International Journal of Lean Six Sigma

Six Sigma and organisational ambidexterity: a systematic review and conceptual

framework
Cristina Alcaide-Muñoz, Leopoldo J. Gutierrez-Gutierrez,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Cristina Alcaide-Muñoz, Leopoldo J. Gutierrez-Gutierrez, (2017) "Six Sigma and organisational
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

ambidexterity: a systematic review and conceptual framework", International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, Vol. 8 Issue: 4, pp.436-456, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-08-2016-0040
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-08-2016-0040
Downloaded on: 07 March 2018, At: 11:24 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 120 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 185 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"Lean thinking: planning and implementation in the public sector", International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 390-410 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-06-2016-0027">https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-06-2016-0027</a>
(2017),"Competitive advantage through Six Sigma at plastic injection molded parts manufacturing
unit: A case study", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 411-435 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-06-2016-0022">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-06-2016-0022</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:320271 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-4166.htm

IJLSS
8,4 Six Sigma and organisational
ambidexterity: a systematic
review and conceptual framework
436 Cristina Alcaide-Muñoz
Department of Business Administration,
Received 5 August 2016 Public University of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain, and
Revised 4 December 2016
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

Accepted 5 February 2017

Leopoldo J. Gutierrez-Gutierrez
Department of Business Administration, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to analyse the relationship between Six Sigma methodology and
organisational ambidexterity (exploitation and exploration orientations). For this purpose, this study
describes how Six Sigma practices may enhance both orientations simultaneously, contributing to
organisational ambidexterity and performance improvements.
Design/methodology/approach – A systematic literature review was adopted as the research
methodology. The authors analysed 512 publications in Social Science Citation Index journals in fields such as
management, business, operation research management science, planning development, behavioural sciences,
interdisciplinary social sciences and applied psychology from 1987 to 2016, as the first development and
adoption of Six Sigma was in 1987 by Motorola.
Findings – This analysis describes how Six Sigma emphasises not only useful practices for exploitation
orientation, such as customer input, design for manufacturability or improvement and control of processes,
but also explorative practices, such as discovery, novelty or innovation. Consequently, an adequate
combination of all these practices may enhance organisational ambidexterity and organisational success.
Research limitations/implications – This study relies exclusively on previously published literature
that fulfilled the selection criteria described in the search methodology. Further empirical research is
necessary to test the propositions included in this paper.
Practical implications – This study has important implications for academics, practitioners and
employers, as it furnishes new theoretical insights to the scarce literature that studies the relationship
between quality management practices and organisational ambidexterity. The authors provide a better
understanding of Six Sigma philosophy and some fresh and new insight on how Six Sigma practices may help
organisation develop distinctive competitive competences by its influence over exploration and exploitation
orientations (ambidexterity). Therefore, it might be of interest to those practitioners interested in achieving a
successful competitive position and discover emerging business opportunities, as it may provide some
guidance on the important implication of Six Sigma practices over exploration and exploitation orientations.
Originality/value – This study provides new insights into the non-existent literature about Six Sigma and
organisational ambidexterity and to the scarce literature about quality management and ambidexterity.
Propositions on how Six Sigma practices benefit organisational ambidexterity are also suggested.
Keywords Six Sigma, Quality management, Ambidextrous organization, Exploitation orientation,
Exploration orientation
Paper type Conceptual paper
International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma
Vol. 8 No. 4, 2017
pp. 436-456
1. Introduction
© Emerald Publishing Limited Academics and practitioners advocate that Six Sigma comprises the best quality practices to
2040-4166
DOI 10.1108/IJLSS-08-2016-0040 address business issues such as customer focus, process innovation and quality
 improvement (Rowlands, 2003; Hoerl et al., 2001; Choi et al., 2012). However, there are mixed Six Sigma and
results concerning its positive impact on organisational performance, and the failure rate of organisational
Six Sigma implementation is approximately 60 per cent (Gupta, 2005). On one hand,
organisations such as 3M’s Dental Division (Baldrige Award winner), Ford, General Electric,
ambidexterity
AlliedSignal, Honeywell and American Express have adopted Six Sigma and claimed that it
has transformed their organisation, enhancing their business performance (Hahn et al., 2000;
Tjahjono et al., 2010; Swink and Jacobs, 2012; Reosekar and Pohekar, 2014). On the other
hand, organisations such as Motorola, Ericsson and Samsung did not have good results. 437
Although they saved billions with the help of Six Sigma in the early years, its adoption
failed to improve their performance in the long run (Clifford, 2001; Barney, 2002; Folaron,
2003; Richardson, 2007; Chakravorty, 2009; Chandrasekaran et al., 2012).
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

To advance research about Six Sigma benefits, many authors have devoted their efforts
to describing its effects on organisations in-depth. Their studies have analysed the
relationship between Six Sigma and competencies such as flexibility, differentiation, fast
delivery, zero defects, rapid design or redesign, cost reduction, innovation, knowledge
creation and so forth (Foster, 2007; Pepper and Spedding, 2010; Easton and Rosenzweig,
2012; Sin et al., 2015; Arumugam et al., 2016; Gutierrez-Gutierrez et al., 2016a, 2016b).
At present, one of the most important organisational competencies is ambidexterity
(Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Moreno Luzon and Valls Pasola, 2011; Volery et al., 2015;
Zhang et al., 2016), which refers to an organisation’s ability to develop both exploitative and
explorative orientations (March, 1991). Exploitation orientation comprises activities such as
the improvement and control of stable and familiar processes (mechanistic orientation) and
exploration orientation is related to innovation and creative activities to explore new
alternatives (organic orientation) (Zhang et al., 2012). Scholars have pointed out the need to
combine both exploitation and exploration orientations (organisational ambidexterity), as
promoting just one of them is not enough to assist organisations competing in a
hypercompetitive and dynamic environment (March, 1991; Gupta et al., 2006; Im and Rai,
2008; Kristal et al., 2010; Chandrasekaran et al., 2012; Salvador et al., 2014). For instance,
Lloyds TSB Bank Plc lost 60 per cent of its market value between 1998 and 2003 because it
paid attention only to the control and refinement process (exploitation orientation),
neglecting changing customer needs or to the morale of the workforce (exploration
orientation) (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004). In contrast, organisations such as Finland’s
Nokia Corp. and GlaxoSmithKline Plc are excellent examples to show how ambidexterity
may help organisations achieve sustainable competitive advantages. Yet, due to scarce
available resources, finding an adequate combination of both orientations becomes a
challenge for organisations (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; O’Reilly and Tushman, 2008;
Kortmann, 2015).
Schroeder et al. (2008) suggested for future research that Six Sigma might promote
exploration and exploitation orientations within organisations, but no study, to date, has
developed and analysed this idea. In this regard, the authors have carried out a
comprehensive effort to deeply examine and support Schroeder et al’s (2008) idea for
developing a conceptual model. Because of its particular and comprehensive structure, the
authors believe that Six Sigma not only fosters activities to explore both external and
internal problems and control process improvement activities (exploitation orientation) but
also builds better and innovative ways for designing and developing projects, processes and
procedures (exploration orientation).
Our study provides new insight to the non-existent literature about Six Sigma and
ambidexterity as well as to the scarce literature about quality management (QM) and
ambidexterity. Our model/framework highlights the usefulness and extends the scope of Six
 IJLSS Sigma to promote ambidexterity within organisations. Six Sigma goes beyond a simple QM
8,4 method as it involves both customers and employees to improve and, in turn, redesign
processes, procedures, products or services. Incomplete Six Sigma implementation focuses
exclusively on, for example, improvement processes, products or services-exploitation
orientation. Nevertheless, a complete Six Sigma implementation would develop all its
possibilities, combining both exploration and exploitation orientations. In brief, our study
438 aims to analyse the relationship between Six Sigma methodology and organisational
ambidexterity, analysing how its practices may foster exploration and exploitation
orientations simultaneously within organisations.
To develop this study, a deep and comprehensive literature review in well recognised
international journals was developed. The selection of research studies is more systematic,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

explicit and rigorous than the traditional narrative review, consisting of three phases:
research protocol, selection of database searching process and evaluation and selection of
articles.
The organisation of this paper is as follows. Firstly, the authors describe methodology
used. The authors then carry out a deep understanding of Six Sigma and its three specific
practices (role structure, improvement procedures and metrics) as well as exploration and
exploitation orientations (organisational ambidexterity). In Section 3, the authors develop
some propositions with justifications that relate Six Sigma and organisational
ambidexterity. Finally, conclusions and future research lines are included.

2. Methodology
The authors carried out a comprehensive search for the study. The authors adopted a
systematic literature review as the research methodology. It differs from the traditional
narrative reviews by being more systematic and explicit in the selection of the research, and
by developing rigorous and reproducible methods of evaluation (Denyer and
Tranfield, 2009). This type of literature review follows three phases: research protocol,
selection of database searching process and evaluation and selection of articles (Figure 1).

2.1 Research protocol

This phase defines the scope of the research, so the review protocol was developed around
the following research questions:

PHASE III
Evaluation and
selection of
PHASE II articles
Selection of
database
searching
process
PHASE I
Research
protocol: Specify
Figure 1. research
The three phases of questions
our literature review
Source: Own elaboration
 RQ1. Is Six Sigma positively related to exploitation orientation? Six Sigma and
RQ2. Is Six Sigma positively related to exploration orientation? organisational
ambidexterity
RQ3. Can Six Sigma help organisations combine both orientations (organisational
ambidexterity)?
RQ4. If so, which Six Sigma practices foster both exploration and exploitation
orientations within organisations and their combination (organisational
439
ambidexterity)?
RQ5. To what extent does Six Sigma foster organisational ambidexterity?
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

The authors analysed both qualitative and quantitative studies related to QM and
organisational ambidexterity to answer the research questions.

2.2 Selection of database searching process

The selection of a database searching process was done in three stages: the search of
sources, the selection of database and keywords and the inclusion–exclusion criteria. The
first of these stages is the search of sources. The authors focused on analysing publications
in Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) journals in fields such as management, business,
operation research management science, planning development, behavioural sciences,
interdisciplinary social sciences and applied psychology because it constitutes a resource
used by academics as a source both to acquire and disseminate knowledge (Nord and
Nord, 1995) as well as an indicator of scientific productivity (Legge and Devore, 1987).
Additionally, the importance of the book as a vehicle of communication has been weakened
over time (Ullah and Harib, 2008), and it is being replaced by the use of online sources
(Kriebel and Lapham, 2008).
Moreover, the authors excluded an analysis of editorials, brief communications, letters to
the editor, symposiums, articles of a professional nature and book reviews because,
according to Alcaide-Muñoz and Rodríguez Bolívar (2015), they offer a limited view of the
subject. Nevertheless, in the course of our research, the authors took into account articles
that were included in special issues of journals because they reflect a great interest in the
study of any issue and because they need to be examined further (Rodríguez Bolívar et al.,
2010).
In the second stage, the selection of database and keywords, the authors collected
journals from the SSCI compiled by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) on the Web
of Science (electronic database). The main reason for this is that the ISI citation databases
“collectively index more than 8,000 high quality, peer-reviewed journals cover-to-cover,
providing users with complete bibliographic data, full-length author abstracts, and cited
reference from the world’s most influential research” (Newbert, 2007); that is, it is a web-
based user interface of ISI’s citation databases, which assures high quality and
comprehensive search results.
The keywords selected were “Six Sigma”, “QM”, “quality improvement”, “exploration
and exploitation learning” and “ambidexterity” and each selected article contains at least
one of these words in the title or abstract.
The third stage is based on the development of inclusion–exclusion criteria for articles.
The search was done for 1987 to 2016 because in 1987 Motorola started adopting Six Sigma
(Harry, 1998). This search resulted in 8,273 publications. As noted above, the authors
searched fields such as management, business, operation research management science,
planning development, behavioural sciences, interdisciplinary social sciences and applied
 IJLSS psychology, where most studies on Six Sigma and organisational ambidexterity are
8,4 published. Furthermore, the authors are not interested in the technical process of Six Sigma,
but in its management, implementation, adoption and effects over organisations.
Finally, after refining the search, the authors obtained 1,532 publications of which only
512 (33.42 per cent) were read entirely, as their objectives related to Six Sigma
implementation, exploration and exploitation orientations and organisational ambidexterity
440 (Table I). The remaining articles were either not written in English or Spanish or not directly
related to fields mentioned above.

2.3 Evaluation and selection of articles

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

The last phase was to review each article determined previously. To carry this out, the
authors analysed the title, keywords and abstract (Lan and Anders, 2000; Hartley and
Kostoff, 2003) as well as the introduction of each article to identify its purpose. Once the
relevant articles to our research were identified, the authors read them thoughtfully.

3. Literature review
3.1 Definition and practices of Six Sigma
Linderman et al. (2003) defined Six Sigma as:
[. . .] an organised and systematic method for strategic process improvement and new product and
service development that relies on statistical methods and the scientific method to make dramatic
reduction in customer defined defect rates (Linderman et al., 2003, p. 194).
thus, Six Sigma gives priority to preventive measures to remove the root cause of the defects
instead of searching for defects after they happen (Rowlands, 2003). Additionally, Six Sigma
helps decision-makers create new ideas and systematic solutions for problems in the
globalised marketplace (Aggogeri and Gentili, 2008). In fact, it is generally accepted that the
way Six Sigma is practiced represents a new organisational, structural approach to
improvement (He et al, 2015).
To reach these goals, Six Sigma has three key practices that make it different from
traditional quality methods such as ISO9000, total quality management, European
Foundation for Quality Management Excellent model and so on (Zu et al., 2008; Schroeder
et al., 2008). They are the following:
 Six Sigma-structured improvement procedure: Six Sigma consists of different
approaches. One of them is a structured approach to manage improvement
activities, known as the define, measure, analyse, improve and control (DMAIC)
cycle. This cycle is defined by Schroeder et al. (2008, p. 542) as “a routine for chain
established routines or for inventing new routines, and so solving different

Keywords Papers extracted

Six Sigma 191 (out of a total of 382) papers

DMAIC 71 (out of a total of 173) papers
DMADV 4 (out of a total of 18) papers
Table I.
Quality management and exploration and exploitation learning 9 (out of a total of 18) papers
Keywords used and Quality improvement and exploration and exploitation learning 2 (out of a total of 5) papers
numbers of papers Exploration and exploitation learning 121 (out of a total of 580) papers
extracted through Ambidexterity 114 (out of a total of 356) papers
overall search Total 512
 problems and improve process (via standards quality tools and techniques such as Six Sigma and
cause-effects charts and statistical process control), besides it focuses on finding the organisational
root cause of the problem by its systematic use”. Another approach is define,
measure, analyse, design and verify (DMADV), also known as design for Six Sigma
ambidexterity
(DFSS), which is used to design and redesign processes, procedures, projects,
products and services from the ground up; thus, it requires useful information
related to customers’ expectations as well as the external and internal
organisational environment (Shahin, 2008; Azis and Osada, 2010; Gremyr and 441
Fouquet, 2012).
 Six Sigma metrics: Six Sigma develops several quantitative and statistical metrics
such as defects per million opportunities (DPMO), rolled throughput yield (RTY),
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

customer satisfaction score (CSAT score), critical-to-quality metrics (CTQ), defects

and 10x improvement measures to set improvement goals (Breyfogle III and
Meadows, 2001; Linderman et al., 2003; Nikolac et al., 2015).
 Six Sigma role structure: Six Sigma uses a group of improvement specialists,
referred to as Champions, Master Black Belts, Black Belts and Green Belts
(Henderson and Evans, 2000; Linderman et al., 2003), who are highly qualified and
keep their QM skills up to date, as they usually receive intensive differentiated
training focused on improving their knowledge and skills in statistical methods,
project management, process design, problem-solving techniques, leadership and
other managerial issues (Barney, 2002; Linderman et al., 2003; Gowen and Tallon,
2005; Aggogeri and Gentili, 2008; Antony and Karaminas, 2016). Furthermore, they
take a different level of roles and are accountable for leading the continuous
improvement efforts to ensure that the tactical tasks match the overall business
strategy (Sinha and Van de Ven, 2005). On the other hand, employees involved in
Six Sigma implementation are usually rewarded, increasing employee motivation
and satisfaction (Buch and Rivers, 2001). In fact, employees normally see Six Sigma
as an avenue to higher pay through better performance appraisals and eventual
promotions (Buch and Tolentino, 2006).

3.2 Exploration and exploitation orientation: organisational ambidexterity

The distinction between exploitation and exploration orientations has been highlighted in a
wide range of management literature. As long ago as 1991, March identified exploration and
exploitation orientations as two fundamentally different learning activities. Because of
scarce resources, organisations must divide their attention between them. March, (1991)
defined exploratory learning as any organisational practice that fosters search, discovery,
novelty and innovation; and exploitative learning as refinement, routinisation, production
and implementation of knowledge. Likewise, the authors suggest that exploitation
orientation comprises activities such as refinement, choice, production, efficiency, learning
and explicit knowledge creation and exploration orientation as those activities such as
search, discovery, experimentation, variation, innovation, learning and tacit knowledge
creation.
The emerging discussion on whether to find a balance or to combine these two
orientations has been observed in many contexts and disciplines such as organisational
theory networks, technological innovation, organisational adaptation, strategic
management, inter-organisational relationships and organisation design (Gupta et al., 2006;
He and Wong, 2004; Yang et al., 2013; Eriksson, 2013). Organisations that only promote
exploitation orientation may enhance short-term performance, but this may, in turn, lead to
 IJLSS a non-response to environmental changes (Leonard-Barton, 1992; Ahuja and
8,4 Morris Lampert, 2001; Lavie et al., 2010). However, if organisations focus on exploration
orientation they may enhance their ability to renew their knowledge and learning although
they may be trapped in an endless cycle of searching for and collecting too much
information (Volberda and Lewin, 2003). In this sense, Levinthal and March (1993, p. 105)
claimed that long-term survival depend on an organisation’s ability to “engage in enough
442 exploitation to ensure the organisation’s current viability and to engage in enough
exploration to ensure future viability”, which is currently known as ambidexterity.
O’Connor and DeMartino (2006, p. 493) defined ambidexterity as, “the ability of business
unit managers to simultaneously advance radical innovation initiatives while conducting
daily operational functions”. In other words, it refers to an organisation’s ability to run both
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

orientations at the same time.

Both advocates and critics agree that the development of ambidexterity can have a
positive influence over business performance and its competitive position in the
marketplace, regardless of whether an organisation promotes the balance or combination of
both orientations (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Gupta et al., 2006; Li et al., 2008; Raisch
et al., 2009; Lavie et al., 2010; Salvador et al., 2014).

4. Research model: relationship between Six Sigma and exploitation and

exploration orientation
As mentioned above, exploration and exploitation orientations, as well as their combination,
organisational ambidexterity, have been examined in many contexts. Among these
contexts, QM and ambidexterity have recently emerged as a new research line. For instance,
Zhang et al. (2012) developed a framework where quality practices ensure the monitoring of
stable process and the consistency and efficiency of outcomes and foster creativity in
organisations. Two years later, Zhang et al. (2014) empirically explored their proposals to
best understand the implication of both quality management exploitation (QEI) and quality
management exploration (QER) considering different environmental markets (competitive,
turbulent, stable and innovative). Their findings showed that there is a performance
difference in the two sets of QM practices, taking into account the level of competition and
rate of product change. QER has more implications in competitive, innovative and turbulent
environments, but QEI operates more efficiently in stable environments; both of them,
however, have an important implication in the four types of environments.
Prior to the preceding studies, Schroeder et al. (2008) pointed out that Six Sigma could be
viewed as a way to achieve organisational ambidexterity to help organisations achieve a
successful business performance. Nevertheless, no research to date has carried out a
thorough study to support Schroeder’s statements in 2008, that is, to show how Six Sigma
structure may promote ambidexterity within organisations. Consequently, our purpose is to
deeply analyse and relate Six Sigma methodology to ambidextrous organisations to achieve
a sustainable competitive advantage by means of a conceptual study.
For this purpose, next, the authors analyse how each specific practice of Six Sigma
(structured improvement process, focus on metrics and role structure) (Zu et al., 2008;
Schroeder et al., 2008) is connected with exploitation and exploration orientations and,
consequently, with organisational ambidexterity.

4.1 Six sigma and exploitation orientation

Six Sigma develops a structured approach to manage improvement activities, known as the
DMAIC method (Linderman et al., 2003). DMAIC provides a metaroutine, which is followed
by organisational members to improve processes and ensure an adequate search for
 solutions. In other words, DMAIC is a mechanical process not only to solve problems but Six Sigma and
also to improve, adopt and control processes and procedures (exploitation orientation). In organisational
addition, the involvement of workers in each part of the Six Sigma practices enables the
collection, storage and sharing of information, which leads to improve and monitor
ambidexterity
procedures and processes more efficiently (Arumugam et al., 2013; Nair et al., 2011; McAdam
et al., 2014; Gutierrez-Gutierrez et al., 2016a). Therefore, it promotes and facilitates
interaction between organisational members providing standards, systems and roadmaps,
which help them solve different issues and perform their tasks within organisations 443
(exploitation orientation) in addition to enhancing procedures, processes, products and
services (Figure 1). For example, Prashar (2016) carried out a study case to identify defects
and to guide process improvement in energy meter-reading in the context of public utilities.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

The author stratified the DMAIC approach, showing different tools such as an affinity
diagram, perception analysis, a cause and effect diagram, Gemba investigation and so forth,
to improve and measure processes and, in turn, enhance performance. In fact, she
established that “the rigor and discipline of Six Sigma can be leveraged for measuring and
improving performance” (p. 501).
Another case study, conducted by Kumar et al. (2016), showed that the DMAIC approach
improved the performance of an ideal retail supply chain model because it helped the
organisation identify and solve problems by determining the root causes of poor
performance. Additionally, the use of FMEA and Monte Carlos Simulation tools helped
monitor the process to ensure sustainability of improvements and optimize its performance.
Thus, the authors propose:
P1a. The Six Sigma structured approach provides standards, systems and roadmaps
that help to improve the efficiency and control of processes, products and services,
enhancing exploitation orientation.
Another Six Sigma practice is the particular set of statistical metrics. Six Sigma offers some
complex quantitative metrics such as DPMO, RTY, CTQ, defects measures and 10x
improvement measures to stabilise, improve and control quality processes, products,
services and projects as well as to reduce the variance in the processes leading to zero
defects (exploitation orientation). They also help to identify and allocate resources efficiently
(exploitation orientation) (Breyfogle III and Meadows, 2001; Linderman et al., 2003;
Mehrjerdi, 2011; Nikolac et al., 2015; Kuvvetli et al., 2016).
The main goal of QM is to fulfil customer satisfaction. To this end, Six Sigma metrics
may help organisations understand and collect information about customers’ needs and,
then improve the fit and design of their processes, projects, products and services
(exploitation orientation). Furthermore, they also help to collect quality information about
manufacturing processes to solve operational problems (exploitation orientation)
(Henderson and Evans, 2000; Antony, 2004; Aggogeri et al., 2009; Mehrjerdi, 2011).
Furthermore, the continued use of these metrics fosters the exchange of information
concerning manufacturing processes and procedures as well as the development of explicit
knowledge and learning between workers. This information exchange, as well as learning
and knowledge creation, enable the creation of common languages and a shared vision
within organisations, leading to successful “embeddedness” of a quality strategy, in
addition to identifying and removing implementation barriers. They also help to reduce the
waiting time in processes and solve problems related to manufacturing processes, projects,
products and services, resulting in speeding up procedures and processes (exploitation
orientation) (Linderman et al., 2004; Van Barnevelds et al., 2012; Zeng et al., 2013; Gutierrez-
Gutierrez et al., 2016b) (Figure 1). For example, Moosa and Sajid (2010) carried out a study
 IJLSS using multiple case studies. The authors argued that metrics such as DPU and DPMO are
8,4 useful for comparing two different products and their processes. Thus, both products and
processes can be compared to improve their efficiency. Additionally, a similar case study, in
the construction sector, showed the impact of another Six Sigma metric, such as CTQ, to
improve the efficiency of processes and procedures to set a definite goal for improvements,
and reduce the processes variability and minimise wastes (Han et al., 2008).
444 According to the arguments explained above, the authors establish the following
proposition:
P1b. Six Sigma metrics help to identify implementation barriers, reduce waiting time,
solve different issues and speed up processes and procedures improving their
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

efficiency and enhancing exploitation orientation.

Finally, the Six Sigma role structure promotes boundary-spanning activities to explore
problems and, in turn, helps organisations control processes and procedures (exploitation
orientation) within organisations, as it provides a methodological framework to guide
specialists (Zhang et al., 2012; Mahour Mellat, 2011; He et al., 2015; Gutierrez-Gutierrez et al.,
2016a). Moreover, the Six Sigma reward systems along with its hierarchical coordination
mechanism of work, where leaders support and review key improvement projects, enable
organisations to allocate resources and identify and remove barriers to achieve better
control, improvement and design of quality processes, procedures, projects, products and
services (Linderman et al., 2003; Choo et al., 2007; Schroeder et al., 2008) (Figure 2). For
example, Zhang et al. (2015) carried out a study case at the world’s largest cold rolling mill in
China, called “company T”. Company T designed a career plan to encourage workers
involvement in Six Sigma implementation, particularly, Black Belts, Green Belts and Yellow
Belts, as Six Sigma will never succeed without their active participation. Furthermore, it

DMAIC

Six Sigma practices DPMO, RYT, CSAT Exploitation orientation

score, FCR, etc.
Control and improvement
Teamwork of processes and
procedures
Improvement Rewards systems
procedures
Common language and
Clearly defined roles
shared goal
and responsibilies
Metrics
Problem solving
Highly qualified
employees Idenfy and remove
Role Structure
(hierarchical barriers
coordinaon
mechanism of work) Allocate resources

Interacon between
Figure 2. workers and
Influence of Six management
Sigma on exploitation
orientation
Source: Own elaboration
 offered a monetary reward based on the hard saving of the successful project they finished. Six Sigma and
On the other hand, company T offered training to workers related to Six Sigma, and they are organisational
required to utilise what they learned in the classroom for their projects with the help of
consultants. The engineers of company T concluded that the use of Six Sigma helped to
ambidexterity
raise the efficiency and quality management level within the organisation, elevating
operational efficiency of equipment and facilitating on-time production.
So, the authors propose:
445
P1c. Six Sigma role structure provides a methodological framework to guide specialists
to improve the efficiency and control of processes and procedures and to identify
implementation barriers and allocate resources, enhancing exploitation orientation.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

4.2 Six Sigma and exploration orientation. Scholars have developed a new Six Sigma
approach focused on designing and redesigning processes, procedures, projects, products
and services, which is directly related to innovation (exploration orientation). It is called
DMADV or DFSS (Shahin, 2008; Azis and Osada, 2010; Gremyr and Fouquet, 2012;
Kumaravadivel and Natarajan, 2013; He et al., 2015). According to Azis and Osada (2010),
this approach allows for radical innovation by designing new processes, products or
services based on customer needs and expectations. It offers an opportunity to learn from
mistakes, as it helps organisations identify gaps in their processes, products or services
through an internal and external analysis of their position (Choi et al., 2012; Zu et al., 2008).
For instance, the use of tools such as benchmarking and SWOT in the first three steps
(“define”, “measure” and “analysis”) can help to identify new potential business models
because organisations may compare their processes, products and services with other
leaders and innovators in the marketplace. Additionally, information collected and ideas
shared during the development of DMADV phases may encourage creativity and, in turn,
create new knowledge and ideas to design the production and innovative processes
(exploration orientation). Moreover, tools such as conjoint analysis, design of experiments
and quality function deployment needed to develop candidate concept design and used
during the different phases of DMADV promote innovation within organisations
(Montgomery and Woodall, 2008; Jensen et al., 2012; Li et al., 2013; Hockman and Jensen,
2016). They facilitate the development of process, products or services because these tools
help to define goals, hypotheses and problem statements, clarify the purpose and collect the
voice of the customer, providing tactics thinking which encourages the statistician to look
beyond the numbers (Tan and Shen, 2000; Goh, 2002; Lee et al., 2008; Narasimhan, 2009;
Hoerl and Snee, 2010; Li et al., 2013). Therefore, organisations may promote exploratory
orientation by means of this approach and tools because they foster the search, discovery,
novelty and innovation to achieve innovative processes, projects, products and services to
meet customer expectations and, in turn, generate new solutions and ideas (exploration
orientation) (Figure 2). For example, a case study developed by Bañuelas and Antony (2004)
described the different steps of DMADV in a company called “A”. At first, its goal was to
improve the process of identifying, quantifying and eliminating the source of variation that
resulted in failure to change from a spindle or roll to another by the re-winder machine.
Nevertheless, information collected during the first three phases of DMADV (“define”,
“measure” and “analysis”) helped workers realise that it was useless to try to improve
processes when their fundamental design was wrong, so they had to redesign them.
On the other hand, Gremyr and Fouquet (2012) conducted a case study of seven
organisations (six of them are from Sweden and one is from France). It showed that these
organisations achieved not only to reduce development costs, to focus on robust
development and robust engineering but also to increase customer focus and product
 IJLSS reliability using the DMAIC approach. In fact, one interviewee stated that DMADV or DFSS
8,4 “is very good way to design products with customer focus and to gen robust products”.
So, the authors propose:
P2a. The Six Sigma DMADV approach promotes the redesign and search of new
potential business models, products, services, process and procedures, and, in turn,
it helps to embed innovation strategy within organisations, enhancing exploration
446 orientation.
Six Sigma provides complex and comprehensive statistical metrics to collect information
about customers’ needs and competitors, so organisations may foresee customer
expectations and know what the competition is doing, which leads to knowledge creation
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

(Antony, 2004; Aggogery et al., 2009; Hoerl and Gardner, 2010; Sin et al., 2010; Mehrjerdi,
2011; Zahng et al., 2014; He et al., 2015; Gutierrez-Gutierrez, 2016b). Some scholars claim that
the main challenge of DMADV is to acquire accurate information about customer needs, so
Six Sigma itself provides statistical metrics required to face this challenge, such as DPMO,
RTY, CSAT score, CTQ, defects and 10x improvement measures and so forth.
Furthermore, the knowledge of customers’ needs results in increasing the market share
as well as a better organisational adaptability to dynamic environments (Raisch et al., 2009).
Therefore, Six Sigma metrics help organisations identify potential customers as well as
customers’ requirements and needs, leading to reliable information to design and redesign
new products and services (exploration orientation) (Figure 3). For example, Antony (2015)
carried out a case study in a banking call centre using Six Sigma metrics, such as DPMO,
CSAT score, CTQ tree, first call resolution per cent or net promoter score to measure and
know customer satisfaction and expectations and improve business performance. They
showed the importance of Six Sigma implementation and the establishment of right metrics
in this type of organisation because call centres are the first contact point with organisations
(Taylor et al., 2002). Furthermore, the large amount of data, which was collected help to
understand evolving customer requirements, identifies customer segments and trends in
customer behaviour. In addition, all of this information can be useful to design and redesign
processes, products or services to meet customer demands. On the other hand, the engineers
and quality management employees of company T, analysed by Zhang (2015) and described
above, claimed that making good use of data in Six Sigma implementation helps to achieve
quality management innovation.
Thus, the authors establish the following proposition:
P2b. Six Sigma metrics help to foresee customers’ expectations and identify potential
customers through the collection of quality information, contributing to
redesigning processes, products or services to meet customer demand, enhancing
exploration orientation.
Some researchers point out teamwork as the key factor for Six Sigma success because team
members are the main carriers of Six Sigma methodology (Banuelas and Antony, 2002;
Gutiérrez et al., 2012). Furthermore, the group of improvement specialists, who receive
intensive training, supports and encourages other workers to come up with new ideas for
projects, processes, products and services through the use of thinking mechanisms such as
brainstorming, group problem-solving or group meetings. They also foster learning and
knowledge flow between workers and areas within organisations (exploration orientation)
(Azis and Osada, 2010; Pepper and Spedding, 2010; Sony and Naik, 2011; Gutiérrez, 2012; He
et al., 2015; Gutierrez-Gutierrez et al., 2016b; Antony and Karaminas, 2016). Thus, these
activities (workers training and teamwork) promote learning and knowledge creation
 DMADV Six Sigma and
organisational
DPMO, RYT, CSAT ambidexterity
Six Sigma practices score, FCR, etc. Exploration orientation

Teamwork Design new and

447
innovave projects,
Training
processes and procedures
Improvement
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

procedures Clearly defined roles

Learning and knowledge
and responsibilies
creaon
(hierarchical
Metrics
coordinaon Search for alternave
mechanism of work) soluons and emerging
Role Structure opportunies
Highly qualified
employees Creavity

Interacon between Innovaon

employees and
Figure 3.
management Influence of Six
Sigma on exploration
orientation
Source: Own elaboration

because workers learn from each other while developing their tasks. As a result, Six Sigma
generates a good working environment where workers can develop their creativity and, in
turn, design new and innovative quality processes, projects, products and services
(exploration orientation) (Figure 3). For example, as noted above, Zhang et al. (2015) carried
out a study case in a Chinese organisation. Six Sigma managers not only provide support
and resources to Six Sigma implementation but also convey innovation culture among
workers, particularly, involved in Six Sigma implementation.
Based on the arguments explained in this section, the authors establish the following
proposition:
P2c. Six Sigma improvement specialists support and encourage other workers to be
creative and innovative using mechanisms for thinking (brainstorming, group
problem solving, group meetings and so on), enhancing exploration orientation.

4.3 Organisational ambidexterity

As noted above, developing exploitation orientation may enhance business performance,
but it may result in an inability to respond to changing environments (Leonard-Barton, 1992;
Ahuja and Morris Lampert, 2001; Benner and Tushman, 2003; Li et al., 2008; Lavie et al.,
2010). On the other hand, promoting exploration orientation may enhance the ability to
renew knowledge and learning within organisations, but it may be a trap for them because it
 IJLSS may lead to an endless cycle of searching for and collecting information (Volberda and
8,4 Lewin, 2003). Hence, both orientations should be bolstered, depending on organisational
strategies. Following the previous propositions, the authors propose that Six Sigma may
help organisations develop both orientations (organisational ambidexterity), and
organisations must adequately balance them to be successful. Based on this, the authors
propose:
448 P3. The Six Sigma structure promotes activities relating to the efficiency and control of
processes, products and services (exploitation orientation) as well as those activities
that foster innovation and creativity in processes, products and services
(exploration orientation), developing ambidexterity.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

Based on the above propositions, the authors propose a research model that shows the
relationship between Six Sigma practices and ambidexterity (Figure 4).

Six Sigma practices

Improvement Role
Metrics
procedures Structure

DMAIC DMADV • DPMO Hierarchical coordinaon

• Define • Define • RTY mechanism of work
• Measure • Measure • Defects • Black Belts
• Analysis • Analysis measures • White Belts
• Improve • Desing • Crical-to- • Yellow Betls
• Control • Verify quality metrics • ….

Organizational
Ambidexterity

Exploitaon Exploraon
orientaon orientaon

• Customer input • Innovaon

• Improvement of process • Creavity
and procedures • Discovery
• Control of processes and • Experimentaon
procedures • Exploraon of new
alternaves
Figure 4.
Research model
Source: Own elaboration
 5. Conclusions and directions for further research Six Sigma and
Because of many studies showing the benefits of Six Sigma, both academics and organisational
practitioners are paying increasing attention to this quality management methodology.
Scholars have shown that as Six Sigma promotes the development of distinctive
ambidexterity
competencies such as flexibility, fast delivery, rapid design or redesign, low cost and so on,
which affect organisational performance ( Gutiérrez et al., 2012, Pepper and Spedding, 2010;
Easton and Rosenzweig, 2012; Reosekar and Pohekar, 2014). Likewise, it emphasises the
importance of cross-functional design, customer input, design for manufacturability, design 449
projects, robust design and quality function deployment focused on meeting customers’
expectations (Hoerl et al., 2001; Rowlands, 2003; Choi et al., 2012). Thus, Six Sigma helps
organisations achieve a competitive position in the marketplace.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

In spite of taking efforts to understand Six Sigma methodology, so far, no consensus has been
reached on why some organisations have adopted Six Sigma successfully while others do not.
There are mixed results; hence, this study provides new insights to achieve a greater understanding
of Six Sigma and to identify how Six Sigma bolsters exploration and exploitation orientations.
After carrying out a deep and systematic literature review about Six Sigma and
ambidexterity, the authors concluded that Six Sigma is positively related to
organisational ambidexterity. Six Sigma helps organisations develop exploitation
activities because its particular role structure in combination with its hierarchical
coordination mechanism of work, quantitative metrics and DMAIC approach guide
workers to develop different tasks, solve problems, develop, improve and optimise the
efficiency and control of processes, products and services. Furthermore, these practices
facilitate the interaction between different members and departments within
organisations, generating a common language and shared vision and, in turn, enable the
identification and removal of implementation barriers as well as the allocation and
identification of resources. Moreover, Six Sigma also promotes exploration activities
because the DMADV approach and the use of quantitative metrics offer the opportunity
to learn from mistakes and, in turn, help to translate the voice of the customer into the
business and engineering language, identifying trends in the marketplace. In addition, its
particular role structure promotes teamwork, learning and knowledge creation as well as
the interaction between workers and areas, which leads to a creative environment and
innovation culture to design and redesign innovative processes, projects, products and
services (Schroeder et al., 2008; Zu et al., 2010; Azis and Osada, 2010; Kumaravadivel and
Natarajan, 2013; Mahour Mellat, 2011; He et al., 2015; Gutierrez-Gutierrez et al., 2016b).
Therefore, Six Sigma fosters the development of organisational ambidexterity.
Our study aims to convey a sense of how Six Sigma can influence and help organisations
promote organisational ambidexterity by analysing Six Sigma literature and its strengths and
weaknesses. Moreover, future research can test the theory proposed here. This will require an
empirical analysis that validates the propositions and theories provided about Six Sigma and
ambidexterity. This theory testing should extend our scientific knowledge concerning Six
Sigma and ambidexterity and verify or refute certain key elements of the theory developed
here. Therefore, the authors hope that our initial effort will provide a beginning for future
scientific research and a better understanding of this important philosophy.
On the other hand, at present, there is an emerging discussion on whether organisations
must combine exploration and exploitation orientations (organisational ambidexterity), or in
contrast, they only focus on one of them – that is, carrying out exploration orientation
regardless of exploitation orientation or vice versa. The authors believe that both
phenomena might be related to each other; in other words, might the failure of Six Sigma be
explained by developing the wrong combination of both orientations? It would be
 IJLSS interesting to analyse this relationship for future research and also examine which type of
8,4 combination would be the most appropriate to achieve a competitive advantage.
Regarding limitations, the main limitations of a literature review are the complete
reliance on previously published research and the availability of thesis studies using the
method outlined in the search methodology, in addition to the appropriateness of this
research with the criteria of the inclusion/exclusion procedure.
450 Furthermore, this conceptual analysis has important implications for academics,
practitioners and employers, as it provides new theoretical insights to the scarce literature
that studies the relationship between QM practices and organisational ambidexterity. The
authors provide a better understanding of Six Sigma philosophy as well as some fresh, new
insights on how Six Sigma practices may help organisations develop distinctive competitive
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

competencies by its influence over exploration and exploitation orientations (ambidexterity).

Therefore, it might be of interest to practitioners who are interested in achieving a
successful competitive position and discovering emerging business opportunities, as it may
provide some guidance on the important implications of Six Sigma practices over
exploration and exploitation orientations.

References
Aggogeri, F. and Gentili, E. (2008), “Six Sigma methodology: an effective tool for quality management”,
International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, Vol. 14 Nos 3/4, pp. 289-298.
Aggogeri, F., Mazzola, M. and O’Kane, J. (2009), “Implementing DFSS to increase the performance level
of an extrusion process”, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 10-28.
Ahuja, G. and Morris Lampert, C. (2001), “Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal
study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 22 Nos 6/7, pp. 521-543.
Alcaide-Muñoz, L. and Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P. (2015), “Understanding e-government research: a
perspective from the information and library science field of knowledge”, Internet Research,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 633-673.
Antony, J. (2004), “Some pros and cons of Six Sigma: an academic perspective”, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 303-306.
Antony, J. (2015), “Six-sigma for improving top-box customer satisfaction score for a banking call
centre”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1291-1305.
Antony, J. and Karaminas, H. (2016), “Critical assessment on the Six Sigma Black Belt roles/
responsibilities, skills and training: a global empirical study”, International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 558-573.
Arumugam, V., Antony, J. and Linderman, K. (2016), “The influence of challenging goals and
structured method on Six Sigma project performance: a mediated moderation analysis”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 254 No. 1, pp. 202-213.
Arumugam, V., Antony, J. and Kumar, M. (2013), “Linking learning and knowledge creation to project
success in Six Sigma projects: an empirical investigation”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 141 No. 1, pp. 388-402.
Azis, Y. and Osada, H. (2010), “Innovation in management system by Six Sigma: an empirical study of
world-class companies”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 172-190.
Bañuelas, R. and Antony, J. (2004), “Six sigma or design for six sigma?”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 250-263.
Banuelas, C.R. and Antony, J. (2002), “Critical success factors for the successful implementation of Six
Sigma projects in organisations”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 92-99.
 Barney, M.F. (2002), “Macro, Meso, Micro: Six Sigma”, The Industrial Organizational Psychologist, Six Sigma and
Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 104-107.
organisational
Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L. (2003), “Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the
productivity dilemma revisited”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2,
ambidexterity
pp. 238-256.
Birkinshaw, J. and Gibson, C. (2004), “Building ambidexterity into an organization”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 4, p. 47.
Breyfogle III, F.W. and Meadows, B. (2001), “Bottom-line success with Six Sigma”, Quality Progress,
451
Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 101-104.
Buch, K. and Rivers, D. (2001), “TQM: the role of leadership and culture”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 365-371.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

Buch, K. and Tolentino, A. (2006), “Employee perceptions of the rewards associated with Six Sigma”,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 356-364.
Chakravorty, S.S. (2009), “Six sigma failures: an escalation model”, Operations Management Research,
Vol. 2 Nos 1/4, pp. 44-55.
Chandrasekaran, A., Linderman, K. and Schroeder, R. (2012), “Antecedents to ambidexterity
competency in high technology organizations”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 134-151.
Choi, B., Kim, J., Leem, B., Lee, C. and Hong, H. (2012), “Empirical analysis of the relationship between
Six Sigma management activities and corporate competitiveness”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 528-550.
Choo, A.S., Linderman, K.W. and Schroeder, R.G. (2007), “Method and context perspectives on learning
and knowledge creation in quality management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 918-931.
Clifford, L. (2001), “Why you can safely ignore Six Sigma”, Fortune, Vol. 143 No. 2, p. 140.
Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2009), “Producing a systematic review”, in Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A.
(Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, Chapter 39, Sage Publications,
London, pp. 671-689.
Easton, G.S. and Rosenzweig, E.D. (2012), “The role of experience in Six Sigma project success:
an empirical analysis of improvement project”, Journal of Operations, Vol. 30 Nos 7/8,
pp. 481-493.
Eriksson, E. (2013), “Exploration and exploitation in project-based organizations: development and
diffusion of knowledge at different organizational levels in construction companies”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 333-341.
Folaron, J. (2003), “The evolution of Six Sigma”, Six Sigma Forum Magazine, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 38-44.
Foster, S.T. Jr (2007), “Does Six Sigma improve performance?”, The Quality Management Journal,
Vol. 14 No. 4, p. 7.
Gibson, C.B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004), “The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 209-226.
Goh, T.N. (2002), “The role of statistical design of experiments in six sigma: perspectives of a
practitioner”, Quality Engineering, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 659-671.
Gowen, C.R. and Tallon, W.J. (2005), “Effect of technological intensity on the relationships among Six
Sigma design, electronic-business, and competitive advantage: a dynamic capabilities model
study”, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 59-87.
Gremyr, I. and Fouquet, J.B. (2012), “Design for Six Sigma and lean product development”,
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 45-58.
Gupta, P. (2005), The Six Sigma Performance Handbook: A Statistical Guide to Optimizing Results,
McGraw Hill Professional.
 IJLSS Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G. and Shalley, C.E. (2006), “The interplay between exploration and exploitation”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 693-706.
8,4
Gutiérrez, L.J., Bustinza, O.F. and Barales, V. (2012), “Six Sigma, absorptive capacity and organizational
learning orientation”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 661-675.
Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L.J., De Leeuw, S. and Dubbers, R. (2016a), “Logistics services and Lean Six Sigma
implementation: a case study”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 7 No. 3.
452 Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L.J., Barrales Molina, V. and Tamayo Torres, J. (2016b), “The knowledge transfer
process in Six Sigma subsidiary firms”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
Vol. 27 Nos 5/6, pp. 613-627.
Hahn, G.J., Doganaksoy, N. and Hoerl, R. (2000), “The evolution of Six Sigma”, Quality Engineering,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 317-326.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

Han, S.H., Chae, M.J., Im, K.S. and Ryu, H.D. (2008), “Six Sigma-based approach to improve performance
in construction operations”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 21-31.
Hartley, J. and Kostoff, R.N. (2003), “How useful are “key words” in scientific journals?”, Journal of
Information Science, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 433-438.
Harry, M.J. (1998), “Six Sigma: a breakthrough strategy for profitability”, Quality Progress, Vol. 31
No. 5, p. 60.
He, Z.L. and Wong, P.K. (2004), “Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity
hypothesis”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 481-494.
He, Z., Deng, Y., Zhang, M., Zu, X. and Antony, J. (2015), “An empirical investigation of the relationship
between Six Sigma practices and organizational innovation”, Total Quality Management and
Business Excellence, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, pp. 1-22.
Henderson, K.M. and Evans, J.R. (2000), “Successful implementation of Six Sigma: benchmarking
General Electric Company”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 260-282.
Hockman, K.K. and Jensen, W.A. (2016), “Statisticians as innovation leaders”, Quality Engineering,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 165-174.
Hoerl, R.W. and Gardner, M.M. (2010), “Lean Six Sigma, creativity, and innovation”, International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 30-38.
Hoerl, R.W. and Snee, R. (2010), “Statistical thinking and methods in quality improvement: a look to the
future”, Quality Engineering, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 119-129.
Hoerl, R.W., Montgomery, D.C., Lawson, C. and Molnau, W.E. (2001), “Six Sigma black belts: what
do they need to know?/Discussion/response”, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 391-435.
Im, G. and Rai, A. (2008), “Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational
relationships”, Management Science, Vol. 54 No. 7, pp. 1281-1296.
Jensen, W., Anderson-Cook, C., Costello, J.A., Doganaksoy, N., Hoerl, R.W., Janis, S. and Snee, R.D. (2012),
“Statistics to facilitate innovation*: a panel discussion”, Quality Engineering, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 2-19.
Kortmann, S. (2015), “The mediating role of strategic orientations on the relationship between
ambidexterity-oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 666-684.
Kriebel, L. and Lapham, L. (2008), “Transition to electronic resources in undergraduate social science
research: a study of honors theses bibliographies, 1999-2005”, College & Research Libraries,
Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 268-284.
Kristal, M.M., Huang, X. and Roth, A.V. (2010), “The effect of an ambidextrous supply chain strategy
on combinative competitive capabilities and business performance”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 415-429.
Kumar, S., Tiffany, M. and Vaidya, S. (2016), “Supply chain analysis of e-tailing versus retailing
operation – a case study”, Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 639-665.
 Kumaravadivel, A. and Natarajan, U. (2013), “Application of Six-Sigma DMAIC methodology to sand- Six Sigma and
casting process with response surface methodology”, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 69 Nos 5/8, pp. 1403-1420.
organisational
Kuvvetli, Ü., Firuzan, A.R., Alpaykut, S. and Gerger, A. (2016), “Determining Six Sigma success factors
ambidexterity
in Turkey by using structural equation modeling”, Journal of Applied Statistics, Vol. 43 No. 4,
pp. 738-753.
Lan, Z. and Anders, K.K. (2000), “A paradigmatic view of contemporary public administration research:
an empirical test”, Administration and Society, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 138-165. 453
Lavie, D., Stettner, U. and Tushman, M.L. (2010), “Exploration and exploitation within and across
organization”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 109-155.
Legge, J.S. Jr and Devore, J. (1987), “Measuring productivity in US public administration and public
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

affairs programs 1981-1985”, Administration and Society, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 147-156.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992), “Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product
development”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 111-125.
Li, Y., Vanhaverbeke, W. and Schoenmakers, W. (2008), “Exploration and exploitation in
innovation: reframing the interpretation”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 107-126.
Li, W., Nachtsheim, C.J., Wang, K., Reul, R. and Albrecht, M. (2013), “Conjoint analysis and discrete choice
experiments for quality improvement”, Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 74-99.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S. and Choo, A.S. (2003). “Six Sigma: a goal-theoretic
perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 193-203.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S., Liedtke, C. and Choo, A.S. (2004), “Integrating quality
management practices with knowledge creation processes”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 589-607.
Lee, Y.C., Sheu, L.C. and Tsou, Y.G. (2008), “Quality function deployment implementation based on Fuzzy Kano
model: an application in PLM system”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 48-63.
Levinthal, D.A. and March, J.G. (1993), “The myopia of learning”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 95-112.
McAdam, R., Antony, J., Kumar, M. and Hazlett, S.A. (2014), “Absorbing new knowledge in small and
medium-sized enterprises: a multiple case analysis of Six Sigma”, International Small Business
Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 81-109.
Mahour Mellat, P. (2011), “The effect of Six Sigma projects on innovation and firm performance”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29, pp. 45-55.
March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization Science,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87.
Mehrjerdi, Y.Z. (2011), “Six-sigma: methodology, tools and its future”, International Journal of Assembly
Automation, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 79-88.
Montgomery, D.C. and Woodall, W.H. (2008), “An overview of Six Sigma”, International Statistical
Review, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 329-346.
Moosa, K. and Sajid, A. (2010), “Critical analysis of Six Sigma implementation”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 745-759.
Moreno Luzon, M.D. and Valls Pasola, J. (2011), “Ambidexterity and total quality management: towards
a research agenda”, Management Decision, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 927-947.
Nair, A., Malhotra, M.K. and Ahire, S.L. (2011), “Toward a theory of managing context in Six Sigma
process-improvement projects: an action research investigation”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 529-548.
Narasimhan, K. (2009), “Voice of the customer: capture and analysis”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6,
pp. 636-637.
 IJLSS Newbert, S.L. (2007), “Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: an assessment
and suggestions for future research”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2,
8,4 pp. 121-146.
Nikolac, N., Panteghini, M., Theodorsson, E., Salvagno, G.L., Miler, M., Simundic, A.M. and Westgard,
S. (2015), “How to assess the quality of your analytical method?”, Clinical Chemistry and
Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), Vol. 53 No. 11, pp. 1707-1718.
454 Nord, J.H. and Nord, G.D. (1995), “MIS research: journal status and analysis”, Information and
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 29-42.
O’Connor, G.C. and DeMartino, R. (2006), “Organizing for radical innovation: an exploratory study of
the structural aspects of RI management systems in large established firms”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 475-497.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2008), “Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the
innovator’s dilemma”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 185-206.
Pepper, M.P.J. and Spedding, T.A. (2010), “The evolution of lean Six Sigma”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 138-155.
Prashar, A. (2016), “Six sigma adoption in public utilities: a case study”, Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, Vol. 27 Nos 5/6, pp. 479-506.
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G. and Tushman, M.L. (2009), “Organizational ambidexterity:
balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance”, Organization Science,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 685-695.
Reosekar, S.R. and Pohekar, S.D. (2014), “Six Sigma methodology: a structured review”, International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 392-422.
Richardson, K. (2007), “The ‘Six Sigma’ factor for Home Depot”, Wall Street Journal, C3.
Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P., Alcaide Muñoz, L. and López Hernández, A.M. (2010), “Trends of
e-government research. Contextualization and research opportunities”, The International
Journal of Digital Accounting Research, Vol. 10, pp. 87-111.
Rowlands, H. (2003), “Six Sigma: a new philosophy or repackaging of old ideas?”, Engineering
Management, Vol 13 No. 2, pp. 18-21.
Salvador, F., Chandrasekaran, A. and Sohail, T. (2014), “Product configuration, ambidexterity and firm
performance in the context of industrial equipment manufacturing”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 138-153.
Schroeder, R.G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C. and Choo, A.S. (2008), “Six Sigma: definition and underlying
theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 536-554.
Shahin, A. (2008), “Design for six sigma (DFSS): lessons learned from world-class companies”,
International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 48-59.
Sin, A.B., Zailani, S. and Ramayah, T. (2010), “Six Sigma and organisational performance: a knowledge
creation perspective”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 182-212.
Sin, A.B., Zailani, S., Iranmanesh, M. and Ramayah, T. (2015), “Structural equation modelling on
knowledge creation in Six Sigma DMAIC project and its impact on organizational performance”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 168, pp. 105-117.
Sinha, K.K. and Van de Ven, A.H. (2005), “Designing work within and between organizations”,
Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 389-408.
Snee, R.D. (2010), “Lean Six Sigma-getting better all the time”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-29.
Sony, M. and Naik, S. (2011), “Six Sigma, organizational learning and innovation. An integration and
empirical examination”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 29
No. 8, pp. 915-936.
 Swink, M. and Jacobs, B.W. (2012), “Six sigma adoption: operations performance impacts and Six Sigma and
contextual drivers of success”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 437-453.
organisational
Tan, K.C. and Shen, X.X. (2000), “Integrating Kano’s model in the planning matrix of quality function
deployment”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 1141-1151.
ambidexterity
Taylor, P., Mulvey, G., Hyman, J. and Bain, P. (2002), “Work organization, control and the experience of
work in call centres”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp.133-150.
Tjahjono, B., Ball, P., Vitanov, V.I., Scorzafave, C., Nogueira, J., Calleja, J. and Yadav, A. (2010), “Six
Sigma: a literature review”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 216-233.
455
Ullah, A.S. and Harib, K.H. (2008), “An intelligent method for selecting optimal materials and its
application”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 473-483.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

Van Barneveld, A., Arnold, K.E. and Campbell, J.P. (2012), “Analytics in higher education: establishing
a common language”, EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, Vol. 1, pp. 1-11.
Volberda, H.W. and Lewin, A.Y. (2003), “Co-evolutionary dynamics within and between firms:
from evolution to co-evolution”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 8,
pp. 2111-2136.
Volery, T., Mueller, S. and von Siemens, B. (2015), “Entrepreneur ambidexterity: a study of
entrepreneur behaviours and competencies in growth-oriented small and medium-sized
enterprises”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 109-129.
Yang, H., Zheng, Y. and Zhao, X. (2013), “Exploration or exploitation? Small firms’ alliance strategies
with large firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 201-221.
Zeng, J., Chi Anh, P. and Matsui, Y. (2013), “Shop-floor communication and process management for
quality performance: an empirical analysis of quality management”, Management Research
Review, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 454-477.
Zhang, J.A., Edgar, F., Geare, A. and O’Kane, C. (2016), “The interactive effects of entrepreneurial
orientation and capability-based HRM on firm performance: the mediating role of innovation
ambidexterity”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 59, pp. 131-143.
Zhang, D., Linderman, K. and Schroeder, R.G. (2012), “The moderating role of contextual factors on
quality management practices”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30 Nos 1/2, pp. 12-23.
Zhang, D., Linderman, K. and Schroeder, R.G. (2014), “Customizing quality management practices: a
conceptual and measurement framework”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 81-114.
Zhang, M., Wang, W., Goh, T.N. and He, Z. (2015), “Comprehensive Six Sigma application: a case
study”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 219-234.
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 No. 5, pp. 630-650.
Zu, X., Robbins, T.L. and Fredendall, L.D. (2010), “Mapping the critical links between organizational
culture and TQM/Six Sigma practices”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 123
No. 1, pp. 86-106.

Further reading
Alavi, M.J. and Chair, L.C. (2001), “Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: conceptual foundation and research issues”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-130.
Anand, G., Ward, P.T. and Tatikonda, M.V. (2010), “Role of explicit and tacit knowledge in Six Sigma
projects: an empirical examination of differential project success”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 303-315.
Cardinal, L.B., Sitkin, S.B. and Long, C.P. (2004), “Balancing and rebalancing in the creation and
evolution of organizational control”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 411-431.
De Mast, J. and Lokkerbol, J. (2012), “An analysis of the Six Sigma DMAIC method from the perspective
of problem solving”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 139 No. 2, pp. 604-614.
 IJLSS Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G. and Choo, A.S. (2006), “Six Sigma: the role of goals in improvement
teams”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 779-790.
8,4
Prieto, I.M. and Pilar Pérez Santana, M. (2012), “Building ambidexterity: the role of human resource practices
in the performance of firms from Spain”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 189-211.
Senapati, N.R. (2004), “Six Sigma: myths and realities”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. pp. 683-690.
456 Sheng, J., He, Z. and Shi, X. (2002), “Integration of design of experiments into quality function
deployment”, Asian Journal on Quality, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
Tallon, P.P. and Pinsonneault, A. (2011), “Competing perspectives on the link between strategic
information technology alignment and organizational agility: insights from a mediation model”,
Mis Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 463-486.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 11:24 07 March 2018 (PT)

About the authors

Cristina Alcaide-Muñoz is a PhD Student in Business Administration Department at the Public
University of Navarre (Spain). Her research encompasses operations management, particularly,
quality management and strategic planning. Cristina Alcaide-Muñoz is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: [email protected]
Leopoldo J. Gutierrez-Gutierrez is an Associate Professor in Business Administration Department
at the University of Granada, where he teaches Operations Management. From 2003 to 2005, he held
a research grant in the Department of Business Administration (University of Granada) to develop
the line of research based on quality management. In 2008, he finished his PhD, which analyses
quality management initiatives and their influence on dynamic capabilities. At present, his research
has been published in journals such as International Journal of Production Economics, International
Journal of Production Research, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence and Industrial Management & Data Systems.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]