International Journal of Lean Six Sigma

Exploring Lean Six Sigma implementation barriers in Information Technology

industry
Mohd Adeel Shamsi, Aftab Alam,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Mohd Adeel Shamsi, Aftab Alam, (2018) "Exploring Lean Six Sigma implementation barriers in
Information Technology industry", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJLSS-06-2017-0054
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-06-2017-0054
Downloaded on: 29 July 2018, At: 21:00 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 62 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:235887 []
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

Lean Six
Exploring Lean Six Sigma Sigma
implementation barriers in
Information Technology industry
Mohd Adeel Shamsi and Aftab Alam
Department of Business Management, Integral University, Lucknow, India
Received 1 June 2017
Revised 11 July 2017
Accepted 7 August 2017

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present critical barriers and obstacles faced by Information
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

Technology (IT) industry in the implementation of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) as the business improvement
methodology.
Design/methodology/approach – A literature review of peer-reviewed journal articles, master and
doctoral theses, paradigmatic books with managerial impact and survey reports was used to identify distinct
barriers. An empirical survey, using 400 self-administered questionnaires, was then conducted. Data about 11
LSS barriers from 256 usable questionnaires, with a response rate of 64 per cent, were collected and analyzed
by means of statistical data analysis software.
Findings – The challenges of “part-time involvement in Lean Six Sigma projects”, “time consuming”, “staff
turnover in middle of project”, “difficulty in data collection” and “difficulty in identifying project scope”
emerged as the most critical barriers in the context of IT industry. This research work advocates the
development of a strategy for addressing the most critical barrier instead of focusing on all for successful
implementation.
Originality/value – This paper will prove to be a fantastic resource for many researchers and
practitioners who are engaged in research and applications of LSS in the IT industry. Moreover, the scarcity
of literature specific to LSS in IT industry will be addressed to some extent.
Keywords Lean Six Sigma, Obstacles, Implementation barriers, Information technology industry
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
It has been a constant endeavor at organizations worldwide to look for new and innovative
ways to improve their business process to maintain a competitive edge in the market. This
zeal to improve constantly has attracted organizations toward Lean Six Sigma (LSS). Lean
Six Sigma is a methodology to improve business process with a focus on quality
enhancement, faster time to market, improved customer experience and reduced cost, i.e.
providing maximum value to shareholders (Sunder, 2015). LSS achieves this by combining
tools and principles from both Lean and Six Sigma approaches. Although both Lean and Six
Sigma have their roots in manufacturing, LSS has been open heartedly adopted in service
industry, as well as in manufacturing. The success stories of the early adopters of LSS have
created a ripple in the industry with many organizations across the globe willing to replicate
the benefits and success in their respective organizations by implementing LSS.
Lean and Six Sigma have followed separated paths since their inception and formulation.
Ford’s Michigan plan in 1913 recorded the first application of Lean; however, Lean
developed to mastery at Toyota in Japan under the flagship of Toyota Production System International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma
(Laureani, 2012). Six Sigma on the other hand was conceptualized at the Motorola Research © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-4166
Center and was later embraced and dignified by General Electric (GE). Lean methodology DOI 10.1108/IJLSS-06-2017-0054
 IJLSS focuses on delivering products and services faster, better and at a lower cost. Womack and
Jones (1996) explained Lean as a way to specify value from customer’s perspective, put up
the best sequence of value-creating actions, perform those activities without interruption
whenever someone requests them and perform them more and more effectively. In other
words, Lean thinking is considered lean as it advocates and provides a way to do more with
less and less, that is, less human effort, less equipment, less time and less space and at the
same time becoming closer to provide customers with exactly what they want. Six Sigma
methodology is a data-driven methodology that focuses on reducing process variations and
defects and thereby achieving stable and predictable process results. Snee (1999) defined it
as “a business strategy that seeks to identify and eliminate causes of errors or defects or
failures in business processes by focusing on outputs that are critical to customers”.
Lowenthal (2002) claimed that one of the primary goals of a Six Sigma effort within an
organization is to reduce process variation, that is, to develop an approach to limit the
variation and more tightly focus on the process so as to produce the same results over a long
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

period of time. To simplify the above discussion, Chowdhury (2001) established the
relationship between process, variation and Six Sigma in the following manner:
When there is an output [. . .]. There is a process, When there is a process [. . .] there is
performance variation, When there is a variation [. . .] there is a Six Sigma opportunity.
The phrase “Lean Six Sigma” is used to describe the integration of Lean and Six Sigma
philosophies (Sheridan, 2000). George (2002, 2003) mentioned that it is interesting that being
in use for many years, Lean and Six Sigma were not integrated until late 1990s and early
2000s and today as Snee (2010) commented, LSS is recognized as a business strategy and
methodology that increases process performance resulting in enhanced customer
satisfaction and improved bottom line results. Arnheiter and Maleyeff (2005) mentioned that
a LSS organization would capitalize on the strengths of both lean management and Six
Sigma. They also provided the following tenets of an LSS organization:
 an overriding philosophy that seeks to maximize the value-added content of all
operations;
 constantly evaluate all incentive systems in place to ensure that they result in global
optimization instead of local optimization;
 incorporate a management decision-making process that bases every decision on its
relative impact on the customer;
 data-driven methodologies in all decision-making, so that changes are based on
scientific rather than ad hoc studies;
 promote methodologies that strive to minimize variation of quality characteristics;
and
 design and implement a company-wide and highly structured education and
training regimen.

Pepper and Spedding (2010) concluded:

If lean is implemented without Six Sigma, then there is a lack of tools to leverage improvement to
its full potential. Conversely, if Six Sigma is adopted without lean thinking, then there would be a
cache of tools for the improvement team to use, but no strategy or structure to drive forward their
application to a system.
To achieve the best of both worlds, LSS uses tools from both toolboxes and as a result
increases speed along with accuracy.
 Organizations that have successfully implemented LSS have reported a number of Lean Six
benefits. Antony (2006) and Kwak and Anbari (2006) reported that service organizations Sigma
after adopting LSS strategy have witnessed improved service delivery as a result of accurate
allocation of resources, lesser number of defects and reduced variability in service processes.
Sunder (2016a) discussed how the Six Sigma implementation made a bottom-line impact on
a banking organization, alongside contributed to the process improvement mind-set in
employees. Sunder (2016b) explained the benefits of the application of LSS in higher
education institutions. In the manufacturing world, as stated by Antony et al. (2005) and
Kwak and Anbari (2006), LSS demonstrated a reduction in process variability, inventory,
maintenance time and cost of poor quality, which translated into a powerful positive impact
on productivity and profitability. Successful implementation of LSS offers many benefits to
the business units. Enhanced customer satisfaction is the most cited benefit in many studies
(Chen et al., 2005; Das et al., 2006; Desai, 2006; Ganesh, 2004; Kuei and Madu, 2003; Kumar
et al., 2007; Rylander and Provost, 2006; Sunder and Antony, 2015). Freiesleben (2006) stated
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

that successful application of Six Sigma quality is positively correlated with better financial
performance and profit generation.
Although enormous benefits have been derived from LSS quality, its successful
implementation is not easily accomplished. Rather, Snee (2001) stated that the organization
has to confront a number of challenges, such as limited resources, lack of support,
inadequate selection of projects and inadequate organizational structure. There have been a
limited number of studies that targeted the obtrusive role of barriers to LSS implementation;
however, a scant attention has been given to study of these barriers, particularly in an
information technology (IT) industry context.
This paper showcases the barriers to LSS implementation using new empirical insights
and data collected from practitioners at a large Indian multinational IT organization. Proper
understanding of the critical impediments will help management take informed decisions on
quality enhancement initiatives.

2. Review of literature
Successful LSS implementation has provided enormous benefits to the organizations all
across; however, Nordin et al. (2010) and Balle (2005) mentioned that not many companies are
successful in implementing this system. Achanga et al. (2006) and Camagu (2010) claimed
that Lean implementation, like any other improvement initiative, is believed to harbor
enormous difficulties. Nordin et al. (2010) further described that LSS implementation is not an
easy task. Antony (2008); Antony et al. (2005) and Kumar et al. (2009a, 2009b) discussed
about lack of physical and professional resources such as finance and training as the key
inhibitors of Six Sigma implementation in UK-based small- and medium-sized organizations.
Prakash (2016) pointed out lack of knowledge and resources, no perceived benefits and
unwillingness of customer to pay for the initiative as the major impediments to successful
implementation. Martins et al. (2006) while investigating in a Brazilian cosmetic factory
pointed out difficulty of acquiring quality data, poor estimation of financial gain and
inadequate measurement skills as the major inhibitors of successful Six Sigma
implementation. Ulewicz and Kuceba (2016) mentioned lack of management, ignorance of
tools, lack of training and feedback and lack of defined objectives as the major factors that
hinder successful implementation. Chakrabarty and Chuan (2009) reported data collection as
one of the most serious problems faced by in Singaporean service organization during Six
Sigma implementation. They also observed that part-time involvement in Six Sigma projects
due to insufficient resources leads to major difficulties in sustaining Six Sigma projects that
are considered to be complex process. Antony (2004) and Antony et al. (2007) specified lack of
 IJLSS data acquisition and analysis regarding defects per million opportunities (DPMO) processes
and parameters as the key challenges that hamper Six Sigma implementation in UK service
organizations. Taner et al. (2007) argued that large investment in Six Sigma training, poor
statistical competence, mismanagement of Six Sigma implementation time and unclear
project selection criteria are the major impediments to Six Sigma implementation at
healthcare industry. Bamber and Dale (2000) claimed that the redundant program and lack of
employee education in concepts and principles are the two main stumbling blocks to the
successful implementation. Schein (2004) suggested that if the new way of working requires
new knowledge and skill, members must be provided with the necessary formal and informal
training. Anand and Kodali (2010) and Wong and Wong (2011) claimed that many Lean
initiatives have failed due to the lack of its understanding by managers and employees.
Hendry (2005) and Nonthaleerak and Hendry (2008) took various case studies representing
various industrial sectors of Thailand and identified various difficulties faced during Six
Sigma implementation process, which are concerned with selection criteria, applied tools and
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

sustainability of improvements. McLean et al. (2015) assessed the different failure factors
associated with continuous improvement initiatives and grouped them into eight core
themes: motives and expectations, culture and environment, management leadership,
implementation approach, training, project management, employee involvement levels and
feedback and results. Antony and Desai (2009) asserted that in Indian industry, internal
resistance, lack of physical and professional resources and intangibility of results are the core
barriers that obstruct Six Sigma implementation. Sinthavalai (2006) argued that expensive
start-up cost for Six Sigma projects, complex nature of Six Sigma tools and techniques, lack
of full-time effort from professionals and absence of cross-functional team are the major
obstacles to successful implementation at small and medium enterprises. Table I summarizes
various barriers to LSS implementation. Also, different identified factors are clubbed under
separate heads using Affinity Diagram technique.

3. Research objectives and methodology

3.1 Motivation and research questions
Published research papers have covered various realms of LSS. Sufficient literature is
available that focused on identification of LSS elements, benefits of LSS implementation,
implementation strategies, relationship with other operational practices and impact of LSS
on competitive and financial performance. However, few focused on the comprehensive
coverage on LSS barriers. There have been a limited number of studies that specifically
targeted the obtrusive role of barriers to LSS implementation; moreover, a scant attention
has been given to study of these barriers, particularly in an IT industry context. A detailed
insight to implementation barriers will aid LSS practitioners to take appropriate action to
overcome barriers for successful implementation. Hence, the following research questions
will provide the focus and framework for this research paper:
RQ1. What are the most critical barriers/obstacles to successful Lean Six Sigma
implementation for an Information Technology organization?
RQ2. What is the relative importance of the identified obstacles to Lean Six Sigma
implementation in Information Technology setup?

3.2 Research methodology

The detailed research process adopted is depicted in Figure 1. Online computerized
search engines such as Elsevier Science Direct, Emerald, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplorer,
 Lean Six
Factor in questionnaire Derived from literature
Sigma
Unknown to us Lack of awareness regarding Six Sigma value stated by Chakrabarty
and Tan (2007) and Feng and Manuel (2008)
Lack of knowledge about Six Sigma stated by Buch and Tolentino
(2006), Kumar et al. (2009a, 2009b) and Prakash (2016)
Narrow view of Six Sigma as data-driven approach stated by Antony
et al. (2005) and Feng and Manuel (2008)
Lack of understanding by managers and employees stated by Anand
and Kodali (2010) and Wong and Wong (2011)
Time consuming Lack of time stated by Kokkranikal et al. (2013)
Insufficient time to work on Six Sigma projects stated by Antony
et al. (2005), Buch and Tolentino (2006), Chakrabarty and Tan (2007),
Feng and Manuel (2008) and Taner et al. (2007)
Mentioned under theme employee involvement levels by McLean
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

et al. (2015)
Difficulty in data collection Complexity of data analysis stated by Hensley and Dobie (2005),
Taner et al. (2007)
Difficult to obtain performance baseline data stated by Antony et al.
(2007) and Taner et al. (2007)
Difficulty of acquiring quality data mentioned by Martins et al. (2006)
Data collection is most serious problem stated by Chakrabarty and
Chuan (2009)
Part-time involvement in Lean Six Lack of dedicated Six Sigma professionals stated by Buch and
Sigma projects Tolentino (2006), Prakash (2016) and Taner et al. (2007)
No cross-functional team stated by Martins et al. (2006), Sinthavalai
(2006) and Snee (2001)
Full-time effort required from professionals stated by Sinthavalai
(2006)
Part-time involvement in Six Sigma projects mentioned by
Chakrabarty and Chuan (2009) and McLean et al. (2015)
Too complex to use Complex Six Sigma tools and techniques stated by Hendry (2005),
Hensley and Dobie (2005) and Sinthavalai (2006)
Ignorance of tools stated by Ulewicz and Kuceba (2016)
Complexity of data analysis stated by Hensley and Dobie (2005) and
Taner et al. (2007)
Mentioned under theme motives and expectations by McLean et al.
(2015)
Too complex to learn and train Incompetent Six Sigma skills stated by Buch and Tolentino (2006)
and Martins et al. (2006)
Inadequate measurement skills stated by Antony et al. (2007) and
Martins et al. (2006)
Lack of statistical competence stated by Antony (2004), Sehwail and
DeYong (2003) and Taner et al. (2007)
Inadequate specialized Six Sigma training stated by Hendry (2005),
Kwak and Anbari (2006), Snee (2001) and Ulewicz and Kuceba (2016)
Mentioned under theme training by McLean et al. (2015)
Extension of project timeline Large Six Sigma projects are usually delayed stated by Kumar et al.
(2009a, 2009b) Table I.
Project’s timeline extension identified by Chakrabarty (2009) Obstacles to Lean Six
Mentioned under theme project management by McLean et al. (2015) Sigma
(continued) implementation at IT
 IJLSS
Factor in questionnaire Derived from literature

Difficulty in identifying process Difficult to identify process parameters stated by Antony et al. (2007)
parameters to be improved and Chakrabarty and Tan (2007)
Misunderstanding of process and sub-processes stated by Antony
et al. (2007) and Chakrabarty and Tan (2007)
Poor selection and measurement of metrics stated by Sehwail and
DeYong (2003)
Poor measurement of customer satisfaction stated by Martins et al.
(2006) and Hensley and Dobie (2005)
Difficulty in deciding about the scope Weak understanding of customer wants stated by McAdam and
of project Evans (2004) and Kumar et al. (2009a, 2009b)
Lack of defined objectives stated by Ulewicz and Kuceba (2016)
Unclear aspects of critical to quality (CTQ) stated by Antony (2004,
2008)
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

Lack of identifying DPMO processes stated by Antony et al. (2007)

Mentioned under theme project management and feedback and
results by McLean et al. (2015)
Difficulty in identifying projects in Unclear prioritization of Six Sigma projects stated by Antony (2004,
long run 2008), Hendry (2005) and Taner et al.(2007)
Problems in identifying projects in long run identified by
Chakrabarty (2009)
Mentioned under theme implementation approach by McLean et al.
(2015)
Staff turnover between the project/ Full-time effort required from professionals stated by Sinthavalai
after training (2006)
Change of staff between the project or after training mentioned by
Table I. Chakrabarty (2009)

Taylor & Francis, Springer Link, Shodhganga and Research Gate were used to augment the
literature review. Extensive amount of literature is available on LSS. As the scope of this study
was to identify the barriers or obstacles to successful LSS implementation, an exploratory
study was conducted using the below-mentioned criteria for inclusion of articles:
(1) literature published on Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma from 1990 to 2016;
(2) journals that mention Lean and Six Sigma in their editorial scope;
(3) survey reports published on Lean and Six Sigma by professional agencies;
(4) web articles on Lean and Six Sigma;
(5) published articles from reputed referred scholarly journals, master and doctoral
theses and working papers;
(6) articles discussing issues and barriers in Lean and Six Sigma implementation;
(7) articles addressing issues related to the problems in Lean and Six Sigma
implementation; and
(8) keywords used:
 Primary keywords: Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma.
 Secondary key words: Barriers, challenges, constraints, failure, impediments,
lack of, limitations, obstacles and pitfalls.
 Lean Six
Sigma
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

Figure 1.
Research
methodology

All constraints that restrict organization’s ability to implement LSS or hinder in achieving
positive results from LSS implementation are defined as barriers in this study. More than 30
barriers to successful implementation were identified from literature. Barriers which were
similar in nature were put together. Table I depicts how the factors put in questionnaire are
related to different barriers claimed by various studies of review of literature. All these barriers
in questionnaire were set on a five-point Likert scale specifying 5 as extremely important, 4 as
very important, 3 as important, 2 as somewhat important and 1 as not important.
As the paper aims to identify the critical barriers to LSS implementation in IT setup, a cross-
sectional survey targeting associates working in different service units and performing different
roles in the organization like Project Sponsors, Project Managers, Project Leaders, Black Belts,
Green Belts, Software Developers, Software Testers, Business Analysts, IT Consultants, Solution
Architects, etc. was conducted. A set of 400 questionnaires were sent to randomly selected
associates working at different operating locations across the globe. The actual questionnaire
used for data collection is mentioned in the Appendix. The method of distribution and collection
was over email as it was the fastest method for data collection from different locations; however,
for follow-up, both email and phone were used. A total of 264 responses were received out of
which 8 were discarded due to incomplete data, leaving 256 good responses, with a response rate
of 64 per cent. Table II presents the respondent’s demographics.
The highest number of responses were received from associates who were in the
organization for five to ten years (40 per cent) followed by associates who were with the
organization for more than 10 years (30 per cent); complete distribution is shown in Figure 2.
Based on job profiles, highest responses were received from Project Managers/Project Leads
with 26 per cent followed by Production Support Professionals with 19 per cent and
 IJLSS Demographics n (%)

Experience range
<1 year 5 2
1-5 years 72 28
5-10 years 102 40
>10 years 77 30
Job profile
Business Analyst 7 3
DBA 4 2
Green Belt 26 10
IT Process Consultant 10 4
Master Black Belt/ Black Belt 23 9
Production Support Professional 50 19
Project Manager/ Project Lead 67 26
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

Project Sponsor 8 3
Software Developer 47 18
Software Tester 7 3
Others 7 3
Industry service unit
Banking and financial services 45 18
Energy resources and utilities 17 7
Government 7 3
Healthcare 20 8
Hi-Tech 50 20
HR 2 1
Insurance 12 5
Internal IT 28 11
Life sciences 11 4
Manufacturing 11 4
Market and media research 3 1
Media and information services 7 3
Retail 19 7
Telecom 15 6
Travel and transportation 7 3
Others 2 1
Lean Six Sigma competence
Trained 139 54
Not trained 117 46
Lean Six Sigma as a sustainable long-term business improvement approach
Table II. Yes 214 83
Respondent’s No 4 2
demographics Cannot say 38 15

Software Developers with 18 per cent; Figure 3 shows the complete distribution. Associates
working for over 15 different industry service units responded to the survey. The
demographic based on industry service unit is demonstrated in Figure 4, Around 50 per cent
of the responses were received from Hi-Tech, banking and financial services and internal IT
units. Associates who took some formal LSS training (54 per cent) were slightly higher than
who were not trained (46 per cent) on LSS. With regard to perception of LSS as a sustainable
 Lean Six
Sigma

Figure 2.
Respondents’
experience in years
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

Figure 3.
Respondents’ job
profiles

long-term business improvement approach, 83 per cent replied in affirmation, only 2 per cent
negated, whereas 15 per cent were not sure about it.

4. Data analysis and findings

Content validity assessment is the examination of the process of creating the research
questionnaire. It is performed to check how comprehensive and representative are the
factors considered in creating the assessment questions. The content validity was expected
to be fairly acceptable as all factors in the assessment questionnaire were derived from
literature review. Cooper and Schindler (2014) suggested that to examine how well the
questionnaire meets the standards, a panel of persons can be interviewed. Hence five senior
master black belts and two senior project managers were interviewed, all with more than 10
years of industry experience. They were requested to review the questionnaire and provide
their feedback on the length of the questionnaire, the choice of words used and the overall
format of the questionnaire. Experts suggested minor modifications to the wordings of two
factors to make it more IT specific. The suggestions from the experts were incorporated
before sending out the questionnaire for mass survey. Also the experts who participated in
 IJLSS
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

Figure 4.
Respondents’
industry service units

this exercise were not included in subsequent data collection. Thus, the content validity of
the questionnaire having LSS implementation barriers is asserted.
Reliability of the data collected was assessed by performing reliability test at SPSS.
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to test the internal consistency among the various factors
included in the questionnaire. Table III represents the resulting alpha values for all 11
obstacles or barrier factors to LSS implementation that were put in questionnaire. The
overall Cronbach’s alpha value came out to be 0.73 and for individual factors, it ranged from
0.66 to 0.74. According to Nunnally and Bernstein’s (1994) guidelines for exploratory
research, these values are in acceptable range, which concludes that data for all factors in
consideration are reliable.
The relative importance of LSS implementation barriers as perceived by the practitioners
is illustrated in Figure 5. Part-time involvement in LSS projects (4.29) emerged as the most

Factor coding LSS implementation barrier factor N Mean SD Cronbach’s a

B1 Unknown to us 256 1.52 1.00 0.69

B2 Time consuming 256 4.08 0.59 0.74
B3 Difficulty in data collection 256 3.68 0.63 0.72
B4 Part-time involvement in Lean Six Sigma projects 256 4.29 0.62 0.73
B5 Too complex to use 256 3.25 0.88 0.71
B6 Too complex to learn and train 256 3.06 1.03 0.66
B7 Extension of project timeline 256 3.48 1.04 0.68
B8 Difficulty in identifying process parameters to be improved 256 3.31 0.71 0.71
B9 Difficulty in deciding about the scope of project 256 3.54 0.75 0.67
Table III. B10 Difficulty in identifying projects in long run 256 1.93 1.03 0.72
Reliability analysis B11 Staff turnover between the project/after training 256 3.70 0.91 0.73
 Lean Six
Sigma

Figure 5.
Ranking of LSS
implementation
barriers
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

influential obstacle that the practitioners faced at the IT organization in discussion. This
result is in line with earlier research works of Buch and Tolentino (2006); Chakrabarty and
Chuan (2009); Martins et al. (2006); McLean et al. (2015); Prakash (2016); Taner et al. (2007),
Sinthavalai (2006) and Snee (2001). LSS initiatives being time consuming (4.08) were was
reported as the second highest rated impediment to successful LSS implementation. The
importance of this barrier was also mentioned by Antony et al. (2005); Buch and Tolentino
(2006); Chakrabarty and Tan (2007); Feng and Manuel (2008); Kokkranikal et al. (2013);
McLean et al. (2015) and Taner et al. (2007). Staff turnover between the project/after training
got third position on being another important obstacle to LSS implementation in IT
industry. Although not many researchers have identified it directly as an important factor in
their researches, the discussions with the Master Black Belts in the organization motivated
the researcher to put this factor in the questionnaire. This factor being rated as one of the
most important factors reveals the dynamic nature of IT industry.
Difficulty in data collection which was mentioned by Antony et al. (2007); Chakrabarty
and Chuan (2009); Hensley and Dobie (2005); Martins et al. (2006) and Taner et al. (2007) was
reported as the fourth highest rated difficulty in LSS implementation. The respondent’s
rated difficulty in deciding about the scope of project as the next highest impediment, which
restricts IT organization to adopt LSS. Antony et al. (2007) mentioned it as lack of
identifying DPMO processes, and McAdam and Evans (2004) and Kumar et al. (2009a,
2009b) reported this factor as weak understanding of customer wants in their research
works. The sixth place was given to “extension of project timeline” by respondents.
Previously, Kumar et al. (2009a, 2009b) mentioned it as one of the major causes. Also this
issue was highlighted by Chakrabarty (2009). As stated by Antony et al. (2007) and
Chakrabarty and Tan (2007), “difficulty in identifying process parameters to be improved”
was the next highest rated item on the list.
Too complex to use, too complex to learn and train and Unknown to us were rated low in
being the critical roadblocks to successful LSS implementation in IT industry. This
contradicts some of the previous research works, for instance those of Anand and Kodali
(2010); Feng and Manuel (2008); Buch and Tolentino (2006) and Kumar et al. (2009a, 2009b)
that claimed lack of Six Sigma understanding as the major cause of not implementing Six
Sigma. Complex Six Sigma tools and techniques were stated by Hendry (2005); Hensley and
Dobie (2005) and Sinthavalai (2006) as major obstacles to adoption of Six
Sigma. Incompetent Six Sigma skills was stated by Buch and Tolentino (2006) and
Martins et al. (2006) and lack of statistical competence was stated by Antony (2004); Sehwail
 IJLSS and DeYong (2003) and Taner et al. (2007) as major obstacles. The possible reason for this
difference could be linked to the fact that 54 per cent of the respondents were LSS trained.
Discussion with the senior Master Black Belts at the organization further revealed the fact
that organization has launched digitized courses on LSS which associates can take at their
convenience.
The identified impediment factors were next analyzed in relation to certain other factors
such as respondent’s experience, job profile and LSS competence. Figure 6 shows the factors
rating in accordance with the experience band of the respondent. Experience band “less than
1 year” is not considered due to less number of responses (only 5) in that category. In most
cases, the responses by associates in experience range 1-5 years and 5-10 years is similar;
hence, for statistical analysis responses are clubbed into two groups: less than 10 years
(junior associates) and greater than or equal to 10 years (senior associates). The data were
then analyzed using student t-test for two samples assuming unequal variances. Null
hypothesis for the t-test was that there is no significant difference in ratings provided by
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

two groups. Table IV depicts the t-test metrics. The p-value for corresponding to factors B2,
B4, B10 and B11 i.e. “time consuming”, “part-time involvement in LSS projects”, “difficulty
in identifying projects in long run” and “staff turnover between the project/after training” is
greater than 0.05; hence, with 95 per cent confidence, it can be concluded that effect of
respondent’s experience is not significant on these factors and both groups have almost
equally rated these factors. The analysis reveals that associates below 10 years of
experience consider factors related to LSS skills like “unknown to us”, “difficulty in data
collection”, “too complex to use”, “too complex to learn and train” and “difficulty in
identifying about the project scope” as more critical obstacles than the associates with more
experience in the organization. According to the senior associates, factors such as “part-time

Figure 6.
Impact of
respondent’s
experience on
impediment factors

Table IV.
Two sample t-test B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11
statistics
x– (1-10) 1.649 4.080 3.736 4.247 3.322 3.270 3.713 3.408 3.718 1.948 3.649
(comparison of x– (>10) 1.247 4.091 3.558 4.390 3.104 2.649 2.974 3.104 3.182 1.896 3.857
responses between tstat 3.834 0.14 2.172 1.66 2.035 4.449 4.755 3.514 5.333 0.420 0.044
senior and junior p-value 0.0 0.887 0.031 0.099 0.043 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.674 0.089
associates) tcrit 1.969 1.973 1.975 1.977 1.972 1.978 1.983 1.973 1.971 1.972 1.975
 involvement in Lean Six Sigma Projects” and “staff turnover between the project/after Lean Six
training” are more critical impediments to Lean Six Sigma deployment. Sigma
How differently, LSS-trained associates and associates with no formal LSS training
perceive the importance of the implementation obstacles was analyzed. To identify
differences in ratings in relation to the influence of LSS barriers, each of the factors was
dichotomized into two groups and the student t-test for two samples assuming unequal
variances was used. Table V provides the test statistics. The t-test was performed with null
hypothesis stating no difference in ratings provided by two groups. The data analysis
shows that there is no significant difference in importance ratings as perceived by LSS-
trained and untrained associates for most of the factors. Only for “unknown to us”, “too
complex to use” and “difficulty in identifying projects in long run”, the difference was found
to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). Interestingly for the three factors mentioned above,
the associates who were not trained on LSS rated these factors a little higher than their
counterparts.
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

As more than 80 per cent of the response came from respondent’s working as Project
Manager/Project Leader (26 per cent), LSS Black/Green belts (19 per cent), Software
Developers (18 per cent) and Production Support Professionals (19 per cent), for analyzing
the impact of respondent’s job profile on perception of importance of impediment factors,
only the above-mentioned job profiles were considered. Figure 7 depicts how respondent’s
having different job profile rate different impediment factors. The analysis shows an
important finding that for two factors i.e. “part-time involvement in Lean Six Sigma
Projects” and “staff turnover between the project/after training”, PM/PLs have rated higher

Table V.
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 Two sample t-test
statistics
x– (NT) 1.667 4.051 3.658 4.308 3.353 3.068 3.590 3.274 3.547 2.103 3.795
x– (TR) 1.388 4.108 3.691 4.281 3.120 3.058 3.381 3.338 3.540 1.777 3.619 (comparison of
tstat 2.182 0.77 0.41 0.337 2.13 0.083 1.616 0.73 0.079 2.510 1.543 responses between
p-value 0.030 0.442 0.678 0.736 0.034 0.934 0.107 0.464 0.937 0.013 0.124 LSS trained and
tcrit 1.971 1.969 1.969 1.971 1.970 1.970 1.969 1.969 1.970 1.971 1.970 untrained)

Figure 7.
Respondent’s job
profile impact on
impediment factors
 IJLSS than all other job profiles. Incidentally the same factors were rated higher by associates who
have spent more than 10 years in the organization. In a way, both these results complement
each other as it has been observed that generally senior associates of the organization
perform PM/PLs roles. For most of the factors that are of operational nature, developers and
production support associates have provided similar ratings. Developers have rated
“unknown to us” significantly higher than other job profiles, which again is in line with
experience band analysis, as a common practice in IT industry mostly junior associates
work as developers.

5. Conclusion
Organizations worldwide are getting affected by rapid changes at market place and IT
industry is no exception. To combat the impact of these changes and to remain competitive,
it is crucial for the organizations to constantly look for ways to improve their efficiency and
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

effectiveness. To improve the bottom line of their business, more and more organizations are
turning toward LSS. Successful LSS implementation is not a secured green field, i.e. like any
other initiative, it is not free from implementation barriers. This paper identified the most
prominent barriers to LSS implementation for IT organization, studied their relative
importance and also examined the impact of various variables like respondent’s experience
and job profile on these identified barriers.
The challenges of “part-time involvement in Lean Six Sigma project”, “time consuming”,
“staff turnover in middle of project”, “difficulty in data collection” and “difficulty in deciding
about project scope” were identified as the top-rated obstacles by the LSS practitioners at IT.
“Part-time involvement in Lean Six Sigma project” and “staff turnover in middle of project”
are very specific to IT industry and seek management attention. Full-time involvement of
key team members should be encouraged for LSS initiatives. Proper handover-takeover
should be made mandatory for any associate who leaves the project in between to minimize
the impact on the initiative. Also, an encouraging reward and recognition program at
organizational level will address these issues as employees will be more committed to the
initiative. Issue related to “time Consuming” can again be attributed to lack of full-time
involvement in LSS projects and thus to manage multiple tasks associates feel a time
crunch. Another significant improvement can be witnessed by reducing the duration of LSS
projects as it will diminish the impact of frequent changes happening at organization level,
and associates will be able to see projects through completion. LSS tools should be
integrated into software development and support process frameworks in order for it to
become a part of “business as usual”; this will further aid in reduction of project execution
cycle time. The study also indicated that senior associates working as Project Managers and
Black Belts have rated barriers of strategic nature higher as compared to other junior
associates. Junior associates on the other hand have provided a higher rating to the
operational barriers.
As the research identifies the critical barriers to LSS implementation in IT sector, studies
are required to find ways to make LSS an integrated part of the system. Considering the
benefits and doing a cost-benefit analysis vis-à-vis implementation of LSS would lead to
further studies which will eventually lay path for system development and augmentation to
overcome other barriers. The study recommends that IT organizations should first focus on
overcoming the most obstructing factors to LSS implementation instead of putting their
energies and resources to overcome all barriers at once. Future studies can also take up the
task to identify the relationship among different barriers, as some barriers will be the root of
some more barriers and some barriers will be influenced by other barriers. The awareness
 about implementation barriers and preparedness to handle the impact of the barriers will Lean Six
help organizations to successfully implement LSS programs. Sigma
5.1 Limitations and implication for future research
This study has generated new insights on the critical barriers to successful LSS
implementation in IT context; however, the study possesses some inherent limitations
related to data collection method and generalization of results. Although a large data sample
was collected from different locations and from people with varied experience and job
profiles, it was collected from a single organization; hence, different issues might come up in
another organization. Use of larger sample size and data collection from multiple
organizations is recommended for further empirical studies for a better validation. Future
research works may adopt other methods like longitudinal data or detailed case studies to
provide more profound insights to LSS implementation barriers in different contexts or at
different time periods. As IT industry serves different industry service units, an interesting
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

opportunity for new research could be to do a comparative study on how the different
barriers are perceived in different units or to explore whether a particular unit is more
successful in implementing LSS than the others. Once the barriers are identified, future work
can focus on developing implementation strategies for successful and sustainable
deployment of LSS using quality tools, such as balance score card, failure mode and effect
analysis, Hoshin Kanri policy deployment and quality function deployment.

References
Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R. and Nelder, G. (2006), “Critical success factors for lean implementation
within SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-471.
Anand, G. and Kodali, R. (2010), “Development of a framework for implementation of lean
manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Management Practice, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 95-116.
Antony, J. (2004), “Six Sigma in the UK service organisations: results from a pilot survey”, Managerial
Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 1006-1013.
Antony, J. (2006), “Six Sigma for service processes”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 12
No. 2, pp. 234-248.
Antony, J. (2008), “Can Six Sigma be effectively implemented in SMEs?”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 420-423.
Antony, J. and Desai, D. (2009), “Assessing the status of Six Sigma implementation in the Indian
industry: results from an exploratory empirical study”, Management Research News, Vol. 32
No. 5, pp. 413-423.
Antony, J., Antony, F. and Kumar, M. (2007), “Six Sigma in service organizations: benefits, challenges
and difficulties, common myths, empirical observations and success factors”, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 294-311.
Antony, J., Kumar, M. and Madu, C. (2005), “Six Sigma in small- and medium-sized UK manufacturing
enterprises: some empirical observations”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 860-874.
Arnheiter, E.D. and Maleyeff, J. (2005), “The integration of lean management and Six Sigma”, The
TQM Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Balle, M. (2005), “Lean attitute-lean application often fail to deliver the expected benefits but could the
missing link for successful implementations be attitude?”, Manufacturing Engineer, Vol. 84
No. 2, pp. 14-19.
Bamber, L. and Dale, B.G. (2000), “Lean production: a study of application in a traditional
manufacturing environment”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 291-298.
 IJLSS Buch, K. and Tolentino, A. (2006), “Employee expectancies for Six Sigma success”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 28-37.
Camagu, S. (2010), “Investigating factors that negatively influence lean implementation in the eastern
cape automotive industry”, Master’s Thesis, Faculty of Business and Economic Sciences, Nelson
Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth.
Chakrabarty, A. (2009), “Six Sigma in service organizations: a conceptual framework based on aspects
of implementation and performance”, PhD Dissertation, National University of Singapore.
Chakrabarty, A. and Chuan, T. (2009), “An exploratory qualitative and quantitative analysis of Six
Sigma in service organizations in Singapore”, Management Research News, Vol. 32 No. 7,
pp. 614-632.
Chakrabarty, A. and Tan, K. (2007), “The current state of Six Sigma application in services”, Managing
Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 194-208.
Chen, S., Chen, K. and Hsia, T. (2005), “Promoting customer satisfaction by applying Six Sigma: an
example from the automobile industry”, The Quality Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 21-33.
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

Chowdhury, S. (2001), The Power of Six Sigma, Prentice Hall, London.

Cooper, D. and Schindler, A. (2014), Business Research Methods, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Das, N., Gauri, S. and Das, P. (2006), “Six Sigma principles in marketing: an application”, International
Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 243-262.
Desai, D. (2006), “Improving customer delivery commitments the Six Sigma way: case study of an
Indian small scale industry”, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 23-47.
Feng, Q. and Manuel, C. (2008), “Under the knife: a national survey of Six Sigma programs in US
healthcare organizations”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 21 No. 6,
pp. 535-547.
Freiesleben, J. (2006), “Communicating Six Sigma’s benefits to top management”, Measuring Business
Excellence, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 19-27.
Ganesh, M. (2004), “Six Sigma – time for a reality check”, Customer Management, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 38-39.
George, M.L. (2002), Lean Six Sigma – Combining Six Sigma Quality with Lean Speed, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
George, M.L. (2003), Lean Six Sigma for Service – How to Use Lean Speed and Six Sigma Quality to
Improve Services and Transactions, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Hendry, L. (2005), “Exploring the Six Sigma phenomenon using multiple case study evidence”,
Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster, working paper 2005/056.
Hensley, R.L. and Dobie, K. (2005), “Assessing readiness for Six Sigma in a service setting”, Managing
Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 82-101.
Kokkranikal, J., Antony, J., Kosgi, H. and Losekoot, E. (2013), “Barriers and challenges in the
application of Six Sigma in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 317-322.
Kuei, C.H. and Madu, C. (2003), “Customer-centric Six Sigma quality and reliability management”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 954-964.
Kumar, M., Antony, J. and Cho, B. (2009a), “Project selection and its impact on the successful
deployment of Six Sigma”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 669-686.
Kumar, M., Antony, J. and Douglas, A. (2009b), “Does size matter for Six Sigma implementation?
Findings from the survey in UK SMEs”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 623-635.
Kumar, M., Antony, J., Antony, F. and Madu, C. (2007), “Winning customer loyalty in an automotive
company through Six Sigma: a case study”, Quality and Reliability Engineering International,
Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 849-866.
 Kwak, Y.H. and Anbari, F.T. (2006), “Benefits, obstacles and future of Six Sigma approach”, Lean Six
Technovation, Vol. 26 Nos 5/6, pp. 708-715.
Sigma
Laureani, A. (2012), “Lean Six Sigma in the service industry, advanced topics in applied operations
management”, ISBN: 978-953-51-0345-5, InTech, available at: www.intechopen.com/books/
advanced-topics-in-applied-operations-management/lean-six-sigma-in-theservice-industry
Lowenthal, J. (2002), Defining and Analyzing a Business Process: A Six Sigma Pocket Guide, ASQ
Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
McAdam, R. and Evans, A. (2004), “Challenges to Six Sigma in a high technology mass-manufacturing
environments”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 15 Nos 5/6, pp. 699-706.
McLean, R.S., Antony, J. and Dahlgaard, J.J. (2015), “Failure of continuous improvement initiatives in
manufacturing environments: a systematic review of the evidence”, Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4, pp. 219-237.
Martins, R., Mergulao, R. and Junior, L. (2006), “The enablers and inhibitors of Six Sigma project in a
Brazilian cosmetic factory”, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Production
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

Research – Americas’ Region (ICPR ICPR-AM06).

Nonthaleerak, P. and Hendry, L. (2008), “Exploring the Six Sigma phenomenon using multiple case
study evidence”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 279-303.
Nordin, N., Md Deros, B. and Wahab, D.A. (2010), “A survey on lean manufacturing implementation in
Malaysian automotive industry”, International Journal of Innovation, Management and
Technology, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 374-380.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
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.
Prakash, R. (2016), “Six Sigma implementation in small and medium scale electronic industries: a case
study”, International Journal of Innovative Research & Development, Vol. 5 No. 11, pp. 169-173.
Rylander, D. and Provost, T. (2006), “Improving the odds: combining Six Sigma and online market
research for better customer service”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 71 No. 1,
pp. 15-19.
Schein, E.H. (2004), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Sehwail, L. and DeYong, C. (2003), “Six Sigma in health care”, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 1-5.
Sheridan, J.H. (2000), “Lean Sigma’ synergy”, Industry Week, Vol. 249 No. 17, pp. 81-82.
Sinthavalai, R. (2006), “A methodology to support Six Sigma implementation in SMEs as
eLearning”, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-
Based Society, 3-4 August, Bangkok.
Snee, R.D. (1999), “Why should statisticians pay attention to Six Sigma?”, Quality Progress, Vol. 32
No. 9, pp. 100-103.
Snee, R.D. (2001), “Dealing with the Achilles heel of Six Sigma initiatives”, Quality Progress, Vol. 34
No. 3, pp. pp. 66-72.
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.
Sunder, M.V. (2015), “Corporate perspectives: commonalities and differences between Six Sigma and
lean”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 281-288.
Sunder, M.V. (2016a), “Rejects reduction in a retail bank using Lean Six Sigma”, Production Planning &
Control, Vol. 27 No. 14, pp. 1131-1142.
Sunder, M.V. (2016b), “Lean Six Sigma in higher education institutions”, International Journal of
Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 159-178.
 IJLSS Sunder, M.V. and Antony, J. (2015), “Six-Sigma for improving top-box customer satisfaction score for a
banking call Centre”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 26 No. 16, pp. 1291-1305.
Taner, M., Sezen, B. and Anthony, J. (2007), “An overview of Six Sigma applications in healthcare
industry”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 329-340.
Ulewicz, R. and Kuceba, R. (2016), “Identification of problems of implementation of lean concept in the
SME sector”, International Society for Manufacturing, Service and Management Engineering,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 19-25.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Wong, Y.C. and Wong, K.Y. (2011), “A lean manufacturing framework for the Malaysian electrical and
electronics industry”, 3rd International Conference on Information and Financial Engineering,
IPEDR, IACSIT Press, Vol. 12, pp. 30-34.

Further reading
Antony, J. and Kumar, M. (2005), “Six Sigma in small and medium sized UK manufacturing
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

enterprises”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 22 No. 8,

pp. 860-874.
Wan, H.D. and Chen, F.F. (2009), “Decision support for lean practitioners: a web-based adaptive
assessment approach”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 277-283.
 Appendix. Barriers to Lean Six Sigma implementation in IT industry – a study Lean Six
Sigma
The questionnaire should take less than 15 min to complete
If requested, respondents who participate in this study will receive a summary of the results of this
survey, which may provide new insights into the barriers to Lean Six Sigma in IT industry. For this
purpose, please complete the information below. All information will be kept strictly confidential.
There are two sections in this questionnaire. Please answer every question in each section.
When a precise answer is not possible, please give your best approximation rather than leaving the
answers blank.
Contact Details
Name:
Employee Id/ Email Id:
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

Section A – respondent’s service area and involvement

 IJLSS Section B – barriers to implementation of Lean Six Sigma
This section attempts to identify the possible obstacles or difficulties faced while implementing Lean
Six Sigma.
Downloaded by University of Wollongong At 21:00 29 July 2018 (PT)

Thank you for your participation.

Corresponding author
Mohd Adeel Shamsi can be contacted at: adeel.taurian@gmail.com

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: permissions@emeraldinsight.com