Uncovering Readiness Factors Influencing the Lean Six Sigma Pre-Implementation Phase in the Food Industry

Reviewer 1

Questions

Answers

Dear Authors. Congratulations on choosing a topic that may have a practical impact on the assessment of readiness and, consequently, on the costs of implementing solutions optimizing the effectiveness and efficiency of processes, not only in the context of the food industry. In this sense, the developed diagnostic tool has a chance to be implemented in other industries, taking into account their specificity and appropriate design of the research process, taking into account the specificity.

Without diminishing the concept of the article and the amount of work devoted to it, I will allow myself to make some critical observations and, consequently, the following questions:

1. bearing in mind the extensive literature on the subject, how has it been critically reviewed?;

Thank you for the comments.

Added:

A systematic literature review was conducted for this research activity. However, there is a dearth of evidence and a lack of in-depth research on LSS application in the food industry [34]. The majority of the research focused on case studies (SLR, n=49) where the research lean towards the use and application of Lean and Six Sigma [34]. Besides, although there is the existence of studies addressing the pre-implementation stage of change management in Lean, Six Sigma and LSS, the number is small. This indicates that the research topic is still in an infancy stage, and there is no customised study addressing the food industry context [8,34].The literature was critically reviewed in the current study through thematic analysis and comparison of previous readiness studies in the quality improvement research area is listed in Table 1.

2. Is Figure 1. a self-study?;

Thank you for the question.

Figure 1. depicted the Lewin’s Change Model and how it was adapted in the current research. The model was explained in the Section 2.2 first paragraph.

Assessing readiness is extremely important when implementing LSS, to the extent that some experts have even declared it a prerequisite for LSS implementation (Al-Najem et al., 2019; Antony, 2014; Garza-Reyes et al., 2018).

Added:

The development of this theoretical research framework positions the readiness of LSS pre-implementation in the food manufacturing industry as an important aspect, which is commonly neglected before the implementation stages.

3. How the RF factors have been identified?;

Thank you for the comments.

The RF were identified based on the past literature specifically based on eight readiness studies (Table 1).

4. How qualitative method (semi-structured interview) has been identified as most suitable and based on what research?

Thank you for the Question.

Krueger et al. (2014) stated that the traditional quantitative method limits the deep understanding of the change dynamics and new management practices like quality management. The qualitative study is appropriate due to the exploratory nature of the research objective that is very specified context such as the food industry. Due to the unexplored study of LSS readiness in the food manufacturing industry, the format of a semi-structured qualitative interview is employed rather than undertaking a quantitative approach, as there is no hypothesis is inolved (Sreedharan et al., 2019). A semi-structured interview stipulates a guide during interview sessions to diverge the idea or response in depth (Britten, 2006) and allow the discovery or elaboration of important or useful information which may previously be thought of as not relevant to the research team (Gill et al., 2008) It had been done by several past literatures conducted by Ahmad et al. (2017) and Fletcher (2018).

5. What justifies utilizing only one research method;

Thank you for the comments.

The interviews were recorded and supplemented with extensive notes were taken as recommended by Cresswell (2013). Rich information was collected from the respondents until data saturation was reached, referring to the consistency stage of the data collected and stopping when no new information was obtained (Antony et al., 2016; Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Gremyr & Foquet, 2012; Lagrosen et al., 2011).

6. in your case study the same semi-structured method is used for verification purposes. However verifying the readiness factor, how can it verify the method by itself?

Thank you for pointing out.

The first semi-structured interview and case studies being done by using different state of questions. The subsequent case studies being conducted based on the results derived from the first interview sessions in order to verify the LSS readiness factors.According to Voss et al. (2002) and Frederico (2017), case study can be used for the following purposes : exploratory studies, theory build, theory tests, refining and extension of the study. Following to this rationale, the case studies were being conducted to verify the readiness factors from the first stage of interview session as it was deemed suitable research method.

Reviewer 2

Questions

Answers

Abstract: The paper's aim is different than what is in the Introduction section.

We appreciate the reviewer for highlighting the difference.

The paper’s aim and introduction was revised to avoid the differences.

Edited:

* Line 15,17 and 18.

Introduction:

a) The authors present the problem and justify the research, but as written above, the objectives are different, mainly related to what it will give to the reader (in the Abstract seems that would be more, and in the Introduction is just the “food manufacturing industry” (what I didn’t understand what is this chain in the supply chain?):

b) This paper focuses on the precursor stage of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) implementation, which aims to identify, present and categorize the main readiness factors of LSS implementation in the food industry. (Abstract) The aim of this study is to identify the readiness factors of LSS for the food manufacturing industry. (Introduction) After that, the authors wrote, “This study investigates and explores the aspects that contribute to LSS preparedness in Malaysia’s food production business.” There are three different objectives, which one was reached? This is a lack in this paper and demands correction.

c) Even though the authors presented the problem and justify the research, the contribution isn’t clear. I suggest a review about what kind of discussion previous papers presented to show the contribution of this manuscript (what do you do that is different from other papers, summarize their content, such as ‘author A wrote LSS in the food industry in the implementation stage; author B wrote that in the post-implementation stage; author C wrote that in the pre-implementation stage, but in the rural properties/retail’). The authors detached that the pre-implementation stage wasn’t explored before, this has to be in the aim/objective and in a third secondary question.

Thank you for the suggestions.

a) The paper’s objectives in the abstract were revised and match with the objectives in the introduction section.

Edited:

*Line 15,17 and 18.

b) The abstract, introduction and aim had been standardized as below:

(Abstract)

This paper focuses on the precursor stage of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) implementation, which aims to identify, present and categorize the main readiness factors of LSS implementation in the food manufacturing industry.

(Introduction)

The aim of this study is to identify the readiness factors of LSS for the food manufacturing industry.

This study explores the factors that contribute to LSS preparedness in Malaysia’s food manufacturing industry.

c) Thank you for the suggestions.

The author had mentioned the main issues from the previous papers which lead to the structuring of the aim of this research study. Further discussion on the readiness study had been discussed in the literature review sections. The differences between the previous article and this article are also shown in Table 1.Line 43

However, the implementation of LSS seems to be lacking or infrequent in the food manufacturing industry [8]. The major issues in this industry include substantial variations in food production processes, long setting-up and clean-up times, sales slowdowns, rising operational costs and asignificant number of changeovers [8,9,10]. These issues may have contributed to the LSS implementation issue. Furthermore, the food industry is a conservative industry [11,12], which might explain the slow rate at which LSS has been adopted [8].

Line 50

Most LSS literature focuses only on the elements of the LSS implementation phase, such as its critical success factors, benefits and advantages, challenges, performance indicators and the LSS implementation framework,but, the pre-implementation stage remains understudied [8,13].

Added:

Table 1 had been added the type of industry of previous literatures.

Table 1 shows that only seven studies have addressed the pre-implementation phase of LSS and there is none on the conceptual dimension existence for LSS readiness that is specific to the food manufacturing industry. It is believed that different industries have different settings that present different kind of problems [4].

Literature review:

a)The sentence from line 98 to line 99 is interesting and totally related to LSS, but it wasn’t located well. The paragraph doesn't have any discussion about the Circular Economy.

b)I noticed that lines 122 and 123 are not necessary, since the objectives of the paper (all of them) don’t intend to assess anything. I understood that, in Figure 1, the arrows would be in an opposite position because they influence the readiness/ stage/ sustainability. In fact, this Figure places on the same level different subjects, a ‘state’ (readiness), a stage (implementation), and a result (sustainability), which causes some confusion to the reader.

c)The content in Table 1 could be presented in the Introduction, as I suggested above. The section finished, but I didn’t find what the authors ‘promised’ in the objective 'identify (present and categorize) the main readiness factors of LSS implementation in the food industry. Where are these factors? An explanation for each of them and a Table with them and their sources are necessary.

d) Another categorization that the authors need to clarify is the ‘freezing’ and ‘unfreezing’. They would be clear if they are talking about phases of a food process. They must present what is “food manufacturing industry” is, what stage of the process they’ll check (or both), and in the pre-implementation stage. Maybe a figure will help to clarify where the research is in a supply chain, inside the company, and in the implementation process. This information is necessary to understand the research object.

Thank you for the comments.

a) Edited:

Recently, LSS is linked to the concept of a circular economy as it involves waste reduction [23] by improving carbon footprint and packaging waste management in the food industry.

b) Lines 131 and 132 (after editing) indicated the necessities to assess the readiness of LSS which found to be neglected in the past literature in which they are more focused on the implementation and post-implementation stages. The determination of readiness factors help the food industry in assessing their needs to change and scopes changes interactively as they developed. Figure 1 positioned the readiness to show that the stage of readiness should take place with often to be confused with the critical success factors that happened in implementation stages.

c) Table 1 is deemed appropriate to be placed in the literature review section in ensuring further discussions instead the  of the introduction section.

d) Based on Lewin’s change model, there are three stages involved in organisational change especially to new technology and practices which are unfreezing, change, and refreezing stages. The literature review highlighted the unfreezing phase which was considered the pre-implementation stages which we found important as we are highlighting readiness stages. We are not conducting a specific applied case study to improve the process of food industry in which they are applying for LSS for waste management activity. Most operation management studies were choosing case studies as a method due to its appropriateness and context of interests (Lim, 2016). This was shown that the limitation of the type of research strategy used in the survey, interview, perspectives and argument, and others compared with the case study research strategy.

Method:

a)The section presents some stages that are very important to a qualitative study. It’s not clear if the 12 interviewees work in the three case studies because the information about the companies/case study (section 3.2) should be before the content from line 172 to line 192.

b) All text about data collection (including the company's features) must be before the data analysis and validation.

c) After that, the authors can present the techniques used to analyze data and the principle to validate the study. In line 199 the authors wrote ‘table 3 which shows the results of readiness of LSS’, but where are the factors?

d) As I required before, these factors must be presented before the results. They’d better be located in the literature review section, but, at least, in this section, after line 158 and before the information questionnaire (I didn’t find the Appendix where the authors ‘said’ that would be).

Thank you for the comments.

a) The semi-structured interview involved 12 expert practitioners. The case studies were then implemented at different companies where the respondents were not the same 12 practitioners to verify the readiness factors based on table 4.

b) The company features are different from Table 2 because Table 2 is the food industry practitioners that are involved with a semi-structured interview. The subsequent case study being conducted is with the three companies afterward. According to Voss et al. (2002) and Frederico (2017), case studies can be used for the following purposes: exploratory studies, theory build, theory tests, refining, and extension of the study. Following this rationale, the case studies were being conducted to verify the readiness factors from the first stage of the interview session as it was deemed a suitable research method.

c)

Edited: ‘table 4 which shows the results of readiness of LSS’,

d) Table 1 had been updated by adding on the column for category of readiness frameworks/ factors from past literatures.

Results:

a) In the introduction of this section the authors inform that the factors will come from the field research. If I understood well, the research method has to be changed, because when the main theme of the research comes from the field, means that the method is closer to grounded theory than to a case study. Then, they present a discussion with some sources. It isn’t clear why the authors didn’t discuss these themes in the literature review and built a table with them and their sources? In the case study, the constructs come before, build a ‘questionnaire’, apply it, analyze data and present the results. What kind of questions were asked to have the set of the factors as a result?

b) Besides, in line 267, the authors wrote “The survey results suggest that the senior management should identify”. Another problem related to the research method: what kind of method did they use? Case study, grounded theory, or survey? In each factor, the text is too much descriptive. Where is the analysis?

c) In the method section, the authors mentioned that they used NVIVO software. Where is the summary of its clusters and results after analysis?

d) Figure 3 is very helpful, but Table 4 seems to be a repetition of the same information presented from sections 4.1.1 to 4.1.6.

e) In the method, the authors could explain these steps, such as ‘we applied the questionnaire, the factors came up, we used NVIVO, so the factors were clearer, and after we asked again to the respondents, and we have their answers in Table 4”. It’s not clear the steps of the research, is quite confused.

Thank you for the comments

a&b) This research had been done by conducting semi-structured interviews with 12 industry practitioners to explore the readiness factors that being underexplored in the industry. The subsequent case studies had been conducted to verify the readiness factors which had been found from the interview sessions. According to Voss et al. (2002) and Frederico (2017), case study can be used for the following purposes : exploratory studies, theory build, theory tests, refining and extension of the study. Following to this rationale, the case studies were being conducted to verify the readiness factors from the first stage of interview session as it was deemed suitable research method.

Edited:

“The interview results suggest that the senior management should identify”

c) Nvivo software being used as a tool to ease the data analysis process. The authors decided to simplify the results in Figure 3.

d) Table 4 is important as this is the verification process based on what is happening in the company as per previous literatures been done by Frederico (2017). Furthermore, different companies had different justifications based on each factor.

e) The author had mentioned that :

This empirical study was based on semi-structured interviews with 12  food industry practitioners in Malaysia who had knowledge of Lean, Six Sigma, or LSS (Table 2).

The readiness factors identified in the previous research stage were then validated through the case studiesof  three food companies (one medium and two large).

Conclusion: Finally, I understand that the research was developed in the unfreezing phase. I expect more suggestions for companies after the research, and for the academy, what are the contributions?

Thank you for the comments.

First, it contributes to extensions of change management theory and theories within the lean six sigma research area. The aim is to enhance readiness to change in an organisation and deepen the understanding of the role of readiness in LSS implementation. Second, it determines the readiness factors of LSS which focusing for food manufacturing industry as it believes that different industries have different settings (Sreedharan et al., 2019).

Reviewer 3

Questions

Answers

No remarks

Thank you for reviewing.

Reviewer 4

Questions

Answers

1) Add the novelties brought by the paper at the end of section 2. Compare your work paper with other articles or research works. From my point of view, it is extremely important to highlight what are the differences from previous works - for example: "Lean Six Sigma Implementation in the Food Sector: Nexus between Readiness-Critical Success Factors" (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guven-Inan-2/publication/356377038_Lean_Six_Sigma_Implementation_in_the_Food_Sector_Nexus_between_Readiness-Critical_Success_Factors/links/6197350e61f0987720b290d2/Lean-Six-Sigma-Implementation-in-the-Food-Sector-Nexus-between-Readiness-Critical-Success-Factors.pdf) and "Gearing Food Manufacturing Industry Towards Lean Six Sigma Implementation: An Exploratory Study on Readiness Factors" (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9309886). Eventually, to avoid self-citation, briefly explain what you did in the previous works and then what you have new in the current proposal without quoting the previous works in references!

Thank you for the suggestion.

We considered avoiding the self-citation by having clear difference between the two publications.

The differences between the two articles are majorly the published article explains the Critical Success Factors in implementing LSS, the causal diagram of the CSFs, the prioritized CSFs, and their relation to the readiness factors of Lean Six Sigma in the food industry.

For the current article, the study emphasised the categories of the readiness factor and the explanation of each readiness factor identified in the context of the food industry based on the interview and the validation of it the case studies.

Added:

This paper aims to build on the previous research by developing the LSS readiness dimension for the food manufacturing industry and validating the readiness factors identified in subsequent case studies.   

2) Place figure 3 above. You refer to it on page 7 and figure 3 is on page 13.

Thank you for pointing out.

The figure had been moved as per suggested.

Comments

Reply

Abstract

1. The first sentence seems to be the paper's aim, and it’s different than what is in the Introduction section. I suggest pasting at the beginning of the abstract the same sentence with the paper aim as many authors do.

Thank you for the comments.

The abstract had had been changed as per suggestions.

Introduction

1. In this section, two sentences present the paper's aim: “The aim of this study is to identify the readiness factors of LSS for the food manufacturing industry” (lines 66-67) and the sentence “This paper aims to build on the previous research (what research?) by developing the LSS readiness dimension for the food manufacturing industry and validating the readiness factors identified in subsequent case studies” (lines 71-73). The first sentence (or the first aim) is the same that the first research question.

Thank you for the comment.

The sentence had been improved to avoid the confusions as per suggestions. The previous research mentioned is suggested by reviewer 4 to avoid self-citation.

“This paper is subsequent to the previous research by developing the LSS readiness dimension for the food manufacturing industry and validating the readiness factors identified in subsequent case studies.”

2. What is the main objective of this research?

Thank you for comments

The main objectives had been added as per suggestions.

3. Besides, the authors must differentiate the contribution from the aim of the paper.

Thank you for the comments

The contribution had been revised by considering theoretical and practical contributions as per suggestions which is located within line 67-76.

Literature Review

1.The sentence in lines 98-99 in the first version of the paper is, in this second version, in lines 100-102. This addition gives more sense to the text.

Thank you for the comments.

2. The sentence that was in lines 122-123 (first version) and now was extended from line 126 to line 132 is still ‘more’ than the paper's aim. The sentence added after it supports the question about pre-implementation, but it doesn’t justify why the authors decided to write about assessment, considering that the paper won’t do anything about it.

Appreciate on the comments.

The authors decides to remain the texts to indicate the necessities to assess the readiness of LSS which found to be neglected in the past literature in which they are more focused on the implementation and post-implementation stages.

3. Figure 1 is the same and because the text doesn't change, is not clear to me.

Thank you for the comments.

Figure 1 had been changed and show the positions of readiness as per suggested.

4. Table 1 is well improved with the factors related to the sources, and the text (lines from 145 to 155) was helpful, though a figure would add value and clarify the main objective and the paper structure.

Thank you for the suggestions.

The authors believed that table 1 is well-sufficed to make the readers well understand and clear.

Method

1. Although the review made the text clearer, its organization could be improved using the suggestions from the first round of reviews.

Thank you for suggestions.

The authors had made arrangement by introducing the methodology adopted followed by semi-structured interviews and case study sections.

2. Before tables 2 and 3 the authors should explain that the research has two steps. First, there was a ‘survey’ with 12 practitioners. After that, with factors emerging, the authors applied the questionnaire in a multiple case study with 3 companies (describe here the respondents of each company). In this explanation, it’d be better if the authors explain for each step in field research what kind of data analysis was implemented (‘survey’/NVIVO; case study/???). This presentation of steps will be helpful for readers.

Thank you for suggestions:

This section had been revised by giving an introduction of the method used followed by section 3.1 for semi-structured interviews and section 3.2 for case studies. The data analysis process of case study had been revised as per suggestions.

3. The factors were presented in Table 1, in the literature review, and this is enough for the constructs (the authors could mention them and Table 1, as a result of the ‘survey’).

Thank you for the comments.

Table 1 works as a guide for the identified nodes to be positioned under the constructs for discussions in section 4.1. Thus, the table 1 had been followed for discussion in section 4.1.

4. I didn’t see the Appendix where the questionnaire is presented.

Thank you for pointing out.

The list of questionnaire had been added at section Appendix A.

Results

1. After Table 1 is changed, the research method is right (case study), but some reviews are needed.

Thank you for the comments.

The identified nodes from semi-structured interviews is based on the previous research in table 1. The positioned of the nodes in Table 4 is a review and validation based on the company readiness.

2. In line 228, the authors wrote “The interview generated 28 nodes of

readiness factors.” These nodes came from NVIVO? 3. Where are the results from NVIVO?

Appreciate on the comments.

The results of 28 nodes of readiness factors had been presented in figure 3.

-Management support and leadership-9 nodes

-Organisational culture readiness-6 nodes

-Process management-4 nodes

-Project management-3 nodes

-Employee involvement- 3 nodes

-External relations- 3 nodes

4. Figure 3 would be better located after section 4.1. and before 4.1.1.

Thank you for the suggestions.

Figure 3 had been moved as per suggestions.

5. Table 4 isn’t necessary for me.

Thank you for your opinions.

However, Table 4 is important as this is the verification process based on what is happening in the company as per previous literatures been done by Frederico (2017). Therefore, the necessities for the table 4 to be remains as a presentation result for case study.

Conclusions

1. Where are the suggestions for companies and academy?

Thank you for your comments.

The suggestions sections had been improved based on theoretical and practical suggestions:

Theoretical: It is located within line 560-566.

Practical: It is located within line 573-576.

2. What are the contributions?

Thank you for your comments.

The contributions had been revised based on theoretical and practical contributions:

Theoretical: It is located within line 567-570.

Practical: It is located within line 570 -576.