424 Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 24, No.

3, 2018

Integration of lean, Six Sigma and theory of

constraints for productivity improvement of mining
industry

J. Rajini*
Engine System Simulation,
Caterpillar INC,
Chennai-600091, Tamil Nadu, India
Email: Rajini_vlr@yahoo.com
Email: Jayachandran_rajini@cat.com
*Corresponding author

Dega Nagaraju and S. Narayanan

Centre for Innovative Manufacturing Research (CIMR),
School of Mechanical Engineering (SMEC),
VIT University,
Vellore-632014, Tamil Nadu, India
Email: deganagarajulc@gmail.com
Email: provc.vlr@vit.ac.in

Abstract: In today’s unstable economic conditions, achieving a sustained

throughput is the prime objective of the companies. In this paper, an attempt is
made on implementing the integrated concept of theory of constraints (TOC),
lean and Six Sigma to get the maximum throughput which is the primary goal
of TOC. An empirical model is derived to predict the organisational goal.
Dynamic smart goal tracking system is developed in the proposed model. The
goal of each employee or the sub-team’s goal is aligned to team’s overall goal
with weighted ranking. Path finding to the strategic goal is decided with next
high priority goal on an iterative mode. This approach aligns employee goals in
line to accomplishing the organisation priority goal throughput. Vision of the
organisation to sub-team gets clarity on what to be achieved. This system
thinking approach, TOC philosophy enables to achieve the organisation goal in
a better way.

Keywords: lean; Six Sigma; TOC; goal achievements; process improvement;

integrated lean.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Rajini, J., Nagaraju, D. and
Narayanan, S. (2018) ‘Integration of lean, Six Sigma and theory of constraints
for productivity improvement of mining industry’, Int. J. Productivity and
Quality Management, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.424–440.

Biographical notes: J. Rajini is an Engineer at Caterpillar Inc. experienced in

virtual product development and testing validations (2006 to till date). In depth
knowledge in Genset and On Engine mounted component. He worked as
research scholar in Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT), experienced in
testing and validation of rapid prototyping (3D printer) components for new
product development. The components considered for study are tool and die for

Copyright © 2018 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Integration of lean, Six Sigma and TOC for productivity improvement 425

manufacturing plastic components and standard test specimens. He developed a

wear testing machine as part of the product development (2004–2006). He
completed his MTech in CAD/CAM from VIT. His experienced are in design
and production of industrial silencer and power plant ducts using sheet metal.
His experienced are in destructive and non-destructive testing (2000–2002).

Dega Nagaraju obtained his BTech in Mechanical Engineering, MTech and

PhD in Industrial Engineering from Sri Venkateswara University College of
Engineering, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, A.P., India. He has more
than 16 years of teaching experience. He has published nearly 40 research
papers in refereed national and international journals as well as in national and
international conferences. His areas of interest include operations and supply
chain management, optimisation and metaheuristics, theory of constraints,
manufacturing engineering, etc.

S. Narayanan received his Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering, Masters and

Doctorate in Industrial Engineering and Management from Pondicherry
University, India. He has 27 years of teaching experience and two years of
industrial experience. He has contributed more than 85 research papers in
various reputed international, national journals and conferences. His areas of
research include supply chain management, operations management, assembly
line balancing, lean manufacturing, etc. He received many awards and honours
for his visionary service which include ‘Cognizant – VIT best faculty award’,
‘VIT’s Best HOD award’, etc. With his rich academic and industrial
experience, he has executed many research projects.

1 Introduction

The root origin of continuous improvement (CI) stated in early 19th century. In any
organisation CI is developed and deployed with some standard to a sustained period to
gain profitability, increase market share, and improve brand value and to survive in the
market. Improvements in the process that we follow, alternate method to gain more
efficiency in the existing model, change in the way we do business to make profit. Finite
improvement to make process matured by taking advantage of old primitive methods like
lean, TQM, TPM, Kanban, JIT, Six Sigma (SS), etc. with addition to the standard logical
algorithm and techniques like fuzzy, neural networks, artificial intelligence, etc. is a
better approach. We make use of the best techniques or by integrating this to meet
business requirements is the best rather than inventing a new approach (Ehie and
Sawhney, 2006).
In this paper it is identified that lean, SS and TOC combination will yield a better
result. Lean principles emphasise the elimination of hidden waste from a production
system in order to make it more efficient. Identifying the hidden waste can be categorised
as waste from over production, waste of motion, transportation waste, and processing
waste, waiting time, defective products, excess inventory and unutilised resource.
Working on this waste on a systematic process or technique with identified tools can lead
to minimising the variance. Best fit tool is SS which will lead to process improvement in
line to saving money and return on investment (ROI). TOC target is to achieve goal. First
identify your goal, align to your team goal, to meet the companies requirement (the prime
objective of any company is to make money). To meet the company goal, first we need to
426 J. Rajini et al.

study the current reality tree (CRT) the as is process of the company and then need to
transform it in to future reality tree (FRT) (Goldratt and Cox, 1984). This implementation
process requires five phases as identify the constraint, exploit the constraint, subordinate
the process, elevate the process to achieve goal and do not allow the system to have the
same constraint. The above mentioned three process yield benefits when implemented
alone. Implementing three techniques on an integrated approach could yield 3× of
improvement. This approach is the need of the current industry.
There is no adequate research on the system or model that explains the integrated
model of lean, SS and TOC (LSSTOC) on the achievement of the enterprise goal. This
paper cover the problem definition with goal hierarchy model, need of the integrated
model, algorithm for the model, case study with implementing the developed model and
process improvement with benefits.

Figure 1 Goal hierarchy model

Director goal
goal A, B, C and D

JD1 (goal A and B) JD2 (goal B and C) JD3 (goal C and D) JD4 (goal D and A)
goal 1, 2, 3 and 4 goal 1, 2, 3 and 4 goal 1, 2, 3 and 4 goal 1, 2, 3 and 4

Manager (goal 1 and 2) Manager (goal 2 and 3) Manager (goal 3 and 4) Manager (goal 4 and 1)
goal 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 goal 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 goal 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 goal 4.1, 4.2, 4.3
2.1, 2.2, 2.3 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 1.1, 1.2, 1.3

Employee (goal 3.1 and 4.2) Employee (goal 4.3 and 3.3)
goal 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3 goal 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3
4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3

2 Literature review

The literature review is categorised into three sub-sections to get more clarity as lean, SS
and TOC implementation, either of two techniques of lean or SS or TOC implemented
and general techniques implemented to benefit the system.
JIT is a CI method for optimised manufacturing system originated in Toyota motors.
Lean coined as eliminating waste by Taylor. SS is a CI method for improving the quality
of business practice first implemented in Motorola (Ehie and Sawhney, 2006). Theory of
constrains (TOC) is also a CI method cum management philosophy that focuses on
systems improvement. TOC explains that a chain is no stronger than its weakest link
(Goldratt and Cox, 1984). Selection of the best suited CI method is the bottle neck in any
application. SS focuses on reducing variation and increases uniform process output, Lean
focuses on waste removal, increases the flow and reduces time and TOC focuses on
 Integration of lean, Six Sigma and TOC for productivity improvement 427

constraint and increases throughput (Nave, 2002). Fully integrated approach of TOC, lean
and SS (TOCLSS) is a new strategy road map to improve the business efficiency and
sustain the organisation to achieve the results and exceed the goals on time (Jacob et al.,
2009). Rand (2000) explained TOC approach for CPM/PERT problem with a case study
and detailed analysis. Also explains the critical chain concepts. Jin et al. (2009) he carried
out a detailed application of TOC with different organisation as what to change, what to
change to, how to cause the change and overcoming resistance to change. SS and
constraints management has been implemented as an integrated model in production line
of a engine mono block V8 in an automobile industries, there by resulting an increase in
production to 40% for same available resource and also variation reduction by 0.73% and
casting quality increased by 2.3%. Jafarpour et al. (2014) measured the employee’s
potential empowerment as one of the aspects of organisation performance evaluation. He
examined the performance of Esfahan Steel Company unit using data envelopment
analysis based on suggestions system. He developed a suitable suggestion-based model
and implemented as the output and input-oriented BCC model based on the performance
of units. Research results show that 7 out of 30 Esfahan Steel Company units are
efficient.
Plenert (1993) explained a procedure for the TOC calculation. He demonstrates that
procedure is inefficient when multiple constrained resources exist. The Fox model is
based on a point in time evaluation. Linear-integer programming is a much better
planning tool and comes closer to achieving the TOC goal of maximising throughput.
Linhares (2009) analysed the product mix problems with four different examples. There
are cases in which the optimum product mix includes products with the lowest product
margin and the lowest ratio of throughput per constraint time, simultaneously violating
the margin heuristic and the TOC-derived heuristic. He also illustrated that the best
possible may be obtained for large instances in high-quality approximations given by
advanced heuristics [such as genetic algorithms (GAs)] that have been under study
recently. He concluded that how can we properly use the TOC philosophy to deal with
the combinatorial complexity demanded in the integer production case. Also, he
concluded that we do not want to turn the product-mix decision itself into a bottle neck.
Watson et al. (2007) stated that TOC celebrated its Silver Anniversary, started out as a
scheduling tool that merged into a management philosophy with practices and principles
spanning a multitude of operations management. TOC been adopted by both practitioners
and academicians. At this point in its development it is important to review what has been
accomplished and what deficiencies remain so that both the promise and problems
impeding greater acceptance can be examined. Singh et al. (2006) states heuristics
technique or AI-based optimisation tools to achieve near optimal solutions in real time.
He proposed the works on the principles of artificial immune system and behavioural
theory namely Maslow’s hierarchy theory. Intensive computational experiments have
been carried out and superiority of proposed heuristic on a given dataset is established. It
is observed that results obtained are better compared to what have been achieved by the
TOC heuristic, revised theory of constraint heuristic (RTOC), integer linear programming
(ILP), and tabu search-based approaches. Rezaie et al. (2010) explains the comparative
study on the heuristic approaches are inefficient in multi constraints especially in large
problems. Also proposed particle swarm optimisation (PSO) algorithm is applied for
solving the product mix optimisation problem. The results obtained from the proposed
PSO are compared with the results of other approaches. Proposed PSO algorithm leads to
the maximum throughput among other methods. Also it is notable that traditional TOC
428 J. Rajini et al.

approach and TS-SA approach are infeasible. Niemeijer et al. (2012) implemented the
lean SS in the traumatology department, University Medical Centre Groningen, the
second largest hospital in the Netherlands. He mentioned the transition of the
organisation from purely problem oriented to more process oriented, which in turn is
helpful in eliminating waste and finding solutions for difficult problems. A major benefit
of the program is that own employees are trained to become project leaders for
improvement. People were trained in the process and thus stimulated and equipped to
become role models for CI. Arafeh et al. (2016) implemented the SS methodology to
improve the performance of students in English as a second language and enhance the
teaching process by utilising quality tools in an educational environment. He used the
quality improvement tools define, measure, analyse, improve and control (DMAIC) in an
English language class at a private school to improve student performance. Cause and
effect diagrams and quality function deployment have been successfully applied within
the SS DMAIC framework in the educational sector to improve the performance of
students and enhance the teaching process. The principal objective is to demonstrate how
quality improvement tools can be introduced and successfully applied in an elementary
school to improve student performance and communication between the school
administration, teachers and parents. Antony (2011) made a comparative study on the
quality management concepts, including total quality management (TQM), SS and lean,
have been applied by many different organisations. Although much important work has
been documented regarding TQM, SS and lean, a number of questions remain concerning
the applicability of these concepts in various organisations and contexts. Also describe
the similarities and differences between the concepts, including an evaluation and
criticism of each concept. Organisations are able to combine these three concepts as they
are complementary. SS and lean are excellent road-maps, which could be used one by
one or combined together with the values in TQM. Niu et al. (2010) stated that computer
manufacturers have been applying SS for continuous quality improvement and lean
manufacturing for reducing process waste in order to maximally meet customer
requirements. However, top computer manufacturers are now realising the design and
production with advanced capability for early failure detection, fault diagnostic and
prediction will significantly improve product life cycle performance and increase
competitive advantages. Prognostic health management is proposed as a predictive
management strategy through integration with lean SS. Morais et al. (2015) stated that
motorcycles components are dealing with a dynamic environment, resulting from the
introduction of new products and the increase of market demand. Dynamic environment
requires frequent changes in production lines and requires flexibility in the processes,
which can cause reductions in the level of quality and productivity. Presents lean SS
improvement project performed in a production line of the company’s machining sector,
in order to eliminate losses that cause low productivity. The use of lean methodology
following the DMAIC stages to standardisation in the setup activities. Control charts,
Pareto analysis and cause and-effect diagrams were used to analyse the problem. On the
improvement stage, the changes were based on the reconfiguration of the line layout as
well as the modernisation of the process. Overall defective product units were reduced by
84% and an increase of 29% of line capacity was noticed. Al-Refaie and Al-Hmaideen
(2014) stated the well-known SS approach DMAIC to improve the performance of direct
compression process with two quality responses tablet’s weight and hardness. At analyse
and improve phases, designed experiments utilising the Taguchi’s L27. In conclusion the
 Integration of lean, Six Sigma and TOC for productivity improvement 429

DMAIC approach including GRA techniques is found effective for improving the
performance of direct compression with tablet’s weight and hardness.
Ginoria et al. (2014) stated his work on operating on the structure of a conventional
GA, a heuristic which uses techniques like differential mutation probability, elitism and
local search is used to produce near optimal solutions for large machine loading problems
with less computational intensity. The proposed heuristic is efficient in handling large
and complex machine loading problems. Noori (2014) stated the lean initiatives that have
been widely used to improve productivity. Critical success factors (CSFs) of lean
implementation in hospitals were investigated. Published lean CSFs were reviewed and
grouped into five categories. The results explore and demonstrate evidence for significant
relationships between those factors and lean success which support the proposed
hypothesis. Azadeh et al. (2014) stated the household electricity consumption by
considering environmental consciousness through conventional methods by standard
questionnaire. Presents a flexible framework based on artificial neural network (ANN),
multi-layer perception (MLP), conventional regression and design of experiment (DOE)
for estimating household electricity consumption by considering environmental
consciousness. The significance of the study is the integration of ANN, conventional
regression and DOE for flexible and improved modelling of household electricity
consumption by incorporating environmental consciousness indicators. Tanwer et al.
(2014) stated the environmental conscious manufacturing (ECM) with developing
methods for manufacturing products, processes and operations, etc. Investigates the
literature by classifying published references into four major categories the design for
environment, life cycle analysis, green supply chain management and environmental
management system (EMS) and discusses the various limitations of the systems. He also
focuses on EMS for achieving environmental performance in manufacturing industries.
Most of the research is carried out in implementing lean, SS and TOC to improve the
efficiency of the system. This process yield benefits when implemented alone.
Implementing either of two techniques on a combined approach, yield better
improvement. LSSTOC implemented on an integrated approach could yield 3× of
improvement. This paper aims to carry out the study in the above mentioned approach.
This is the need of the current industry to get the maximum efficiency improvement.
Reduce waste, reduce variance and working on constraint are the three major principal to
be follow in implementing the LSSTOC.

3 Problem definition

Employees across the company are working with their leaders to craft their Goals. Goal
setting process is the mandatory work of any company to ensure their leaders and
employees identify the right work based on their capability and resource availability that
they will deliver the right results. Achieving the GOAL to the required target is the
biggest challenge of the company. Which in turn increases investor confidence, share
value and employee monitory benefits.
430 J. Rajini et al.

3.1 Objective
Achieve the goal with less variance and develop an empirical model. Dynamic goal
tracking system of each employee on iterative mode.

4 Integrated model

The most primitive CI method is lean, its target is to eliminate waste. Sustained
systematic identification and elimination of waste, inefficient operation cycle time,
quality defects in manufacturing, unnecessary processes, resource utilisation, Inventory
management and demand-based production. This core identified method make the flow
easier and allow customer to pull the demand need for achieving production targets and
implements practical management tools and techniques in an isolated model with tier 1
working principle. SS a tier2 principle its main objectives to work on the process
enhancement for reducing the variation, measure the improvements and identify the
errors with specified target levels. This tier 1 and tier 2 combination works well for
certain objective task, but it is not governed by principles with if clause condition,
throughput to achieve ROI, relationship between data to cost per capacity constraints
resource and sustained improvement. TOC the best ensemble to tier 3 working principle
to improve the system performance.

Figure 2 Integrated lean SS TOC model

TOC Identify constraint

Six Sigma Define

If breaks, Control
repeat Over production
Unutilised
resource Waiting

Elevate Exploit
Defects Lean Transportation
constraints

Over Inventory Measure

Improve processing
Excess
motion

Analyse

Subordinate

The approach to solve the problem is to assess the overall team goal, identify and align
goals incorporating lean technique. Assign ranking to the goals based on the importance
of the goal is done through lean concepts the eight principles. The classifications of goal
with weighted percentage done through (define and measure). Identify the levels and
weighted values of the goals. The values are based on the demand on each goal and
impact it can contribute to the performance. Identify the sum-product number for the
individual goal (analyse). Dynamic change of the weighted function of each goal based
 Integration of lean, Six Sigma and TOC for productivity improvement 431

on the overall goal (improve, control). Execute the next priority goal and to meet the
objective of the overall goal (subordinate). Iterate the process to improve the goal to be
achieved. Throughput is achieved to the required target (repeat and do not allow inertia to
cause a system’s constraint)

4.1 Model implementation

Identification of goals and their weighted factors are decided with the lean principles by
setting the production targets, customer waiting time, job in queue, reducing defects and
improving quality, utilisation of resource, monitoring the production target of the team
with weighted factor to avoid over production and inventory. Important factors that
impact the overall efficiency in long run are identified and considered for the study and to
show case the improvement gained through this approach. Goals with their weightage
and their corresponding levels are tabulated in Table 1.
Grading rank of the employee on achievement of goals is done by sum-product
number, an integer that in a given base is equal to the sum of its digits times the product
of its digits.

Grading rank G = {∑WL} (1)

Multiplies corresponding weighted values of goals to that of the given goal levels, and
returns the sum of those products, this rank decides the achievement of team or individual
that they have performed on biweekly or monthly of their performance metric
measurement. Define and measurement of the level are decided based on the customer
demand, process capability and variance.
A mathematical model is derived to find the new weighted factor for the next high
priority goal to stay on track to achieve the goal. This dynamic weighted factor on an
iterative mode reduces variance in longer run to achieve the goal. Evaluation of the team
goal is carried out with the below mentioned models. Actual measurements of goal is
compared with ideal target levels as
Variance( x) = Aa − I i (2)

Variance Factor ( X ) = lag ( x) d (3)

Upon substitution of equation (2) in equation (3), we get

Wn = W + log (1 e X ) (4)

Next, upon substitution of equation (3) in equation (4), we get

Wn = Wn −1 + log (1 e( ( An − I n ) d ) ) (5)

The above mentioned equations (2) to (5) are tabulated in Table 2, new weighted factor is
calculated from equation (5) has been used as the weight age for the next iterative
function. This system thinking approach for the future will enhance the process variance
of the system more robust and better than the conventional data interpretation. This new
approach of inheriting the weighted factor to the data being processed on an iterative
mode helps team to stay on track of their goals.
 432

Table 1

Level of scale
Weightage S. no. Goals Mean
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16 17 18 19 20 21
J. Rajini et al.

16 1 Effective production hours 160 157 154 151 148 145 142 115 112 109 106 103 170 150
14 2 Quality metrics 100 97 94 91 88 85 82 55 52 49 46 43 40 80
Team dash board

11 3 Efficiency improvement 70 67 64 61 58 55 52 25 22 19 16 13 10 55
9 4 Customer feed back 90 86 82 78 74 70 66 30 26 22 18 14 10 46
8 5 Work highlights published 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 2.8 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 3.8
8 6 Clock time accuracy 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 70 68 66 64 62 60 98
7 7 Project management documents 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 70 68 66 64 62 60 98
7 8 Project management survey 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 70 68 66 64 62 60 67
6 9 Team and HR compliances 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 70 68 66 64 62 60 88
5 10 Internal documents 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 70 68 66 64 62 60 98
4 11 Internal project archrivals 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 25 20 15 10 5 0 95
3 12 Delegation of work 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 25 20 15 10 5 0 44
2 13 Additional training 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 25 20 15 10 5 0 80
2 14 Mandatory training 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 25 20 15 10 5 0 90
1.5 15 Mentoring new engineers 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 25 20 15 10 5 0 10
1.5 16 Conference presentation 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 25 20 15 10 5 0 95
Grading ranks 10,272 9,975 9,679 9,382 9,086 8,789 8,492 5,823 5,526 5,230 4,933 4,637 5,460
Note: Performance metrics of the teams for the respective goals.
 Table 2

(weightage +
Weightage S. no Goal Actual Ideal Lag Lag factor e(LAG factor) 1/e(LAG) Log(1/e(lag))
log(1/e(lag)))
16 1 Effective production hours 150 142.44 7.56 2.5200045 12.42865254 0.08045924 –1.09442405 14.90557595
14 2 Quality metrics 80 82.44 –2.4 –0.813329 0.443379668 2.25540337 0.353224226 14.35322423
Team dash board

11 3 CI improvement 55 52.44 2.56 0.853337 2.34746924 0.42599067 –0.37059991 10.62940009

9 4 Customer feed back 46 66.587 –21 –5.146662 0.005818794 171.856903 2.235166981 11.23516698
8 5 Work published 3.8 2.8293 0.97 4.853337 128.1674778 0.00780229 –2.10777784 5.892222162
8 6 Clock time accuracy 98 88.293 9.71 4.853337 128.1674778 0.00780229 –2.10777784 5.892222162
7 7 Project management documents 98 88.293 9.71 4.853337 128.1674778 0.00780229 –2.10777784 4.892222162
7 8 Project management survey 67 88.293 –21 –10.64666 2.37801E-05 42051.9976 4.623786632 11.62378663
6 9 Team and HR compliances 88 88.293 –0.3 –0.146662 0.863585672 1.15796270 0.063694572 6.063694572
5 10 Internal documents 98 88.293 9.71 4.853337 128.1674778 0.00780229 –2.10777784 2.892222162
4 11 Internal project archrivals 95 70.733 24.3 4.853337 128.1674778 0.00780229 –2.10777784 1.892222162
3 12 Delegation of work 44 70.733 –27 –5.346662 0.004764026 209.906495 2.322025878 5.322025878
2 13 Additional training 80 70.733 9.27 1.853337 6.381082978 0.15671321 –0.80489439 1.195105608
2 14 Mandatory training 90 70.733 19.3 3.853337 47.1501801 0.02120882 –1.67348336 0.326516644
1.5 15 Mentoring new engineers 10 70.733 –61 –12.14666 5.30605E-06 188463.978 5.275228355 6.775228355
1.5 16 Conference presentation 95 70.733 24.3 4.853337 128.1674778 0.00780229 –2.10777784 –0.607777838
New rank 8,536
Note: Performance metrics of the team in terms of weightage of first iteration.
Integration of lean, Six Sigma and TOC for productivity improvement
433
 434

Table 3

(weightage +
Weightage S. no Goal Actual Ideal Lag Lag factor e(LAG factor) 1/e(LAG) Log(1/e(lag))
log(1/e(lag)))
Dash board

14.90557 1 Effective production hours 30 142.44 –112 –37.48 5.28013E-17 1.89389E+16 16.27735523 31.18293118
J. Rajini et al.

14.35322 2 Quality metrics 70 82.44 –12 –4.146662 0.015817123 63.22262144 1.800872499 16.15409673
10.6294 3 Efficiency improvement 70 52.44 17.6 5.8533378 348.3953258 0.002870303 –2.54207232 8.08732777
11.235167 4 Customer feed back 50 66.587 –17 –4.146662 0.015817123 63.22262144 1.800872499 13.03603948
5.8922222 5 Work highlights published 3.8 2.8293 0.97 4.8533378 128.1674778 0.007802291 –2.10777784 3.784444324
5.8922222 6 Clock time accuracy 98 88.293 9.71 4.8533378 128.1674778 0.007802291 –2.10777784 3.784444324
4.8922222 7 Project management documents 98 88.293 9.71 4.8533378 128.1674778 0.007802291 –2.10777784 2.784444324
11.623787 8 Project management survey 67 88.293 –21 –10.64666 2.37801E-05 42051.99767 4.623786632 16.24757326
6.0636946 9 Team and HR compliances 88 88.293 –0.3 –0.146662 0.863585672 1.157962704 0.063694572 6.127389143
2.8922222 10 Internal documents 98 88.293 9.71 4.8533378 128.1674778 0.007802291 –2.10777784 0.784444324
1.8922222 11 Internal project archrivals 95 70.733 24.3 4.8533378 128.1674778 0.007802291 –2.10777784 –0.215555676
5.3220259 12 Delegation of work 65 70.733 –5.7 –1.146662 0.317695414 3.147668976 0.497989054 5.820014931
1.1951056 13 Additional training 25 70.733 –46 –9.146662 0.000106575 9383.068975 3.972344909 5.167450517
0.3265166 14 Mandatory training 60 70.733 –11 –2.146662 0.116873612 8.556251379 0.932283535 1.25880018
6.7752284 15 Mentoring new engineers 70 70.733 –0.7 –0.146662 0.863585672 1.157962704 0.063694572 6.838922926
0.1 16 Conference presentation 20 70.733 –51 –10.14666 3.92067E-05 25505.82589 4.406639391 4.506639391
New rank 6,484
Note: Performance metrics of the team in terms of weightage of second iteration.
 Table 4

e(LAG (weightage +
Weightage S. no Goal Actual Ideal Lag Lag factor 1/e(LAG) Log(1/e(lag))
factor) log(1/e(lag)))
Dash board

31.18293 1 Effective production hours 200 142.4399 57.560013 19.1866711 215112383. 4.64873E-09 –8.332665412 22.85026577
16.15409 2 Quality metrics 70 82.43998 –12.439986 –4.14666217 0.01581712 63.2226214 1.800872499 17.95496922
8.087327 3 Efficiency improvement 40 52.43998 –12.439985 –4.14666217 0.01581712 63.2226214 1.800872499 9.888200269
13.03603 4 Customer feed back 33 66.58664 –33.586648 –8.39666217 0.00022561 4432.24794 3.646624047 16.68266353
3.784444 5 Work highlights published 2 2.829332 –0.8293324 –4.14666217 0.01581712 63.2226214 1.800872499 5.585316824
3.784444 6 Clock time accuracy 98 88.29332 9.7066756 4.85333782 128.167477 0.00780229 –2.107777838 1.676666487
2.784444 7 Project management documents 98 88.29332 9.7066756 4.85333782 128.167477 0.00780229 –2.107777838 0.676666487
16.24757 8 Project management survey 67 88.29332 –21.293324 –10.6466621 2.37801E-05 42051.9976 4.623786632 20.8713599
6.127389 9 Team and HR compliances 88 88.29332 –0.2933243 –0.14666217 0.86358567 1.15796270 0.063694572 6.191083715
0.784444 10 Internal documents 98 88.29332 9.7066756 4.85333782 128.167477 0.00780229 –2.107777838 –1.323333513
0.1 11 Internal project archival 95 70.73331 24.266689 4.85333782 128.167477 0.00780229 –2.107777838 –2.007777838
5.820014 12 Delegation of work 65 70.73331 –5.7333108 –1.14666217 0.31769541 3.14766897 0.497989054 6.318003985
5.167450 13 Additional training 86 70.73331 15.266689 3.05333782 21.1859415 0.04720111 –1.32604777 3.841402746
1.258800 14 Mandatory training 70 70.73331 –0.7333108 –0.14666217 0.86358567 1.15796270 0.063694572 1.322494751
6.838922 15 Mentoring new engineers 70 70.73331 –0.7333108 –0.14666217 0.86358567 1.15796270 0.063694572 6.902617498
4.506639 16 Conference presentation 80 70.73331 9.266689 1.853337 6.38108297 0.15671321 –0.804894392 3.701744999
New rank 8,580
Note: Performance metrics of the team in terms of weightage of third iteration.
Integration of lean, Six Sigma and TOC for productivity improvement
435
436 J. Rajini et al.

The empirical model can be returned as

∞
G= ∑{{W
n =1
n −1 } }
+ log (1 e( ( An − I n ) d ) ) * Ln (6)

If Wn −1 < 0, then Wn −1 = 0.1

Aa actual goal target achieved by the team

Ii ideal target to be achieved by the team
d level of difference between the next high targets to be achieved
Wn weighted factor
Ln value of the levels.
Table 1 shows the Dash board of the team with all Goal and their levels. Weightage of
the each goal is mentined in the colunm 1. This weightage of goal is decided by the most
influencing factor that contribute to huge saving of money. Level of achivements are
tabulated in the ranks from 1–21 this is based on the team size. Base on their achivements
data variation is reduced to the team size which help to process the data in better way.
The first rank with 10,272 point and last with 5,460 points. The levels of achivements are
standard incremental values to reduce the variance in the model. The team average is
compared to the ideal (the target of every month).
Table 2 is the first iteration of the proposed model. The team’s actual achivement is
compared with the Ideal target and thenew weightage of each goal is calculated from the
emperical model mentioned in equation (6). The new weightage of the goal 1 is 14.9 as
calculated in last column. The 16th goal very well surpassed the required target and the
weightage ended up in the negative value, this is corrected to 0.1 the minimum value.
Table 3 is the second itaretion in the model, the new weighatge calculated from
Table 2 is taken to Table 3 as input for the initial calculation. This month actual is taken
and again compared with ideal target. In this iteration the new weightage is calculted. As
the actual is very less compared to the required target. The next new weightage as out
come of second iteration is 31. The weightage of next goal is also increased as the target
are far behind. Goal 11 surpassed the required target and weightage ended up in negative
is corrected to 0.1 on Table 4.

5 Results and discussion

The weighted factors achieved on the iterative mode are tabulated as follows in Table 3
and 4. The weighted factor W1 calculated in Table 2 is the first iteration, is taken to the
next iteration for Table 3 calculation. The only condition of the empirical model is that
any weighted factor with negative value is corrected to 0.1, goal 16 in Table 3 and
goal 11 in Table 4 is corrected.
These iterations are carried out for all the months to stay on the target to reduce the
variance of the goal values. This proposed method gives alarm to the team to stay in
focus the goal. In overall enterprise level the proposed method achieve goals with an
optimum target fixed. The proposed method also avoids over production of goals and
resources this leads to a huge cost saving.
 Integration of lean, Six Sigma and TOC for productivity improvement 437

Figure 3 Weightage factor vs. goal number (see online version for colours)

Figure 4 Unfulfilled target level vs. goal number (see online version for colours)

The weighted factor and variance summary of goals are plotted for three iteration in
Figures 3 and 4 respectively. The goal 1 effective production hours are discussed, the
variance of effective production hours in baseline is 8 and the corresponding weighted
factor is close to the mean factor 15, in iteration 1 the variance is around –112 now the
trend to the weighted factor is increased to around 31 that is W2 which is the initial start
of iteration 3. This iterative mode of calculating the weighted factor to get desired output
to the customers and share-holder requirement stay on track and reduces variation in the
result. The goal 8 ends up with variance in all iteration from required target, so the
weighted factor gradually increasing to alter the system to stay on. Other goals stay on
the mean required 90% efficiency model, except the goal 13 and 15, corresponding
weighted factor show moderate variation over the iteration.
The summary of the goal achievement are tabulated. The most influencing goals with
higher weighted factor have significant difference in the proposed method. Improvement
of 2–8% of goal is achieved in the proposed method. Some of the goal remains the same
as the number of occurrence is less and some by got only decimal influence. The first
four goal have got more weightage in the raking system of the team performance, this
goal have influenced 4–8%. This conventional method includes only the lean concepts of
selecting the goal.
438 J. Rajini et al.

Table 5 Efficiency comparison

Efficiency achievement (in %)

Conventional

Difference in

Difference in
conventional
Proposed

proposed
Required
method

method
S. no Goals

target
1 Effective production hours 75 83 82 7 –1
2 Quality metrics 84 90 90 6 0
3 CI improvement 70 74 75 5 1
4 Customer feed back 74 80 80 6 0
5 Work highlights published 78 82 80 2 –2
6 Clock time accuracy 90 92 90 0 –2
7 Project management documents 80 82 80 0 –2
8 Project management survey 88 94 95 7 1
9 Team and HR compliances 80 80 80 0 0
10 Internal documents 88 98 98 10 0
11 Internal project archrivals 80 80 80 0 0
12 Delegation of work 88 92 90 2 –2
13 Additional training 60 60 60 0 0
14 Mandatory training 60 60 60 0 0
15 Mentoring new engineers 74 82 80 6 –2
16 Conference presentation 60 70 70 10 0

Figure 5 Level of efficiency achievement (in %) vs. goal number (see online version for colours)
 Integration of lean, Six Sigma and TOC for productivity improvement 439

6 Conclusions

Dynamic tracking of the incremental goal achieved and their corresponding ranks of the
sub team are calculated. Sub team performance metrics have proven to get the optimum
throughput as compared to other team. This approach of converting people to process
depended system is to take control of process to the required output. The goals are now
customer driven flexible options to suit the dynamic business environment. This
transformation of working culture incorporates the lean ideology with minimising the
queuing time, inventory investigation, process variance and maximising the throughput.
This new approach with empirical formula led to the contribution of 7% increase in
efficiency of the ranking grade of the team meets the target with less variance. The
conventional method has variance up to 10% and 10 goal were not achieved where as in
proposed method all the goals were achieved with variance less than 2%. This
hierarchical approach to the enterprise level directly influences the company in long-term
commitment to the share-holders. This integrated LSSTOC a 360° degree approach of the
CI increases the confidence of employee, employer and the share-holder.

References
Al-Refaie, A. and Al-Hmaideen, K. (2014) ‘Six Sigma management and grey relational analysis to
improve performance of tableting process’, International Journal of Productivity and Quality
Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.57–71.
Antony, J. (2011) ‘Six Sigma vs. lean: some perspectives from leading academics and
practitioners’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 60,
No. 2, pp.185–190.
Arafeh, M. (2016) ‘Leveraging Six Sigma tools and methodology to improve student English
language performance at elementary school’, American Journal of Operations Research,
Vol. 6, No. 4, p.261.
Azadeh, A., Narimani, A. and Nazari, T. (2014) ‘Estimating household electricity consumption by
environmental consciousness’, International Journal of Productivity and Quality
Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.1–19.
Ehie, I.C. and Sawhney, R. (2006) ‘Integrating Six Sigma and Lean manufacturing for process
improvement: a case study’, in AB Badiru, Handbook of Industrial and Systems Engineering,
pp.36-1–36-12, CRC Press 2005, Boca Raton.
Ginoria, S., Samuel, G.L. and Srinivasan, G. (2014) ‘Optimisation of a machine loading problem
using a genetic algorithm-based heuristic’, International Journal of Productivity and Quality
Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.36–56.
Goldratt, E.M. and Cox, J. (1984) The Goal, North River Press, Great Barrington, MA, USA.
Jacob, D., Bergland, S. and Cox, J. (2009) Velocity: Combining Lean, Six Sigma and the Theory of
Constraints to Achieve Breakthrough Performance – A Business Novel, Free Press, Simon and
Schuster, Inc.
Jafarpour, E., Shafei, R., Sadeghani, M. and Moradi, M. (2014) ‘Evaluation of the suggestions
system performance using DEA, the case of Esfahan’s Steel Company’, International Journal
of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.20–35.
Jin, K., Hyder, A.R., Eikassabgi, Y., Zhou, H. and Herrera, A. (2009) ‘Integrating the theory of
constraints and Six Sigma in manufacturing process improvement’, Proceedings of World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 37.
440 J. Rajini et al.

Linhares, A. (2009) ‘Theory of constraints and the combinatorial complexity of the product-mix
decision’, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 121, No. 1, pp.121–129.
Morais, V.R., Sousa, S. and Lopes, I.D.S. (2015) ‘Implementation of a lean six sigma project in a
production line’, Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2015, WCE 2015,
London, UK, 1–3 July, pp.847–852, ISBN: 978-988-14047-0-1.
Nave, D. (2002) ‘How to compare Six Sigma, lean and the theory of constraints’, Quality Progress,
Vol. 35, No. 3, p.73.
Niemeijer, G.C., Trip, A., de Jong, L.J., Wendt, K.W. and Does, R.J. (2012) ‘Impact of 5 years of
lean Six Sigma in a University Medical Center’, Quality Management in Healthcare, Vol. 21,
No. 4, pp.262–268.
Niu, G., Lau, D. and Pecht, M. (2010) ‘Computer manufacturing management integrating lean Six
Sigma and prognostic health management’, International Journal of Performability
Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp.453–466.
Noori, B. (2014) ‘The critical success factors for successful lean implementation in hospitals’,
International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.108–126.
Plenert, G. (1993) ‘Optimizing theory of constraints when multiple constrained resources exist’,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp.126–133.
Rand, G.K. (2000) ‘Critical chain: the theory of constraints applied to project management’,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.173–177.
Rezaie, K., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S. and Ghodsi, R. (2010) ‘Theory of constraints and particle swarm
optimization approaches for product mix problem decision’, Australian Journal of Basic and
Applied Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 12, pp.6483–6491.
Singh, R.K., Kumar, S. and Tiwari, M.K. (2006) ‘Psycho-clonal based approach to solve a TOC
product mix decision problem’, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 29, Nos. 11–12, pp.1194–1202.
Tanwer, A.K., Prajapati, D.R. and Singh, P.J. (2014) ‘Effect of various factors for achieving
environmental performance in manufacturing industry: a review’, International Journal of
Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.72–107.
Watson, K.J., Blackstone, J.H. and Gardiner, S.C. (2007) ‘The evolution of a management
philosophy: the theory of constraints’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25, No. 2,
pp.387–402.