AI-Enhanced Lean Six Sigma Framework for Building Software Sector Quality Competencies in Engineering

Authors

  • Sathyendra Bhat J Department of Computer Science & Engineering, AJ Institute of Engineering and Technology, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Karnataka
  • Rio D’Souza Department of Computer Science & Engineering, St Joseph Engineering College, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Karnataka
  • Shreeranga Bhat Department of Mechanical Engineering, St Joseph Engineering College, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Karnataka
  • Athokpam Bikramjit Singh Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Yenepoya Institute of Technology, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Karnataka
  • Ragesh Raju Department of Computer Science & Engineering, AJ Institute of Engineering and Technology, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Karnataka

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2026/v39is2/26064

Keywords:

AI in Education; DMAIC; Lean Six Sigma; Software Sector; Engineering Education; Quality Competencies.

Abstract

The goal of this study is to use an AI-enhanced framework to systematically add Lean Six Sigma (LSS) ideas to software engineering project-based courses. The goal is to help software engineering students do better work that is useful to the industry. The framework's goal is to include process thinking and an emphasis on quality to the undergraduate engineering curriculum. It employs a Design-Based Research (DBR) method to put the DMAIC (Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control) quality improvement model into action. AI agents allow for continual improvement by using contextual feedback loops, fault grouping, documentation scaffolding, and real-time reflective analytics. Results from empirical validation across the two semesters demonstrate significant enhancement in both technical and process-oriented learning, evidenced by a 35% reduction in software faults and a 42% increase in DMAIC documentation completeness. This research explains why the framework was created, how AI fits into it, how it is used in the classroom, and how it affects student success. The primary objective of the intervention and its results, which are components of a broader research initiative, is to enhance software engineering education by establishing more structured and quality-focused learning environments.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2026-01-30

How to Cite

J, S. B., D’Souza, R., Bhat, S., Singh, A. B., & Raju, R. (2026). AI-Enhanced Lean Six Sigma Framework for Building Software Sector Quality Competencies in Engineering. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 39(Special Issue 2), 538–546. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2026/v39is2/26064

Issue

Volume 39, Special Issue 2, January 2026

Section

Articles
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

CresAlao, D., & Malinowski, A. (2020). Machine learning for defect prediction: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Systems and Software, 165, 110569.

Antony, J., Snee, R., & Hoerl, R. (2012). Lean Six Sigma: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 29(1), 2–7.

Antony, J., Sony, M., & Kumar, M. (2020). The critical success factors of Lean Six Sigma in software development companies. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 37(9), 1327– 1351.

Ashton, J., & Newman, L. (2023). Heutagogy as a framework for lifelong learning: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(5), 6221–6245.

Basili, V. R., Caldiera, G., & Rombach, H. D. (1994). The Goal Question Metric approach. In Encyclopedia of Software Engineering (pp. 528–532). (This entry follows APA style for encyclopedia chapters.)

Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). Lessons learned from implementing projectbased science. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 455–471.

Bond, M., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Nichols, M. (2021). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence in higher education: Trends and frameworks. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100026.

Chen, X., Zou, D., Cheng, G., & Xie, H. (2020). Detecting latent topics and trends in educational technologies over four decades. Computers & Education, 151, 103855.

Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.

Dingsøyr, T., & Moe, N. B. (2014). Towards principles of large-scale agile development. IEEE Software, 31(5), 38–45.

Esakia, A., & McCrickard, D. S. (2016). Teaching software quality through iterative peer-reviewed projects. IEEE Transactions on Education, 59(4), 271–278.

Feldt, R., Torkar, R., Angelis, L., & Samuelsson, M. (2010). Links between the personalities, views and attitudes of software engineers. Information and Software Technology, 52(6), 611–624.

Ferreira, S., & Proença, D. (2021). Lean Six Sigma applied to software development: A systematic literature review. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 33(10), e2387.

Gupta, M., & George, J. F. (2016). Toward the development of a big data analytics capability. Information & Management, 53(8), 1049–1064.

Hamouda, A. M., Dado, M. S., El-Khatib, A., & Abdelsalam, R. (2019). An intelligent tutoring system for engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 35(1), 2–15.

Herdika, A., & Budiardjo, E. K. (2020). Identifying wastes in agile software development: A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 159, 110451.

Hicks, B. J. (2007). Lean information management: Understanding and eliminating waste. International Journal of Information Management, 27(4), 233–249.

Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(1), 14–28.

Hung, W. (2011). Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 529– 552.

Ifenthaler, D., & Yau, J. Y. K. (2020). Utilising learning analytics to support study success in higher education: A systematic review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1041–1059.

Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274.

Kasoju, A., Murugesan, S., & Ahmed, A. (2013). How Lean, Agile and Six Sigma methods can contribute to software quality improvement. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications, 4(5), 15– 33.

Kim, S., Zimmermann, T., Whitehead, E. J., & Zeller, A. (2007). Predicting faults from cached history. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 489–498). IEEE.

Kitchenham, B., & Madeyski, L. (2021). Meta-analysis for software engineering: Methodological issues and case studies. Empirical Software Engineering, 26(3), 1– 36.

Kose, U., & Arslan, A. (2016). An intelligent tutoring system for teaching–learning processes in engineering education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 24(3), 344–355.

Kuhrmann, M., Diebold, P., & Münch, J. (2017). Software process improvement: Where is the evidence? Journal of Systems and Software, 133, 190–212.

Kwak, Y. H., & Anbari, F. T. (2006). Benefits, obstacles, and future of Six Sigma approach. Technovation, 26(5– 6), 708–715.

Madhani, P. (2020). Lean Six Sigma deployment: Critical success factors and implementation roadmap. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 69(2), 363–390.

Middleton, P. (2001). Lean software development: Two case studies. Software Quality Journal, 9(4), 241–252.

Middleton, P., Flaxel, A., & Cookson, A. (2007). Lean software management case study: Timberline Inc. Software Quality Journal, 15, 221–236.

Nascimento, D. C., Miranda, R. C., & Borges, R. P. (2023). Artificial intelligence for continuous improvement: A systematic literature review. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 34(7), 1321–1344.

Pernstål, J., Feldt, R., & Pettersson, O. (2013). Towards evidence-based Lean software development. Empirical Software Engineering, 18, 1346–1381.

Petersen, K., & Wohlin, C. (2011). Measuring the flow in Lean software development. Software: Practice and Experience, 41(9), 975–996.

Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S., & Kuzniarz, L. (2015). Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology, 64, 1–18.

Prieto, L. P., Sharma, K., Dillenbourg, P., & Jesús, M. (2018). Teaching analytics: Towards automatic extraction of orchestration graphs using wearables. Computers & Education, 123, 1–15.

Rahman, F., & Posnett, D. (2013). Recidivism in software defects. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 82–91). IEEE.

Rodriguez, P., Haghighatkhah, A., Oivo, M., Kuvaja, P., Verner, J., & Sauvola, T. (2017). Continuous deployment of software intensive products and services: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Systems and Software, 123, 263–291.

Roveda, R., & Tamburri, D. A. (2020). Measuring developer productivity: A systematic review. Empirical Software Engineering, 25(4), 2696–2740.

Sony, M., & Naik, S. (2019). Critical success factors for Lean implementation: A review. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(1), 205–228.

Sommerville, I., & Rodden, T. (2017). Managing software process variability. IEEE Software, 34(4), 71–75.

Sreedharan, R. V., & Raju, R. (2016). A systematic literature review of Lean Six Sigma in manufacturing. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 27(11–12), 1318–1340.

Staron, M., Meding, W., & Palm, K. (2012). Release readiness indicator for mature agile and Lean software development projects. Information and Software Technology, 54(12), 1297–1309.

Van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2016). Process mining: Data science in action. Process Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2(1), 89–120.

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 39.

well, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed). Pearson.

Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.

Esakia, A., & McCrickard, D. S. (2016). An adaptable model for teaching mobile app development. 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1–9.

Fellah, A., & Bandi, A. (2018). The Essence of Recursion: Reduction, Delegation, and Visualization. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 33(5), 115–123.

Guzdial, M., & du Boulay, B. (2019). The History of Computing Education Research. In S. A. Fincher & A. V. Robins (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research (1st ed., pp. 11–39). Cambridge University Press.

Hamouda, S., Edwards, S. H., Elmongui, H. G., Ernst, J. V., & Shaffer, C. A. (2019). RecurTutor: An Interactive Tutorial for Learning Recursion. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 19(1), 1–25.

Most read articles by the same author(s)