Literature reappraisal revealed that there is a relationship between Critical Success Factors and the success of Six-Sigma plans execution. However, there seems to be small empirical grounds about specific Critical Success Factors that should be adopted and their expected influence in developing states. Hence, it deem appropriate to place these factors and their influence on using Six-Sigma plans. It is claimed that deductive attack is most appropriate for this research. Reliability trial utilizing Cronbach ‘s Alpha was used to prove the goodness and cogency of response informations. Factor analysis was deployed to prove the cogency of the steps ( Critical Success Factors ) and depict the underline construction in informations matrix variable resulted in six variables. The concluding measure in the analysis was bit-by-bit arrested development analysis through which the research succeeded to place variables impacting fluctuation of Six-Sigma plans execution with merely four variables viz. ; Foundations, Communication and Support, Alignment, and Resource Management. Furthermore, the research provides empirical grounds that proper/improper choice of Critical Success Factors significantly affect the success of Six-Sigma plans execution.

Cardinal words: Six-Sigma, Critical Success Factors, Egyptian organisations.

## Introduction

Bettering quality of merchandises and services is cardinal to concern success. Consequently, organisations have to prosecute different uninterrupted betterment plans / techniques ( Zu et al. , 2010 ) . Six-Sigma is considered one of the latest betterment plans normally used by different organisations ( Chakravorty, 2009 ; Su and Chou, 2008 ) . Different concern sectors such as ; Manufacturing, Financial, Healthcare, Engineering, Construction, and Research and development show turning involvement in using Six-Sigma ( Kwak and Anbari, 2006 ) . In add-on, literature reappraisal revealed that non merely big organisations but besides small- and moderate-sized organisations perceived Six-Sigma to be an effectual plan to heighten their public presentation ( Antony et al. , 2005 ) .

Six-Sigma supports organisations to better productiveness ; provide footing for betterments ; beef up organisations ‘ competitory advantage ( BratiA‡ , 2011 ) ; cut down cost ( BratiA‡ , 2011 ; Antony et al. , 2005 ) ; increase profitableness ; cut down procedure variableness ( Antony et al. , 2005 ) ; increase employees ‘ betterment attempts and committedness to quality ( Linderman et al. , 2003 ) ; better operation public presentation ; and accordingly heighten client satisfaction and trueness ( Chakravorty, 2009 ) . Major countries including ; procedure design, variables probe, analysis and logical thinking, focal point and procedure betterment, wide engagement in job resolution, cognition sharing, end scene, providers efficiency and effectivity, and determination devising are affected positively by using Six-Sigma plans ( Mehrjerdi, 2011 ) .

Although many endeavors demonstrated significant return on investing as a consequence of Six-Sigma execution ( Klefsjo et al. , 2001 ) , several researches criticized Six-Sigma as offering nil new and merely repackaging traditional quality direction patterns ( Zu et al. , 2008 ) . In add-on, there are some organisations that adopted Six-Sigma had to grate their full Six-Sigma plan after passing important sum of money ( Mehrjerdi, 2011 ) . Key statement is that the big returns from Six-Sigma at some organisations were non due to Six-Sigma itself as an betterment plan but were attributable to hapless quality degree before following any quality plan ( Stamatis, 2000 cited in Zu et al. , 2008 ) .

Furthermore, Kumar et Al. ( 2008 ) emphasized that required execution cost for successful Six-Sigma enterprises can be well high for many companies, particularly those companies with little net income borders and limited resources. Therefore, in malice of the recognized benefits achieved by using Six-Sigma, many companies have chosen non to use this plan ( Raisinghani et al. , 2005 ) . Consequently, Chakravorty ( 2009 ) argued that there is an increasing concern about the success or failure of Six-Sigma plans despite the turning popularity and the wide-spread acceptance of Six-Sigma. In that sense, several publications ( Brun, 2011 ; Mehrjerdi, 2011 ; Antony et al. , 2005 ; Kwak and Anbari, 2006 ; Antony, 2006 ; Chakrabarty and Tan, 2007 ; Chung et al. , 2008 ; Yusr et al. , 2011 ) highlighted that proper/improper designation of Critical Success Factors ( CSFs ) will impact Six-Sigma plans success or failure.

## Research Problem

The aforesaid treatment reveals incompatibility between research workers sing the effectivity of implementing Six-Sigma plans. Furthermore, it reveals that proper designation of CSFs have direct consequence on Six-Sigma plans success. Therefore, this research intends to place the relationship between CSFs and the success of Six-Sigma plans execution. The practical deduction of this research is to supply practicians with better chance to successfully reason Six-Sigma undertakings, while the theoretical deduction is to supply research workers with a different position to look into success and failure of Six-Sigma undertakings.

## Research Methodology

This research aims to place important CSFs that affect Six-Sigma execution. Therefore, this research will analyze the literature to theoretically place the CSFs and accordingly, trial and verify through empirical observation the relationship between those CSFs and Six-Sigma execution. It is claimed that deductive attack is most appropriate for this research as it is a theory proving procedure in which, research starts with an established theory or hypothesis about a set of variables and seeks to prove and verify the relationship of these variables ( Sekaran, 2003 ; Greener, 2008 ) . This will be followed by following study research for assemblage and analysing informations required for proving the research hypotheses. Survey research is considered appropriate for this research as study research is used to roll up information from persons about themselves or about the societal units to which they belong ( Forza, 2002 ) .

## Literature Review

## Background and Definitions

Entire Quality Management ( TQM ) can be considered as the male parent of Six-Sigma as many of the rules representing the footing of TQM are paramount in Six-Sigma ( Brun, 2011 ) . This was confirmed by Schroeder et Al. ( 2008 ) whom argued that Six-Sigma is grown out of traditional Quality Management ( QM ) methods and patterns, they besides affirmed the virtue of Six-Sigma is that it provides an organisational construction non antecedently seen. Furthermore, the literature revealed that the original construction of Six-Sigma was derived from statistics taking to cut down procedure fluctuation to less than 3.4 defects per million chances ( BratiA‡ , 2011 ) .

Several Six-Sigma definitions were presented in the literature. These definitions are ; project-driven direction methodological analysis aims to better organisation ‘s merchandises, services and procedures by continually cut downing defect rate ( BratiA‡ , 2011 ) ; forestalling errors within procedures that add value to clients ( Su and Chou, 2008 ) ; bettering output which, in bend, hike client satisfaction with the ultimate end to heighten net income ( Raisinghani et al. , 2005 ) ; powerful concern scheme that is indispensable for accomplishing and prolonging operational and service excellence ( Antony, 2004 ) ; organisation efficiency and effectivity sweetening ( Sokovic et al. , 2005 ) ; prolonging competitory advantage by incorporating procedure cognition with statistics, technology, and undertaking direction ( Kwak and Anbari, 2006 ) .

Reviewing the mentioned above definitions revealed that there is consistence between research workers about the nucleus functions and maps that Six-Sigma purposes to accomplish. These functions and maps can be summarized as ; better procedures efficiency and effectivity through cut downing defect rate, better procedure capablenesss, extinguish waste, better use of bing cognition, enhance organisation profitableness taking to prolong organisation growing and fight. Hence, Six-Sigma can be defined as a methodological analysis used to heighten client satisfaction through identifying, mensurating, analysing and bettering critical procedures that affect organisation stakeholders and held control among these procedures in order to prolong organisation growing and profitableness.

## Six-Sigma Practices

Six-Sigma purposes to accomplish organisation strategic aims through utilizing certain specializers whom apply a structured method and public presentation prosodies ( BratiA‡ , 2011 ) . Therefore, Six-Sigma attack has three alone characteristics ; an overall attack ( known as DMAIC ) that implies betterment tools sequences and links ; integrating of both human and procedure elements utilizing a belt based organisation ( Champion, Master Black Belt, Black Belt and Green Belt ) ; and supervising bottom-line consequences and prolonging additions ( Su and Chou, 2008 ) . In the same vena, Zu et Al. ( 2008 ) through empirical observation validated three new Six-Sigma patterns. These new patterns are ( 1 ) Six-Sigma function construction, ( 2 ) Six-Sigma structured betterment process, and ( 3 ) Six-Sigma focal point on matrices.

Six-Sigma function construction

In an organisation, Six-Sigma is a top-down enterprise led by the company CEO who designates hierarchal trained forces working as betterment specializers ; Champion, Master Black Belt ( MBB ) , Black Belt ( BB ) , and Green Belt ( GB ) therefore, representing the substructure of a Six Sigma undertaking ( Linderman et al.,2003 ; Antony, 2004 ; Su and Chou, 2008 ) . This hierarchy should include a coordination mechanism for quality betterment across multiple organisational degrees ( Zu et al. , 2008 ) every bit good as clear modus operandis for control and coverage ( Klefsjo et al. , 2001 ) . In that sense, leaders ( Champions ) novice, support, and reexamine cardinal betterment undertakings while Black Belts service as undertaking leaders whom mentor Green Belts in problem-solving attempts ( Schroeder et al. , 2008 ) .

Six-Sigma structured betterment process

Six-Sigma is a extremely disciplined procedure that helps an organisation to concentrate on developing and presenting near-perfect merchandises and services ( Su and Chou, 2008 ) . The execution of Six-Sigma incorporates a broad scope of tools and methodological analysiss used to better organisation public presentation and profitableness ( Ingle and Roe, 2001 ) .

Six-Sigma undertakings are led, from construct to completion, by a structured method named DMAIC ( Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control ) for procedure betterment ( Sokovic et al. , 2005 ) and DMADV ( Define, Measure, Analyze, Design, and Verify ) for product/service design betterment undertakings ( Zu et al. , 2008 ) . The betterment rhythm comes into drama to run into the client needs systematically and absolutely ( Su and Chou, 2008 ) . These structured processs offer a standardised attack that guides the squads to interrupt complex undertakings into its simple constituents that cut down undertaking complexness, therefore increasing their productiveness ( Linderman et al. , 2006 ) . This is achieved through utilizing appropriate tools for designated stairss, every bit good as systematic undertaking direction tools, which enhance problem-solving ability ( Kwak and Anbari, 2004 ) . For a specific undertaking or job, the standardised attack is tailored with focal point on doing the studied procedure more robust and less capable to mistakes ( Raisinghani et al. , 2005 ) .

Six-Sigma focal point on matrices

Six-Sigma is a process-focused attack that aims to foreground procedure betterment chances through systematic measuring ( Raisinghani et al. , 2005 ) . The chief benefit of a Six-Sigma plan is the riddance of subjectiveness in decision-making, by making a system where everyone in the organisation collects, analyzes, and shows informations in a consistent manner ( Su and Chou, 2008 ) . Therefore, implementing Six-Sigma emphasizes utilizing a assortment of quantitative matrices in uninterrupted betterment, such as procedure Sigma measurings, critical-to-quality matrices and defect steps every bit good as traditional quality steps like procedure capableness ( Zu et al. , 2008 ) .

An empirical research held by Zu et Al. ( 2008 ) in 226 organisations illustrated three critical Six-Sigma patterns viz. ; Six-Sigma function construction, Six-Sigma structured betterment process, and Six-Sigma focal point on matrices. Their research showed besides that using these patterns will lend straight to ; better public presentation ; co-ordinate and control work ; guarantee that tactics match overall concern scheme ; guide betterment undertakings ; cut down corporate usage of political dockets to drive solutions ; cut down public presentation variableness ; increase employees ‘ betterment attempts and eventually increase the magnitude of betterments. Hence, the research will follow these patterns as variables that represent successful execution of Six-Sigma plans.

## Six-Sigma Critical Success Factors

Antony ( 2006 ) alleged that the difference between success ( significant return on investing ) and failure ( waste of resources, attempt, clip and money ) in a six sigma betterment undertaking could be attributed to the proper/improper designation of critical success factors during the execution of a Six-Sigma plan. With the effort to successfully implement Six-Sigma, several researches ( Brun, 2011 ; Mehrjerdi, 2011 ; Antony et al. , 2005 ; Kwak and Anbari, 2006 ; Antony, 2006 ; Chakrabarty and Tan, 2007 ; Chung et al. , 2008 ; Yusr et al. , 2011 ) introduced different Critical Success Factors ( CSFs ) that are considered as the base that warrant successful execution.

Reviewing the literature revealed several CSFs that were mentioned by several researches such as ; seeable direction committedness, support and engagement ( Brun, 2011 ; Mehrjerdi, 2011 ; Antony et al. , 2005 ; Kwak and Anbari, 2006 ; Antony, 2006 ; Chakrabarty and Tan, 2007 ; Chung et al. , 2008 ; Yusr et al. , 2011 ) , promoting and accepting organisational cultural alteration ( Brun, 2011 ; Antony et al. , 2005 ; Kwak and Anbari, 2006 ; Antony, 2006 ; Chakrabarty and Tan, 2007 ; Yusr et al. , 2011 ) , active communicating procedure ( Brun, 2011 ; Mehrjerdi, 2011 ; Chung et al. , 2008 ) , organisational substructure ( Brun, 2011 ; Antony et al. , 2005 ; Yusr et al. , 2011 ) , uninterrupted instruction and Six-Sigma preparation ( Brun, 2011 ; Antony et al. , 2005 ; Kwak and Anbari, 2006 ; Antony, 2006 ; Chakrabarty and Tan, 2007 ; Chung et al. , 2008 ; Yusr et al. , 2011 ) , associating Six-Sigma to corporate concern scheme and aims ( Brun, 2011 ; Mehrjerdi, 2011 ; Antony et al. , 2005 ; Antony, 2006 ; Yusr et al. , 2011 ) , associating Six-Sigma undertakings to clearly defined clients ‘ demands ( Brun, 2011 ; Mehrjerdi, 2011 ; Antony et al. , 2005 ; Antony, 2006 ; Chakrabarty and Tan, 2007 ; Chung et al. , 2008 ; Yusr et al. , 2011 ) , associating Six-Sigma to human resources ( Brun, 2011 ; Antony et al. , 2005 ; Yusr et al. , 2011 ) , associating Six-Sigma to providers ( Brun, 2011 ; Antony et al. , 2005 ; Yusr et al. , 2011 ) , understanding the DMAIC methodological analysis, tools, techniques and cardinal matrices ( Brun, 2011 ; Antony et al. , 2005 ; Antony, 2006 ; Yusr et al. , 2011 ) , proper accomplishments for undertaking choice, undertaking direction and undertaking control ( Brun, 2011 ; Antony et al. , 2005 ; Kwak and Anbari, 2006 ; Antony, 2006 ; Yusr et al. , 2011 ) , prioritization and choice of undertakings based on their important nest eggs for the organisation ( Brun, 2011 ; Mehrjerdi, 2011 ; Antony et al. , 2005 ; Antony, 2006 ; Chung et al. , 2008 ; Yusr et al. , 2011 ) , executive direction must be active in supplying wagess ( Mehrjerdi, 2011 ) , clear public presentation matrices for roll uping facts and informations in support of all determinations to be made ( Mehrjerdi, 2011 ; Chakrabarty and Tan, 2007 ) , bring forthing a on a regular basis written communications about Six-Sigma ( Mehrjerdi, 2011 ) , inquiring directors at different degree to be supportive and the advocator of Six-Sigma ( Mehrjerdi, 2011 ) , provide intelligence of Six-Sigma ‘s success to the company and how it benefits the companies ‘ underside line and employees ( Mehrjerdi, 2011 ) , fix a list of annual Six-Sigma undertakings and reappraisal and review them on a regular basis ( Mehrjerdi, 2011 ; Chung et al. , 2008 ) , choice of squad members and teamwork ( Kwak and Anbari, 2006 ; Chung et al. , 2008 ) , attaching the success to fiscal benefits ( Antony, 2006 ; Chakrabarty and Tan, 2007 ) , and organisational apprehension of work procedures ( Chakrabarty and Tan, 2007 ) . Table ( 1 ) summarizes different CSFs for Six-Sigma execution.

Table 1: CSFs for Six-Sigma execution

## #

## CSFs

1

Visible direction committedness, support and engagement.

2

Encouraging and accepting Organizational cultural alteration.

3

Active communicating procedure.

4

Organizational substructure.

5

Continuous instruction and Six-Sigma preparation.

6

Associating Six-Sigma to corporate concern scheme and aims.

7

Link Six-Sigma undertakings to clearly defined clients ‘ demands.

8

Associating Six-Sigma to human resources.

9

Associating Six-Sigma to providers.

10

Understanding the DMAIC methodological analysis, tools, techniques and cardinal matrices.

11

Undertaking choice, direction and control accomplishments.

12

Prioritization and choice of undertakings based on their important nest eggs for the organisation.

13

Executive direction must be active in supplying wagess.

14

Using clear public presentation matrices for roll uping facts and informations in support of all determinations to be made.

15

Generating a on a regular basis written communications about Six-Sigma.

16

Asking directors at different degree to be supportive and the advocator of Six-Sigma.

17

Provide intelligence of Six-Sigma ‘s success to the company and how it benefits the companies ‘ underside line and employees.

18

Fix a list of annual Six-Sigma undertakings and reappraisal and review them on a regular basis.

19

Choice of squad members and teamwork.

20

Attaching the success to fiscal benefits.

21

Organizational apprehension of work procedures.

## Research Variables and Hypotheses

The chief subject of this research is to through empirical observation place the relationship between CSFs ( independent variables ) and the success of Six-Sigma patterns execution ( dependent variables ) viz. ; Six-Sigma function construction, Six-Sigma structured betterment process, and Six-Sigma focal point on matrices. The purpose is to place that there is a fluctuation in importance between the different CSFs in making successful Six-Sigma undertakings. Therefore, this research hypothesized the followers:

H1. CSFs have a important influence on the degree of Six-Sigma function construction.

H2. CSFs have a important influence on the degree of Six-Sigma structured betterment process.

H3. CSFs have a important influence on the degree of Six-Sigma focal point on matrices.

## Research Instrument

## Survey instrument

To look into the influence of CSFs on the execution of Six-Sigma patterns, a questionnaire is suggested as an effectual tool for garnering the informations stand foring the respondents ‘ perceptual experiences about the proposed relationships. Questionnaire allows the aggregation of information from big groups of persons about themselves or about the societal units which they belong ( Forza, 2002 ) .

The questionnaire is intended to mensurate the research dependent variables viz. , ( 1 ) Six-Sigma function construction, ( 2 ) Six-Sigma structured betterment process, and ( 3 ) Six-Sigma focal point on matrices ( adopted from Zu et al. , 2010 ) . Five-point Likert graduated table with 1 = Highly non implemented, 2 = Not implemented, 3 = Moderate execution, 4 = Implemented and 5 = Wholly implemented were used to mensurate these dependent variables. In add-on, the grade to which each participant value the 21 CSFs ( independent variables ) are assessed by inquiring respondents to rank each of the CSFs on five-point Likert graduated table where 1 = Least Important, 2 = Less Important, 3 = Important, 4 = Very Important and 5 = Crucial.

The questionnaire was translated from English to Arabic to guarantee participants ability to understand questionnaire points decently. The translated version of the questionnaire was first pre-tested by an expert in this field to guarantee equal interlingual rendition. To polish the questionnaire contents, the initial version was first reviewed by two academic members. Then, farther pre-test were held by five BBs/GBs holders. Evaluation was done based on how each graduated table matches the variable that it intended to mensurate and respondents ability to understand each point clearly. Obtaining their feedback helped the research workers to revise the questionnaire in a comprehensive and apprehensible position.

## Sample and informations aggregation

It is necessary to place the research unit of analysis ; the object, event, entity, single, determinations, plans, execution procedure, etc under probe. The unit of analysis in this research is the single BB/GB who leads the execution of Six-Sigma within their organisations. The population of involvement for this survey is considered to be all BBs and GBs working in Egyptian organisations that implement Six-Sigma patterns. It appeared highly hard to place the exact population for the research as there was great hurdle to happen a database that collates all certified GB/BB in any official and dependable database in Egypt. Therefore, the research had been forced to utilize snowball sampling technique. This type of sampling is used normally when it is hard to place members of the coveted population and is therefore considered the lone possibility to look into the research phenomena ( Saunders et al. , 2012 ) . Researches utilizing snowball trying normally make contact with one or two instances in the population, ask these instances to place farther instances, inquire these new instances to place farther new instances and eventually halt when either no new instances are given or the sample is every bit big as it is manageable ( Saunders et al. , 2012 ) . The restrictions of this technique are in the trouble of doing initial contact, and the immense prejudice that arise as respondents are most likely to place other possible respondents who are similar to themselves ensuing in a homogeneous sample ( Saunders et al. , 2012 ) . The first restriction is non valid to this research as the research workers were able to place five initial contacts ( organizing a primary list ) before get downing the empirical work. The diverseness in the primary contact list allowed the research workers to cut down the consequence of possible respondent ‘s prejudice ( 2nd restriction ) that may originate from choosing respondents similar to them.

Consequently, the BBs and GBs in the primary list were contacted by phone to supply a brief debut, aims and type of required informations to be gathered. Then, the questionnaire is sent to them by electronic mail and a 2nd electronic mail is sent after two hebdomads as a reminder. After having initial mails, respondents were asked to place possible respondents obtaining same features. Then, either an E-mails or direct meetings with possible new respondents were used to fill-in the questionnaire. Finally, 81 questionnaires were returned as no new instances were given.

## Analysis and Consequences

The goodness and cogency of response informations will be accomplished through carry oning dependability trial utilizing the Cronbach ‘s Alpha ( Sekaran, 2003 ) . Factor analysis will be used to prove the cogency of the steps ( CSFs ) and depict the underline construction in informations matrix variable. Factor analysis efforts to explicate the correlativity among a big figure of factors in footings of a smaller figure of concepts. That is, all the factors within a peculiar group ( concept ) are extremely correlated among themselves but have comparatively smaller correlativities with factors in a different concept ( Mukhopadhyay, 2009 ) .

Stepwise arrested development analysis will be used as it is though as a suited methodological analysis for statistically placing important variables. Stepwise analysis aims to either enter or take variables, one at a clip, by taking into history the fringy part of each variable to the theoretical account commanding for the part of the other variables already presented in the theoretical account ( Tamhane and Dunlop, 2000 ; Milton and Arnold, 2003 ) .

## Dependability analysis

The cogency of the collected information for the CSFs graduated table and the three Six-Sigma execution patterns are identified by ciphering Cronbach ‘s alpha ( Table 2 ) . Since the deliberate Cronbach ‘s alpha values are higher than 0.6, the research can trust on the collected information for proving the research hypotheses ( Sekaran, 2003 ) .

Table 2 – Dependability analysis

## Scale

## No. of indexs

## Cronbach ‘s alpha

## All CSFs

21

0.900

## Six-Sigma function construction

## 6

0.792

## Six-Sigma structured betterment process

## 6

0.735

## Six-Sigma focal point on matrices

## 13

0.933

## All Six-Sigma patterns

25

0.913

## Factor analysis

An appraisal of the suitableness of the information for explorative factor analysis was foremost done. First demand is utilizing an interval graduated table measuring ( Hair, et al. , 2010 ) . This was successfully employed in this survey through using a 5- point Likert graduated table study questionnaire. Strong relationship between the variables is another demand for carry oning factor analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin ( KMO ) Measure of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett ‘s Test of Sphericity are used to analyze the strong relationship between the variables ( Mukhopadhyay, 2009 ) . The consequences of KMO trial ( Table 3 ) showed 0.808 which exceeds the lower limit recommended value 0.8 ( Mukhopadhyay, 2009 ) . Bartlett ‘s Test of Sphericity was 867.574 with an associated statistical significance ( p-value = 0.000 ) . This implies that informations is appropriate for factor analysis.

Table 3: KMO and Bartlett ‘s Trial

## Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy

0.808

## Bartlett ‘s Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square

867.574

df

210

Sig.

0.000

It is considered that a factor lading above 0.3 is considered important ; burdens of 0.40 are considered more of import ; if the burdens are 0.50 or greater, they are considered really important ( Mukhopadhyay, 2009 ) . Table 4 shows that all the 21 points have a burden values range from 0.517 to 0.849. This implies that all the points are statistically important at a 0.05 significance degree.

Table 4: Communalities of CSFs

## Item

## Initial

## Extraction

## Item

## Initial

## Extraction

## Item

## Initial

## Extraction

F1

1

0.802

F8

1

0.730

F15

1

0.774

F2

1

0.791

F9

1

0.594

F16

1

0.738

F3

1

0.688

F10

1

0.642

F17

1

0.705

F4

1

0.772

F11

1

0.665

F18

1

0.533

F5

1

0.680

F12

1

0.690

F19

1

0.521

F6

1

0.799

F13

1

0.771

F20

1

0.769

F7

1

0.740

F14

1

0.517

F21

1

0.849

Furthermore, Factor analysis has resulted in six suggested chief constituents ( six new variables ) as shown in Table 5. The consequences show that merely two out of the 21 CSFs has to be excluded. Hence, it is critical to reapportion the elements among the new variables ( derived from factor analysis ) before executing any farther analysis to look into the relationship between the new variables and Six-Sigma execution patterns.

Table 5: Rotated Component Matrix

## Items

## CSF 1

## CSF 2

## CSF 3

## CSF 4

## CSF5

## CSF6

F10

Understanding the DMAIC methodological analysis, tools, techniques and cardinal matrices.

0.744

F20

Attaching the success to fiscal benefits.

0.738

F21

Organizational apprehension of work procedures.

0.714

F14

Using clear public presentation matrices for roll uping facts and informations in support of all determinations to be made.

0.653

F3

Active communicating procedure.

0.630

F12

Prioritization and choice of undertakings based on their important nest eggs for the organisation.

0.598

F15

Generating a on a regular basis written communications about Six-Sigma.

0.813

F17

Provide intelligence of Six-Sigma ‘s success to the company and how it benefits the companies ‘ underside line and employees.

0.772

F16

Asking directors at different degree to be supportive and the advocator of Six-Sigma.

0.654

F18

Fix a list of annual Six-Sigma undertakings and reappraisal and review them on a regular basis.

0.588

F6

Associating Six-Sigma to corporate concern scheme and aims.

0.795

F7

Link Six-Sigma undertakings to clearly defined clients ‘ demands.

0.742

F2

Encouraging and accepting Organizational cultural alteration.

0.702

F11

Undertaking choice, direction and control accomplishments.

0.510

F4

Organizational substructure.

0.846

F8

Associating Six-Sigma to human resources.

0.759

F13

Executive direction must be active in supplying wagess.

0.683

F5

Continuous instruction and Six-Sigma preparation.

0.501

0.512

F1

Visible direction committedness, support and engagement.

0.859

The research proposed rubric for each variable based on its general subject. These rubrics are ; CSF1 ( Foundations ) , CSF2 ( Communication and Support ) , CSF3 ( Alignment ) , CSF4 ( Organizational Infrastructure ) , CSF5 ( Resource Management ) , and CSF6 ( Management Commitment and Involvement ) .

## Descriptive analysis

Basic descriptive statistics are conducted to guarantee that there is negligible deformation of the questionnaire outputs. Descriptive analysis ( Table 6 ) illustrated that both trimmed mean and median are close to intend. This indicates that utmost tonss do non hold influence on deliberate mean. In add-on, the absolute values of the lopsidedness coefficients are comparatively low. This means that there is merely a weak deformation of the collected informations for all variables.

Table 6 – Descriptive analysis

## Variables

## Descriptive Statisticss

## Mean

## Median

## Standard Deviation

## 5 % Trimmed Mean

## Lopsidedness

## Statistic

## Std. Mistake

## Critical Success Factors

CSF1

4.2

0.1

4.2

0.57

4.19

-0.664

CSF2

3.9

0.1

4.0

0.62

3.88

-0.557

CSF3

4.2

0.1

4.3

0.54

4.20

-0.601

CSF4

3.7

0.1

4.0

0.65

3.68

0.145

CSF5

3.6

0.1

3.7

0.60

3.62

-0.451

CSF6

4.6

0.1

5.0

0.54

4.65

-0.980

## Six-Sigma Practices

Six-Sigma function construction

2.53

0.067

2.67

0.60

2.53

-0.084

Six-Sigma structured betterment process

3.24

0.063

3.33

0.56

3.25

-0.682

Six-Sigma focal point on matrices

3.57

0.080

3.62

0.72

3.57

-0.229

## Stepwise Regression analysis

The stepwise choice process was employed to determine the relationship between the identified new independent variables and execution of Six-Sigma patterns ( dependent variables ) .

Hypothesis ( H1 ) proving

Investigating the relationship between the identified new independent variables and “ Six-Sigma function construction ” ( dependent variable # 1 ) illustrated that the overall theoretical account was important as p-value = 0.009 ( Healey, 2009 ) , F = 7.227, R-Square = 8.38 % ( Table 7 ) . An appraisal of single variables significance and the associated estimated arrested development parametric quantities are displayed in Table 7. The stepwise analysis has identified the best theoretical account with one variable ( CSF5 ; Resource Management ) to explicate the sum of fluctuation in “ Six-Sigma function construction ” . The estimated arrested development equation is characterized as follows:

Six-Sigma function construction = 3.574 – 0.288*CSF5 ( 1 )

Table 7 – Model ( I ) Summary

## Model

## Roentgen

## R Square

## Adjusted R Square

## Std. Mistake of the Estimate

## Durbin-Watson

1

0.2895

0.0838

0.0722

0.57988

1.906

## Model

## Sum of Squares

## df

## Mean Square

## F

## p-value

## Arrested development

2.430

1

2.430

7.227

0.009

## Residual

26.565

79

0.336

## Entire

28.995

80

* Forecasters: ( Constant ) , CSF5

## Model

## Unstandardized Coefficients

## Standardized Coefficients

## T

## p-value

## Bacillus

## Std. Mistake

## Beta

## ( Constant )

3.574

0.393

9.088

0.000

## CSF5

-0.288

0.107

-0.290

-2.688

0.009

Durbin-Watson analysis ( see Table 7 ) illustrated that computed value ( 1.906 ) is higher than the tabulated upper bound value at 5 % significance ( 1.66 ) ( Freund, et al. , 2006 ) . This implies that remainders were really independent from each other ( no autocorrelation job ) . Normal P-P secret plan of arrested development standardized remainders ( Figure 1 ) confirms that remainders are usually distributed.

Figure 1 – Role Structure Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Remainders

Beta coefficient ( -0.288 ) reveals that the higher the acceptance of CSF5 ( Resource Management ) , the lower the degree of implementing Six-Sigma function construction patterns. The analysis was taking to prove the relationship regardless of its way. Therefore, the mentioned above analysis reveals hypothesis ( H1 ) credence.

Hypothesis ( H2 ) proving

Investigating the relationship between the identified new independent variables and “ Six-Sigma structured betterment process ” ( dependent variable # 2 ) illustrated that the overall theoretical account was important as p-value = 0.001 ( Healey, 2009 ) , F = 7.552, R-Square = 16.2 % ( Table 8 ) . An appraisal of single variables significance and the associated estimated arrested development parametric quantities are displayed in Table 8. The stepwise analysis has identified the best theoretical account with two variables ( CSF1 ; Foundations and CSF3 ; Alignment ) to explicate the sum of fluctuation in “ Six-Sigma structured betterment process ” . The estimated arrested development equation is characterized as follows:

Six-Sigma structured betterment procedure=2.546+0.531*CSF1-0.363*CSF3 ( 2 )

Table 8 – Model ( II ) Summary

## Model

## Roentgen

## R Square

## Adjusted R Square

## Std. Mistake of the Estimate

## Durbin-Watson

1

0.403

0.162

0.141

0.522

1.974

## Model

## Sum of Squares

## df

## Mean Square

## F

## p-value

## Arrested development

4.111

2

2.056

7.552

0.001

## Residual

21.230

78

0.272

## Entire

25.341

80

* Forecasters: ( Constant ) , CSF1, CSF3

## Model

## Unstandardized Coefficients

## Standardized Coefficients

## T

## p-value

## Collinearity Statisticss

## Bacillus

## Std. Mistake

## Beta

## Tolerance

## VIF

## ( Constant )

2.546

0.489

5.209

0.000

## CSF1

0.531

0.137

0.534

3.886

0.000

0.569

1.758

## CSF3

-0.363

0.143

-0.348

-2.535

0.013

0.569

1.758

Durbin-Watson analysis ( see Table 8 ) illustrated that computed value ( 1.974 ) is higher than the tabulated upper bound value at 5 % significance ( 1.69 ) ( Freund, et al. , 2006 ) . This implies that remainders were really independent from each other ( no autocorrelation job ) . Normal P-P secret plan of arrested development standardized remainders ( Figure 2 ) confirms that remainders are usually distributed.

Figure 2 – Structured Improvement Procedure Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Remainders

Variance Inflation Factor ( VIF ) revealed that independent variables ( CSF1 and CSF3 ) are non inter-correlated among themselves as VIF & lt ; 5 ( see Table 8 ) . This indicates that multicollinearity job is non exist ( Montgomery, et al. , 2006 and Navidi, 2006 ) .

Beta coefficient for CSF3 ( -0.363 ) reveals that the higher the acceptance of CSF3 ( Alignment ) , the lower the degree of implementing Six-Sigma structured betterment process patterns. However, Beta coefficient for CSF1 ( 0.531 ) reveals that the higher the acceptance of CSF1 ( Foundations ) , the higher the degree of implementing Six-Sigma structured betterment process patterns. The analysis was taking to prove the relationship regardless of its way. Therefore, the mentioned above analysis reveals hypothesis ( H2 ) credence.

Hypothesis ( H3 ) proving

Investigating the relationship between the identified new independent variables and “ Six-Sigma focal point on matrices ” ( dependent variable # 3 ) illustrated that the overall theoretical account was important as p-value = 0.000 ( Healey, 2009 ) , F = 14.074, R-Square = 15.1 % ( Table 9 ) . An appraisal of single variables significance and the associated estimated arrested development parametric quantities are displayed in Table 9. The stepwise analysis has identified the best theoretical account with one variable ( CSF2 ; Communication and Support ) to explicate the sum of fluctuation in “ Six-Sigma focal point on matrices ” . The estimated arrested development equation is characterized as follows:

Six-Sigma focal point on matrices = 1.823 + 0.451*CSF2 ( 3 )

Table 9 – Model ( III ) Summary

## Model

## Roentgen

## R Square

## Adjusted R Square

## Std. Mistake of the Estimate

## Durbin-Watson

1

0.389

0.151

0.140

0.667

1.586

## Model

## Sum of Squares

## df

## Mean Square

## F

## p-value

## Arrested development

6.269

1

6.269

14.074

0.000

## Residual

35.190

79

0.445

## Entire

41.459

80

* Forecasters: ( Constant ) , CSF2

## Model

## Unstandardized Coefficients

## Standardized Coefficients

## T

## p-value

## Bacillus

## Std. Mistake

## Beta

## ( Constant )

1.823

0.472

3.865

0.000

## CSF2

0.451

0.120

0.389

3.752

0.000

Durbin-Watson analysis ( see Table 9 ) illustrated that computed value ( 1.586 ) is less than the tabulated lower bound value at 5 % significance ( 1.61 ) ( Freund, et al. , 2006 ) . This implies that remainders were really independent from each other ( no autocorrelation job ) . Normal P-P secret plan of arrested development standardized remainders ( Figure 3 ) confirms that remainders are usually distributed.

Figure 3 – Focus on Matrixs Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Remainders

Beta coefficient for CSF2 ( 0.451 ) reveals that the higher the acceptance of CSF2 ( Communication and Support ) , the higher the degree of implementing Six-Sigma structured betterment process patterns. This indicates that hypothesis ( H3 ) is accepted.

## Discussion and Decisions

Previous literature showed relationship between CSFs and successful execution of Six-Sigma ( Brun, 2011 ; Mehrjerdi, 2011 ; Antony et al. , 2005 ; Kwak and Anbari, 2006 ; Antony, 2006 ; Chakrabarty and Tan, 2007 ; Chung et al. , 2008 ; Yusr et al. , 2011 ) . However, most of the empirical grounds failed to ; supply consensus about specific CSFs that should be adopted ; and expected influence of these factors on successful execution of Six-Sigma. Furthermore, most of empirical grounds comes from developed states context. This research expanded the cognition through ; placing CSFs normally used ; categorise these factors under specific variables ; prove the influence of these variables on successful execution of Six-Sigma in developing states context.

The empirical grounds of this research identified four variables significantly affect successful execution of Six-Sigma viz. ; Foundations ( CSF1 ) , Communication and Support ( CSF2 ) , Alignment ( CSF3 ) , and Resource Management ( CSF5 ) . This consequence confirms through empirical observation ( Brun, 2011 ; Mehrjerdi, 2011 ; Antony et al. , 2005 ; Kwak and Anbari, 2006 ; Antony, 2006 ; Chakrabarty and Tan, 2007 ; Chung et al. , 2008 ; Yusr et al. , 2011 ) statement that proper/improper designation of CSFs will impact Six-Sigma plans success or failure. Furthermore, the research findings succeeded to nail the way of the relationship between important CSFs and successful execution of Six-Sigma plans. Foundations ( CSF1 ) and Communication and Support ( CSF2 ) showed that the higher the acceptance of these variables, the higher the degree of implementing Six-Sigma patterns. However, Alignment ( CSF3 ) , and Resource Management ( CSF5 ) showed that the higher the acceptance of these variables, the lower the degree of implementing Six-Sigma patterns. These consequences confirm ( Raisinghani et al. , 2005 ) statement that many companies have chosen non to travel the Six-Sigma path ; and ( Mehrjerdi, 2011 ) who illustrated that some organisations that adopted Six-Sigma had to grate their full Six-Sigma plan after passing important sum of money.

Overall, this research provides a new position through foregrounding the demand of placing proper CSFs before implementing Six-Sigma plans. It reveals besides that following improper CSFs may impact Six-Sigma undertakings outcomes negatively. Neglecting proper CSFs may cut down the organisation ability to accomplish desired consequences. The research findings identified several interesting countries that could be explored in farther research. Further research may be valuable to look into grounds behind negative consequence that may be due to using improper CSFs. Another interesting research country is to prove the CSFs among different industries and place whether important differences do be or non. Further researches may be held to retroflex same methodological analysis with larger sample as one of the restrictions bing in this research was sample size.

The practical deduction of this research is that it provides organisations taking to use Six-Sigma with a list of CSFs that should be considered before using Six-Sigma plans. Furthermore, it provides usher for nucleus variables that may impact plans success or failure.