The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0265-671X.htm
IJQRM
39,5
1104
Received 15 January 2021
Revised 7 May 2021
Accepted 18 May 2021
International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management
Vol. 39 No. 5, 2022
pp. 1104-1132
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-671X
DOI 10.1108/IJQRM-01-2021-0011
QUALITY PAPER
Using Lean Six Sigma in small and
medium-sized enterprises for
low-cost/high-effect improvement
initiatives: a case study
Nikolaos A. Panayiotou, Konstantinos E. Stergiou and
Nikolaos Panagiotou
Section of Industrial Management and Operational Research,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens,
Zografos, Greece
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is the implementation of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) in a manufacturing small
and medium-sized enterprise (SME) in Greece in order to understand the contribution of LSS in its process
improvement and to identify the parameters playing a crucial role in LSS adoption by SMEs. The ability to
achieve high-effect improvements without cost investment is also examined to cope with low investment
margin that is a characteristic of SMEs.
Design/methodology/approach – This case study is based on the combination of Define, Measure, Analyze,
Improve and Control (DMAIC) phases with the Yin’s method for case studies for a complete and efficient
implementation and presentation of the project.
Findings – The analysis of this case study revealed that by accomplishing specific critical success factors for
the fulfillment of the LSS project, the company attained important benefits by utilizing only the working hours
of employees. It was also found that the improvements of LSS projects can be measured using other metrics
which can indirectly be translated into monetary terms.
Practical implications – The paper can be a useful guide of how SMEs can achieve high-impact
improvements with low or no investment cost utilizing LSS initiatives in small-scale projects.
Originality/value – According to the literature, there is a need for more case studies concerning LSS
implementation in SMEs. Examples of how low-cost/high-effect improvement initiatives can be implemented
have not been adequately presented before. The assessment of the impact of improvement initiatives with non-
monetary measures is also innovative.
Keywords Lean Six Sigma, LSS, SME, Manufacturing sector, Case study, DMAIC
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
The mindset of continuous improvement (CI) contributes to improved quality, operational
efficiency and increased performance (Thomas et al., 2009; Assarlind et al., 2012), thus decreasing
waste and product variation in an organization’s processes (Kalashnikov et al., 2017). For this
reason, the concept of CI, implemented through the Lean Six Sigma methodology, has gained
ever-increasing popularity over the last decade (Timans et al., 2012). The Lean Six Sigma
application is a way of introducing CI in an organization more quickly (Albliwi et al., 2015).
The integrated framework of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) derives from merging the LSS
concepts. This term was first introduced in the literature around the year 2000 (Albliwi et al.,
2015). The goal of this framework is to benefit from both the LSS principles (Antony et al.,
2016). In particular, Six Sigma aims at reducing defects and variation as much as possible,
while Lean aims at achieving a continuous incremental waste reduction, and environmental
and economic sustainability, in order to advance the process and deliver the value (Muganyi
et al., 2019; Gijo et al., 2018; Thortorella et al., 2018; De Freitas and Gomes Costa, 2017;
Marques and Matthe, 2017; Thomas et al., 2016; Bamford et al., 2015; Piercy and Rich, 2015; Lean Six Sigma
Choi et al., 2012; Hilton and Sohal, 2012; Manville et al., 2012). As described by Snee (2010), LSS in SMEs
is “a business strategy and methodology that improves process performance resulting in
improved customer satisfaction and improved bottom-line outcomes.” Reducing production
costs while increasing organization efficiency is the purpose of the LSS approach (Lee and
Wei, 2009; Chen and Lyu, 2009), as well as raising the value for shareholders by improving
quality (Laureani and Antony, 2012).
The most distinctive method related to the application of LSS in organizational processes 1105
is the DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control) method. Due to its non-
standardized procedure, it can be used in all sectors (Psychogios and Tsironis, 2012). At each
step, DMAIC is implemented with a combination of appropriate tools from the LSS toolkit
(Kumar et al., 2006; Vinodh et al., 2011).
As described by De Koning and De Mast (2006), DMAIC project phases in a generic
form are:
(1) Define: Collection of problems and analysis of benefits. Definition of the CTQ or CTQs
(Critical to quality characteristics). A CTQ is a key measurable characteristic of a
product or process.
(2) Measure: Conversion of the problem into measurable data and current condition
measurement.
(3) Analyze: Recognition of influence factors and causes that determine CTQ behaviors.
(4) Improve: Design and incorporate improvements and changes into the procedure to
improve the efficiency of the CTQs.
(5) Control: Process management and control system modification so to sustain
improvements.
The integration of DMAIC into LSS projects, as mentioned by Tenera and Carneiro Pinto
(2014), contributes not only to the effectiveness but also to the achievement of
groundbreaking results, claiming that several benefits can be achieved:
(1) Proper understanding of the statistical process to better comprehend and optimize
future results;
(2) A solid, step-by-step methodology and a process optimization toolset;
(3) Fact-based decisions and concrete quantitative analysis.
Therefore, following the DMAIC method is the most appropriate way to successfully
implement an LSS project, as also stated by Chakravorty and Shah (2012).
The purpose of this paper is to study the implementation of LSS in a manufacturing small
and medium-sized enterprise (SME) utilizing the DMAIC method for the improvement of the
production process, to investigate whether the benefits of LSS mentioned in the literature can
be accomplished and to examine how CSFs/ barriers establish the effectiveness of LSS
adoption. This implementation is described in the form of a case study where the efficient use
of existing resources is attended closely in order to accomplish a considerable improvement
at the lowest possible cost. This research methodology was chosen since, according to Yin
(2003), “it enables researchers to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life
events such as organizational and management procedures.” In addition, case studies appear
frequently as research strategy in business (Ghauri and Grønhaug, 2002). The literature
suggests that, for the assessment of LSS implementation and efficiency, there are several case
study publications in the scientific field of LSS across various sectors. Case studies are the
IJQRM second largest category, according to Panayiotou and Stergiou (2021), of publications found
39,5 in literature regarding the implementation of LSS in European organizations.
The case study was carried out in order to explore whether LSS could be applied in a
manufacturing SME of Greece that has never been involved in CI initiatives before, in order to
strengthen its production process and face the competitive environment of larger organizations.
The beneficial impact of LSS initiatives in the particular SME is examined, along with the factors
affecting LSS adoption that had to be confronted for the efficient implementation of
1106 improvement projects. The paper’s structure is adapted based on the pattern suggested for
the presentation of stand-alone case studies by Neale et al. (2006): Initially, the methodology
adopted in this case study is presented along with the research questions and objectives. Then,
the case study is analyzed with detailed information concerning the LSS project that was carried
out. Moreover, a complete evaluation of the results is presented according to the data collected
and analyzed during the project. The next step is the validation of the case study in terms of
trustworthiness, credibility, conformability and data dependability (Yin, 2009) and, eventually,
the conclusions of the analysis are defined, and suggestions for further research are proposed.

2. Literature review
Numerous publications have researched LSS implementation in SMEs. A small firm is defined
as a firm with no more than 50 employees (Panayiotou and Katimertzoglou, 2015; Fsb.org.uk,
2020). A medium-sized company is described by the Federation of Small Businesses (2020) as a
company with more than 50 employees and no more than 250 employees. This number can
vary from country to country, but the agreed upon figure in Europe is 250. Based on data from
Eurostat (2015), 99%of European Union organizations are SMEs. The 99.65% of jobs in the
United States are provided by small businesses (Small Business Administration, 2005). In the
United Kingdom, SMEs accounted for 99.9% of all businesses, according to the Federation of
Small Businesses (2020). It is evident that SMEs are the most significant and vital component
of the global economy and, at the same time, the biggest employers. This is why it is imperative
that they improve their functions and processes by introducing CI initiatives in their
operations and following the LSS methodology (Alexander et al., 2019).
The 46% of organizations that are adopting LSS in Europe are SMEs, according to
Panayiotou and Stergiou (2021), revealing a promising result for the efficiency of LSS in
companies of this size. A need for further research on LSS adoption in European SMEs has
also been established, in order to examine the factors that will facilitate the LSS adoption as
well as the benefits of LSS initiatives (Panayiotou and Stergiou, 2021). Thomas et al. (2014)
and Timans et al. (2014) also suggest a study on the implementation of LSS in manufacturing
(and not only) SMEs, noting that further research should be published to better comprehend
the benefits of LSS and the factors that serve as enablers or barriers to its adoption.
The main benefits found by the implementation of LSS in the manufacturing sector that
specifically affect the SME in this case, as it is a manufacturing company, are (Chakravorty
and Shah, 2012; Desai et al., 2012; Habidin et al., 2016; Yuen et al., 2016; Juliani and Oliveira,
2019) inventory reduction, reduced low-quality costs, improved customer satisfaction,
reduced cycle time and lead time, defect-free processes and rework elimination, and
productivity enhancement.
In particular, the top five benefits found by Alexander et al. (2019) and Timans et al. (2016)
regarding the implementation of LSS in SMEs, constitute almost 80% of the benefits
mentioned by the review of 31 publications. These are reduced costs of operations, higher
quality, improved throughput, minimized downtime and increased efficiency.
Reduced lead time, increased profit margin, reduced waste/scrap and increased morale are
other benefits listed in literature. It has been observed that no failure in the LSS implementation
process has been recorded in all the papers regarding the SME manufacturing area (Alexander
et al., 2019).
 There are critical success factors (CSFs) on which the implementation of LSS is based. Any Lean Six Sigma
successful completion of an LSS project relies upon several organizational and leadership in SMEs
aspects that serve as key elements. CSFs that are regarded as crucial for the effective
implementation of LSS, in general, are the formal management involvement mechanisms,
appropriate project selection, project review, goal setting, training, cultural change,
understanding the tools and methodology, product/process design, as well as the
alignment of LSS with the business strategy and improved customer satisfaction (Walter
and Paladini, 2019; Tlapa et al., 2016; Khawar et al., 2016; Aldowaisan et al., 2015; Abu Bakar 1107
et al., 2015; Antony, 2014; Sabry, 2014).
It is evident from the literature that the most significant parameters affecting the
implementation of LSS in SMEs are similar to the factors affecting the adoption of LSS in
general. Specifically, the parameters that were found according to the review conducted by
Lande et al. (2016), who evaluated the LSS adoption CSFs in SMEs reviewing 143 papers,
Kanhu Gaikwad et al. (2020), who analyzed LSS implementation barriers in SMEs,
Sreedharan et al. (2019), who researched the enablers driving SMEs to the LSS methodology,
and Antony et al. (2017) are the following: lack of employee training , lack of resources
available (financial, human, time, etc.), poor management engagement and dedication, non-
dedicated leadership, weak prioritization and selection of projects, resistance to cultural
change, not comprehending the LSS methodology, and failure to connect LSS to business
strategy.
Therefore, the parameter of available resources is introduced in the case of SMEs as it is a
vital part of the decision to implement LSS initiatives and that is why it should be taken into
account for the design and execution of LSS projects.

3. Methodology
3.1 Objectives of the case study
The analysis of the literature revealed that SMEs can attain benefits and achieve their
strategic and operating goals through LSS implementation. For the success of LSS adoption,
the fulfillment of CSFs and the overcoming of barriers are significant factors. Based on this
information, the research questions (RQs) are:
RQ1. Can LSS help an SME improve its business processes and how?
RQ2. Which parameters affect a successful implementation of LSS initiatives in SMEs?
RQ3. How can the success of an LSS initiative be assessed?
The formulation of RQs defines the objectives of this case study. The objectives will be the
driving force of the successful LSS implementation. Taking under consideration the LSS
project that took place in the manufacturing SME of this case study and the evaluation and
analysis of the results, the authors will try to ascertain that LSS indeed brings the
anticipated benefits to the company and whether these benefits come in accordance with
those described in the theory. The goals of this case, through the implementation of LSS
following DMAIC phases, are the improvement of productivity and product quality, the
waste and defect reduction, the improved customer upmost satisfaction, the reduced cycle
time and lead time, and, as a result, the increased efficiency. In addition to these targets, a
significant objective of this case study will be the application of highly efficient
improvements for the lowest possible cost and resources, examining at the same time the
sufficiency of an LSS initiative without necessarily using monetary terms. Both qualitative
and quantitative tools are used in this study in order to better analyze the data and decide on
the improvements. The parameters affecting the application of the appropriate changes,
according to LSS principles, are also taken into account. In the context of this study,
IJQRM the parameters that influence the success of the improvement project will be examined in an
39,5 SME which has never adopted CI initiatives before.
The analysis of the case will attempt to answer the RQs and accomplish the objectives that
have been described. The results of the case and their critical evaluation will reveal whether
the specific SME was benefited by the changes carried out. It will also reveal the reaction of a
company, new to CI mentality, to the parameters that determine LSS adoption by using only
the necessary resources.
1108
3.2 Case study methodology
The analysis of the case, that will be conducted in order to examine LSS implementation in a
Greek manufacturing SME, will follow an integrated framework consisting of the phases of
DMAIC method and the steps that Yin (2009) proposed for case studies. These steps are
separated into two phases: data collection and data analysis. The integrated methodological
framework is represented in Figure 1, where DMAIC steps are matched with data collection
and data analysis. The type of case study is characterized as descriptive and the analysis of
the data is carried out according to the logic models pattern, since the chain of events occurred
is studied in a linear way; inputs, results, and cause–effect relationships between them are
taken under consideration, and a comparison between theory and practice is executed in
order to evaluate the case (Yin, 2003).

4. Case study
4.1 Case study background
The LSS implementation took place, from January of 2020 to March of 2020, in one of the
biggest optical lens manufacturing companies in Greece, whose activities include the
processing of factory-bought lens units and their transformation into ready-to-apply optic
lenses to frames, the trade of optic machinery and the refinement of already made lenses.
Lenses are bought from contractors and processed at the company’s production line in order
to apply the desirable corrective degrees, the appropriate shape, certain coatings with ultra
violet (UV) light blocking properties and to optionally transform them into sunglasses. The
company is an SME, with about 150 workers and management employees and it has a yearly
throughput of 25.000 orders. An existing partnership with a French-based company has
contributed to the company’s continuous technological advancement and expertise. No
previous LSS initiatives have been adopted by the management team, although some cost
and time reduction projects had been initialized by middle level management. The
aforementioned fact composes one of the greatest challenges of LSS application in the
company, but also functions as an exciting opportunity for the establishment of a CI

Data Collection

Define Measure Analyze Improve Control

Figure 1.
Methodology followed
in the present
case study
Data Analysis
mentality and culture. The implementation of LSS in this case study was held in the first Lean Six Sigma
department of lens processing, the surfacing department (called SURFACAGE), into which in SMEs
lenses are cut in accordance with the corrective degrees needed. It was deemed by
management that the processing time for the whole department was high and time reduction
was essential to satisfy customer requirements. The project adopted the DMAIC method. The
team in charge of the project consisted of five members; two research members of the National
Technical University of Athens (NTUA) School of Mechanical Engineering–Section of
Industrial Management and Operational Research, the surfacing department’s head, the 1109
production manager who led and supervised the project, and the general manager of the
company who sponsored the project. The surfacing department’s employees contributed to
the project by providing necessary information and by validating its results.
Based on an existing research cooperation of the company with NTUA, the production
manager asked for the help of the Section of Industrial Management and Operational
Research of NTUA recognizing the need for improvement in the manufacturing process of the
surfacing department. The NTUA team proposed the adoption of LSS, judging, according to
the literature, that this is a typical case where an SME can benefit from LSS initiatives. The
acceptance of this proposal led to the realization of the improvement project analyzed in this
case. The crucial factor for the beginning of the project was to persuade the company that it
could benefit by LSS and to help it understand that LSS mentality should be harmonized with
its strategic goals.
In the beginning of the project, the NTUA team provided an introduction of LSS concepts
in the case company. In particular:
(1) A management briefing was provided to the general manager and the production
manager covering the most important LSS concepts, methods and tools.
(2) A four-hour introduction of LSS in key project participants (production manager,
head of surfacing department and one key employee) was made.
The project management was carried out by the production manager who had the
authorization to involve all the resources needed in the different phases of the project. The
NTUA team facilitated the project management by providing guidance connected with the
DMAIC phases and proposing the most appropriate tools. In addition, the NTUA team played
a consultative role in issues concerning their area of expertise (production management). The
contribution of the team members (both from NTUA and the company) based on each DMAIC
phase was as follows:
(1) Define phase: All team members (including the general manager) participated in this
phase in order to identify the problems and the roots of the problems. The team
members recognized and defined the problems which were organized with the help of
the NTUA team using LSS tools.
(2) Measure phase: The measurement was mainly conducted by the company team
members and employees with the guidance of the NTUA team on how data should be
measured.
(3) Analyze phase: The analysis of the data collected was mainly conducted by the
NTUA research members for the utilization of the appropriate LSS tools. The team
members of the company were in close collaboration with researchers to provide them
with useful information and feedback of the analyses.
(4) Improve and control phases: All team members participated in these phases
(including the general manager) in order to decide the actions that should be
undertaken for the improvement of the manufacturing process, taking under
IJQRM consideration the directions and the limits that the general manager set. The NTUA
39,5 team utilized the necessary tools and proposed ways to maintain the results and
benefits of this project.

4.2 Data collection and analysis

All DMAIC’s phases were carefully employed by the project team and selected methods
evaluated as suitable for the case were utilized.
1110 4.2.1 Define phase. The purpose of this phase is to clearly identify the problem, its
requirements and objectives, while also highlighting important factors affecting its
resolution. The usage of the “Voice of Customer” (VOC) method revealed the existence of
several complaints about not only the time that the company needs to fulfill the orders placed
by opticians’ shops but also about the increasing number of delayed orders delivered to them.
For this reason, the company decided to conduct a market research among their customers,
via phone interviews in November 2019, to find out the factors that are significant for their
satisfaction. The two main factors recognized by the research were the price of products and
the on-time deliveries of products without any delays. Hence, the company decided to take the
appropriate actions in order to assure its competitiveness. The company decided to
concentrate, as a first step of improvement, on the reduction of the time needed for the
production and delivery of products along with the elimination of delays. The selection of this
improvement initiative was based on its feasibility, utilizing, reconfiguring and reallocating
the existing resources without the need of high-cost investments. The time needed for the
orders to be produced and delivered is a critical to quality (CTQ) factor which is affected by
the production processing time. Thus, the reduction of the processing time, and consequently
the “time to market” (the time needed for a product to be designed, produced, and prepared for
sale), will enhance the competitiveness of the company in the market and will increase the
quality of the process and products as there will be more time during the day for quality
control. A first analysis led the project team to the conclusion that time reduction within the
production line would substantially contribute to the reduction of the related process. The
existing recorded production data, as well as the practical experience of the production
manager and the surfacing department supervisor, provided evidence that most delays occur
in the department in question. Time management conditions in the department had been
severely worsened due to one worker’s retirement which was not followed by the recruitment
of a new one. An empirical business rule-objective in the company is that the expected time for
order delivery is 24 calendar hours multiplied by the number of departments involved in the
production of each order. All orders must first pass through the surfacing department,
considering it extremely important in keeping that commitment. Aiming to acknowledge the
factors leading to delays in order to identify alternative solutions, the project team collected
historical data from the company’s database along with field observations. A mapping of the
department’s processes proved to be an effective introductory tool giving an overview of the
product flow. Figure 2 visualizes the layout of the department, while arrows indicate the
typical flow of lenses.
The process diagram depicted in Figure 3 represents more analytically the different steps
in the surfacing process.
The manufacturing steps are shortly explained below:
(1) Norville: This machine prepares orders for processing in the blocker by placing a
special tape on lenses.
(2) Blocker: A block of metal called “premoleta” is soldered to lenses so that further
processing in the following machines can be performed. Heat is produced by this
process, so orders are left for approximately 30 minutes to cool after the blocker is
used. Two identical machines are used.
 Lean Six Sigma
VFT ORBIT in SMEs
DLP

TOROX
LASER

1111
CLBS
VFT
BLOCKERS MACRO

DEBLOCKING

NORVILLE CLEANING
COSMETIC
CONTROL

POWER
PACKAGING CONTROL

X CUBE

Figure 2.
Top view of
production floor

(3) CLBS (Calibration machine): Certain types of lenses cannot be processed in the
blocker, and CLBS is used instead to perform the same task, manually.
(4) CNC (Computerized numerical control machine): A machine called VFT (variable
frequency transformer) macro automatically mills lenses depending on the
corrective degrees required, by scanning each order’s barcode. This is a fully
automated process step that can be sometimes replaced by VFT Orbit. VFT Orbit
requires an operator and is considerably slower, but it can be used in case of VFT
macro’s malfunctions.
(5) Laser: Approximately, 20%–30% of orders must have special signs engraved on
them for subsequent processing at different departments.
(6) DLP: Lenses, depending on lens type and degrees applied, must be burnished so that
excess material from milling is removed and surfaces become finer. The Toro X
machine is used as an alternative when the three DLP machines are overloaded.
(7) Deblocking: It involves the manual removal of the metallic block (premoleta) with a
screwdriver.
IJQRM Entering
Enter
Time
39,5 Surfacing Dept.
Record

Tape Placement
(Norville)

Premoleta
1112 Soldering CLBS
(Blocker)

Milling in CNC
(VFT Orbit or
VFT Macro)

Transfer and Is Laser Engravings in

YES
Grouping of Needed? Laser
Premoletas

NO

Burnishing Burnishing
(DLP) (ToroX)

Premoleta
Removal
(Deblocking)

Perform
Chemical
Cleaning

Perform
Cosmetic
Control

Use X CUBE

Perform Power
Control

Packaging Exit Time

Orders Record
Figure 3.
Process diagram of the
Transfer Order to
surfacing process
Another Dept.
 (8) Cleaning: Lenses are placed in three consecutive “tubs” filled with special chemicals Lean Six Sigma
that clean debris and process leftovers. in SMEs
(9) Cosmetic control: A worker inspects lenses with a magnifying glass for existing
anomalies on the surfaces and decides which orders are suitable to continue
processing.
(10) X Cube: Extra laser engravings are performed in certain orders, associated with
work performed by other departments. 1113
(11) Power control: A final screening for any errors in correction degrees applied on
lenses is performed.
(12) Packaging: Lenses are packaged and labeled for transfer to subsequent
departments.
The three last processes described take place in a different room than the others, and many
lenses that come back from other departments are processed simultaneously. The operators
of those machines do not mix or switch places with those of the other room, and no delays are
observed there. They were deemed efficient and were left out of the analysis.
An important stage of solving time efficiency issues within the department,
acknowledging the causes, was then initialized by the project team. Field observations
resulted in determining significant bottlenecks being formed between machines and
workstations. Frequent malfunctions of certain machines, and mostly CNC Orbit, had also
been reported by workers and the head of the department as well. The most significant causes
were represented in a cause-and-effect (fishbone) diagram (Figure 4). Causes were divided
into four main categories:
(1) Material: Certain types of lenses have been observed to cause malfunctions on CNC
more often than others.
(2) Machine: Frequent defects and malfunctions on CNC cause delays and stop
production process.
(3) Man: Man-made mistakes or delays have been observed. This was the result of the
disorganized way of work in the department, but most importantly, of an employee
retirement that had severely affected the production process. It was announced by the
top management that there were no plans of replacing him due to cost-cutting need of
the company at an operational level.

Mistakes
Bottlenecks
Loss of Employee
Wrong Flourplan Delays

ORDER DELAY

Figure 4.
Error in Degree Correction
Fishbone diagram for
Defective Materials
the identification of
Machine Malfunctions efficiency problems in
the surfacing
department
IJQRM (4) Method: Bottleneck formation between workstations has been observed in multiple
39,5 occasions. Machine placement has also been observed to intervene with material
transferring.
4.2.2 Measure phase. The most important metric connected with the primary team’s target of
minimizing delays and improving time management within the surfacing department is time
spent for an order until all processes are completed in the department. Workers are equipped
1114 with barcode scanners and all orders have their unique code, resulting in the documentation
of entry and exit time in a database. This database was used for determining average time
spent inside the department. Extra information such as lens type, specific date and others are
also reported. A different database holds information on every defect that occurs in an order,
its cause, and the work center where it occurred. These data were extensively used in the
Analyze phase to quantify delays and appropriately determine improvement actions.
In order to deal with the bottlenecks, the team decided that a workstation balancing plan
had to be applied. Taking into account that there were eight machine types and seven
workers with certain hours of the shift being covered by only a fraction of them, a machine
usage cycle plan could be configured in order to reduce stale time and improve production line
efficiency. For this reason, measurements of each machine’s production rate were required.
Previous measurements of work rate performed by the ex-production manager were
validated anew by the work team, measuring for a total of one-week throughput of each
machine separately. The measurements are summarized in Table 1 with the average work
rate and an upper and lower limit, as determined by maximum efficiency (minimum) and
worst work rate observed for an hour (maximum) respectively.
4.2.3 Analyze phase. The timeframe in which initial data were taken from the database was
January and February of 2020 during which 1,159 orders were processed at the surfacing
department. Defects data were subsequently analyzed through a Pareto chart to show how
many defects were reported for each department (Figure 5), revealing that the largest number
of defects was recorded in the surfacing department. A further analysis focusing on the
malfunctions within the department, depicted in Figure 6, indicated the most common
malfunctions reported. Correction errors, as well as machine malfunctions, both refer to the
CNC Orbit machine, suggesting this particular machine as the cause of a considerable amount
of delays.

Capacity (lenses/ hour) Time required for 60 lenses (30 orders)

Machine (job) type Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum

Norville 240 327 400 15 11 9

Premoleta Selection 3000 3600 4500 1.2 1.0 0.8
Blocker Set Up 180 225 240 20 16 15
Blocker 105 120 135 34 30 27
CLBS 110 130 150 33 28 24
VFT Macro 35 40 45 103 90 80
VFT Orbit 55 60 65 65 60 55
Laser 150 175 200 24 21 18
DLP 55 65 75 65 55 48
TORO X 30 40 50 120 90 72
Deblocking 330 365 400 11 10 9
Cleaning 150 150 150 24 24 24
Table 1. Cosmetic Control 180 200 210 20 18 17
Measurements of the X Cube 70 85 125 51 42 29
machines’ Power Control 100 130 160 36 28 23
productivity rate Packaging 100 130 150 36 28 24
 Lean Six Sigma
in SMEs

1115

Figure 5.
Pareto chart of defects
per department

Figure 6.
Pareto chart of the
most common
malfunctions

A consequent analysis related to time spent within the department was conducted. Using an
Excel spreadsheet, a dataset from the first week of February 2020 was analyzed, during
which 587 orders passed through. In particular, entry and exit dates and related times were
processed, excluding weekends or any days of production shut down. Taking into account
that each calendar day is translated to 12 operational hours in the company, the preset goal of
24 calendar hours per department can be translated into 12 equivalent working hours. This
transformation is particularly useful when considering that data will be presented in control
charts as a continuous variable and not with time periods with no data in them. After
transferring the transformed data into Minitab, a summary report gives metrics about how
time spent within the department is distributed (Figure 7). The average time spent within the
department was 11.9 hours, just below the limit. It is evident that many orders exceed this
IJQRM
39,5

1116

Figure 7.
Minitab analysis for
time spent in the
surfacing department

limit. The analysis additionally indicated that 41% of orders passed the 12-hour threshold,
giving a yield of 0.59, a quite disappointing figure.
In order to run a capability analysis, normality of data is required. A normal distribution
cannot be recognized in Figure 7, so the identification of the existing distribution was crucial.
Through the Individual Distribution Identification tool of Minitab, the project team was able to
determine that the time spent within the department appears to fit into the gamma distribution
(and within limits into the Weibull one). The result was rather expected as such distributions
are often observed in production line cycle times (Pearn et al., 2009). It is also important to note
that applying a transformation on non-normal data can be a crucial mistake when the process
studied does not inherently follow another non-normal distribution. This is not the case here, so
the capability analysis presented in the improve phase can be considered valid. Figure 8 shows
p-values of goodness of fit tests for different distributions. Distributions whose p-value exceeds
0.05 are deemed possible within confidence intervals (0.07 for Weibull).
4.2.4 Improve and control phases. After careful consideration and complete examination of
the parameters influencing cycle time, the project team concluded in three alternative
propositions for reducing time spent in the surfacing department:
(1) Defects reduction on CNC Orbit machine
(2) Floorplan modifications
(3) Production line workstations balancing
The three alternative propositions are analyzed in the following paragraphs.
4.2.4.1 CNC Orbit machine defects reduction. The high number of CNC failures led to the
identification of the first proposition for improvement. The machine was technologically
outdated and had been heavily used in the past, so the high error rates identified were related
 Goodness of Fit Test Lean Six Sigma
Distribution AD P LRT P in SMEs
Normal 7.659 <0.005
Box-Cox Transformation 0.282 0.635
Lognormal 1.535 <0.005
3-Parameter Lognormal 0.351 * 0.002
Exponential 73.478 <0.003
2-Parameter Exponential 38.752 <0.010 0.000 1117
Weibull 2.701 <0.010
3-Parameter Weibull 0.777 0.046 0.000
Smallest Extreme Value 37.308 <0.010
Largest Extreme Value 0.384 >0.070
Gamma 0.299 >0.070
3-Parameter Gamma 0.409 * 0.074
Logistic 4.893 <0.005 Figure 8.
LogLogistic 1.186 <0.005 Search of sample
3-Parameter LogLogistic 0.809 * 0.117 distribution
Johnson Transformation 0.267 0.687

to these factors. The replacement of the machine with a new and more advanced one would be
a solution to the problem. However, the top management concluded that a replacement of the
machine was not possible in the near future. Moreover, failures reduction, through smaller
alterations, was not possible at the moment with the means available. As a result, the project
team rejected this alternative without proceeding with calculations connected with a cost–
benefit comparison.
4.2.4.2 Floorplan modifications. Three distinct modifications on machine placement were
proposed to ease the flow of orders and materials inside the department.
(1) Placement of the laser machine in proximity to the DLP machines in such a way that it
can be used in DLP idle times when placement and removal of orders from them was
not needed. This change would make the laser and DLP processes parallel, as
opposed to the consecutive way they worked in the past.
(2) Direct grouping of “premoletas” by type, after they have been removed from lenses
(Deblocking stage) to unburden the Deblocking machine worker from this task, who
previously had to abandon his post to distinguish them. Premoletas could be placed in
a box with three different spaces, so that another box could be added to the
deblocking area in order to accommodate this change.
(3) Placement of the blocker machine approximately half a meter to the south of the
floorplan as a way to move the bench used to place orders after their exit from the
blocking phase. This ergonomic modification allows the blocker worker to directly
place orders on the bench, without leaving his post, while also creating space needed
for material movement from and to the surfacing department from a back door located
behind the blocker machine that leads to an external alley where materials are stored.
All the above proposed modifications do not involve investment cost by the company.
4.2.4.3 Production line workstations balancing. This change was deemed to be an
important improvement alternative, as the changing number of workers available in the
department was causing serious bottlenecks and a disorganized work environment. The
available work force was seven workers, including the head of the department who was
present at almost all times during the 12-hour shift. The head of the department is burdened
with extra tasks, involving machine configuration and maintenance, as well as faulty order
replacement and correction, so he was included in the calculations proceeding only for an
IJQRM eight-hour period (7:00–14:00). Workers’ availability is presented in Table 2, while Table 3
39,5 shows how shifts are distributed during the 12-hour working day.
Orders were grouped into stacks of 30, a number deriving from the cleaning machine’s
capacity of 30 orders at a time. After each 30-order stack was processed by a machine, the worker
would have to change posts and move to the next machine suggested, while returning to the
original machine only after completing processing of all 30 orders on all machines that correspond
to him/ her. Finally, considering the capacity of each machine, tasks were grouped into three, four
1118

Working hours Number of workers available

06:00–07:00 3
07:00–10:00 4
Table 2. 10:00–13:00 7
Availability of workers 13:00–14:00 4
in 12-hour shift 14:00–18:00 3

6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00
Worker
1
Worker
2
Worker
3
Head
of
Dept.
Worker
4
Worker
5
Table 3. Worker
Shift distribution 6
during working day

Worker/Job Job groups

* grouping
selection
table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

# of 3 Norville, DLP, Toro Deblock,

Workers Blocker, X, Laser Cleaning,
CLBS Cosmetic
Control
4 Norville, Blocker DLP, Toro X, Deblock,
CLBS Laser Cleaning,
Cosmetic
Control
Table 4. 7 Norville, Laser Blocker DLP. Toro X Deblock Cleaning Cosmetic
Workers per job group CLBS Control
or seven groups corresponding to the number of available workers in the department at the time Lean Six Sigma
(Table 4). Group formation was initially made in a way to reduce idle time within groups. Groups in SMEs
were formed as to create similar total processing times following a machine capability-based
algorithm. In particular, the N most time-consuming tasks were assigned to N groups created
(N 5 number workers available). Of the remaining tasks, the one with the largest processing time
was assigned to the group with the least total processing time. This step was repeated until no
more tasks were left. Certain changes were made to accommodate worker–machine proximity
and further reduce total processing time differences between groups. 1119
Idle times deriving from some groups having a greater total processing time were utilized
for other minimal tasks within the department. As already mentioned, the last three process
steps were ignored as they were performed in a different room.
*Premoleta selection is now a part of the deblocking job description. Blocker set up is
performed by the Norville operator.
The rejection of the solution for the replacement of the CNC machine with a new one with
improved performance led to the adoption of the other two proposed solutions. These two
solutions did not require any monetary investment. Organizational changes concerning the
reconfiguration of the production floor and the reallocation of the human resources in the
different processing machines were implemented. The application of these changes, that
practically involved zero investment cost and made significant positive impact on the
improvement of production process, were very important for the SME due to its limited margin
of investments. As a result, these changes were selected by the project team in accordance with
the guidelines of the top management. These small steps of improvement constitute the first
step of CI and LSS initiatives adoption in an SME with no previous experience in such projects
and helps gradually confront the competitive business environment.
A one-month transition period was necessary for workers to be trained on different posts
and for appropriate adjustments to be made to the new product flow system. A new set of
measurements was taken in a one-week period in March during which 597 orders passed
through the department; this is a number close to the previous set of measurements that have
been analyzed before the improvements. New data were passed through the same
transformations mentioned in the Analyze phase in order to be elaborated. The boxplot of
Figure 9 shows shifts in both distribution and mean time (hours) spent in surfacing
department for orders. At first sight, results seem very encouraging.

Figure 9.
Time spent in
surfacing departments
for two months
measurements
(before/after)
IJQRM Using the Capability Analysis tool in Minitab, important metrics were studied in order
39,5 to compare changes between the two periods and quantify improvement. In the control
charts presented in Figure 10 and Figure 11 , the subgroup size was 1. Subgroups are
utilized in control charts and capability analysis to determine short-term metrics and
establish short-term variance. Such computations are not possible with only one
observation per subgroup. Orders’ priority often changes as they move throughout the
department. In this case, stacks of unfinished products are created between processing
1120 machines. The first unfinished product of the stack is taken by the operator regardless of
the order that arrived in the stack. A differentiation of the products is made only by color
coding on packages, distinguishing urgent from normal orders. For these reasons, using a
subgroup to determine short-term metrics would be a mistake as, for instance, 10
consecutive orders that enter the department may come out on a quite different time
depending on how they were handled. For example, in the DLP, even after the 30-order-
module method was applied, orders were shuffled by operators again for the processing of
the least-time orders firstly. For these reasons, subgroup selection was decided to be
singular. All metrics presented in this case refer to long-term variance and can adequately
describe how customers are going to experience changes in order delivery, an important
CTQ characteristic (Hambleton, 2008; Bass, 2007). The process limit was set for 12 hours to
establish out of spec observations.
I-MR charts of transformed data suggest that the process is stable. Few observations
exceed the control limits but, given the sample size, this is not a cause of worry. Hence,
capability analysis that was conducted can be considered valid. Box–Cox transformation was
used to transform the data in order to follow the normal distribution. Data compatibility and
success of the transformation is observed in Figure 10 (p-value of 0.635 and 0.686, both
greater than 0.05). Normality plots further verify this conclusion as most points are in
proximity to the lines. Control (I-MR) charts of non-transformed data presented in Figure 11
show how process mean and standard deviation were reduced after the proposed changes
were implemented.
After running a capability analysis, useful observations (Figure 12) are presented:
(1) Out of specification orders (>12 hours) were reduced by 66%. From 42% of orders
being delayed, just 14% are now over the 12-hour limit.
(2) Average time spent in the department was reduced by almost 4 hours from 11.9 to 7.9
hours. The standard deviation of time spent was also significantly reduced.
(3) Capability indexes Ppk, Pp and Zbench were increased, showing the production line’s
efficiency increase.
(4) The sigma level of the process as derived by the number of defects per million
opportunities (DPMO) (or as defined by the number of standard deviations our
process falls within) was also considerably increased from 1.7 to approximately 2.5.
Sigma level is a crucial metric that allows us to determine the current level of process
effectiveness. While global standards can mandate sigma levels as high as five or six,
any upwards shift can have exponentially increasing positive effects on a process. In
this case, Sigma level depicts reduction in production time per order as well as an
increase in worker utilization, resulting in a decrease of the total cost (wages and
company time) per order ratio.
The economic benefit attained by the company was calculated using the average cost per
order metric before and after the change of material flow within the department. This
calculation included the sum of hourly wages for workers inside the department multiplied by
the average hours an order spends within the department. Overhead costs such as electricity
Lean Six Sigma
in SMEs

1121

Figure 10.
Capability analysis
(before/after)
IJQRM
39,5

1122

Figure 11.
I-MR charts
(before/after)

are also included in the calculation. For a total of seven employees in the department,
respective monthly gross wages are shown in Table 5:
Differences among wages of workers are explained by their previous performance
evaluation and their working experience. For 21 working days per month on average, each
day the company pays 712 euros in wages. Adding an average of 43 euros per day for
overhead, total daily production cost is 755 euros or 62.9 euros per hour (for 12 operational
hours per day). Each order required on average 11.9 hours before and 7.9 after project
completion. Multiplying by hourly costs at first, 748.51 euros were paid for each order before
and 496.9 euros after. Due to the fact that the average number of orders that are
simultaneously processed is 80, the actual cost per order is 8.9 and 6.2 euros respectively.
Another interesting metric is overtime paid on average before and after project completion,
usually to accommodate delayed orders. During the initial period studied, an additional total
of 61 manhours was required and paid (Greek law dictates that overtime is paid 40% more
than normal hourly wages). After project implementation, only 12 additional manhours were
required. For an average cost of 20 euros per overtime manhour, a cost of 980 euros was
avoided. Hence, the annual cost (with overtime manhours) of the surface department was
decreased from 237,140V to 157,880V for 25,000 orders. Additionally, given the fact that
delayed orders lead to lost customers, a reduction in delayed orders can prevent future
revenue loss, an action that may be crucial for the company’s survival during nationwide
unpropitious financial circumstances. This is also shown in a 73% decrease in “red flags”
deriving from customer complaints for delayed orders (from 74 per month to 20 per month).
The achieved improvements can be better understood from the two histograms depicted
in Figure 12, showing how both mean time and its distribution were reduced.
The control phase ensures that the changes introduced to the production line continue to
be present and the efficiency of the department is retained after the improvements. An Excel
file was created to record and analyze data concerning various important aspects of
production such average time spent within every department for any given time period.
Defectives’ recording was also transformed as to include more accurate information about the
cause of defects and more precise information about the time of each event. In addition, the
control program was extended involving the usage of control (I-MR) charts, with the aid of
statistical software, and the introduction of barcode scanners between machines so that
production flow can be observed in real time. The utilization of tracking software provided by
the cooperating French-based company was also considered as a non-cost incurring
alternative to traditional Excel worksheet calculations, but technical difficulties within the
production line have caused setbacks in its adoption.
Lean Six Sigma
in SMEs

1123

Figure 12.
Extended results of
capability analysis
(before/after)
IJQRM After the completion of the project, a questionnaire was distributed among department
39,5 workers and company project members (6 workers and 2 project members). Respondents
were asked to rate, on a scale of 1–5 (1: strongly disagree/ 5: strongly agree), statements
regarding project implementation and success. This included the statements: “Overall project
process was a success”, “I was satisfied with how the project was carried out and its results”,
“LSS problem solving techniques could be used in future projects”, and “Adapting an LSS
methodology could be a feasible solution to various manufacturing and managerial problems
1124 within the company.” Results showed general satisfaction with the process and almost no
negative feedback in any question receiving an average overall score of 4.7/5. Respondents
were also asked to rate their satisfaction (from 1 to 10) with the department’s operation before
and after the changes were implemented. The score that was given before the improvement
was an average overall of 6.8 and after the improvement was 9.1. This highlights how a new
methodology and set of tools could be successfully used in similar companies, as well as in
future projects within the SME in hand, bearing positive expectations and lucrative benefits.
The questionnaire also serves as additional verification to the initial assumption that LSS is
applicable at SMEs.
For the typical “closure”/completion of the project, the results of the improvements were
presented to all project stakeholders and to the top management in order to document the
changes needed and to inculcate the usefulness of LSS adoption for future CI initiatives. The
positive results that were presented by the project team to the top management led to the
decision of extending this LSS pilot project to more manufacturing departments and to the
multiplication of CI initiatives. The company also agreed with the prompt of the NTUA
research members to train its employees for sustaining the mentality of LSS and further
implementing LSS projects.

5. Critical discussion of the results

The results of the presented case suggest that the application of LSS in the selected
production process of this SME was successful, guaranteeing the adoption of LSS by the
company in a systematic way in the future. The most obvious benefit achieved was a
substantial process time reduction in the surfacing department. The improvement is depicted
in two important performance indicators used by the company for the monitoring of the
production process:
(1) The percentage of the delayed orders dropped from 42% before the improvement
initiative to 14%, an improvement of 66%.
(2) The average time of stay of an order in the department decreased from 11.9 hours to
7.9 hours, an improvement of 33%.
These indicators along with the comparison of the improved metrics are presented in
Figure 13. Apart from the improvement of effectiveness depicted in the increase of sigma
level of time per order, it is also apparent that the cost per order for the surfacing department
has been reduced by 30% (from 8.9 V to 6.2 V) and a reduction of the overtime man-hours by
80% has been achieved. The increase in the quality and the speed of the process is presented
in the reduction of the customer complaints, as well. In addition, the answers received by the

Head of Worker Worker Worker Worker Worker Worker

Table 5. Employee dept. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Monthly gross wage
per department Monthly Wage 3,550 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 1,500 1,500
employee (euros)
 237,140
Lean Six Sigma
in SMEs
157,880

11.9

7.9
8.9€
74
9.1 1125
6.2€ 6.8
61
42% 4.7
2.5 20
1.7 14% 12 Figure 13.
Comparison of
Sigma Level of Percentage of Average Cost per Order (€) Annual Cost (€) Overtimes Number of Satisfaction of LSS
Time per Order Delayed Orders Production Time Required per Customer Department Implementation
improvement results
per Order (Hours) month Complaints per Operations Rating Satisfaction with the metrics before
(Manhours) Month (1-10) Rating (1-5) the LSS project
Before After

employees about their satisfaction level, regarding the improvement of the process and the
contribution of LSS to their job, is depicted in their high rating of the process operation after
the completion of the project with 4.3.
The redesigned customer order flow achieved through the LSS project resulted in
improved flexibility for the employees, allowing them to better utilize their time for the
completion of supporting activities within the department. Although the above
improvements relate to the operation of only one production department of the company,
they affect the whole production process, as the reduced time is translated into equal
reduction in the total customer order lead time. This is the primary reason that made the top
management decide to direct the LSS project effort in this area. Moreover, the surfacing
process is the first one in the production chain and highly affects the planning of the
consecutive processes. The resulting reduction of the customer order process leads to an
important improvement of customer satisfaction due to shorter lead time, which is a critical
success factor in the industry where the company operates. The improved customer
satisfaction contributes to improved competitiveness in the highly competitive global
market. This is a typical case where the improvement of an operational performance indicator
contributes directly to a strategic objective of an SME.
A second and even more important benefit attained by the company is its acquaintance
with the LSS philosophy and continuous improvement initiatives. This first positive
experience with the LSS approach, the DMAIC methodology, and some of the methods
included in its toolset was a first step toward constructive future opportunities. The
measurement of the sigma level in the surfacing process was shockingly low but expected.
The calculation of the 1.7 sigma level of the existing process translates the already existing
perception of problematic operation in quantitative terms. The improvement of the sigma
level to 2.5 after the improvement project was encouraging and motivating for the future,
showing that well-designed targeted LSS initiatives can easily lead to substantially improved
results. The measurement of sigma level in selected critical processes can assist the internal
benchmarking of the SME (by evaluating its performance through the years) as well as its
external benchmarking (by comparing its performance with the performance of the
competition or with the best practices). In turn, the results of the benchmarking process can
assist the definition of future objectives and drive continuous improvement.
A third benefit of great importance, especially for SMEs, is the fact that the case study
demonstrated that substantial benefits from LSS initiatives can be achieved even with no
important investments by the enterprises and led to a reduction of 79,260V in annual cost.
IJQRM The results of the case were realized without the investment of new technological equipment or
39,5 the additional human resources but with the better utilization of existing resources. In the case
of SMEs, where capital expenditure is problematic, if not impossible, such initiatives can be
vital. This fact was graphically demonstrated in the presented case during the design phase
and the critical evaluation of alternative improvement courses of action. The “ideal”
improvement initiative could not be selected due to the need of a high investment for new
equipment that could not be supported by the company. However, a sub-optimal solution could
1126 improve the production process without additional investment needed, resulting in a more
efficient work and production design. This is great assistance for SMEs which need to be more
cost-effective and competitive in a global market where fierce competition exists. Nevertheless,
it must be clarified that no LSS initiative can be achieved without the prerequisite investment
of the SME’s employees in time. Although this investment is confused as “free” by many
companies, it is not, and needs willingness and effort to be ensured.
The LSS case also helped in an improved utilization of the data assets of the SME and
revealed the role of credible information in rational decision-making. The experience gained
from the case is that the existing data in the information systems of an SME are usually not
fully utilized. It was also discovered that an improved design of the data to be recorded can
systematically assist a company in the monitoring and improvement of business processes.
Specifically, the recorded data in the start and finish of the production process were not
practically used. There were no official data concerning the surfacing process time and the
existing cases of delays. The creation of a simple calculative tool for the determination of the
process times was a quick win that was positively accepted by the employees of the
department. Ideas for future improvement in the monitoring of the production department
(through real-time control charts of selected variables and introduction of barcode technology
for easier data capture) were generated with the contribution of the employees of the
department and their cooperation with the production manager. The provision of credible
information motivated the employees to more actively participate in the processes of data
design and data recording, as they fully realized their contribution and understood the role of
data as a valuable company resource. The culture of measuring variables of importance in the
context of LSS projects facilitates the development of approaches that fully take advantage of
data for the generation of information and decision assistance.
The successful implementation of the LSS initiative described in the previous paragraphs
was positively affected, to a large extent, by the organization structure of the project and
acted as enabler. Three of the four important organizational aspects were in place:
(1) Top management sponsorship and support: The introduction of the LSS concept in
the organization and the implementation of this first LSS initiative in the SME would
not be possible without the sponsorship and support of the top management (in our
case represented by the general manager of the company).
(2) Middle-level management involvement and provision of its technical expertise: The
continuous process improvement with the use of LSS initiatives in the SME was one
of the main objectives of the production manager. His technical knowledge of the
process to be improved was a critical success factor for the project.
(3) A team with technical expertise on the area of LSS: Without team members that have
a sound knowledge of the methods and tools of LSS and without their harmonic
cooperation with the middle-level management, it is very difficult to successfully
carry out the project. The combination of the expertise in the process to be improved
with the knowledge of the LSS toolset maximizes the effect of each improvement
initiative. In the case under discussion, the LSS knowledge was offered by the
university team that participated in the project.
The fourth organizational aspect needed for a successful LSS implementation is the active Lean Six Sigma
participation of the lower-level employees. Based on the experience gained in the case, this is in SMEs
the most challenging aspect to be achieved as it needs time, effort and cultural change. Other
challenges that have to be faced during LSS initiatives in SMEs are also unneglectable. The
case revealed typical challenges described in the literature, such as lack of time necessary for
the concentration of available information, limited knowledge on the methods involved, lack
of resources that affect different phases of the DMAIC process and limited motivation for
participation in the beginning of the effort at the lower organizational levels. A typical 1127
example can be demonstrated in the selected DMAIC tools used in the project. Table 6
includes the DMAIC tools used in the project. It can be seen that the list is not extensive, due to
the limitations of available information and restricted time of the employees for the
accumulation of additional information that was not already easily accessible.
The abovementioned challenges can be managed by training and acquiring new
knowledgeable employees, cross-functional teams creation and employees empowerment in
order to actively get involved in the continuous improvement process. The successful
implementation of LSS projects will enhance the employees’ morale and will accelerate the
creation of a continuous improvement culture in the company. This became evident in the
presented case, after the completion of the project and the realization of the benefits by the
employees in the surfacing department.
The nature of LSS implementation, which can contribute, primarily, to quick wins and
then to gradual and consistent improvement of processes, was the main reason that made the
company decide the adoption of LSS mentality, harmonizing it with its strategy. The top
management realized that a gradual approach in improvement, requiring a relatively small
amount of time in each improvement action, can contribute to the achievement of decent
short-term results as well as long-term substantial performance improvement. Through a
three-month LSS project, the company achieved selected short-term goals urged by
customers that led to the increase of its competitiveness by reducing the production time,
improving delivery times and reducing delays and costs. Thus, the top and middle-level
management of the SME recognized that, through consistent CI initiatives, the cumulative
benefit will be of high significance. The presented LSS project acted as a trigger for the
systematic introduction of LSS mentality in the company in order to achieve more ambitious
and long-term goals. This is coming in accordance with the company’s existing strategic
mission of gradually investing in the upgrade of the production processes by introducing
more contemporary and automated production methods to substantially reduce the
production and delivery times, eliminate delays and achieve more competitive pricing.

DMAIC phase Tools

Define CTQ Tree

Product Flow Map
Process Chart
Fishbone Diagram
Measure Data Collection Form
Analyze Pareto Chart
Boxplot
Capability Analysis
I-MR Chart
Improve and Control Data Collection Form
Boxplot Table 6.
Capability Analysis Tools used in DMAIC
I-MR Chart phases
IJQRM 6. Case study validation and limitations
39,5 The case study analysis demonstrated a full LSS implementation in a selected production
process of an SME with manufacturing orientation. However, the correctness and quality of
the case study should be checked in terms of construct validity, external validity and
reliability which are the criteria for descriptive case studies according to Yin (2009). Construct
validity has been achieved by gathering both real-time and archived data by the company in
order to conduct the project and confirm the statement of the need for change. The results of
1128 the changes were evaluated by department employees contributing to construct validity too.
External validity has been achieved by interpreting the results of the case study which
revealed that the benefits described in theory are indeed the outcome of an LSS application in
SMEs and that the implementation of LSS is expected to bring the same positive impact on
companies from the manufacturing sector. Through the case study, it was also revealed that
the fulfillment of CSFs is crucial for the completion of LSS projects in manufacturing
companies and should always be taken under consideration, confirming the theory.
Reliability has been achieved through the design and implementation of the DMAIC
methodology and through the use of selected tools and techniques for data collection and
analysis from its toolset. In particular, the data collection procedure followed helped in the
development of a database of data for the analysis of before and after improvement situation
and the analysis was conducted using tools for the best elaboration of data. Hence, the study
was set up in order to be able to be repeated with similar results. In fact, this was an important
contribution of the presented case to the company under discussion.
Even if the quality of the case study presented is validated, there were two limitations, as
well. The first limitation lies on the fact that a single case study was conducted. This means
that the analysis of LSS implementation was tested in a specific SME under certain
conditions. Although single case studies represent a large number of papers concerning LSS
implementation in companies of different sectors, the addendum of more companies adopting
the same LSS initiative for a cross-case analysis will be useful as it will give a more spherical
and comparable view of the results. It should be stated that a similar case has been developed
by the team in a manufacturing company in 2020 with also encouraging results (Panayiotou
et al., 2020). However, this company appeared to have different characteristics by the SME
presented in this paper (it was a large International company with extensive previous
experience in LSS). The second limitation relates to the low maturity level of the SME
concerning LSS and its methods. The fact that the company in which the case was conducted
had no previous experience in LSS projects limited the use of alternative LSS methods due to
lack of knowledge and/or lack of available historical data needed. This limitation may in turn
have inhibited the positive effects of the project realized. However, this second limitation was
neutralized by the fact that it made the case under analysis more representative, as most of
the SMEs have little or no experience in LSS, so the results of the case may be more relevant to
them. Nevertheless, the study should be expanded to SMEs operating in other sectors, for the
evaluation of the adaptability in different operational conditions.

7. Conclusions and further research

The analysis of the results revealed that a manufacturing SME with low capability for
investments can achieve substantial improvements by adopting LSS methodology.
Following the steps of DMAIC and using basic LSS tools, the SME of this case study
managed to make changes that configured a more efficient production process. The reduction
of production lead times owing to simple solutions recognized by the methodology gave more
flexibility to the process and the opportunity for better scheduling of the operations. The
surplus of time is ultimately reflected on the increased customer satisfaction because of no
delays in orders and better product control and quality. Hence, answering RQ1, it is argued
that LSS can be successfully implemented in an SME and the improvement of the processes in Lean Six Sigma
an SME can be achieved even by minor or no investment costs, contributing to the in SMEs
improvement of operational, strategic and financial measures in the company.
However, these changes cannot be implemented without taking under consideration crucial
parameters that affect LSS and CI initiatives adoption. More specifically, in the case presented,
without the sponsorship of top management, the involvement of middle management and the
active participation of the floor employees, the changes could not be adopted. It was also
apparent that the combination of the technical expertise of employees and middle management, 1129
regarding the process and the knowledge of LSS and CI initiatives by the consulting team,
contribute to the successful completion of the project. The involvement of all company levels in
the project and the existence of a team of experts as drivers to change create the necessary
motivation and eliminate the resistance to change. Based on the above, the answer in RQ2 is that
the active participation of all levels of the companies and the existence of knowledge both on the
processes under improvement and on the LSS methods and tools are important parameters
affecting a successful LSS implementation in SMEs. Due to the fact that LSS knowledge may not
exist in SMEs, the contribution of universities and/or consulting experts on the matter can
contribute to the building of rigid methodological foundations for future LSS initiatives. Building
of knowledge will consequently reduce any resistance to change substantially.
Continuing with the answer of RQ3, a typical and objective method for assessing the
success of an LSS initiative in any kind of organization, including SMEs, is the determination
of the benefit compared with the associated required cost, expressed in monetary terms. A
conclusion that was extracted by the case study under discussion was that this is not the only
way for assessment. Improvement results may not be exclusively calculated by measures
expressed in monetary terms, even though the company achieved the reduction of the cost per
order. The improvement of specific operational measures such as service time and number of
defects, although difficult to be translated in monetary terms, can contribute to important
strategic objectives and financial results. In the case under discussion, the reduction of
process time in the surfacing department led to the reduction of the customer order lead time
which, in turn, led to the improvement of customer service. Improved customer service means
higher customer satisfaction, which is translated in improved competitiveness, a strategic
objective of the SME. Finally, improvement in competitiveness can lead to a higher market
share and an improved profitability for the company.
The conduction of this case study generates proposals for further research which are
based on the conclusion that a manufacturing SME can be benefited by the adoption of LSS
and to achieve high-impact improvements without investment cost. More specifically, there is
a need for the conduction of more case studies concerning low-cost LSS implementation
through small-scale projects in SMEs of manufacturing and other sectors to test the
feasibility of these low-cost/high-impact initiatives. In addition, the development of an SME-
oriented toolset based on DMAIC phases for LSS initiatives will be useful and will facilitate
the adoption of LSS mentality by SMEs with no previous CI projects knowledge and
experience. Finally, the comparison of LSS projects results and benefits, through several
cross-case analyses, between SMEs with low or no investment margin and SMEs or large
companies with high investment ability, would provide valuable insights into how strong the
correlation between the amount of investment and resulting benefits is.

References
Abu Bakar, F., Subari, K. and Mohd Daril, M.A. (2015), “Critical success factors of LSS development: a
current review”, International Journal of LSS, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 339-348.
Albliwi, S.A., Antony, J. and Halim Lim, S.A. (2015), “A systematic review of LSS for the
manufacturing industry”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 665-691.
IJQRM Aldowaisan, T., Nourelfath, M. and Hassan, J. (2015), “Six Sigma performance for non-normal
processes”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 247 No. 3, pp. 968-977.
39,5
Alexander, P., Antony, J. and Rodgers, B. (2019), “LSS for small- and medium-sized manufacturing
enterprises: a systematic review”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 378-397.
Antony, J. (2014), “Readiness factors for LSS journey in higher education sector”, International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 257-264.
1130
Antony, J., Rodgers, B. and Gijo, E. (2016), “Can LSS make UK public sector organisations more
efficient and effective?”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 65 No. 7, pp. 995-1002.
Antony, J., Snee, R. and Hoerl, R. (2017), “LSS: yesterday, today and tomorrow”, International Journal
of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1073-1093.
Assarlind, M., Gremyr, I. and Backman, K. (2012), “Multi-faceted views on a LSS application”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 21-30.
Bamford, D., Forrester, P., Dehe, B. and Leese, R.G. (2015), “Partial and interactive lean
implementation: two case studies”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 702-727.
Bass, I. (2007), Six Sigma Statistics with Excel and Minitab, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 177-179.
Chakravorty, S.S. and Shah, A.D. (2012), “LSS (LSS): an implementation experience”, European Journal
of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 118-137.
Chen, M. and Lyu, J. (2009), “A Lean Six-Sigma approach to touch panel quality improvement”,
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 445-454.
Choi, B., Kim, J., Leem, B., Lee, C.Y. and Hong, H.K. (2012), “Empirical analysis of the relationship
between Six Sigma management activities and corporate competitiveness”, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 528-550.
De Freitas, J.G. and Gomes Costa, H. (2017), “Impacts of LSS over organizational sustainability”,
International Journal of LSS, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 89-108.
De Koning, H. and De Mast, J. (2006), “A rational reconstruction of Six-Sigma’s breakthrough cookbook”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 766-787.
Desai, D.A., Antony, J. and Patel, M.B. (2012), “An assessment of the critical success factors for Six
Sigma implementation in indian industries”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 426-444.
Eurostat (2015), “Small and medium-sized enterprises: an overview”, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20181119-1 (accessed 24 November 2020).
Fsb.org.uk (2020), “Small business statistics”, available at: www.fsb.org.uk/media-centre/small-
business-statistics (accessed 23 November 2020).
Gaikwad, S.K., Paul, A., Moktadir, M.A., Paul, S.K. and Chowdhury, P. (2020), “Analyzing barriers and
strategies for implementing LSS in the context of Indian SMEs”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 2365-2399.
Ghauri, P. and Grønhaug, K. (2002), Business Research Methods in Business Studies: A Practical Guide,
Pearson Education, Harlow.
Gijo, E.V., Palod, R. and Antony, J. (2018), “LSS approach in an Indian auto ancillary conglomerate: a
case study”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 761-772.
Habidin, N.F., Salleh, M.S., Latip, N.A.M., Azman, M.N.A. and Fuzi, N.M. (2016), “LSS performance tool
for automotive suppliers”, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 215-235.
Hambleton, L. (2008), Treasure Chest of Six Sigma Growth Methods, Tools, and Best Practices, Pearson
Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ, p. 493.
Hilton, R.J. and Sohal, A. (2012), “A conceptual model for the successful deployment of LSS”, Lean Six Sigma
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 54-70.
in SMEs
Juliani, F. and Oliveira, O.J.D. (2019), “Synergies between critical success factors of LSS and public
values”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 30 Nos 15-16, pp. 1563-1577.
Kalashnikov, V., Benita, F., Lopez-Ramos, F. and Hernandez-Luna, A. (2017), “Bi-objective project
portfolio selection in LSS”, International Journal Production Economics, Vol. 186, pp. 81-88.
Khawar, N., Misbah, U., Adnan, T., Shahid, M., Rehman, A., Rashid, N. and Iftikhar, H. (2016), 1131
“Optimisation of steel bar manufacturing process using Six Sigma”, Chinese Journal of
Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 332-341.
Kumar, M., Antony, J., Singh, R.K., Tiwari, M.K. and Perry, D. (2006), “Implementing the lean sigma
framework in an Indian SME: a case study”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 407-423.
Lande, M., Shrivastava, R.L. and Seth, D. (2016), “Critical success factors for LSS in SMEs (small and
medium enterprises)”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 613-635.
Laureani, A. and Antony, J. (2012), “Standards for LSS certification”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 110-120.
Lee, L. and Wei, C. (2009), “Reducing mold changing time by implementing LSS”, Quality and
Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 387-395.
Manville, G., Greatbanks, R., Krishnasamy, R. and Parker, D.W. (2012), “Critical success factors for
LSS programmes: a view from middle management”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 7-20.
Marques, P.A.A. and Matthe, R. (2017), “Six Sigma DMAIC project to improve the performance of an
aluminium die casting operation in Portugal”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 307-330.
Muganyi, P., Madanhire, I. and Mbohwa, C. (2019), “Business survival and market performance through
LSS in the chemical manufacturing industry”, International Journal of LSS, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 566-600.
Neale, P., Thapa, S. and Boyce, C. (2006), Preparing a Case Study: A Guide for Designing and
Conducting a Case Study for Evaluation Input, Pathfinder International, Watertown, MA.
Panayiotou, N.A. and Katimertzoglou, P.K. (2015), “Micro firms internet adoption patterns: the case of the
Greek jewellery industry”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 508-530.
Panayiotou, N.A. and Stergiou, K.E. (2021), “A systematic literature review of lean six sigma
adoption in European organizations”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 264-292, doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-07-2019-0084.
Panayiotou, N.A., Stergiou, K.E. and Chronopoulos, V. (2020), “Implementing a LSS standardized toolset
in a manufacturing company: a case study”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-08-2020-0423.
Pearn, W.L., Tai, Y. and Lee, J.H. (2009), “Statistical approach for cycle time estimation in
semiconductor packaging factories”, IEEE Transactions on Electronics Packaging
Manufacturing, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 198-205, doi: 10.1109/TEPM.2009.2022270.
Piercy, N. and Rich, N. (2015), “The relationship between lean operations and sustainable operations”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 282-315.
Psychogios, A.G. and Tsironis, L.K. (2012), “Towards an integrated framework for LSS application:
lessons from the airline industry”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 23
Nos 3-4, pp. 397-415.
Sabry, A. (2014), “Factors critical to the success of Six Sigma quality programme and their influence
on performance indicators in some Lebanese hospitals”, Arab Economic and Business Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 93-114.
Small Business Administration (2005), “What is small business?”, available at: www.sba.gov/size/
(accessed 24 November 2020).
IJQRM Snee, R.D. (2010), “LSS–getting better all the time”, International Journal of LSS, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-29.
39,5 Sreedharan, V., R., Sunder, M., V., Madhavan, V. and Gurumurthy, A. (2019), “Development of LSS
training module: evidence from an emerging economy”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 689-710.
Tenera, A. and Carneiro Pinto, L. (2014), “A LSS (LSS) project management improvement model”,
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 119, pp. 912-920.
1132 Thomas, A., Barton, R. and Okafor, C. (2009), “Applying LSS in a small engineering company–a model
for change”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 113-129.
Thomas, J.A., Ringwald, K., Parfitt, S., Davies, A. and John, E. (2014), “An empirical analysis of LSS
implementation in SMEs–a migratory perspective”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 888-905.
Thomas, A.J., Francis, M., Fisher, R. and Byard, P. (2016), “Implementing LSS to overcome the
production challenges in an aerospace company”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 27 Nos
7-8, pp. 591-603.
Thortorella, G.L., Fettermann, D., Frank, A. and Marodin, G. (2018), “Lean manufacturing
implementation: leadership styles and contextual variables”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1205-1227.
Timans, W., Antony, J., Ahaus, K. and van Solingen, R. (2012), “Implementation of LSS in small-and
medium-sized manufacturing enterprises in The Netherlands”, Journal of the Operational
Research Society, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 339-353.
Timans, W., Ahaus, K. and Antony, J. (2014), “Six Sigma methods applied in an injection moulding
company”, International Journal of LSS, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 149-167.
Timans, W., Ahaus, K., van Solingen, R., Kumar, M. and Antony, J. (2016), “Implementation of
continuous improvement based on LSS in small-and medium-sized enterprises”, Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 27 Nos 3-4, pp. 309-324.
Tlapa, D., Limon, J., Garcia-Alcaraz, J., Baez, Y. and Sanchez, C. (2016), “Six Sigma enables in Mexican
manufacturing companies: a proposed model”, Industrial Management and Data Systems,
Vol. 116 No. 5, pp. 926-956.
Vinodh, S., Gautham, S.G. and Ramiya, R.A. (2011), “Implementing lean sigma framework in an Indian
automotive valves manufacturing organisation: a case study”, Production Planning and Control,
Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 708-722.
Walter, O.M.F.C. and Paladini, E.P. (2019), “LSS in Brazil: a literature review”, International Journal of
LSS, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 435-472.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed., Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Yuen, K.F., Thai, V.V. and Wong, Y.D. (2016), “The effect of continuous improvement capacity on the
relationship between of corporate social performance and business performance in Maritime
transport in Singapore”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
Vol. 95, pp. 62-75.

Corresponding author
Nikolaos A. Panayiotou can be contacted at: panayiot@central.ntua.gr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com