Six Sigma in the Indian softwareindustry: some observations and

results from a pilot surveyRupa MahantiKolkata, India, and

Jiju AntonyCentre for Research in Six Sigma and Process Excellence (CRISSPE),

Department of DMEM, Strathclyde Institute for Operations Management,University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to present the results from an empirical investigation of SixSigma in the Indian software industry

Design/methodology/approach – The paper begins with a review of literature of Six Sigma andits role in the software industry. The importance of Six Sigma in the software domain is presented,followed by presentation of the results from an empirical investigation of Six Sigma in the Indiansoftware industry

Findings – The research reflects the status of Six Sigma application and implementation in thesoftware industry, identifies the commonly used statistical and non statistical and softwareengineering tools and frameworks used within software business; and determines the critical successfactors (CSFs) for a successful Six Sigma initiative in the software/IT industry. The most importantfactor was management commitment and involvement. Documentation management and suppliers’involvement were found to be the least important factors.

Research limitations/implications – This study was carried out with some boundaries like thenumber of companies, available resources, time constraints, etc.

Practical implications – This paper dispels the myths concerning the unsuitability of Six Sigma inthe software arena. At the same time it highlights the status of Six Sigma implementation in Indiansoftware organizations and the critical success factors for implementation of Six Sigma.

Originality/value – Little research has been carried out in terms of empirical survey relating to theapplication of Six Sigma in the software industry like that demonstrated in this paper. The paper willbe valuable for quality professionals and management personnel in software organizations.

Keywords Six sigma, Computer software, Critical success factors, Communication technologies, Quality,India

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionSoftware quality is often seen as an elusive and mysterious subject; it is perhaps themost ignored topic in the world of software development (Kenett and Baker, 1999). Formany business leaders, software quality is often viewed as a luxury; something thatcan be sacrificed, if necessary, for added functionality, faster development, or lowercosts. However, the quality of software is of paramount importance to everyone,including users and developers. Because of fierce global competition, many softwarecompanies are suffering financial setbacks, and hence they are trying to control costs(Phan et al., 1995). Software organizations are also fighting for survival and excellence

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2731.htm

Six Sigma in theIndian software

industry

549

The TQM JournalVol. 21 No. 6, 2009

pp. 549-564q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1754-2731DOI 10.1108/17542730910995837

in an atmosphere of global competition. To maintain sound competition, the softwarecompanies need to differentiate their products in ways that are meaningful to theircustomers. Quality is a proven way to achieve this differentiation (Humphrey, 1989).Successful software development organizations have found that an organizationalcommitment to quality expedites software development process, reduces costs, andallows new features to be added with greater ease. This is because an organization thatdevelops low-quality software, whether for internal use or for sale, is essentiallyalways looking backward, spending time and money fixing defects in “completed”software (Bessin, 2004). Both practitioners and academicians agree that softwarequality improvement techniques lead to a reduction in software development costs andtherefore, software quality is one of the critical issues (Kan et al., 1994; Weinberg, 1996;Yang, 2001). An abundance of tools, techniques, and philosophies have been developedfor minimizing errors and improving overall software quality (Parzinger and Nath,1998). A number of quality standards, methodologies and frameworks such as ISO9000, TQM, Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award, Six Sigma, CapabilityMaturity Model (SEI-CMM), Capability Maturity Integration Model (SEI-CMMI), TeamSoftware Process (TSP), People Software Process (PSP), People Capability MaturityIntegration Model (P-CMMI) have been embraced by organizations to improve theirproducts and services.

Jovanoic and Shoemaker (1997) argued that ISO 9000 is appropriate for softwaredevelopment processes as well. Jalote (2000) found the Software Engineering Institute’sCapability Maturity Model (CMM) to be a widely used framework for qualitymanagement in software companies. Organizations that have acquired the fifth level ofCMM and PCMM are expected to maintain very high quality standards (Harter et al.,2000). Issac et al. (2004) proposed a descriptive TQM model for quality management inthe software industry.

Six Sigma is the new star in the quality world (Tennant, 2001). Six Sigma is abusiness improvement strategy that seeks to find and eliminate causes of defects ormistakes in business processes by focusing on outputs that are of critical importance tocustomers (Snee, 2000). Six Sigma has both management and technical components.The focus of management component is to select the right people for Six Sigmaprojects, select the right process metrics, provide resources for Six Sigma training,provide clear direction and guidance with regard to project selection, etc. The focus oftechnical component is on process improvement by reducing variation, creating datathat explains process variation and using statistical tools and techniques for problemsolving. The concept of implementation of Six Sigma methodology was pioneered atMotorola in the 1980 s with the aim of reducing quality costs. After Motorola, SixSigma has been exploited by many organizations such as GE, Honeywell, Sony,Caterpillar, J P Morgan, American Express, Common Wealth Health Corporation,Lloyds TSB to name but a few here.

Six Sigma has its roots in manufacturing. The proven potential of Six Sigma toprovide competitive advantage to manufacturing industries has initiated theimplementation of Six Sigma to the software industry as well. Although theapplication of Six Sigma in the software industry is in its infancy stage, a number ofsources in the existing literature have discussed about the applicability of Six Sigma insoftware development projects (Antony and Fergusson, 2004; Binder, 1997; Hong andGoh, 2003; Mahanti and Antony, 2006).

TQM21,6

550

The implementation of Six Sigma in the software industry is still in its infancy. Thesoftware industry is currently still young, without sufficient knowledge and adequatestandards to guarantee fault-free software. Typical software processes operate atbetween 2.3 and 3.0 sigma (Mahanti and Antony, 2006). The best software processesoperate at 4 to 5 sigma. If we use a single line of source code to represent a uniqueopportunity for defect, it means a typical software development process generates atheoretical average of 66,803 defects per million lines of source code. The large defectnumber suggests significant effort wasted in producing defects during thedevelopment process. The final product delivered to the customer is only 93.332percent defect free. On the other hand, by deploying the Six-Sigma methodology, aSix-Sigma process claims that only an average of 3.4 defects per million lines of sourcecode is produced. The final product delivered to the client is 99.9997 percent defect free(Hong and Goh, 2004).

Software Six Sigma is the application of statistical and non-statistical tools to thesoftware process, and software work products throughout the software developmentlife cycle to measure, analyze and reduce defects, cycle time, schedule slippage, effortslippage, effort variation and schedule variation (Mahanti, 2005). Though surveys havebeen conducted in the implementation of various software process improvement andquality methodologies like TQM, Capability Maturity Model standards and ISOstandards in Indian software organizations no survey research has been conducted inconnection to the implementation of Six Sigma in Indian software organizations (Jalote,2000; Issac et al., 2004; Issac et al., 2004). The findings present in this paper are possiblythe first of its kind in the Indian software organizations. This paper begins with areview of literature on Six Sigma and its role in the software industry, followed by theimportance of Six Sigma in the software business and finally the presentation of resultsfrom an empirical investigation of Six Sigma in the Indian software industry.

Six Sigma and its role in the software industry: a review of literatureSix Sigma starts from a practical problem, translates it into a statistical domain, worksout a statistical solution and then translates it back to a practical solution. Sigma is astatistical unit of measure, which reflects process capability of any process. Sigmavalue is perfectly correlated to such characteristics as defects-per-unit, parts-permillion defective and the probability of a failure/error. Six Sigma methodology:

. focuses on the customer and is based on data;

. integrates well with other software quality initiatives like CMM and CMMI;

. is measurable, unlike other quality systems; and

. is an effective approach for removing defects from products.

Six Sigma is based on two basic methodologies:

(1) Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control (DMAIC).

(2) Design for Six Sigma (DFSS). DFSS follows the Define, Measure, Analyze,Design, Optimize and Verify methodology (DMADOV).

The success of Six Sigma in the manufacturing domain has been reported all over theworld. A report from the Black & Decker Corporation illustrates this. In January 30,2003, the company announced that, despite the weak economic conditions, by focusing

Six Sigma in theIndian software

industry

551

on Six-Sigma in the process of restructuring, operating profit for the Power Tools andAccessories segment increased 38% from the fourth quarter a year ago (ApplianceMagazine.com, 2003).

However, the application of Six Sigma in the software domain has been a subject ofmuch debate and conjecture and is still less widely accepted than CMM, CMMI or GQM(Goal Question Metric). One aspect of resistance to the application of Six Sigma to thesoftware process is as follows. An example is a study by Binder (1997), which identifiesthree major difficulties involved in applying the Six Sigma model to software. Theseare classified as “processes”, “characteristics” and “uniqueness”. “Processes” refers tothe relative “fuzziness” of software process compared to manufacturing processeswhere the application of the Six Sigma model is well established and documented.“Characteristics” highlights the difficulties in taking meaningful measurements suchas what constitutes a fault, fault densities, etc. “Uniqueness” refers to the observationthat, unlike manufactured products that are generally mass produced, softwareproducts are generally “one-off” and identical copies can be easily made.

Six Sigma aims to align business products within customer specifications using adata-driven approach. However, a software product is essentially intangible until itreaches system integration and test phase. There are difficulties in applying Six Sigmato the software industry, due to its statistical foundations in manufacturing andassumptions on process variation. Another barrier to the successful application of SixSigma to software is a lack of adequate product and process metrics (Janieszewski andGeorge, 2004). In addition, software development is a cognition-intensive activity and asoftware process itself is an intellectual process; one must first visualize and documentit, for example, before one can measure and manage it. However, Six Sigma does notspecifically address this situation (Card, 2000; Hong and Goh, 2003; Hong and Goh,2004). The fit between Six Sigma and software project management methodology is notalways obvious. Some of the common Six Sigma tools do not easily lend themselves tosoftware projects. Part of the reason is possibly that engineering and manufacturinghave evolved over hundreds of years, software development is only a few decades old(Aggarwal, 2004).

Software development processes can be fully characterized by three simplemeasurements (Janieszewski and George, 2004):

(1) time – the time required to perform a specific task;

(2) size – the size of the product produced; and

(3) defects – the number of defects, the type of defects, time to eliminate defects, etc.

A total of 90 percent of the processes in a software services company are repeatableand can be improved by the process improvement. Success of Six Sigma in themanufacturing domain has encouraged its application in the software domain. In the1999 SEI survey of high maturity software organizations, it is shown that among the36 top maturity organizations surveyed worldwide out of the millions, only sevenorganizations institutionalized the Six Sigma practice as part of the organization’sstandard software process and four organizations followed it frequently (Paulk et al.,2000). Less than 20 percent of 194 companies monitoring software quality stated thatthey use Six Sigma to improve the quality of internally developed applications(Information Week, 2003). In a survey carried out in the UK software industry out of 15companies that responded to the Six Sigma survey, ten companies were applying the

TQM21,6

552

principles of Six Sigma. The companies participating in the survey regarded requirementanalysis as a potential area to improve followed by operation, maintenance and testing(Antony and Fergusson, 2004). Adoption and application of Six Sigma tools in thesoftware industry requires Six Sigma training tailored to the intended environment ofuse to improve the software quality and creation and selection of meaningful metrics thatgive insight into how to meet business goals. The need for training tailored to theintended environment of use even more critical in software, because learning ismaximized when the problems and examples are directly relevant to the studentsimmediate needs and because software is different (Gack, 2003). An industrial black belttraining programme typically takes six months (Goyal and James, 2003).

In each DMAIC cycle, Six Sigma experts analyze their processes to find out whereand how defects occur, measure them and eliminate problems. Hallowell (2003)suggested that Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) in software development supplements theusual define, measure, analyze, improve, control (DMAIC) process. Six Sigma achievesdramatic improvement in business performance through a precise understanding ofcustomer requirements and the elimination of defects from existing processes,products, and services. Six Sigma is a methodology to organize the tools of the trade ina way that they can be executed on business issues that really matter, by people whoreally care (Hayes, 2004).

The Software Engineering Institute (SEI) found Six Sigma is a feasible enabler ofdomain specific process improvement technology. Most software organizations followthe CMM (Capability Maturity Model) or CMMI (Capability Maturity ModelIntegration) for software process improvement. CMM is a reference model forinducting the software process maturity into different levels (Paulk et al., 1993). Thematurity of an organization’s software process helps to predict a project’s ability tomeet its goals. Projects in Level 1 organizations experience wide variations inachieving cost, schedule, functionality, and quality targets. As maturity increases, thedifference between targeted results and actual results decreases across projects, thevariability of actual results around targeted results decreases and targeted resultsimprove as the maturity of the organization increases. CMM is a good framework fortechnical process topics but does not get at the issue of management accountability andorganizational behavior change. Six Sigma actually addresses the tools and the rootcauses of the lack of needed change, management accountability and organizationalbehavior (Hayes, 2004).

Six Sigma is also not a complete replacement for CMM, technology tools, or otheremerging best practices (Hayes, 2004). In fact, Six Sigma and Capability MaturityModel (CMM) are complimentary (Card, 2000; Murugappan et al., 2003). In fact, SixSigma directly contributes to Maturity Level 5 – continuous optimization of keyprocess areas. Also there are organizations, where implementation of Six Sigma hashelped in attaining higher CMM levels. Northrop Grumman Mission Systems, forexample, used Six Sigma to help in its move from Maturity Level 3 of the SEI CMMImodels to Level 5 in just one year (Heinz, 2004). While the CMM focuses ontransformation of the organization and does not explicitly require better results, SixSigma drives deeper into the process and requires measurements in place for processimprovement. Six Sigma can also be used in conjunction with a model-based approachlike CMMI. It fits well with CMMI’s measurement and analysis process area(Janieszewski and George, 2004; Gack and Robison, 2003).

Six Sigma in theIndian software

industry

553

Goal question metric (GQM) together with other practical software measurement(PSM) paradigms shows compatibility and consistency with the objective of Six Sigma.GQM matches well with the Define-Measure phases of Six Sigma. An integration of SixSigma and GQM can strengthen the Define and Measure phases of Six Sigma. A goodSix Sigma program incorporates GQM and other PSM paradigms into one cohesiveprogram. No matter which software life cycle model is chosen, the DMAIC frameworkcan always be integrated, although more work needs to be done in this area.

Significance of Six Sigma in ITSoftware development for business critical systems has emerged as a core discipline thatevery company has to perform in. Software projects are often positioned at the criticalinterface between a company’s products and / or services and the company’s customers.However, software projects are associated with a high degree of risk. About 25 percent ofsoftware projects are cancelled because they are late, over budget, have unacceptablylow quality or experience some combination of these problems. A Standish Group surveyof 8,000 software projects found that the average project exceeded planned budget by 90percent, its schedule by 120 percent and project cancellation of 25 percent due to somecombinations of delays, budget overruns, or poor quality. Requirement failures(reflecting needs not originally recognized or correctly understood, leading to substantialand costly rework late in the software development cycle) are associated with 80 percentof failed (late or cancelled) software projects. Execution failures (incorrect and overlyoptimistic estimates, leading to long delays and cost overruns) are a factor in 65 percentof failed software projects. Execution failures (leading to poor software quality, heavilyback-loaded costs, and very high levels of rework – commonly 40 percent of total cost)are a factor in 60 percent of failed software projects.

A division of Hewlett Packard decided to release its product despite a continuingincoming defect trend during the test phase. This resulted in a costly update after therelease, a steady need for defect repairs and a product with a bad quality reputation(Grady, 1996). Nowadays software is performing more critical tasks than ever before.Software failures in mission critical systems often jeopardize public safety. Adiscovery by Britain’s nuclear regulatory agency that a power plant scheduled to beginoperation was potentially unsafe due to inadequate software designed to manage thereactor in the event of an emergency (Schwartz, 1996). Software failures have causeddisasters in the past. In February 1991, a software failure in Patriot missile’s radarsystem allowed an Iraqi Scud to penetrate their air defense system and slam into anAmerican barracks in Saudi Arabia, killing 28 people during the Gulf War (Schmitt,1991). The benefit of Six Sigma to mission critical systems is rather significant.

The above points accentuate the necessity to decrease defects in complex andmission critical software. Owing to the extremely high costs involved in achieving theSix Sigma standard, it is unlikely that a software development team will achieve a trueSix Sigma level. However this doesn’t diminish the value of Six Sigma and havingminimal defects as a goal. However software failures can cause customerdissatisfaction which may result in software companies losing business to theircompetitors (Hong and Goh, 2003). Although the true statistical meaning of Six Sigmai.e. 3.4 defects per million opportunities does not hold, in this case Six Sigma forsoftware is more about using the methodology to achieve “continual processimprovement” than it is about achieving a statistical Six Sigma process output.

TQM21,6

554

Research methodologyResearch methodology can be viewed as the process taken to accomplish the keyobjectives of the research undertaken. The authors have undertaken a survey-basedapproach to assess the status of Six Sigma in the Indian software industry. A survey isa means of “gathering information about the characteristics, actions, or opinions of alarge group of people, referred to as a population” (Tanur, 1982). In a survey-basedapproach, data are collected by means of questionnaires or interviews. The choice ofdata collection method such as mail questionnaire, telephone interviews or face-to-faceinterviews is significant because it affects the quality and cost of the data collected. Forexample, mail questionnaires are very good for gathering factual data, but they are lesseffective when sensitive data and complex data are needed. In general, quality and costare highest with face-to-face interviews or telephone interviews whereas quality andcost are lower with mail questionnaires and group administration.

The purpose of survey research is to find out what situations, events, attitudes oropinions are occurring in a population. Survey research aimed at description asks simplyabout the distribution of some phenomena in a population or among subgroups of apopulation. Exploratory surveys should be used as the basis for developing concepts andmethods for more detailed, systematic descriptive or explanatory surveys (Babbie, 1973,Fowler, 1984). In short, the whole purpose of an exploratory survey is to elicit a widevariety of responses from individuals with varying viewpoints in a loosely structuredmanner as the basis for design of a more careful survey. Exploratory surveys are differentfrom pilot studies. The pilot study is a small-scale rehearsal of a systematic survey aimedat testing questions, question flow, and questionnaire format with representatives of thetarget population. Exploratory surveys frequently are used prior to pilot studies todetermine what concepts should be measured and how to measure them best.

To establish the broad view of Six Sigma within the organization and to developissues for the semi-structured interviews, a survey questionnaire was developed. Thequestionnaire was designed and adapted based on the published work of similarstudies carried out by Antony and Fergusson (2004); Antony and Banuelas (2002); andanother study carried out in the US industry (Dusarme, 2003). The questionnaire usedin this study consisted of two parts: the background of the company and the CSFs ofSix Sigma. The first part was primarily aimed to understand some of the fundamentalissues such as the size of the company, current status of Six Sigma, common Six Sigmatools and techniques used within software industry, financial gains generated from SixSigma initiative to date and so on. A total of 19 critical success factors (CSFs) and 39variables were derived mainly from the literature (Adams et al., 2003; Antony andBanuelas, 2002; Breyfoggle, 1999; Snee and Hoerl, 2003; Pande et al., 2000) anddiscussions with software quality professionals. The second part consisted of these 19CSFs with 39 variables. All factors were ranked on a five-point scale (1 ¼ not veryimportant, 2 ¼ not important, 3 ¼ important, 4 ¼ very important and 5 ¼ critical).

The objectives of this empirical study were to:. understand the status of Six Sigma application and implementation in software

industry (that is, key metrics used to measure the service performance, six sigmacapability level of the core business processes, criteria used to measure thesuccess of the Six Sigma program etc.);

Six Sigma in theIndian software

industry

555

. identify the most and least commonly used statistical and non statistical andsoftware engineering tools, techniques, methodologies and frameworks usedwithin software business; and

. determine the critical success factors (CSFs) for a successful Six Sigma initiativein the Indian software/IT industry

An e-mail survey was used to gather survey data. The advantages of the e-mail surveyapproach to data collection are (Nueman, 2003; Sarantakos, 1998, Bachmann et al.,1996; Kittleson, 1995; Sproull, 1986):

. inexpensive;

. possibility of very rapid surveying;

. results are produced quickly;

. questionnaires are completed in the respondents’ convenience;

. anonymity is greatly assured; and

. respondents are at liberty to provide objective views on sensitive issues, and soon and so forth.

In this study, a total of 100 questionnaires were sent to software companies. The list ofcompanies was obtained from NASSCOM database as well as using search engines(www.google.com). The criteria used to select the companies were Six Sigmacertification, CMM certification, service areas and employee strength. The samplechosen was a representative sample. The response rate from the companies was about20 percent (i.e. 20 companies). However, just 12 companies were actively applying theprinciples of Six Sigma.

The distribution of the respondents to the questionnaire was master black belts (5percent), green belts (10 percent), black belts (10 percent), project managers (15percent), general managers (5 percent), Vice-President-Quality (10 percent) and others(45 percent) as shown in Figure 1.

Results of the empirical investigationThe service areas of the companies participating in the survey comprized of Internet,software consultancy and services, data warehousing, IT enabled services, datamining, embedded technology, training and education, advanced databases, softwarevendor, telecommunication, ERP, mainframe technology, engineering design servicesand transportation sector services. 55 percent of the companies participating in the

Figure 1.Percentage distribution ofemployees participating inthe study

TQM21,6

556

survey had multiple service areas. The rest, 45 percent, had only one service area. Ofthe companies 50 percent had software consultancy and services as one of their serviceareas. Also, 60 percent of the participants of the Six Sigma survey were big companieswith more than 1,000 employees. Of the respondents 10 percent hailed from companieswith number of employees between 501 and 1,000. Also, 25 percent of the respondentswere companies with 301-500 employees. The remaining 5 percent of the companieshad less than 100 employees. It was also observed that more than 80 percent of all thecompanies (Six Sigma and non-Six Sigma companies) participated in the survey hadformal quality management system in place. Of all respondents 25 percent had totalquality management in place.

The participants were also asked to prioritize the key attributes that are importantin the software development process. These attributes were derived from the literature(Pressman, 2001) and through interactions with professionals in the software industry.The participants were asked to assign a rank in the range of 1 to 11 with 1 being themost important and 11 being the least. The average scores are as follows:

. functionality – 1;

. correctness – 1.1;

. reliability – 1.4;

. consistency – 1.8;

. cost, timeliness, efficiency – 2.2;

. integrity – 2.35;

. maintainability – 2.9;

. usability – 3;

. complexity, reusability – 3.8;

. interoperability – 5.23; and

. portability – 5.7.

About 66.5 percent of the companies have been involved with the Six Sigma programfor one to three years. Approximately 16.5 percent of the companies had implementedSix Sigma for three to five years. A total of 8.5 percent of the companies hadimplemented Six Sigma for over five years and the remaining 8.5 percent of thecompanies claimed to have been using Six Sigma for three to six months. Figure 2shows the Six Sigma implementation experience.

Figure 2.Percentage distribution ofSix Sigma implementation

experience of companies

Six Sigma in theIndian software

industry

557

The results of the analysis have revealed that 41.67 percent of the respondentsimplementing Six Sigma have completed more than 30 Six Sigma projects. 33.33percent have completed between five and ten Six Sigma projects. The rest, 25 percent,have completed less than five Six Sigma projects. Of the companies 25 percent hadmade a bottom line savings of more than Rs. 1 million through the implementation ofSix Sigma. Approximately 17 percent of companies reported a bottom line saving of Rs500K-1 million. A total of 8.33 percent reported a bottom line saving of Rs. 50 to 100K;8.33 percent had observed a bottom line saving of Rs 250 to 500K; and 41.67 percent ofcompanies did not give a value for bottom line saving achieved by the implementationof Six Sigma initiatives. Figure 3 shows the bottom line savings achieved by therespondents implementing Six Sigma.

Of the 12 companies implementing Six Sigma, 66.67 percent of companies were atCapability Maturity Level 5. A total of 16.67 percent of companies were at CapabilityMaturity Level 4 and 16.67 percent had not attained CMM certifications.

It was also found that 25 percent of the respondents implementing Six Sigma hadtheir core processes operating between 3 and 4 sigma capability levels. Of therespondents, 25 percent implementing Six Sigma claimed to have their core processesoperating above five sigma capability levels. Overall, 8.5 percent of the respondentsimplementing Six Sigma had their core processes operating at less than 3 sigmacapability levels. The remaining 41.5 percent of the respondents implementing SixSigma were not sure of the sigma capability levels of their core processes.

The commonly used metrics to measure the service performance in the softwareindustry were:

. number of customer complaints;

. defect (bug) rate;

. cost of poor quality (COPQ);

. defect per million opportunity (DPMO);

. process capability indices – Cp and Cpk; and

. access time.

Figure 3.Percentage of companiesand their respectivebottom line savings

TQM21,6

558

Less frequently used metrics included:. schedule variance;. effort variance;. SLA compliance; and. schedule slippage.

The survey results revealed that “number of customer complaints” was the most popularmetric with 11 out of 12 respondents (i.e. 91.67 percent) using it. 66.67 percentof therespondents were using defect (bug) rate as one of the key metrics. 51.67 percent of therespondents were using process capability as one of the metrics to measure serviceperformance. Of the respondents, 50 percent were using DPMO as a metric: 33.33 percentof the respondents were using COPQ as the metric; and 25 percent of the respondentswere using access time as a metric. The commonly used metrics are depicted in Figure 4.

Most companies measured the success of the Six Sigma program in terms of:. amount of net savings achieved;. process capability improvement;. reduction in process variation;. reduction or elimination of defects;. number of trained black belts;. employee satisfaction/increase in morale;. using balance scorecard;. reduction in project effort;. reduction in cycle time;. reduction in process variation; and. reduction in schedule slippage.

The most commonly used tools/techniques/models/methodologies/frameworks include:. statistical process control (SPC);. control charts;

Figure 4.Commonly used metrics

by companies

Six Sigma in theIndian software

industry

559

. fishbone diagram;

. gap analysis;

. inspection;

. CMM (capability maturity model);

. regression;

. process mapping;

. quality function deployment (QFD);

. failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA); and

. process capability analysis (PCA).

The least commonly used tools/techniques/models/methodologies/frameworks include:. SERVQUAL for measuring service quality;. service blueprinting;. team software process (TSP);. personal software process (PSP);. simulation;. agile technologies;. objectives/principles/attributes (OPA); and. lean.

The most common skills that the companies were looking for in selecting people for SixSigma projects were:

. problem solving skills;

. presentation and communication skills;

. leadership skills;

. mentor and teaching skills; and

. management and organizational skills.

Continual motivation to the people involved in Six Sigma was deployed by mostcompanies through the enthusiastic participation of the senior executives, by givingemployees an opportunity of becoming candidates for further leadership experience,by showing the examples of cases from successful companies and giving theemployees special training.

Critical success factors (CSFs) for implementation of Six Sigma in software industryThe respondents were asked to rank the 19 CSFs on a scale of 1 to 19 (1 being the mostimportant and 19 being the least important). The results of the analysis showing themean scores and standard deviation of each essential ingredient which are required forthe successful deployment of Six Sigma are given in Table I. The analysis of the studyhas shown that management commitment and involvement is the most critical successfactor.

TQM21,6

560

The analysis of the study has also shown that linking Six Sigma to business strategy isthe second most critical success factor. Six Sigma builds a sense of exigency by puttingemphasis on rapid completion of projects in four to six months (Snee and Hoerl, 2003).Quite naturally, project planning and management has been the third most importantfactor. Documentation management and suppliers involvement were found to be theleast important factors in the successful deployment of Six Sigma in the softwareindustry.

ConclusionSix Sigma is a customer-centric, data-driven business strategy and a systematicmethodology that focuses on reducing process deviation, centering, making theprocess mean match with the process target and optimizing the development process.Its application leads to breakthrough improvements in software quality, productperformance, productivity, cost savings and customer satisfaction. This articlepresents the results of a Six Sigma pilot survey carried out in the Indian softwareindustry. At the same time it dispels the myths concerning the unsuitability of SixSigma in the software domain. The paper also presents the CSFs which are essentialfor successful deployment of Six Sigma in software business. A total of 19 CSFs, wereconsidered in the study. This study was carried out with some boundaries such as thenumber of companies, available resources, time constraints and so on and so forth.Different positions of the respondents may have different opinions. Employees withvarying backgrounds in addition to quality professionals (such as team leaders, projectmanagers, module leaders, analysts, human resource managers, etc.) within thecompany have been suggested to complete the questionnaires so as to get a broaderpicture on the application of Six Sigma within each business process. The limitedsample size of the current study, calls for a survey on a larger scale for greater validity

Ranking CSFs Mean Standard deviation

1 Management commitment and involvement 1.50 0.5951192 Linking Six Sigma to business strategies 3.00 1.2913 Project planning and management 3.08 1.9774 Understanding the Six Sigma methodology 3.42 1.62855 Project prioritization and selection 3.92 3.1486 Training and education 4.00 2.91566 Employees’ commitment 4.00 3.4888 Integrating Six Sigma with the financial infrastructure 4.12 3.1849 Organizational infrastructure 4.42 3.82

10 Customers involvement 5.00 3.48811 Cultural change 5.83 5.59512 Linking Six Sigma to software process improvement 6 6.5613 Knowledge Sharing 6.25 5.1214 Team communication 6.33 6.19615 Risk management 6.75 6.0316 Linking Six Sigma to input quality 7.17 6.0917 Software productivity 7.75 7.3418 Document management 8.083 5.2419 Suppliers involvement 10.17 4.616

Table I.Critical success factors

for implementation of SixSigma in the Indian

industry

Six Sigma in theIndian software

industry

561

of the findings from this research. Because of limited budget and time constraints, aface-to face interview could be carried out for only five of the companies responded tothe survey questionnaire. An e-mail survey was carried out for the rest of thecompanies. The scaled questions have disadvantages because respondents often do notuse the whole scale, whatever response they tick, we do not know why a particularresponse was chosen. Semi-structured interviews with people at different levels of SixSigma knowledge and expertise have been conducted to obtain a deeper understandingof the Six Sigma practices in the software industry.

References

Adams, C., Gupta, P. and Wilson, C. (2003), Six Sigma Deployment, Butterworth-Heinemann,London.

Antony, J. and Banuelas, R. (2002), “Key ingredients for the effective implementation of a SixSigma program”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 20-7.

Antony, J. and Fergusson, C. (2004), “Six Sigma in the software industry: results from a pilotstudy”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 1025-32.

Aggarwal, M. (2004), Six Sigma Meets Software Development, available at: www.isixsigma.com/library/content/ (accessed 15 April, 2004).

Appliance Magazine.com (2003), Black & Decker Announces Q4 and Full-year Financials,available at: www.appliancemagazine.com/news.cfm?newsid¼3216

Babbie, E.R. (1973), Survey Research Methods, Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA.

Bachmann, D., Elfrink, J. and Vazzana, G. (1996), “Tracking the progress of e-mail versussnail-mail”, Marketing Research, Vol. 8, pp. 31-5.

Bessin, G. (2004), “The business value of software quality”, The Rational Edge, pp. 1-8.

Binder, R.V. (1997), “Can a manufacturing quality model work for software?”, IEEE Software,Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 101-5.

Breyfoggle, F.W. (1999), Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter Solutions Using Statistical Methods,Wiley, New York, NY.

Card, D.N. (2000), “Sorting out Six Sigma and CMM”, IEEE Software, May/June, pp. 11-13.

Dusarme, D. (2003), Six Sigma Survey: Big Success – What about the Other 98 Percent?, availableat: www.qualitydigest.com (accessed 15 April, 2004).

Fowler, F.J. Jr (1984), Survey Research Methods, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Gack, G.A. and Robison, K. (2003), “Integrating improvement initiatives: connecting six sigmafor software, CMMI, personal software process, and team software process”, SoftwareQuality Professional, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 5-13.

Grady, R.B. (1996), “Software failure analysis for high return process improvement decisions”,Hewlett-Packard Journal, Vol. 47, pp. 15-24.

Goyal, N. and James, V.F. (2003), Medical Transcription Case Study, available at: www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c030203a.asp

Hallowell, D. (2003), “Understanding and integrating the voice of the customer”, paper presentedat the Six Sigma in Software Conference, San Jose, CA, January.

Harter, D.E., Krishnan, M.S. and Slaughter, S.A. (2000), “Effects of process maturity on quality,cycle time, and effort in software development”, Management Science, Vol. 46, pp. 451-66.

Hayes, B.J. (2004), Six Sigma for Software . . . More Than a New Tool, available at: www.isixsigma.com/library/content

TQM21,6

562

Heinz, L. (2004), Using Six Sigma in Software Development, available at: www.sei.cmu.edu/news-at-sei/features/2004/1/feature-3.htm

Hong, G.Y. and Goh, T.N. (2003), “Six-Sigma in software quality”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 15No. 6, pp. 364-73.

Hong, G.Y. and Goh, T.N. (2004), “A comparison of Six-Sigma and GQM approaches in softwaredevelopment”, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1 No. 1,pp. 65-75.

Humphrey, W. (1989), Managing the Software Process, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

InformationWeek (2003), “Software quality”, InformationWeek, 26 May.

Issac, G., Rajendran, C. and Anantharaman, R.N. (2004), “A holistic framework for TQM in thesoftware industry: a confirmatory factor analysis approach”, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 35-60.

Jalote, P. (2000), CMM in Practice, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Janieszewski, S. and George, E. (2004), Six Sigma and Software Process Improvement, pp. 1-12,available at: www.SoftwareSixSigma.com (accessed 15 April, 2004).

Jovanovic, V. and Shoemaker, D. (1997), “ISO9001 standard and software quality improvement”,Benchmarking for Quality Management and Technology, Vol. 4, pp. 149-59.

Kan, S.H., Basili, V.R. and Shapiro, L.N. (1994), “Software quality: an overview from theperspective of total quality management”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 4-19.

Kittleson, M.J. (1995), “An assessment of the response rate via the postal service and e-mail”,Health Values, Vol. 18, pp. 27-9.

Kenett, R.S. and Baker, R.S. (1999), Software Process Quality: Management Control, MarcelDekker, New York, NY.

Mahanti, R. (2005), “Six Sigma for software”, Software Quality Professional, Vol. 8 No. 1,pp. 12-26.

Mahanti, R. and Antony, J. (2006), “Six Sigma in software industries: some case studies andobservations”, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 2 No. 3,pp. 263-90.

Murugappan, M., Keeni, G. and Blending, C.M.M. (2003), “Blending CMM and Six Sigma to meetbusiness goals”, IEEE Software, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 42-8.

Neuman, W.L. (2003), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 5th ed.,Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

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

Parzinger, M.J. and Nath, R. (1998), “TQM implementation factors for software development: anempirical study”, Software Quality Journal, Vol. 7 Nos 3-4, pp. 239-60.

Paulk, M.C., Goldenson, D. and White, D. (2000), The 1999 Survey of High MaturityOrganizations, Special Report, CMU/SEI-2000-SR-002, Software Engineering Institute, LosAlamitos, CA, February.

Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. and Weber, C.V. (1993), Capability Maturity Model forSoftware, Version 1.1, CMU/SEI-93-TR-24, DTIC Number ADA263403, SoftwareEngineering Institute, Los Alamitos, CA.

Phan, D.D., George, J.F. and Vogel, D.R. (1995), “Managing software quality in a very largedevelopment project (case study)”, Information and Management, Vol. 29, pp. 277-85.

Pressman, R.V. (2001), Software Engineering A Practitioner’s Approach, Tata McGraw-HillPublishing Company Limited, New Delhi, India.

Six Sigma in theIndian software

industry

563

Sarantakos, S. (1998), Social Research, 2nd ed., Macmillan, London.

Schmitt, E. (1991), Computer Failure Let Scud Through, The Morning Call, Allenton, PA.

Schwartz, E.I. (1996), “Trust me, I’m your software”, Discover, Vol. 17, pp. 78-81.

Snee, R.D. (2000), “Impact of Six Sigma on quality engineering”, Quality Engineering, Vol. 12No. 3, pp. 9-14.

Snee, R.D. and Hoerl, R.W. (2003), Leading Six Sigma, FT Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Sproull, S. (1986), “Using electronic mail for data collection in organizational research”, Academyof Management Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 159-69.

Tanur, J.M. (1982), Advances in Methods for Large-Scale Surveys and Experiments, Behavioraland Social Science Research: A National Resource, Part II, National Academy Press,Washington, DC.

Tennant, G. (2001), Six Sigma: SPC and Six Sigma in Manufacturing and Services, GowerPublishing Company, Aldershot.

Weinberg, M.G. (1996), Quality Software Management – 2, Dorset House Publishing, New York,NY.

Yang, Y.H. (2001), “Software quality management and ISO 9000 implementation”, IndustrialManagement & Data Systems, Vol. 101 No. 7, pp. 329-36.

Further reading

Janiszewski, S., George, E. and Integrating, P.S.P. (2004), “TSP and Six Sigma”, Software QualityProfessional, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 4-13.

Corresponding authorJiju Antony can be contacted at: jiju.antony@strath.ac.uk

TQM21,6

564

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