Asian Journal on Quality

Emerald Article: Application of Six Sigma at cell site construction: a

case study
Hakeem Ur Rehman, Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Aamir Saeed, Muhammad
Asim
Akbar, Muhammad Usman Awan
Article information:
To cite this document: Hakeem Ur Rehman, Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Aamir Saeed, Muhammad Asim Akbar,
Muhammad Usman Awan,
(2012),"Application of Six Sigma at cell site construction: a case study", Asian Journal on Quality, Vol. 13 Iss: 3 pp.
212 - 233
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/15982681211287775
Downloaded on: 13-02-2013
References: This document contains references to 18 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 186 times since 2012. *
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Author Access
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors
service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all.
Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research
with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book
series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER
compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative
for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Application of Six Sigma

at cell site construction:
a case study
Hakeem Ur Rehman
Institute of Quality & Technology Management,
University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
Muhammad Asif
Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Muhammad Aamir Saeed
Management Sciences, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology,
Wah Cantt, Pakistan, and
Muhammad Asim Akbar and Muhammad Usman Awan
Institute of Quality & Technology Management,
University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this case study-based paper is to study the application of Six Sigma,
a breakthrough improvement strategy in the field of cell site construction of a telecom company.
Design/methodology/approach – This research provides action research of a Six Sigma project
using DMAIC methodology carried out in cell site construction function of a telecom company.
The research illustrates how the various Six Sigma tools and techniques were applied in a mutually
inclusive manner in one project. The infrastructure department of the company had constructed
900 cell sites last year, out of which 150 were not according to standards and were either disapproved by
the operations department or underwent maintenance soon after their use. In 2010, the company spent
US$ 0.5 million on rework and maintenance at these sites, thus highlighting the urgency of the problem.
Findings – The paper shows how, after the implementation of the Six Sigma project, the company
made savings worth US$ 0.45 million.
Originality/value – Six Sigma as a means of waste reduction has gained popularity among
researchers and practitioners. The literature on the methodology of Six Sigma and the management
approach towards Six Sigma is burgeoning. While various Six Sigma tools and techniques and their
application are discussed in literature independent of each other, the need has arisen to observe
their systematic application as they apply in a project; every company can use this breakthrough
improvement strategy to improve its processes by reducing waste and deriving the financial benefits.
Keywords Construction operations, Six Sigma, Telecommunications industry,
Cell sites construction, Waste reduction, DMAIC methodology
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
Six Sigma has gained widespread popularity in industry as a process improvement
methodology. It is defined as a “process of business operations which make it possible
for companies to rigorously make better their basic formation” (Harry and Schroeder,
2000, p. vii). The concept of Six Sigma started from Motorola Inc, in the USA in about
1985, with the purpose of reducing the number of defects in a process. The name Six
Sigma suggests a goal of reducing the number of defects to 3.4 defects per million
opportunities (DPMO). Six Sigma uses a structured approach to reduce the number
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1598-2688.htm
Asian Journal on Quality
Vol. 13 No. 3, 2012
pp. 212-233
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1598-2688
DOI 10.1108/15982681211287775

212
AJQ
13,3
of defects to this level. Following successful implementation of Six Sigma by Motorola,
a large number of companies have implemented it and success stories are discussed in
the literature. Six Sigma had its origin in practice; however, literature on Six Sigma is
burgeoning. Given the widespread acceptance of Six Sigma in industry it is argued that
the academic community should continue research on this topic in order to better
understand its underpinning principles, application, benefits, and critical success
factors (CSF). The existing literature has discussed the definition and basic concepts,
underlying principles, methodological issues, deployment process, and general
management approach toward Six Sigma. While this type of research is essentially
required for better understanding the theory of Six Sigma – such as definition, basic
concepts, and critical factors – there is little action research describing the rich
process of Six Sigma implementation – including Six Sigma methodology, process of
implementation, and impact of Six Sigma implementation.
This paper provides an elaborated account of Six Sigma implementation in
a telecommunication company through an action research. The detailed implementation
process of Six Sigma started from the development of a project charter through
implementation process to results and then comparison with the pre-implementation
process. The paper should provide a thorough understanding of the dynamic process of
Six Sigma implementation. The rest of the paper is structured as follows: the next section
provides an overview of Six Sigma literature. This is followed by a detailed description
of Six Sigma implementation process. Finally, conclusions are presented.
2. Literature review
Six Sigma is defined as a data-driven approach to analyzing the root cause of business
problems and solving them (Blakeslee, 1999). Hahn et al. (2000) described Six Sigma as
a disciplined and statistically based approach for improving product and process
quality. Motorola set the goal of 3.4DPMO so that process variability is 76 SD from
the mean. Under normal conditions a process can undergo deviation of 1.5 SD from the
mean. This means that a three-sigma process would result in a 66,810 DPMO or
93.3 percent process yield. In a Six Sigma process, on the other hand, a deviation of
1.5 SD results in a 3.4DPMO and 99.99966 percent process yield. The ultimate purpose
is to reduce variation and to cut the costs. Consideration of monetary benefits is an
essential component in Six Sigma projects. The Six Sigma methods commence only
once the monetary benefits are established and this bottom line keeps the interest of
management alive in Six Sigma projects (Brady and Allen, 2006).
The literature on Six Sigma could broadly be classified into two categories. The first
is the methodological literature that describes the structured approaches to Six Sigma
implementation. Brady and Allen (2006) found that popular books and training
material on Six Sigma focus mainly on statistical methods. In so doing, they omit much
of the associated theory and include simplified version of standard statistical methods.
The first type of literature provides an elaboration of the systematic approaches used
in Six Sigma implementation. Brady and Allen further found that a large amount of
literature focusses on the methodological aspects of Six Sigma. The second type
of literature focusses the management approach to Six Sigma implementation.
It highlights the factors that are critical to implementation, including role of leadership,
teamwork, and social dynamics of implementation. The examples of the two types of
issues discussed in the literature are summarized in Table I.
The first type of literature focusses on the methodologies and frameworks for
systematic Six Sigma implementation. Two approaches that are common in practice
213
Six Sigma at cell
site construction
include define-measure-analyze-improve-control (DMAIC) that is used in process
improvement and define-measure-analyze-design-verify used in product/service design
improvement (Linderman et al., 2003). Both of these approaches have their roots in the
plan-do-check-act cycle of process improvement. The use of these improvement
frameworks provides a structured approach to the execution of Six Sigma project. The
structured approach also facilitates teamwork and promotes learning and knowledge
acquisition within teams (Choo et al., 2007).
To support the systematic implementation, Six Sigma also employs various quality
management (QM) tools and techniques to find the root cause of the problem and for
introducing process improvement (Linderman et al., 2003). These tools and techniques
include use of Ishikawa diagram to find the root cause of the problem, Pareto analysis
to prioritize problems, histograms to check the distribution of a process, and control
charts to track the trends in a process. QM practices can be used in combination with
Six Sigma to improve process performance (Zu et al., 2008). Table II provides some
illustrative tools and techniques that could be used during various stages of Six Sigma
project.
A key step in any Six Sigma project is to determine exactly what customer requires
and then defining defects or problems in terms of critical to quality (CTQ) parameters.
Commonly used CTQ include process capability, defect measures, 10_ improvement
Issues in Six Sigma methodology literature Issues in Six Sigma management literature
Six Sigma methodology in manufacturing Role of teamwork
Six Sigma methodology in services Role of leadership
Six Sigma methodology during product/service
design
Benefits from Six Sigma implementation
Tools and techniques Obstacles in Six Sigma implementation
Critical to quality metrics Theory of Six Sigma
Key performance indicators Discriminate validity of Six Sigma from TQM
Critical success factors
Table I.
A categorization of
Six Sigma literature
Illustrative process improvement
tools and techniques Purpose of use
Ishikawa/fishbone diagram Root cause analysis of a problem. Identifying all the possible
causes of a problem and sorting the most relevant one
Pareto analysis Prioritization of problems. Isolating the vital few from trivial many
Scatter plot To check the distribution of data
Histograms To check the distribution of data with respect to control limits and
mean of the process
Control charts To track trends in a process
Process capability To check the health of a process – how the data is distributed with
respect to control limits and mean
Failure mode and effect analysis To have better understanding of problem failures based on their
severity, detectability, and occurrence
Design of experiment Decision making through selection from a number of choices
Check sheet Quantification of problems of various types
Table II.
An illustrative list of tools
and techniques used at
various stages of process
improvement
214
AJQ
13,3
measures, cost, time: service time, waiting time, and cycle time, and information:
accurate and timely information. In addition, key performance indicators (KPI) are
also used to show data of a particular outcome. The outcomes of Six Sigma
implementation are expressed in financial terms to make it easy to understand
(Goh, 2002) and to promote greater buy-in by management. The commonly used
KPIs include efficiency, cost reduction, time-to-deliver, quality of the service,
customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, reduced variation, and financial
benefits (Chakrabarty and Tan, 2007). Use of quantitative measures provides
a systematic approach to problem solving and also reduces corporate use of political
agendas to drive solutions (Brewer, 2004).
The second type of literature focusses on the management approach to Six Sigma
deployment. One example of this type of literature is study of CSF, which are necessary
for the successful implementation of any Six Sigma program. A number of CSFs are
discussed in literature which significantly influence the implementation of Six Sigma.
Based mainly on Chakrabarty and Tan (2007), Coronado and Antony (2002), and Goh
(2002), Table III provides some illustrative examples of CSFs of Six Sigma.
A number of issues that are discussed in this type of literature are discussed as
follows. An essential component of Six Sigma methodology is the use of teamwork
where people from various disciplines – such as production, maintenance, R&D, sales,
marketing, and customer management – are invited for problem solving and process
improvement. Linderman et al. (2003) found that explicit Six Sigma goals make the
team efforts persistent and increase the direction of teams toward objectives.
Top-management support is critical for the success of Six Sigma projects. This is
because Six Sigma projects require allocation of resources and development of crossfunctional
teams. Six Sigma uses a group of improvement specialists, typically referred
to as champions, master black belts, black belts, and green belts depending upon their
expertise and involvement in Six Sigma projects. Leaders initiate, support, and review
projects; black belts serve as project leaders and mentor green belts in problem solving
(Barney, 2002; Schroeder et al., 2008).
Illustrative critical success factors Source
Top management commitment Coronado and Antony (2002), Goh (2002), Henderson
and Evans (2000)
Education and training Brady and Allen (2006), Coronado and Antony (2002),
Goh (2002), Kwak and Anbari (2006)
Cultural change Coronado and Antony (2002), Kwak and Anbari (2006)
Change management Brady and Allen (2006)
Customer focus Brady and Allen (2006), Coronado and Antony (2002),
Goh (2002), Linderman et al. (2003), Schroeder et al.
(2008)
Performance metrics Linderman et al. (2003), Schroeder et al. (2008), Sehwail
and DeYong (2003)
Goal-based approach Brady and Allen (2006), Linderman et al. (2003),
Schroeder et al. (2008)
Linking the project success to financial
benefits
Goh (2002), Henderson and Evans (2000)
Organizational understanding of work
processes
Linderman et al. (2003), Schroeder et al. (2008)
Project selection Brady and Allen (2006)
Table III.
Illustrative examples of
critical success factors of
Six Sigma implementation
215
Six Sigma at cell
site construction
The implementation of Six Sigma requires action along both core practices (consisting
of Six Sigma tools and techniques) and infrastructural changes to support core
practices. Schroeder et al. (2008) discussed Six Sigma in terms of meso-structures.
Meso-theory concerns the integration of micro- and macro-level of analysis. The
examples of micro-level approaches employed in Six Sigma projects include statistical
methods. At macro-level Six Sigma projects require overall assessment of Six Sigma
and QM program and quantitative analysis of management practices. The meso-level
is about optimal design of project strategies. Six Sigma projects are reported in
literature as a combination of macro-level strategy and micro- and meso-level tactics.
The meso-approach to Six Sigma is also discussed by other authors including Brady
and Allen (2006) and Schroeder et al. (2008). The crux of the debate is that Six Sigma
implementation requires micro- and meso-level tactics to achieve strategic objectives
and such efforts need to be organized along both technical and social side of the
organization.
This research provides a case study of Six Sigma implementation at a telecom cell
site construction company. The detailed process of Six Sigma implementation is
discussed along with tools and techniques used for this purpose.
3. Research methodology
This research is based on action research. Action research is a field experiment to solve
real life problems. It involves both researcher and practitioners in the experiment.
During action research the aim is discovering facts and altering certain unsatisfactory
conditions experienced by the organization by changing the process of the system
itself (Krishnaswamy et al., 2006). The action research starts with the identification of
a problem area and then specific problem in organizational setting, recording of the
actions taken and the accumulation of the evidence of the degree to which the goal has
been achieved; and drawing inference regarding the relationship between the actions
and the desired goals (Krishnaswamy et al., 2006).
The telecom company experienced a number of problems with its cell site
construction. The newly developed cell site constructions were not up to the
requirements and were either rejected by the operations department or came under
maintenance soon after their use leading to failures of different types and, thus,
adding to costs. Management decided to address this issue through implementation
of a Six Sigma project. A team was constituted for this purpose. The team
consisted of a Six Sigma consultant, a project manager, four civil engineers, one
electrical engineer, and one rigger. Researcher was a part of the team and was able to
observe, analyze, and intervene the process, when needed. All the processes
and activities in the Six Sigma project were documented. The action research
approach provided in-depth insights into the research. Researcher was able to
observe the process, make necessary interventions, and assess the outcomes of such
interventions.
Once the project was decided, team was constituted, and project charter was
developed. The Six Sigma methodology employed for this purpose was DMAIC.
To analyze and improve the process different tools and techniques were used.
Minitab 15 was used for data analysis. During the whole process teamwork was
a conspicuous element. For example root cause analysis to identify the possible
causes of problem and to find the causes most relevant in this project benefited
extensively from the teamwork. The DMAIC methodology used for this purpose is
discussed as follows.
216
AJQ
13,3
Implementation of Six Sigma: DMAIC methodology
3.1 Define phase
The define phase consists of three activities: to define the project charter; to do
supplier, input, process, output, control (SIPOC) analysis; and mapping the existing
process to see its current health.
The project charter outlines the whole project. The project charter consists of:
(1) defining the problem statement;
(2) why the problem is worth addressing. This is also called defining business
case – why the company should do that particular project;
(3) discussing project goals;
(4) defining measurement metrics to track the performance; and
(5) defining the project scope. The project charter is shown in Table IV.
3.1.1 D1: project charter
3.1.2 D2: SIPOC diagram. The next step is SIPOC analysis which consists of
identifying supplier, inputs, process, outputs, and customer of the whole process.
The SIPOC analysis describes the whole process at macro-level. It tells how the process
serves its customers; where the process originates; who are the suppliers; who are the
customers; how the inputs are processed and transformed into final output; and what
the intermediate steps are. The SIPOC analyses, thus, helps to better understand the
whole process and makes improvement possible.
SPOIC analysis start from cell planning department which will crisscross the
area for construction of cell according to the number of users and signals; then, it will
forward its reports to marketing department. Marketing department will prepare
a feasibility report according to business opportunities and revenue. Keeping in view
the reports of marketing and cell planning department, the project management
department will plan visits and send its report to the acquisition department.
This department acquires the land fulfilling the requirements of other departments.
Business case Infrastructure department of the company constructed 900 cell sites last year out of
which 150 sites were not as per standards, either these were not accepted by operation
department due to quality issues or came in maintenance work after some time. The
company has spent US$0.5 million on rework and maintenance at these sites last year.
This project envisages the improvement in cell sites construction by 90 percent to save
US$0.45 million or rework cost as hard savings
Problem
statement
Overall expenditures have been raised due to rework. Moreover during rework/
maintenance operations of affected sites stops. This affects the quality of service and
caused the company to lose its strategic advantage over other telecom companies
Goals To eliminate the number of defects by 90 percent in site acceptance
To improve the quality of cell site construction by applying quality checks at
different phases
To reduce/eliminate the cost of maintenance from US$0.5 million to US$0.05 million
Metric Primary metric(s): number of sites rejected because of defects blocking installation of
radio equipment, number of sites locked due to civil work (production) issues
Secondary metric(s): selection of vendor, proper testing of material, targeted
timeframe, new quality checks
Project scope The project targets reduction of defects in new sites construction and improve quality
to avoid maintenance
Table IV.
The charter of the
Six Sigma project
217
Six Sigma at cell
site construction
After land acquisition, the design department will make design calculations according
to soil data and a physical visit performed by all technical depts. Representatives check
and report on the suitability of required site in terms of land, area, coverage
requirement, arial clearance from any other nearby site to connect
the new site through microwave link and finally a design is delivered to the
infrastructure department. Infrastructure department, following the standard
operating procedures (SOP) guidelines, announces a tender, and short lists the
vendors. After analysis, the site is awarded to a selected vendor.
Now the vendor starts the site construction process while developing a layout
according to site marks the area. After this, according to design requirements, the site
is prepared for “concrete” by arranging the stubs, make steel fixing, and template
checking. Foundation structure would be completed after concreting the pads
and tower foundation. When the basic structure is developed, the floor would be
compacted and finalized after construction of the shelter and generator foundations.
Then, according to the specification of towers and shelter drawings, tower erection
and shelter installation and electrification with grounding works process is completed,
as well as completion and testing of generators installation. Finally, the site would be
completed after performing these activities which satisfy the drawing requirements;
flooring and boundary wall would be constructed according to site requirements and
final inspection would be made, keeping in view the SOP. The infrastructure
department will make final inspection of site and will hand over to OAM or O&M
(operations and maintenance) (Table V).
3.1.3 D3: process map. Process map shows how the new site comes about. It shows
the different phases of construction of the cell site. Process of cell construction starts
from the department of cell planning, after inspection of different sites and making
some observation and suggestions, a request is forwarded to project management
department. Project management department, after the recognition of request, visits
that area with different departments such as TXN, production and acquisition, and cell
planning. If all the departments are agreed on the proposed site, the land acquisition
department will make an agreement with the owner. If all the departments are not
agreed on the proposed site, another visit will be planned and after feedback a site will
be selected or proposed. After this, the infrastructure department makes some soil tests
and develops a design. Then, the site will be awarded to vendor who will nominate a
site engineer to develop a layout and excavate the site. After stubs and steel fixing,
foundation pad and columns will be concreted and tower erected. After backfilling the
tower, shelter, genset pad is constructed and painted. When the sheltering and
electrification process is completed, the genset is installed and checked. Boundary wall
and floor will be constructed. After this a comprehensive inspection will be made and
all the issues will be removed; and after some rework activities, if required, the site will
be handed over to O&M (from this stage, O&M department will take care of this site
and in case of any issue O&M department will do the rectification and maintenance of
the site).
At the end, data will be collected, equipment installed, and finally the new site will
be completed (Figure 1).
In measure phase; cause and effect diagram is used to describe the causes and subcauses
of the main problem and after that the list of the defects provided in detail
which researchers find from the sites. Current process performance measure using
Six Sigma metrics which shows currently process is working at 4.8 sigma level, target
set to reach at 5.0 sigma level. Third, in analysis phase; through graphical
218
AJQ
13,3
Supplier C/N Requirements Inputs Process Output Customer
Cell planning
department
N Number of users,
signals
Drive test – drive around the area of
required site using drive test tool to
determine the available signal strength
and recommendation of site type and
configuration
Site selection Selected site INFRA
Marketing
department
N Revenue Business need
Project
management
department
C Request from CP/
commercial/MKT
Plan visits
Acquisition N Plot documents Other departments requirements
Designer C Soil data, JV Soil report Design calculations Site design INFRA
INFRA C SOP Contractors list Site awarding to contactor Site awarded Vendor
Vendor C Site annexure Marking the areas for tower, shelter
and generator
Site construction Marking INFRA
Site design Excavation and Lean
Removing the loose earth according to
tower design and pour 4 inch plain
concrete to make the bed leveled and hard
Prepared for
concrete
Stubs and steel fixing
Stubs are the main legs of the tower which
are fixed in ground and covered with
reinforced concrete
Stubs and template checking
Template is fixed on the top of first main
four legs of the tower to keep the equal
distance to legs from each other and to
keep the slopes of main legs equal
Concreting of pads and columns for
tower foundation
Foundation
structure
(continued)
Table V.
SIPOC diagram
219
Six Sigma at cell
site construction
Supplier C/N Requirements Inputs Process Output Customer
Pouring the concrete of tower foundation
including pads and columns
Backfilling
Filling of excavated area with sand and
earth with compaction
Compaction
Construction of shelter and genset pads
Preparing the foundations of shelter and
generator
Pads
completion
Tower drawings Tower erection and painting
Tower erection according to drawings,
fixing the bolts, grounding of tower,
and painting
Tower
completion
Shelter drawings Shelter erection and electrification
Fixing the shelter, installing A/Cs,
distribution board, fire system, lighting
and grounding
Shelter
completion
Drawings Genset installation
Installation of generator and connecting
with the shelter
Genset
testing
Drawings Complete earthing
Laying the complete grounding system
and testing to make sure that the
grounding value is o1 ohms
Site
completion
Site Design Flooring and boundary wall constant
SOP Final inspection
INFRA C Final inspection Site completion HO/TO form Site handed
over to OAN
OAN
Notes: INFRA, infrastructure department; CP, cell planning department; MKT, marketing department; PM, project management
department;
ACQ, acquisition department; JV, joint visit; C, controllable; N, noise
Table V.
220
AJQ
13,3
Cell site construction process
PM
Cell
planning
Drive test
Observations
and suggestions
Acknowledge
request
Site clearance
Prepare
buildout
Soil investigation
and design
1 Backfilling
Complete
earthing
Genset
installation
and testing
Accepted
Equipment
installation
Site onair
Y
N
Awarding to
contractor
Ready for
concrete
Inspection Ready to HO
to OAN
2
2
1
Request for
new site
Data gathering
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Issue DD
3
Shelter and
genset pad
construction
3
4
4
Acquisition
Agreement with
site’s owner
OAN/Dep. Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure
Site handing
over to OAN
Flooring and
B/W
construction
New cell site
born
Checking for
issues and
rectification/
rework
Tower erection
and painting
Shelter erection
and electrification
Stubs and
steel fixing
Layout,
excavation and
lean concrete
Nominate
site engineer
Site location
handing over
to production
Escalation mail to
other depts
Joint visit conducted
with TXN, Dep, Prod,
Acq, CP for an option
Feed back from
all depts
All dept.
agreed
Foundation pads
and columns
concreting
Stubs and
template checking/
rechecking
Figure 1.
Process map – cell site
construction
221
Six Sigma at cell
site construction
representations and severity of defects, the researchers found that most of the sites
are having issues of shelter leakage; antenna mounts issue, settlement of flooring
and more grounding value issue, so the impact of these defects causes of site
rejection. Fourth, in improvement phase; with the help of design of experiment
(DOE) three selected variables (i.e. causes: training/skills, SOPs, material)
addressed, in this result improvement found in the process. Fifth, in control
phase; control plan and run chart used for monitoring/controlling the process. The
details of these phases are as follows.
3.2 Measure
Measurement phase is discussed in the following steps:
. M1 – cause and effect diagram.

. M2 – description of defects.

. M3 – sigma calculation.

3.2.1 M1: cause and effect diagram. The researchers initially conducted a
brainstorming session for the identification of the site rejection/maintenance reason:
as a result of this valuable session, ten major defects were found, due to which the site’s
rejection/maintenance takes place; and there are multiple causes of these defects. For
the clear identification of these multiple causes, the researchers constructed a cause
and effect diagram (Figure 2).
Following are the causes of the major defects:
. unskilled labor;

. non-recommended material;

. fabrication faults;
REJECTED
SITES/
DEFECT
RATE
Environment Methods Machines
Engineers not follow laws and
procedures
Labour not commited
Unskilled labour
Less RPM of concrete
mixing machine
Compactor not working
properly
Silcon gun's adjustment issue
Fine sand
Improper shelter and
panels fixing
Low quality earthing material
Under size bolts
Poor quality crush
Low grade steel
Measurements Materials Man
Poor shelter
installation
Poor tower
fabrication
Measurement equipment not
calibrated
Less number of quality checks
No process of tower testing in factory
Weather condition
Rainy sand
Cause and effect diagram - “cell site construction”
Zinc bath of angles
not as per standards
Cleaning of angles not
proper
Holing in angles not
proper
Figure 2.
Cause and effect diagram
– cell site construction
222
AJQ
13,3
. installation faults; and
. improper use of equipment.
Due to these causes we face a lot of major and minor defects which result in the site’s
rejection and rework.
3.2.2 M2: description of defects. Ten major defects, due to which researchers find
site rejection, are:
(1) settlement of site flooring;
(2) tower (main legs) foundation strengthening issue;
(3) fire alarm not reporting/working;
(4) tower galvanizing is o90 microns;
(5) poor tower tightening;
(6) oil leakage observed from genset and fuel tank;
(7) grounding value is more than four ohms;
(8) antenna mounts are not straight;
(9) water leakage observed in shelter; and
(10) A/Cs not cooling/working properly.
There are some minor defects which result from these major defects (see Table VI).
3.2.3 M3: sigma calculation. For calculating sigma level, deep study of sites’
database was required. First of all, data collected from all stake holders and compiled it
on a sheet. This one sheet has data of 900 nationwide constructed sites in the year 2008.
From this data a sample of 200 sites was taken, this sample represents the total
population. The data show the number of defects in each site (see Table VII). With the
help of following data current sigma level is calculated.
Opportunities for one site are 2,731; whereas total opportunities for 200 sites will be
2,731_200¼546,200.
Total defects in 200 sites ¼249
Total opportunities ¼2,731_200
DPU (defects/unit) ¼249/200¼1.245
DPO (defects/opportunity) ¼249/(2,731_200)¼0.0005
Yield ¼1_DPO¼1_0.0005¼0.9995
DPMO ¼(249_106)/(2,731_200)
¼456 (defects/million opportunity)
Sigma ¼NORMSINV(0.9995)þ1.5¼4.8
Our current sigma is 4.8 and our first target is to achieve 5 sigma. The next stage is
analysis of the data.
3.3 Analysis
Analysis phase is discussed in the following steps:
. A1 – graphical representations.

. A2 – severity of defects.

223
Six Sigma at cell
site construction
Major categories of defects Sub defects
1. Settlement of site flooring 1.1 Poor backfilling material
1.2 Compaction not done in layers
1.3 Compactor not used
1.4 Improper cement sand ratio
2. Tower foundation strengthening issue 2.1 Fine sand
2.2 Old cement
2.3 Poor mixing of concrete
2.4 Poor workmen ship
2.5 Less curing time of concrete
3. Fire alarm not reporting/working 3.1 Wrong connections
3.2 Less battery life
4. Tower galvanizing is o90 microns 4.1 Rusty angle
4.2 Zinc not as per standards
4.3 Low temperature during zinc bath
5. Poor tower tightening 5.1 Undersize bolts
5.2 Improper fabrication of angles
5.2 Improper fixing of angles
6. Oil leakage 6.1 Poor connection and sealing of pipes
6.2 Low-grade material
7. Grounding value more than 4 ohms 7.1 Non-recommended grounding cable
7.2 Less depth of grounding pits
7.3 Water inlet chocked in grounding pit
7.4 Improper/loose connection of cables
8. Antenna mounts not straight 8.1 Poor fabrication
8.2 Slope level not checked
8.3 Poor fixation of mounts
9. Water leakage in shelter 9.1 Shelter panels fixing improper
9.2 Silicon not used properly
9.3 Silicon gun not working properly
9.4 Panel locks not adjusted
9.5 Roof drain not installed properly
10. A/Cs not cooling 10.1 Wrong connection
10.2 Gas leakage from outdoor units
10.3 Filters not cleaned
10.4 A/C timer faulty
Table VI.
Categories of issues
Major defects No. of defects/site
causing major defect Opportunities/site
Settlement of site flooring 4 6
Tower foundation strengthening issue 5 5
Fire alarm not reporting/working 2 2
Tower (main legs) galvanizing is o90 microns 3 60
Poor tower tightening 3 2,560
Oil leakage observed from genset and fuel tank 2 2
Grounding value is more than 4 ohms 4 4
Antenna mounts are not straight 3 9
Water leakage observed in shelter 5 75
A/Cs not cooling/working properly 4 8
Total 35 2,731
Table VII.
Defects and
opportunities per site
224
AJQ
13,3
3.3.1 A1: graphical representations. Figure 3 shows the number of sites having
different issues. This figure shows that most of the sites are having issues
of shelter leakage; antenna mounts issue, settlement of flooring, and more grounding
value issue.
The next chart (Figure 5) shows percentage of issues in sites (Figure 4).
Figure 5 is quite interesting in that it shows that in each month how many sites are
without issues and how many sites are having issues.
Next graph (Figure 6) is continuation of Figure 5, as it shows the number of sites
with issue and also number of issues in these sites.
40
35 32
22
3
18 19
24
Issues
31
38
35
27
No. of sites
Issues vs no. of sites
30
25
20
No. of sites
15
10
5
0
Settlement of flooring
Foundation strenghtening issue
Fire alarm issue
Tower galvanizing issue
Oil leakage
Grounding value issue
Antenna mounts issue
Shelter leakage
A/C issue
Tower tightening issue
Figure 3.
Issues vs number of sites
Issues rate
11% 13% 1%
9%
7%
8%
12% 10%
14%
15%
Settlement of flooring
Foundation strenghtening issue
Fire alarm issue
Tower galvanizing issue
Tower tightening issue
Oil leakage
Grounding value issue
Antenna mounts issue
Shelter leakage
Figure 4.
Issues rate
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Jan, 08
Feb, 08
Mar, 08
Apr, 08
May, 08
Jun, 08
Jul, 08
Aug, 08
Sep, 08
Oct, 08
Nov, 08
Dec, 08
Month
Sites with issues
Sites w/o issues
No. of sites
2
21
4
23
3
16
4
16
5
15
6
18
9
21
10
20
2
12
4
16
32
11 11
Figure 5.
Sites with issues in
each month
225
Six Sigma at cell
site construction
The above mentioned graphs and charts show the number of defected sites and
number of issues in these sites. Now the point is, which issues should be controlled
in first phase so that sigma level can be improved. To know this, severity of defects
needs to be known, which can be determined from Table VIII.
3.3.2 A2: severity of defects. Table VIII shows the defects and impact of these defects
which are the causes of site rejection. By multiplying the occurrence rate with impact,
the score can be calculated; this shows which issue is more critical to address first. The
result of this table shows that first of all “high value” issues should be addressed to
improve the quality of work in sites’ construction.
3.4 Improve
The improve phase is detailed in the following steps:
I1 – DOE.
I2 – steps for improvement.
I3 – results in improve phase.
3.4.1 I1: DOE. Researchers selected three variables (i.e. causes: training/skills,
SOPs, material) from the cause and effect diagram, which researchers found needed
Sites with issues
No of issues
14
17
11
28
18
24
39 38
23
17
10
324
2
9 10 10
56434
2
Month
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Jan, 08
Feb, 08
Mar, 08
Apr, 08
May, 08
Jun, 08
Jul, 08
Aug, 08
Sep, 08
Oct, 08
Nov, 08
Dec, 08
Figure 6.
Time wise distribution
of defects
Impact
Defect/issues Occurrence 1 2 3 4 5 Score Remarks
Settlement of flooring 32 128 High
Foundation strengthening issue 3 15 Severe
Fire alarm issue 22 44 Medium
Tower galvanizing issue 18 18 Low
Tower tightening issue 19 57 Medium
Oil leakage 24 96 High
Grounding value issue 31 62 Medium
Antenna mounts issue 35 140 High
Shelter leakage 38 190 High
A/C issues 27 81 High
Table VIII.
Severity of defects
226
AJQ
13,3
attention after brainstorming session and which are the major critical factors
for process improvement. At this point in the DOE analysis, the selected three
variables are used to build a statistical table comparing the combination of low and
high levels for each variable. Eight runs are created in the screening design, as shown
in Table IX:
(1) Training/skill level of technical staff: _1 shows low training/skill level of
technical staff whereas 1 shows high training/skill level of technical staff. If
staff is not trained/skilled, company facing more issues as compared to trained
staff.
(2) SOPs: _1 shows that existing SOPs are not being followed and SOPs and not
updated; whereas 1 shows that existing SOPs are being followed. In case of
unavailability of updated SOPs, or poor follow up of existing SOPs, issues will
be increased as compared to proper implementation of SOPs.
(3) Use of approved construction material: _1 shows that approved and
recommended materials are not being used during construction; whereas 1
shows that approved and recommended materials are being used. In case of
using poor quality/non-recommended material, issues will increase as compared
to the use of approved and recommended construction material.
Following are the results of the experiment (see Figures 7-9).
The result demonstrates that the three variables (material, SOPs, and skill level of
staff) are playing major part in sites rejection.
From Figure 10 it can be seen that poor or low-grade material is a big
problem for us. Most of the defects are the result of using non-recommended/
approved materials. The second major cause of defects is unavailability of updated
SOPs or non-implementation of existing SOPs. The third major factor is skill level
of technical staff. These three major causes will be addressed to reduce the number of
defects.
3.4.2 I2: steps for improvement. DOE shows the weak areas, and to overcome such
areas, proper training of staff, revision in SOPs, and testing of material is required. To
overcome this, the following steps are taken:
(1) Material list: a new approved material list has been floated to all contractors
and they can only proceed if approved material will be available at site.
Testing of all materials will be done through a recognized body. Moreover,
Training/skills SOPs (procedure) Material Result/defects per site
_1 _1 _1 8
1 _1 _1 7
_1 1 _1 6
_1 _1 1 5
1 1 _1 4
1 _1 1 3
_1 1 1 2
1111
Table IX.
Design of experiment
(_1 is low/poor;
1 is high/good)
227
Six Sigma at cell
site construction
all vendors will submit the following reports at different stages of site
construction:
. steel testing report;

. concrete testing report;

. compaction test report;

. silicon test (water proofing of shelter);

. level checking of antenna mounts;

. load checking of A/C;

. pressure test of fuel lines of genset and fuel tank;

Cube plot (data means) for defects/site
2
6
1
1
SOPs
1
–1
–1 1 –1
8
Skill level
Materials
4
7
5
3
Figure 7.
Cube plot for defects/site
Interaction plot (data means) for defects/site
Skill level
SOPs
–1 1 –1 1
6
4
2
6
4
2
Materials
Skill level
–1
1
SOPs
–1
1
Figure 8.
Interaction plot for
defects/site
228
AJQ
13,3
. galvanizing test from Alco-meter of tower; and
. fire alarm testing by simulation.
(2) Updated SOPs: revision in SOPs has been done. As per new SOPs mentioned,
new forms are introduced:
. material checklist;

. site forms (tower, concrete, steel, quality check); and

.quality assurance form.
(3) Training of technical staff: a training plan is floated for engineers and site staff.
Contractors will be responsible for the training of their staff and they will
submit the reports on monthly basis. At least 40 hours training will be required
in six months.
Pareto chart of the effects
0.000 (response is defects/site, = 0.05)
Factor Name
Skill level
SOPs
Materials
A
B
C
Effect
01234
Team
C
B
A
AB
BC
AC
ABC
Figure 10.
Pareto chart of effects
Main effects plot (data means) for defects/site
Skill level
–1 1
–1 1 –1 1
6
5
4
3
2
Mean of defects/site
5
4
3
2
6
Materials
SOPs
Figure 9.
Main effect plot for
defects/site
229
Six Sigma at cell
site construction
3.4.3 I3: results in improves phase. After implementing of approved material,
new procedures and training of staff, sigma was calculated once again.
It is observed that ten sites in each month to check defects/site and again
took sample of 80 sites for year 2009 (from January to August). Total issues
observed are 48.
Total defects in 80 sites ¼48
Total opportunities ¼2,731_80
DPU (defects/unit) ¼48/80¼0.60
DPO (defects/opportunity) ¼48/(2,731_80)¼0.00022
Yield ¼1_DPO¼1_0.00022¼0.99978
DPMO ¼(48_106)/(2,731_80)
¼219.69 (defects/million opportunity)
Sigma ¼NORMSINV (0.99978)þ1.5¼5.02
Hence target has been achieved.
3.5 Control
After analyzing and improving it is mandatory to control the process to maintain the
results and to further improve the process.
Control phase is detailed in the following steps:
C1 – run chart.
C2 – control plan.
3.5.1 C1: run chart. After taking the sample again from sites constructed from
January 2009 to August 2009 it is observed that number of defects/site have been
reduced and site’s rejection rate has been decreased as well. All the p-values indicate
that there are no special causes. Figure 11 represents the results.
3.5.2 C2: control plan. After improving the process of cell sites’ construction, control
plans for improved construction of cell sites established and implemented. After
applying new check, process diagram is as shown in Figure 12.
Observation
Defects/site
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
4
3
2
1
0
Number of runs about median:
0.12546
11
Expected number of runs:
Longest run about median:
Approx p-value for clustering:
Approx p-value for mixtures:
Number of runs up or down:
0.61708
19
Expected number of runs:
Longest run up or down:
Approx p-value for trends:
Approx p-value for oscillation:
Run chart of defects/site
19.66667
3
0.38292
9.33333
7
0.87454
Figure 11.
Run chart of defects/site
230
AJQ
13,3
New process - cell site construction
OAN/Dep. Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Acquisition PM Cell
planning
Material checklist
(by site engineer)
Site location
handing over to
production
Joint visit
conducted with
TXN, Dep, Prod,
Acq, CP for an
option Y
Flooring and
B/W
construction
New cell site
born
Y
Awarding to
contractor and
nominate site
engineer
Prepare
buildout
Shelter and
genset pad
construction
Site handing
over to OAN
Feed back from
all depts
N
Escalation mail to
other depts
Issue DD
Ready for
concrete
Request for
new site
Inspection of
complete site
Complete
earthing
Data gathering
Rectification of
issues/rework
Stubs and steel
fixing
1
All dept.
agreed
Site onair
Genset
installation and
testing
Tower
erection
and painting
N
1
3
Ready
to HO to
OAN
Site clearance
Drive test
N
Shelter erection
and
electrification
Stubs and
template
checking /
rechecking
Backfilling &
compaction test
Observations and
suggestions
N
3
Soil investigation
and design
Accepted
2
Agreement with
site’s owner
Foundation pads
and columns
concreting
Layout and
excavation
Acknowledge
request
Y
Equipment
installation
2
All material ok
Y
Compaction
test ok Y
N
Water proofing
test on shelter
Tower and
antenna
mounts
checking in
factory
Y
4
4
N
Lean concrete of
foundation pad
Figure 12.
New process map – cell
site construction
231
Six Sigma at cell
site construction
4. Conclusion
Six Sigma has been used successfully in manufacturing industry for three decades.
The real challenge was to employ Six Sigma in the telecom industry for construction of
its sites. In this paper, it is concluded that Six Sigma is applicable in telecom (cell) sites
construction. There are a lot of differences between constructions and manufacturing
processes but with proper attention, Six Sigma works very well in cell sites’
construction. It may bring great benefits to telecom companies, especially when there
is a big competition and number portability has been introduced. Any telecom
company can only retain its customers if service quality is better than others, otherwise
users will switch to another telecom operator. And for better service, cell sites
construction quality is a major area where improvement is needed and this can be
achieved if Six Sigma tools are used for construction’s process improvement. The key
challenges of Six Sigma in cell sites construction are to recognize CTQs and to set up
cost-efficient activities which can be used to categorize root causes and determine
improvements.
References
Barney, M. (2002), “Motorola’s second generation”, Six Sigma Forum Magazine, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 13-16.
Blakeslee, J.A. (1999), “Implementing the Six Sigma solution: how to achieve quantum leaps in
quality and competitiveness”, Quality Progress, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 77-85.
Brady, J.E. and Allen, T.T. (2006), “Six Sigma literature: a review and agenda for future research”,
Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 335-67.
Brewer, P.C. (2004), “Six Sigma helps a company create a culture of accountability”, Journal of
Organizational Excellence, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 45-59.
Chakrabarty, A. and Tan, K.C. (2007), “The current state of six sigma application in services”,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 194-208.
Choo, A.S., Linderman, K.W. and Schroeder, R.G. (2007), “Method and context perspectives on
learning and knowledge creation in quality management”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 25 No. 04, pp. 918-31.
Coronado, R.B. and Antony, J. (2002), “Critical success factors for the successful implementation
of six sigma projects in organisations”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 92-9.
Goh, T.N. (2002), “A strategic assessment of Six Sigma”, Quality and Reliability Engineering
International, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 403-10.
Hahn, G.J., Doganaksoy, N. and Hoerl, R. (2000), “The evolution of six sigma”, Quality
Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 317-26.
Harry, M.J. and Schroeder, R. (2000), Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy
Revolutionizing the World’s Top Corporations, Currency, New York, NY.
Henderson, K.M. and Evans, J.R. (2000), “Successful implementation of six sigma: benchmarking
General Electric Company”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 260-82.
Krishnaswamy, K.N., Sivakumar, A.L. and Mathirajan, M. (2006), Management Research
Methodology, Pearson, New Delhi.
Kwak, Y.H. and Anbari, F.T. (2006), “Benefits, obstacles, and future of six sigma approach”,
Technovation, Vol. 26 Nos 5-6, pp. 708-15.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S. and Choo, A.S. (2003), “Six Sigma: a goal-theoretic
perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 193-203.
232
AJQ
13,3
Schroeder, R.G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C. and Choo, A.S. (2008), “Six Sigma: definition and
underlying theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 536-54.
Sehwail, L. and DeYong, C. (2003), “Six Sigma in health care”, Leadership in Health Services,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 1-5.
Zu, X., Fredendall, L.D. and Douglas, T.J. (2008), “The evolving theory of quality management:
the role of Six Sigma”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 630-50.
Further reading
Jung Lang, C. (2012), “Examining the implementation of Six Sigma training and its relationships
with job satisfaction and employee morale”, Asian Journal of Quality, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 100-10.
Corresponding author
Muhammad Usman Awan can be contacted at: usman.iqtm@pu.edu.pk
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
233
Six Sigma at cell
site construction