Introduction
Six sigma for small and
medium-sized
enterprises
Godecke Wessel and
Peter Burcher
The authors
Godecke Wessel was an MBA student at Aston Business
School, Birmingham, UK and is a black belt project leader at ITT
Industries Cannon, Waiblingen-Beinstein, Germany.
Peter Burcher is a Senior Lecturer in Operations Management
and Director of the DBA Programme at Aston University, Aston
Business School, Birmingham, UK.
Keywords
Quality programmes, Small to medium-sized enterprises,
Quality management, Total quality management
Abstract
Having arisen in large corporations, six sigma is surely one of the
most comprehensive approaches for company development and
performance improvement of products and processes.
Nevertheless, it appears that the majority of small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs) either do not know the six sigma
approach, or find its organisation not suitable to meet their
specific requirements. This study identifies the specific
requirements based on a sample of SMEs in Germany and
examines how six sigma has to be modified to be applicable and
valuable in an SME environment. The overall results are reflected
in ten imperative functional requirements for an adjusted
approach.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0954-478X.htm
The TQM Magazine
Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2004 · pp. 264-272
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited · ISSN 0954-478X
DOI 10.1108/09544780410541918
264
Quality management (QM) in general deals with
permanently redirecting a company’s macro and
micro operations towards the needs of internal and
external customers. To maintain and extend
competitive advantages in all dimensions and
markets, companies shift increasingly from
defining quality as a task that can be run by a
quality department, to seeing it as the overall
long-term umbrella objective of their business.
The “Panorama of EU Industry” (n.d., cited by
Ghobadian and Gallear, 1997) reports that
“between 1980 and 1990 US companies with
TQM achieved a compound annual growth of 16.9
per cent compared with 10.9 per cent achieved by
other companies.” This argument puts forward the
competitive importance of relative superior quality
and the significance of a well-designed QM
approach.
The British Quality Association (n.d. cited
Burcher, 2002, p. 20) defines TQM as an
all-embracing business management philosophy
focusing on completely fulfilling customer
requirements with a maximum of effectiveness and
efficiency. In contrast, six sigma strives for a
complete and profitable fulfilment of customer
requirements. By only performing projects which
support the core company value drivers, six sigma
explicitly considers a second main receiver of a
company’s performance – the capital provider.
Therefore, six sigma is characterized as a profit
centre, not a cost centre, which has a major impact
on the QM approach, while still based in the
fundamental methods and tools of traditional QM.
For many large corporations like General
Electric, six sigma has become the centre of nearly
every business activity, and a very important step
to ensure long-term competitiveness. In today’s
highly competitive environment, it is also
becoming increasingly important for SMEs.
According to EUROSTAT (Statistical Office of
the European Commission, personal
communication, July 15, 2002), there are about
1.2m SMEs in Germany employing 8.6m people,
underlining the importance of SMEs for the
German economy. These numbers still do not
include those from the housing, energy and traffic
industries. Furthermore, the success of large
corporations’ quality programmes is critically
dependent on the supply of high quality goods and
services from suppliers, which are most likely to be
SMEs. Thus, a logical consequence is that large
organisations encourage the application of
well-proven QM approaches among their
suppliers, underlining the fact that modern
economies operate as complex networks of firms.
Consequently, the competitiveness of SMEs affect
 Six sigma for small and medium-sized enterprises
Godecke Wessel and Peter Burcher
the competitive position of an economy as a whole.
As Drihlon and Estime (1993) cited by Ghobadian
and Gallear (1997) point out: “In today’s crowded
markets, firms cannot afford to stand still, waste
resources by adopting a trial-and-error approach
to formulating a strategic direction, and deliver
poor quality products or services.” However, Yusof
and Aspinwall (2000) state that many small
companies have stopped their quality journey
rather than pursuing further continuous
improvement efforts. They argue: “Small
businesses must understand the need to go beyond
the quality system stage and work towards a total
approach for quality.” Nevertheless, the adoption
of six sigma is not restricted to their relationship
with larger firms. It is rather an opportunity for a
development towards a stronger focus on customer
requirements and higher profitability.
Ghobadian and Gallear (1997) argue, that “the
published work of the gurus of quality, such as
Crosby, Juran, Deming and Feigenbaum, reflect
their experiences at large multinationals”. They
summarise the discussion of Price and Chen
(1993) cited by Ghobadian and Gallear (1997),
that the QM systems of large corporations have to
go through certain changes to be well-suited for
small companies. Unfortunately, there is no
research on six sigma available specifically focusing
on SMEs, making it necessary to perform primary
research. This study provides general suggestions
for a six sigma design adjusted to SME
requirements.
Methodology of the study
After the TQM hype of the early 1980s, six sigma,
building on well-proven elements of TQM, can be
seen as the current stage of evolution. As
elementary methods and tools of TQM build a
basis for any six sigma design and cultural
elements have their foundation in general change
management theories, the major difference
between six sigma and TQM has to be seen in the
direction of the programme. Therefore, the
published research on TQM has been carefully
used in the context of this study.
Subsequently, an online questionnaire
employing free e-mail address databases has been
employed to gain access to a broad sample of
companies, filling the information gap to develop a
broad six sigma concept for SMEs. The definition
adopted by the European Commission for SMEs
from the year 1996 defines SMEs as those
companies which have between 10 and 249
occupied persons (European Commission, 1996).
The second criterion is that the annual turnover
should be less than e50m or an annual balance
265
The TQM Magazine
Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2004 · 264-272
sheet total lower than e43m (European
Commission, 2001). As neither the annual
turnover, nor the balance sheet total can be
identified as high-impact factors on the
organization of a company’s management system,
an SME in the study context just has between 10
and 249 employees. Its management is, to a large
extent, free in terms of its decision making,
especially with regard to the internal structures.
Targeting an a-risk of 50 per cent, a b-risk of 20
per cent, and a granularity at 10 per cent the “one
proportion test” suggests a sample size of at least
45 companies. It can be argued that higher
significance levels often are too ambitious, which is
supported by the view of Chmielewicz (1994). In
total, 1,988 SMEs from Germany were written to
via e-mail, combined with a request to participate
in the survey by filling out the Web-based
questionnaire. After five days, all recipients were
reminded again to answer the questions; after ten
days the survey was closed. The survey outcomes
were grouped into inherent needs which then were
translated into critical-to-quality-requirements,
which are “requirements that are most important
to the customers” (George, 2002), employing
affinity techniques followed by two stages of the
quality-function-deployment tool.
General model of six sigma in large
corporations
Harry and Schroeder (1999) argue that the main
weakness of traditional TQM concepts is the
exclusive focus on customer requirements. Six
sigma in contrast focuses on quality from both the
customer’s and the investor’s perspectives with the
aim to meet customer requirements fully and
profitably. Therefore, six sigma considers the
provider of capital as the main receiver of the
company’s outcome (Pande et al., 2000). By
striving for 6s quality under the normal
distribution in all products, services and processes,
corresponding to only 3.4 defects per million
opportunities (dpmo) or virtually error-free
processes, TQM still is the overall umbrella
philosophy, but adjusted by a strong focus on
profitability improvement. Nevertheless, like
TQM, six sigma requires a strong incorporation of
the corporate control system to enable companies to
objectively measure and monitor their long-term
development within, and monetary outcome of,
QM using statistical techniques. By this, the
control system is a key function between strategy
and the operational level. At the operational level,
six sigma builds on a set of well-established
traditional methods and tools, as well as new
techniques for setting priorities on improvement
 Six sigma for small and medium-sized enterprises
Godecke Wessel and Peter Burcher
projects and for measuring the monetary benefits
(“net-benefit” calculation). These new tools have
to ensure that the additional objective of
profitability improvement can be achieved (Wessel,
2002) (See Figure 1).
For example Magnusson et al. (1999), Pande
et al. (2000), and Eckes (2000) described the core
elements of a six sigma organisation as follows:
.
process improvement represented by the
DMAIC method (define, measure, analyse,
improvement, control);
.
product and process design represented by the
DMADV method (define, measure, analyse,
design, verify); and
. an underlying process management.
In addition, to achieve a successful cultural
implementation in a client organisation, six sigma
suggests powerful tools, such as the well-described
roles of the six sigma profession: the green belt,
black belt, and champion roles.
SME requirements, limitations and
circumstances
To understand the specific needs of SMES, an
important study was undertaken by Ghobadian
and Gallear (1997), who assessed the
requirements and characteristics of large
corporations versus SMEs in the UK with regard
to their advantages and disadvantages in terms of
TQM. The identified factors are the result of an
intensive literature review based on the work of
Welsh and White (1981), d’Amboise and
Muldowney (1988), MacMillan (1975) and Deeks
(1976), all cited by Ghobadian and Gallear
(1997). Ghobadian and Gallear see unique
advantages of SMEs in effective and open
communication channels, low resistance to
change, people orientation, employees employing
a natural responsibility for quality, company-wide
awareness, functional integration, and
innovativeness. However, SMEs face
Figure 1 General elements of six sigma
266
The TQM Magazine
Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2004 · 264-272
disadvantages in the continuous search for the
improvement of the business with quality,
productivity and cost reductions as indivisible
elements, as well as process orientation, spending
on training, and discipline about goals and
standards. Other authors support the findings of
Ghobadian and Gallear (1997). For instance,
Gunasekaran et al. (1996) argue that strategy
formulation and linkage to operations is a very
dynamic process in SMEs. A further point is
supported by Van Der Wiele and Brown (1998),
who argue that a potential advantage for SMEs in
applying TQM is the natural visibility and
involvement of managers. According to them, it is
easier for employees to become clear about the
importance of TQM, if the management is
committed and drives the initiative. Yusof and
Aspinwall (2000) declare, that “management
leadership is probably the most important factor of
TQM success”. Shea and Gobeli (1995) argue on
the experience of ten small US businesses, that it is
easier to implement TQM in SMEs because the
power of decision making does not depend on
extensive hierarchies but lies within the owner
managers. This factor can also be taken for granted
in terms of six sigma and underlines the view of
many six sigma authors, who point out the
importance of top management commitment and
a top-down approach for implementation (e.g.
Magnusson et al., 1999; Pande et al., 2000; Eckes,
2001).
A factor which contradicts the view of
Ghobadian and Gallear is that SMEs have a much
“closer proximity to the customers” (Barrier,
1994, cited by McAdam, 2000). This proximity is
coupled with a larger number of SME employees
having direct customer contact and knowledge
(Hale and Cragg, 1996, cited by McAdam, 2000).
McAdam (2000), who examined the application of
TQM-related models in an SME context in 20
company case studies, adds that “therefore, the
customer voice can be incorporated within SME
operations without prolonged and formalised
approaches”. This view is supported by Haksever
(1996) who reviewed TQM principles from a small
 Six sigma for small and medium-sized enterprises
Godecke Wessel and Peter Burcher
business perspective. McAdam (2000) refers to
Raymond et al. (1998) arguing that the SMEs’
traditional loyalty to specific customers supports
improvement efforts, which are visible to the
customer. Six sigma depends on reliable ways of
collecting the voices of the customer and
translating these into critical-to-quality-
requirements of products and services. This close
relationship and the high degree of
communication with key customers appear to be
significant advantages of SMEs in opposition to
large corporations.
A potential problem appears to be that SMEs
seem to have less financial, as well as people
resources (Ryans, 1995, cited by McAdam, 2000).
Ryans (1995) argues: “In the SME environment,
there is little spare resource; every employee has a
key role and usually several”. In addition, Lee and
Oakes (1995) reported financial and technical
constraints as the main problem of small
businesses in terms of QM, as well as Haksever
(1996) who added a lack of management
experience. Based on a study of 44 small Spanish
manufacturers examining the responsible factors
for successful TQM, Moreno-Luzon (1993)
reported difficulties of SMEs to develop a quality
culture due to both experience and resource
limitations. As McAdam (2000) reiterates, a lack
of systematic training and development of
employees is a typical weakness of SMEs, which
can be seen as the result of a strong constraint of
people, limitations in the financial resources, as
well as the non-recognition of the training needs,
which he supports with the findings of Raymond
et al. (1998), cited by McAdam (2000).
Furthermore, Lee and Oakes (1995) state that
companies which recognised the need for training
often did not have a clear vision of what was
required. Isenberg (2000) concludes that the
challenges of smaller companies are “funding and
logistics”, a “limited talent pool”, “multi-hat
roles”, and “less exposure to management
innovations in other industries”. Moreno-Luzon
(1993) points to a possible resistance to change, an
emphasis on short-term objectives, as well as a lack
of overall objectives and strategy. Comparing this
to the view of Ghobadian and Gallear (1997), it
becomes clear that there is no agreement in the
literature on whether SMEs are more likely to be
resistant or open towards change. However, the
dominant view appears to be that SMEs
experience only low resistance to change.
A characteristic of six sigma is that it involves
thinking in processes. To which extent these have
to be described is an issue of process management,
which, for instance, suggests a process ownership
responsibility to certain members of staff.
However, Raymond et al. (1998) cited by
267
The TQM Magazine
Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2004 · 264-272
McAdam (2000), demonstrated that processes in
SMEs are much more temporary and less defined
than in large organisations. Additionally, Van Der
Wiele and Brown (1998) argue that processes and
measures do often not keep pace with the rapidly
changing environment. However, convincing
measures are a key element of six sigma and Yusof
and Aspinwall (2000) highlight that “small firms
with no customer data collection system will face
difficulties, as most of the information will be lost
along the way, or will remain in the minds of the
owner-manager”. McTeer and Dale (1996) cited
in Yusof and Aspinwall (2000) described two
important drawbacks of TQM, especially in an
SME context, namely the elapsed time and the
amount of paperwork caused by the
implementation of a quality system. Isenberg
(2000) points out that a realistic understanding of
process variation, first time yield and the cost of
poor quality are essential for six sigma success, but
concluded on the specific advantages of SMEs,
that at least the project tracking and the reporting
can be simplified. This is supported by Yeb-Yun
Lin (1999) who suggests that highly formalised
models do not fit into an SME environment and
could result in bureaucracy. He argues that
employee involvement and communication are
natural processes in these companies. Therefore,
given that SMEs are likely to have good “team
players”, project teams could be very successful if
common methods and tools are provided.
In conclusion, there is a significant agreement
on the discussed factors within the reviewed
sources. Many size-specific characteristics from
TQM can be used in a six sigma context and the
advantages and disadvantages of SMEs in terms of
TQM are also valid for six sigma.
Ten imperatives towards a general SME
six sigma concept
In total 70 completed questionnaires were
received, of which 47 were from the target group.
An analysis of the distribution of people employed
demonstrated that there is a strong correlation
between the represented company sizes of the
sample group and the entirety of German SMEs. A
closer examination of these 47 firms showed that
57.4 per cent of the firms do not have a QM system
in place and 40.4 per cent state that their
structures are not sufficient to achieve their
objectives. Only 14.9 per cent (7 firms) know
about the six sigma approach, but do not use it.
However, from these seven firms only two agreed
that their structures are sufficient to achieve their
quality objectives; 66 per cent experience QM as
too slow to permanently readapt a company to its
 Six sigma for small and medium-sized enterprises
Godecke Wessel and Peter Burcher
rapidly changing environment; 31.9 per cent are
certified by ISO 9000, but only 46.6 per cent of
these find this sufficient to achieve their objectives.
The review of published literature on general
QM and the cultural requirements that build the
basis for any six sigma programme, combined with
the survey responses, suggest that several factors
have to be represented in a six sigma initiative
within an SME context.
Factor 1
Every single project has to contribute positively
and directly to the company’s bottom line,
calculated through full costing. In fact, this
requirement reflects the most substantial
difference to six sigma programmes in large
corporations, as these usually calculate
net-benefits from six sigma projects by subtracting
the costs which directly evolve through a project
from its financial benefits. These “net-benefits”
still need to cover the overheads of the six sigma
organisation.
The questionnaire responses demonstrate that
profitability improvement is the most important
issue for the target group (85.1 per cent).
Furthermore, the measurability of a QM
contribution to the company’s bottom line is
highly important (70.2 per cent), underlining that
a traditional TQM approach cannot completely
fulfil the target group requirements with its
exclusive focus on the customer and efficiency.
The answers show that only if the financial benefits
are verifiably higher than the cost, would three out
of four participants provide additional personnel
for QM. This indicates that a speedy amortisation
of investments is required. Nearly half of the
participants also require an improvement in
cash-flow, thus the self-financing ability of the
company or an initiative plays an important role.
Nearly all participants reported, either implicitly
or explicitly, financial constraints, also supported
by authors in the field of TQM. However, to
ensure self-financing of a six sigma programme
from the beginning, the payback period of initial
investments will have to take place within a
common budgeting period, usually one year. This
can only be ensured if full costing elements are
implemented in the project calculation and
selection methodology, resulting in the
requirement of an adjustment of the net-benefit
calculation which is usually practised in large
corporations.
Factor 2
Large corporations routinely track project results
for 12 months – this should be maintained in an
SME environment. An exclusive focus on core
processes and an adjustment in the project
268
The TQM Magazine
Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2004 · 264-272
tracking methodology should reduce the amount
of effort required for the tracking.
SMEs tend to minimize tracking efforts yet they
demand proven project results demonstrating the
self-financing ability of an approach. From the
survey, only 29.8 per cent of firms were willing and
able to track projects over a 12-month time period.
A further 29.8 per cent were willing and able to
track for only six months. Short tracking periods
mean that the verification of the economic benefits
becomes significantly more difficult, yet, tracking
periods exceeding 12 months include the risk of
decreased visibility of results due to results
levelling out or becoming superimposed by other
influences. Therefore, establishing a 12-month
tracking period provides a solution to both
requirements: enough time to demonstrate
self-financing, as well as minimising tracking
effort, and is therefore an acceptable compromise.
To avoid escalating bureaucracy it is suggested that
SMEs track only the core essential project results
within this period until the expected benefits are
sufficiently verified. One opportunity could be to
increase the control intervals within this period
and to disable check points after the results are
seen as sufficiently verified. This, combined with
simplified projection methods to the 12-month
time-frame, would reduce the resource
requirements for tracking.
Factor 3
Six sigma programmes for SMEs should strictly
focus on those projects which fulfil the first two
factors to ensure optimum value levelling and
resource allocation to projects in line with
company strategy. This is extremely important as
the survey results demonstrated that this direction
is implicitly demanded, but not realised in many
firms, and is the most significant reason for not
providing the necessary resources to enable the
company objectives to be achieved.
Factor 4
A training programme has to be employed which is
significantly shorter than in large corporations, but
is still based in the well-proven methods and tools
of QM adjusted to specific SME needs. The
appointed quality leaders should undergo this
training, but in contrast to large corporations
which usually install a significant green belt base, it
is not necessary to train the rest of the workforce in
six sigma methods and tools.
Nearly two out of three participants in the
survey were willing and able to put the complete
workforce through a one-day training programme.
However, 72 per cent of these firms claimed not to
have the sufficient financial resources. Of those
firms who claim not to have enough staff capacity
 Six sigma for small and medium-sized enterprises
Godecke Wessel and Peter Burcher
to generally exempt personnel for training 75 per
cent were willing to provide additional personnel
for QM, but only if the benefits are verifiably
higher than the cost. This emphasises that
financial and time constraints play a significant
role for the readiness for sending staff to training.
No company which would not send the complete
workforce to training had neither financial nor
time constraints. However, 91.7 per cent of those
who claimed not to have the sufficient
management know-how to design, implement, and
run QM successfully, do require a process
improvement methodology. In addition, based on
the expressed requirements of speed, it can be
argued that one relatively strict and systematic
methodology with a set of well-proven tools is
better than just a general roadmap for
improvement efforts. Therefore, the training for
the full-time staff needs to be significantly shorter
than that used by large corporations and a quick
payoff of the training investment is required. A
typical green belt training in large corporations
requires between one and two complete weeks;
black belt training between three and five weeks. It
can be argued that the structures and problems in
smaller companies are usually not as complex and
difficult as those in larger firms – this view is
supported by other authors in the field of
traditional TQM. These problems might often be
solvable in projects with only the quality manager
himself, or one or two further participants.
Nevertheless, the reasons for and outcomes of
problem-solving projects still have important
influences on the financial situation of an SME.
Therefore, the training content should be tailored
to the specific requirements of the target group. It
is suggested that all tools are checked for
usefulness and redundancies for the target group.
Furthermore, the use of statistical methods should
be kept but minimised.
Based on the above discussion it is suggested
that complete training be provided for the six
sigma project managers in the target group, but an
adjusted awareness training programme be
delivered to the rest of the organisation.
Factor 5
SMEs should carry out a one-day awareness
raising programme to facilitate the cultural
implementation element of a six sigma programme
and to encourage active support of, and
participation in, organisational improvement.
Basic change management principles build on the
creation of a common sense of urgency to enable
successful cultural installation of new initiatives.
From the survey results, an encouraging 63.8 per
cent of SMEs were willing and able to send their
complete workforce to a one-day training
269
The TQM Magazine
Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2004 · 264-272
programme which could incorporate
organisational awareness to promote the change
efforts. In addition, there was little concern
expressed about the difficulty of putting new
initiatives into practice; 68.1 per cent stated that it
would be less or the same effort to implement QM
into the “daily work”.
Based on common literature on organisational
culture, the content of an awareness training
should include the “why”, the general “how”, as
well as the opportunities and benefits of
“participation” in QM, dependent on the
individual needs of the target group. While a
“why” would target a development of
understanding and support for QM, a “how”
would target a very broad introduction of how
problems look and how projects are identified.
Furthermore, to support the cultural
implementation as well as individual effectiveness,
an objective of the training efforts could be a
provision of stand-alone tools for everybody’s daily
work. A crucial issue, underlining the importance
of this training programme, is the question of
participation. A quality leader in an organisation is
dependent on input from other employees: where
things go wrong and in which processes there is
potential for improvement and cost reduction.
Therefore, this training programme has to be a
substantial part of any six sigma implementation,
independent of the size of the organisation.
Factor 6
The six sigma roles should be restricted to the
project leaders in the SME organisation (e.g. an
“SME black belt”). The rest of the workforce and
management staff should only participate in the
awareness training.
Closely following the preceding discussion on
problem complexity and resource limitations,
SMEs do not require such an extensive role system
as is applied in large-scale organisations. For
example, 78.7 per cent of the respondents claimed
that QM must be significantly simpler; 61.7 per
cent stated that it should be less formal than in
large corporations. Given that it does not make
sense to establish an extensive role system in very
small firms, they should be reduced to an absolute
minimum. Nevertheless, to support awareness and
promote cultural implementation, it is suggested
to keep the well-known nomenclature of six sigma.
The language used within a six sigma programme
is positively perceived worldwide and could
therefore support the desire of participation in a six
sigma initiative. A trained “SME black belt”
should be able to identify, select, lead and
moderate projects within the SME organisation.
Further project members could be introduced into
the tools during the project work.
 Six sigma for small and medium-sized enterprises
Godecke Wessel and Peter Burcher
Factor 7
Elements should be designed to support the
cultural implementation in a detailed six sigma
strategy, incorporating well-proven change
management methods and tools, tailored to the
specific needs of SMEs.
Culture can be defined as the “taken for granted
assumptions, or paradigm, of an organisation.”
(e.g. Johnson and Scholes, 1999). According to the
cultural web, a representation of organisational
culture and its physical manifestation, it is
composed of stories, symbols, power structures,
rituals and routines, control systems, and the
organisational structures around the overall
paradigm (Johnson and Scholes, 1999).
Therefore, a willingness to change the
organisational culture is essential for the
implementation of a new quality system or the
adjustment of the existing one. However, the
survey results indicate that the awareness of such
an issue is too low with 75 per cent, and 11.1 per
cent of those who did not find their current
structures sufficient were not willing to
significantly change the thinking and procedures of
their organisation. Consequently, a low rate for the
achievability of absolute management
commitment of 59.6 per cent highlights the need
for action in this area. One opportunity lies in the
employment of variable payment systems for six
sigma contribution: 40.4 per cent of the firms
surveyed already have the ability to incorporate a
variable payment system and would be willing to
use this to promote cultural change.
Factor 8
Fundamental elements of process management
should be incorporated into the six sigma
programme, tailored to the specific needs of the
target groups. This is usually part of the process
improvement environment in most large
corporations where it plays a significant role in
project identification, company controlling, and
result tracking.
However, many SMEs claiming to have a QM in
place, e.g. being certified by ISO 9000, do not have
sufficient process management elements in place,
as the survey results demonstrate: A clear majority
of 74.5 per cent desired improved control of the
company through QM. Surprisingly, no
participant stated that there is no need for process
documentation, but 57.4 per cent preferred to
document all core processes. Furthermore, 51.1
per cent wished that all performed projects were
documented to sustain improvements and, even if
the objective is not better control of the company,
45.5 per cent wished to document and sustain
improvement efforts; 95.7 per cent wanted to
increase customer satisfaction and 97.9 per cent
270
The TQM Magazine
Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2004 · 264-272
wanted to reduce the number of failures in meeting
customer requirements. Market share increase
through QM was desired by 44.7 per cent.
Conversely, it can be argued that the improvement
of customer satisfaction can be seen as an umbrella
objective which can be achieved by failure
reduction. Incorporating both internal and
external customers, a reduction of failures
additionally supports higher profitability and
market share improvements. Nevertheless,
customer satisfaction incorporates the knowledge
about what the customer wants – a deep customer
understanding – as well as verification on the
current levels of satisfaction. Process management
is essential to identify fields of required action, but
based on the need for simplicity, process
documentation, and minimal tracking
requirements the process management should be
tailored to SME needs and limited to core
processes.
Factor 9
SMEs require consulting services which differ
significantly from those usually found in the
marketplace working for larger corporations. The
survey demonstrates: SMEs require consultants
and trainers offering modular services, which allow
the addition or subtraction of elements without
compromising the entirety of the concept and
without risking the success for their target group.
There were 44.7 per cent of respondents who
were willing to fall back on external consultants; if
the consultants would be cheaper than their own
management time, 63.8 per cent would be willing
to consult them. Nevertheless, SMEs tend to
prefer internal sources than consulting external
help. Many participants expressed a deep mistrust
in external consultants in free text answers,
especially in their knowledge of SME needs. Even
if they were verifiably cheaper than their own
management, only 63.8 per cent of the firms would
employ them. Nevertheless, the results
demonstrate that due to the low awareness of
important QM and implementation issues, as well
as a lack of management experience and
knowledge, external help is required for most
SMEs. Furthermore, 29.8 per cent would require
help to develop a training and development vision
and plan; 25.5 per cent would require help to
individually adjust, implement and run QM; 27.7
per cent stated that consultants have to provide a
concept for cultural change. Due to the low
awareness of cultural change issues identified in
the responses, there is a strong probability that this
number is in fact significantly higher.
Comparing the single participants, the
consulting needs are highly different. Therefore,
consultants must be willing and able to offer
 Six sigma for small and medium-sized enterprises
Godecke Wessel and Peter Burcher
modular services to enable a client’s management
team to implement and run QM successfully – this
will inevitably impact the way consultants and
trainers work since they will need to cover a very
broad knowledge base.
Factor 10
A general six sigma concept for SMEs needs to be
adjusted to the core requirements of ISO 9000 to
enable a certification, which represents a major
difference to six sigma programmes in large
corporations. Surprisingly, 42.6 per cent of the
respondents required the potential to certify by the
ISO 9000 norms. Therefore, given that this is not a
common approach in large corporations, to
combine six sigma and ISO 9000 would be a
challenge. As the literature review and the survey
responses reinforce, the documentation effort is a
substantial drawback of ISO 9000 for SMEs.
A quality system which is capable of ISO 9000
certification has to fulfil the regulations of these
norms. However, as elements of process
management are required for both ISO 9000 and
six sigma for SMEs, a combination of effort is
suggested. Furthermore, within a six sigma
framework, an adjusted documentation approach
could be capable of fulfilling both the requirements
of ISO 9000 as well as the evidence of profitable
working. First, the current version ISO 9000:2000
is a norm which can be applied to firms of every
industry or size. Second, the norm defines definite
requirements towards a QM system, but does not
describe methods or tools for their realisation.
Third, the norm prefers a process-oriented
approach for the management and improvement of
organisations. As the norm is mainly targeting the
internal QM organisation, documentation, and
general regulations rules for quality testing, six
sigma in SMEs is capable of being adapted to
incorporate the required features. Therefore, in its
core, ISO 9000 is often already fulfilled by six
sigma, although the process documentation in
particular has to be adjusted to fulfil the norms.
Summary and conclusion
In summary, six sigma can be seen as the current
stage of evolution in the field of QM with a core
focus on profitability improvement and strategic
value levelling, but still based in the fundamentals
of traditional TQM. The survey provided a
reasonable number of returns which are sufficient
for predictions within the significance levels of
common management research. It has been
possible to identify 14 inherent needs and to
deduce eight critical-to-quality-requirements of
the target group. Subsequently, ten functional
271
The TQM Magazine
Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2004 · 264-272
requirements towards a general concept have been
identified. Through an extensive literature
research it has been shown that all important areas
of a comprehensive QM approach were considered
in the questionnaire development and are covered
in the outcome suggestions of this study. The study
outcomes, therefore, are a dependable basis for a
general six sigma concept fulfilling the
requirements of SMEs in Germany.
References
Burcher, P. (2002), “Quality Management Resource Pack (by
video)/postgraduate programme”, Aston Business School,
Birmingham (unpublished).
Chmielewicz, K. (1994), Forschungskonzeptionen der
Wirtschaftswissenschaft, 3rd ed., Schäffer-Poeschel,
Stuttgart.
Eckes, G. (2000), The Six Sigma Revolution: How General Electric
and Others Turned Process into Profits, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Eckes, G. (2001), Making Six Sigma Last: Managing Cultural and
Technical Change, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
European Commission (1996), “Commission recommendation of
3 April 1996 concerning the definition of small and
medium-sized enterprises. 96/280/EC, final, Official
Journal L 107 of 30/04/1996”.
European Commission (2001), “Draft Commission
Recommendation amending Recommendation 96/280/EC
concerning the definition of small and medium-sized
enterprises”, Com (2001).
George, M.L. (2002), Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six Sigma
Quality with Lean Speed, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ghobadian, A. and Gallear, D. (1997), “TQM and organization
size”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 121-63.
Gunasekaran, A., Okko, P., Martikainen, T. and Yli-Olli, P. (1996),
“Improving productivity and quality in small and medium
enterprises: cases and analysis”, International Small
Business Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 59-72.
Haksever, C. (1996), “Total quality management in a small
business environment”, Business Horizons, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 33-40.
Harry, M.J. and Schroeder, R. (1999), Six Sigma. The
Breakthrough Management Strategy Revolutionizing the
World’s Top Corporations, CD Audio Book, Bantam Books
Audio, New York, NY.
Isenberg, D. (2000), “Implementing six sigma in small and
medium-sized corporations”, IQPC Conference: Best
Practice in Six Sigma, San Francisco, CA, 31 July-2 August,
unpublished.
Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (1999), Exploring Corporate Strategy,
5th ed., Pearson Education, Harlow.
Lee, G.L. and Oakes, L. (1995), “The ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of total
quality management for small firms in manufacturing:
some experiences down the supply chain”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 39-43.
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.
Magnusson, K., Kroslid, D. and Bergman, B. (1999), Six Sigma
umsetzen. Die neue Qualitätsstrategie für Unternehmen,
Hanser Fachbluch, München.
 Six sigma for small and medium-sized enterprises
Godecke Wessel and Peter Burcher
Moreno-Luzon, M.D. (1993), “Can total quality management
make small firms competitive?”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 165-81.
Pande, P.S., Neuman, R. and Cavanagh, R.R. (2000), The Six
Sigma Way. How GE, Motorola, and Other Top Companies
Are Honing Their Performance, McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
Shea, J. and Gobeli, D. (1995), “TQM: the experiences of ten
small businesses”, Business Horizons, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 71-8.
Van Der Wiele, T. and Brown, A. (1998), “Venturing down the
TQM path for SMEs”, International Small Business
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 8, pp. 731-40.
Wessel, G. (2002), A Comparison of Traditional TQM
Methodologies with the Six Sigma Approach for Quality
Management, Six-Sigma-Quality.de, Hamburg, available
at: www.wesselgo.de/sixsigma/reference/
272
The TQM Magazine
Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2004 · 264-272
SSQ2_Difference_TQM_SixSigma.pdf (accessed 15 April
2003).
Yeb-Yun Lin, C. (1999), “Success factors of small and medium-
sized enterprises in Taiwan: an analysis of cases”, Journal
of Small Business Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 43-56.
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.
Further reading
Fehr, B. (1999), “Das Geheimnis Six Sigma”, Manager Magazin,
No. 11/99, pp. 277-85.