See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239433605

Six Sigma and Total Quality Management (TQM): similarities, differences and
relationship

Article  in  International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage · January 2009

DOI: 10.1504/IJSSCA.2009.028095

CITATIONS READS

5 9,843

3 authors:

Souraj Salah Juan Antonio Carretero

University of New Brunswick University of New Brunswick
23 PUBLICATIONS   210 CITATIONS    97 PUBLICATIONS   1,440 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Abdur Rahim
University of New Brunswick
133 PUBLICATIONS   2,766 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Kinematic calibration View project

Cable Driven Parallel Manipulators (CDPM) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdur Rahim on 29 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2009 237

Six Sigma and Total Quality Management (TQM):

similarities, differences and relationship

Souraj Salah* and Juan A. Carretero

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of New Brunswick,
P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada
Fax: 1-506-453-5025
Email: Souraj.Salah@unb.ca Email: Juan.Carretero@unb.ca
*Corresponding author

Abdur Rahim
Faculty of Business Administration,
University of New Brunswick,
P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada
Fax: 1-506-453-3561
Email: Rahim@unb.ca

Abstract: Industries are continuously facing fierce competition and the

challenge of meeting increasing demands for higher quality products at
economic costs. The success of an organisation is directly related to how
effective its implementation of continuous improvement (CI) is. For any
manufacturing system, Total Quality Management (TQM) and Six Sigma are
important CI methodologies. Effective understanding of these methodologies
and their relationship will provide an industry with a competitive advantage.
Many industrial organisations today are using either TQM or Six Sigma as the
core for their CI efforts. There is a lot of dispute on which methodology is
superior, how they relate to each other, what the common grounds are and what
their differences are. As such, the relationship between TQM and Six Sigma is
worth further investigation. In this paper, TQM and Six Sigma are introduced
followed by a thorough comparison. More particularly, this work investigates
their similarities, differences and how they relate to each other. Finally, this
research introduces how they fit together in order to develop a new structure
for integrating them together which will provide an improved approach for CI.
Keywords: Six Sigma; TQM; total quality management; CI; continuous
improvement; process improvement; competitive advantage; integration.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Salah, S., Carretero, J.A.
and Rahim, A. (2009) ‘Six Sigma and Total Quality Management (TQM):
similarities, differences and relationship’, Int. J. Six Sigma and Competitive
Advantage, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.237–250.
Biographical notes: Souraj Salah is a PhD candidate studying at the
Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of New Brunswick,
Canada. He is a certified Master Black Belt working in manufacturing sector in
Canada.

Copyright © 2009 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

238 S. Salah, J.A. Carretero and A. Rahim

Juan A. Carretero is an Associate Professor of Simulation, Optimisation and

Robotics at the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of
New Brunswick, Canada.

Abdur Rahim is a Professor of Quantitative Methods, Quality Control, Inventory

Control, Reliability, Production Management, Operations Management and
Total Quality Management at the Faculty of Business Administration at the
University of New Brunswick, Canada.

1 Introduction

One key success factor for an organisation is how effectively it implements process
improvement methodologies. Among various process improvement methodologies, Total
Quality Management (TQM) and Six Sigma are two key methodologies widely used by
various organisations.
TQM has been a dominant management concept for continuous improvement
utilising Deming’s basic concepts including Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) (Snee, 2004).
The Six Sigma Methodology is a well-disciplined and structured approach used to
enhance process performance and achieve high levels of quality. TQM and Six Sigma
share the same goals of pursuing customer satisfaction and business profit. However,
TQM cannot be fully replaced by the Six Sigma. On the other hand, TQM has not
achieved the radical results that have been achieved by Six Sigma (Yang, 2004).

2 Six Sigma

Empirical-based research indicated that it is more effective to use a structured approach

in process improvement (Ried, 2006). Methodologies such as Six Sigma are groups of
activities performed in a prescribed way to reach target values. Tools are defined as
means to facilitate data analysis statistically or by other means (Anderson et al., 2006).
At Allied Signal which is a company that successfully embraced this methodology,
Six Sigma is defined as a breakthrough change for increasing rate of improvements in
processes and products (Bellows, 2004).
Six Sigma is a collection of process improvement tools used in a series of projects in
a systematic way to achieve high levels of stability. It is based on principles set up by
quality experts, such as Deming, Juran, Shewart and Ishakawa (Experts Archive
Questions, 2007). The term Sigma is the sound of the Greek letter (σ) that is usually used
to refer to the standard deviation which is a measure of the variation or spread in a
process output around its mean value (µ) (Breyfogle, 2003). Quantitatively, Six Sigma
quality means only two defects per billion opportunities fall outside the upper and lower
specification limits. This is almost a defect-free level. Table 1 shows Six Sigma Levels
and corresponding Defects Per Million Opportunities (DPMO). The long-term values
listed in Table 1 correspond to the typical 1.5 σ shift of the process mean to account for
process drifting (Breyfogle, 2003).
The necessity to operate at such a low defect level may not be economic in all
industries. However, at high-yield companies such as Motorola, producing electronic
parts with thousands of opportunities of failure due to the numerous parts involved in
 Six Sigma and TQM 239

every product, achieving a high defect-free level is very necessary so that the combined
opportunity for failure stays as low as possible.
Table 1 Six Sigma levels and corresponding DPMO as adapted from Sheehy et al. (2002) and
Raisinghani et al. (2005)

Short term Long Term

DPMO based on a DPMO based on
σ Level centered process Process Yield σ Level worse side Notes
6.0 0.002 99.99966% 4.5 3.4 a 6 σ process
5.0 0.6 99.97700% 3.5 230
4.5 6.8 99.86500% 3.0 1350
4.0 63.5 99.37900% 2.5 6210
most companies
operate at this
3.0 2700 93.32000% 1.5 66800
level (Kwak and
Anbari, 2004)

In 1987, Motorola’s Six Sigma Quality Program was created by B. Smith (Devane,
2004). Also, W. Smith (Kumar et al., 2007) and Harry and Schroeder (2000) developed
the concepts of Six Sigma as a way to improve the reliability and quality of products.
The Six Sigma methodology starts with the identification of the need for an
improvement project. When the project starts, a financial analysis is performed to quantify
its expected financial savings. This is estimated based on an improvement target for a
certain measure of the outcome of a process. The process current performance is measured
and analysed for critical causes for improvement and solutions are implemented. The
performance is monitored and the achievement is proven by the end of the project based
on the data on hand. Antony (2008) indicated that Six Sigma helped organisations reduce
defect rates, reduce costs of operation and increase value for customers and shareholders.
Welch of GE claimed savings of hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of embracing
a Six Sigma methodology for process improvement. This reported success has helped
spread this methodology (Raisinghani et al., 2005). Welch’s commitment was essential to
the success of Six Sigma deployment as effective implementation depends heavily on
how passionate leadership is in its support (Antony, 2006).
Six Sigma principles include (Friday-Stroud and Sutterfield, 2007):
• aligning key processes and customer requirements with the strategic goals
• identifying champions for each project, obtaining necessary resources and
securing help to overcome the resistance to change
• instituting a standard measurement system and identifying appropriate metrics
• training, deploying improvement teams and setting stretch improvement goals.

2.1 Methodology 5 phases

Motorola created the following steps to achieve Six Sigma (Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-
Park, 2006):
240 S. Salah, J.A. Carretero and A. Rahim

• identify customer requirements

• identify critical characteristics
• determine if they are controlled by the process, the part or both
• for each characteristic, determine maximum range and process variation
• redesign material, product and process if capability is less than 2.
These steps where later replaced by GE four phases of measure, analyse, improve and
control. After that, the define phase was added before the measure phase to form the
well-known DMAIC process, i.e. Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve and Control. This
may be regarded as a short version of Deming’s PDCA cycle (Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-
Park, 2006).
DMAIC is the term used to describe the phases of the approach taken in a Six Sigma
project to achieve continuous improvement. If the product or service under consideration
is still at the early stages of development or major design changes are required, the five
phases that are used become DMADV (Define, Measure, Analyse, Design and Verify).
This means that the improve and control phases are replaced by design and verify phases.
The goal of the DMADV phases is to strive to achieve a Six Sigma level right from the
early design stage and it normally applies the principles of concurrent engineering.
In the Define phase, the problem statement and the goal of the project are formulated.
The base line performance is then measured in the Measure phase and brainstorming is
conducted to identify the list of the potential process inputs. After that, in the Analyse
phase these potential inputs (from x1 to xn) are investigated one after another to see by
data which parameters are the critical root causes contributing to the problem in scope or
negatively affecting the process output (Y) as follows:
Y = F(x1, x2, x3,…, xn) (1)
In the Improve phase, the vital few critical inputs are examined to determine the best
approach for developing solutions. Finally, in the Control phase, the focus is on ensuring
that inputs and/or outputs of the improved processes are monitored on a day-to-day basis
to confirm that the anticipated gains are being held.
A key important step in Six Sigma is the financial analysis including Cost Of Poor
Quality or COPQ. Han and Lee (2002) claimed that the COPQ is between 20% and 40%
of total revenue which makes it a very essential concept. The American Society for
Quality (ASQ) recognised four categories for COPQ; appraisal, prevention, internal and
external failures (Sower et al., 2007).

3 TQM
Quality management evolved through different stages in the last several decades such as
inspection, control, assurance and TQM (Basu, 2004).
TQM has been a dominant management concept for continuous improvement
utilising Deming’s basic concepts of PDCA. TQM can be defined as a quality
management system or a corporate culture continuously evolving and consisting of
values and tools focusing on customer satisfaction and the use of fewer resources. There
are seven quality control tools and seven management tools frequently mentioned in the
TQM literature (Arnheiter and Maleyeff, 2005). The seven quality tools are as follows:
 Six Sigma and TQM 241

• control charts
• histograms
• check sheets
• scatter plots
• cause and effect diagrams
• flowcharts
• Pareto charts
The seven management tools are as follows:
• affinity diagrams
• interrelationship diagraphs
• tree diagrams
• matrix diagrams
• prioritisation matrices
• process decision program charts
• activity network diagrams
Short and Rahim (1995) viewed TQM as a philosophy used by organisations to drive
Continuous Improvement (CI) across its business activities. TQM depends on the
effectiveness of how an organisation manages its human resources (Morrison and Rahim,
1993). Out of different aspects of individual human resources management, Yang (2006)
found that training, incentives and development had the greatest impact on TQM.

4 Comparison and discussion of Six Sigma and TQM

Six Sigma represents a new wave of the quality management evolution (preceded by
TQM evolution) towards operational excellence (Basu, 2004). The definition of TQM is
different from that of Six Sigma but the aims are similar (Anderson et al., 2006).
Six Sigma has additional data analysis tools and more financial focus than what is
found in TQM (Kwak and Anbari, 2004). TQM has a comprehensive approach that
involves and commits everyone in a company while Six Sigma has a project management
approach that is associated with a team (Anderson et al., 2006). Arnheiter and Maleyeff
(2005) have indicated that a number of components of Six Sigma can be traced back to
TQM. This explains that Six Sigma is an extension of TQM and that they both share
similar principles.
Snee (2007) suggested there are benefits for integrating Lean and Six Sigma with the
Baldrige assessment (a TQM model) and ISO9000. Antony (2004) stresses that it is
important to remember that Six Sigma has a better record than TQM since its inception in
the mid 1980s. Table 2 represents a summary of a literature review on Six Sigma, TQM
and their comparison:
242 S. Salah, J.A. Carretero and A. Rahim
Table 2 Comparison and relationship of Six Sigma and TQM
Dimension Six Sigma
Theory Six Sigma is similar to TQM in
terms of theory and handling
methods (Hwang, 2006).
Basis It includes two dimensions of
philosophy (or management) and
methodology (or analysis)
(Hwang, 2006).
Aim It is an improvement methodology
(Hoerl, 2004). Six Sigma and TQM
focus on continuous improvement
(CI) (Antony, 2006) and share
similar principles and aims.
Link to Six Sigma DMAIC is closely linked
Deming to Deming’s PDCA cycle (Haikonen
et al., 2004; Linderman et al., 2005)
and it improves upon the PDCA
cycle (Tannock et al., 2007).
Mutual Six Sigma is an expansion of TQM
relationship (Terziovski, 2006; Proudlove et al.,
2008) with components rooting and
traced back to TQM (Aly, 1990;
Arnheiter and Mayeleff, 2005) and
can be viewed as a methodology
within TQM and not as an alternative
(Klefsjo et al., 2001).
Financial It tracks cost savings on a project by
savings project level (Schroeder et al., 2008).
It has more financial focus (Kwak
and Anbari, 2004)
Incentives It has less challenge to have
incentives to pursue improvement
(Terziovski, 2006).
Strategic link It provides better alignment with
organisational strategic business
objectives (Antony, 2006).
Project Project selection rights reside with
selection management to ensure financial and
strategic implications are considered
(Schroeder et al., 2008).
TQM
Both draw from behavioural and
quantitative sciences (Friday-Strout
and Sutterfield, 2007).
TQM can be described as a philosophy
and is considered as a management
process that applies management
principles (Jitpaiboon and Rao, 2007).
TQM aims at improving all processes
within an organisation and it treats the
organisation as a total system (Shah
and Ward, 2007). It is a holistic quality
management system (Jitpaiboon and
Rao, 2007) or management process
with the goal of generating a
quality-based culture (Aly et al., 1990).
TQM is based on teachings of
Deming (Snee, 2004) in which
the main tenets of Six Sigma are
embedded (Mayeleff and Kaminsky,
2002; Black and Revere, 2006).
Six Sigma is an extension of TQM
(Klefsjo et al., 2001; Proudlove et al.,
2008). Existing TQM activities can
help in the implementation of a
Six Sigma system (Cheng, 2008).
TQM has become an umbrella for
Six Sigma and other tools (Harnesk
and Abrahamsson, 2007).
It has an organisation-wide cost of
quality calculation (organisational
level tracking) (Schroeder et al., 2008).
There is less incentives and less
career development focus in TQM
(Upton and Cox, 2008).
A CEO considers TQM as quality
slogan carried without translated
goals to implementable initiatives
(George, 2002).
There is no clear way of prioritising
projects that are carried out
irrespective of cost to operation
(Banuelas and Antony, 2002;
Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005).
The link between economy and project
selection was missed in most TQM
implementations (George, 2002).
Projects can be selected by bottom-up
approach which is often based on
convenience (Schroeder et al., 2008).
 Six Sigma and TQM
Table 2 Comparison and relationship of Six Sigma and TQM (continued)
Dimension Six Sigma
Training It is a structured training focused
focus on Belts or levels (Basu, 2004)
that create an infrastructure for
implementation (Terziovski, 2006)
without focus on wide team
participation (Schroeder et al., 2008).
Functional It uses an intra-organisational
team cross-functional improvement
team (Cheng, 2008).
Criticised for It is criticised for not focusing on all
people and culture (Linderman et al.,
2005). However, it is less difficult to
re-engineer, restructure and evaluate
breakup of an organisation using
Six Sigma as the team is more
independent of the processes under
consideration (Hwang, 2006).
Change Six Sigma is focused on the belts
leading the projects along with the
involvement of the team members.
Training There is more intensity in the
intensity training of full-time improvement
individuals (Schroeder et al., 2008).
Approach to Its design process is more prescriptive
design in nature (Schroeder et al., 2008)
as it uses the DMADV approach.
It has a stronger focus on the area
of product design using DFSS or
DMADV (Upton and Cox, 2008).
Focus (on Six Sigma has a stronger emphasis
customer and on customer satisfaction through
process) mainly focusing on critical to
quality (Klefsjo et al., 2001 and
Schroeder et al., 2008).
Management Six Sigma and TQM depend on
support management leadership.
Structure It is a project-focused approach
using DMAIC, reinforcing
Juran tenets (Basu, 2004) and a
well-structured DMAIC road map
for deployment (Terziovski, 2006).
A key strength in it is that it builds
a quality improvement structure in
parallel to existing management
structure (Linderman et al., 2005).
243
TQM
It is a comprehensive approach that
involves everyone (Ricondo and
Viles, 2005; Anderson et al., 2006)
using improvement teams that are
sometimes in the form of a quality
department (Schroeder et al., 2008).
It uses an inter-organisational
improvement team (Cheng, 2008).
Terziovski (2006) indicated that
Snee claims TQM does not integrate
human elements of improvement like
team work as good as in Six Sigma.
TQM and Six Sigma use training and
organisation-wide support as levers of
change (Buch and Tolentino, 2006).
TQM uses shorter length for training
(i.e. 1 week) but targets all people in
the plant (Schroeder et al., 2008).
TQM and Six Sigma stress the
importance of using QFD and
cross-functional design and
design for manufacturability
(Schroeder et al., 2008).
TQM and Six Sigma share same values
such as process focus, customer focus,
continuous improvement and use of
facts and data (Tannock et al., 2007).
Customers are in the focal point of
TQM (Voros, 2006). Both focus on
product quality and quality assessment
(Cheng, 2008).
TQM puts less stress on the support
by senior management and financial
department (Hwang, 2006).
TQM is not sequential and it does not
have a specific route used by all
organisations no matter what their
cultural circumstances look like
(Leonard and McAdam, 2004).
TQM is criticised for lack of
clear definition or strategy and
structured communication
(Ricondo and Viles, 2005).
244 S. Salah, J.A. Carretero and A. Rahim
Table 2 Comparison and relationship of Six Sigma and TQM (continued)
Dimension Six Sigma
Complexity It is criticised for the difficulty to
stick with the rigor of the approach
(Linderman et al., 2005).
Progress It has a mix of long and
monitoring short-term focus with better
monitoring of progress toward
goals (Motwani et al., 2004).
Motivation Its motivation is inspired by tangible
benefits (Motwani et al., 2004).
Tools It is not new in terms of the tools
and techniques but it has a new
deployment approach to process
improvement (Banuelas and
Antony, 2002). It has additional data
analysis tools (Kwak and Anbari,
2004) with more statistical emphasis
(Basu, 2004). It is criticised of
focusing on tools more than
problems (Linderman et al., 2005).
Performance Six Sigma performance target
target applies to a single critical quality
characteristic (Banuelas and
Antony, 2002). Sigma level can be
used to assess quality level attained
and can be used in benchmarking
(Klefsjo et al., 2001).
Suppliers Six Sigma targets supplier only
if they are critical to quality at
process under investigation
(Schroeder et al., 2008).
Results Six Sigma has a better record
than TQM since its inception in the
mid 1980s (Antony, 2004). It has a
better record of effectiveness
(Cheng, 2008).
TQM
Top managers often find it difficult
to understand TQM and it does not
work well for processes that required
major changes (Klefsjo et al., 2001).
It is very difficult to manage or
evaluate as it evolved to become
so all-encompassing and intangible
(Jitpaiboon and Rao, 2007).
It promotes open-ended and
open-financed continuous quality
improvement (Klefsjo et al., 2001).
It has a long-term focus with loose
monitoring of progress toward goals
(Motwani et al., 2004).
It is driven by idealism of quality
(Motwani et al., 2004).
TQM and Six Sigma attempt to
find root causes but TQM is not as
specific or focused (Klefsjo et al.,
2001). It has mainly 7 quality and
7 management basic tools
(Arnheiter and Mayeleff, 2005).
It has a more comprehensive
performance target which applies
to the total product (Banuelas and
Antony, 2002). TQM does not have
a specific way to quantify quality
level attained by an organisation
(Klefsjo et al., 2001).
Targeting supplier management
is an important element of TQM
(Schroeder et al., 2008).
Some researchers found a
significant impact of TQM practices
on operational performance and others
did not (Shah and Ward, 2003).
 Six Sigma and TQM 245

It is seen from Table 2 that Six Sigma and TQM share common ground in terms of
theory, philosophical approach, CI focus, aims, principles, links to the teachings of
Deming, focus on people, approach to design, focus on customer, focus on process and
dependence on management support. On the other hand, Six Sigma and TQM are
different in terms of mutual relationship (Six Sigma can be seen as part of the holistic
TQM. TQM can help Six Sigma and Six Sigma extends TQM), financial focus and
scope, incentives and career development, strategic link, project selection approach,
training focus and intensity, team approach, structure, progress monitoring, basis for
motivation, tools, performance target, focus on suppliers and record of results. However,
these differences can be considered as additional strengths for the integration of TQM
and Six Sigma as the weaknesses of one are completed by the strengths of the other.
Based on observation of many firms, Lucas proposed that (Yang, 2004):
Current business system + Six Sigma = TQM (2)
Schroeder et al. (2008) proposed that the introduction of Six Sigma to organisations that
already have TQM would help them realise incremental benefits in their financial results
and customer service. The application of Six Sigma can help strengthen the values of
TQM within an organisation (Anderson et al., 2006). Thus, TQM and Six Sigma are
similar in many aspects and compatible with each other. They share numerous values and
aims and both can benefit from the advantages that each can provide where TQM can be
the holistic and comprehensive umbrella that reaches to all stakeholders and Six Sigma
can be the extension that provides a strong structure for achieving greater process
improvements. Six Sigma has roots traced back to TQM (Upton and Cox, 2008).
Six Sigma principles are embedded in TQM (Sheehy et al., 2002) and it could be seen as
a concept supporting the aims of TQM.

Figure 1 Integrated framework of TQM, Six Sigma and other business blocks (see online version
for colours)
246 S. Salah, J.A. Carretero and A. Rahim

Figure 1 explains more the high-level framework that shows how TQM and
Six Sigma are linked to other key building blocks in the business. The process
improvement and management is the block in the centre which plays a key role relative
to all other blocks. The operational excellence and customer satisfaction block on the
top represents a key goal for the business. All forms of management are directly
connected to the process improvement block including strategic management, initiative
management, change management, operations management, daily management, knowledge
management, human resources management and performance management. The training
block is stressed by being introduced as a block and finally the ‘change leadership and
culture building’ block is an important piece of this integrated framework. This
framework achieves an integration of management principles, implementation practices
and cultural changes.

5 Conclusion

TQM and Six Sigma are very powerful continuous improvement methodologies that
share common goals and grounds. They also complement each other and can be
integrated where Six Sigma can fit under the umbrella of TQM to form a better
methodology that overcomes the shortcomings of the individual methodologies.
Despite their differences, there are many areas where TQM and Six Sigma intersect
and there are compatible areas where one of them may excel forming an opportunity to
help the other one. Thus, the integration of the two was concluded to be possible and
beneficial. Also TQM and Six Sigma were presented as part of a framework for
continuous process improvement.
In sum, a thorough comparison between Six Sigma and TQM was performed in this
work. It was shown that TQM and Six Sigma are similar in many aspects and compatible
with each other. They both share numerous values and aims and can benefit from the
advantages that each can provide. More specifically, TQM can be the holistic and
comprehensive umbrella that reaches to all stakeholders and Six Sigma can be the
extension that provides a strong structure for achieving greater process improvements.

Acknowledgements

The financial assistance of NSERC for supporting this research is greatly appreciated.

References
Aly, N.A., Maytubby, V.J. and Elshennawy, A.K. (1990) ‘Total quality management: an approach
and a case study’, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 19, Nos. 1–4, pp.111–116.
Anderson, R., Eriksson, H. and Torstensson, H. (2006) ‘Similarities and differences between TQM,
Six Sigma and Lean’, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.282–296.
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. (2006) ‘Six Sigma for service processes’, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.234–248.
 Six Sigma and TQM 247

Antony, J. (2008) ‘What is the role of academic institutions for the future development of Six
Sigma?’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 57, No. 1,
pp.107–110.
Arnheiter, E.D. and Maleyeff, J. (2005) ‘Research and concepts: the integration of Lean
Management and Six Sigma’, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.5–18.
Banuelas, R. and Antony, J. (2002) ‘Critical success factors for the successful implementation of
Six Sigma projects in organizations’, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.92–99.
Basu, R. (2004) ‘Six-Sigma to operational excellence: role of tools and techniques’, International
Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.44–64.
Bellows, W.J. (2004) ‘Conformance to specifications, zero defects, and Six Sigma Quality- a closer
look’, The International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management, Vol. 2, No. 1,
pp.82–95.
Bhuiyan, N. and Baghel, A. (2005) ‘An overview of continuous improvement: from the past to the
present’, Management Decision, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp.761–771.
Black, K. and Revere, L. (2006) ‘Six sigma arises from the ashes of TQM with a twist’,
International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.259–266.
Breyfogle, F.W. (2003) Implementing Six Sigma, Wiley, Hoboken.
Buch, K.K. and Tolentino, A. (2006) ‘Employee expectancies for Six Sigma success’, Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.28–37.
Cheng, J-L. (2008) ‘Implementing Six Sigma via TQM improvement: an empirical study in
Taiwan’, The TQM Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.182–195.
Compliancehelp Consulting (2007) Available online at: http://www.quality-assurance.com.au
(accessed on 13 November 2007).
Dahlgaard, J.J. and Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2006) ‘Lean production, six sigma, TQM and company
culture’, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.263–281.
Devane, T. (2004) Integrating Lean Six Sigma and High Performance Organizations, Pfeiffer/A
Wiley Imprint, San Francisco.
Experts Archive Questions (2007) Available online at: http://en.allexperts.com/e/s/si/six_sigma.htm
(accessed on 19 November 2007).
Friday-Stroud, S.S. and Sutterfield, J.S. (2007) ‘A conceptual framework for integrating six-sigma
and strategic management methodologies to quantify decision making’, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 19, No. 6, pp.561–571.
George, M.L. (2002) Lean Six Sigma, Combining Six Sigma Quality with Lean Speed,
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, New York.
Haikonen, A., Savolainen, T. and Jarvinen, P. (2004) ‘Exploring Six Sigma and CI capability
development: preliminary case study findings on management role’, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.369–378.
Han, C. and Lee, Y. (2002) ‘Intelligent integrated plant operation system for Six Sigma’, Annual
Reviews in Control, Vol. 26, pp.27–43.
Harnesk, R. and Abrahamsson, L. (2007) ‘TQM: an act of balance between contradictions’,
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp.531–540.
Harry, M. and Schroeder, R. (2000) Six Sigma, Doubleday, New York.
Hoerl, R. (2004) ‘One perspective on the future of Six-Sigma’, International Journal of Six Sigma
and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.112–119.
Hwang, Y.D. (2006) ‘The practices of integrating manufacturing execution systems and Six Sigma
methodology’, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 31,
pp.145–154.
248 S. Salah, J.A. Carretero and A. Rahim

Jitpaiboon, T. and Rao, S.S. (2007) ‘A meta-analysis of quality measures in manufacturing

system’, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 24, No. 1,
pp.78–102.
Klefsjo, B., Wiklund, H. and Edgeman, R.L. (2001) ‘Six-Sigma seen as a methodology for Total
Quality Management’, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.31–35.
Kumar, U.D., Nowicki, D., Ramírez-Márquez, J.E. and Verma, D. (2008) ‘On the optimal selection
of process alternatives in a Six Sigma implementation’, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 111, No. 2, pp.456–467.
Kwak, Y.H. and Anbari, F.T. (2004) ‘Benefits, obstacles and future of Six Sigma approach’,
Technovation, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp.708–715.
Leonard, D. and McAdam, R. (2004) ‘Total quality Management in strategy and operations:
dynamic grounded models’, Journal of manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 15,
No. 3, pp.254–266.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G. and Choo, A.S. (2005) ‘Six Sigma: the role of goals in
improvement teams’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24, pp.779–790.
Maleyeff, J. and Kaminsky, F.C. (2002) ‘Six Sigma and introductory statistics education’,
Education + Training, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp.82–89.
Morrison, C.M. and Rahim, M.A. (1993) ‘Adopt a new philosophy: the TQM challenge’, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.143–149.
Motwani, J., Kumar, A. and Antony, J. (2004) ‘A business process change framework for
examining the implementation of Six Sigma: a case study of Dow Chemicals’, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.273–283.
Proudlove, N., Moxham, C. and Boaden, R. (2008, February) ‘Lessons for lean in healthcare from
using Six Sigma in the NHS’, Public Money and Management.
Raisinghani, M.S., Ette, H., Pierce, R., Cannon, G. and Daripaly, P. (2005) ‘Six Sigma: concepts,
tools, and applications’, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 105, No. 4,
pp.491–505.
Ricondo, I. and Viles, E. (2005) ‘Six Sigma and its links to TQM, BPR, Lean and the learning
organization’, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1, No. 3,
pp.323–354.
Ried, R.A. (2006) ‘Productivity and quality improvement: an implementation framework’,
International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 1, Nos. 1–2, pp.26–36.
Schroeder, R.G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C. and Choo, A.S. (2008) ‘Six Sigma: definition and
underlying theory’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp.536–554.
Scipiono, A., Arena, F., Villa, M. and Saccarola, G. (2001) ‘Integrated management systems’,
Environmental Management and Health, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.134–145.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2003) ‘Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance’,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, pp.129–149.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007) ‘Defining and developing measures of lean production’, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25, pp.785–805.
Sheehy, P., Navarro, D., Silvers, R., Keyes, V. and Dixon, D. (2002) The Black Belt Memory
Jogger, Goal/QPC and Six Sigma Academy, Salem.
Short, P.J. and Rahim, M.A. (1995) ‘Total Quality Management in hospitals’, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.255–263.
Snee, R.D. (2004) ‘Six-Sigma: the evolution of a 100 years of business improvement
methodology’, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1, No. 1,
pp.4–20.
 Six Sigma and TQM 249

Snee, R.D. (2007) ‘Methods for business improvement – what’s on the horizon’, ASQ Statistics
Division Special Publication, pp.11–19.
Sower, V.E., Quarles, R. and Boussard, E. (2007) ‘Cost of quality and its relationship to quality
system maturity’, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 24, No.
2, pp.121–140.
Tannock, J.D.T., Balogun, O. and Hawisa, H. (2007) ‘A variation management system supporting
Six Sigma’, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.561–575.
Terziovski, M. (2006) ‘Quality management practices and their relationship with customer
satisfaction and productivity improvement’, Management Research News, Vol. 29, No. 7,
pp.414–424.
Upton, M.T. and Cox, C. (2008) ‘Lean Six Sigma: A Fusion of Pan-Pacific Process Improvement’,
Six Sigma quality resources for achieving Six Sigma results. Unpublished document.
Available online at: http://www.isixsigma.com/library/downloads/LeanSixSigma.pdf
(accessed on 7 March 2008).
Voros, J. (2006) ‘Production, manufacturing and logistics: the dynamics of price, quality and
productivity improvement decisions’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 170,
pp.809–823.
Yang, C-C. (2004) ‘An integrated model of TQM and GE-Six Sigma’, International Journal of
Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.97–111.
Yang, C-C. (2006) ‘The impact of human resource management practices on the implementation of
total quality management – an empirical study on high-tech firms’, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.162–173.
 250 S. Salah, J.A. Carretero and A. Rahim

List of abbreviations
American Society for Quality (ASQ)
Continuous Improvement (CI)
Cost Of Poor Quality (COPQ)
Defects Per Million Opportunities (DPMO)
Define, Measure, Analyse, Design and Verify (DMADV)
Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve and Control (DMAIC)
Design For Six Sigma (DFSS)
General Electric (GE)
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)
Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA)
Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
Total Quality Management (TQM)

View publication stats