This study investigates first-time Lean Six Sigma (LSS) adoption in technology-intensive manufacturers undergoing rapid scaling. Prior research largely reflects mature, stable operations and offers limited theory-driven insight into early-stage governance, capability-building and cross-firm learning. Drawing on the dynamic capabilities view (DCV), we examine how organisations develop sensing, seizing and reconfiguring routines during initial deployment.
A qualitative, multiple-case study examined two UK manufacturers at contrasting LSS maturity levels (approximately 9 years versus less than 6 months). The data comprised over 30 semi-structured interviews and company documents. DCV constructs guided thematic analysis and cross-case comparison.
Early adopters struggle with project selection, clarity of leadership roles, coaching and mentoring and cultural fit (including terminology). The mature case shows that strategic alignment and governance, internal coaching capacity and staged routinisation help translate training into sustained improvement routines, enabling organisations to sense performance gaps, prioritise projects and reconfigure roles and measures.
Based on two UK high-growth, high-tech manufacturers and primarily self-reported evidence, the study supports analytical rather than statistical generalisation. The proposed mechanisms require testing and contextual adaptation in SMEs, services, public-sector organisations, stable-growth industries, highly regulated settings and emerging economies.
The study offers a four-phase, gated deployment roadmap: align and design, pilot and protect, coach and stabilise and scale and renew. Progression depends on verified governance, resourcing, coaching and learning conditions rather than on an arbitrary implementation timetable.
Theoretically, the study advances DCV by identifying four LSS-specific mechanisms through which initial adoption can develop dynamic capability: a strategic governance filter, certification-linked protection of improvement resources, belt-based coaching and recursive stage-gate feedback. In practice, it provides comparative guidance on how early adopters can sequence and connect these mechanisms, rather than treating governance, training and coaching as independent checklist items.
