Accepted Manuscript

Lean, six sigma and lean six sigma in the food industry: A systematic literature review

Luana Bonome Message Costa, Moacir Godinho Filho, Lawrence D. Fredendall,

Fernando José Gómez Paredes

PII: S0924-2244(18)30173-0
DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2018.10.002
Reference: TIFS 2336

To appear in: Trends in Food Science & Technology

Received Date: 3 April 2018

Revised Date: 15 August 2018
Accepted Date: 6 October 2018

Please cite this article as: Message Costa, L.B., Filho, M.G., Fredendall, L.D., Gómez Paredes, F.J.,
Lean, six sigma and lean six sigma in the food industry: A systematic literature review, Trends in Food
Science & Technology (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.10.002.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 LEAN, SIX SIGMA AND LEAN SIX SIGMA IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY: A
2 SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
3
4 Luana Bonome Message Costaa,*, Moacir Godinho Filhoa, Lawrence D. Fredendallb,
5 Fernando José Gómez Paredesa

PT
a
6 Department of Industrial Engineering, Federal University of São Carlos, Washington Luís Road, s/n, São
7 Carlos, SP 13565-905, Brazil
b
8 Department of Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, United States

RI
9 *Corresponding author: Luana Bonome Message Costa. Address: Washington Luiz Road, s/n, São Carlos, SP
10 13565-905, Brazil, e-mail address: lubomes@hotmail.com

SC
11
12 Abstract
13 Background: The food industry is an important sector of the world economy, that faces many

U
14 challenges providing a wide range of products with short delivery times and at low-cost.
AN
15 Continuous Improvement (CI) initiatives could assist this industry manage its challenges as
16 the global market endures economic and political crises. Lean and Six Sigma are two widely
M

17 used and recognized CI initiatives and are often hybridized as Lean Six Sigma. However, it is
18 not clear how appropriate these strategies are for the food industry.
D

19 Scope and Approach: A systematic literature review was performed to identify the
20 appropriateness of Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma initiatives (L&SSi) for improvement
TE

21 in the food industry. The aim is to consolidate the existing knowledge about the application of
22 L&SSi in the food industry, analyze the L&SSi evolution within the sector and identify the
EP

23 relevant aspects of implementation such as drivers of adoption, critical success factors, tools
24 and methods applied, barriers faced and benefits obtained.
Key findings and Conclusions: The review suggests that L&SSi are effective in the food
C

25
26 industry context. Their implementation in the sector is still growing. Their use was found to
AC

27 reduce costs and increase productivity. Human factors and the food industry characteristics
28 were identified as the main barriers to implementing these initiatives. Future research to
29 investigate the degree that L&SSi practices were adopted in the food industry and to identify
30 the best practices to implement these initiatives is suggested.
31
32 Keywords: Lean manufacturing; Six Sigma; Lean Six Sigma; Continuous Improvement; Food
33 industry; Systematic Literature Review

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

34 1. Introduction
35 The global food industry faces multiple challenges that are forcing companies in the industry
36 to improve their productivity and quality strategies to remain competitive. The companies
37 deal with powerful retailers that demand a wide range of products, short delivery times,
38 frequent deliveries and regular price reductions (Jain & Lyons, 2009). Furthermore, industry
39 characteristics such as the perishability of products, require effort to reduce lead times as

PT
40 much as possible (Mahalik & Nambiar, 2010) to avoid wasting product that cannot be sold as
41 remaining shelf life expires (Pauls-Worm, Hendrix, Alcoba, & Haijema, 2014).

RI
42 Other specific characteristics of this industry are its long sequence-dependent
43 process, long set-up times between product types and the separation of processing and

SC
44 packaging to ensure quality (Dora, Van Goubergen, Kumar, Molnar, & Gellynck, 2014; Van
45 Donk, 2001; Van Wezel, Van Donk, & Gaalman, 2006). It is classified as a process industry,

U
46 since its finished products are often blends of food, so the individual elements cannot be
AN
47 disassembled and then reassembled (Panwar, Nepal, Jain, & Rathore, 2015). The ability of a
48 company to manage these characteristics affects the market segment that it can serve.
49 In this way, modern manufacturing management’s improvement initiatives could be
M

50 valuable for the food process industry. Lean, Six Sigma and the hybrid Lean Six Sigma
51 approach are popular performance improvement programs not only in manufacturing, but also
D

52 in the service and public sectors (Albliwi, Antony, Lim, & Wiele, 2014; Drohomeretski, da
TE

53 Costa, de Lima, & Garbuio, 2014).

54 Lean is a term first coined by Womack, Jones and Roos (1990) to describe the
55 Toyota Production System. This system emerged from the need faced by Japanese industry in
EP

56 the period after World War II, in which the market required the production of small quantities
57 of many varieties under low demand conditions (Ohno, 1997). Lean is a way to specify value,
C

58 align the actions that create value in the best sequence, and effectively perform these activities
AC

59 without interruption upon request; in other words, to do more with less while offering
60 customers exactly what they want (Womack et al., 1990). Lean provides a fundamental
61 framework for enhancing efficiency, reducing waste (operations that are not needed,
62 excessive setup times, unreliable machines that can be made more reliable, rework that can be
63 eliminated, etc.) and less obvious, reducing variability (in process times, delivery times,
64 yield rates, staffing levels, demand rates, etc.) (Hopp & Spearman, 2004). The causes of waste
65 need to be identified to reduce their negative effects (Hopp & Spearman, 2004), so the
66 manager’s challenge is to find the mix of policies that best minimizes them in each
67 environment.
2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

68 Six Sigma is an initiative for business improvement that was developed at Motorola
69 by the engineer Bill Smith in the mid-1980s (Snee, 2010). Sigma, σ, is a letter in the Greek
70 alphabet used by statisticians to measure the variability in any process (Pyzdek & Keller,
71 2010). The name Six Sigma suggests a goal of 3.4 defects per million opportunities
72 (Linderman, Schroeder, Zaheer, & Choo, 2003). Six Sigma seeks to find and eliminate causes
73 of mistakes or defects in business processes by focusing on outputs that are of critical

PT
74 importance to customers (Snee, 2000). One key to the success of the Six Sigma initiative is
75 the step-by-step approach or roadmap for improvement - define, measure, analyze, improve

RI
76 and control (DMAIC) methodology (Antony & Banuelas, 2002). DMAIC organizes the use of
77 a large range of tools during Six Sigma projects. As people master these tools and carry out

SC
78 more and more projects, they stand to gain experience in scientific problem solving
79 (Arumugam, Antony, & Linderman, 2014).

U
80 The focus of Lean is to improve process flow and reduce waste and variability, Six
AN
81 Sigma mainly concentrates on improving the processes by identifying problems and gathering
82 and analyzing data to identify and eliminate the root causes of these problems (Timans,
83 Ahaus, van Solingen, Kumar, & Antony, 2014). Lean Six Sigma integrates the Lean and Six
M

84 Sigma problem solving programs to address the firm’s root causes of poor performance. Lean
85 Six Sigma is a business strategy and methodology to increase process performance, to
D

86 enhance customer satisfaction and improve bottom-line results (Snee, 2010). It emerged as a
TE

87 hybrid method to maximize shareholder value in the early 2000s to achieve faster rates of
88 improvement in customer satisfaction, cost, quality, process speed and invested capital
89 (George, 2002). Lean Six Sigma fuses Six Sigma’s ability to control processes with Lean’s
EP

90 ability to improve process speed and reduce invested capital (George, 2002). It allowed the
91 organizations to increase their potential for improvement (Bhuiyan and Baghel, 2005).
C

92 The benefits of L&SSi have been demonstrated by several studies in different sectors
AC

93 (Albliwi, Antony, & Lim, 2015; Costa & Godinho Filho, 2016; Godinho Filho, Ganga, &
94 Gunasekaran, 2016; Grima, Marco-Almagro, Santiago, & Tort-Martorell, 2013; Henrique,
95 Rentes, Godinho Filho, & Esposto, 2016; Kumar, Antony, & Tiwari, 2011; Zu, Fredendall, &
96 Douglas, 2008). However, there is a lack of literature on how to implement Lean, Six Sigma
97 or Lean Six Sigma initiatives (L&SSi) in the food industry context. So, their appropriateness
98 for improvement in the food industry is not known. According to Scott, Wilcock, and
99 Kanetkar (2009), managers in Food Industry have been interested in those continuous
100 improvement initiatives, but Schug (2017) points out the continuing challenge of how to
101 translate a program’s success in manufacturing to the food industry.
3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

102 This systematic literature review of relevant research, collects and critically analyzes
103 the existing knowledge on L&SSi implementation in the food industry and aims to understand
104 how L&SSi is evolving within the food industry as well as how L&SSi is implemented in the
105 food industry. The L&SSi evolution within the sector is analyzed by the number of
106 publications through the years to each improvement initiative, by their presence in different
107 countries and in different types of food industries, and finally, it is analyzed by the research

PT
108 method most used to study this field. To assess L&SSi’s implementation in the food industry,
109 it is analyzed the implementation team that is conducting the implementation process and the

RI
110 support of external members (from consultancy and/or academy researchers). It is also
111 analyzed what drivers the adoption of L&SSi in the sector, the critical success factors that

SC
112 enable the implementation of L&SSi in the food companies, the L&SSi tools, techniques and
113 methods used to apply the initiatives, the barriers faced, the benefits obtained, and the actions

U
114 to continue and sustain them through the years.
AN
115

116 2. Methods
M

117 This literature review of L&SSi in the food industry uses the systematic method
118 Denyer and Tranfield (2009) and Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart (2003) develoepd in a medical
science context, to ensure rigor, replicability and consequently relevant results. This review
D

119
120 consists of three main stages: planning, conducting, and reporting/dissemination (Tranfield et
TE

121 al., 2003). Each stage consists of a set of well-defined steps that precisely detail how to
122 conduct the review and provides practitioners with a relevant and reliable basis to formulate
EP

123 decisions and take action.

124 In the Planning Stage, a review protocol is explicitly documented before the review
125 starts, to ensure that the systematic review was carefully executed and consistently conducted
C

126 (Moher & Shamseer, 2015). The protocol contains the research topic and questions, the search
AC

127 strategy and the criteria to include/exclude studies.

128 In this study two main research questions were defined: How is L&SSi evolving
129 within the food industry? and How is L&SSi implemented in the food industry? The studies
130 were identified by searching the Scopus, Web of Science and Engineering Village databases,
131 from the oldest year available in the database to June, 2018. The search terms used to refer to
132 Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma were: "Lean manufacturing" OR "Toyota Production
133 System" OR "Lean production" OR "Lean management" OR "Lean thinking" OR “Lean
134 methods” OR “Lean practices” OR “Lean philosophy” OR “Lean principles” OR “Lean

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

135 tools” OR “Lean enterprise” OR “Lean assessment” OR “Lean culture” OR “Lean

136 transformation” OR “Lean concept” OR “Lean initiative” OR “Lean techniques” OR “Lean
137 strategy” OR “Lean approach” OR “Six Sigma” OR “Lean Six Sigma” combined with
138 “food”. They were searched in Title, keywords and abstract fields.
139 The search targeted papers from peer-reviewed journals to ensure the quality of
140 information, written in English and Portuguese. Manuals, editorials, commentaries and

PT
141 conference papers were excluded as well as studies whose main subject was not Lean or Six
142 Sigma or Lean Six Sigma and whose main sector was not the food industry.

RI
143 In the conducting stage, through the database search, a total of 492 papers were
144 obtained. After removal of 142 doubles papers, the remaining 350 papers were analyzed based

SC
145 initially on title and abstract screening. After that, 205 articles were rejected considering the
146 defined exclusions criteria. A full review was conducted of the remaining 95 studies.

U
147 Following this review, 44 papers were retained based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria, and
AN
148 another 14 papers identified in the references of those papers were read in their entirety (i.e.,
149 snowball approach) and were included. In sum, a total of 58 papers were comprehensively
150 analyzed.
M

151 An extraction sheet was used to systematically record and code the data from the 58
152 studies to answer both research questions. To address the first question about the evolution of
D

153 L&SSi within the food industry, 5 data elements were examined (improvement initiative used,
TE

154 year of publication, country of study, type of food industry and research method applied).
155 They are usually considered in literature review papers (Albliwi et al., 2015; Bhamu,
156 Sangwan, & Singh Sangwan, 2014; Cherrafi, Elfezazi, Chiarini, Mokhlis, & Benhida, 2016;
EP

157 Jasti & Kodali, 2015; Negrão, Godinho Filho, & Marodin, 2016; Tjahjono et al., 2010).
158 To address the second research question about analysis of L&SSi implementation in
C

159 the food industry, another 7 elements were used (implementation team, drivers of adoption,
AC

160 critical success factors, tools and methods, barriers, benefits, and continue/sustain actions).
161 These elements are often considered in Lean, Six Sigma and/or Lean Six Sigma models
162 (Anvari, Zulkifli, & Yusuff, 2013; Arumugam et al., 2014; Cherrafi et al., 2016; Kumar et al.,
163 2011; Ramesh & Kodali, 2012; Shahin & Alinavaz, 2008). For each element, a list of
164 components was obtained after reading the 28 implementation studies found. Twenty-two
165 different drivers of adoption and 31different benefits were identified. These were classified as
166 cost, defect, time and value related, as suggested by Anvari, Zulkifli, and Yusuff (2013). The
167 critical success factors and implementation barriers were classified as being managerial,
168 business (the food sector characteristics), supply chain and operational as proposed by Lim,
5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

169 Antony, and Albliwi (2014). The 44 tools and methods used in these 28 implementation
170 papers were classified as assessment, improvement and monitoring tools as proposed by
171 Radnor, Holweg, and Waring (2012). These element classifications were then refined by 5
172 experts in the field.
173 In the Reporting and Dissemination stage, a descriptive analysis (classification and
174 analysis results) was performed and the findings (discussion and conclusion) were reported.

PT
175 All studies (58 papers) were classified and analyzed according to Evolution Characteristics, as
176 illustrated by Figure 1. Furthermore, the 28 implementation studies were classified and

RI
177 analyzed according to their Implementation Characteristics (Figure 1). Then, in the discussion
178 and conclusion, the main findings were reported to consolidate the existing knowledge, bring

SC
179 more information and direct future studies about the field.
180

U
181 Insert Figure 1
AN
182 Fig. 1. Evolution and Implementation Characteristics

183
M

184 3. Classification and Analysis Results

185 A database was created to classify the 58 papers with the purpose of grouping the 12
D

186 elements defined to answer both research questions. This section describes the evolution
187 characteristics of sampled papers and the implementation characteristics found in the
TE

188 reviewed studies.

189
EP

190 3.1. Evolution characteristics

191 The search identified only 58 relevant papers about L&SSi in the food industry. The
C

192 limited research about continuous improvement implementation in the food industry was also
AC

193 identified in previous studies (Dora et al., 2014; Lim et al., 2015).
194 Most papers examined Lean Manufacturing initiative (74%), followed by Six Sigma
195 (16%) and then by Lean Six Sigma (10%). Figure 2 presents the publication distribution over
196 time of these 58 papers. The first publication was one Six Sigma study from 2004 (see Figure
197 2). Only in 2011 was the number of Six Sigma studies higher than the number of Lean studies
198 within the food industry. In 2011, the number of papers increased, possibly motivated by the
199 review paper published in this journal by Mahalik and Nambiar (2010). This prior review
200 paper highlighted the importance of reducing wastes and shortening lead times for food
201 industry to be competitive in the global market. In 2015, a peak in the number of publications
6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

202 was observed, nine papers were published, but three of these were written by the same group
203 of authors, possibly the result of the PhD research of one of them.
204 This growth in recent years indicates a gradual increase in the interest of researchers
205 and practitioners in the L&SSi’s implementation in a sector that focuses primarily on quality
206 assurance to satisfy regulatory requirements and improve food quality safety (Dora, Kumar,
207 Van Goubergen, Molnar, & Gellynck, 2013; Lim et al., 2014).

PT
208
209 Insert Figure 2

RI
210 Fig. 2. Growth of Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma publications in food industry
211

SC
212 Considering the geographical application of L&SSi, figure 3 shows that there are
213 publications widespread in four continents (America, Africa, Asia, Europe), however, the
214 majority is concentrated in Europe (54%), followed by Asia (30%). In Europe, the United
215
U
Kingdom had 35% of the studies and Belgium had 18%. In Asia, India had 42% of the
AN
216 studies, followed by Malaysia with 26%, and 5 other countries had 32% of the remaining
217 studies. In America (South and North), Brazil had 57% of the studies, while 3 other countries
M

218 published only one (Canada, Uruguay and Ecuador). In Africa only two countries have
219 published papers in this field, Uganda, twice, and Nigeria, just once.
D

220 These results differ from other Lean, Six Sigma or Lean Six Sigma literature
221 reviews, which found that the majority of studies were published in North America, in the
TE

222 United States (Albliwi et al., 2015; Costa & Godinho Filho, 2016; Jasti & Kodali, 2014;
223 Marodin & Saurin, 2013; Yadav & Desai, 2016). It is a possibility that US food industry
EP

224 implementation articles are in magazine articles (e.g. Higgings, 2006).

225
C

226 Insert Figure 3

227 Fig. 3. Distribution of reviewed papers by geographical location
AC

228
229 Another aspect that has been analyzed is the type of food industries that implement
230 L&SSi. In this review, the food industries were grouped in 11 different categories (Animal
231 Slaughtering and Processing, Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging, Fruit and
232 Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing, Grain and Oilseed Milling, Dairy
233 Product Manufacturing, Animal Food Manufacturing, Bakeries and Tortilla Manufacturing,
234 Sugar and Confectionery Product Manufacturing, Coffee, Beverage, and Other Food
235 Manufacturing).

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

236 Animal Slaughtering and Processing (21%), Sugar and Confectionery Product
237 Manufacturing (14%) and Bakeries and Tortilla Manufacturing (14%) were the most
238 frequently observed. In the animal slaughtering and processing industry, the first studies of
239 L&SSi were in UK, result of a government and industry response to the several crises and
240 extensive changes faced by the sector (Cox & Chicksand, 2005; Cox, Chicksand, & Palmer,
241 2007; Simons & Taylor, 2007; Simons & Zokaei, 2005; Taylor, 2005; Taylor, 2006; Zokaei

PT
242 & Simons, 2006). Sugar and Confectionery Product Manufacturing were mainly studied in
243 Belgium by the same group of authors in 4 different works (Dora & Gellynck, 2015; Dora,

RI
244 Kumar, & Gellynck, 2015; Dora et al., 2014; Dora, Kumar, Goubergen, Molnar, & Gellynck,
245 2013). Bakeries and Tortilla Manufacturing sector was most studied in India (Haq & Boddu,

SC
246 2015; Maheshwar, 2012; Upadhye, Deshmukh, & Garg, 2010).
247 Animal Food Manufacturing (1%) and Coffee (1%) were the least found. However,

U
248 figure 4 shows that at least one study has been found for each category. This indicates a great
AN
249 potential of L&SSi adoption for any type of food industry.
250
251 Insert Figure 4
M

252 Fig. 4. Distribution of reviewed papers by type of food industry

253
D

254 Finally, the most commonly used research method were case studies (57%). The
255 dominant use of case studies was also found by Sanchez and Blanco (2014) in their review of
TE

256 continuous improvement literature. This case study dominance of research methodology
257 indicates that research in the food industry is still in its initial development stages. The
EP

258 second most used research method was Surveys (22%), followed by Action Research (17%).
259 The least used method was the Theoretical-conceptual (3%), indicating the potential of this
C

260 research in fill this gap.

261
AC

262 3.2. Implementation characteristics

263 Twenty-eight papers studied the implementation of L&SSi in the food industry. The
264 following subsections detail the three steps of the implementation process, highlighting the 7
265 elements analyzed in each of these studies, as presented in Figure 1. The first step, Pre-
266 implementation, includes analyses of the implementation team. The second step,
267 Implementation, analyzes the drivers of adoption, the tools and methods, the critical success
268 factors, the barriers and the benefits. Finally, the Post-Implementation step, examines the
269 results of the continue/sustain actions to maintain and sustain the initiatives were extracted.
8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

270 3.2.1. Pre-implementation

271 In the 28 studies examined, only 14 papers cited the implementation team members
272 (Bamford, Forrester, Dehe, & Leese, 2015; Đekic, 2012; Dora & Gellynck, 2015; Dora et al.,
273 2015; Hung & Sung, 2011; Jiménez, Tejeda, Pérez, Blanco, & Martínez, 2011; Knowles,
274 Johnson, & Warwood, 2004; Lopes & Freitas, 2015; Maheshwar, 2012; Powell, Lundeby,
275 Chabada, & Dreyer, 2017; David H. Taylor, 2005; David Helliwell Taylor, 2006; Ufua,

PT
276 Papadopoulos, & Midgley, 2018; Vlachos, 2015). Thirteen of these 14 papers used external
277 support to implement the initiatives in their settings and just one study, Knowles, Johnson,

RI
278 and Warwood (2004), used only internal resources. This demonstrates a lack of awareness of
279 the importance in choosing the team members, which can negatively affect the

SC
280 implementation process and, consequently, the results obtained. Other factors mentioned are:
281 members’ experience in improvement projects, leadership challenge and the influence of the

U
282 size of the implementation team. Those factors are little discussed in the reviewed papers.
AN
283
284 3.2.2. Implementation
285 L&SSi are influenced by a variety of drivers to their implementation (Cherrafi et al.,
M

286 2016). Figure 5 summarizes the drivers of adoption which encourage food industries to
287 implement the L&SSi. The 22 drivers of adoption and the 31 benefits were grouped as cost,
D

288 defect, time and value related (Anvari et al., 2013). In this way, it is possible to show their
TE

289 relation. Considering the drivers, most of them are cost related (58%), followed by defect
290 (18%), value (13%) and time (11%). The review shows that the L&SSi implementation in the
291 food industry is mainly driven (53%) by 6 different factors (process variation reduction, waste
EP

292 reduction, competitiveness improvement, cost reduction, inventory reduction and, process
293 efficiency increase). The process variation is often associated with deviation in product
C

294 size/weight (Desai, Kotadiya, Makwana, & Patel, 2015; Dora & Gellynck, 2015; Dora et al.,
AC

295 2015; Knowles et al., 2004) in the food industry. Its reduction was also the main driver to the
296 food industry adopting the Statistical Process Control (Lim et al., 2014) and to the Canadian
297 food companies implementing continuous improvement programs (Scott et al., 2009).
298
299 Insert Figure 5
300 Fig. 5. Drivers of adoption and benefits of L&SSi implementation in the food industry
301
302 The food industry has benefited from L&SSi implementation. Thirty-one different
303 benefits were found in the implementation studies (Figure 5). The first three benefits

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

304 (productivity increase, cost reduction and inventory reduction) are cost related, representing
305 23% of the benefits obtained. Dora et al. (2014), in Europe, also found cost improvements as
306 the main benefit of lean practice implementations in food industry (cost reduction,
307 profitability increase, productivity increase). Additionally, machine availability, financial
308 improvement, loss reduction, lead time reduction and process capability increase are among
309 the most cited benefits, representing 53% of them.

PT
310 The result also shows that the implementation of L&SSi are successfully producing
311 the improvements desired by the food industry. The main benefits obtained through the

RI
312 initiatives implementation, productivity increase, cost reduction, inventory reduction, machine
313 availability increase, lead time reduction, financial improvement, loss reduction and process

SC
314 variation reduction are in the list of drivers of adoption. Also, the main benefits obtained are
315 cost related (43%), which address the main motivations that lead the food industries to

U
316 implement L&SSi in their settings. Improvement related to time, value and defect were also
AN
317 achieved with L&SSi implementation, however, they were less frequently observed, 27%,
318 21% and 10%, respectively (Figure 5).
319 To achieve these desired results 44 different tools and methods were used in the
M

320 implementation studies. Figure 6 illustrates the frequency tools and methods applied in the
321 industry by using different letter sizes and different color intensity (the higher frequency, the
D

322 more emphasized tool). The tools are classified in assessment, improvement and monitoring,
TE

323 according to the framework presented by Radnor, Holweg, and Waring (2012). Assessment
324 tools review the performance of existing organizational processes in terms of their waste, flow
325 or capacity to add value. Improvement tools support and improve processes, and they should
EP

326 be chosen according to the specificities of the food industry. Monitoring tools are used to
327 measure the processes and any improvement made.
C

328 Forty-five percent of the studied tools and methods were used no more than twice, so
AC

329 they are not well explored. The most used tools and methods (51%) were: value stream
330 mapping (8%), cause and effect diagram (7%), 5S (6%), brainstorming (6%), DMAIC (6%),
331 pareto chart (5%), process mapping (5%), control charts (4%), visual management (4%). The
332 cause and effect diagram and 5S were also among the five common tools identified by
333 Albliwi, Antony, and Lim (2015) in different industrial sectors. They also found, that these
334 tools and techniques were used as part of DMAIC method in almost all cases. These are
335 simple tools, that do not contain any statistical equations or formulas, which Albliwi, Antony,
336 and Lim (2015) thought might account for their common use.

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

337 Most tools have been used in the food industry, expect Nemawashi, A3, Dashboard,
338 Belt system, identified as useful in other industries (see Kumar et al., 2006; Liker & Meier,
339 2006; Monden, 2012; Pyzdek & Keller, 2010). However, these tools were not identified in the
340 reviewed papers.
341 Insert Figure 6
342 Fig.6. Tools and methods classification

PT
343
344 Figure 7 shows the critical success factors and barriers that were found in the 28

RI
345 implementation studies. Both were categorized in terms of their nature as proposed by Lim,
346 Antony, and Albliwi (2014): managerial, business (the food sector characteristics) and

SC
347 operational, and also related to the supply chain.

348 Insert Figure 7

U
349 Fig.7. Critical success factors and barriers classification of the reviewed papers
350
AN
351 The great majority of critical success factors (89%) are managerial, i.e. human
352 related. The most cited, which represent 50% of the total, are management commitment,
M

353 training program, skilled workers and change agent participation. Lack of skilled workers is
354 also between the barriers most cited, with lack of knowledge and resistance to change. All of
D

355 them are components of the managerial category, that represents 47% of the barriers cited.
356 Considering the barriers, not only managerial barriers are important. The food
TE

357 industry characteristics also play a very important role (41%) in the implementation of L&SSi
358 in the sector. Thirteen different characteristics were found in the papers reviewed. The most
EP

359 cited is demand uncertainty, followed by high cleaning time, high set-up time, traditional
360 layout, perishability, seasonality, sequence dependence and variation in raw materials quality
C

361 and supply.

AC

362
363 3.2.3. Post-Implementation
364 No paper clearly explained how the company sought to continue and sustain the
365 programs implemented and the results obtained. These are important concerns in a changing
366 world (Latham, 2008). Knowles, Johnson, and Warwood (2004) found that the team
367 continued, without prompting, to apply the tools to other problems and opportunities,
368 demonstrating their acceptance of the tools and process. Hung and Sung (2011) also found
369 that the case company decided to continue implementing Six Sigma projects over the long
370 range.

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

371 This lack of information makes difficult to develop a general analysis of post-
372 implementation. This suggests that the sector is still in the early stage of L&SSi
373 implementation, since continuing and sustaining the initiatives does not seem to be a concern
374 to the sector.
375
376 4. Discussion

PT
377 This systematic literature review sought to consolidate the existing knowledge on
378 adoption of L&SSi in the food industry to verify its appropriateness in an important economic

RI
379 sector both in developed (Amorim, Curcio, Almada-Lobo, Barbosa-Póvoa, & Grossmann,
380 2016; Bigliardi & Galati, 2013) and developing countries (Haq & Boddu, 2017; Mohezar &

SC
381 Nor, 2014). This sector deals with high demand uncertainty, perishable products, quality
382 assurance requirements to deliver safe and competitive products to powerful retailers and

U
383 demanding customers.
AN
384 Only 58 papers, a relatively low number, were found. The case study research
385 methodology was dominant. This plus the late adoption of the initiatives, and the lack of
386 awareness of the need to sustain and continue actions indicate that research in this field is still
M

387 in the initial development stages. This can be associated with the fact the food industry are
388 often considered to be conservative, slow to change and investing little in research (Bigliardi
D

389 & Galati, 2013; Hung & Sung, 2011), while being primarily concerned with compliance with
TE

390 food laws and regulations to ensure safety products (Trienekens & Zuurbier, 2008).
391 Although the number of L&SSi papers in the food industry is growing in the recent
392 years, their adoption in some countries still very low. In Brazil, 75% of the food industries
EP

393 that took part in a Six Sigma survey study did not implement the initiative (Santos &
394 Antonelli, 2011). In Canada, 44,8% of the respondents said their current employer in the food
C

395 industry did not use any continuous improvement methodologies (dashboard metrics, Six
AC

396 Sigma, Lean Manufacturing, TQM and HACCP) (Scott et al., 2009). In Malaysia, more than
397 70% of the Halal food supply chain companies did not implement Lean Supply Chain
398 Management in their firms (Manzouri, Rahman, Saibani, & Zain, 2013).
399 These findings express the uncertainty of food industries regarding the gains they
400 may achieve with L&SSi implementation. Hence, to better understand how companies in the
401 sector have been implemented L&SSi, and the results of the implementation to the sector, the
402 following part of this section details the elements studied in pre-implementation and
403 implementation phase. The continue/sustain actions element is omitted since in section 3.2.3
404 was not found studies in the papers reviewed.
12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

405 4.1. Implementation Team

406 Knowles, Johnson, and Warwood (2004) recommend that implementation team
407 members have significant experience of the area in which the project is conducted to ensure
408 the success of L&SSi. Powell et al. (2017) also recommend the team should be selected
409 carefully to prevent group members from fronting their own interests rather than focusing on

PT
410 the project goal, and the project leader must be able to understand the process to challenge the
411 established “truths”. To Taylor (2005), the team should meet the following criteria: a) be of

RI
412 sufficient seniority to liaise directly with the board of directors, b) have sufficient authority to
413 access all divisions of the company and gain the cooperation of functional managers in

SC
414 providing information, c) be capable of taking an holistic view of the whole business rather
415 than a restricted functional perspective, and d) have an openness to new approaches and ideas.
416 Those characteristics of the team explains why 13 studies of 14 that declared implementation

U
417 team aspects had reported external support, like a consultancy to implement these
AN
418 improvement initiatives.
419 The size of implementation team is also a concern. According to Dora, Kumar and
M

420 Gellynck (2015), large groups make difficult to involve everyone during the problem-solving
421 activities and lead the group can be a challenging. Moreover, smaller cross-functional teams
help in consensus building, and create a sense of ownership and responsibility to get things
D

422
423 done among team members.
TE

424
425 4.2. Drivers and benefits
EP

426 The drivers and benefits of L&SSi implementation in the food industry are
427 predominantly cost related. This fact could be explained by the high pressure of powerful
C

428 retailers that requires regular price reduction in the food products (Jain & Lyons, 2009).
429 The relation of some cost related drivers are explicit in the original initiatives, as
AC

430 reported by Hopp and Spearman (2004). For example, the cost reduction depends on the level
431 of waste reduction and process variation reduction, and it enhance the competitiveness
432 improvement. According to Liker and Meier (2006), the waste reduction also includes other
433 individual drivers identified in this review, as defect reduction, waiting time reduction among
434 others, related to other drivers’ categories rather than cost. However, they are not easily
435 identified on the papers because the studied organization may not have a performance
436 measurement system that explains how they are related.

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

437 Some benefits of those drivers are productivity increases as a result of a cost
438 reduction, that depends on the lead time reduction, and also is a consequence of waste
439 reduction, as exemplified Monden (2012). Other observed benefits are the increase of the
440 machine availability and process capability, that also depends on losses and defective
441 reduction. These benefits could be not the main drivers, because measures as Overall
442 Equipment Efficiency (OEE) only become perceived when the initiative is implemented (e.g.

PT
443 Dudbridge, 2011). Upadhye, Deshmukh, and Garg (2010) provide a detailed analysis of how
444 the strategic choice for the initiative implemented led to several benefits.

RI
445
446 4.3. Tools and methods

SC
447 The most used tools and methods are considered universally applicable (e.g. cause
448 and effect diagram, value stream mapping, 5S, visual management, standardizing work,

U
449 Kaizen) offering the potential for significant gains with relatively low investments
AN
450 (Abdulmalek, Rajgopal, & Needy, 2006; Albliwi et al., 2015). This is explained because they
451 are simple tools, that do not contain any statistical equations or formulas, which Albliwi,
M

452 Antony, and Lim (2015) thought this might account for their common use. Other tools such as
453 SMED, JIT, Kanban are more appropriate for some type of food industries (Abdulmalek et
al., 2006; Dora & Gellynck, 2015a; Jiménez et al., 2011). SMED can be very helpful to
D

454
455 reduce set-up times in batch type industries, Kanban is possible in process industries when
TE

456 products take discrete shape early in the process (Abdulmalek et al., 2006). For JIT,
457 Abdulmalek, Rajgopal, and Needy (2006) observed that small and medium-sized enterprises
EP

458 (SME) cannot implement it because of their very uncertain demand fluctuation.
459 The beverage industry tends to have high product volume and a continuous process
460 flow, it is hard to rearrange their equipment into a cellular configuration and to use pull
C

461 systems. However, the continuous flow creates a high need for total productive maintenance
AC

462 to ensure high equipment reliability. The lack of flexible and multiple-use equipment in
463 resource-constrained food processing SMEs also makes them less likely to implement cellular
464 layouts (Dora & Gellynck, 2015). Jiménez et al. (2011) found that cellular manufacturing is
465 also inapplicable in the wine industry, because the machinery and tanks are usually too large.
466 Some L&SSi tools were not identified in the reviewed studies (e.g., Nemawashi,
467 dashboard, A3 format and the Belt System). They may not be used due to cultural constraints
468 and not industry constraints. Small firms may have consensus decision making without the
469 need for a special term such as Nemawashi. The dashboard and A3, as standardized problem-

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

470 solving approach, can certainly be used in the food industry, so their lack of use may be due
471 to the need to integrate them into the management system. The “Belt system” is a method to
472 organize improvement expertise in a company and it may not be appropriate for small
473 companies.
474
475 4.4. Critical success factors and barriers

PT
476 The success of L&SSi is not entirely based on application of appropriate tools and

RI
477 methods alone but also in knowing the critical success factors and the barriers that should be
478 overcome. Critical success factors refers to an element that is necessary for an organization or

SC
479 project to achieve its mission (Ribeiro de Jesus, Antony, Lepikson, & Peixoto, 2016)
480 Moreover, for any change in an organization to take hold and succeed, the resistance forces or
481 barriers need to be identified and understood (Jadhav, Mantha, & Rane, 2014). This

U
482 knowledge is especially important when a sector with a lower level of L&SSi implementation
AN
483 is analyzed.
484 Managerial factors have the strongest influences as critical success factors when
M

485 continuous improvement initiatives are adopted (Bhuiyan & Baghel, 2005; Timans et al.,
486 2014). The result of this review also found that, since they were identified as the most
important (89%) to food industries. The high number of barriers human related identified in
D

487
488 the studies (managerial category) possibly is a reflect of the lack of use of Belts system,
TE

489 previously highlighted in tools and methods topic, and the lack of concern that seems to exist
490 in the team member choice, discussed in the pre-implementation topic. A reason for lack of
EP

491 knowledge and resistance to change may be the focus used by external support members to
492 train the implementation team. The low value of operational factors may also explain the lack
493 of the problem-solving tools, as A3 and dashboard.
C

494 Food industry characteristics are the second most faced barrier in the implementation
AC

495 cases and seem to impact the applicability of some L&SSi practices. This suggests that
496 specific production characteristics on the food industry (i.e. demand uncertainty, seasonality,
497 type of equipment, variety of products/raw material, among others) affect the choosing of one
498 strategy. The demand uncertainty was also observed as a limitation for changeover reduction
499 (Vlachos, 2015) and as difficulty for streamline production and inventory planning (Dora et
500 al., 2015). It is a concern in the food industry environment, where the risk for obsolete
501 inventories is higher (Van Kampen & Van Donk, 2014). As highlighted in the studies, this
502 barrier needs a special attention when the initiatives are being implemented, and for selecting

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

503 the most appropriated L&SSi tools and methods to solve this problem. Their selection can
504 also play a critical role in the benefits achieved (Anvari, Zulkifli, & Arghish, 2014; Anvari,
505 Zulkifli, Sorooshian, & Boyerhassani, 2014). This role is exemplified in Dora, Kumar, and
506 Gellynck (2015), when Kanban system failed due to poor reliability of forecast and uncertain
507 demand, in a company. Other factors of the Kanban system could have also committed as the
508 appropriated solution for that company.

PT
509 According to Dora et al. (2014) Lean practices such as total productive maintenance,
510 employee involvement, and customer relationships are used more often than pull and flow in

RI
511 the food sector. According to Dora, Kumar, and Gellynck (2015), applying Lean
512 Manufacturing in an industry where production and packaging sections have to be separated

SC
513 due quality assurance requirements is an issue, because this causes extra movement for the
514 operator which results in a waste of time.

U
515 However, it is still necessary more empirical research that categorize the sector and
AN
516 provide the best practices, tools and methods to implement L&SSi to each type of food
517 industry.
518
M

519 5. Conclusion and future research agenda

520 This study aims to analyze the state of the art concerning L&SSi in the food industry,
D

521 through a systematic literature review, to identify relevant aspects about their application in
TE

522 the food industry context, an important sector to the world economy, that faces multiple
523 challenges, and present specific characteristics that turn the initiatives implementation quite
EP

524 unique.
525 This study contributes to the food industry literature by providing academics and
526 practitioners with insights about some aspects concern the implementation of L&SSi in the
C

527 sector. The review showed a low number of papers about the subject, only 58 publications;
AC

528 however, there was an increase in the number of publications from 2011 and a peak in 2015,
529 which indicate a raise in the interest about the topic.
530 Another point observed was late examination of Lean Six Sigma in the food industry
531 and the low number of papers (6 studies published). The first study was performed only in
532 2013, thirteen years after the emergence of the first publications about Lean Six Sigma in
533 other industries during the early 2000´s. Consequently, there is a wide opportunity to do
534 research in this field and to expand research to more countries, outside of Europe and Asia.

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

535 The food industry applied a large number of different tools to implement L&SSi,
536 mainly to reduce process variation and cost, to increase productivity and competitiveness.
537 These initiatives face some barriers to implementation, including human factor and food
538 industry characteristics.
539 The managerial factor is most associated with lack of knowledge and lack of skilled
540 workers, which can explain the high necessity found of external members (consultants and

PT
541 researchers) to support the implementation process of L&SSi in the food industry. The lack of
542 awareness that seem to exist in the selection of team members can also affect the success of

RI
543 L&SSi implementation.
544 The results showed that the food industry characteristics can impact the adoption of

SC
545 some tools and methods, which make their choice critical to L&SSi implementation.
546 However, only few implementation papers showed a concern in select the most appropriate

U
547 tools and methods concern their companies’ characteristics.
AN
548 Despite of this challenges, there is a great opportunity for the sector to improve their
549 performance by implementing L&SSi. A large number of benefits were obtained by the food
550 industry related to L&SSi implementation. This demonstrates that these continuous
M

551 improvement initiatives can assist the sector and should be more widely implemented to
552 support the food industries to face the obstacles of the new global scenario and remain
D

553 competitive.
TE

554 Future research could potentially use the insights of this paper to build survey and
555 case studies to better explore the field, and then provide practitioners with an operational
556 model that considers the sector context. Therefore, more investigations about the adoption
EP

557 degree of L&SSi practices in the food industry context, a better investigation about the
558 relationship of food industry characteristics in that adoption, and the other barriers that affect
C

559 the initiatives implementation, would be important to the sector growing. Moreover, it was
AC

560 noted a lack of information, such as team of implementation, and continue/sustain actions,
561 that should be addressed in future studies to assist the better understanding of L&SSi
562 implementation process.
563
564 Declarations of interest: none
565 Funding: This work was supported by CAPES (a Foundation within the Ministry of Education
566 in Brazil)

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

567 6. References
568 Abdulmalek, F. A., Rajgopal, J., & Needy, K. L. (2006). A Classification Scheme for the Process
569 Industry to Guide the Implementation of Lean. Engineering Management Journal, 18(2), 15–25.
570 https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2006.11431690

571 Al-jawazneh, B. E. (2015). The Internal Lean Dimensions Impact on the Manufacturing Based
572 Product Quality of Food Processing Companies in Jordan. Journal of Management Research,
573 7(4), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.5296/jmr.v7i4.7830

PT
574 Albliwi, S. A., Antony, J., & Lim, S. A. H. (2015). A systematic review of Lean Six Sigma for the
575 manufacturing industry. Business Process Management Journal, 21(3), 665–691.
576 https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-03-2014-0019

RI
577 Albliwi, S., Antony, J., Lim, S. A. H., & Wiele, T. van der. (2014). Critical failure factors of Lean Six
578 Sigma: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
579 Management, 31(9), 1012–1030. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-09-2013-0147

SC
580 Amorim, P., Curcio, E., Almada-Lobo, B., Barbosa-Póvoa, A. P. F. D., & Grossmann, I. E. (2016).
581 Supplier Selection in the Processed Food Industry under Uncertainty. European Journal of
582 Operational Research, 252(3), 801–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.02.005

583
U
Antony, J., & Banuelas, R. (2002). Key ingredients for the effective implementation of Six Sigma
AN
584 program. Measuring Business Excellence, 6(4), 20–27.
585 https://doi.org/10.1108/13683040210451679

586 Anvari, A., Zulkifli, N., & Arghish, O. (2014). Application of a modified VIKOR method for
M

587 decision-making problems in lean tool selection. International Journal of Advanced

588 Manufacturing Technology, 71(5–8), 829–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5520-x

589 Anvari, A., Zulkifli, N., Sorooshian, S., & Boyerhassani, O. (2014). An integrated design
D

590 methodology based on the use of group AHP-DEA approach for measuring lean tools efficiency
591 with undesirable output. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 70(9–
TE

592 12), 2169–2186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5369-z

593 Anvari, A., Zulkifli, N., & Yusuff, R. M. (2013). A dynamic modeling to measure lean performance
594 within lean attributes. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 66(5–8),
EP

595 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4356-0

596 Arumugam, V., Antony, J., & Linderman, K. (2014). A multilevel framework of six sigma: A
597 systematic review of the literature, possible extensions, and future research. The Quality
C

598 Management Journal, 21(4), 36–61.

AC

599 Bamford, D., Forrester, P., Dehe, B., & Leese, R. G. (2015). Partial and iterative Lean
600 implementation: two case studies. International Journal of Operations & Production
601 Management, 35(5), 702–727. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2015-0216

602 Bhamu, J., Sangwan, K. S., & Singh Sangwan, K. (2014). Lean manufacturing: literature review and
603 research issues. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 34(7), 876–
604 940. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-08-2012-0315

605 Bhuiyan, N., & Baghel, A. (2005). An overview of continuous improvement: from the past to the
606 present. Management Decision, 43(5), 761–771. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740510597761

607 Bigliardi, B., & Galati, F. (2013). Innovation trends in the food industry: The case of functional foods.
608 Trends in Food Science and Technology, 31(2), 118–129.
609 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2013.03.006

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

610 Chabada, L., Dreyer, H. C., Romsdal, A., & Powell, D. J. (2013). Sustainable food supply chains:
611 Towards a framework for waste identification. IFIP Advances in Information and
612 Communication Technology, 397, 208–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40352-1_27

613 Chakrabortty, R. K., Biswas, T. K., & Ahmed, I. (2013). Reducing Process Variability by using
614 DMAIC Model: A Case Study in Bangladesh. International Journal for Quality Research, 7(1),
615 127–140.

616 Cherrafi, A., Elfezazi, S., Chiarini, A., Mokhlis, A., & Benhida, K. (2016). The integration of lean

PT
617 manufacturing, Six Sigma and sustainability: A literature review and future research directions
618 for developing a specific model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 139, 828–846.
619 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.101

RI
620 Costa, L. B. M., & Godinho Filho, M. (2016). Lean healthcare: review, classification and analysis of
621 literature. Production Planning & Control, 27(10), 823–836.
622 https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2016.1143131

SC
623 Cox, A., & Chicksand, D. (2005). The limits of lean management thinking: Multiple retailers and food
624 and farming supply chains. European Management Journal, 23(6), 648–662.
625 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2005.10.010

U
626 Cox, A., Chicksand, D., & Palmer, M. (2007). Stairways to heaven or treadmills to oblivion?: Creating
627 sustainable strategies in red meat supply chains. British Food Journal, 109(9), 689–720.
AN
628 https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700710780689

629 De Steur, H., Wesana, J., Dora, M. K., Pearce, D., & Gellynck, X. (2016). Applying Value Stream
630 Mapping to reduce food losses and wastes in supply chains: A systematic review. Waste
M

631 Management, 58, 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.08.025

632 Đekic, I. (2012). Lean Manufacturing in Two Serbian Food Companies - Case studies. International
D

633 Journal for Quality Research, 6(2), 131–136.

634 Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. The sage handbook of
TE

635 organizational research methods. London: Sage Publications.

636 Desai, D. A., Kotadiya, P., Makwana, N., & Patel, S. (2015). Curbing variations in packaging process
637 through Six Sigma way in a large-scale food-processing industry. Journal of Industrial
EP

638 Engineering International, 11(1), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40092-014-0082-6

639 Dora, M., & Gellynck, X. (2015a). House of lean for food processing SMEs. Trends in Food Science
640 and Technology, 44(2), 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.03.008
C

641 Dora, M., & Gellynck, X. (2015b). Lean Six Sigma Implementation in a Food Processing SME: A
AC

642 Case Study. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 31(7), 1151–1159.
643 https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.1852

644 Dora, M., Kumar, M., & Gellynck, X. (2015). Determinants and barriers to lean implementation in
645 food-processing SMEs – a multiple case analysis. Production Planning & Control, 27(1), 1–23.
646 https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1050477

647 Dora, M., Kumar, M., Goubergen, D. Van, Molnar, A., & Gellynck, X. (2013). Operational
648 performance and critical success factors of lean manufacturing in European food processing
649 SMEs. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 31(2), 156–164.
650 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2013.03.002

651 Dora, M., Kumar, M., Van Goubergen, D., Molnar, A., & Gellynck, X. (2013). Food quality
652 management system: Reviewing assessment strategies and a feasibility study for European food
653 small and medium-sized enterprises. Food Control, 31(2), 607–616.
19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

654 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.12.006

655 Dora, M., Van Goubergen, D., Kumar, M., Molnar, A., & Gellynck, X. (2014). Application of lean
656 practices in small and medium-sized food enterprises. British Food Journal, 116(1), 125–141.
657 https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2012-0107

658 Drohomeretski, E., Costa, S. E. G. da, Lima, E. P. de, & Silva, W. V. da. (2016). “Critical factors for
659 Six Sigma sucess: a survey of the impact of company time and training in the food industry”
660 [Fatores críticos para o sucesso do Seis Sigma: um levanamento do impacto do tempo de

PT
661 empresa e do treinamento na indústria alimentícia]. Produção Online, 16(2), 475–498.

662 Drohomeretski, E., da Costa, S. E. G., de Lima, E. P., & Garbuio, P. A. da R. (2014). Lean, Six Sigma
663 and Lean Six Sigma: an analysis based on operations strategy. International Journal of

RI
664 Production Research, 52(3), 804–824. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.842015

665 Dudbridge, M. (2011). Handbook of Lean Manufacturing in the Food Industry (1st ed.). Chichester,

SC
666 United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.

667 Folinas, D., Aidonis, D., Malindretos, G., Voulgarakis, N., & Triantafillou, D. (2014). Greening the
668 agrifood supply chain with lean thinking practices. International Journal of Agricultural
669 Resources, Governance and Ecology, 10(2), 129. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJARGE.2014.063580

670
U
George, M. L. (2002). Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six Sigma Quality with Lean Production Speed.
AN
671 New York: McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1036/0071385215

672 Gkionis, N. P., Souliotis, A. S., & Besseris, G. J. (2011). Six Sigma’s DOE application on the
673 mechanical effects of apple quality in industrial-level storage operations. International Journal of
M

674 Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 6(3), 197–223.

675 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCA.2011.039718

Godinho Filho, M., Ganga, G. M. D., & Gunasekaran, A. (2016). Lean manufacturing in Brazilian
D

676
677 small and medium enterprises: implementation and effect on performance. International Journal
678 of Production Research, 7543(June), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1201606
TE

679 Grima, P., Marco-Almagro, L., Santiago, S., & Tort-Martorell, X. (2013). Six Sigma: Hints from
680 Practice to Overcome Difficulties. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(3–4),
681 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.825101
EP

682 Haq, A. N., & Boddu, V. (2015). An integrated fuzzy QFD and TOPSIS approach to enhance leanness
683 in supply chain. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling,
684 7(2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPSCM.2015.069924
C

685 Haq, A. N., & Boddu, V. (2017). Analysis of enablers for the implementation of leagile supply chain
AC

686 management using an integrated fuzzy QFD approach. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing,
687 28(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-014-0957-9

688 Henrique, D. B., Rentes, A. F., Godinho Filho, M., & Esposto, K. F. (2016). A new value stream
689 mapping approach for healthcare environments. Production Planning & Control, 27(1), 24–48.
690 https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1051159

691 Higgins, K. T. (2006). State of Food Manufacturing The Quest for Continuous Improvement. Food
692 Engineering.

693 Hopp, W. J., & Spearman, M. L. (2004). To Pull or Not to Pull: What Is the Question? Manufacturing
694 & Service Operations Management, 6(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1030.0028

695 Hung, H. C., & Sung, M. H. (2011). Applying six sigma to manufacturing processes in the food
696 industry to reduce quality cost. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(3), 580–591.
20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

697 https://doi.org/10.5897/SRE10.823

698 Jadhav, J. R., Mantha, S. S., & Rane, S. B. (2014). Exploring barriers in lean implementation.
699 International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 5(2), 122–148.
700 https://doi.org/10.1108/17465681011017255

701 Jain, R., & Lyons, A. C. (2009). The implementation of lean manufacturing in the UK food and drink
702 industry. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 5(4), 548–573.
703 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2009.024584

PT
704 Jasti, N. V. K., & Kodali, R. (2014). A literature review of empirical research methodology in lean
705 manufacturing. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(8), 1080–
706 1122. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2012-0169

RI
707 Jasti, N. V. K., & Kodali, R. (2015). Lean production: literature review and trends. International
708 Journal of Production Research, 53(3), 867–885. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.937508

SC
709 Jiménez, E., Tejeda, A., Pérez, M., Blanco, J., & Martínez, E. (2011). Applicability of lean production
710 with VSM to the Rioja wine sector. International Journal of Production Research, 50(7), 1890–
711 1904. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.561370

U
712 Khusaini, N. S., Jaffar, A., & Noriah, Y. (2014). A Survey on Lean Manufacturing Practices in
713 Malaysian Food and Beverages Industry. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 564, 632–637.
AN
714 https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.564.632

715 Knowles, G., Johnson, M., & Warwood, S. (2004). Medicated sweet variability: a six sigma
716 application at a UK food manufacturer. The TQM Magazine, 16(4), 284–292.
M

717 https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780410541936

718 Kumar, M., Antony, J., Singh, R. K., Tiwari, M. K., & Perry, D. (2006). Implementing the Lean
Sigma framework in an Indian SME: a case study. Production Planning & Control, 17(4), 407–
D

719
720 423. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537280500483350
TE

721 Kumar, M., Antony, J., & Tiwari, M. K. (2011). Six Sigma implementation framework for SMEs - a
722 roadmap to manage and sustain the change. International Journal of Production Research,
723 49(18), 5449–5467. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.563836
EP

724 Latham, J. R. (2008). Building Bridges Between Researchers and Practitioners: A Collaborative
725 Approach to Research in Performance Excellence. Quality Management Journal, 15(1), 8–26.
726 https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2008.11918053
C

727 Lehtinen, U., & Torkko, M. (2005). The Lean concept in the food industry: a case study of a contract
728 manufacturer. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 36(3), 57–67.
AC

729 Liker, J. K., & Meier, D. (2006). The Toyota Way Fieldbook: A pratical guide for implementing
730 Toyota´s 4Ps. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
731 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

732 Lim, S. A. H., Antony, J., & Albliwi, S. (2014). Statistical Process Control (SPC) in the food industry
733 – A systematic review and future research agenda. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 37(2),
734 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.03.010

735 Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., Zaheer, S., & Choo, A. S. (2003). Six Sigma: a goal-theoretic
736 perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 21(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-
737 6963(02)00087-6

738 Lopes, R. B., & Freitas, F. (2015). Application of Lean Manufacturing Tools in the Food and
739 Beverage Industries. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 10(3), 120–131.
21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

740 https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242015000300013

741 Mahalik, N. P., & Nambiar, A. N. (2010). Trends in food packaging and manufacturing systems and
742 technology. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 21(3), 117–128.
743 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2009.12.006

744 Maheshwar, G. (2012). Application of Six Sigma in a small food production plant of India: a case
745 study. International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 7(2/3/4), 168–180.
746 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCA.2012.053446

PT
747 Maleszka, A., & Linke, M. (2016). Improvement of management process by using Lean Six Sigma
748 tools in some big organisation of food industry. Polish Journal of Natural Sciences, 31(1), 101–
749 112.

RI
750 Manzouri, M. (2012). How Lean Supply Chain Implementation Affect Halal Food Companies.
751 Advances in Natural & Applied Sciences, 6(8), 1485–1489.

SC
752 Manzouri, M., Ab-Rahman, M. N., Zain, C. R. C. M., & Jamsari, E. A. (2014). Increasing production
753 and eliminating waste through lean tools and techniques for Halal food companies.
754 Sustainability, 6(12), 9179–9204. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6129179

U
755 Manzouri, M., Rahman, M. N. A., Saibani, N., & Zain, C. R. C. M. (2013). Lean supply chain
756 practices in the Halal food. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 4(4), 389–408.
AN
757 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-10-2012-0011

758 Marodin, G. A., & Saurin, T. A. (2013). Implementing lean production systems: research areas and
759 opportunities for future studies. International Journal of Production Research, 51(22), 6663–
M

760 6680. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.826831

761 Mohammadi, P., Jomhari, N., Razavi, S. V., & Mohammadi, H. (2011). Lean software tool for lead
time reduction. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 6(22), 5345–5352.
D

762
763 https://doi.org/10.5897/IJPS11.566
TE

764 Moher, D., & Shamseer, L. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis
765 protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

766 Mohezar, S., & Nor, M. N. M. (2014). Could supply chain technology improve food operators’
EP

767 innovativeness? Adeveloping country’s perspective. Trends in Food Science and Technology,
768 38(1), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.04.003

769 Monden, Y. (2012). Toyota production system: an integrated approach to just-in-time (4th ed.). New
C

770 York: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

AC

771 Moya, J. V., Déleg, E. M., Sánchez, C. V., & Vásquez, N. R. (2016). Implementation of lean
772 manufacturing in a food enterprise ( Implementación de manufactura esbelta en una empresa
773 alimenticia ). Enfoque UTE, 7(1), 1–12.

774 Mu, G., Li, L., Zhang, W., & Gao, G. (2011). Study on Expanded Food Quality Improving Based on
775 Six Sigma. Advanced Materials Research, 201–203, 2521–2525.
776 https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.201-203.2521

777 Negrão, L. L. L., Godinho Filho, M., & Marodin, G. (2016). Lean practices and their effect on
778 performance: a literature review. Production Planning & Control, 7287(October), 1–24.
779 https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2016.1231853

780 Ohno, T. (1997). O Sistema Toyota de Produção. Bookman. https://doi.org/Estante de Casa 3a

781 prateleira

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

782 Oro, A. C. P., & Morales, D. (2014). “Methodology application of Lean Six Sigma in a manufacturing
783 process of soy milk” [Aplicação da metodologia Lean Seis Sigma em um processo industrial de
784 leite de soja]. Revista Produção Industrial & Serviços, 1(1), 45–59.

785 Panwar, A., Nepal, B. P., Jain, R., & Rathore, A. P. S. (2015). On the adoption of lean manufacturing
786 principles in process industries. Production Planning & Control, 26(7), 564–587.
787 https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2014.936532

788 Pauls-Worm, K. G. J., Hendrix, E. M. T., Alcoba, A. G., & Haijema, R. (2014). Order quantities for

PT
789 perishable inventory control with non-stationary demand and a fill rate constraint. International
790 Journal of Production Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.10.009

791 Perez, C., Castro, R. De, Simons, D., & Gimenez, G. (2010). Development of lean supply chains: a

RI
792 case study of the Catalan pork sector. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
793 15(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541011018120

SC
794 Powell, D., Lundeby, S., Chabada, L., & Dreyer, H. (2017). Lean Six Sigma and environmental
795 sustainability: the case of a Norwegian dairy producer. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,
796 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-06-2015-0024

797 Psomas, E., Antony, J., & Bouranta, N. (2017). Assessing Lean Adoption in Food SMEs. Evidence

U
798 from Greece. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 35(1), 64–81.
799 https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-01-2017-0019
AN
800 Pyzdek, T., & Keller, P. (2010). The Six Sigma handbook. Search (3 rd). McGraw-Hill.
801 https://doi.org/10.1036/0071415963
M

802 Radnor, Z. J., Holweg, M., & Waring, J. (2012). Lean in healthcare: the unfilled promise? Social
803 Science & Medicine, 74(3), 364–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.011

Ramesh, V., & Kodali, R. (2012). A decision framework for maximising lean manufacturing
D

804
805 performance. International Journal of Production Research, 50(8), 2234–2251.
806 https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.564665
TE

807 Ramlan, R., Ahmad, A. N. A., Omar, S. S., & Suhaimi, A. H. (2017). Continuous improvement with
808 value stream mapping (VSM): A case study in SME food processing industry. Advanced Science
809 Letters, 23(1), 674–678. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.7295
EP

810 Rao, R. H. G., & Thejaswini, M. L. (2014). Six sigma concept for food industry. International Journal
811 of Engineering Technology and Management, 2(2), 52–58.
C

812 Ribeiro de Jesus, A., Antony, J., Lepikson, H. A., & Peixoto, A. L. A. (2016). Six Sigma critical
813 success factors in Brazilian industry. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
AC

814 33(6), 702–723. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-08-2014-0120

815 Sanchez, L., & Blanco, B. (2014). Three decades of continuous improvement. Total Quality
816 Management & Business Excellence, 25(9), 986–1001.
817 https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.856547

818 Santos, A. B., & Antonelli, S. C. (2011). “Application of statistical approach in the context of quality
819 management: a study in food industries in the state of São Paulo” [Aplicação da abordagem
820 estatística no contexto da gestão da qualidade: um survey com indústrias de alimentos de São
821 Paulo]. Gestão & Produção, 18(3), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-
822 530X2011000300006

823 Satolo, E. G., Hiraga, L. E. de S., Goes, G. A., & Lourenzani, W. L. (2017). Lean production in
824 agribusiness organizations: multiple case studies in a developing country. International Journal
825 of Lean Six Sigma, 8(3), 335–358. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-01-2017-0019
23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

826 Schug, D. (2017). 2017 State of Food Manufacturing Survey. Food Engineering.

827 Scott, B. S., Wilcock, A. E., & Kanetkar, V. (2009). A survey of structured continuous improvement
828 programs in the Canadian food sector. Food Control, 20(3), 209–217.
829 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2008.04.008

830 Seth, D., Seth, N., & Goel, D. (2008). Application of value stream mapping (VSM) for minimization
831 of wastes in the processing side of supply chain of cottonseed oil industry in Indian context.
832 Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 19(4), 529–550.

PT
833 https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380810869950

834 Shahin, A., & Alinavaz, M. (2008). Integrative approaches and frameworks of lean Six Sigma: a
835 literature perspective. International Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking, 2(4),

RI
836 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPMB.2008.021791

837 Sharma, D., Khatri, A., & Mathur, Y. B. (2016). Application of Value Stream Mapping in Budjia

SC
838 manufacturing. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 7(6), 443–
839 448.

840 Shokri, A., Waring, T. S., & Nabhani, F. (2016). Investigating the readiness of people in
841 manufacturing SMEs to embark on Lean Six Sigma projects. International Journal of Operations

U
842 & Production Management, 36(8), 850–878. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-11-2014-0530
AN
843 Simons, D., & Taylor, D. (2007). Lean thinking in the UK red meat industry: A systems and
844 contingency approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 106(1), 70–81.
845 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.04.003
M

846 Simons, D., & Zokaei, K. (2005). Application of lean paradigm in red meat processing. British Food
847 Journal, 107(4), 192–211. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700510589495

Snee, R. D. (2000). Impact of Six Sigma on quality engineering. Quality Engineering, 12(3), 9–14.
D

848
849 https://doi.org/10.1080/08982110008962589
TE

850 Snee, R. D. (2010). Lean Six Sigma – getting better all the time. International Journal of Lean Six
851 Sigma, 1(1), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461011033130

852 Taj, S. (2008). Lean manufacturing performance in China: assessment of 65 manufacturing plants.
EP

853 Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 19(2), 217–234.

854 https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380810847927

855 Tanco, M., Santos, J., Rodriguez, J. L., & Reich, J. (2013). Applying lean techniques to nougat
C

856 fabrication: A seasonal case study. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing

857 Technology, 68(5–8), 1639–1654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-4960-7
AC

858 Taylor, D. H. (2005). Value chain analysis: an approach to supply chain improvement in agri-food
859 chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 35(10), 744–
860 761. https://doi.org/DOI 10.1108/09600030510634599

861 Taylor, D. H. (2006). Strategic considerations in the development of lean agri‐food supply chains: a
862 case study of the UK pork sector. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 11(3),
863 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540610662185

864 Timans, W., Ahaus, K., van Solingen, R., Kumar, M., & Antony, J. (2014). Implementation of
865 continuous improvement based on Lean Six Sigma in small- and medium-sized enterprises. Total
866 Quality Management & Business Excellence, 1–16.
867 https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2014.980140

868 Tjahjono, B., Ball, P., Vitanov, V. I., Scorzafave, C., Nogueira, J., Calleja, J., … Yadav, A. (2010).
24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

869 Six Sigma: a literature review. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 1(3), 216–233.
870 https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461011075017

871 Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
872 informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of
873 Management, 14, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

874 Trienekens, J., & Zuurbier, P. (2008). Quality and safety standards in the food industry, developments
875 and challenges. International Journal of Production Economics, 113(1), 107–122.

PT
876 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.02.050

877 Ufua, D. E., Papadopoulos, T., & Midgley, G. (2018). Systemic Lean Intervention: Enhancing Lean
878 with Community Operational Research. European Journal of Operational Research, 268(3),

RI
879 1134–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.08.004

880 Upadhye, N., Deshmukh, S. G., & Garg, S. (2010). Lean manufacturing in biscuit manufacturing

SC
881 plant: a case. International Journal of Advanced Operations Management, 2(1/2), 108–139.
882 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAOM.2010.034589

883 Van Donk, D. P. (2001). Make to stock or make to order: The decoupling point in the food processing
884 industries. International Journal of Production Economics, 69(3), 297–306.

U
885 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(00)00035-9
AN
886 Van Kampen, T., & Van Donk, D. P. (2014). Coping with product variety in the food processing
887 industry: the effect of form postponement. International Journal of Production Research, 52(2),
888 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.825741
M

889 Van Wezel, W., Van Donk, D. P., & Gaalman, G. (2006). The planning flexibility bottleneck in food
890 processing industries. Journal of Operations Management, 24(3), 287–300.
891 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2004.11.001
D

892 Vlachos, I. (2015). Applying lean thinking in the food supply chains: a case study. Production
893 Planning & Control, 26(16), 1351–1367. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1049238
TE

894 Wesana, J., De Steur, H., Dora, M. K., Mutenyo, E., Muyama, L., & Gellynck, X. (2018). Towards
895 nutrition sensitive agriculture. Actor readiness to reduce food and nutrient losses or wastes along
896 the dairy value chain in Uganda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 46–56.
EP

897 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.021

898 Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The Machine that Changed the World: The Story of
899 Lean Production. Philadelphia: HarperCollins Publishers.
C

900 Yadav, G., & Desai, T. N. (2016). Lean Six Sigma : a categorized review of the literature.
AC

901 International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 7(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-05-2015-

902 0015

903 Zarei, M., Fakhrzad, M. B., & Jamali Paghaleh, M. (2011). Food supply chain leanness using a
904 developed QFD model. Journal of Food Engineering, 102(1), 25–33.
905 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.07.026

906 Zokaei, K., & Simons, D. (2006). Performance Improvements through Implementation of Lean
907 Practices: A Study of the U.K. Red Meat Industry. International Food & Agribusiness
908 Management Review, 9(2), 30–53.

909 Zu, X., Fredendall, L. D., & Douglas, T. J. (2008). The evolving theory of quality management: The
910 role of Six Sigma. Journal of Operations Management, 26(5), 630–650.
911 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2008.02.001

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

912 Fig. 1. Evolution and Implementation Characteristics

913 Fig. 2. Growth of Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma publications in food industry
914 Fig. 3. Distribution of reviewed papers by geographical location
915 Fig. 4. Distribution of reviewed papers by type of food industry
916 Fig. 5. Drivers of adoption and benefits of L&SSi implementation in the food industry
917 Fig. 6. Tools and methods classification
918 Fig. 7. Critical success factors and barriers classification of the reviewed papers

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

9
1
8
1
7
Number of papers

6
1 1
5
1 1 1
4 4 2
1 7

PT
3
2 4 4 4 4
3 3
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1
0

RI
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Publication Year

SC
Lean manufacturing (74%) Lean Six Sigma (10%) Six Sigma (16%)

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

• Food industry adopts Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma mainly to increase productivity
and machine availability and to reduce costs and inventory.
• There is a great opportunity for Food Industry to improve their performance by implementing
Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma initiatives.
• The food industry characteristics and human factors impact the adoption of some Lean, Six

PT
Sigma and Lean Six Sigma tools and methods.

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC