Lean Six Sigma Readiness Assessment for Air Cargo Ground Handlers Gerasimos Kontos*, PhD Candidate Business School, University of the Aegean, Greece
[email protected] Andreas Papatheodorou, Associate Professor Business School, University of the Aegean, Greece
[email protected] T: +30 22710 35514 F: +30 22710 35399
Abstract Lean Six Sigma (L6S) is an upcoming business strategy for service enterprises concerning cost reduction, improvement of profitability and enterprise growth. Despite the promising results, air cargo industry in general and air cargo ground handling industry in particular still lack applications. A key challenge for the successful deployment of a (L6S) project is an enterprise’s ability to assess its organizational readiness for it. To this end, this research paper aims at developing a self-assessment instrument for determining the readiness of air cargo ground handling providers to implement the (L6S) approach, so that organizations can understand their wellbeing and the potential deficiencies in (L6S) implementation. In terms of methodology, an extensive literature review has been conducted to provide sufficient background information on (L6S) development, Critical Success Factors (CSFs) and its challenges for implementing organizations. Subsequently, an exploratory study using Delphi Technique validated the CSFs and their explanatory indicators. Empirical refinement of these results include semi-structure interviews with cargo ground handling professionals, which finally allowed us to develop the readiness instrument. We validated the developed readiness self-assessment instrument by survey method. Furthermore we analyzed the collected data in order to determine the extent to which it constitutes a starting point for air cargo handling providers to implement L6S. This paper presents the possibly first (at a world level) research study to develop a Lean Six Sigma readiness self-assessment model targeting cargo ground handling service providers. The developed model will be of interest to researchers, business professionals, air cargo operations managers as well as quality improvement consultants in the air cargo ground handling industry, by providing a valuable foundation and management implications. Keywords: Lean Six Sigma, Air cargo ground handling, Delphi Technique, Readiness Assessment Classification: Air Cargo Forecasting, Management, Logistics and Operations * Corresponding author
1. Introduction Lean Six Sigma (L6S) is an upcoming business strategy, introduced in 2002 in the manufacturing industry [8, 9, 11]. It constitutes an upcoming business strategy for service enterprises in terms of cost reduction, improvement of profitability and enterprise growth [6]. It is also the result of a merger between two highly esteemed continuous improvement programmes of long history in the field: Lean manufacturing and Six Sigma [8, 9, 11]. Elements of Lean manufacturing have been applied to the Toyota Production Facilities in Japan, around 1950 [29]. Six Sigma, on the other hand, started at Motorola in the USA at the beginning of 1980. There was an increasing interest in Six Sigma after its adoption by General Electric as a leading quality improvement programme [2]. A number of organizations have adopted Lean, Six Sigma or L6S as a balance strategy among quality, cost and delivery [11, 13, 17]. Lean thinking has its origin in the philosophy of achieving improvements in the most economical manner with a focus on reducing waste in business processes [9, 15]. Lean has contributed in reducing waste or non-value added steps between processes whereas Six Sigma has been very effective to reduce variation within a business process [1, 2, 3, 4]. There has been a constant debate in the usage strategy (Lean or Six Sigma) concerning its usage for efficiency and effectiveness improvements. Actual choice depends on the nature of the problem and what the organizations really want to get out of these strategies of business process improvement [5]. Lean focuses on the speed with which a process can perform its function, for example the time it takes to obtain a new mortgage approval, a new credit card or a new bank account opening. Lean methodology improves floor space usage and cleanliness, reducing cycle time of processes, creating a healthy work environment [29]. Reducing waste alone cannot improve the process entirely and similarly reducing variation still leaves behind waste [8, 9]. These two methodologies have different research tools. That is why different skills are needed for pursuing an effective outcome [6, 15]. The integration of L6S methodologies provide the organizations with methods, tools and techniques for process improvements. L6S methodology contributes to process efficiency, it enhances customer satisfaction and improves bottom-line results. The combination of Lean and Six Sigma works well because Lean on its own does not typically allow for statistical control and capability to operational processes [6]. Equally Six Sigma cannot dramatically improve the speed of processes. These methods mutually reinforce one another to help impact the bottom line. Thus, bringing the two strategies together to an organization constitute a vehicle for value creation [7]. Despite the promising results of successful implementation of a L6S continuous improvement project in several service industries [4, 5, 10, 13, 19], the application of L6S in the context of air cargo industry in general and air cargo ground handling
industry in particular, remains limited [29]. Among the few exceptions are Menzies Avaiation [32] as well as Japan Airlines Ground Services [33]. However, efficient and punctual cargo handling from air cargo ground handling agents is a necessity for airlines in order to differentiate their services and remain competitive in turbulent times [28, 31]. Moreover, continuous improvement methodologies provide support for the air cargo ground handling industry to tackle its operational challenges [28]. A key challenge however for the successful deployment of a (L6S) project is an enterprise’s ability to assess its organizational readiness. In other words, in order to introduce L6S into an organization, there is a need to assess the current practices within the organization to see whether these are supportive for L6S, or in need of adaptation in order to cope with L6S thinking [20, 21, 22] Therefore, this research aims to develop a readiness assessment instrument for determining the readiness of air cargo ground handling providers to implement the Lean Six Sigma approach so that ground handling providers can understand their potential benefits and deficiencies during Lean Six Sigma (L6S) deployment. From the picture arising we would like to reveal the factors perceived as critical and thus determine the readiness for L6S in the air cargo ground handling industry. To reach our objectives we address the following research questions: RQ1: What factors are to be perceived as critical for L6S implementation in air cargo ground handling industry? RQ2: What challenges prevent air cargo ground handling providers from adopting L6S? We conducted an extensive literature review in order to address these research questions so as to provide sufficient background information on (L6S) development, CSFs and its challenges for implementing organizations. Empirical refinement of these results included semi-structure interviews with cargo ground handling professionals, which helped us to develop the readiness instrument. We validate the developed readiness self-assessment instrument and the collected data are analyzed to determine whether air cargo ground handling service providers have a good foundation from which to start implementing L6S. The paper is structured in four sections. The first section is a review on the importance of readiness assessment before embarking on a L6S project. The second section briefly presents the importance of quality improvement for managing air cargo operations from a ground handler’s perspective. The third section discusses our exploratory research design and it is followed by the questionnaire-based research for validating the readiness assessment instrument. The last section is a preliminary discussion about results, followed by research implications and conclusions.
2. Readiness Assessment for L6S Interest in L6S, has increased significantly over the years [8, 15]. If successfully implemented, L6S may contribute to organizations’ success and competitiveness [5]. However, various sources reveal [11, 12, 17] that L6S projects frequently fail to be successfully implemented due to improper planning and difficulty on identifying the critical factors for their successful deployment. Therefore, it is important to consider whether the organization has the proper foundation to embark on this new initiative and this can be determined by assessing the adherence to the required behaviors for L6S thinking [18, 21, 22]. In other words, organizations need to assess their readiness and preparedness before implementing L6S. A lack of readiness can lead (a) to frustration among employees, (b) resistance at various levels across the organization and (c) confusion due to the lack of direction for the L6S implementation journey. On the other hand, if an organization is ready for embracing L6S initiative, it may experience the following behaviors among others: managers and supervisors routinely spend time at the actual work locations where the actual work is performed (known as Gemba walks); managers and supervisors empower employees to recognize signaling problems or defects that occur in their work area as well as to suggest improvement ideas for these defects; customer value is constantly monitored: all employees can realize what part of their activities add value to customers and which they do not; leaders provide appropriate resources and recognize employees participation; metrics and goals are simple and clearly aligned driving the right behavior to achieve the organizations vision; improvement ideas are shared throughout the organization and are directly linked to the organization’s strategic focus and primary objectives; the organization has the culture of collecting relevant data which drives the process performance; and work tasks have been specifically designed to assure that quality is built-in and very little time is spent on checking quality. According to [18, 21], despite assessing L6S readiness is of utmost importance, little attention has been given in the literature. L6S readiness assessment determines if the organization in focus is prepared to be involved with L6S [22]. Therefore, if the organization is ready to implement L6S, then it needs to ensure that its organizational setting is suitable to approve and support the initiative. In essence, if the proper organizational behavior for L6s does not exist, then employees are likely to revert to their old ways of doing things and as a result the L6S will not sustain and fall through [20].
3. Management of air cargo operations An important part of air cargo service quality occurs on the ground. Managing the export acceptance, the import delivery, and timely transfer of hundreds of single shipments each year, is a great operational challenge. Cargo handling and aircraft handling from ground handling providers are ways for airlines to differentiate their services [27, 28]. Cargo handling or warehouse handling refers to the processes in the warehouse where shipments on the export side are accepted from customers, weighted and measured, and loaded into containers or onto pallets [28, 30]. Optimizing these processes is a major operational challenge. Continuous Improvement processes and Quality Management techniques should often be employed by airlines and their selected subcontractors on the ground (i.e. air cargo ground handling providers) to reduce the incident rate (loss of freight due to damage or pilferage), optimize throughput in the warehouse, and limit costs [31]. Warehousing technologies such as electronic transfer vehicles and automated stacker systems are often employed to optimize the workflow [31]. Shippers and forwarders select air transport over more economical means of transportation only in cases of necessity. The customer expectation is that air cargo services will usually be a flawless operation as any damage, loss or delay may have a great impact on the shipper’s business [28, 31]. Thus, ground handling quality is a key factor for successful air cargo management [28]. Despite the sophisticated sorting and tracking systems in cargo terminals, what foremost is required is a proper organizational behavior as well as a participative management structure for supporting air cargo ground quality and seamless cargo handling operations [28]. The following section, meticulously discuss the methodology adopted to develop a L6S readiness self-assessment instrument targeting air cargo ground handling service providers. As far as we know an empirical study focusing on creating such an instrument for the air cargo ground handling industry has not been carried out, yet. 4. Research Design Critical success factors for L6S In order to sufficiently accumulate background information on the Lean, Six Sigma and L6S development, authors of this paper conducted an extensive literature review regarding CSFs for L6S and its challenges for implementing organizations. Given the shortage of literature regarding L6S implementation in the air cargo ground handling industry, the preliminary list of CSFs has been validated and refined from the cargo directors of three air cargo ground handling agents. The next table is based upon the extensive literature review on the following sources [1-7, 10 – 15, 17, 19] and the refinement of the results through semi – structured interviews with three cargo directors. We used the next table as an input for the exploratory study. Authors
selected the Delphi Technique [25] as the appropriate method for validate the CSFs and develop the readiness instrument, because through a Delphi study a panel of experts anonymously proposes opinions on a specific topic in order to reach consensus agreement [26]. Table 1: Initial list of CSFs for L6S implementation based on literature review Critical Success Factor for L6S implementation 1. Leadership The management team views improvements in quality as essential to increase profits and places more emphasis in quality than on reducing costs 2. Customer Focus The organization focuses on the needs of the customers and customer satisfaction is linked with improvement indicators 3. Organizational Culture The organization supports teamwork and collaboration during quality improvement projects 4. Organizational Strategy The organization has developed a structured procedure for communicating activities and goals to everyone involved in a quality improvement project 5. Process Management The management team has been trained in using process maps and the organization has well documented systems and procedures for guiding employees 6. Performance Management The organization has a structured procedure to align customers’ needs into quality goals and communicates these goals to employees in the organization 7. Human Resources The organization empowers employees to participate in quality improvement projects through rewards and incentives 8. Structured Improvement Procedure The organization uses a structured approach to manage quality improvement projects and keep records of projects’ challenges 9. Supplier Relationship Supplier’s proven quality is the number one criterion for selecting suppliers
Delphi Technique The Delphi technique was developed by the Rand Corporation in the late 1950s [25]. This method is a systematic iterative methodology to obtain collective judgments from a panel of independent experts. A panel size of 10 – 18 experts is often used [24, 25]. The method involves experts anonymously proposing their solutions to problems using questionnaires. Following questionnaires collection, the opinions of experts are summarized and analyzed using statistical analysis. Supplementary explanations are presented for different opinions, and the summarized opinions and statistical results are then attached to the second questionnaires. At the end all decision makers reach consensus agreement [26]. In order to improve the pilot round response rate and to provide a solid ground for the study, we employed a modified Delphi technique [23], to assist the respondents reach an acceptable level of consensus about the CSFs faced during L6S implementation.
Step 1. Selection of participants We invited air cargo handling operations directors as well as air cargo quality managers from EU – based air cargo ground handling providers. We selected only IATA certified ground handling agents listed in the official corporate website of IATA. As a result, 22 experts agreed to participate in the research. Only two experts had less than 10 years’ experience in the air cargo industry. Step 2. Survey Our Delphi study began with an intensive literature review on areas of Continuous Improvement, Quality Management and L6S. Based on their results a pilot round begun, following the instructions of [23] and [25]. A group of six experts participated in the pilot round. Nine CSFs were used as an input for the pilot round, and each factor was accompanied by a five-point Likert scale check box, where ‘5’ indicates a degree of highest importance and ‘1’ indicates a degree of lowest importance. The pilot respondents were interviewed after the completion of the questionnaire. Their comments resulted in the refinement of the questionnaire in terms of its length, validity, format, readability and clarity. Two Delphi rounds were conducted to reach the consensus of the respondents, each being briefly discussed below. Survey Round 1 We e-mailed an invitation letter to the 22 experts’ panel, with a list of 14 CSFs. Participants were asked to consider which factors are critical for the successful implementation of a Quality Improvement project (i.e L6S), as well as to rank each factor in terms of priority. They needed to rate each factor on a five-point Likert scale and assigned priority numbers from 1 to 14. Participants were encouraged to comment on the lists of factors and associate rationale and to add factors they felt important according to their experience. In round 1, we received usable responses from 22 participants, yielding a response rate of 100%. Survey Round 2 We sent feedback to the first round respondents, including the original 14 CSFs, collective opinions as well as a preliminary set of indicators corresponding to each factor. Therefore, the round 2 questionnaire had a total of 14 factors and 54 indicators of CSfs. Respondents have been asked once more, to rate each of the second-round factors and indicators on a five point Likert scale. This questionnaire used a closed form providing no space to write in additional factors. In round 2 we received responses from 21 participants, yielding a response rate of 95%. Survey Interviews We sent feedback to all respondents from the previous round including collective opinions and their individual responses. The respondents were invited to comment on the results and to proceed to further interview. Seven individuals agreed to be
interviewed. It is important to mention that the interviews were used to help interpret the results of the Delphi study. Step 3. Analysis In theory, the Delphi Technique gradually increases consensus over the several rounds of survey. Regarding the analysis of consensus, we used Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) to measure the extent of consensus among panelists [24]. According to [26] definition (1) W= 0.3 means weak agreement, (2) W= 0.5 means moderate agreement and (3) W= 0.7 means strong agreement. Examination of consensus in this Delphi study revealed that W equaled 0.37 in the first round and 0.52 in the second round. These results show that the consensus became more convergent and reached moderate consensus in the final round. Readiness Assessment Instrument Formation For selecting the CSFs and the corresponding indicators authors’ selected two widely accepted statistical methodologies [24, 26] a. One sample T-Test - with a test value >= 3.5 on a scale item 1 to 5 b. Pareto principle - pareto principle states that 20% of the causes dominate 80% of the effects. By combining the aforementioned methodologies, we selected the top 9 CSfs and their corresponding indicators, because these 9 factors represented the most popular 18,73% of all factors. The ranking was sorted according to mean value. The factors with the same mean and standard deviation were given the same ranking. The selected CSFs are shown in the table 2 below. These validated CSFs as well as their corresponding indicators were used as an input for the formation of the readiness assessment instrument. The formulation process is depicted in figure 1 below. Table 2: Validated CSFs from the Delphi study CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Senior management commitment and involvement Quality improvement projects are linked to customer needs Establishing a culture for quality improvement projects Quality improvement projects are linked to human resources through a reward and recognition system Strong leadership to quality improvement projects demonstrated by managers at all organizational levels Education & training for quality improvement projects Quality improvement projects are linked to business strategy through a clear vision Establishing a performance measurement & feedback system Enterprise financial capability and resources
Mean
Standard Deviation
4.56
0.29
4.43 4.29
0.32 0.12
4.22
0.41
4.11
0.37
4.07
0.43
3.93
0.42
3.88 3.77
0.17 0.64
Figure 1: Flowchart for instrument development * During pilot testing and empirical refinement cargo operations managers remove three indicators and added two
Authors’ initially performed a literature review regarding the formation of selfassessment instruments in various industries. Such knowledge enables us to understand the architecture and the motives behind a self – assessment framework. Knowledge acquired combined with the Delphi study results, helps us define the sections and the corresponding categories of the research tool. Subsequently, the 47 indicators corresponding to the CSFs were allotted to the instrument categories. The preliminary instrument was then refined through interviews with 2 air cargo industry experts. After the empirical refinement and extensive pilot testing with 4 air cargo ground handlers, the final instrument contains 45 indicators which have been codified to relative questions. Figure 2 below presents the architecture of the L6S readiness assessment instrument and figure 3 illustrates two sample questions of the framework along with the responding item scales. To ensure validity for the results of our research only IATA registered air cargo ground handlers were invited to participate in the field survey.
Figure 2: Architecture of the readiness assessment instrument for L6S * 45 questionnaire items corresponding to the 45 validated CSFs’ indicators
Figure 3: Sample research questions from the questionnaire instrument
5. Preliminary Results and Research Implications Preliminary Results For the computation of the L6S readiness index (LSRI), the authors have formulated the following equation: LSRI = where Ri = Performance value for indicators Wi = Importance weight for indicators
The index determines readiness level of an air cargo ground handler on a 1,000 score similar to the one adopted in Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award (MBNQA). 1 The apportionment of weights to sections, categories and instrument’s questions has been empirically refined and validated by operations managers and quality managers in the air cargo ground handling industry. Currently authors are analyzing the responses collected from EU-based air cargo ground handlers. The response rate (40 usable responses) is adequate according to the suggestions of [33] regarding exploratory empirical research. In order to detect nonresponse bias, the average values of the survey items in both the 10% of early respondents and 10% of late respondents will be compared by the t-test. Regarding RQ1: What factors are to be perceived as critical for L6S implementation in air cargo ground handling industry? With respect to the findings of the Delphi study and the empirical refinement of the results through semi-structured interviews, we formulated table 2 presented above. The specific table contains the validated factors which are perceived to be critical for L6S, from an air cargo ground handler’s perspective. Regarding RQ2: What challenges are preventing air cargo ground handling providers from adopting L6S? Authors will be in position to answer this question after analyzing the results from the field survey. However, preliminary results from the semi-structured interviews indicate two main challenges that prevent the adoption of L6S: Establishing a proper organizational culture for supporting changes Motivating employees to participate in quality initiatives and suggest improvement ideas Research Implications Through the application of the instrument in the validation phase, we demonstrated that the measurement instrument serves as a reliable and valid tool with which to assess how well the organizational behavior of an air cargo ground handler supports the implementation of L6S. Future research can build on the operationalization of our assessment instrument by empirically studying the implications after a L6S implementation in the respective industry.
1
The Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award (MBNQA) is the national quality award that recognizes U.S. organizations in the business, health care, education, and nonprofit sectors for performance excellence and successful implementation of quality management systems.
Therefore, air cargo handling practitioners can use the instrument individually to analyze their own adherence to the proper organizational behavior that support L6S. Fig. 4 below presents an example of such assessment results. Figure 4: Exemplary radar chart of an individual ground handler assessment report
The measurement instrument also offers the possibility of performing various kinds of benchmarking analyses, such as those based on industry sector or enterprise’s size. Fig. 5 provides an example of an industry benchmark assessment. Figure 5: Exemplary radar chart of a benchmark assessment
The graphic compares the assessment results of an air cargo ground handler with the five best-performing organizations in the industry and the average results of the industry sector. Such an analysis facilitates strategic decisions in terms of which behavioral dimensions the air cargo ground handler should develop for L6S implementation. For example, dimensions whose performance is below the average of the industry sector may be defined as a starting point for improvement. As the cases that we described show, the measurement instrument provides a tool for practitioners to assess their adherence to the proper organizational behavior for L6S and to determine whether a gap exists between the as-is behavior and the required tobe behavior if they aim to adopt a L6S approach. 6. Conclusions and the Way Forward The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a readiness self-assessment instrument for L6S deployment in the air cargo ground handling industry. The results of our work can contribute to the body of knowledge on L6S readiness assessment through the integration of air cargo professionals’ comments and recommendations derived from our exploratory Delphi study. As far as we know an empirical study focusing on creating such an instrument for the air cargo ground handling industry has not been carried out, yet. The developed model is of interest to researchers, business professionals, air cargo operations managers as well as quality improvement consultants in the air cargo ground handling industry, by providing a valuable foundation and management implications. The limitations of this study, that are certainly present, give rise to suggestions for future research. Given that the sample of the responding organizations is limited to EU – IATA certified air cargo ground handlers, the following research questions are formulated: can the measurement instrument developed in this study be applied to air cargo ground handlers outside EU? Moreover, should the measurement instrument vary in accordance to a different geographic area? So, it is worth examining its applicability by collecting empirical data from IATA certified air cargo ground handlers outside EU. The authors of this paper aim to address this limitation through a future research. A further limitation of the present study concerns the data used. More specifically, the data constitute subjective business evidence as experienced by practitioners who were engaged in quality improvement projects. Responses bias may always be present in such an instrument, given the cognitive background of the respondents. This method bias could be mitigated through future research by relating triangulated data from other sources (e.g. air cargo handling operation documents, quality reports) to the results.
7. References [1] Antony J, Kumar M and Lalib A (2008) Gearing Six Sigma into UK Manufacturing SMEs: Results from a pilot study, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(4): 460-471 [2] Henderson KM and Evans JR (2000) Successful implementation of Six Sigma, benchmarking General Electric Company, Benchmarking an International Journal, 7(4): 260-282 [3] Knowles G, Whicker L Femat JH and Del Campo Canales F (2005) A conceptual model for the application of Six Sigma methodologies to supply chain management, International Journal of Logistics, 8(1): 51-65 [4] Kumar M (2007) Critical success factors and hurdles to Six Sigma implementation: The case of a UK manufacturing SME, International Journal of Six Sigma Competitive Advantage, 3(4): 333-351 [5] Timans W, Antony J, Ahaus K and Solingen R (2012) Implementation of Lean Six Sigma in smalland medium-sized manufacturing enterprises in the Netherlands, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 63: 339-353 [6] Pepper MJP and Spedding TA (2010) The evolution of Lean Six Sigma, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 27(2): 138-155 [7] Shah R, Chandrasekaran A and Linderman K (2008) In pursuit of implementation patterns: The context of Lean and Six Sigma, International Journal of Production Research, 46(23): 6679-6699 [8] Snee RD (2010) Lean Six Sigma-Getting better all the time, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 1(1): 9-29 [9] Arnheiter, ED and Maleyeff J (2005) The integration of Lean Management and Six Sigma, The TQM Magazine, 17(1), 5-18 [10] Van Iwaarden J, Van der Wiele T, Dale B, Williams R and Bertsch B (2008) The Six Sigma improvement approach: A transnational comparison, International Journal of Production Research, 46(23): 6739-6758 [11] Antony J (2012) Critical Success Factors for Lean Six Sigma Implementation, An empirical Research, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 3(4): 274-283 [12] Zu X, Robbins, TL and Fredendall, LD (2010) Mapping the critical links between organizational culture and TQM/Six Sigma practices, International Journal of Production Economics, 123(1): 86-106 [13] Antony J, Antony F, Kumar M and Byung RC (2007) Six Sigma in service organizations, Benefits, challenges and difficulties, common myths, empirical observations and success factors, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 24(3): 294-311 [14] Coronado RB and Antony J (2002) Critical success factors for the successful implementation of six sigma projects in organizations, The TQM Magazine, 14(2): 92-99 [15] Naslund D, (2013) Lean and six sigma – critical success factors revisited, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 5(1): 86-100 [16] Vakola M (2014) What’s in there for me? Individual readiness to change and the perceived impact on organizational change, Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 35(3): 195-209 [17] Hilton RJ and Sohal Amrik (2012) A conceptual model for the successful deployment of Lean and Six Sigma, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 29(1): 54-70
[18] Bessant J, Caffyn S, and Gallagher M (2001) An evolutionary model of continuous improvement behavior, Technovation, 21: 67-77 [19] Antony J, Krishan N, Cullen D, and Kumar M (2012) Lean Six Sigma for higher education institutions (HEIs) Challenges, barriers, success factors, tools/techniques, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61(8): 940-948 [20] Radnor Z, (2011) Implementing Lean in Health Care: Making the link between the approach, readiness and sustainability, International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 2(1): 112 [21] Oakland JS and Tanner SJ (2007) A new framework for managing change, The TQM Magazine, 19(6): 572-589 [22] Radnor Z, (2010) Transferring lean into government, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 21(3): 411-428 [23] Murry JW and Hammons JO (1995) Delphi: A versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research, The review of Higher Education, 18(4): 423-436 [24] Mursu A, Lyytinnen K, Soriyan HA and Korpela M (2003) Identifying software project risks in Nigeria: An international comparative study, European Journal of Information Systems, 12: 55-71 [25] Okoli C and Pawlowski SD (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design, considerations and applications, Information & Management, 42(1): 15-29 [26] Schmidt RC (1997) Managing Delphi Surveys using non parametric statistical techniques, Decision Sciences, 28(3): 763-774 [27] Chao CC, Lirn TC and Shang KC (2011) Market segmentation of airline cargo transport, The service Industries Journal 18: 1-14 [28] Popescu A, Keskinocak P, and Mutawaly I (2011) The Air Cargo Industry, in: Intermodal Transportation: Moving Freight in a Global Economy, Eno ransportation Foundation [29] Suárez-Barraza, M. Smith, T. and b & Dahlgaard-Park, M. (2012) Lean Service: A Literature Analysis and Classification, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 23, (3) pp. 359380 [30] Akselsson R and Ek A (2007) Aviation on the Ground: Safety Culture in a Ground Handling Company, The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 17(1) 59-76 [31] Wang RT (2007) Improving service quality using quality function deployment: The air cargo sector of China airlines, Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(4): 221-228 [32] Reinhardt, K. (2007). Kaizen: A change for the better. Ground Support Worldwide, 15(8), 14–17 [32] Newton, G. (2007). A lean, mean operation. Ground Support Worldwide, 15(5), 14–16 [33] Malhotra M and Grover V (1998) An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs to theory, Journal of Operations Management, 16(4): 407-425
