48 Int. J. Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 4, No.

1, 2008

Design for Six Sigma (DFSS): lessons learned from

world-class companies

Arash Shahin
Department of Management
University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Fax: +98 311 793 2604
E-mail: arashshahin@[Link]

Abstract: Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) is a powerful approach for designing
products, processes and services to meet the needs and expectations of the
customer while driving down quality costs. It involves the utilisation of
powerful and useful statistical tools to predict and improve quality before
building prototypes. This paper attempts to study DFSS and the associated
experiences of world-class companies. For this purpose, DFSS methodologies
are introduced and compared with Six Sigma methodology. The DFSS process
is demonstrated and some examples of world-class companies are presented.
Finally, some implementation obstacles are addressed and the DFSS training
programme is described and emphasised. The findings imply that the
methodologies for DFSS are enormous and companies employ different
methodologies. Also, it has been found that the role of project leaders is
essential for the success of projects and the training programme offered in
DFSS should be flexible.

Keywords: Design for Six Sigma; DFSS; process; methodology;

implementation; training.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Shahin, A. (2008) ‘Design

for Six Sigma (DFSS): lessons learned from world-class companies’, Int. J. Six
Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.48–59.

Biographical notes: Dr. Arash Shahin graduated with BS and MS degrees in

Industrial Engineering in 1995 and 1998, respectively, in Iran. He obtained his
PhD degree in 2003 from the University of Newcastle, UK for his studies on
Quality Engineering. He carried out research in quality engineering, both in the
manufacturing and service fields. From 1992 to 1995 he was the Quality
Manager of car parts producer companies in Isfahan. From 1995 to 2003 he
was the Director of Amin Cara Engineering Consulting Co. (Isfahan).
Currently, he is a full-time Assistant Professor at the Department of
Management, University of Isfahan. He is the author of three books and more
than 120 published papers at national and international levels in refereed
journals and conferences since 1994.

Copyright © 2008 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Design for Six Sigma (DFSS): lessons learned from world-class companies 49

1 Introduction

Six Sigma is a business performance improvement strategy that aims to reduce the
number of mistakes/defects – to as low as 3.4 occasions per million opportunities. Sigma
is a measure of the ‘variation about the average’ in a process (which could be in a
manufacturing or service industry). According to Conlin (1998), most companies produce
a defect rate of between 35 000 and 50 000 per million opportunities (where a defect
can be anything from a faulty part to an incorrect customer bill). This defect rate equates
to a sigma quality level of 3 to 3.5 sigma. Organisations that have adopted the principles
and concepts of the Six Sigma methodology have become aware that, once they have
achieved five sigma quality levels (i.e., 233 defects per million opportunities), the
only way to progress further (towards the elusive Six Sigma) is to redesign their
products, processes and services (Harry and Schroeder, 2000; Chowdhury, 2001;
Banuelas and Antony, 2003; Banuelas and Antony, 2004). This has led to the
development of what today is termed ‘Design for Six Sigma’ (DFSS). On the other hand,
for researchers such as Pande et al. (2000), it is not yet clear when redesign efforts should
be used over continuous improvement. DFSS is a powerful approach to designing
products, processes and services in a cost-effective and simple manner to meet the needs
and expectations of the customer while driving down quality costs. It involves the
utilisation of powerful and useful statistical tools to predict and improve quality before
building prototypes. It is not a replacement for such techniques/approaches as New
Product Introduction Process (NPIP); rather it is a methodology to make the introduction
of new products, processes and services more efficient, reliable and capable of meeting
high customer expectations and requirements. DFSS has the potential to simplify design
configurations, eliminate non-value-added steps or processes in the design of a product or
service, and hence reduce material costs, labour costs and overhead costs. The DFSS
approach seeks inventive ways of satisfying and exceeding customer requirements and
expectations. It seeks to optimise the function of the product/service design and then
verify that the product/service meets the requirements specified by customers.
The aim of this paper is to study DFSS and the associated experiences of world-class
companies. For this purpose, in the following, it is highlighted where DFSS fits in
the corporate framework of the Six Sigma. The DFSS methodologies are introduced
and compared with Six Sigma methodology. DFSS process is demonstrated and
some examples of world-class companies are presented. Finally, some implementation
obstacles are addressed and the DFSS training programme is described and emphasised.

2 Design for Six Sigma and the corporate framework of Six Sigma

The corporate framework of Six Sigma embodies the five elements of top-level
management commitment, training schemes, project team activities, measurement system
and stakeholder involvement, as shown in Figure 1. Stakeholders include employees,
owners, suppliers and customers. At the core of the framework is a formalised
improvement strategy with the following five steps: Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve
and Control (DMAIC). The improvement strategy is based on training schemes, project
team activities and measurement systems. Top-level management commitment and
50 A. Shahin

stakeholder involvement are both included in the framework. Without these two, the
improvement strategy functions poorly. All five elements support the improvement
strategy and improvement project teams. Most big companies operate in three parts:
R&D, manufacturing and nonmanufacturing service. Six Sigma can be introduced into
each of these three parts separately. In fact, the colour of Six Sigma could be different for
each part. Six Sigma in the R&D part is often called ‘DFSS’, ‘Manufacturing Six Sigma’
in manufacturing, and ‘Transactional Six Sigma (TSS)’ in the nonmanufacturing service
sector. All five elements in Figure 1 are necessary for each of the three different Six
Sigma functions. However, the improvement methodology, DMAIC, could be modified
in DFSS and TSS.

Figure 1 The corporate framework of Six Sigma

Source: Park (2003)

3 Design for Six Sigma methodologies

The original Six Sigma methodology developed for problem solving at Motorola is
MAIC, which means measurement, analysis, improvement and control. Later, DMAIC
instead of MAIC was advocated at GE, where D stands for definition. MAIC or DMAIC
is mostly used as a unique problem-solving process in manufacturing areas. While Six
Sigma is widely recognised by the DMAIC acronym, DFSS has no standard acronym.
Therefore, organisations have adopted a variety of approaches that have resulted in
acronyms, as follows (Park, 2003; Soderborg, 2004):
• Define, Measure, Analyse, Design, Verify (DMADV). MADV was suggested
by Motorola for DFSS, and D was added to it for definition. DMADV is similar
to DMAIC.
• Identify, Design, Optimise, Validate (IDOV). This was suggested by GE and has
been used most frequently in practice.
• Define, Initiate, Design, Execute, Sustain (DIDES). This was suggested by Qualtec
Consulting Company.
• Invent, Innovate, Develop, Optimise, Verify (IIDOV).
 Design for Six Sigma (DFSS): lessons learned from world-class companies 51

• Concept development, Design development, Optimisation, Verify,

Certification (CDOV).
• Define, Characterise, Optimise, Verify (DCOV).
• Identify, Design, Evaluate, Assure, Scale-up (IDEAS).
Despite these naming differences, all versions of DFSS share fundamental strategies and
tools that promote a common goal: to create a data-driven product development culture
that efficiently produces winning products.
Some practitioners use different process phases for different categories of projects.
For example, those who apply DFSS in technology and product development use
IIDOV to describe DFSS for technology development and CDOV to describe product
commercialisation (design). Some companies, such as Ford, use the DCOV abbreviation
for all categories of DFSS projects to reduce confusion.
According to Park (2003), the above methodologies for manufacturing and R&D
are not suitable for service areas. He emphasises that Define, Measure, Analyse,
Redesign, Implement, Control (DMARIC) is an excellent problem-solving process for
nonmanufacturing service areas, in which the ‘redesign’ phase addresses the redesign of
the system of the service work towards the improvement of the service function.
More information on the DFSS methodologies and their comparisons can be obtained
from Lönnqvist (2006).

4 Differences between Six Sigma and design for Six Sigma methodologies

The two philosophies differ in several ways. Six Sigma is considered reactive because
it involves finding and fixing problems in existing processes. DFSS involves designing
processes capable of reaching Six Sigma levels; thus it is considered a more aggressive
quality approach. Moreover, Six Sigma and DFSS employ different methodologies. Six
Sigma utilises the DMAIC methodology, which follows the phases define, measure,
analyse, improve and control. In contrast, DFSS employs the DMADV methodology,
which follows the phases define, measure, analyse, design and verify.
In practice, when DMAIC is used, Six Sigma teams tend to achieve constant
incremental improvements by reducing or minimising the cause of variation in the
existing processes. This approach of continuous improvement facilitates change on a
steady and progressive basis. It seeks stability by reducing or even eliminating variation
that leads to added costs and customer dissatisfaction (Finster, 2001). Six Sigma DMAIC
projects work within the framework of the existing processes. The aim is to do what
the company already does, but doing it efficiently and rigorously. These projects are
developed from today’s perspective and constrained by assumptions made during the
development and design stages (Nave, 2002).
Most of the Six Sigma efforts are focused on taking variability out of the existing
processes employing DMAIC methodology. However, at the same time variability is
introduced in new products. In order to avoid this, DFSS efforts have been focused
on predicting and improving quality before products and processes are launched. It can
also be employed to redesign current processes and products. This approach can be seen
as an effective way to obtain Six Sigma quality levels and avoid future problems in
52 A. Shahin

manufacturing and service. Contrary to the incremental improvement from the Six Sigma
methodology, Design/Redesign for Six Sigma has the ability to discard existing processes
and substitute them with radical new ones. Therefore, it is considered that DFSS could
improve not only process efficiency but also process effectiveness.
Generally, DFSS methodologies, such as DMADV, intend to create designs that are
(Harry and Schroeder, 2000):
• resource efficient
• capable of reaching very high yields
• independent of complexity and volume
• ‘robust’ to process variability
• highly linked to customer demands.
A comparison is made in Table 1 between Six Sigma and DFSS methodologies. Unlike
the DMAIC methodology for Six Sigma, the phases or steps of DFSS are not universally
recognised or defined. Almost every company or training organisation will define DFSS
differently. Most of the time a company will implement DFSS to suit its business,
industry and culture.

Table 1 Differences between Six Sigma and DFSS

Six Sigma DFSS

Define, Measure, Analyse, Define, Measure, Analyse, Design and Verify (DMADV)
Improve, Control Define, Measure, Analyse, Design, Optimise, and Verify (DMADOV)
Looks at existing processes Focuses on the up-front design of the product and process
and fixes problems
More reactive More proactive
Dollar benefits obtained from Benefits are more difficult to quantify and tend to be more long term.
Six Sigma can be quantified It can take six to 12 months after the launch of the new product before
rather quickly one can obtain proper accounting on the impact
Source: Yang and EI-Haik (2003, pp.60–61)

5 The Design for Six Sigma process

The process of DFSS is the systematic utilisation of tools, training and measurements to
enable the organisation to design products and processes that meet customer expectations
and that can be produced at Six Sigma quality levels (Mader, 2002). The goal of DFSS is
to achieve minimum defect rates, Six Sigma level, and maximise the positive impact
during the development stage of the products. It is used to develop new products or
services with Six Sigma criteria, capability and performance (Tennant, 2002). It utilises a
variety of quality-oriented tools and techniques to meet customer requirements and has
shown an increase in life cycle profits. As Treichler et al. (2002) noted, the essence of
DFSS is “predicting design quality up front and driving quality measurement and
predictability improvement during the early design phases”. Essentially, the DFSS
process is focused on new or innovative designs that yield a higher level of performance.
De Feo and Bar-El (2002) summarise seven elements of DFSS as follows:
 Design for Six Sigma (DFSS): lessons learned from world-class companies 53

1 drives the customer-oriented design process with Six Sigma capability

2 predicts design quality at the outset
3 matches the top-down requirements flow-down with the capability flow-up
4 integrates cross-functional design involvement
5 drives quality measurement and predictability improvement in early
design phases
6 uses process capabilities in making final decisions
7 monitors process variances to verify that customer requirements are met.
DFSS has been used and proven successful at Dow Chemical (Buss and Ivey, 2001),
W.R. Grace, (Rajagopalan et al., 2004), Delphi Automotive (Treichler et al., 2002),
NCR Corporation (McClusky, 2000), General Electric (Weiner, 2004), and other
process-oriented industries. Figure 2 depicts the five-step DFSS process.

Figure 2 Five-step DFSS process

DESIGN FOR SIX SIGMA

Initiate and Capture Develop Develop Implement

Plan the Customer Design Detailed Full Scale
Project Needs Concepts Design Processes

Define Measure Analyze Design Verify

DELIVERABLES

Chief
Team High Level Detailed Pilot
Technology
Charter Design Design Product
Officer

TOOLS

- Management Leadership - Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)

- Project Management - Business Process Simulation
- Customer Research - Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
- Design Scorecards - Rapid Product Prototyping
- Benchmarking - etc.

Sources: De Feo and Bar-El (2002) and Kwak and Anbari (2006)

As illustrated, deliverables such as the chief technology officer capture customers’ needs,
using tools and techniques such as Quality Function Deployment (QFD), and address the
priorities of design in the next stage, i.e., ‘Analyse’.
54 A. Shahin

In the following, some of the DFSS process types used by world-class companies
are demonstrated.

5.1 Samsung SDI

Samsung SDI is a company under the Samsung Group. Samsung SDI was founded in
1970 as a producer of the black/white Braun tube. It began to produce the color Braun
tube from 1980, and now it is the number one company for Braun tubes in the world. The
market share of Braun tubes is 22%. The major products are Color Display Tube (CDT),
Color Picture Tube (CPT), Liquid Crystal Display (LCD), Vacuum Fluorescent Display
(VFD), Color Filter (C/F), li-ion battery and Plasma Display Panel (PDP). The total sales
volume is about $4.4 billion and the total number of employees is about 18 000 including
8000 domestic employees. It has six overseas subsidiaries in Mexico, China, Germany,
Malaysia and Brazil.
The DFSS process of Samsung SDI follows the IDOV (identify, design, optimise,
verify) process, and after each step, a Design Review (DR) helps to validate the process
as shown in Figure 3.
There are four different types of DR. Each one reviews and validates the immediately
previous step. For instance, DR1 reviews the product planning and decides whether the
DFSS process can flow to the next step or not.
Another DFSS (R&D Six Sigma) example is presented in Table 2. The team
consisted of eight persons (one is a Champion, and the other seven members are all Black
Belts (BBs)). The duration of this study was from January to June of 2000. The team
basically used the IDOV process. However, it added Recognise and Define (R-D) before
IDOV, hence the process of team activities is R-D-I-D-O-V. Table 2 shows the project
implementation steps used by this team at Samsung SDI.

Figure 3 The DFSS process in Samsung SDI

Source: Park (2003)

5.2 Suppliers of white goods in Europe

In another investigation, conducted by Banuelas and Antony (2004), the DFSS project
was carried out in the home laundry appliance division of one of the largest suppliers of
white goods in Europe. Table 3 summarises the tools employed in the DFSS process.
 Design for Six Sigma (DFSS): lessons learned from world-class companies 55

Table 2 Project implementation steps of a DFSS team in Samsung SDI

Design review
for product
DFSS steps Detailed steps Tools used development
R (Recognise) Analysis of CPT market trends Customer review
Preparation of customer value map Business planning
D (Define) Selection of Omega CPT CFR QFD, CPM DR1
Theme selection of CPM flow-down Concept engineering
I (Identity) Selection of project CFR FMEA
Failure analysis MSA
Measurement analysis Benchmarking and
gap analysis
D (Design) List of all input variables Cause and effect matrix DR2
Design of basic shape and decision Simulation, capability
of prototype study
Tolerance analysis for yield improvement Tolerance design
O (Optimise) Determination of big Xs which influence Y DOE and ANOVA DR3
Determination of optimal levels of Robust design
big Xs
Quality check through pilot study DFM
Completion of paper design
V (Validate) Verification for mass production Process mapping DR4
Analysis of process capability Capability study
Determination of final product quality Reliability study
Notes: CPM = Critical Parameter Method.
QFD = Quality Function Deployment.
CFR = Critical Function Responses.
FMEA = Failure Mode and Effect Analysis.
MSA = Measurement System Analysis.
DOE = Design of Experiments.
ANOVA = Analysis of Variance.
DFM = Design for Manufacturability.
Source: Park (2003)

5.3 Ford Company

In the Ford Company, a tool matrix was developed to outline which tools might be
applied at each project phase (Figure 4).
It is important to note that not all the specialised tools presented would apply
to a particular project. For those that would – due to the extended length of DFSS
projects – the team members worried they would forget much of the training by the
time they needed to apply it. They concluded it was inefficient to train all team members
in all tools.
In conclusion, it should be noted that different companies employ different sets of
DFSS tools and there is no agreement on the issue.
56 A. Shahin

Table 3 An example for DFSS tool usage

Phase Task number Specify tasks Tools employed

Identify 1 Identify customer CTQs Team charter; critical
2 Perform CTQ flow-down to quality tree; quality
function deployment;
3 Analyse measurement system capability benchmarking; CTQ
4 Generate and validate systems/subsystems flow-down
models
5 Build scorecards prediction, parts, process
and performance
Design 6 Roll up scorecards for all subsystems Analytic hierarchy
7 Capability flow-up process; regression
analysis, baselining,
8 Identify the gaps rational subgroups;
9 Low Zst on scorecard design for assembly
10 Lack of transfer function
11 Unknown process capability
Optimise 12 Use DOE to find transfer function and the Full factorial DOE;
critical few Xs response surface
13 Parameter and tolerance design methodology; multiple
response optimiser
14 Generate purchase and manufacturing
specifications
15 Specify mean, variance and limits
Verify 16 Confirm that pilot studies Baselining; rational
match predictions subgroups
17 Mistake proofing process
18 Develop manufacturing and supplier
control plans for CTQ
19 Refine models, scorecards, process
characterisation database
Source: Banuelas and Antony (2004)

Figure 4 Ford DFSS tools matrix

Noriaki Quality Quality Quality

Consumer Market Brand Bench- Quality loss
D Kano Function history: history:
insight research analysis Deployment
marking function
model surveys repairs

Concept Failure Measure- System

System and Dimensional
generation Axiomatic Modes and ment engineering
C P-diagram functional Reliability variation
and design Effects system
diagrams and analysis
selection Design of Analysis analysis DFSS
robust
Experiments scorecard
Numeric/ engineering Analytical Design for
Parameter Tolerance reliability Statistical Target
O heuristic design manufacture
design design and tolerancing setting and
optimization / assembly Process
robustness verification
Capability
Assessment
Model validation and Design verification plan Control
V Robustness/ reliability demonstration
uncertainty assessment and report plan

Source: Soderborg (2004)

 Design for Six Sigma (DFSS): lessons learned from world-class companies 57

6 Implementation obstacles

There are several problems to be tackled for DFSS implementation. These problems
must be solved for a smooth introduction of DFSS. They are summarised as follows
(Park, 2003):
• Engineers tend to resist the introduction of any new scientific methodology into their
research activities. Hence, their understanding and cooperation or approval should be
sought before introducing the DFSS into their activity.
• Green Belts (GB) or BB education/training is especially necessary, since there are
many scientific tools for R&D including QFD, DOE, simulation techniques, robust
designs and regression analysis. For such education/training, textbooks that contain
real and practical examples should be carefully prepared in order to make researchers
understand why DFSS is a very useful tool.
• Project team activities might be difficult in R&D departments. In this case, BBs
should be assigned as full-time project leaders. It is desirable that the company gives
time, space and the necessary financial support to the BBs to solve the projects.

7 Design for Six Sigma training

One of the key DFSS implementation challenges is training. Ford, as an example, first
applied a typical BB training model to entire teams. Team members attended two weeks
of classroom training during the early months of a project. They studied a curriculum that
included in-depth coverage of process and tools. As a result of the feedback, the DFSS
training was restructured. To enhance continued adherence to the process, teams then met
periodically in workshops corresponding to each project phase (D, C, O and V). By the
end of each workshop, the team has a written work plan for the project’s next steps. A
team process leader, typically a trained BB, guides the application of Six Sigma tools. An
Master Black Belt (MBB) facilitates the workshops, collaborates with team leaders
throughout the project and provides additional training in advanced DFSS tools as
required. To supplement knowledge of basic DFSS tools already provided through the
Ford Technical Education Program (FTEP), Ford’s Office of the Technical Fellow in
Quality Engineering sponsors reliability and transfer function seminars for the
engineering community at large and targeted at DFSS teams. Baseline DMAIC skills are
also reinforced as engineering organisations near the completion of a corporate mandate
requiring all engineers to achieve DMAIC Green Belt status. The current flexible training
model in Figure 5 rationally leverages existing training programmes while driving
projects forward on a just-in-time basis.
As shown, almost all of the team members are involved in the training programme.
Also, some prerequisite courses of DMAIC should be handled before launching DFSS
courses. Another lesson learned is that the courses are offered in three different levels,
i.e., required, recommended and optional courses.
58 A. Shahin

Figure 5 Training to support DFSS at Ford (see online version for colours)

Source: Soderborg (2004)

8 Conclusions

In this paper, the concept of DFSS was precisely studied and the experiences from
world-class companies were demonstrated and learned. The findings imply that
implementing DFSS can be challenging for any organisation. It seems that it is not easy
for a company to adopt DFSS. However, once it is fully adopted, the net effect and cost
savings can be enormous.
With respect to the lessons learned, it is concluded that although a relatively unique
methodology, such as DMAIC, could be considered as a Six Sigma methodology, the
methodologies for DFSS are numerous and different companies employ different
methodologies. Consequently, this might be a reason why the tools and techniques used
by companies in the DFSS process are different. The role of project leaders and DFSS
training programmes are found to be essentials for the success of DFSS projects. Finally,
in the DFSS training programme, some DMAIC prerequisites should be considered and
the program should be offered in a flexible manner, consisting of required, recommended
and optional courses.
However, DFSS is the most effective means of realising the full benefits of the
Six Sigma capability. It ensures that the concepts and principles of Six Sigma are applied
at the production design and development stages for enhanced customer satisfaction,
improved long-term profitability, increased product reliability, improved profit margin,
etc. This has been a simple introduction to the underlying approach. In practice, of
course, it is a more complex procedure which, like many others, depends crucially on the
selection of team members and on ensuring that they have a supportive environment in
which to work. However, successfully applied, DFSS is expected to enforce the best
design practices to achieve competitive advantage and business excellence.
 Design for Six Sigma (DFSS): lessons learned from world-class companies 59

References
Banuelas, R. and Antony, F. (2003) ‘Going from Six Sigma to design for Six Sigma: an exploratory
study using analytic hierarchy process’, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp.334–344.
Banuelas, R. and Antony, F. (2004) ‘Six Sigma or design for Six Sigma?’, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.250–263.
Buss, P. and Ivey, N. (2001) ‘Dow chemical design for Six Sigma rail delivery project’,
Proceedings of the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference, pp.1248–1251.
Chowdhury, S. (2001) The Power of Six Sigma, London: FT/Prentice-Hall.
Conlin, M. (1998) ‘Revealed at last: the secret of Jack Welch’s success’, Forbes, Vol. 16, No. 2.
De Feo, J. and Bar-El, Z. (2002) ‘Creating strategic change more efficiently with a new design for
Six Sigma process’, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.60–80.
Finster, M. (2001) ‘From continuous improvement to continuous innovation’, Quality Management
Journal, Vol. 8, No. 4.
Harry, M. and Schroeder, R. (2000) Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy
Revolutionalizing the World’s Top Corporations, New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday.
Kwak, Y.H. and Anbari, F.T. (2006) ‘Benefits, obstacles, and future of Six Sigma approach’,
Technovation, Vol. 26, pp.708–715.
Lönnqvist, A. (2006) ‘Design for Six Sigma roadmaps’, Proceedings of the 9th QMOD
Conference, available on CD.
Mader, D.M. (2002) ‘Design for Six Sigma’, Quality Progress, July, pp.82–86.
McClusky, R. (2000) ‘The rise, fall, and revival of Six Sigma’, Measuring Business Excellence,
Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.6–17.
Nave, D. (2002) ‘How to compare Six Sigma, lean and the theory of constraints’, Quality Progress,
Vol. 35, No. 3, p.73.
Pande, P.S., Neuman, R.P. and Cavanagh, R.R. (2000) The Six Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola,
and Other Top Companies Are Honing Their Performance, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Park, S.H. (2003) Six Sigma for Quality and Productivity Promotion, Tokyo: Asian Productivity
Organization (APO).
Rajagopalan, R., Francis, M. and Suarez, W. (2004) ‘Developing novel catalysts with Six Sigma’,
Research Technology Management, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp.13–16.
Soderborg, N.R. (2004) ‘Design for Six Sigma at Ford’, Six Sigma Forum Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 1,
pp.15–22.
Tennant, G. (2002) Design for Six Sigma, Gower Publishing Ltd.
Treichler, D., Carmichael, R., Kusmanoff, A., Lewis, J. and Berthiez, G. (2002) ‘Design for Six
Sigma: 15 lessons learned’, Quality Progress, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.33–42.
Weiner, M. (2004) ‘Six Sigma’, Communication World, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.26–29.
Yang, K. and EI-Haik, B.S. (2003) Design for Six Sigma, McGraw-Hill Professional.