six sigma implementation framework for small and medium sized enterprises

This article was downloaded by: [Heriot-Watt University]On: 21 September 2014, At: 02:47Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ProductionResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

Six Sigma implementation frameworkfor SMEs – a roadmap to manage andsustain the changeManeesh Kumar a , Jiju Antony b & M.K. Tiwari ca School of Management and Law, The Business School, EdinburghNapier University, Craiglockhart Campus , Edinburgh EH14 1DJ, UKb Department of DMEM , University of Strathclyde , 5th Floor,James Weir Building, Glasgow G1 1XJ, UKc Department of Industrial Engineering and Management , IndianInstitute of Technology , Kharagpur, IndiaPublished online: 11 Apr 2011.

To cite this article: Maneesh Kumar , Jiju Antony & M.K. Tiwari (2011) Six Sigma implementationframework for SMEs – a roadmap to manage and sustain the change, International Journal ofProduction Research, 49:18, 5449-5467, DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2011.563836

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.563836

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00207543.2011.563836

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.563836

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Production ResearchVol. 49, No. 18, 15 September 2011, 5449–5467

Six Sigma implementation framework for SMEs – a roadmap

to manage and sustain the change

Maneesh Kumara*, Jiju Antonyb and M.K. Tiwaric

aSchool of Management and Law, The Business School, Edinburgh Napier University,Craiglockhart Campus, Edinburgh EH14 1DJ, UK; bDepartment of DMEM, University of

Strathclyde, 5th Floor, James Weir Building, Glasgow G1 1XJ, UK; cDepartment of IndustrialEngineering and Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India

(Final version received January 2011)

Although Six Sigma has been in business lexicon for more than 20 years, researchhas shown the need of practical implementation framework for successfuldeployment of Six Sigma, especially in the context of small and medium-sizedenterprises (SMEs). This article proposes a Six Sigma implementation frameworkcustomised to the needs of SMEs by performing a critique of quality managementframeworks/models for SMEs and drawing conclusion from the empiricalresearch conducted over 3 years. If Six Sigma is poorly launched, it will bevery difficult to reorganise and regain momentum. Though the framework wastested in three SMEs and revised, still its robustness needs to be checked andrefined based on suggestions and comments from industry, practitioners andacademics.

Keywords: Six Sigma; framework; model; readiness; resilient; SMEs

1. Introduction

Resilience is defined by Merriam-Webster online dictionary as ‘an ability to recoverfrom or adjust easily to misfortune or change’ or ‘the capability of a strained body torecover its size and shape after deformation caused especially by compressive stress’(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resilience). Fiskel (2006) defines sustainableenterprise resilience as the ‘capacity for an enterprise to survive, adapt, and grow in theface of turbulent change’. Being resilient is vital in business (Berman 2009) as it gives theowner and leaders of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) the necessary fightingpower to survive and sustain in the erratic and adverse behaviour of the global market,i.e. ‘keep going no matter what happens’ (Cheng 2007). Organisations are focusing on theways to establish a sustainable business environment by minimising waste from businessprocesses through application of business improvement methodologies such as Six Sigma(Kumar and Antony 2009).

In the attempt to manage change, many large organisations have pursued formalisedchange programmes or quality initiatives such as Six Sigma that can have a significantimpact on the bottom-line and working culture of an organisation. It is evident from theliterature that Six Sigma implementation has evolved from manufacturing, after itsinception in Motorola in the mid-1980s, and has sailed across the service industry

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0020–7543 print/ISSN 1366–588X online

� 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2011.563836

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

(especially healthcare, financial services and the public sector) with a significant impact onthe bottom-line and customer satisfaction (Snee 2004, Kumar et al. 2008).

In spite of a number of Six Sigma success stories in large organisations, little researchattention has been given to SMEs (Llorens-Montes and Molina 2006). Many key questionsremain unanswered as the Six Sigma discourse in SME literature is emergent in nature(Kumar 2007, Antony et al. 2008, Kumar and Antony 2008, 2009).

As pointed out by Welsh and White (1981), SME’s are not ‘little big businesses’, ratherthey are distinct entities that form their own views of reality and hence the interpretationand construction of new knowledge such as Six Sigma (McAdam et al. 2005, Martinez-Costa and Jimenez-Jimenez 2009, Thomas et al. 2009). Thus, it is important to takeinto account the key differences in the characteristics of SMEs and large organisationswhile designing quality models/frameworks for SMEs or larger firms. For the informationof the readers, this research considers an organisation to be a SME if it has less than250 employees as stated by Department of Trade and Industry (DTI 2006).

2. Quality management framework and models for SMEs – a review of literature

Evidence from the literature indicates that failure to select a change managementprogramme based on structured approach or framework can lead to malpractices, fire-fighting and sub-optimisation of resources (Davies and Kochhar 2000, Deros et al. 2006).This is a reason why many researchers have emphasised on structured framework forproblem solving. The idea of cost-effective framework for SMEs was supported by otherresearchers as well (Goh and Ridgway 1994, Ghobadian and Gallear 1997, McAdam 2000,Yusof and Aspinwall 2000, Thomas and Webb 2003, Hansson and Klefsjo 2003, Antonyet al. 2008). The following section includes a critique of existing frameworks/modelsproposed for SMEs.

2.1 Critique of quality management frameworks and models for SMEs

There had been an implicit assumption that organisational theories, models andconceptual frameworks developed in large organisations were relevant and directlyapplicable to SMEs. Literature on total quality management (TQM)/Six Sigma orassessment model such as Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA)/European Quality Award (EQA) have highlighted the need for tailor-made implementa-tion framework for SMEs as the aforementioned quality initiatives or self-assessmentmodel was developed by a large organisation for large organisations (Ghobadian andGallear 1997, Hewitt 1997, Wilkes and Dale 1998, Watts and Dale 1999, Thomas andWebb 2003).

The focus of the study is to develop a customised framework for Six Sigmaimplementation in SMEs. The extant literature is void of such framework tailored to theneeds of SMEs. This led to the review of similar framework/models on other continuousimprovement (CI) initiatives such as TQM/Lean or self-assessment models/qualitymanagement system proposed for SMEs. The purpose of this section was to reviewcommonly cited models/frameworks for quality management application in SMEs tounderstand the key constituents of the frameworks/models, its application to differenttypes and size of industry, and a critique of frameworks/models for SMEs.

5450 M. Kumar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

A step-by-step detailed approach to framework design can guide SMEs to successfulimplementation of framework, involving their own employees rather than resorting toexternal help. Researchers have used this prescriptive approach to develop TQMframeworks for SMEs (Asher 1992, Ghobadian and Gallear 1997, Hansson and Klefsjo2003, Ahmed et al. 2004). A table summarising the key features of framework/modelsproposed by researchers in the past and their limitations are presented in Table 1.

The key findings from the review of frameworks/models are presented below:

. Few frameworks proposed were developed on the assumption of data availability,customer feedback system and strong leadership commitment, which is not thecase in many SMEs.

. Only 6 out of 17 frameworks reviewed had a step-by-step structure and theremaining 11 were based on systems based structure (indicating a lack of focuson ‘How to implement’ a framework).

. Most of the frameworks/models presented ignored the discussion on how SMEswith their limited resources can operationalise the frameworks/models.

. Understanding of the history of quality initiatives in the firm, their success rate,and leadership commitment and support in the past were not taken intoconsideration while designing the implementation frameworks/models for SMEs.

. The important role of networking, especially with government bodies andacademic institutions, in supporting the CI efforts of SMEs were not addressedin the majority of the frameworks/models.

. Few models focused on the application of tools and techniques of CI at anoperational level with little focus on integration with strategic objectives of thebusiness. More focus should be on softer issues at the implementation stage,thereafter hard issues such as statistics can be used for problem solving.

. There was very limited discussion on how to sustain the benefits fromimplementation of initiatives like TQM or Lean and facilitate SMEs to becomemore resilient.

3. Research methodology

The Six Sigma implementation framework for SMEs was constructed based on primarydata collected from survey and multiple-case studies and mapping the findings againstsecondary data collected by critically analysing models/frameworks proposed in theliterature on CI initiatives in SMEs (as depicted in Figure 1). The survey was used inthe first part of the study to identify SMEs implementing Six Sigma and non-implementerof Six Sigma. The identification of SMEs from the survey facilitated in sample selectionfor conducting case studies in 10 SMEs to get more in-depth knowledge on the qualitypractices prevalent in Six Sigma and non-Six Sigma firms.

Interviews were also conducted with three consultants working for manufacturingadvisory services (MAS) in Scotland and England to oversee the quality managementpractices in manufacturing SMEs and suggest measures for improvement. One of the focusareas while conducting the case study was to understand the implementation framework/map used by SMEs to deploy Six Sigma across the organisation. The viewpoints of theconsultant were very useful in understanding the true picture of SMEs on their continuousimprovement journey. For more information on the first two phases of research, pleaserefer to Kumar and Antony (2008, 2009). The findings from the aforementioned phases

International Journal of Production Research 5451

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Table

1.Review

ofquality

managem

entframew

orksandmodelsforSMEs.

Author(year),country

Methodologyused

Lim

itations/weaknessesofmodel/framew

ork

Asher

(1992),UK

TQM

implementationframew

ork

developed

based

onconsultancy

experience

inmanufacturing

andserviceindustry

Basedontheassumptionthatdata

collectionsystem

tomeasure

cost

ofquality

orcustomer

feedback

system

alreadyexists

GhobadianandGallear

(1997),UK

Multiple

case-studyin

fourfirm

s(m

anufacturing

andservice)

todevelopconceptualframew

ork

forTQM

implementation

BS5750mayrequiremuch

earlierattentionthen

instep

6of

framew

ork;chancesofsuccessfrom

fullblownim

plementation

ofTQM

inSMEsismeagre

dueto

resourceconstraints;no

validationofframew

ork;framew

ork

constructed

basedonsm

all

sample-sizethatmaylimititsgeneralisability

YusofandAspinwall

(2000),UK

Survey

andmultiple-case

studyin

fourfirm

sto

developconceptualframew

ork

forTQM

implementation;samplesfrom

UK

automotive

industry

included

inthestudy

Does

notexplain

how

tooperationalise

theframew

ork;does

not

provideguidance

onwhich‘Box’to

focusatthestart

of

implementation;novalidationofframew

ork

WattsandDale

(1999),

UK

Conceptualmodeldeveloped

basedonexperience;

researchmethodologynotclearlystated;indi-

catestheuse

ofinterview

andgroupdiscussion

ofsm

allcompanies(m

anufacturingand

service)

Does

notexplain

how

toopertionalise

themodel;thoughmodel

was

reported

beingusedbySMEs,nopublished

evidence

available

ontheefficacy

ofmodel

Wilkes

andDale

(1998),

UK

Multiplecase

studyin

seven

firm

s(m

anufacturing

andservice)

todeveloparevised

EFQM

model

forSMEs

Preparationofdocumentstillresourceintensive;

languageusedstill

complicatedfrom

SMEsperspective;

number

ofcriteria

does

not

fitacompanywithless

than50em

ployees;more

samplesneeded

forvalidationofmodel

HusbandandMandal

(1999),Australia

Conceptualmodel

developed

basedonliterature

review

process

Use

ofthemodel

notevidentin

literature

even

thoughitprovides

abasisforcloserexaminationofquality

methodsandquality

modelsasthey

apply

toSMEs

HanssonandKlefsjo

(2003),Sweden

Core

valuemodel

forTQM

implementation

developed

basedonmultiple

case

studiesin

ninefirm

s(m

anufacturingandservice)

Lim

ited

discussionbyresearchersonhow

tomaketheframew

ork

operationaltakinginto

considerationtheresources

constraints

facedbySMEs

Mackau(2003),

Germany

Model

developed

basedonliterature

review

and

single

case

studyin

constructionindustry

Model

notgenralisable

dueto

smallsample

size

(onecase-study);

Does

notprovideanyinform

ationonthelength/pages

of

documentrequired

tobefilled

inbySMEsforIM

Scertification.

Itisbelieved

thatadossiercontainingelem

ents

ofthreesystem

s(ISO

9001,ISO

14001andSCC)would

belengthyandcompli-

cateddueto

integrationofthreesystem

s


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

ThomasandWebb

(2003),UK

Conceptualframew

ork

andmodel

developed

basedonsurvey

in500UK

manufacturing

firm

s

Framew

ork

focusesmore

ontheoperationalissues

andapplication

ofstatisticalmethodswithlimited

discussiononstrategicissues

of

managem

entcommitment,resourceavailabilityto

apply

the

framew

ork;framew

ork

andmodel

needsto

betested

forits

validityandusagein

SMEs

McA

dam

(2000),UK

Testingtheapplicationofbalance

scorecard

and

businessexcellence

model

in20case

study

SMEsbyusinggrounded

approach

Industry

notspecified

–

Gunasekaranet

al.

(2000),UK

Single

case

studyin

manufacturingSME

topropose

aconceptualmodel

Missedto

providesuggestionsonhow

tomakethemodel

opera-

tional,strategicallyalignto

businessgoalsandensure

leadership

commitmentto

introduce

such

model

atoperationallevel;more

focusonapplicationoftoolsandtechniques

atoperationallevel

Khanet

al.(2007),UK

Developed

apracticalframew

ork

basedonliter-

ature

review,150manufacturingcompany

survey

andsemi-structuredinterviewsin

20

SMEs

UsageofPAM

toolnotclearlyexplained;attainingworldclass

manufacturingstatusthroughapplicationofKaizen

isquestionable

Deroset

al.(2006),

Malaysia

Developmentofconceptualbenchmarkingim

ple-

mentationframew

ork

byreview

ofliterature

andvalidatingitatsixautomotive

manufacturingSMEs

Framew

ork

stillatdevelopmentstageandneedsfurther

validation;

someelem

ents

offramew

ork

connectedto

each

other

thoughnot

proven

statistically

Chileshe(2007),UK

Developmentofconceptualframew

ork

bysur-

veying63constructionSMEsin

UK

Noguidelines

onhow

tooperationalise

theframew

ork;stillin

developmentstagewithlimited

applicationtilldate

BiazzoandBernardi

(2003),Italy

Developmentofclassificationandconceptual

mapbasedonliterature

review

Applicationisnotyet

evidencedin

literature;complexmodel;Jargon

usedmayconfuse

SMEs

Ahmed

etal.(2004),

Malaysia

DevelopmentofTPM/TQM

implementation

methodologybasedoncompletedsurvey

response

from

63manufacturingfirm

s

Framew

ork

needsto

betested

andvalidatedforpracticalusage;

framew

ork

wasfocusedmore

atoperationallevel

andstrategic

issues

such

asleadership

andmanagem

entcommitment,rolling

outinitiativeonpilotbasisoracross

organisationwasnot

included

indiscussion

Thomaset

al.(2008),

UK

IntegratedLeanSix

Sigmaframew

ork

basedon

previousmodel

proposedbyThomasand

Barton(2006).Model

tested

inone

manufacturingSME

Lacksstrategic

focus;model

isapplicable

atoperationallevel

toresolvechronicproblems;itisnotanim

plementationstrategythat

could

bedeployed

across

organisation

Note:Framew

orksproposedonly

forlargeorganisationsorforboth

largefirm

sandSMEswerenotincluded

inthereviewdueto

criticaldifferencesin

characteristics

ofthetw

ogroups.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

facilitated in the design and construction of a practical framework for Six Sigmaimplementation in SMEs.

4. Six Sigma implementation framework for SMEs

Six Sigma builds upon many of the successful elements of the previous qualityimprovement initiatives and incorporates a unique method of its own. Although thefinancial payback from Six Sigma projects lures many companies to embark on itsimplementation journey, but they need to carefully consider the implementation processto ensure sustainability and long-term benefits from the initiative. The authors havedeveloped a Six Sigma implementation framework that will act as a roadmap or guidelinefor SMEs to follow in their effort to improve continuously, maintain high standards ofquality and enhance their chance of success in embracing this programme. The company-wide implementation of Six Sigma can take place in five phases, as proposed in theframework, starting from assessing the readiness for Six Sigma implementation tosustaining the benefits from the implementation, as illustrated in Figure 2.

To date, no research projects or literature have proposed a generic implementationframework to get started with Six Sigma in an SME environment. This framework hasbeen developed from the critical analysis of existing frameworks/models of previous

Research Methodology

Triangulation Approach

Survey Secondary Research

MultipleCase-studies

Data Collection methods

Questionnaire Semi-structured

Interviews Observations Journal

articles,

Findings from primary & secondary research combined to design the Six Sigma framework

for SMEs

Figure 1. Research methodology adopted for this research.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

quality improvement initiatives such as TQM in the SME environment. The first decisionis where to begin and this can be so difficult that many organisations never get started. Ifthe implementation of Six Sigma is planned at organisation-wide level, then theorganisation-wide support must be in place well before the Six Sigma projects begin.The proposed 12 steps, as shown in Figure 3, in the five phases of the framework willfacilitate SMEs to apply Six Sigma in a systematic and logical manner. Though a few stepsof the framework are generic and applicable to all types or sizes of firms, Steps 3–5, Step 8,Step 10 and Step 12 were designed specifically for SMEs taking into consideration thecharacteristics of SMEs and constraints faced by them.

The framework was tested in three SMEs by conducting semi-structured interviewswith the middle management teams (the interviewees shortlisted for readiness testparticipated in the framework testing as well). The comments and suggestions from theinterview process were incorporated in the framework to make some minor amendmentsin the details of Step 3, Step 6, Step 8 and Step 12. The Six Sigma framework presentedin Figure 3 is the revised framework that will facilitate SMEs to successfully implementSix Sigma and become resilient to tackle quality challenges in the global market.

4.1 Phase 0 – readiness for Six Sigma

This phase will test the preparedness of SMEs before embarking on the Six Sigmainitiative. The readiness index will assess organisation preparedness for Six Sigmaimplementation and the framework will facilitate organisations to implement thechange management initiatives. The authors define the Six Sigma readiness index for

Figure 2. A five phase framework for Six Sigma implementation in SMEs.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

SMEs as ‘the extent of SMEs’ preparedness for the introduction of Six Sigma. It is alsoa way of assessing the degree to which the organization’s present values are congruent withthe values needed in a Six Sigma organization’. The readiness index was evaluated basedon the criteria established from literature and findings from survey and multiple-casestudies.

The five criteria to measure SME readiness for Six Sigma implementation was derivedbased on findings from multiple case studies and reviewing literature on maturity models/self-assessment models proposed for the implementation of TQM/change managementinitiatives (Kaye and Dyason 1995, Ghobadian and Woo 1996, Dale and Lascelles 1997,Dale and Smith 1997, Dale et al. 1997, Kaye and Anderson 1999, Bessant et al. 2001,Oakland and Tanner 2006, 2007, Siha and Saad 2008). The top five criteria that constituteSix Sigma readiness index were identified by comparing the findings from empiricalresearch with literature:

. Leadership

. Customer focus

. Measurement and process

. Systems and control

. People management

All criteria were assigned equal weight in evaluating the readiness index score. A scoreis calculated for each variable within each factor on the 0–4 Likert scale, with 0 being‘percept not implemented at all’; 1 implying ‘percept slightly implemented’; 2 indicating‘percept moderately implemented’; a score of 3 indicating ‘good implementation ofpercept’; and 4 being ‘percept fully implemented’. A score of 3 for each criterion indicatesthat the organisation culture is ready to embrace Six Sigma. For more details on SixSigma readiness index, please refer to Kumar and Antony (2010). SMEs that achievethe threshold value of 3 are ready to embark on Phase 1 of the framework for Six Sigmaimplementation.

PreparePhase 1

Identify & train best

people for first wave of training

Identify the core business

processes

Selecting Six Sigma pilot

project

Communicating initial success

Organisationwide training

Establish methods to

evaluate progress

Commitment to continuous improvement

Linking Six Sigma to intrinsic

motivation of employees

Progressiontowards

learning org.

Communication and Leadership Commitment

SustainPhase 4

InstitutionalisePhase 3

InitializePhase 2

IfYes

These steps were designed specifically to the needs of SMEs

Top Mgmt. Commitment &

StrongLeadership

Education and training

Recognise the need for change

Readiness forSix Sigma

Yes/No

Phase 0

Figure 3. Step-by-step approach in the five phase Six Sigma framework SMEs.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

4.2 Phase 1 – Prepare

The Prepare phase helps an organisation to understand the rationale behind the changeand measure the commitment from the senior management team to invest time andallocate resources for implementing the change. The preliminary stage of understandingthe need for change and commitment from the top management are vital steps which formthe foundation of the whole Six Sigma framework.

4.2.1 Step 1: Recognise the need for change

The framework begins with the identification of the need for Six Sigma and justificationfor its launch. This need for change may be externally driven by customers and marketsand internally driven by the employees (i.e. internal customer). A list of internal andexternal variables that drive the change is listed in Table 2. The need to implement SixSigma may be due to pressure from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM)/customerto reduce the errors or defects in its product or service delivered. Outsourcing to low costmanufacturing/service countries, decline in market share, or change in government policiesand regulations may force the management to think about the need for Six Sigmaimplementation.

These external factors may be intertwined with the internal factors driving the change.For example, customer complaints may force internal factors such as process or qualityof product to improve. Conducting the business review and gap analysis would facilitateidentification of the strengths and weaknesses of the organisation and also prioritisationof the potential change needed. It is imperative to note that if a business is going throughrestructuring that requires significant layoffs or a merger, creates uncertainty and too littleexecutive attention, then Six Sigma is not a way forward.

4.2.2 Step 2: Strong leadership and top management commitment

Once an SME passes through the Six Sigma readiness test, it gives an indication that thefirm had a strong leader supporting CI activities in the past. Again, this commitmentfrom top management and leaders needs to be reassessed at the start of the Six Sigmaimplementation.

Six Sigma works best with a top–down approach – when the CEO and seniormanagement team own it, support it and drive it (Pande et al. 2000, Antony and Banuelas2002). This is the most important aspect to start with because many companies havefailed in their attempt to implement Six Sigma either due to lack of commitment at the

Table 2. Main factors driving the need for Six Sigma.

External factors Internal factors

Customer complaints/requirement Performance improvementMarket competition Process improvementRegulatory demands Employee satisfactionGovernment policies Changing business focusOutsourcing Management change

Source: Adapted from Dale et al. (1997), Oakland and Tanner (2006, 2007).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

managerial level or due to lack of strong leaders to drive the initiative. GE’s successwith Six Sigma was due in large part to the role that Jack Welch (former CEO) playedin relentlessly advocating the initiative and integrating it into the core of the company’sstrategy (Mekong Capital 2004).

It is desirable that the senior management approves the Six Sigma initiative, defines thepurpose and scope of Six Sigma, and links it to the mission and vision of the organisation.If the business leaders and their team cannot invest two days of their own time in learningmore about Six Sigma and their role, then they are not ready to start (Pande et al. 2000).Some of the other roles and responsibilities of senior management and their performancemeasures are cited in Table 3.

4.2.3 Step 3: Education and training at the senior management level

To constantly maintain the competitive edge and effectively transfer knowledge through-out the organisation, it is important to start training at the top of the organisation and thisshould then be cascaded down through the organisational hierarchy (Antony and Taner2003). Education and awareness sessions will secure senior management commitment andfaith in the initiative. The literature review and the empirical study explicitly statedresource constraints (financial, technical, time) faced by SMEs to implement any change.The best way forward for SMEs to negate the effect of resource availability on theimplementation process is to network or collaborate with their OEM/organisationsadopting Six Sigma or government bodies or academic institutions for training andsupport during the initial phase of the Six Sigma implementation (Barrier 1992, Hewitt1997, Thomas and Webb 2003, Thomas 2007, Kumar and Antony 2009). This step willminimise their expenses in hiring an expensive consultant to train their employees.

Government bodies in the UK such as the MAS provide help to SMEs, to streamlinetheir processes, reduce waste, become more energy efficient and improve their business,free of cost or at highly subsidised rates (http://www.mas.berr.gov.uk/). Local universitiescan help SMEs in several ways to embark on their CI journey – train on statistics concepts,principles of Lean, Six Sigma, tools and techniques of CI; internship students available to

Table 3. Responsibilities and performance measures of top management.

Factor Main responsibilities Performance measures

Leadership andsenior manage-ment commitment

� Linking Six Sigma to company’smission, vision and values

� Develop a strategy fordeployment

� Making Six Sigma one of the topthree priorities of the business

� Develop a 3–5 years strategicSix Sigma plan

� Communicate the need for SixSigma

� Allocate budget and resources

� Ready to address any resistance tochange

� Introduce incentive and rewardschemes

� Breaking down stumbling blocksor barriers to implementation

� Control through visibility

� Motivate and support theemployee in the implementationprocess

� Monitor progress Committingthemselves for 1 or 2 daystraining on Six Sigma

Source: Adapted from Motwani (2001), Writers (2007).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

work on the Six Sigma project supported by an academic mentor. SMEs can takeadvantage of free support available from social/professional networks on the internet suchas – www.isixsigma.com, International Society of Six Sigma Professionals (ISSSP), andLinkedIn, to name a few. The development of a network will facilitate SMEs to share theirexperiences of implementing CI initiatives or using self-assessment tools with similarcompanies on a common platform.

The action plan for this step is listed below:

. Educate the senior management team with executive or champion training.

. Create a Six Sigma steering committee comprising the top management (Writers2007) to provide leadership, co-ordinate the review of on-going projects, liaisewith champions of different projects and allocate resources to them, ensure theprojects selected have strategic links to business objectives.

. Identify and select executive leaders to drive the initiative.

4.3 Phase 2 – Initialise

The Initialise phase helps an organisation to implement the change on a pilot basis byidentifying, selecting and motivating the few talented employees to be part of the changeand selecting a pilot project for execution that can be completed within a short span oftime and thus have maximum impact. The Initialise phase builds momentum for deployingchange across the organisation.

4.3.1 Step 4: Identify and train the best people for the first wave of Six Sigma

It is essential to attract the best people with good leadership skills to be involved in thecompany’s first wave of training on Six Sigma (Pande et al. 2000, Pyzdek 2003, Antony2004). There are three major reasons why top talent is so important to the Six Sigma effort(Snee and Hoerl 2003):

. The better the talent, the better the result

. Top talent attracts more top talent

. Top talent becomes the next organisational leader

The selection of top talent for the key roles gives a clear message to the organisationthat the management is committed and serious about Six Sigma. This will provide animpetus and motivation for other employees to get involved in the initiative. Appropriateselection criteria should be developed by the top management to select the right people forthe first wave of training.

Taking into consideration problem complexity and resource limitation, SMEs do notrequire an extensive role system where Master Black Belts, Black Belts (BB) are involved inprojects as are applied to large organisations (Kumar et al. 2006, 2008). Findings fromempirical research (Kumar and Antony 2008, 2009) indicate the need of 1–2 BB for a firmwith 250 employees. In the first wave of training, one or a maximum of two employeesfrom the firm (top talented people in the firm should be selected) should be selected for SixSigma Black Belt training. The BB can then train the rest of the employees, by taking trainthe trainer approach, at different levels of Six Sigma expertise, i.e. Green Belt (GB; formiddle managers) and Yellow Belts (YB; for supervisor and shop floor employees).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

There is no need for Master Black Belt in a SME environment and the focus should beon training more GB (in the second wave of training) as suggested by case study firms,Six Sigma practitioners from MAS, and delegates at the 3rd International Conference onSix Sigma. Estimated savings from a BB project in an SME environment is different fromthat in large organisations. A typical BB in large organisations is expected to saveapproximately £75k per project; whereas in a SME environment, BB may save £30–£35kper project (supported by empirical research conducted by author, though no such figure isavailable in the literature). The requirement of BB and typical savings from BB projects in anSME environment is an unexplored area of research that requires further investigation anddevelopment.

Key points to consider during the execution of Step 4 are:

. Select the best people from all the departments of the organisation.

. Identify the best training provider in the area, with a positive reputation andexperience in delivering training (e.g. MAS, University offering BB training, ora reliable consultancy company of international repute).

. Develop a training plan/schedule.

. Identify and train candidates for Six Sigma project champion and BB roles.

. Form one or two cross-functional teams for the first wave, comprising not morethan 6–8 members in each team. The involvement of members from otherfunctional groups will provide more ideas and a fresh angle to the problems.

4.3.2 Step 5: Identify the core business processes

Identification of core processes is an area of potential bottleneck for many organisationsbecause, if the core processes are not known, the rest of the framework is difficult toimplement (Oakland 2003). It becomes easier to understand the business, processes andidentify opportunities for improvement, if the process mapping/value stream mapping(VSM) for the core processes have been performed. Adherence to ISO 9000 guidelines orimplementation of Lean before embarking on Six Sigma establishes standard systems andprocedures, identifies core and support processes, and develops VSM for key processes.VSM projects the bottleneck operations or chronic problems by identifying value-addedand non-value-added activities in the value stream. The pre-established system like thisin SMEs may aid in Six Sigma implementation.

It is preferable to launch Six Sigma by focusing on a few strategic areas, rather than10 or 20 (Snee and Hoerl 2003). It is equally important to establish the processperformance measures, which could be used to define what is important for success andwhich are used to select the project. Activities involved in this step are:

. Identify core business processes and prioritise critical processes (if not identifiedin the readiness assessment stage, i.e. phase 0).

. Develop the process map or value stream map for the core processes.

. Develop a measurement plan and metrics for the core processes, e.g. cost ofquality; value-added or non-value added activities (it is worthwhile to identify,isolate, and remove measurement variations, which would lead to the actualmeasured values obtained from the measurement process).

. Establish performance metrics for the critical processes.

. Review the current performance for the critical processes.

. Perform the internal and external benchmarking for the critical processes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

. Identify and prioritise those processes that have greater stakeholder and financialimpact.

4.3.3 Step 6: Selecting Six Sigma pilot project

Projects are the core activity driving the change in Six Sigma organisations. As quoted bySnee and Hoerl (2003), ‘Project selection is a critical component of success. Often thebattle is lost before we have even begun due to selection of poor projects’.

Some early wins are crucial and necessary to buy-in management and company-widecommitment for the initiative. Primarily, initial pilot projects should focus on key problemareas (as identified in Step 5) with strategic alignment in terms of high customersatisfaction and critical to business success in terms of faster or larger financial return(Pyzdek 2003, Kumar et al. 2008). Only those projects should be selected at the start of theimplementation process that could be completed in the shortest possible time (3–4 months)with less effort and high impact in terms of productivity and profitability (Barrier 1992,Struebing and Klaus 1997). The process performance measures determined by the seniormanagement facilitate everyone to focus on the initial projects strategically (Snee andHoerl 2003). The success of the pilot project would act as a model for the rest of theorganisation to follow. It is desirable that the finance department is involved fromthe beginning of the project to ensure that the cost–benefit analysis is carried out for eachSix Sigma project and savings are actually reflected in the bottom-line.

4.4 Phase 3 – Institutionalise

The Institutionalise phase refers to the deployment of Six Sigma across the organisationso that the culture of process thinking, statistical thinking and CI is embedded withinthe organisation.

4.4.1 Step 7: Communicating the initial success

All financial and strategic savings generated from pilot projects should be reported uponproject completion. Awareness and recognition of all employees on Six Sigma pursuit isachieved through the communication of Six Sigma savings. The senior management teamshould communicate carefully to the whole company as to why they chose to deploy SixSigma, what they hope to get out of it and where it will take the organisation (Snee andHoerl 2003). Different communication strategies or media such as intranet, newsletter,bulletin board, etc. should be used. Important points to consider in this step are:

. Celebrate and widely share the success of pilot projects.

. Gain the appreciation of top management as well as members of supervisoryteams.

. Share the major challenges and pitfalls during project execution.

4.4.2 Step 8: Organisation-wide training

A sound organisational infrastructure for each of the Six Sigma roles (BB, GB, YB) isa key element for institutionalising the Six Sigma initiative within the fabric of theorganisation. It is not only important to allocate resources for a wave of mass training,but also to identify all the training needs of all the roles, and put together a sustained,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

ongoing system to continuously satisfy these needs in the most efficient way possible(Snee and Hoerl 2003). Training should not just be short-term but should involve

educating on a long-term basis, with regular training follow-ups and briefings (Antony andTaner 2003).

As discussed in Step 4, BB can take the ‘train the trainer’ approach to train the restof the employees at GB or YB level. This will not only save financial resources for SMEs,but also build their own capability and understanding of Six Sigma for long-termsustainability of the initiative. This approach was popular and practised by participatingcase study firms in the empirical research conducted by authors. It is also advisable in the

authors’ opinion to develop a White Belt system for SMEs instead of heavily investing inthe BB system (Kumar et al. 2008). The author suggests that the White Belts may carry outbetween 4 and 5 processes or quality improvement related projects using the DMAICmethodology. The expected savings from a White Belt project can be around £5000 per

project. In our opinion, a company of size 100 should plan for about 10 to 15 White Belts,trained for a week on basic Six Sigma methodology. This is gray area of research that needsfurther exploration and testing.

Other components of the supporting infrastructure that become key in this step are:

. A steering committee comprising the senior management people formed andactive (discussed in step 2).

. Executives trained at GB and BB levels should execute a project linked to thestrategic goals of the business and demonstrate potential savings generated from

the project. Once the project is executed, the GB/BB should be rotated back totheir original job and opportunity should be given to other employees to executeprojects. This way SMEs can take care of their scarce human resources as well asbuild up their own knowledge intensive workforce.

. Continual training for new employees as well as experienced GBs.

. Training should not only focus on statistical tools and techniques application butalso on softer issues such as change management, leadership, culture issues, toname a few.

. Audits should be carried out to ensure that the completed projects are continuing

to reap benefits (Snee and Hoerl 2003).

4.4.3 Step 9: Establish methods for evaluating progress

The gap analysis conducted in the first-phase will help to identify the critical business

processes and establish the metrics to measure the performance of those processes. Goodperformance measurement allows target areas for improvement to be identified and hasa key role in communication (Oakland and Tanner 2006). These metrics should regularlybe monitored and reviewed by the Six Sigma team. It is equally important to measurethe non-financial metrics such as customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, job

involvement and commitment, to name a few, which are the key indicators of any changeinitiative. The key points to be accentuated upon in this step are:

. Develop standard procedures and system for results recording and reporting.

. Highlight the successful as well as poor results and feedback to employees.

. Members of supervisory team accountable for reporting results for theirindividual processes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

. Establish a monthly review of on-going projects, identify performance trends,evaluate progress and revise strategies.

4.5 Phase 4 – Sustain

The Sustain phase emphasises how learning from the first three phases could be shared,transferred and applied across the organisation to continue reaping benefits on a long-term basis from the implementation of Six Sigma. The idea behind including this phasewas to make sure that the benefits and knowledge generated from Six Sigma projects aresustained on a long-term basis.

4.5.1 Step 10: Commitment to continuous improvement

Sustaining improvement is a challenging task, where many SMEs struggle due to a changein business focus or fluctuation in economy. To keep the momentum going, it is necessaryto develop generations of managers, who not only understand but are dedicated to thepursuit of continuous improvement in meeting external and internal customer needs(Oakland 2003). This is the first step towards long-term sustainability of the initiative,facilitating in the creation of resilient SMEs.

4.5.2 Step 11: Linking Six Sigma to intrinsic motivation of employees

Employees are the source of ideas and innovation, and their expertise and knowledgeshould be harnessed to get those ideas implemented (Oakland 2003). Management shouldbelieve in the power of ‘intrinsic motivation’ (self-motivation) rather than solely relyingon ‘extrinsic motivation’ (coerced or bribed to do it) (Snee and Hoerl 2003). The intrinsicmotivation can be generated through:

. Employee involvement in project improvement teams or review meetings

. Employee empowerment for their processes

. Training and development for their career progression

. Reward and recognition scheme (Antony and Banuelas 2002)

The aforementioned features were evidenced in the participating case study firmsduring the empirical research.

4.5.3 Step 12: Progression towards learning organisation

According to Senge et al. (1999) learning organisations are ‘organizations where peoplecontinually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new andexpansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, andwhere people are continually learning to see the whole together’. The basic rationalefor such organisations is that in situations of rapid change only those that areflexible, adaptive and productive will excel. A progression towards becoming a learningorganisation would ensure Six Sigma SMEs to sustain benefits in the long-term. Someof the key elements that an organisation should focus on to become a learningorganisation are:

. Regular project review meetings and briefings to enable both management andemployees to share experiences and progress on projects, and factors critical forits success and failure (Senge et al. 1999).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

. Individual and organisational learning should be actively encouraged (Kaye andAnderson 1999).

. Benchmarking of an organisation’s activities and its progress with internal(within department) and external competitors.

. Regular review of employee training needs, evaluation of their performanceand feedback for improvement.

As shown in Figure 3, communication and leadership commitment plays a key rolein all the four phases for successful implementation of Six Sigma. An early and informedstrategy for implementation is always necessary and decisions about rolling out theprogramme in segments or as a whole is often determined by the culture within thecompany, time available and the current needs of the organisation. In implementingthe framework, it is important that communication of information is effective and thataccountability is explicit and supported by a committed senior management team andstrong leaders. Top leaders should make themselves available for staff, keep in touch withstaff and communicate with all managers about the long-term strategies of theorganisation. Middle managers play a key role in the success of any change programme(Kaye and Anderson 1999, Snee and Hoerl 2003) and their confidence in the initiative isequally important.

5. Conclusion

Research had shown that Six Sigma or other CI initiatives have failed either due to lackof understanding of how to get started or due to failure to link the initiative to strategicbusiness goals and measurable objectives. Management in such organisations are weakand often involved in fire-fighting, paying inadequate attention to softer issues such asleadership, culture change, employees training and education, etc., characteristics evidentin SMEs. If Six Sigma is only considered as implementation of statistical tools andtechniques to solve complex problems in the organisation, it is doomed to fail due to itsvery weak linkage to strategic business objectives.

The key contribution of this article was the development of 12 steps of Six Sigmaimplementation framework that was designed keeping into consideration the needs andcharacteristics of SMEs. The proposed framework aims to provide a structured approachto problem solving in cross-functional teams and aid SMEs to flourish and reach their fullimprovement potential. It is not only imperative to drive improvement from implemen-tation of Six Sigma initiatives but also to sustain the gains over the long-term. Phase 4 ofthe framework suggests the ways to sustain the benefits from Six Sigma implementation byfocusing on intrinsic motivation of employees and sharing the learning across the firm.Sustainability dimension would accoutre SMEs to absorb the ripple caused due to anyexternal disruption and make them more resilient to such changes.

The framework is equally applicable to all sizes and types of industry. For largeorganisations, it is much easier to adapt the framework as they do not face the resourcesconstraint barrier. The practical applicability of the framework would be further tested byconducting case studies in companies and also seeking suggestions for improvement fromworld-class organisations, academics and practitioners of Six Sigma. Authors are alsoworking on establishing the time frame for the implementation of each phase of theframework.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

References

Ahmed, S., Hassan, M.H., and Taha, Z., 2004. State of implementation of TPM in SMIs: a survey

study in Malaysia. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 10 (2), 93–106.Antony, J., 2004. Six Sigma in the UK service organisations: results from a pilot survey. Managerial

Auditing Journal, 19 (8), 1006–1013.Antony, J. and Banuelas, R., 2002. Key ingredients for the effective implementation of Six Sigma

program. Measuring Business Excellence, 6 (4), 20–27.Antony, J., Kumar, M., and Labib, A., 2008. Gearing Six Sigma into UK manufacturing SMEs:

an empirical assessment of critical success factors, impediments, and viewpoints of Six Sigma

implementation in SMEs. Journal of Operations Research Society, 59 (4), 482–493.

Antony, J. and Taner, T., 2003. A conceptual framework for the effective implementation of

statistical process control. Business Process Management Journal, 9 (4), 473–489.

Asher, J.M., 1992. Implementing TQM in small and medium sized companies. Hertfordshire:

Technical Communication.

Barrier, M., 1992. Small firms put quality first. Nations Business, 80 (5), 22–32.Berman, E., 2009. Small business resilience. Industrial Management, 51 (1), 6.Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., and Gallagher, M., 2001. An evolutionary model of continuous improvement

behaviour. Technovation, 21 (2), 67–77.Biazzo, S. and Bernardi, G., 2003. Organizational self-assessment options: a classification and

a conceptual map for SMEs. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,

20 (8), 881–900.Cheng, P.L.K., 2007. The cultural value of resilience: the Singapore case study. Cross Cultural

Management: An International Journal, 14 (2), 136–149.Chileshe, N., 2007. Quality management concepts, principles, tools and philosophies – a valid

methodology for deployment within UK construction-related SMEs. Journal of Engineering

Design and Technology, 5 (1), 49–67.Dale, B.G., et al., 1997. Sustaining total quality management: what are the key issues? The TQM

Magazine, 9 (5), 372–380.Dale, B.G. and Lascelles, D.M., 1997. Total quality management adoption: revisiting the levels.

The TQM Magazine, 9 (6), 418–428.Dale, B.G. and Smith, M., 1997. Spectrum of quality management implementation grid:

development and use. Managing Service Quality, 7 (6), 307–311.Davies, A.J. and Kochhar, A.K., 2000. A framework for the selection of best practices. International

Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20 (10), 1203–1217.Deros, B.M., Yusof, S.M., and Salleh, A.M., 2006. A benchmarking implementation framework for

automotive manufacturing SMEs. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 13 (4), 396–430.DTI, 2006. National statistics [online]. Statistical Press Release. Available from: http://www.

sbs.gov.uk/content/analytical/statistics/combinedsmestats.pdf [Accessed 31 January 2009].Fiksel, J., 2006. Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach. Sustainability: Science,

Practice, and Policy, 2 (2), 14–21.Ghobadian, A. and Gallear, D.N., 1997. TQM and organization size. International Journal of

Operations and Production Management, 17 (2), 121–163.Ghobadian, A. and Woo, H.S., 1996. Characteristics, benefits and shortcomings of four major

quality awards. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 13 (2), 10–44.Goh, P.L. and Ridgway, K., 1994. The Implementation of Total Quality Management in small and

medium-sized manufacturing companies. The TQM Magazine, 6 (2), 54–60.Gunasekaran, A., Forker, L., and Kobu, B., 2000. Improving operations performance in a small

company: a case study. International Journal of Operations and Production Management,

20 (3), 316–336.

Hansson, J. and Klefsjo, B., 2003. A core value model for implementing total quality management

in small organisations. The TQM Magazine, 15 (2), 71–81.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Hewitt, S., 1997. Business excellence: does it work for small companies? The TQM Magazine, 9 (1),

76–82.

Husband, S. and Mandal, P., 1999. A conceptual model for quality integrated management in small

and medium size enterprises. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,

16 (7), 699–713.Kaye, M. and Anderson, R., 1999. Continuous improvement: the ten essential criteria. International

Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 16 (5), 485–506.Kaye, M.M. and Dyason, M.D., 1995. The fifth era. The TQM Magazine, 7 (1), 33–37.Khan, Z., Bali, R.K., and Wickramasinghe, N., 2007. Developing a BPI framework and PAM

for SMEs. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 107 (3), 345–360.

Kumar, M., 2007. Critical success factors and hurdles to Six Sigma implementation: the case of a

UK manufacturing SME. International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 3 (4),

333–351.

Kumar, M. and Antony, J., 2008. Comparing the quality management practices in UK SMEs.

Industrial Management and Data Systems, 108 (9), 1153–1166.Kumar, M. and Antony, J., 2009. Investigating the quality management practices in Six Sigma

against Non-Six Sigma UK manufacturing SMEs: key findings from multiple case studies.

Journal of Engineering Manufacture, IMECH E Part B, 223 (7), 925–934.Kumar, M. and Antony, J., 2010. Six Sigma Readiness Index (SSRI) – a tool to assess SMEs

preparedness for Six Sigma. 41st decision science institute conference, 20–23 November,

San Diego, CA, USA.Kumar, M., et al., 2006. Implementing the Lean Sigma framework in an Indian SME: A case study.

Production Planning and Control, 17 (4), 407–423.Kumar, M., et al., 2008. Common myths of Six Sigma demystified. International Journal of Quality

and Reliability Management, 25 (8), 878–895.Llorens-Montes, F. and Molina, L., 2006. Six Sigma and management theory: processes, content

and effectiveness. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 17 (4), 485–506.

Mackau, D., 2003. SME integrated management system: a proposed experiences model. The TQM

Magazine, 15 (1), 43–51.Martinez-Costa, M. and Jimenez-Jimenez, D., 2009. The effectiveness of TQM: the key role of

organisational learning in small business. International Small Business Journal, 27 (1), 98–125.McAdam, R., 2000. Quality models in an SME context: a critical perspective using a grounded

approach. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 17 (3), 305–323.McAdam, R., Hazlett, S.A., and Henderson, J., 2005. A critical review of Six Sigma: exploring the

dichotomies. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 13 (2), 151–174.

Mekong Capital, 2004. Introduction to Six Sigma. Mekong Capital Ltd. HCMC, Vietnam.Motwani, J., 2001. Critical factors and performance measures of TQM. The TQM Magazine, 13 (4),

292–300.Oakland, J.S., 2003. Total Quality Management text with cases. 3rd ed. Oxford: Elsevier

Butterworth-Heinemann.Oakland, J.S. and Tanner, S.J., 2006. Quality management in the 21st century – implementing

successful change. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 1 (1/2),

69–87.Oakland, J.S. and Tanner, S.J., 2007. A new framework for managing change. The TQM Magazine,

19 (6), 572–589.

Pande, P., Neuman, R., and Cavanagh, R., 2000. The Six Sigma way: how GE, Motorola and other

top companies are honing their performance. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.

Pyzdek, T., 2003. The Six Sigma handbook. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.Senge, P., et al., 1999. The dance of change: the challenges of sustaining momentum in learning

organizations. New York: Doubleday/Currency.Siha, S.M. and Saad, G.H., 2008. Business process improvement: empirical assessment and

extensions. Business Process Management Journal, 14 (6), 778–802.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Snee, R.D., 2004. Six Sigma: the evolution of 100 years of business improvement methodology.International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 1 (1), 4–20.

Snee, R.D. and Hoerl, R.W., 2003. Leading Six Sigma – a step by step guide based on experienceat GE and other Six Sigma companies. New Jersey, USA: FT Prentice-Hall.

Struebing, L. and Klaus, L.A., 1997. Small businesses thinking big. Quality Progress, 30 (2), 23–27.Thomas, A.J., 2007. Creating sustainable small to medium enterprises through technological

innovation. Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 221, 513–528.

Thomas, A., Barton, R., and Chuke-Okafor, C., 2009. Applying lean Six Sigma in a smallengineering company: a model for change. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,20 (1), 113–129.

Thomas, A.J., Barton, R., and John, E.J., 2008. Advanced manufacturing technology implementa-tion: a review of benefits and a model for change. International Journal of Productivity andPerformance Management, 57 (2), 156–176.

Thomas, A.J. and Webb, D., 2003. Quality systems implementation in Welsh small-to medium-sizedenterprises: a global comparison and a model for change. Journal of Engineering Manufacture,217 (4), 573–579.

Thomas, A. and Barton, R., 2006. Developing an SME based Six Sigma strategy. Journal of

Manufacturing Technology Management, 17 (4), 417–434.Watts, B. and Dale, B.G., 1999. Small-business evaluation and support services, a model from the

United Kingdom. Quality Progress, 32 (2), 80–83.

Wilkes, N. and Dale, B.G., 1998. Attitudes to self-assessment and quality awards: a study in smalland medium-sized companies. Total Quality Management, 9 (8), 731–739.

Whelsh, J.A. and White, J.F., 1981. A small business is not a little big business. Harvard Business

Review, 59 (4), 18–32.Writers, S., 2007. Six Sigma: preparing your organization for Six Sigma. Six Sigma forum Magazine

[online]. Available from: http://www.asq.org/forums/sixsigma/beginner/beg_preparing_organization.html [Accessed 15 July 2009].

Yusof, S.M. and Aspinwall, E., 2000. A conceptual framework for TQM implementation for SMEs.The TQM Magazine, 12 (1), 31–37.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:47

21

Sept

embe

r 20

14

six sigma implementation framework for small and medium sized enterprises

Documents