 1989; Pagell, 2004).Through the literature review, examination of the research questions and interactionamong the researchers, a list of appropriate open-ended questions was proposed to serve asthe interview template. Additionally, other case study research was reviewed to evaluatethe techniques employed and to extract as much information with respect to contextualand/or general business information that might be relevant to this research. This focusedquestionnaire consisted of the following constructs: general company information,markets in which the firms complete, company definition of Six Sigma, implementation ofSix Sigma and the impact of Six Sigma on business performance. The questions wereopen-ended in nature to provoke and promote in-depth discussion of the topics broached.Minor modifications were made to the interview format as the research progressed.

Two interview protocols were considered to be appropriate for this research. The firstinterview protocol was defined as a vertical: subjects at different levels in theorganizational hierarchy were interviewed. In this way, the perspectives of the variouslevels that exist in an organization could be studied and analyzed. The second interviewprotocol was referred to as a horizontal: multiple interviews were conducted withmanagers at the same level of the organizational hierarchy. For example, if a masterblack belt was interviewed, the other interviewees could be either two black belts(horizontal relationship between the black belts), or one black belt and one person whoseposition is of a horizontal nature to the master black belt (e.g. VP operations).The horizontal interview protocol provided the researchers with the opportunity to viewthe Six Sigma initiative across the organization. In some of the cases, the researcherswere offered the opportunity to interview more than three individuals. This allowed forthe implementation of both the vertical and horizontal interview protocols. The methodchosen was based on availability and willingness of respondents to participate at eachtarget firm. Table I contains information related to the interview protocol employed ateach case study as well as the titles of the respondents.

Both protocols provided the researchers with the ability to triangulate theinformation received from the individuals interviewed. Triangulation is an importantaspect of case study research so that the validity and reliability of the informationreceived can be assured (Meredith, 1998). In fact, one of the strengths of the case studymethod is the ability to obtain multiple sources of evidence, in order to improve theresearcher’s understanding of the phenomenon under consideration (Yin, 2003).

IJOPM31,4

432

Another important aspect of the research protocol was selection of cases. Our analyticalstrategy specified cross-case analysis where we were interested in a theoretically relevantsample, meaning that we were interested in studying a broad range of different degrees ofexperience with Six Sigma as well as organizations of different relative sizes. We werelimited by time and budget constraints so we restricted our search area to a reasonabledriving distance from our University, approximately 60 miles in radius. We contacted thelocal chapter of the ASQ and our professional contacts to identify potential targetorganizations. Seven organizations were identified and agreed to be part of the researchstudy. These organizations represent various levels of Six Sigma maturity, from earlyimplementations to fairly mature programs, and a diversity of scale, from single-locationfacilities to Fortune 500 firms. All participants are in the manufacturing sector.

4.2 Interview processUpon receiving consent of the organizations implementing Six Sigma, interviews with eachof the firms were scheduled at mutually convenient times. Each of the interviews lastedapproximately one hour. In order to maintain consistency in the data collection effort, thefocused questionnaire was followed very closely. While the use of the face-to-face interviewallowed the researchers to follow a particularly interesting line of discussion, the open-endedquestions helped to maintain focus. For each interview, one of the researchers askedquestions while the second researcher took notes. These respective tasks were consistentacross all of the interviews. Employment of a two-person research team may enable the teamto establish different perspectives of the case. The interviewer can establish a more personalrelationship with the interviewee while the data recorder maintains a more distant view(Eisenhardt, 1989). Upon completion of the interview, the results were transcribed. Duringthis process, the information received was evaluated and any discrepancies among therespondents were noted. A total of 26 1 hour interviews were conducted for this research.

Company Interview protocol Title of respondents

A Horizontal Master black beltBlack belt (2)

B Vertical General managerOperations managerProduct manager

C Vertical and horizontal Business directorMaster black belt (2)Black belt (2)

D Vertical and horizontal Site managerChampion/process owner (2)QA managerProcess development managerBlack belt

E Horizontal Master black beltBlack belt (2)

F Vertical OwnerVP manufacturingQuality manager

G Vertical Quality managerBlack beltGreen belt

Table I.Respondents and

interview protocol

Six Sigmaadoption

433

4.3 Analytical strategyAnalytical techniques within case study research are less well defined than they arewithin other research paradigms. An analytical strategy in this context helps focus theresearch efforts and improve prospects for reliability and validity in findings. Our overallapproach in analysis was to focus on evidence based on our theoretical propositions,consistent with recommendations in Yin (2003). Pattern matching was employed toidentify similarities and differences in interview responses in order to assess constructvalidity. Explanation-building is the analytical technique which probes, through the lensof the focused interview, the relationship between constructs of interest in this study.With this technique we attempt to determine the subjects’ perceived causal relationshipbetween constructs of interest in the study. We also synthesized across cases to identifycoherence and differences to strengthen internal validity of our study.

To develop operational definitions of our constructs we began with theoreticaldefinitions from the literature. We developed simple language to define performancelevels from each construct that would be both consistent with the underlying theoreticalbasis and be testable against the recorded interviews. We utilized two passes to agree onfinal definitions where three researchers on the team separately analyze each case andthen conducted a review where we harmonized our findings. The principal change to ourrating system at this review was a tighter definition of the meaning of institution theorypressures in context. Initially we viewed pressure for performance improvement fromoutside the organization as a coercive pressure, as evidenced from either the investmentcommunity or from customers. Upon reflection, this does not represent isomorphismthat we are studying: there are a variety of ways to respond to this pressure to improve.We redefined our construct evaluation to specifically look for the decision to adoptSix Sigma once performance improvement was deemed necessary. See Table II for alisting of construct definitions.

To assess the reliability of our rating, we used the proportional reduction in lossapproach (Rust and Cooil, 1994). This approach is a generalized model similar to thetwo-rater model put forward by Perreault and Leigh (1989) and can be interpreted in asimilar manner to Cronbach’s alpha. A suggested minimum level of reliability of70 percent was adopted for this work. See to Table III for a compilation of the reliabilities.

5. Company profilesFor the sake of brevity, company profiles are relegated to the Appendix. Each of the profilesfollows a basic pattern in providing a general description of the company background,its Six Sigma history and implementation, and the results from Six Sigma efforts.The companies are labeled A through G to provide anonymity to the organizations whichagreed to participate in the research. Table IV provides general company information andTable V provides a brief company profile and a summary of each organization’s Six Sigmahistory, implementation and results of their Six Sigma initiative.

6. FindingsFor each of the propositions listed in Section 3, evidence from each of the case studies ispresented to either confirm or disconfirm the proposition. Each of the propositions isrepeated for the convenience of the reader:

P1. Coercive isomorphic mechanisms will be evident in firms that adoptSix Sigma.

IJOPM31,4

434

Con

stru

ctD

efin

itio

nL

evel

san

dev

iden

ce

Coe

rciv

ep

ress

ure

Coe

rciv

eis

omor

ph

ism

isd

riv

enb

ytw

ok

eyfo

rces

:p

ress

ure

from

oth

erfi

rms

onw

hic

ha

foca

lfi

rmis

dep

end

ent

and

pre

ssu

reto

con

form

toso

ciet

alex

pec

tati

ons

(DiM

agg

ioan

dP

owel

l,19

83)

0–

no

com

men

tsin

inte

rvie

w1

1–

only

1m

anag

erm

enti

oned

this

pre

ssu

re,s

pec

ific

pre

ssu

resp

ecifi

call

yto

adop

tS

ixS

igm

a2

–tw

oor

mor

em

enti

oned

this

pre

ssu

re,

spec

ific

pre

ssu

resp

ecifi

call

yto

adop

tS

ixS

igm

aM

imet

icp

ress

ure

Mim

etic

isom

orp

his

mis

are

spon

seto

un

cert

ain

tyw

her

ein

man

ager

sm

imic

asu

cces

sfu

lp

eer

(Bal

aan

dV

enk

ates

h,

2007

)

0–

no

com

men

tsin

inte

rvie

w1

–on

lyon

em

anag

erm

enti

oned

this

pre

ssu

re,

spec

ific

pre

ssu

resp

ecifi

call

yto

adop

tS

ixS

igm

a2

–tw

oor

mor

em

enti

oned

this

pre

ssu

re,

spec

ific

pre

ssu

resp

ecifi

call

yto

adop

tS

ixS

igm

aN

orm

ativ

ep

ress

ure

Nor

mat

ive

isom

orp

his

moc

curs

for

two

reas

ons:

(1)

man

ager

sd

evel

opa

shar

edm

enta

lm

odel

ofth

ein

stit

uti

onal

env

iron

men

tan

dac

tac

cord

ing

ly;

and

(2)

man

ager

sin

tera

ctw

ith

each

oth

erth

rou

gh

pro

fess

ion

alan

dtr

ade

pro

fess

ion

alan

dtr

ade

asso

ciat

ion

san

dfo

rmp

erce

pti

ons

ofin

du

stry

nor

ms

and

exp

ecta

tion

s(D

iMag

gio

and

Pow

ell,

1983

)

0–

no

com

men

tsin

inte

rvie

w1

–on

lyon

em

anag

erm

enti

oned

this

pre

ssu

re,

spec

ific

pre

ssu

resp

ecifi

call

yto

adop

tS

ixS

igm

a2

–tw

oor

mor

em

enti

oned

this

pre

ssu

re,

spec

ific

pre

ssu

resp

ecifi

call

yto

adop

tS

ixS

igm

a

Six

Sig

ma

adop

tion

Afo

rmal

dec

isio

nto

adop

tS

ixS

igm

ah

asb

een

mad

eb

yse

nio

rm

anag

emen

t(c

onsi

sten

tw

ith

Kle

inan

dS

orra

,19

96)

0–

no

1–

yes

Cli

mat

efo

rim

ple

men

tati

onT

arg

eted

emp

loy

ees

shar

edsu

mm

ary

per

cep

tion

sof

the

exte

nt

tow

hic

hth

eir

use

ofa

spec

ific

inn

ovat

ion

isre

war

ded

,su

pp

orte

d,

and

exp

ecte

dw

ith

inth

eir

org

aniz

atio

n(K

lein

and

Sor

ra,

1996

)

0–

wea

k:

the

spec

ific

inn

ovat

ion

isn

eith

eren

cou

rag

edn

ord

isco

ura

ged

1–

stro

ng

:tr

ain

ing

reg

ard

ing

inn

ovat

ion

use

isre

adil

yav

aila

ble

;am

ple

tim

eis

giv

ento

emp

loy

ees

soth

eyca

nb

oth

lear

nab

out

the

inn

ovat

ion

and

use

iton

anon

goi

ng

bas

is;

emp

loy

ees’

con

cern

sar

ere

spon

ded

tob

yth

ose

inch

arg

eof

the

inn

ovat

ion

imp

lem

enta

tion

(continued

)

Table II.Construct definitions and

measures

Six Sigmaadoption

435

Con

stru

ctD

efin

itio

nL

evel

san

dev

iden

ce

Inn

ovat

ion

-val

ues

fit

Th

eex

ten

tto

wh

ich

targ

eted

use

rsp

erce

ive

that

the

use

ofth

ein

nov

atio

nw

ill

fost

er(o

rin

hib

it)

the

fulfi

llm

ent

ofth

eir

val

ues

(Kle

inan

dS

orra

,19

96)

0–

inn

ovat

ion

-val

ues

fit

isp

oor

wh

enta

rget

edu

sers

reg

ard

the

inn

ovat

ion

ash

igh

lyin

con

gru

ent

wit

hth

eir

hig

h-i

nte

nsi

tyv

alu

es1

–in

nov

atio

n-v

alu

esfi

tis

neu

tral

wh

enta

rget

edu

sers

reg

ard

the

inn

ovat

ion

asei

ther

mod

erat

ely

con

gru

ent

orm

oder

atel

yin

con

gru

ent

wit

hth

eir

low

-in

ten

sity

val

ues

2–

inn

ovat

ion

-val

ues

fit

isg

ood

wh

enta

rget

edin

nov

atio

nu

sers

reg

ard

the

inn

ovat

ion

ash

igh

lyco

ng

ruen

tw

ith

thei

rh

igh

-in

ten

sity

val

ues

Six

Sig

ma

imp

lem

enta

tion

effe

ctiv

enes

sIm

ple

men

tati

onef

fect

iven

ess

des

crib

esth

eq

ual

ity

and

con

sist

ency

ofth

eu

seof

asp

ecifi

cin

nov

atio

nw

ith

inan

org

aniz

atio

nas

aw

hol

e(K

lein

and

Sor

ra,

1996

)

0–

aban

don

edp

rog

ram

,n

otfu

lly

inte

gra

ted

into

bu

sin

ess

pro

cess

es1

–m

oder

ate.

Pro

gra

mw

ell

stru

ctu

red

,n

ob

uy

infr

omal

lor

gan

izat

ion

gro

up

s2

–g

ood

.F

ull

bu

yin

and

use

Per

form

ance

imp

rov

emen

tP

erfo

rman

ceim

pro

vem

ent

ind

icat

esin

nov

atio

nef

fect

iven

ess

and

des

crib

esth

eb

enefi

tsan

org

aniz

atio

nre

ceiv

esas

are

sult

ofit

sim

ple

men

tati

onof

ag

iven

inn

ovat

ion

(Kle

inan

dS

orra

,19

96)

0–

min

imal

/no

per

form

ance

imp

rov

emen

t1

–m

oder

ate

2–

sig

nifi

can

tim

pro

vem

ent

Table II.

IJOPM31,4

436

Coercive pressure is applied from outside the organization. This pressure can be from aparticular customer who insists on the adoption and implementation of Six Sigma or thesource of the pressure may be from the marketplace and its requirement of improvingperformance. There is evidence from four of the seven companies that coercive pressureplayed a key role in the decision to adopt Six Sigma. When their customers insisted thatthey adopt it, Companies B and F formalized Six Sigma in their organizations. Theoperations manager at Company B stated that they “adopted Six Sigma at the insistenceof their customers even though they employed the ‘tools of Six Sigma’ for ten yearsor more.” In a review of the interviews for Companies B and F, customer pressure toadopt Six Sigma was mentioned by at least two of the interviewees. For Companies Dand G, there is also some evidence of customer pressure. However, for each of thesecompanies customer pressure was described by only one of the interviewees. There wasno evidence from the other three organizations that would support the notion of thecoercive mechanism as being a factor in their adoption of Six Sigma. Thus, it wouldappear that there is moderate support for P1, indicating that coercive pressure frommany sources appear to form the drivers for Six Sigma adoption in practice:

P2. Mimetic isomorphic mechanisms will be evident in firms that adopt Six Sigma.

Mimetic pressure occurs when organizations feel the need to copy other organizations thatthey perceive to be successful. With respect to Six Sigma, firms that believe that Six Sigmahelped other organizations improve their performance will be prone to imitate thebehaviors of the organizations believed to be successful. Evidence of mimetic pressure wasfound in four of the seven case studies. One of the compelling reasons for Company A to

Construct First pass (%) Second pass (%)

Coercive pressure 70 91Mimetic pressure 83 99Normative pressure 91 100Climate for implementation 89 89Innovation-values fit 96 96Implementation effectiveness 99 99Performance improvement 100 100

Table III.Reliability

Company Industry SalesNumber ofemployees

Six Sigma adopted andimplemented

A Building products $400M (2004) ,700 1999B Defense and aerospace $70M 250 2000C Imaging .$13B n/a Late 1980s; restarted late 1990sD Military and

commercial airlines$230M 1,000 1999

E Medical devices n/a 1,200 2001F Precision machining $5.7M (2004) ,100 2001G Aerospace $70M (2004) 350 2002

Note: n/a, not available

Table IV.General company

information

Six Sigmaadoption

437

adopt Six Sigma was a result of the chief executive officer (CEO) attending abenchmarking meeting where the successes of Six Sigma as implemented by GeneralElectric were presented. Company C took part in a consortium led by Motorola and as aresult employed Six Sigma in its organization. The master black belt at Company E saidthat “Six Sigma worked for other companies” and so was adopted by this organization.Company G decided to adopt Six Sigma after a brainstorming session and realizing that asister division was in the process of employing Six Sigma in their operations. Althoughthere was no mandate to employ Six Sigma in all divisions, there was a mandate fromupper management that each department must support the profit margin goals. While thisevidence from Company G is not clear cut with respect to mimetic pressures, there is somesupport that the adoption of Six Sigma by its sister division was a factor. Again we findmoderate support for the adoption of Six Sigma due to mimetic mechanisms:

P3. Normative isomorphic mechanisms will be evident in firms that adoptSix Sigma.

Company Company profile6S History andimplementation 6S results

A Part of a multi-nationalFortune 500 firmBuilding products

CEO attended a 6Sbenchmarking sessionregarding GEImprove stagnantperformance and signalWall Street thecommitment to improveperformance

Organization is now datadriven6S project results are verifiedby a financial analyst

B Supplier to defense andaerospace industries

Employed many of thetools of 6SCustomers were notsatisfied and insisted on aformal 6S initiativeLean and 6S are employedsimultaneously

Sales growth is attributed to 6SAble to maintain margins andoffer additional services in ahighly competitive marketIncreased on-time delivery by30 percent Doubled inventoryturns

C Multi-national Fortune 500firmPhotography and imagingbusiness

Late 1980s took part in a 6Sconsortium led by MotorolaLate 1990s re-energized 6Sprogram to solve somedifficult issues

Realized savings of $600 millionProject savings are validatedby a financial analyst Used fortransactional processes

D Major division of a largercorpPrimary markets: militaryand commercial airlines

Late 1990s decided to focuson process variationreductionFollow up to lean initiative

No concrete results to dateOperating performance isbeyond expectations and isattributed to 6S

E Medical device industry CEO wanted to solve somenagging technical issues

Some impact to profitability6S “makes problems go away”

F Precision machinedcomponents for the aircraftand defense industries

6S requested by majorcustomersReduce costs

Able to reduce setup timesProgram abandoned in 2004

G OEM serving the aerospaceindustry

6S instituted to support thestrategic goals of theorganization6S part of quality group

No tangible results to date asthe program was in its infancy

Table V.Company profiles

IJOPM31,4

438

In analyzing the information from the seven case studies, we discovered an interestingphenomenon. That is, normative isomorphic pressure was not immediately evident aswere coercive or mimetic pressures. What was observed is that normative pressuresplayed a role after the decision was made to investigate the feasibility of adoptingSix Sigma. We did not observe normative isomorphic pressure as playing a role in themotivation to adopt Six Sigma. However, once the decision was made to adopt Six Sigma,the presence of normative isomorphic pressure was evident as the case study firmsselected consultants (Juran Institute, iSixSigma) and professional societies (ASQ) to beginthe training of individuals from each of these organizations. In the organizations studied,we found that normative isomorphic mechanisms played a role in the implementation ofSix Sigma. While we did not see any evidence of normative isomorphic pressure to adoptSix Sigma, we cannot rule out this as a factor in the decision to adopt Six Sigma.

One of the ways in which normative isomorphic mechanisms act is throughprofessional organizations. There are a variety of professional organizations (e.g. ASQ) andconsultants (e.g. iSixSigma) that promote Six Sigma and offer training and certificationin Six Sigma practices and techniques. All of the interviewed organizations demonstratedevidence of normative pressure once the decision to adopt Six Sigma was made. Each ofthese organizations employed some type of Six Sigma consultant to start them on theirSix Sigma journey. While the reasons for selecting one consultant over another may havediffered, they all began their Six Sigma implementation with a Six Sigma consultant.Company A only stated that a leading Six Sigma consultant was hired. Company B sentseveral people to two different, independent Six Sigma training organizations. As a resultof this training, one of the consultants was selected based on the perceptions of those whoreceive Six Sigma training. Motorola provided training for Companies C and E. In additionCompany E supplemented their training with training from the Juran Institute. Company Dselected a consultant who was flexible in their approach. However, this consultant wassoon replaced when it was discovered that it was not a good fit for them. A secondconsultant was then engaged to continue the implementation. Company F had eight peopletrained: two black belts and six green belts. Company G prefers their training to beconducted by a local chapter of ASQ. While they have several black belts, they still relyheavily upon ASQ for training and support. A summary of the results is provided inTable VI and Figure 2 indicates a revised model to show these findings.

From Table VI, it can be determined that coercive and mimetic isomorphic pressureswere factors in the initial decision to adopt Six Sigma while normative pressures werenot an initial consideration in the decision to adopt but may play a role in theimplementation of Six Sigma. Unfortunately the data from our case studies does notallow us to determine the impact of normative pressure on the implementation ofSix Sigma. This may be an opportunity for future research however:

P4. Six Sigma implementation will be influenced by an organization’s climate forimplementation and the targeted user’s innovation-values fit as predicted bythe Klein and Sorra implementation effectiveness model.

Company A exhibited a strong climate for implementation and the innovation-values fitwas determined to be neutral due to a dichotomy between management and the union.Evidence of a strong climate for implementation was demonstrated by providingincentives based on Six Sigma project savings, training for green belts, black belts, andmaster black belts and training for Six Sigma improvement team members. In addition,

Six Sigmaadoption

439

Com

pan

yC

oerc

ive

pre

ssu

rea

Cas

eev

iden

ceM

imet

icp

ress

ure

Cas

eev

iden

ceN

orm

ativ

ep

ress

ure

bC

ase

evid

ence

A0

No

evid

ence

2C

EO

dec

ided

toim

ple

men

t6S

afte

rat

ten

din

ga

ben

chm

ark

ing

sess

ion

and

lear

nin

gab

out

the

ben

efits

from

GE

0S

ixS

igm

aco

nsu

ltan

tu

sed

B2

For

mal

ized

6Sto

sati

sfy

cust

omer

req

uir

emen

ts0

No

evid

ence

0K

eyem

plo

yee

sse

nt

totw

od

iffe

ren

tS

ixS

igm

aco

nsu

ltan

tsfo

rtr

ain

ing

Six

Sig

ma

con

sult

ant

sele

cted

bas

edon

this

exp

erie

nce

C0

No

evid

ence

1C

omp

any

Cw

asan

earl

yad

opte

rof

6Saf

ter

atte

nd

ing

aco

nso

rtiu

mle

db

yM

otor

ola

0M

otor

ola

pro

vid

edtr

ain

ing

D1

On

ein

terv

iew

eem

enti

oned

that

acu

stom

erst

ated

that

they

shou

ldco

nsi

der

adop

tin

g6S

0N

oev

iden

ce0

Em

plo

yed

two

dif

fere

nt

con

sult

ants

E0

No

evid

ence

1M

aste

rb

lack

bel

tst

ated

“Six

Sig

ma

wor

ked

for

oth

erco

mp

anie

s”0

Mot

orol

ap

rov

ided

trai

nin

gJu

ran

Inst

itu

tep

rov

ided

trai

nin

gF

2F

orm

aliz

ed6S

tosa

tisf

ycu

stom

erre

qu

irem

ents

0N

oev

iden

ce0

Six

Sig

ma

con

sult

ant

use

d

G1

“Pol

itic

alto

olto

talk

wit

hth

ecu

stom

er”

1R

eali

zed

that

asi

ster

div

isio

nh

adad

opte

d6S

and

dec

ided

tod

oso

asw

ell

0T

rain

ing

pro

vid

edb

yA

SQ

Notes:

aR

efer

toT

able

IIfo

rd

efin

itio

ns;

bn

orm

ativ

ep

ress

ure

not

init

iall

ya

fact

orin

the

dec

isio

nto

adop

tb

ut

imp

acte

dim

ple

men

tati

on

Table VI.Case evidence ofisomorphic pressure

IJOPM31,4

440

promotional opportunities were linked to Six Sigma training. For the salaried group, theinnovation-values fit was strong as Six Sigma enabled them the means by which theycould attain their professional goals as well as improve their production processes.Those employees interviewed were engineers and as part of their academic training,process improvement is important. For the second group, the unionized hourly workers,the fit was a poor one. While union members were not available for interviews, it wasdiscussed that the union’s displeasure with the Six Sigma process was that it wouldultimately reduce the number of union workers by making the process more efficient andthus fewer workers (members of the union) would be necessary. They believed that thiswould be counter to their value of increased membership. As a result of this, Six Sigmaprojects were conducted only with salaried employees. Union members participatedonly as a matter of performing their contractual job assignments.

While on the surface these results appear to support the prediction of the Klein andSorra (1996) model, a more detailed investigation leads us to conclude otherwise. In thiscase, the relationship between the company and the union can be considered a“horizontal” relationship in that neither group has power over the other. This is true incollective bargaining situations where the union and management are equal partners tothe negotiated agreement. In Klein and Sorra’s (1996, p. 1068) model, they predict that:

[. . .] when innovation-values fit is good for one group within an organization and poor for anothergroup, and when neither of the groups has power over the other, the strength of the organization’simplementation climate determines the “winner” of the conflict over innovation use.

They predict that when the implementation climate is strong, all targeted users are likelyto use the innovation. In the case of Company A, the implementation climate is strong butthe union does not participate in Six Sigma improvement projects.

The implementation climate for Company B was strong as evidenced by theirextensive training provided to all employees. Although the number of black belts wasfairly small in this firm, all employees received training in the tools of Six Sigma.In addition, this organization was embarking on a design for Six Sigma (DSS) for itsengineering staff. Upon learning about the success of Six Sigma projects, this groupinquired about how they could play an active role in the process. Hence, the introduction

Figure 2.Case study findings

Coercive

Normative

MimeticSix Sigmaadoption

Performanceimprovements

Isomorphicchange

mechanisms

Six Sigmaimplementation

Climate forimplementation

Innovation-values Fit

Relationships found

Relationships not found

Six Sigmaadoption

441

of DSS to Company B. Company B managers expressed a willingness to constantly seekways to provide their products and services in a more efficient and effective manner,driven in part by the technical nature of the firm’s products. Six Sigma enables them todo this. The result, as predicted by the Klein and Sorra model was a committed andconsistent use of Six Sigma along with enthusiastic employee participation.

Company C also exhibited a strong implementation climate. Company C had its ownSix Sigma trainers and training facility. In addition, promotional opportunities were tiedto competence in Six Sigma and demonstration of savings through Six Sigma projects.Company C has undergone some intense competitive pressure. As a result of this theorganization has a renewed emphasis on improving the performance of existing productsand services and developing and introducing new ones. The innovation-values fit wasmixed in that certain parts of the operation genuinely embraced the concept, whileothers completed the required training for promotional opportunities but then were nolonger active in applying the Six Sigma methodology. Thus, the innovation-values fitwas rated neutral. Evidence of committed use is demonstrated in Six Sigma projectsavings improvements in transactional processes (e.g. order entry improvements).However, the fact that some employees are demonstrating proficiency in Six Sigma andthen abandoning it once they have been promoted demonstrates compliance but notcommitment.

The climate for implementation at Company D was also strong and theinnovation-values fit was good. Training was provided for the employees and as anorganization that prided itself on innovative products and services to the military andairline industry, Six Sigma enabled them to better solve problems and make theirproducts in a more efficient and effective manner. Interviewed employees wereenthusiastic about the potential and the results generated from Six Sigma. Six Sigmawas being applied in a consistent manner. A long-term employee referenced a Six Sigmateam with which he participated. He was certain that he knew the solution but felt it wasbest to apply the Six Sigma process to the problem. He was glad that he did, as he statedthat his “original solution would have made the problem worse!”.

At Company E the climate for implementation was strong but the innovation-valuesfit was neutral. All employees, within the first six months of employment, receivedtraining in Six Sigma. Progressive training was available to all employees and was animportant consideration for promotion. However, the main champion of Six Sigma leftthe organization and it appeared from the interviews that most of the Six Sigma projectswere being implemented through the quality department. This resulted in some use ofthe Six Sigma process but with little support from the operations side of the organization.

The climate for implementation at Companies F and G was weak. Company Fprovided black belt training to only a couple of employees and had recently abandonedthe formal Six Sigma process due to the recession of 2001-2002. While theinnovation-values fit was judged to be neutral, the result was that Six Sigma was notbeing extensively used. At Company G, the Six Sigma initiative was primarily focused inthe quality control department. A small number of people were trained in Six Sigma butwere only working on Six Sigma projects on a part-time basis. While Six Sigmaimplementation at Company G was in its early stages, many of the initial projects wereabandoned prior to completion. While some of those interviewed stated that Six Sigmawould be useful, there were many concerns. As predicted by the Klein and Sorra model,Six Sigma was not being used at Company G to any great extent.

IJOPM31,4

442

As can be determined from Table VII, each organization’s climate for implementationand innovation-values fit was assessed and the outcome was compared to thosepredicted by the Klein and Sorra matrix. The results from these case studies indicateclear support for the predictions of the Klein and Sorra model:

P5. The adoption and effective implementation of Six Sigma will lead toperformance improvements in the adopting organizations.

While each of the organizations interviewed for this research was at a different stage ofimplementation of Six Sigma, it is evident from the case studies that Six Sigma has had apositive impact on the performance of each organization. As with any initiative,performance improvement can be measured in a variety of ways. The following are someof the ways that the studied organizations measured and kept track of the processimprovements and performance improvements made: Six Sigma project savings,process improvements, improvement of on-time delivery, reduction of inventoryand setup time reduction. Table VIII contains an assessment of the implementationeffectiveness and a listing of the performance improvements.

From Table VIII, we can ascertain that Companies A, C, and E used project savings asa benchmark for improved performance. In each of these organizations, a financialanalyst verified the savings attained by the Six Sigma projects successfully completed.One of the main selling points of Six Sigma is its ability to save organizations significantamounts of money that can be translated to improved financial performance.Organization B employed three main measures to access the performance of theirSix Sigma projects. The first two are traditional accounting measures commonlyemployed in many organizations: on-time delivery and inventory turns. With each ofthese measures firm B improved on-time delivery by 30 percent over two years andnearly double their inventory turns in the same time period. The third measure ofimprovement was rolled throughput yield. This is a term often associated with leanproduction systems and firm B simultaneously employed both Six Sigma and Leanmethods in their operations. Rolled throughput yield can be defined as is the probabilitythat a single unit can pass through a series of process steps free of defects. Firm B,through the use of Six Sigma and Lean techniques was able to improve rolled throughputyield. While actual improvements were not shared during the interviews, this metric wasmeasured on a monthly basis with plans to measure it on a weekly basis. The operatingperformance of firm D improved beyond management expectations. This improvementwas beyond expectations even if product mix adjustments were considered. Themanagers interviewed attributed this additional improvement to the adoption andimplementation of Six Sigma. At firm F, the major focus of one of the initial Six Sigmaproject teams was set up time reduction. They were able to successfully reduce the setuptime for one of their operations from 10 hours to 3 hours. Performance improvementswere not available from Firm G as they had just begun implementation of Six Sigma andno projects were completed at the time of the interviews.

Another means by which to assess the impact of Six Sigma adoption andimplementation is the effect it has on customers. In other words, what was the reaction orfeedback from the customers of the organizations studied? From a performanceperspective, assessment of improvement is relatively easy as metrics can be employedto determine whether or not improvements have been made. From a customer perspective,it is often desirable to know the impact on the customer but metrics may not be readily

Six Sigmaadoption

443

Com

pan

yE

vid

ence

ofim

ple

men

tati

oncl

imat

eC

lim

ate

for

imp

lem

enta

tion

Ev

iden

ceof

inn

ovat

ion

-val

ues

fit

Inn

ovat

ion

-v

alu

esfi

tC

onsi

sten

tw

ith

Kle

inan

dS

orra

mod

el

AIn

cen

tiv

esfo

rp

roje

ctsa

vin

gs

Ex

ten

siv

etr

ain

ing

for

gre

enb

elts

,b

lack

bel

tsP

rom

otio

nal

opp

ortu

nit

ies

lin

ked

tob

lack

bel

tce

rtifi

cati

on

Str

ong

Salaried

andprofessionals

6Sas

am

ean

sto

atta

inp

rofe

ssio

nal

goa

ls6S

ink

eep

ing

wit

hac

adem

ican

dp

rofe

ssio

nal

trai

nin

g(e

ng

inee

rin

g)Unionmem

bers

6Sp

roje

cts

wil

lle

adto

gre

ater

pro

cess

effi

cien

cyan

da

loss

ofu

nio

njo

bs

Neu

tral

Yes

a

BE

xte

nsi

ve

6Str

ain

ing

pro

vid

edto

all

emp

loy

ees

6Sw

asth

eex

pec

ted

way

top

erfo

rmim

pro

vem

ents

Fir

mB

was

star

tin

ga

DS

Sin

itia

tiv

e

Str

ong

Tec

hn

ical

man

ufa

ctu

rin

gen

vir

onm

ent

All

inte

rvie

wee

sst

ress

edth

eim

por

tan

ceof

con

tin

uou

san

dco

nst

ant

imp

rov

emen

tin

the

pro

du

cts

and

serv

ices

offe

red

Goo

dY

es

CP

rom

otio

nal

opp

ortu

nit

ies

lin

ked

tob

lack

bel

tce

rtifi

cati

onS

tron

gem

ph

asis

on6S

sav

ing

sE

mp

has

ison

pro

cess

imp

rov

emen

t

Str

ong

Ince

rtai

nar

eas,

6Sw

asw

idel

yem

bra

ced

and

uti

lize

dS

ince

pro

mot

ion

alop

por

tun

itie

sw

ere

dep

end

ent

up

onb

lack

bel

tat

tain

men

t,m

any

BB

ach

iev

edce

rtifi

cati

onb

ut

then

aban

don

edth

ep

roce

ss

Neu

tral

Yes

DE

xte

nsi

ve

trai

nin

gp

rov

ided

toem

plo

yee

sS

tron

gIn

terv

iew

ees

exp

ress

edp

rid

ein

the

pro

du

cts

and

serv

ices

that

they

pro

vid

e6S

pro

vid

edth

emw

ith

the

mea

ns

toso

lve

pro

ble

ms

and

be

mor

eef

fici

ent

Goo

dY

es

(continued

)

Table VII.Case evidence forimplementation climateand innovation-values fit

IJOPM31,4

444

Com

pan

yE

vid

ence

ofim

ple

men

tati

oncl

imat

eC

lim

ate

for

imp

lem

enta

tion

Ev

iden

ceof

inn

ovat

ion

-val

ues

fit

Inn

ovat

ion

-v

alu

esfi

tC

onsi

sten

tw

ith

Kle

inan

dS

orra

mod

el

EE

xte

nsi

ve

and

pro

gre

ssiv

etr

ain

ing

pro

vid

edto

all

emp

loy

ees

Pro

mot

ion

alop

por

tun

itie

sli

nk

edto

6Sp

rofi

cien

cy

Str

ong

Mai

nch

amp

ion

of6s

left

the

org

aniz

atio

nM

ost

6sp

roje

cts

wer

eb

ein

gco

nd

uct

edb

yth

eq

ual

ity

dep

artm

ent.

No

sig

nifi

can

t“b

uy

-in

”fr

omop

erat

ion

s

Neu

tral

Yes

FL

imit

edtr

ain

ing

opp

ortu

nit

ies

Cer

tifi

edb

lack

bel

tsw

ere

rece

ntl

yla

idof

f

Wea

kS

por

adic

use

of6S

tool

san

dot

her

qu

alit

yto

ols

Inte

rvie

wee

sst

ated

that

they

lik

edth

e6S

met

hod

sb

ut

wit

hth

eb

usi

nes

sco

nd

itio

ns

they

wer

efa

cin

g,

the

init

iati

ve

was

not

sust

ain

able

Neu

tral

Yes

GL

imit

edn

um

ber

ofp

eop

letr

ain

edin

6SP

art-

tim

ew

ork

on6S

Man

aged

from

the

qu

alit

yd

epar

tmen

t

Wea

kIn

terv

iew

ees

exp

ress

edm

any

con

cern

sab

out

6SD

idn

otk

now

how

6Sfi

tin

toth

eov

eral

lsc

hem

eS

ever

alof

the

earl

yp

roje

cts

wer

eab

and

oned

lead

ing

toth

eq

ues

tion

ing

ofth

ev

alu

eof

6S

Neu

tral

Yes

Note:

aR

efer

toT

able

IIfo

rd

efin

itio

ns

Table VII.

Six Sigmaadoption

445

available or the impact on customers may be situation dependent. None of theorganizations directly measured customer satisfaction. However, from comments madeduring the interviews, it can be determined that the Six Sigma initiatives indeed had apositive impact on the customer. Firm A is primarily a manufacturing entity and most oftheir projects focused on cost reductions and process efficiency. However, the individualsinterviewed felt that there was an indirect impact to customer satisfaction. Firm B has beenable to offer additional design services to their customers as a result of their Six Sigmaefforts. One of the interviewees at firm C indicated that as a result of a transactionalSix Sigma project, they were able to significantly reduce the number of errors during theorder entry process. The implication is that customer satisfaction was improved as if theorder information is entered correctly. Interviewees at firm D felt that the adoption andimplementation of Six Sigma improved customer perceptions of their organization andthey were better able to solve field problems. Customers positively commented about thespeed and thoroughness of the solutions to these problems. Firm E had one customer whojust asked them to “make this problem go away.” Through the use of Six Sigma methods,

CompanyImplementationeffectiveness Performance measures Performance improvements

A Moderate Project savings measured byfinancial analyst Processimprovements

Evidenced by project savings processimprovements offset raw materialincreasesIndirect impact on customer satisfaction

B Good On-time deliveryInventory turnsRolled throughput yield

Increased market shareImproved on-time delivery (30 percent intwo years)Improved inventory turns (,doubled intwo years)Able to offer additional services

C Moderate Project savings $600 million project savingsImproved customer satisfaction bydecreasing order entry error rates

D Good Operating performance Operating performance has improvedbeyond expectations since 6SimplementationRaises customer perception of firm DImproved speed and thoroughness ofsolutions to field problems

E Moderate Project savings ,$300,000 in project savingsWere able to solve a problem that thecustomer wanted “to just go away”

F Not effective Setup time reduction Setup time reduction (10-3 hours)Acquisition of a new account byadopting 6S

G Not effective 6S is too new for tangible resultsFor newer programs, customers mayselect firm G based on their adoption ofSix SigmaCustomer relationships improved ascustomers respect the attempt toimprove systematically

Table VIII.Implementationeffectiveness andperformance results

IJOPM31,4

446

firm E was able to do just that. Firm F was able to acquire a new customer by their adoptionof Six Sigma. While firm G was at the earliest stages of Six Sigma implementation, theybelieved that suppliers for new programs may be required to adopt and implement SixSigma. They thought that the adoption of Six Sigma would provide them with anadvantage over their competitors. In addition one interviewee mentioned that relationshipwith one of their customers improved as that customer respected firm G’s efforts tosystematically improve. Table VIII contains a summary of the results with respect tocustomer satisfaction.

7. Contributions of this researchThis research contributes to our understanding of Six Sigma by determining that thereare three influence mechanisms – coercive, mimetic and normative – that affect theadoption and implementation of Six Sigma. In Figures 1 (proposed model) and 2 (revisedmodel), we combine into one model the decision to adopt an innovation and theimplementation of that innovation and its subsequent effect on performance.

This research also investigates the combined consequences of the climate forinnovation and the innovation-values fit as posited by Klein and Sorra (1996). This casestudy research shows strong, but not complete, support for this model. As shown inFigure 2, it is interesting to note that normative isomorphic pressure did not impact thedecision to adopt but did play a role in the implementation of the innovation. Perhaps, it isprudent to suggest a modification to the Klein and Sorra (1996) model to includenormative isomorphic mechanisms. That is the use of consultants in the implementationof an innovation may have a normative effect on the implementation. As evidenced byone of the case studies (Company D), they did not retain the original Six Sigmaconsultant as they were not a proper fit with the organization. Thus, the fit between theorganizations values and the consultant may be an important consideration. It isimportant for managers to recognize that fostering a climate for innovation is necessarybut not sufficient for the successful implementation of an innovation.The innovation-values fit must also be addressed. By addressing both of these issues,managers can avoid a “compliance versus commitment” conflict.

In addition, the link between Six Sigma adoption and implementation andorganizational performance was investigated. In all cases, some dimensions ofperformance of the organization were positively impacted. Although differentmeasures of performance were used by the studied organizations, each of themreported improvements, in many cases significant improvements, in the measures theyemployed. Thus, our findings are consistent with the practitioner literature and severalstudies in the academic literature.

Through the lens of performance improvement, this case study research alsoexplored the relationship between Six Sigma and customer satisfaction. Again, evidencewas found to support the notion that organizations that adopt and implement Six Sigmaare able to satisfy their customers. Six Sigma enabled the studied companies to solvepreviously unsolvable problems, provide additional services at no additional cost anddemonstrate to their customers their commitment to improve in a systematic fashion.

7.1 Future research and limitationsThis case study research represents the beginning of a relatively new stream of researchaimed at investigating the adoption, implementation and the impact of Six Sigma on

Six Sigmaadoption

447

organizational performance and competitive advantage. Six Sigma has been appliedglobally to both manufacturing processes and service processes (often referred to astransactional Six Sigma) (Raisinghani et al., 2005; Antony, 2004). While the focus of thesecase studies has been primarily on the manufacturing sector, it is hoped that more casestudies of service industries can be conducted in the future. With respect to the datacollected in these case studies, an in-depth analysis of the contextual and environmentalfactors must be conducted. Of particular interest is the interaction between leaninitiatives and Six Sigma.

Upon completion of this work, we anticipate conducting survey research so that alarge-scale empirical analysis can be completed. Through the use of structural equationmodeling techniques such as AMOS or PLS-Graph, it is hoped to explore the causalrelations introduced in this study in a more formal and theoretically exacting manner.

Another important limitation is that institutional theory may not completely explainall of the motivations for the adoption of Six Sigma. Two examples from our case studiesindicate that other factors may need to be considered. Unfortunately our data do notallow us to tease out these issues but may provide areas for further investigation. Thefirst example involves Company A. In conversations with the master black belt, heindicated that his firm was under tremendous pressure from the investment community(coercive pressure) to improve performance. He also made an interesting comment whenasked as to why his organization adopted Six Sigma. He stated that the CEO wanted to“change the game.” This may indicate that a motivation to adopt Six Sigma may be tochange the culture or the organization in some way. The second example involves thefact that coercive pressure does not necessarily imply a weak implementation climate.Company B was forced by its customer to formally adopt Six Sigma. Initially theyresisted indicating that they were already employing all the tools of Six Sigma. In orderto retain this customer they formally adopted Six Sigma. In firm B, the implementationclimate was strong in that training was readily available for employees andmanagement set the expectations that it was to be used in the daily activity ofthe organizations. The engineering department of Company B was so intrigued by theSix Sigma initiative that a DSS program was in the process of being launched at the timeof our interviews.

It is also important to understand the lack of independence among the isomorphicpressure types. As DiMaggio and Powell (1983, p. 150) state “the typology is an analyticone; the types are not always empirically distinct” and the three types may interminglein an empirical setting. Some interesting points to consider are: does the presence of allthree types of isomorphic pressure during the decision to adopt, lead to a morecommitted management thus creating a strong implementation climate? Does thepresence of only the coercive mimetic pressure lead to a compliant implementationversus a committed implementation? If an organization is being coerced into adoptingSix Sigma, what effect does this have on the implementation climate? While we did notobserve this in any of the case studies, how would the presence of normative pressureeffect the implementation of Six Sigma? Unfortunately our data set does not allow us totease out these issues. However, this limitation is also an opportunity for future research.

Case study research is a valuable tool to help researchers develop new theoreticalunderstanding and explore new topics (Meredith, 1998; Eisenhardt, 1989). However, likeother research techniques, it is not without its limitations. Cases study research tradesbreadth for depth. While only seven data points were analyzed in this study, in-depth

IJOPM31,4

448

investigations through the use of a focused interview technique were used to understandand delve into the implementation of Six Sigma. Understanding of this topic is importantto researchers and practitioners alike as they seek to improve the performance andcompetitive advantage of organizations.

References

Amheiter, E.D. and Maleyeff, J. (2005), “The integration of lean management and Six Sigma”,The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17, pp. 5-18.

Antony, J. (2004), “Some pros and cons of Six Sigma: an academic perspective”, The TQMMagazine, Vol. 16, pp. 303-6.

Bala, H. and Venkatesh, V. (2007), “Assimilation of interorganizational business processstandards”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 18, pp. 340-62.

Blakeslee, J.A. Jr (1999), “Implementing the Six Sigma solution”, Quality Progress, Vol. 32, p. 77.

Bushe, G.R. (1988), “Cultural contradictions of statistical process control in Americanmanufacturing organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 14, pp. 19-31.

Choo, A.S., Linderman, K.W. and Schroeder, R.G. (2007), “Method and context perspectives onlearning and knowledge creation in quality management”, Journal of OperationsManagement, Vol. 25, pp. 918-31.

Damanpour, F. (1991), “Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants andmoderators”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 555-90.

DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism andcollective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48,pp. 147-60.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case research”, The Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 14, pp. 532-50.

Fleischer, M., Liker, J. and Arnsdorf, D. (1988), Ettective Use of Computer-Aided Design andComputer-Aided Engineering in Manufacturing, Industrial Technology Institute,Ann Arbor, MI.

Goeke, R.J. and Offodile, O.F. (2005), “Forecasting management life cycles: a comparative studyof Six Sigma and TQM”, The Quality Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 34-46.

Goh, T.N., Low, P.C., Tsui, K.L. and Xie, M. (2003), “Impact of Six Sigma implementation on stockprice performance”, TQM & Business Excellence, Vol. 14, pp. 753-63.

Gutierrez, L.J.G., Llorens-Montes, F.J. and Sanchez, O.F.B. (2009), “Six Sigma: from agoal-theoretic perspective to shared-vision development”, International Journal ofOperations & Production Management, Vol. 29, pp. 151-69.

Hahn, G.J., Hill, W.J., Hoeri, R.W. and Zinkgraf, S.A. (1999), “The impact of Six Sigmaimprovement – a glimpse into the future of statistics”, The American Statistician, Vol. 53,pp. 208-15.

Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J.H. (1977), “The population ecology of organizations”, AmericanJournal of Sociology, Vol. 82, pp. 929-64.

Harry, M.J. and Schroeder, R. (2000), Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management StrategyRevolutionizing the World’s Top Corporations, Doubleday, New York, NY.

Hawley, A. (1968), “The population ecology of organizations”, American Journal of Sociology,Vol. 82, pp. 929-64.

Klein, K. and Sorra, J.S. (1996), “The challenge of innovation implementation”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 21, pp. 1055-80.

Six Sigmaadoption

449

Klein, K., Hall, R.J. and Laliberte, M. (1990), “Training and the organizational consequences oftechnological change: a case study of computer-aided design and drafting”,in Larwood, U.E.G.L. (Ed.), Technological Innovation and Human Resources: End-UserTraining, de Gruyter, New York, NY.

Klein, K., Ralls, R.S. and Carter, P.O. (1989), The Implementation of a Computerized InventoryControl System, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Lawler, E.E. and Mohrman, S.A. (1991), “Quality circles: after the honeymoon”, in Staw, B.M. (Ed.),Psychological Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, Macmillan, New York, NY.

Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G. and Choo, A.S. (2006), “Six Sigma: the role of goals inimprovement teams”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24, pp. 779-90.

Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S. and Choo, A.S. (2003), “Six Sigma: a goal-theoreticperspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, pp. 193-203.

McAdam, R. and Lafferty, B. (2004), “A multilevel case study critique of Six Sigma: statisticalcontrol or strategic change?”, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 24, p. 530.

Meredith, J.R. (1998), “Building operations management theory through case and field research”,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, pp. 441-54.

Nonthaleerak, P. and Hendry, L. (2008), “Exploring the Six Sigma phenomenon using multiplecase study evidence”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,Vol. 28, pp. 279-303.

Pagell, M. (2004), “Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration ofoperations, purchasing and logistics”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 5,pp. 459-87.

Pande, P.S., Neuman, R.P. and Cavanagh, R.R. (2000), The Six Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola,and Other Top Companies Are Honing Their Performance, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Perreault, W.D. and Leigh, L. (1989), “Reliability of nominal data based on qualitativejudgments”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, pp. 135-48.

Raisinghani, M.S., Ette, H., Pierce, R., Cannon, G. and Daripaly, P. (2005), “Six Sigma concepts,tools and applications”, Industrial Management þ Data Systems, Vol. 105, pp. 491-505.

Rousseau, D.M. (1989), “Managing the change to an automated office: lessons from five casestudies”, Office: Technology & People, Vol. 4, pp. 31-52.

Rust, R.T. and Cooil, B. (1994), “Reliability measures for qualitative data: theory andimplications”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, pp. 1-14.

Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Schroeder, R.G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C. and Choo, A.S. (2008), “Six Sigma: definition andunderlying theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp. 536-54.

Teo, H.H., Wei, K.K. and Benbasat, I. (2003), “Predicting intention to adopt interorganizationallinkages: an institutional perspective”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 19-49.

Thawani, S. (2004), “Six Sigma – strategy for organizational excellence”, Total QualityManagement & Business Excellence, Vol. 15, pp. 655-64.

Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. and Frohlich, M. (2002), “Case research in operations management”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22, pp. 195-219.

Westphal, J.D., Gulati, R. and Shortell, S.M. (1997), “Customization or conformity? An institutionaland network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 366-94.

IJOPM31,4

450

Yin, R.K. (1999), “Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research”,Health Services Research, Vol. 34, pp. 1209-24.

Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Zsidisin, G.A., Melnyk, S.A. and Ragatz, G.L. (2005), “An institutional theory perspective ofbusiness continuity planning for purchasing & supply management”, InternationalJournal of Production Research, Vol. 43, pp. 3401-20.

Zu, X., Fredendall, L.D. and Douglas, T.J. (2008), “The evolving theory of quality management:the role of Six Sigma”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp. 630-50.

Zuboff, S. (1988), In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power, Basic Books,New York, NY.

Corresponding authorJames W. Hamister can be contacted at: james.hamister@wright.edu

Six Sigmaadoption

451

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints