Production & Manufacturing Research

An Open Access Journal

ISSN: (Print) 2169-3277 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tpmr20

Implementing sustainable operational excellence

in organizations: an integrative viewpoint

Michael Sony

To cite this article: Michael Sony (2019): Implementing sustainable operational excellence
in organizations: an integrative viewpoint, Production & Manufacturing Research, DOI:
10.1080/21693277.2019.1581674

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2019.1581674

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 01 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tpmr20
PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2019.1581674

ARTICLE

Implementing sustainable operational excellence in

organizations: an integrative viewpoint
Michael Sony
Mechanical & Marine, Namibia University of Science and Technology, Windhoek, Namibia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Many Organizations are implementing operational excellence Received 5 November 2018
initiatives to be competitive in the industry. The initial results are Accepted 8 February 2019
very encouraging but subsequently, it was difficult for many orga- KEYWORDS
nizations to sustain the initial success. The purpose of this paper is Operational excellence;
to investigate how to implement a sustainable operational excel- business excellence;
lence initiative in the organization. The study builds a model for sustainability; Lean; Six
sustainability of operational excellence which considers the social, Sigma; Total quality
economic and environmental aspect of operational excellence. In management
addition, organizational culture and agility are found to contribute
a major role in sustainable organizational excellence. This is the
first study to propose an integrative model for implementing
sustainable operational excellence in organizations. Organizations
will be able to implement operational excellence initiatives in a
sustainable manner if the model of sustainability is followed.
Besides, there are research propositions and future research direc-
tions to academic researchers.

1. Introduction
Operational excellence is the modern buzz-word in the business community. Many
organizations are implementing operational excellence initiatives within the organizations.
The erstwhile Lean teams are being replaced with operational excellence teams in the
modern organizations (Found, Lahy, Williams, Hu, & Mason, 2018). Operational excel-
lence a term which was popularized by the Shingo Institute at Utah State University. The
difference between Lean teams and operational excellence teams are that it is envisaged to
cover all the improvement methodologies (Found et al., 2018; Suri, 1998). Operational
excellence in simple words is organizations making improvements to attain a competitive
advantage. Modern day organizations not only maximize the benefits for the organizations,
but also the customer and other stakeholder’s needs are taken care. Many researchers have
devoted considerable attention to develop the models for operational excellence (Bhullar
et al., 2014; Carvalho, Sampaio, Rebentisch, Carvalho, & Saraiva, 2017; Found et al., 2018;
Mascitelli, Mills, Bierl, & Le, 2017). The previous studies have studied several aspects of
Operational excellence (1) Operational excellence and Customer (Morash & Clinton, 1998;
Treacy & Wiersema, 2007) (2) Operational excellence Theory & Frameworks (Bhullar et al.,

CONTACT Michael Sony [email protected] Mechanical & Marine, Namibia University of Science and Technology,
G31, Old Engineering Building, Windhoek 13388, Namibia
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 M. SONY

2014; Found et al., 2018) (3) Lean Operational excellence (Liker & Franz, 2011; Sarkar,
2007) (4) Operational excellence and Supply Chains (Morash & Clinton, 1998; Tyndall,
Gopal, Partsch, & Kamauff, 1998) (5) Operational excellence models (Dahlgaard, Chen,
Jang, Banegas, & Dahlgaard-Park, 2013; Miller, Raymer, Cook, & Barker, 2013; Talwar,
2011) (6) Tools & Techniques of Operational excellence (Basu, 2004a, 2004b) (7) cases in
operational excellence (Oakland, 2007, 2014) (8) critiquing of self-assessment models
(Williams, Bertsch, Van der Wiele, Van Iwaarden, & Dale, 2006) (9) Measuring systems
on operation excellence (Jarrar & Schiuma, 2007; Schiuma, 2009) etc.
Though there has been previous research in this area, the operational excellence
initiatives also encompass several unexplored dimensions that needs a research
attention. The first issue is that most research on operational excellence has been
practice-led (Found et al., 2018). Though there are many models of operational
excellence, but there is a requirement of one best model of operational excellence
(Carvalho et al., 2017). The second issue is the sustainability of gains of operational
excellence programs. The initial gains of operational excellence programs are high
and later, the results are difficult to maintain. Besides, most of the operational
excellence programs only asses the impact of only on one economic dimension,
and other dimensions are neglected. Furthermore, many of the specific improvement
projects find itself no closer to the desired results due to this they are prematurely
aborted (Casey, 2010). There are also reports that many firms who have bagged
quality awards such as Malcolm Baldridge Quality awards have later lost significant
money (Dar-El, 2013). Even firms which have bagged reputed awards such as
Shingo prizes have been bankrupt. Thus from an investment perspective, such
prize winners isn’t a positive indicator (Meyer & William, 2007). Though some
firms deploying operational excellence have obtained results, but these initiatives are
not always enough to ensure competitiveness over time. Many organizations that
were branded as excellent have found themselves in difficult situations, sometimes
even getting to the point of filing bankruptcy (Carvalho et al., 2017). The mixed
results of the success of operational excellence programs appear to be important and
worthy of investigation especially in the context of implementing a sustainable
operational excellence program which will sustainable. In addition, organizations
need a model which will guide them to the sustainability of the operational
excellence initiatives. The modern-day organization to be sustainable has to perform
on economic, environmental and social dimensions (Gimenez, Sierra, & Rodon,
2012). There is very little research done on developing a sustainable operational
excellence model which will offer some insights for the company on how to be
sustainable with operational excellence initiatives. This is achieved by reviewing the
existing literature on operational excellence and by developing a model for sustain-
ability of operational excellence initiatives in the organization. The research ques-
tion guiding this study is how to implement a sustainable operational excellence
initiative in the organization? The unique contribution of this paper is this paper is
to develop a research led, sustainable operational excellence model.
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 3

2. Integrative literature review

The integrative literature review was chosen as the objective was to synthesize various
streams of the literature on operational excellence and sustainability. An integrative review
is a form of research that generates new knowledge (Torraco, 2005). Our goal is to add to
the knowledge of operational excellence by completing a broad sweep of the literature which
is focused on the field of operational excellence and sustainability. In order to conduct the
literature review, we use guidelines given for literature review by Torraco (2005). The
literature review is conducted with the aim to answer the following research questions.
1. How to implement a sustainable operational excellence initiative within the
company?
2. How should future research proceed given our research findings?

2.1. Data sources

Step one was the broad scope of literature using electronic databases. A methodological
review process was undertaken. The first step was intended to search electronic databases.
The search criteria employed for this research was operational excellence, operational
excellence models, operational excellence criticisms, operational excellence model’s criticism,
operational excellence success rate, operational excellence fad, sustainability, sustainable
operational excellence, sustainable operational excellence models. The scope was restricted
to last 30 years, i.e.1988 to 2018. The databases which were included in the study include
was Academic Source Premier, Google Scholar, Business Source Premier, Emerald, IEEE
Xplore Digital Library, JSTOR, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Science Direct, Taylor
& Francis and World Public Library. Though some authors have concluded that conference
proceedings should be excluded (Scott-Findlay & Estabrooks, 2006), however conference
proceedings and other grey literature offer some insights in merging research (Flick, 2015;
Sony & Naik, 2019) area such as operational excellence. Hence, conference proceedings and
other grey literature by reputed publishers were included.

2.2. Inclusion and exclusion

The screening process for the literature review followed a goal of finding articles which were
focused on operational excellence and sustainability. Editorial, opinion, theoretical and
qualitative and quantitative studies were included in this review. The screening criteria
were that articles had to be published in English between 1988 and May 2018 and other
criteria were that it should be focused specifically on operational excellence within the
organization. The articles were excluded if they did not focus on operational excellence or
if the research design was poor or argument which was presented was not clear. Also, articles
from predatory journals were excluded using Bealls list (Beall, 2012; Berger & Cirasella, 2015).

2.3. Screening
This research used a 3-step process to obtain the final collection of articles. The first
step was a broad search of the literature review to find abstracts that met the inclusion
criteria. The titles and abstracts were printed. It helped in removing the duplicates. The
4 M. SONY

remaining abstracts were screened using the inclusion/exclusion criteria which were
earlier described. The full articles were then read to meet the inclusion/exclusion
criteria. The reference list of articles was read to further improve the search criteria.
The screening process is elucidated in Figure 1.

2.4. Data analysis

There is no well-set standard for analysing the integrative review data (Burke & Hutchins,
2007; Conn et al., 2003; Smith, Profetto-McGrath, & Cummings, 2009; Whittemore, 2005).
As the primary goal of this research was to decide how to implement sustainable operational
excellence literature. This was intended to be carried out by determining the patterns,
directions, similarities, and differences within the sample. To bring in methodological
approach a framework was used (Smith et al., 2009; Whittemore, 2005). The methodology
adopted was

Electronic Search

N= 512

Title and abstract Eliminated for

Reference list read Screened for inclusion or inclusion or
of articles missed exclusion exclusion
during the search Yield N = 37 N = 475

N = 37 articles final
N = 7 articles reading
retrieved
7 articles added for
full text reading

Final sample size

N = 44

Figure 1. Literature review search strategy.

 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 5

(1) The retained articles were read three times to determine the quality of the
writing, to reduce and compare data within the articles and to analyse and
synthesize themes and patterns within the literature sample.
(2) The quality of each group of articles (theoretical/editorial/opinion/research based)
was assessed by evaluating the focus and reasoning of authors in relation to
operational excellence and sustainability of organization performance.
(3) Quality of the theoretical articles was determined by the description of opera-
tional excellence and also mention of operational excellence with respect to
sustainability.
(4) The scholarship determination was guided by the ability to communicate ideas
effectively and clearly in an unbiased way (Kitson, 2006).
(5) In addition, the research articles’ quality was based on design, sample character-
istics, measurement, statistical analysis and relevance to knowledge development
(Smith et al., 2009).

The data from the final group of articles were reduced to a controllable complete form as
follows. The Editorial/opinion and theoretical articles were summarized in writing. After
that, they were then synthesized and coded by theme to reduce data and establish patterns
and themes in a comprehensive and systematic manner. As regards to the empirically based
articles, they were read, coded, summarized and synthesized to determine types of research
studies completed to date. The theoretical, opinion and editorial articles were read for
themes and ideas and were then categorized and synthesized to determine patterns among
the group. The entire sample was then critically analysed to gain an understanding of the
state of overall knowledge in relation to sustainable operational excellence.

2.5. Search results

The preliminary search located around 512 articles. Using the inclusion and exclusion
criteria 475 articles were eliminated. This resulted in a yield of 37. Seven articles were
added after references of 44 articles were reviewed. This resulted in final yield of 44
articles. The search process is summarized in Figure 1.

3. Critical evaluation of existing operational excellence models

For an organization to succeed in the long run, it has to indulge in a multitude of
activities such as operational excellence, product leadership, customer relationship
management, etc. (Found et al., 2018). Operational excellence is defined as strategy
organizations use to deliver quality, price, ease of purchase and service in such
a manner that no other organization in the industry or sector can match (Treacy &
Wiersema, 2007). Business or operational excellence can be achieved through 4P’s. The
P’s are excellent people who establish excellent partnerships with suppliers, customers
and society in order to achieve excellent processes which are key business and manage-
ment processes to produce excellent products, which are able to delight the customers
(Dahlgaard & Dahlgaard, 1999). Figure 2 depicts the 4P model. Organizational excel-
lence can be driven by the leadership through the 4P’s, in order to attain the organiza-
tional excellence.
6 M. SONY

Organizational
Excellence
Products

Process

Partnership

People

Leadership

Figure 2. Organizational excellence through 4P (Dahlgaard & Dahlgaard, 1999).

The 4P model has been created to remove conflicts by creating an integration between soft
or intangible aspects and hard or tangible aspects, subjective and objective aspects, rational
and irrational, individual and organizational aspects of some operational excellence models.
There is no other model which implements all other aspects in totality like the 4P model
(Dahlgaard et al., 2013). The 4P model prescribes the recommended structure or strategy to
achieve operational excellence. The second model in Figure 3 is a variation of the 4P model.
Figure 2 model uses a pyramid style much like Likers pyramid model for understanding
Toyota Production System (TPS). Figure 3 model is an enabler-result model. The first three
are management enabler and fourth is the process component. Thus, 4P model should be
regarded as an excellent model which may fit to a specific company’s context at a specific time
(Dahlgaard et al., 2013).
In the last four decades, many methodologies have been implemented by the organiza-
tions to produce better products, services or processes and all these were given a word
operational excellence. Some of the most popular methodologies were Lean, Six Sigma,
Continuous Improvement & Total Quality Management (Banuelas Coronado & Antony,
2002; Park, Hartley, & Wilson, 2001; Sony & Naik, 2011, 2012). Lean focussed on system-
atically eliminating waste which occurs in the system. The eight wastes of lean were defects,
over-processing, waiting, inventory, motions, transportation, overproduction, unutilized
talent. Primarily production system was the focus of the lean in the organizations, however,
as a philosophy, it could be applied in all elements in the above operational excellence
conceptualization. Six Sigma is a business management strategy and a data-driven meth-
odology with the primary aim to reduce variation within a process that can result in defects
or errors (Trakulsunti & Antony, 2018). It is a project driven approach that is used in an
organization to improve the organization’s product, services, and processes. As a business
strategy for attaining business excellence, it focuses on improving customer needs, pro-
ductivity, improving business systems and financial performance. Since the mid-1980’s
many organizations have benefited from the application of Six Sigma (Sony, 2019, 2019a;
Sony & Naik, 2011, 2012). Six Sigma was used primarily for product, service or process
improvement in the organizations. Continuous Improvement or Kaizen is a set of strategies
used in the workplace to implement positive, ongoing changes in the workplace. The
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 7

Figure 3. 4P organization excellence model (Dahlgaard & Dahlgaard, 1999).

underlying principle behind continuous improvement or Kaizen is good process produce

good results. Teamwork is very important for the success. There is also an assumption that
any process can be improved if the methodology is followed. It teaches that when small
improvement is made over time, it will result in a large change. The word continuous is very
important. It is the continuous relentless efforts in improvement that will create a lasting
change. These were also applied in most industries on various processes. Total Quality
Management (TQM) brought in organizational wide efforts to instil a culture in which the
organization continuously improves its ability to produce product, service, and processes.
TQM was a very widely used tool in the 1980s and 1990s. However, the impact of it
diminished in the late 1990s due to Lean and Six Sigma.
In the last decade, there has been a shift towards operational excellence in major
organizations. All Management terms and concepts have a life cycle. Lean took from
JIT and JIT started waning. These management terms follow a S curve. operational
excellence was first coined by Shingo Institute as a qualifying criterion for the
Shingo Prize. Shingo contribution was the recognition of interrelationship between
principles, system, and tools. Lean had primarily focussed only on tools. The five
principles of operational excellence developed by Found et al. (2018) are

(1) Stay focussed on results and behaviours;

(2) Behaviours that flow from the principles that govern results;
(3) Principles that underlie the culture that supports the results long term;
8 M. SONY

(4) Creating principle-based cultures requires the alignment of the management

systems;
(5) The tools of Lean, SS, TQM, JIT, etc., should be used strategically, appropriately
and cautiously to drive ideal behaviour and excellent results.

Operational excellence is becoming the new buzz word for the modern day organiza-
tions (Quinn, 2018). The Lean and Six Sigma teams are being replaced by operational
excellence teams. The operational excellence is also suffering from the same criticisms
are Lean. It is theoretical, poorly defined and lacks a complete framework. The opera-
tional excellence is practice led and lacks a theoretical base (Found et al., 2018). There is
no one model or method which has identified all the necessary elements for imple-
menting and sustaining operational excellence. There are many models of operational
excellence. operational excellence models are used by the company for appraisal and
identifying the areas to work on so that business can attain new heights. Many multi-
national companies have come up with their own models of operational excellence.
Some of them have been very successful. One of the most popular once is of Rolls Royce
framework (Howells, 2000). This model shows the journey of improvement to opera-
tional excellence. Industry and Government leaders have also come with models. The
most prominent Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Awards, Japans Deming Prize,
European Quality Award and so on. In addition, various countries have their own
quality awards Rajiv Gandhi National Quality Award for India, Singapore Quality
Award Business Excellence Framework for Singapore and so on. Academicians have
also proposed many frameworks. One of the most prominent ones is Global Supply
Chain Framework (Closs & Mollenkopf, 2004). It consists of eight key business
processes. The prominent among them are (1) customer relationship management (2)
customer service management (3) demand management (4) order fulfilment (5) man-
ufacturing flow management (6) supplier relationship management, (7) product devel-
opment and (8) commercialization, returns management across various functions and
firms upstream and downstream in the supply chain (Lambert, Cooper, & Pagh, 1998).
The companies striving for operational excellence for continuous improvement should
have the model. The four levels of the framework are (1) Supply Chain Management (2)
SCM Partnering (3) SCM Collaboration and (4) Continuous Supply Chain
Collaboration. There are other notable frameworks of operational excellence. These
models are devised at directing, equipping/providing, implementing and anchoring.
The other models include Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework,
the Shingo Model, Lean Advancement initiative and Enterprise Self-Assessment tool
(Bhullar et al., 2014).
Figure 4 shows the Shingo model. It is conceptualized using concepts of Lean
Management approach. The founder of the model is Dr. Shigeo Shingo. The model
consists of four dimensions. The dimensions are Cultural enablers, Continuous process
improvement, enterprise alignment, and results. There are 10 guiding principles. Respect
every individual, lead with humility, seek with perfection, embrace scientific thinking,
focus on process, assure quality at the source, flow & pull value, think systematically,
create constancy of purpose and create value for customer. These 10 principles are
supported by 19 supporting principles that cover five typical business and management
processes including supply, management, customer relations, product & service
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 9

Figure 4. The diamond: The Shingo transformational (Shigeo & Shingo, 2012).

development and operations (Bhullar et al., 2014). This transformation process is sup-
ported by an assessment that determines the degree to which the organization is aligned
with the principles of operational excellence. An important criterion of the model is that
it is done by external examiners from the Shingo Institute. They evaluate results as well as
organizational behaviour for the five typical processes and provides a gap analysis that
can be used to focus on improvement activities. The criticism of the Shingo prize is that it
does not add any perceived value to the customer. A company like Delphi who was
Shingo Prize winner has gone into bankruptcy (Meyer, 2008). Thus, there is no guarantee
that a Shingo prize-winning organization will prosper in future.
The CMMI framework provides direction for improving the processes that are
associated with the business objectives of an organization or appraising process
maturity of an organization. They further address 22 processes which are grouped
into 4 sets. These sets are Project Management, Process Management, Engineering,
and Support. It entails a staged representation involving of five maturity levels.
The maturity levels are initial, managed, defined, quantitatively managed, and
10 M. SONY

optimizing. The staged representation symbolizes the overall state of an organiza-

tion’s processes for a set of process areas. Maturity levels are decided by fulfilling
certain criteria in designated groups of process areas. It also has continuous
representation consisting of four capability levels (Bhullar et al., 2014). The levels
are incomplete, performed, managed, and defined. The continuous representation
typifies the state of processes compared to individual process areas, which is more
suitable for organizations which wish to focus on process areas. Capability levels
are measured by the achievement of the specific and generic goals associated with
each process are. The standard method prescribed for the process needs a lead
appraiser authorized by the CMMI Institute and a team which looks at two key
types of evidence to assess the organization (Bhullar et al., 2014). The process
consists of three broad phases: Planning and preparation for appraisal, the con-
ducting of the appraisal which must be completed within 90 days and the report-
ing of results which are valid for 3 years (Chrissis, Konrad, & Shrum, 2003). The
results indicate a maturity level profile or an achievement vs target level bar chart
as part of a capability level profile. The criticism of the model is that it has not
been popular. Some reasons for it being not popular is that it is not taught in
detail in academic institutions. The other criticism is that the processes are too
heavy and bulky. The CMMI defining documents are cumbersome and difficult to
understand (Meyer, 2013).
The Good to Great Diagnostic tool is another framework to identify those companies
that have made a substantial and sustainable increase in Organizational performance.
The assessment includes 10 key inputs. These are the concepts that need to be
implemented. There are also three key outputs to measure. The tool is broadly applic-
able. It examines quality leadership and commitment to core values. This is done with
a willingness to approach other ideas with flexibility and honesty (Perkins, Nightingale,
Valerdi, & Rifkin, 2010).
The Malcolm Baldridge prize is funded by the US Department of Commerce. It
recognizes organizations with performance excellence with excellent quality of
products and services. This program is managed by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology. The program has scoring guidelines and self-
assessment tools. It consists of a range of organizational performance indicators
which can be used for transformation. It consists of mapping the key processes. This
is followed by answering qualitative questions which are framed to study organiza-
tional strategies and practices. These questions have a well-defined rubric. The
scores of total questions can be added to the maximum 1000 points. It provides
a thorough quality and performance driven assessment that can be performed
internally (Perkins et al., 2010). The criticism of the Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award emphasizes processes rather than results. There is a relationship
between the Baldrige Award and the acceptable quality levels (AQL) of government
military specifications or the casual view of quality in ISO (International standardi-
zation Organization) 9000. There is also a criticism that customers nominate
Baldrige candidates. There is also a contention that the Baldrige criteria may
tempt managers to disassociate themselves from quality initiatives (Crosby &
Reimann, 1991).
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 11

3.1. Sustainable operational excellence

The sustainable operations management is defined as a set of skills and leverages that
allow an organization to structure its business processes to achieve sustainable perfor-
mance (Kleindorfer, Singhal, & Van Wassenhove, 2005). A widely accepted definition
of sustainability is the development that meets the needs of present without compro-
mising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (World Commission on
Environment and Development [WCED], B.C. 1987). It is widely accepted that WCED
definition integrates the Social, economic and environment aspects. Economic sustain-
ability is well-understood concept. At a plant level, it could be operationalized as
production and manufacturing costs (Cruz & Wakolbinger, 2008). Environmental
sustainability is waste reduction, reducing pollution, improving the efficiency of pro-
cesses, energy efficiency, emission reductions, etc.. Social sustainability shifts focus to
both internal and external. Social sustainability provides ‘equitable opportunities,
encourage diversity, promote connectedness within and outside the community, ensure
the quality of life and provide democratic processes and accountable governance
structures’ (Elkington, 1994). The triple bottom suggests a firm will be sustainable if
it performs on social, environmental and economic dimensions (Gimenez et al., 2012).
Therefore, all OPEX initiatives to be sustainable the impact should be studied on
economic, environmental and social dimensions.

4. The theoretical framework for sustainable operational excellence

The proposed theoretical framework for sustainable operational excellence is given in
Figure 5 and detail description is elucidated below.

4.1. Social sustainability of operational excellence

Operational excellence not only has an impact within the organization but also external to
the organization (Bhullar et al., 2014). In other words, stakeholder like society can play
a major part in operational excellence initiatives. Social sustainability is about identifying
the positive and negative impact of operational excellence programs on the society. The
society with respect to an organization will consist of people within and external to the
organization (Elkington, 1994). The relationship of the company with the stakeholders is
thus a critical aspect for the success of operational excellence (Hubbard, 2009). It also
depends upon how well the company engages the stakeholders both internal and external.
The operational excellence programs directly or indirectly affect what happens to employ-
ees, workers in the value chain, customers and local communities. Therefore, it is important
to manage these direct or indirect impacts of operational excellence proactively. Businesses
license to operate sustainably depends on social sustainability, as such the operational
excellence strategies should also be viable in the social or community context (Dyllick,
2001). A lack of social development can derail business growth and destabilize the sustain-
ability of operational excellence programs. If the operational excellence initiatives can help
in social growth, it can result into unlocking new markets, holding the existing markets,
maintaining existing collaborations and attracting the new ones (Willard, 2012). Also, such
an initiative can be a source of new innovations in products and services. The productivity
12 M. SONY

Organization
Agility

Sustainable
Social Economic Environmental Operational
Sustainability of Sustainability of Sustianability of Excellence
OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL
EXCELLENCE EXCELLENCE EXCELLENCE

Organizational
Culture

Figure 5. Sustainable model of operational excellence.

in operational excellence should not be seen from the reductionist perspective of improving
the organization itself. Such myopia will create a downfall for the organization. Rather
a holistic approach towards operational excellence will consider employees, society, tech-
nical and other soft aspects like engagement, work-life balance, etc.. Sustainable operational
excellence should take these factors in addition to other social-oriented factors like human
rights. Such an orientation will improve the basic human rights of workers and other
stakeholders which in turn may improve sustainability. Hence, operational excellence
programs should improve the lives of the people they affect. It includes efforts like creating
some decent jobs, creating good products and services, inclusive value chain and so on.

Proposition 1: Operational excellence program can be sustainable in the organizations in

the long run, if the program has a constituent element of the social aspect of sustainability
for its internal and external stakeholders.

4.2. Economic sustainability of operational excellence

Businesses exist for profit. If there is no profit, then the operation of the business will not
be a success for a long time (Collis, 1991). The operational excellence models should
ensure partly financial profitability of the business. At present, the studies on economic
profitability and the implementation of operational excellence models are mixed (Roca-
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 13

Puig & Escrig-Tena, 2017). For any operational excellence program to succeed in the long
run, the economic viability of the business should be ensured. It is recommended that
operational excellence models’ impact should be studied on the economic bottom line.
Some areas where operational excellence impact could be studied on economic perfor-
mance, market presence, indirect economic measures, procurement practices, anti-
competitive behaviour, etc. Such a multidimensional economic assessment of operational
excellence impacts will lead to economic sustainability. The operational excellence initia-
tives in modern manufacturing techniques such as cyber-manufacturing and its economic
impact are in the emerging phase. The modern manufacturing system is different from
a conventional manufacturing system. It offers an information-transparent environment
that will help to facilitate asset management, provide reconfigurability, and maintain
productivity (Lee, Bagheri, & Kao, 2015; Sony, 2018). In cyber manufacturing system
the physical components are fully integrated and seamlessly networked with computa-
tional processes, forming an on-demand, intelligent, and communicative manufacturing
resource and capability repository with optimal and sustainable manufacturing solutions
(Song & Moon, 2017). Therefore, the economic impact of operational excellence measures
using cyber manufacturing will have to be carefully examined. The performance analysis
of cyber manufacturing systems using five simulation studies has depicted a significant
improvement in enhanced functionality and cooperative performance leading to eco-
nomic benefits (Song & Moon, 2016). In addition, the economic sustainability of opera-
tional excellence model should also balance the other two pillars, i.e., social and
environmental. The profits of operational excellence should not be at the cost of society
and the environment. The operational excellence models should not engage in any
temporary solutions for immense profit by sacrificing the other two goals. The motto of
operational excellence should be profit by balancing social and environmental aspects. To
cite an example, the operational excellence might suggest that the option of a fossil fuel-
based solution be the best solution to earn an economic profit for the organization. But for
an operational excellence program to sustainable, this fossil fuel solution must be weighed
with respect to social and environmental aspect and then the best solution has to be
discovered.

Proposition 2: Operational excellence will be sustainable in organizations if it makes an

economic impact, however, this economic impact should not be at the cost of social and
environmental sustainability

4.3. Environmental sustainability of operational excellence

Operational excellence involves a host of business decision which is primarily decisions
which concern the products and services which the organizations manufacturers. These
manufacturing process of products and services involves various tasks and activities.
These activities or tasks will have an impact on the environment. Thus, for operational
excellence to be sustainable, the actions and decisions taken should take into account to
protect the natural world (Chinander, 2001; Corbett & Klassen, 2006). In other words,
there should be an ecological assessment of operational excellence decisions. The
emphases here is on preserving the capability of the environment that support the
14 M. SONY

human and other forms of life (Angell & Klassen, 1999). All operational excellence
decisions can have a major impact on the environment. The decisions of operational
excellence even though it is very profitable for the company, if it causes a negative
impact on the environment, it should be discarded. All processes should be environ-
mentally compliable, else, in the long run, it will not be sustainable. Many companies
across the world have struggled to cope up with these challenges. Sometimes the capital
budgeting processes fail to account for sustainability initiatives. There are also times
when financial teams whose goals don’t align with those of the sustainability teams. The
biggest challenge is sometimes the uncertainty about how to implement the metrics that
properly consider the environmental costs. Some companies now allocate a fund to
reduce take for instance greenhouse capital projects. The operational excellence models
should take this impact into account else it will result in failure (Perera, 2013).

Proposition 3: Operational excellence programs in the organizations should take into

account the environmental aspects of sustainability in its implementation for its long-
term sustainability.

4.4. Multi-dimensional impact of operational excellence initiatives

There are no studies which study the multidimensional impact of operational excellence
initiatives on all three dimensions. Nevertheless, there have been very few studies on
Lean Management which studied the impact on all three dimensions (Resta, Dotti,
Gaiardelli, & Boffelli, 2016). Till today, there have been three studies on Lean
Management (LM) which have studied the impact of Lean on all three dimensions
(Cherrafi et al., 2017; Hartini & Ciptomulyono, 2015; Martínez-Jurado & Moyano-
Fuentes, 2014). These three literature reviews have independently analysed the impact
of LM of these three dimensions. In terms of operational excellence, there is no study
which has studied the multidimensional impact of operational excellence initiatives on
these three pillars. The operational excellence initiatives to be sustainable in the long
run, it should be equally viable between all the three pillars. The trade-offs of one over
the other should be discouraged.

Proposition 4: Sustainable operational excellence initiative should not indulge in trade-

offs between social, economic and environmental impacts.

4.5. Organizational culture

Organization culture is defined as a complex set of shared values, belief, assumptions, and
symbols that are reflected in the norms and behaviours of the organizations. It is important
to manage organizational culture as it impacts the people’s perception of all aspects of work.
There are many definitions of organizational culture and however what it clearly present as
a set of guiding principles that will influence every behaviour, action and working relation
(Carvalho et al., 2017). Organizational culture is one of the most important critical success
factors for the implementation of quality management. It is observed that many
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 15

organizations are failing to implement the quality management program, and the main
reason for this failure is not proper usage of tools, but not having an appropriate organiza-
tional culture to adopt and use the quality tools. Organizational culture is something which
cannot be implemented overnight, but it takes a lot of time to implement the culture within
the organization. It is not an easy and straightforward process. But something where one
encounters a large amount of resistance (Johnson, 1992). But, organizational culture can be
improved through a well-thought strategic plan by taking into consideration the organiza-
tional environment (Denison, 1996). The organization culture should be seen in line with
organization strategy and its environment. The effort to change the culture should not be in
isolation but should be studied as a combination of both organizational strategy and
environment. The operational excellence initiatives to be successful, the organizations
should instil a culture towards it in both the organization strategy and environment. For
an operational excellence program to be sustainable, the organization culture should
imbibe the three important conceptual viewpoints of social, economic and environmental
aspects. Thus, the organizational culture should over arch these three concepts. The
organizational culture towards sustainable principles can be oriented by incorporating
these three concepts in the vision and mission. It should become an everyday part of the
strategy. Subsequently, organizations can diffuse these principles in the organizational
environment or climate. Thereby, changing the organizational culture in the long run.

Proposition 5: An organization which has a culture of sensitivity towards Social,

Economic and Environmental aspect while implementing operational excellence models
will be sustainable in the long run.

4.6. Organization agility

Organization agility is the competence by which an organization deals with uncertainty in
the marketplace and by using rapid response to transform this opportunity into innovative
products and services (Carvalho et al., 2017; Panda & Rath, 2017). The two important
aspect of organizational agility is rapidness and innovativeness. Rapidness means respond-
ing on time. Innovativeness means to concentrate on the quality of the response. Many
researchers have also broadly defined organizational capability that will help the organiza-
tion in sensing and responding to customer needs, competitor actions, Government
regulations, etc. (Cai, Huang, Liu, Davison, & Liang, 2013; Panda & Rath, 2017). Such
agility will result in long-term performance over time. For a long-term success of opera-
tional excellence program, the organization needs to sense the social, economic and
environmental needs of stakeholders and transform the sensed needs by responding with
appropriate operational excellence solutions innovatively. Thus, organization agility will
also be a key factor for the sustainability of operational excellence programs. This capability
will act as sensor to the changing needs of stakeholders and appropriate innovative
solutions will be a by-product of these characteristics of the organization.

Proposition 6: An organization which can the sense and respond to the social, economic
and environmental needs to stakeholders during the implementation of operational
excellence programs will be sustainable in the long run.
16 M. SONY

5. Discussion
The operational excellence models were reviewed with respect to sustainability in terms
of social, economic and environmental dimensions. The existing models are mostly
practice led and lack a sound theoretical base (Found et al., 2018). There is no one
model or method which has identified all the necessary elements for implementing and
sustaining operational excellence. The implementation of operational excellence pro-
grams has shown initial success, but the results are mixed. It does not guarantee long-
term success in terms of sustainability (Carvalho et al., 2017). To attain long-term
success the operational excellence models must be integrated with sustainability con-
cepts. The concepts of operational excellence should be (a) Socially, (b) Economically &
Environmentally Sustainable. The proposed model of Operational Excellence suggests
that organizations while implementing operational excellence programs should cate-
gorically study the impact of these measures on social, economic and environmental
dimensions. In addition, organizations to capture the exact sustainability of operational
excellence programs on the interaction effects of social, economic and environmental
impacts will give a clear viewpoint. Organizational culture is one of the most critical
factors for the success of quality management programs. The failure of many organiza-
tions is not the correct usage of tools or practises but lack of a culture of quality or
excellence (Carvalho et al., 2017). For sustainable operational excellence in addition to
the culture of quality or excellence, there should be a culture of assessing the socio,
economic and environmental thinking in every excellence initiative the organization
undertakes. The organization agility is the ability of the organization to detect changes
in the business environment and provide solutions to stakeholders by reconfiguring its
resources, processes and strategies (Mathiyakalan et al., 2005). The sustainable organi-
zations should be agile in providing solutions to stakeholders by reconfiguration of its
resources, processes and strategies by considering the social, economic and environ-
mental dimensions. The organization must generate enough profits to make it finan-
cially viable for its long-term success. During the course operation of business, there is
a tendency of management to overemphasize of economic impacts and trade-off with
social and environmental benefits. However, the organization should keep in mind that
the impact on all three dimensions is equally important for the sustainability of the
operational excellence initiatives.

5.1. Future research directions

The future work may qualitatively investigate the viewpoints of organizational heads on this
framework. A qualitative study is significant as it will help to capture the lived-in experi-
ences of the Organization heads. Such a study will also help to unearth the factors which
may hinder the implementation of this framework. It will also allow to study the critical
success and failure factors for implementing the proposed model. There is also a need for
live case studies as the implementation of this framework involves the study of many
variables. Therefore, case studies using this framework will help to analyse the model.
Besides, longitudinal studies also will help to study the impact of operational excellence
initiatives on the social, economic and environmental aspects. In this regard, it is intended
to conduct case studies in both developed countries like the US, the UK and developing
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 17

countries like India, Namibia, etc.. Such a study will help to unearth the operational
excellence measures and its sustainability in both developed and developing countries.
Furthermore, the future work may also quantitatively venture out to test the model
empirically. The mediating and moderating factors may be travelled in the relationship
between operational excellence and sustainability. This will further help to enrich our
understanding of operational excellence activities and sustainability. The theory based on
developing the proposed model is rooted in operational excellence, quality management,
organizational culture, agility and sustainability literature. It is further intended to study it
further so that organizations can implement sustainable operational excellence programs,
by considering the practical implementation difficulties for the organization. Organization
culture cannot be changed overnight, it should be developed continuously (Johnson, 1992).
Future studies should explore various strategies to imbibe the culture of sustainability in the
organization in a continuous manner. The organizational agility enablers can be classified
as management and technology ones. The management ones are TQM, total productive
maintenance, Kaizen, Kanban, supply chain management, etc.. The technology ones are
computer-aided design, computer-aided manufacturing, rapid prototyping, reverse engi-
neering, information technology, virtual enterprise, etc. (Vinodh, Sundararaj, &
Devadasan, 2010). It would be interesting to classify these organizational agility enablers
in terms of the impact it can have on the relationships between operational excellence
initiatives and sustainability.

6. Conclusions and limitations

The last decade has seen an increased awareness towards implementing various opera-
tional excellence models for business success. However, there have been mixed results on
the sustainability of the success of operational excellence measures. The paper through an
integrative literature review proposes to integrate the sustainability concepts with opera-
tional excellence models for achieving long-term success to manufacture world-class
products and services. The model proposes to study the impact of operational excellence
measures on three dimensions of sustainability. The three dimensions social, economic
and environmental were chosen based on the three pillars of triple bottom line approach.
The organizations can use this developed framework for evaluating the success of
operational excellence measures. The usage of this framework will ensure that operational
excellence initiatives are a success in the long run. The integrative review is limited by the
databases accessed, the search criteria, limited access to some of the journals, inclusion
and exclusion criteria and finally the time constraints. It is pertinent that given our
findings the future research in operational excellence and sustainable performance should
focus on the research directions elucidated in the paper.

Acknowledgments
The author vehemently thanks the anonymous reviewers and the editor for constructive sugges-
tions which was very useful for revising the paper.
18 M. SONY

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID
Michael Sony http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8003-5216

References
Angell, L. C., & Klassen, R. D. (1999). Integrating environmental issues into the mainstream: An agenda
for research in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 17(5), 575–598.
Banuelas Coronado, R., & Antony, J. (2002). Critical success factors for the successful imple-
mentation of six sigma projects in organisations. The TQM Magazine, 14(2), 92–99.
Basu, R. (2004a). Implementing quality: A practical guide to tools and techniques: Enabling the
power of operational excellence. London, UK: Cengage Learning EMEA.
Basu, R. (2004b). Six-Sigma to operational excellence: Role of tools and techniques. International
Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 1(1), 44–64.
Beall, J. (2012). Beall’s list of predatory publishers 2013. Scholarly Open Access. UK: Bealls
publishers.
Berger, M., & Cirasella, J. (2015). Beyond Beall’s list: Better understanding predatory publishers.
College & Research Libraries News, 76(3), 132–135.
Bhullar, A. S., Gan, C. W., Ang, A. J. L., Ma, B., Lim, R. Y. G., & Toh, M. H. (2014). Operational
excellence frameworks–Case studies and applicability to SMEs in Singapore. In J. Ghauth
(Ed.), Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), 2014 IEEE international
conference on (pp. 667–671). Bandar Sunway, Malaysia: IEEE.
Burke, L. A., & Hutchins, H. M. (2007). Training transfer: An integrative literature review.
Human Resource Development Review, 6(3), 263–296.
Cai, Z., Huang, Q., Liu, H., Davison, R. M., & Liang, L. (2013). Developing organizational agility
through IT capability and KM capability: The moderating effects of organizational climate. In
L. Jae-Nam, M. Ji-Ye, and T. James T. (Eds.), PACIS (pp. 245). Pacific Asia Conference on
Information Systems (PACIS).
Carvalho, A., Sampaio, P., Rebentisch, E., Carvalho, J. Á., & Saraiva, P. (2017). Operational
excellence, organisational culture and agility: The missing link? Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 1–20. doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1374833
Casey, D. (2010). Sustainable operations excellence. Retrieved from https://peoriamagazines.
com/ibi/2010/mar/sustainable-operations-excellence
Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Govindan, K., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Benhida, K., & Mokhlis, A. (2017).
A framework for the integration of Green and Lean Six Sigma for superior sustainability
performance. International Journal of Production Research, 55(15), 4481–4515.
Chinander, K. R. (2001). Aligning accountability and awareness for environmental performance
in operations. Production and Operations Management, 10(3), 276–291.
Chrissis, M. B., Konrad, M., & Shrum, S. (2003). CMMI guidlines for process integration and
product improvement. Boston, US: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
Closs, D. J., & Mollenkopf, D. A. (2004). A global supply chain framework. Industrial Marketing
Management, 33(1), 37–44.
Collis, D. J. (1991). Organizational capability as a source of profit (Vol. 91). Division of Research,
Massachusetts, USA: Harvard Business School.
Conn, V. S., Isaramalai, S., Rath, S., Jantarakupt, P., Wadhawan, R., & Dash, Y. (2003). Beyond
MEDLINE for literature searches. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 35(2), 177–182.
Corbett, C. J., & Klassen, R. D. (2006). Extending the horizons: Environmental excellence as key
to improving operations. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 8(1), 5–22.
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 19

Crosby, P. B., & Reimann, C. (1991). Criticism and support for the Baldrige Award. American Society
for Quality- ASQC Menbership Management 611 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 5320, 24
(5), 41–45.
Cruz, J. M., & Wakolbinger, T. (2008). Multiperiod effects of corporate social responsibility on
supply chain networks, transaction costs, emissions, and risk. International Journal of
Production Economics, 116(1), 61–74.
Dahlgaard, J. J., Chen, C.-K., Jang, J.-Y., Banegas, L. A., & Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2013). Business
excellence models: Limitations, reflections and further development. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 24(5–6), 519–538.
Dahlgaard, J. J., & Dahlgaard, S. M. P. (1999). Integrating business excellence and innovation
management: Developing a culture for innovation, creativity and learning. Total Quality
Management, 10(4–5), 465–472.
Dar-El, E. M. (2013). Human learning: From learning curves to learning organizations (Vol. 29).
Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.
Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational
climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management
Review, 21(3), 619–654.
Dyllick, T. (2001). Towards a sustainability balanced scorecard: Linking environmental and social
sustainability to business strategy. St. Stellen, Switzerland: University of St. Stellen.
Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for
sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.
Flick, U. (2015). Introducing research methodology: A beginner’s guide to doing a research project.
Berlin, Germany: Sage.
Found, P., Lahy, A., Williams, S., Hu, Q., & Mason, R. (2018). Towards a theory of operational
excellence. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 1–13. doi.org/10.1080/
14783363.2018.1486544
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., & Rodon, J. (2012). Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple
bottom line. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 149–159.
Hartini, S., & Ciptomulyono, U. (2015). The relationship between lean and sustainable manu-
facturing on performance: Literature review. Procedia Manufacturing, 4, 38–45.
Howells, J. (2000). Innovation & services: New conceptual frameworks. Centre for Research on
Innovation and Competition, Manchester, UK: The University of Manchester.
Hubbard, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Beyond the triple bottom line.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(3), 177–191.
Jarrar, Y., & Schiuma, G. (2007). Measuring performance in the public sector: Challenges and
trends. Measuring Business Excellence, 11(4), 4–8.
Johnson, G. (1992). Managing strategic change—Strategy, culture and action. Long Range
Planning, 25(1), 28–36.
Kitson, A. (2006). The relevance of scholarship for nursing research and practice. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 55(5), 541–543.
Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhal, K., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2005). Sustainable operations
management. Production and Operations Management, 14(4), 482–492.
Lambert, D. M., Cooper, M. C., & Pagh, J. D. (1998). Supply chain management: Implementation
issues and research opportunities. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 9(2), 1–20.
Lee, J., Bagheri, B., & Kao, H.-A. (2015). A cyber-physical systems architecture for industry
4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manufacturing Letters, 3, 18–23.
Liker, J. K., & Franz, J. K. (2011). The Toyota way to continuous improvement: Linking strategy and
operational excellence to achieve superior performance (Vol. 1). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Martínez-Jurado, P. J., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2014). Lean management, supply chain manage-
ment and sustainability: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 85, 134–150.
Mascitelli, S., Mills, S. S., Bierl, M., & Le, R. (2017). Operational excellence. In Al. K. Bandar
Abdulmohsen. Leading Reliable Healthcare. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Mathiyakalan, S., Ashrafi, N., Zhang, W., Waage, F., Kuilboer, J., & Heimann, D. (2005).
Defining business agility: An exploratory study. In P.A. Hershey (Ed.), Proceedings of the
20 M. SONY

16th information resources management conference (pp. 15–18). San Diego, CA: Idea Group
Publishing.
Meyer, B. (2013). What is wrong with CMMI. Retrieved from https://bertrandmeyer.com/2013/
05/12/what-is-wrong-with-cmmi/
Meyer, K. (2008). The dilution of the Shingo prize. Retrieved from http://kevinmeyer.com/blog/
2008/11/the-dilution-of-the-shingo-prize.html
Meyer, K. L., & William, H. W. (2007). Evolving excellence: Thoughts on lean enterprise leadership
(1st ed.). New York, NY: IUniverse.Inc.
Miller, R. D., Raymer, J., Cook, R., & Barker, S. (2013). The Shingo model for operational
excellence. Logan, Utah: Utah State University.
Morash, E. A., & Clinton, S. R. (1998). Supply chain integration: Customer value through
collaborative closeness versus operational excellence. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 6(4), 104–120.
Oakland, J. S. (2007). Total organizational excellence. London, UK: Routledge.
Oakland, J. S. (2014). Total quality management and operational excellence: Text with cases.
London, UK: Routledge.
Panda, S., & Rath, S. K. (2017). The effect of human IT capability on organizational agility: An
empirical analysis. Management Research Review, 40(7), 800–820.
Park, S., Hartley, J. L., & Wilson, D. (2001). Quality management practices and their relationship
to buyer’s supplier ratings: A study in the Korean automotive industry. Journal of Operations
Management, 19(6), 695–712.
Perera, A. (2013). Lessons on environmental sustainability that every corporation should learn.
Retrieved from http://www.wri.org/blog/2013/04/4-lessons-environmental-sustainability-every
-corporation-should-learn
Perkins, L. N., Nightingale, D., Valerdi, R., & Rifkin, S. (2010). 6.3. 2 Organizational assessment
models for enterprise transformation. In INCOSE international symposium (Vol. 20, pp.
809–823). Chicago, USA: Wiley Online Library.
Quinn, R. E. (2018). Productivity and the process of organizational improvement: Why we
cannot talk to each other. In K. Richard (Ed.), Public sector performance (pp. 9–19). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Resta, B., Dotti, S., Gaiardelli, P., & Boffelli, A. (2016). Lean manufacturing and sustainability: An
integrated view. In I. Nääs, O. Vendrametto, J. M. Reis, R. F. Gonçalves, M. T. Silva, G. von
Cieminski, D. Kiritsis (Eds.), IFIP International conference on advances in production manage-
ment systems (pp. 659–666). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Roca-Puig, V., & Escrig-Tena, A. B. (2017). Examining nonlinear relationships between quality
management and financial performance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 34(7), 1094–1110.
Sarkar, D. (2007). Lean for service organizations and offices: A holistic approach for achieving
operational excellence and improvements. Mexico, USA: ASQ Quality Press.
Schiuma, G. (2009). The challenges of measuring business excellence in the 21st century.
Measuring Business Excellence, 13(2), 1–8.
Scott-Findlay, S., & Estabrooks, C. A. (2006). Mapping the organizational culture research in
nursing: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(5), 498–513.
Shigeo, & Shingo. (2012). The Shingo prize for operational excellence. http://lean.nh.gov/docu
ments/Shingo%20Model%20Handbook.pdf.
Smith, K. B., Profetto-McGrath, J., & Cummings, G. G. (2009). Emotional intelligence and nursing:
An integrative literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(12), 1624–1636.
Song, Z., & Moon, Y. (2017). Performance analysis of CyberManufacturing systems. Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture,
0954405417706996. London, UK.
Song, Z., & Moon, Y. B. (2016). Performance analysis of cybermanufacturing systems:
A simulation study. In IFIP international conference on product lifecycle management (pp.
592–605). New York, NY: Springer.
 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURING RESEARCH 21

Sony, M. (2018). Industry 4.0 and lean management: A proposed integration model and research
propositions. Production & Manufacturing Research, 6(1), 416–432.
Sony, M. (2019a). Lean Six Sigma implementation framework using resource-based theory
approach: An integrative literature review. In S. Prasanta (Ed.), Optimizing current strategies
and applications in industrial engineering (pp. 287–304). USA: IGI Global.
Sony, M., & Naik, S. (2011). Successful implementation of Six Sigma in services: An exploratory
research in India Inc. International Journal of Business Excellence, 4(4), 399–419.
Sony, M., & Naik, S. (2012). Six Sigma, organizational learning and innovation: An integration and
empirical examination. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 29(8), 915–936.
Sony, M., & Naik, S. (2019). Key ingredients for evaluating Industry 4.0 readiness for organizations:
A literature review. Benchmarking: An International Journal. doi:10.1108/BIJ-09-2018-0284
Sony, Michael, (2019) “Lean Six Sigma in the power sector: frog into prince”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, 26(2), 356–370, https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-10-2017-0276
Suri, R. (1998). Quick response manufacturing: A companywide approach to reducing lead times.
Florida, US: CRC Press.
Talwar, B. (2011). Business excellence models and the path ahead. . .. The TQM Journal, 23(1), 21–35.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human
Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.
Trakulsunti, Y., & Antony, J. (2018). Can Lean Six Sigma be used to reduce medication errors in
the health-care sector? Leadership in Health Services, 31(04), 426–433. doi.org/10.1108/LHS-
09-2017-0055.
Treacy, M., & Wiersema, F. (2007). The discipline of market leaders: Choose your customers,
narrow your focus, dominate your market. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Tyndall, G., Gopal, C., Partsch, W., & Kamauff, J. (1998). Supercharging supply chains. New ways
to increase value through global operational excellence. Sydney, Australia: Wiley.
Vinodh, S., Sundararaj, G., & Devadasan, S. R. (2010). Measuring organisational agility before
and after implementation of TADS. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 47(5–8), 809–818.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), B. C. (1987). Our common future.
Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press Oxford.
Whittemore, R. (2005). Combining evidence in nursing research: Methods and implications.
Nursing Research, 54(1), 56–62.
Willard, B. (2012). The new sustainability advantage: Seven business case benefits of a triple
bottom line. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.
Williams, R., Bertsch, B., Van der Wiele, A., Van Iwaarden, J., & Dale, B. (2006). Self-assessment
against business excellence models: A critiqueand perspective. Total Quality Management and
Business Excellence, 17(10), 1287–1300.