International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

Emerald Article: Six sigma in small- and medium-sized UK manufacturing

enterprises: Some empirical observations
Jiju Antony, Maneesh Kumar, Christian N. Madu

Article information:
To cite this document:
Jiju Antony, Maneesh Kumar, Christian N. Madu, (2005),"Six sigma in small- and medium-sized UK manufacturing enterprises: Some
empirical observations", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 22 Iss: 8 pp. 860 - 874
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710510617265
Downloaded on: 06-06-2012
References: This document contains references to 39 other documents
Citations: This document has been cited by 3 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 4931 times since 2005. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Jiju Antony, Frenie Jiju Antony, Maneesh Kumar, Byung Rae Cho, (2007),"Six sigma in service organisations: Benefits, challenges
and difficulties, common myths, empirical observations and success factors", International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 24 Iss: 3 pp. 294 - 311
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710710730889

Ricardo Banuelas Coronado, Jiju Antony, (2002),"Critical success factors for the successful implementation of six sigma projects
in organisations", The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 Iss: 2 pp. 92 - 99
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09544780210416702

Alira Srdoc, Alojzij Sluga, Ivan Bratko, (2005),"A quality management model based on the "deep quality concept"", International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 22 Iss: 3 pp. 278 - 302
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710510582499

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN

For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help
for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
 The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
IJQRM
22,8
860
Received 15 January 2005
Revised 20 May 2005
Accepted 1 June 2005
International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management
Vol. 22 No. 8, 2005
pp. 860-874
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-671X
DOI 10.1108/02656710510617265
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm
Six sigma in small- and
medium-sized UK manufacturing
enterprises
Some empirical observations
Jiju Antony and Maneesh Kumar
Centre for Research in Six Sigma and Process Improvement (CRISSPI),
Caledonian Business School, Glasgow, UK, and
Christian N. Madu
Department of Management and Management Science,
Lubin School of Business, Pace University, New York, New York, USA
Abstract
Purpose Six sigma for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is an emerging topic among
many academics and six sigma practitioners over the last two to three years. Very few studies have
been reported about the successful applications of six sigma in SMEs. The purpose of this paper is to
provide an analysis of six sigma implementation in UK manufacturing SMEs.
Design/methodology/approach This paper presents an extensive literature review based on the
experiences of both academics and practitioners on six sigma within an SME environment. The paper
highlights the strengths and weaknesses associated with SMEs, followed by the results of a six sigma
survey in UK manufacturing SMEs. The results of the study are based primarily on descriptive
statistics.
Findings The results of the study show that many of the SMEs are not aware of six sigma and
many do not have the resources to implement six sigma projects. It was also found that lean sigma was
not generally popular among SMEs. Management involvement and participation, linking six sigma to
customers and linking six sigma to business strategy are the most critical factors for the successful
deployment of six sigma in SMEs.
Originality/value This paper reports the first study on the status of six sigma implementation in
UK SMEs. The paper will yield a great value to academics, consultants, researchers and practitioners
of six sigma.
Keywords Quality programmes, Small to medium-sized enterprises, Critical success factors,
United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Six sigma is a well-established approach that seeks to identify and eliminate defects,
mistakes or failures in business processes or systems by focusing on those process
performance characteristics that are of critical importance to customers (Snee, 2004).
Six sigma provides business leaders and executives with the strategy, methods, tools
and techniques to change their organisations. Six sigma has been on an incredible run
for the last five years producing significant savings to the bottom-line of many large
UK manufacturing organisations. There are four aspects of the six sigma strategy that
are not emphasised in other business improvement methodologies and total quality
management (TQM). First of all, six sigma places a clear focus on bottom-line impact in Six sigma in
hard dollar savings. No six sigma project will be approved unless the team determines
the savings generated from it. Second, six sigma has been very successful in
SMEs
integrating both human aspects (culture change, training, customer focus, etc.) and
process aspects (process stability, variation reduction, capability, etc.) of continuous
improvement. Third, six sigma methodology (define-measure-analyse-measure-control
or DMAIC) links the tools and techniques in a sequential manner. Finally, six sigma 861
creates a powerful infrastructure for training of champions, master black belts, black
belts, green belts and yellow belts (Harry and Schroeder, 2000; Pande et al., 2000;
Adams et al., 2003).
Although six sigma has been implemented with success in many large corporations,
there is still less documented evidence of its implementation in smaller organisations.
Due to growing importance of supply chain management issues in global market
environment, large firms are heavily dependent on small- to medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) for the provision of high quality products and/or services at low costs. The
increasing demand for high quality products and highly capable business processes by
large organisations has left no choice on the SMEs to consider the introduction of six
sigma business strategy.
This paper examines the status of six sigma implementation in UK manufacturing
SMEs by investigating how six sigma was introduced to them, who was involved in
such initiatives, how long UK manufacturing SMEs have been engaged in six sigma
initiative and how the successes and failures of six sigma projects were perceived. The
paper will also examine whether the six sigma critical success factors (CSFs)
considered by large organisations are valid for SMEs. Although this study is primarily
focused on manufacturing SMEs, most of the considerations and suggestions can be
applied to service SMEs.

Small and medium-sized enterprises

SMEs are the life-blood of modern economies. The importance of SMEs to the economy
of the UK and the industrialised world as a whole cannot be over emphasised. A short
summary of relevant statistics available from the Small Business Service (SBS), an
agency of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), shows the vital role that SMEs
play:
. There were estimated 4.0 million business enterprises in the UK at the start of
2004. More than 99 percent of these enterprises were SMEs. In this research, we
consider an organisation to be an SME if it employs less than 250 employees and
has turnover of less than 11.2 million (DTI, 2003).
. SMEs employ approximately 58 percent of the total workforce in the UK.
.
It is estimated that SMEs are responsible for 52 percent of the combined turnover
of UK businesses.
. The SME manufacturing sector alone, in which this study is focused on, accounts
for over 35 percent of the estimated combined turnover of UK businesses.
. UK SMEs combined annual turnover is around 1 trillion (Holden et al., 2003).
SMEs act as suppliers to large organisations and therefore the footprint of SMEs is
much larger than may be seen at a first glance. They form the foundation upon which
IJQRM the economy of the UK is based. With such an important place in the UK economy, it is
in the best interests of all SME stakeholders, whether employees, customers or
22,8 suppliers, to adopt the best management practice in order to compete in todays global
marketplace. Moreover, due to the growing importance of supply chain management
issues, SMEs should provide high quality products or services at low cost to larger
firms. One way in which this can be achieved is through the adoption of quality
862 management and the principles of continuous improvement.
There is a noticeable dearth of previous work that examines the implementation of
six sigma within SMEs. This section explores the key strengths and weaknesses of
SMEs prior to initiating a six sigma program. Table I presents some of the strengths
and weaknesses of SMEs. The table was constructed by reviewing existing literature
on SMEs and quality management practices such as TQM (Yusof and Aspinwall, 2000;
McAdam, 2000; Ghobadian and Gallear, 1997; Noci and Toletti, 1998; Levy and Powell,
2000).

Research background
Harry and Crawford (2004) clearly demonstrate the importance of white belts for SMEs
and the focus of this new belt system on creating value to customers. A white belt

SMEs strengths SMEs weaknesses

Flexible and hence changes can be introduced Low degree of standardisation and formalisation
fairly quickly
Flat with few layers of management and fewer Focus is on operational matters rather than
departmental interfaces planning
Top management highly visible and hence There are chances that management lay off
provide leadership by example employees when the work becomes superfluous.
This makes SMEs work harder to retain a high
calibre staff
Absence of bureaucracy in management teams Limited investment in IT
Tend to have high employee loyalty No incentive or reward programs in many cases
due to budget and resources constraints
Managers and operatives are more likely to be Lack of strategic planning and inspiring vision
directly involved with the customers
Rapid execution and implementation of decisions Responsible for many facets of the business and
many decisions. Decisions are generally made for
short-term profitability
Training likely to be focused Lack of skills, time and resources; no specified
training budget
Culture of learning and change rather than control Incidence of gut feeling decisions more
prevalent; often operate in a fire-fighting mode for
survival
People oriented Not systems oriented
More responsive to market needs and more Extent of training and staff development in SMEs
innovative in their ability to meet customers is limited and informal
demand
Likely to deploy improvements quickly and gain Adamant and dictatorial nature of owner can
Table I. rapid benefits damage new initiatives
Strengths and Loose and informal working relationships and Formation of strategy process is intuitive rather
weaknesses of SMEs absence of standardisation than analytical
offers a much quicker return on investment. A white belt is expected to complete up to Six sigma in
12 projects in a year with the potential savings of $25,000 (on average) on each project. SMEs
This implies a total of about $300,000 savings a year from a white belt.
Wessel and Burcher (2004) in their study identify the specific requirements for
implementation of six sigma based on a sample of SMEs in Germany. This study also
examines how six sigma has to be modified to be applicable and valuable in an SME
environment. This is the first study of its kind to be carried out on six sigma survey in 863
SMEs.
Rowlands (2004) argues that the traditional six sigma approach to black belt
training and deployment is not desirable in the case of SMEs. Therefore the six sigma
deployment needs to be considered based on the companys available resources and
skills base. He suggests the use of Porters value chain analysis and the five forces
model to analyse businesses processes prior to applying six sigma methodology. These
models could be used to provide strategic alignment to the business objectives as well
as identifying training needs and project selection prioritisation in SMEs.
Snee and Hoerl (2003) argue that there is nothing inherent in six sigma that makes it
more suitable for large companies. They also suggest that the greatest barrier to
implementation in small companies to date has been the way the major six sigma
training providers have structured their offerings. More recently, as more and more
sets of deployment guides and training materials have become available, the pricing
structures have begun to change. Today, it is much easier for SMEs to obtain good
external resources without a large up-front payment.
Tennant (2001) argues that, in small organisations, if one visible and important
person is actively against six sigma, then this attitude must change or the initiative
must be a non-starter. In other words, in small companies, the top management team
need to be visibly supportive of every aspect of six sigma initiative and they must
demonstrate by their active participation, involvement and by their actions that such
support is more than lip service. He also accentuates the point that it is far more
important for small- and medium-sized enterprises to ensure that every iota of effort is
directed exactly where it is needed for maximum benefit, so an overall quality strategy
plan is vital right from the start of the six sigma initiative. Six sigma is about overall
management strategy, culture and change, and the organisation needs to build all of
this into a sound corporate strategy plan.
Once an owner of the business (in small firms) is convinced of the advantages
conferred by six sigma and visualises the benefits, it is much easier to implement six
sigma at smaller firms and to realise its benefits (Adams et al., 2003). They suggest that
the initial focus on SMEs can be to reduce quality costs or waste in the system. Effort
and investment, as well as results in smaller companies, are more visible within a short
time.
Waxer (2004) looked at four major requirements for successfully implementing six
sigma within any organisation, regardless of the size of the organisation:
(1) management team buy-in and support;
(2) education and training;
(3) resource commitment; and
(4) link to compensation.
IJQRM As small companies are more agile, it is mush easier to buy-in management support
22,8 and commitment, as opposed to large organisations. The education and training
component is much harder for smaller companies. Moreover, small companies do not
have the slack to free up top talented people to engage in training followed by
execution of six sigma projects as they are crucial to the day-to-day operations and
problem solving within the company. Being able to link compensation to six sigma
864 implementation is much easier in small companies compared to a large company.
Davis (2003) pointed out that the problem arises in SMEs when they solicit
deployment proposals from six sigma consulting companies only to learn that the
traditional six sigma implementation approach in large companies can require millions
of dollars investment, dedication of their best people on six sigma projects, and
training of the masses. He also argues that using a yellow belt approach allows SMEs
to implement six sigma at a less costly, more manageable pace. He also added that the
one size fits all six sigma black belt deployment model is not practical for every
company.
Six sigma can be an effective methodology for smaller organisations and plays a
major role in continual improvement based on the ISO 9001:2000 requirements. Gnibus
and Krull (2003) illustrate a very interesting example on price and delivery quotations
for equipment returned to a medium-sized company for repairs. The company
discovered that limiting six sigma training to the green belt training level, during the
continual improvement program, still provided the resources required to address their
business problems.
Process Quality Associates (PQA), a six sigma and quality engineering training and
consulting service provider, explains a practical framework for implementation of six
sigma in SMEs (Process Quality Associates, 2003). To make the framework more
applicable and suitable for SMEs, the company had developed a set of CSFs, which
have been integrated into each phase of the six sigma methodology. These CSFs
include:
. top management leadership and commitment;
.
a well-implemented customer management system;
. education and training system;
. a well-implemented process management system;
. a well-developed strategic planning system;
.
a well-developed supplier management system; and
.
a well-developed human resource management system.

Wilson (2004) identifies the following advantages for small-businesses embarking on

six sigma initiative.
.
stronger, more intimate relationships with customers;
. a limited number of sites;
. fewer layers in the management hierarchy;
. faster and effective internal communication; and
. strong owner influence.
Burton (2004) proposes alternative six sigma deployment models that allow SMEs to Six sigma in
implement six sigma at a pace where they can digest the methodology and achieve
benefits, without significant resource commitment and overhead structure of the
SMEs
traditional six sigma. As a result, SMEs are sometimes able to achieve faster and more
impressive benefits than their large customers. He also recommends an eight-step
methodology for successful deployment of six sigma within SMEs.
As many SMEs operate their business processes at the two to three sigma quality 865
level, an improvement of even one sigma represents a huge step in improving
customer satisfaction and reducing costs (Spanyi and Wurtzel, 2003). For instance, if a
customer order fulfilment process is operating at three sigma quality level (i.e. 66,800
defects per million opportunities) and if we improve the sigma quality level to four
sigma quality level (i.e. 6,210 defects per million opportunities), then this process would
realise a ten-fold improvement in performance. Assuming each error or mistake cost $5
to fix (on average), the resulting cost savings would be in the range of $300,000. Spanyi
and Wurtzel (2003) have identified the following elements for successful launch of a six
sigma initiative in an SME environment:
. visible management commitment;
.
clear definition of customer requirements;
. shared understanding of core business processes and their critical
characteristics;
. rewarding and recognising the team members;
. communicating the success and failure stories; and
. selecting the right people and the right projects.

Although there are start-up costs to the deployment including training, leadership
alignment and customer focus, a properly designed and deployed six sigma program
should provide ample cost benefits rather quickly, even for smaller companies (Keller,
2003). Keller argues that six sigma offers many SMEs the same benefits as larger
companies: an improved bottom line.

Research objectives and methodology

The fundamental objective of this study is to examine the extent to which six sigma is
being implemented within UK manufacturing SMEs. In order to do this effectively,
the general objective is further divided into a number of specific research questions as
follows:
. To what extent are UK manufacturing SMEs implementing six sigma?
. To what extent are the UK manufacturing SMEs familiar with the tools and
techniques of six sigma?
. To what extent do UK manufacturing SMEs actually use the tools and
techniques and how useful do they think they are?
. What benefits have been brought to the UK manufacturing SMEs through six
sigma implementation?
. What are the CSFs for implementation of six sigma in UK manufacturing SMEs?
. What are the common barriers in the implementation of six sigma in SMEs?
IJQRM In this study, a survey questionnaire was constructed drawing upon prior literature.
22,8 Focus is on operational matters rather than planning (Antony and Banuelas, 2002;
Ghobadian and Gallear, 1996; Lee and Oakes, 1995; Klefsjo et al., 2001; McAdam and
Lafferty, 2004; Parkin and Parkin, 1996; Snee, 2004; Wessel and Burcher, 2004; Yusof
and Aspinwall, 1999; Antony and Fergusson, 2004). The survey questionnaire was
developed to provide a baseline for six sigma practices by SMEs in UK. It consists of
866 four parts:
(1) Surveyed SMEs demographic information.
(2) SMEs experience with six sigma program.
(3) Tools and techniques of six sigma used by SMEs.
(4) Critical success factors for six sigma implementation in UK SMEs.

Sampling method and procedure

The questionnaire was mailed out to 400 SMEs in UK, which were randomly chosen
from the Glasgow Caledonian Universitys FAME database. Of the 400 questionnaires
mailed, 66 completed questionnaires were returned in less than one month. This
represented a response rate of 16.5 percent, which was rather regarded as satisfactory.
A total of six of the responses were not useable due to incomplete data. This resulted to
only 60 questionnaires used in the final analysis of this paper.

Survey results and analysis

The analysis of the first part of the questionnaire (i.e. demographics) provided a better
understanding of the findings of the study. Therefore, aspects such as the number of
employees in the organisation responded to the survey, the position occupied by the
respondents, the areas of industries, the status of six sigma implementation and the
number of years responded companies have been utilising six sigma.

Number of employees and position of respondents

The majority of companies had between 50 and 150 employees (75 percent), 15 percent
of the companies responded had less than 50 employees and 10 percent of the
companies responded had between 150 and 250 employees. No micro-sized companies
(less than ten employees) responded to the questionnaire. The questionnaires were
completed by Project Champions, black belts, green belts or yellow belts who have
first-hand knowledge and expertise with the six sigma programme.

Areas of industry
The type of industries participated in this study included the chemical (8 percent),
plastics (9 percent), automotive (18 percent), aerospace (16 percent), electronics and
semi-conductors (14 percent), mechanical (10 percent), pharmaceuticals (7 percent),
food (5 percent), textiles (5 percent) and others (8 percent).

Status of six sigma and other quality initiatives of companies

Only 16 out of 60 SMEs (i.e. about 27 percent) were actively involved in a six sigma
programme. These companies have been using six sigma for over one year on average.
This clearly illustrates the point that six sigma is a relatively new concept in UK
manufacturing SMEs. It was observed that more than 80 percent of the SMEs
responded to the study implemented ISO 9000 quality management system with a Six sigma in
mean duration of nine years. It was interesting to note that many companies view ISO
9000 as the major achievement of product and service quality. Nearly 25 percent of the
SMEs
companies had partially and fully implemented TQM with a mean duration of eight
years. It was also found that about 5 percent of the companies responded were using a
lean production system (LPS).
867
Reasons for not implementing six sigma
One of the questions that was included in the questionnaire was to identify the reasons
companies are not implementing six sigma. Figure 1 illustrates the common reasons
SMEs give.
The most important reason is that companies do not know about six sigma (35
percent). This is followed by the insufficiency of resources (26 percent). Also, those
companies that already have quality system in place perceive such systems to be
adequate (20 percent).

SMEs experience with six sigma program

Sigma level of core business processes
It was found from the analysis that majority of SMEs participated in the study (about
70 percent) had their core processes operating at sigma quality levels between 2.8 to 4.0
(based on 16 responses). A total of 23 percent of companies responded to the survey
had their processes operating at sigma quality levels over 4.0. It was interesting to note
that one company never estimated the sigma quality level of its core processes.

Number of project champions, black belts, green belts and yellow belts
It was observed that more than 35 percent of the responded companies using six sigma
have no six sigma project champions. Moreover, less than 10 percent of the responded
companies actively involved in six sigma have yellow belts. One company has a master
black belt and about 80 percent of the companies utilising six sigma are using green
belts. About 45 percent of the companies are using black belts to lead and deploy
projects. It was also noted that the highest number of green belts and black belts were
found in automotive, aerospace and electronics industries whereas the lowest number
of green belts and black belts were found in textiles industry.

Figure 1.
Reasons for not
implementing six sigma
by the respondents
IJQRM Common six sigma metrics used by manufacturing SMEs
22,8 A metric is a specification or attribute against which the outputs of a process are
compared and declared acceptable or unacceptable. Table II presents the key metrics of
six sigma and their percentages that were commonly used by the companies that
participated in this pilot study.
The results of the study revealed that the most commonly used six sigma metrics by
868 participating SMEs were number of complaints and percentage scrap. The least
commonly used metrics were first time yield (FTY) and throughput yield (TPY). In
fact, these two metrics (FTY and TPY) are the fundamental metrics of six sigma.

Six sigma methodologies used by manufacturing SMEs

The respondents were asked whether they use six sigma, design for six sigma, lean
sigma or combination of these methodologies for tackling process and product
related problems. Figure 2 presents the results obtained on the use of six sigma
methodologies.
The majority of SMEs (69 percent) that responded to the survey were utilising the
DMAIC methodology for continuous improvement. Only 19 percent of the companies
were utilising design for six sigma (DFSS), 6 percent were using lean sigma and
another 6 percent were employing both six sigma and DFSS methodologies.

Six sigma projects completed by companies and their financial impact

The analysis of results revealed that about 69 percent of the companies had completed
between one and five six sigma projects. About 25 percent of the companies had
completed between five and ten six sigma projects, while one company had completed
more than 20 projects. About 62 percent of the companies experienced financial
benefits of up to 250,000 per annum. A total of 13 percent of the companies
experienced financial benefits of between 250,000 and 500,000 per annum.

Six sigma metrics Percentage of companies using the metric (%)

Number of complaints 94
Percentage scrap 81
Cost of poor quality 75
Defect rate 75
Table II. Process capability 63
Six sigma metrics used First time yield 25
by SMEs Throughput yield 13

Figure 2.
Six sigma methodologies
used by responded SMEs
Somewhat surprisingly, 25 percent of the participated companies never quantified the Six sigma in
financial bottom-line impact from six sigma projects. Yet, six sigma places
considerable emphasis on cost savings achieved through its implementation.
SMEs

Benefits of six sigma in surveyed companies

The respondents were asked to rate the benefits that six sigma had brought to their
organisations since implementation. The respondents were asked to rate on a Likert 869
scale of 1 to 5, where 1 no benefit from six sigma implementation and 5 excellent
benefits from six sigma implementation. Table III summarises the key benefits gained
from the implementation of six sigma projects. The areas that have experienced the
greatest benefits are reduction in process variability, increase in profitability, reduction
of operational costs, reduction in the cost of poor quality (COPQ), etc. On average, these
scores suggest that participating companies perceive six sigma to have benefited their
processes.

Impeding factors in implementation of six sigma by UK manufacturing SMEs

Although the pressure for the implementation of six sigma has been increased over
the last few months, there are some factors impeding the development of six sigma
programme in UK SMEs. Companies were asked to identify the top five inhibiting
factors that were felt to be barriers to six sigma implementation. The results of the
analysis show that about 80 percent of the responding firms stated that lack of
resources was one of the impeding factors to the successful introduction of a six
sigma initiative in UK SME. Lack of resources covered a large number of aspects
including financial resources, human resources, time, etc. This was followed by lack
of leadership, poor training/coaching, internal resistance, poor project selection, etc.
The other frequently mentioned impeding factor was lack of knowledge about six
sigma methodologies.

Six sigma tools and techniques within SMEs

One of the success factors of six sigma is its ability to integrate both statistical and
non-statistical tools and techniques within the DMAIC (define, measure, analyse,
improve and control) framework in a systematic and disciplined manner. Table IV
illustrates the most commonly used statistical and non-statistical tools and techniques
used in six sigma projects by manufacturing SMEs. The table was developed with the
purpose of showing information in three areas; familiarity with the tools and

Benefits to business Mean

Reduction in process variability 4.067

Increase in profitability 3.733
Reduction of operational costs 3.667
Reduction in COPQ 3.600
Increase in productivity 3.533
Reduction of cycle time 3.467
Reduction of customer complaints 3.465 Table III.
Improved sales 3.333 Key benefits of six sigma
Reduced inspection 3.267 to SMEs
IJQRM Tools/techniques Familiar (%) Unfamiliar (%) Usage Usefulness
22,8
Process mapping 100 0 4.438 4.600
Project charter 44 56 3.857 3.500
Cause and effect analysis 100 0 4.188 4.333
Histogram 100 0 4.125 4.357
870 Scatter plot 94 6 2.333 2.462
Run charts 56 44 3.111 4.200
Control charts 94 6 3.267 4.154
ANOVA 88 12 3.429 3.538
Regression analysis 94 6 1.800 3.167
Design of experiments 88 12 3.071 3.230
Taguchi methods 81 19 2.846 3.100
MSA 63 37 2.700 3.500
Non-parametric tests 25 75 2.000 2.333
Hypothesis testing 94 6 1.867 3.571
Quality function deployment 69 31 3.273 3.889
FMEA 100 0 3.938 4.200
Poka-Yoke 94 6 3.067 4.083
Process capability analysis 100 0 3.188 4.231
Table IV. Affinity diagram 31 69 2.400 2.333
Tools and techniques Benchmarking 94 6 3.067 3.714
used by SMEs utilising Quality costing analysis 50 50 3.000 3.667
six sigma SIPOC model 44 56 3.286 3.167

techniques, usage and usefulness of tools, techniques and problem-solving methods.

Respondents were asked to rate the application of tools and techniques (i.e. usage) on a
Likert scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates never been used and 5 indicates used
continuously. Similarly, the degree of perceived usefulness was also rated on a scale of
1 to 5, where 1 implies not useful and 5 implies extremely useful. As can be seen
from the table, non-parametric tests (e.g. Mann-Whitney test), affinity diagram, project
charter, SIPOC model, quality costing analysis, run charts, measurement system
analysis and QFD were not popular in many SMEs. The most popular tools and
techniques include process mapping, histogram, cause and effect analysis, FMEA and
process capability studies.
The most commonly used tools were histogram, cause and effect analysis, and
process mapping. The most useful tools and techniques include process mapping,
cause and effect analysis, histogram, run chart, control chart, FMEA, process
capability analysis, and Poka-yoke. It appears that tools that offer visual
representation, identify root causes of problems, are easier to use, and appeal more
to users than the more sophisticated and complex statistical tools.

Critical success factors of six sigma implementation in SMEs

The respondents were asked to rank the 11 CSFs on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 least
important, 2 less important, 3 important, 4 very important and 5 crucial).
The CSFs used in this pilot study were derived from existing literature of TQM and
six sigma (Badri et al., 1995; Black and Porter, 1996; Breyfogle et al., 2001; Adams
et al., 2003; Oakland, 2003; Snee, 2000; Antony and Banuelas, 2002; Antony, 2004;
Yusof and Aspinwall, 1999; Hoerl, 1998). The aim was to determine the CSFs that
SMEs felt to be important and make a comparative study with the CSFs identified Six sigma in
from previous studies by the authors in large corporations. The 11 CSFs identified SMEs
from the literature were:
(1) Management involvement and participation (A).
(2) Organisational Infrastructure (B).
(3) Cultural change (C). 871
(4) Training (D).
(5) Linking six sigma to customers (E).
(6) Linking six sigma to business strategy (F).
(7) Linking six sigma to employees (G).
(8) Linking six sigma to suppliers (H).
(9) Understanding of six sigma methodology (I).
(10) Project management skills (J).
(11) Project prioritisation and selection (K).

Figure 3 illustrates the CSFs for the successful implementation of six sigma within UK
manufacturing SMEs. Figure 3 shows that management involvement and participation
(A), linking six sigma to customers (E) and linking six sigma to the business strategy
of the organisation (F) are the most important factors for the successful implementation
of six sigma followed by organisational infrastructure (B), understanding of six sigma
methodology (I), training on six sigma (D), and project prioritisation and selection (K).
These findings were quite similar to the findings from other previous studies carried
out by one of the authors with some changes in the order of importance of these CSFs.
For instance, in the service industry, the top three CSFs for six sigma implementation
were linking six sigma to business strategy (F), linking six sigma to customers (E), and
executive leadership and senior management commitment (A). A recent study carried
out by the first author in the software industry has revealed the following three CSFs in
their ascending order of importance (Antony, 2004):

Figure 3.
Critical success factors of
six sigma implementation
in SMEs
IJQRM (1) Top management commitment (A).
22,8 (2) Organisational Cultural Change (C).
(3) Linking Six Sigma to business strategy (F).

Conclusion
Six sigma has evolved into a business strategy in many large organisations and
872 its importance in SMEs is growing everyday. Six Sigma within SMEs is rapidly
emerging as the new wave of change in six sigma. To the best of our knowledge,
this study is among the few pilot survey conducted in the UK manufacturing
SMEs. We were not able to identify any such surveys in our literature review.
Due to the limited sample size of the current study, it has been decided to carry out a
large-scale survey in UK SMEs in the future for greater validity of the findings from
this research. A number of semi-structured interviews will also be performed as part of
the next phase of this research. The authors will take the strengths and weaknesses of
SMEs into account in the future semi-structured interviews. This would enable the
authors to have a deeper understanding of six sigma implementation within the SMEs.
The authors also intend to conduct a longitudinal study on six sigma within SMEs in
the UK and other countries. In order to assist SMEs with the implementation of six
sigma, the authors are recommending a six sigma user group (SSUG) to share and
exchange experiences of successful six sigma projects within SMEs as well as with
similar companies which embark on six sigma programme. The results presented in
this study are exploratory and are based primarily on descriptive statistics. No attempt
is made to generalise the outcomes. Future studies will attempt to generalise some of
the findings.

References
Adams, C.W., Gupta, P. and Wilson, C. (2003), Six Sigma Deployment, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Burlington, MA.
Antony, J. (2004), Six sigma in the UK service organisations: results from a pilot survey,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 1006-13.
Antony, J. and Banuelas, R. (2002), Critical success factors for the successful implementation of
six sigma projects, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 92-9.
Antony, J. and Fergusson, C. (2004), Six sigma in the software industry: results from a pilot
study, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 1025-32.
Badri, M.A., Davis, D. and Davis, D. (1995), A study of measuring the critical factors of quality
management, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 36-53.
Black, S.A. and Porter, L.J. (1996), Identification of the CSFs of TQM, Decision Sciences, Vol. 27
No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Breyfogle, F.W. III, Cupello, J.M. and Meadows, B. (2001), Managing Six Sigma, John Wiley,
New York, NY.
Burton, T. (2004), Six sigma for small and medium sized businesses, available at: www.
isixsigma.com/library/content/ (accessed 1 March, 2005).
Davis, A. (2003), Six sigma for small companies, Troy, Vol. 42 No. 11, p. 20.
DTI (2003), National statistics, Statistical Press Release, available at: www.sbs.gov.uk/content/
analytical/statistics/combinedsmestats.pdf (accessed 20 November, 2004).
Ghobadian, A. and Gallear, D.N. (1996), Total quality management in SMEs, Omega, Vol. 24 Six sigma in
No. 1, pp. 83-106.
SMEs
Ghobadian, A. and Gallear, D. (1997), TQM and organisation size, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 121-63.
Gnibus, R.J. and Krull, R. (2003), Small companies see the money, Quality, Vol. 42 No. 8,
pp. 48-51.
Harry, M. and Crawford, J.D. (2004), Six sigma for the little guy, Mechanical Engineering, 873
Vol. 126 No. 11, pp. 8-10.
Harry, M. and Schroeder, R. (2000), Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy
Revolutionising the Worlds Top Corporations, Random House, New York, NY.
Hoerl, R. (1998), Six sigma and the future of quality profession, Quality Progress, June, pp. 35-42.
Holden, R., Smith, V. and Devins, D. (2003), Using employee-led development to promote
lifelong learning in SMEs: a research note, Human Resource Development International,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 125-32.
Keller, P. (2003), Does six sigma work in smaller companies, available at: www.qualityamerica.
com/knowledgecentre/articles/ (accessed 25 February, 2005).
Klefsjo, B., Wiklund, H. and Edgeman, R.L. (2001), Six sigma seen as a methodology for TQM,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 31-5.
Lee, G.L. and Oakes, I. (1995), The pros and cons of TQM for smaller forms in manufacturing:
some experiences down the supply chain, Total Quality Management, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 413-26.
Levy, M. and Powell, P. (2000), Information systems strategy for SMEs: an organisational
perspective, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 63-84.
McAdam, R. (2000), Quality models in an SME context: a critical perspective using a grounded
approach, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 305-23.
McAdam, R. and Lafferty, B. (2004), A multi-level case study critique of six sigma: statistical
control or strategic change?, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 530-49.
Noci, G. and Toletti, G. (1998), A decision support system for the selection of quality based
programmes in small firms, Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 473-86.
Oakland, J.S. (2003), TQM: Text with Cases, Elsevier, Oxford.
Pande, P.S., Neuman, R.P. and Cavanagh, R.R. (2000), The Six Sigma Way, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Parkin, M.A. and Parkin, R. (1996), The impact of TQM in UK SMEs, Industrial Management &
Data Systems, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 6-10.
Process Quality Associates (2003), Six sigma for SMEs, available at: www.pqa.net/sixsigma/
(accessed March 7, 2005).
Rowlands, H. (2004), Implementation issues of six sigma in an SME, First International
Conference on Six Sigma, 16th and 17th December, Glasgow.
Snee, R.D. (2000), Impact of six sigma on quality engineering, Quality Engineering, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 9-14.
Snee, R.D. (2004), Six sigma: the evolution of 100 years of business improvement methodology,
International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 4-20.
Snee, R.D. and Hoerl, R. (2003), Leading Six Sigma, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
IJQRM Spanyi, A. and Wurtzel, M. (2003), Six sigma for the rest of us, Quality Digest, available at:
www.qualitydigest.com/july03/articles/01_articles.html (accessed February 26, 2005).
22,8
Tennant, G. (2001), Six Sigma: SPC and TQM in Manufacturing and Services, Ashgate
Publishing, Aldershot.
Waxer, C. (2004), Is six sigma just for large companies? What about small companies?,
available at: www.isixsigma.com/library/content/ (accessed March 2, 2005).
874 Wessel, G. and Burcher, P. (2004), Six sigma for small and medium-sized enterprises, TQM
Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 264-72.
Wilson, N. (2004), The small company and six sigma: advantages of the small business culture,
available at: www.sixsigmaforum.com/protected/articles/ (accessed March 7, 2005).
Yusof, S.M. and Aspinwall, E. (1999), Critical success factors for TQM implementation in small
and medium enterprises, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4/5, pp. 803-9.
Yusof, S.M. and Aspinwall, E. (2000), TQM implementation: issues, review and case study,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 634-55.