No Complex Operations Research Logistic equations

No Advanced Statistical Tools

No Advanced Analytical Models.

No Multi Million Dollar Training programs

Yet, Quality of Service exceeding Six Sigma

How is this even possible?

Sheer Common Sense.

It is almost impossible believe that 5000 lunch transportation workers with Semi literacy would setup a logistic model that produce a service Quality of 1 defect in every 6 million transactions. Yes it is true.

As I would describe, "Six Sigma without Black belts". I came across these interesting series of articles recently. Can't wait to share with our fellow Covers.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/08/16/mumbai.dabbawallahs/

http://www.successfulmanagers.com/51issue/mantras1_51issue.htm

http://web.mid-day.com/news/city/2003/october/66240.htm

http://www.sixsigmaquality.com/India_Inc_and_Six_Sigma.pdf

http://www.sixsigmaquality.com/Chemical%20Processing%20May04.pdf

Regards,
Govind.

Feel Free to share your thoughts.

What a splendid story!

One thing I am squeamish about with 6S is a sense of elitism for the Black Belts.

Is the 6S company also maintaining a clear conduit for the line worker to input his or her suggestion for savings? Toyota does. A BusinessWeek article on this company mentioned a worker's suggestion to simply install the radiator later in the line sequence. The very appreciable savings includes time (not having to work around the installed radiators) and back injuries from improved access of the engine compartment.

In contrast, I recall a local company that clinched a decision to hire an ex-GE manager solely based on his Black Belt. But after a couple of years the people I spoke with were not at all impresed by this man. 6S was not the cure at that place; the man didn't last more than a few years.

I don't know if he had management support, or support of people besides those I spoke with, but I maintain that an inclusive, responsive management system can still dance circles around a fancy method like 6S.

My company hired a BB from GE not long ago. He asked me if I would look over some control charts he was dealing with and offer an opinion. I immediately noticed a run on one side of the centerline and pointed it out. He asked me what I was talking about. I told him that it was a sign of instability--assignable cause variation. He said, "Oh, I'm not worried about that--the Cpk is over 2." http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/bonk.gif

I predict that someday it will be considered legal to strangle these people with their black belts.

I understand the frustration due to some bad experiences with few black belts. Iam a SSBB myself. I have lots of respects for my fellow Black belts. Learning is a continual process. Sometimes we learn proactively from others mistakes. Sometimes we learn from our own mistakes.

Six sigma methodology has been accepted by leading Quality Professionals and proven to work.

I just wanted to point out through that story that if any one can get to that root of an issue/objective, even with basic common sense approach, problems can be solved and objectives could be achieved.

Team work, coordination of activities, trust among team, knowing their process makes this massive logistics effort successful. I was just told by my college this story was aired in 60 minutes sometime back.

This is an excellent example for organizations to study the process steps and perform a “Process Benchmarking”.

Regards,
Govind.

I understand the frustration due to some bad experiences with few black belts. Iam a SSBB myself. I have lots of respects for my fellow Black belts. Learning is a continual process. Sometimes we learn proactively from others mistakes. Sometimes we learn from our own mistakes.

Six sigma methodology has been accepted by leading Quality Professionals and proven to work.

I just wanted to point out through that story that if any one can get to that root of an issue/objective, even with basic common sense approach, problems can be solved and objectives could be achieved.

Team work, coordination of activities, trust among team, knowing their process makes this massive logistics effort successful. I was just told by my college this story was aired in 60 minutes sometime back.

This is an excellent example for organizations to study the process steps and perform a “Process Benchmarking”.

Regards,
Govind.

Yes, I agree completely. :agree1:

My quarrel is not with 6S in itself, but its oft-misapplication. My understanding is that 6S is, in fact what quality engineers are presumably trained to do when certifying. Why make it seem as though they are not? ASQ does not appear to be addressing this with well-marketed streamlined bridge training that makes it clear there is a wide availability of this skill. The misunderstanding is perpetuated infinum. I once interviewed with a fellow who said quality engineers were too nerdy. I have bever met a nerdy quality engineer; I responded that perhaps we need to change our image? He agreed.

Perhaps I am just confused or feeling ornery.

That some companies think they must have a whole new program, with outsiders achieving intensive, but dare I say limited training in the methods, and then inflate expectations and not view results on an organization-wide basis, is unfortunate and threatens 6S the way TQM was maligned.

Six sigma methodology has been accepted by leading Quality Professionals and proven to work.

I'm not sure what that statement means. I think a lot of people use tautology in defense of SS--it's been "accepted by leading quality professionals" and the "leading quality professionals" referred to are proponents of SS. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. In fairness to all, I think that any system or program or methodology that has improvement as its sole purpose can't be all bad. I just think it's sad that it feeds into the corporate fantasy that product quality is a commodity that comes prepackaged and can be purchased off the shelf.

Valid discussion points.

Even the CQE and SSBB have heavy overlap in the Body of knowledge. You are making good point wrt ASQ. can you please describe further. ASQ always survey member populations when they start a new certification or revise an existing Body of Knowledge. I recieved a survey for Green belt certification from ASQ.Any of your inputs can be useful to them.

6S or any Continual improvement program, if an organization did not understand properly and train properly, there is no debate about the outcome of that program.

There are few massive threads in this Six sigma topic of this forum with over 50 posts each talk about these issues already. These are beaten to death,
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=3823
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=7324

My intent was to share the lessons learned from the example and discuss in detail.

Regards,
Govind.

You are making good point wrt ASQ. can you please describe further.

I made no mention of ASQ; I'm not sure what you're asking.

... My understanding is that 6S is, in fact what quality engineers are presumably trained to do when certifying. Why make it seem as though they are not? ASQ does not appear to be addressing this with well-marketed streamlined bridge training that makes it clear there is a wide availability of this skill......

From this post. I answered keeping both posts in mind.
Sorry about the confusion.

Regards,
Govind.

Govind: Yes, of course we can achieve very high quality levels in some things without advanced tools or analyses or higher education. Common sense and the desire to do the right thing or be the best are both very powerful. However, neither common sense or the desire to do teh right thing are always in abundant supply. And of course teh world is neither very simple nor completely complex. It is both and a full range in between. SOME things only take common sense and the will to achieve. Others take complex apporaches. The very computer we are reading this message on was not a product of common sense alone - it took all of the above to create it! and that is my response - we need both complex and simple approaches.

(As an aside, it has always botherd me that we complain about how expensive the six sigma training is - except for the early adapter gougers who charged 30-40k in the beginning - the training is really no more expensive than that required to get a CQE or to become a knowledgeable quality engineer/manager...teh former may not be delivered in a realativley short time frame nor may it be all formal 'paid for' training - but we all got it somewhere, over some amount of time and it wasn't cheap, easy or quick!)

Yes, of course we can achieve very high quality levels in some things without advanced tools or analyses or higher education.
The suggestion is that we can accomplish those things without SS, not without advanced tools.

Common sense and the desire to do the right thing or be the best are both very powerful.

Common sense is what tells us the earth is flat :D

However, neither common sense or the desire to do teh right thing are always in abundant supply. And of course teh world is neither very simple nor completely complex. It is both and a full range in between. SOME things only take common sense and the will to achieve. Others take complex apporaches.

Of course, but the decisions as to which complex approach to use are dictated by common sense, given the requisite knowledge and experience.

The very computer we are reading this message on was not a product of common sense alone - it took all of the above to create it! and that is my response - we need both complex and simple approaches.

Agreed, but what does that have to do with SS per se? I provided in this thread an example of a BB who was egregiously ignorant of the basic principles of normal-curve statistics, which in my mind is the equivalent of a bricklayer who doesn't know which end of the trowel to hold. The same can be said of many CQEs I've encountered. It's the *work* that's important, and the results, not the title or the color of the belt.

Six sigma methodology has been accepted by leading Quality Professionals and proven to work.

Yes, not to beat a dead horse that has been beaten elsewhere, but I sure would like to pull the string on that quote. What "Leading Quality Professionals". I guess I must not be one, since I sure don't accept it. But that's just my opinion.

Yes, not to beat a dead horse that has been beaten elsewhere, but I sure would like to pull the string on that quote. What "Leading Quality Professionals". I guess I must not be one, since I sure don't accept it. But that's just my opinion.

The very preface of Juran Handbook says “Dr. Juran has placed his unmistakable stamp of vision and clarity in this new edition.”- xiv
Please go Page 14.32 where the author talks about Six sigma, comparing the steps to Quality Improvement section authored by Dr.Juran as “quite similar”.

If Dr.Juran did not believe in Six sigma, would you think, Juran Institute will be publishing books and conducting Blackbelt trainings?

If Dr.Taguchi did not believe in Six sigma, why would American Supplier Institute headed by Dr.Taguchi conduct Six sigma Training?

(Note: Phil Crosby Associates and Feigenbaum’s General System do not have Six sigma Training in their products and services).

Dr.Wheeler, Subir Chowdhury , Thomas Pyzdek, D. H. Stamatis (to name a few) who have contributed to overall Quality Engineering and Management for years have also embraced Six sigma.

Regards,
Govind.

... My understanding is that 6S is, in fact what quality engineers are presumably trained to do when certifying. Why make it seem as though they are not? ASQ does not appear to be addressing this with well-marketed streamlined bridge training that makes it clear there is a wide availability of this skill......

From this post. I answered keeping both posts in mind.
Sorry about the confusion.

Regards,
Govind.

I looked through some old threads from the Cove and ASQ and found one bridge between CQE and CSSBB: if one has CQE one may only need to show an affidavit for one project versus the otherwise required two.

I did find a statistics course that is said to be good for both CQE and CSSBB. I found no other place that makes a connection that training in one would greatly assist one in attempting the other. Maybe this helps perpetuate the mystery surrounding what we do, versus what the SSBB does.

ASQ has expressed an objective to better communicate what we quality folks do for the benefit of the unfamiliar, who have siezed upon a BB's value but still don't understand what a CQE is or does for an organization. However, I have not seen any marketing in any venue outside of the professional circles where I would say advertising 6S is like preaching to the choir.

Without clearly spoken marketing of what we do, there is an ongoing misunderstanding that a CSSBB is a very different animal than CQE. There will be missed opportunities for an organization and quality professional to pair up and make great progress together. Quality organizations like ASQ and its equivalent should respond to this comprehension vacuum if they want to stay relevant in a changing workplace.

Similarly, I have never seen ASQ describe how my CQE can help me become a CSSBB. I read about overlap in forum dialogs but should be learning more about it in a development venue like ASQ's professional development section. Instead I find only a list of certifications one can try for.

Maybe I am being too fussy.

The biggest issue I have with Six Sigma per se, is it is a business tool and not a pure Quality tool. Six Sigma is not grounded in traditional QC. In the end, it will go away because it is not grounded in pure Quality science.

The biggest issue I have with Six Sigma per se, is it is a business tool and not a pure Quality tool. Six Sigma is not grounded in traditional QC. In the end, it will go away because it is not grounded in pure Quality science.
Hmm, I don't feel sure about this. I don't mind 6S, I can see it is working for many and it is becoming accepted in business, which is very, very important.

I don't understand why you say 6S is not grounded in pure quality science--in what way?

I'd just like to see it applied more thoughtfully in more cases, because it invites spotty, magic-wand-waving improvement thinking without clear concern of how the initiatives are impacting the organization in a widespread manner.

The suggestion is that we can accomplish those things without SS, not without advanced tools.





Common sense is what tells us the earth is flat :D



Agreed, but what does that have to do with SS per se? I provided in this thread an example of a BB who was egregiously ignorant of the basic principles of normal-curve statistics, which in my mind is the equivalent of a bricklayer who doesn't know which end of the trowel to hold. The same can be said of many CQEs I've encountered. It's the *work* that's important, and the results, not the title or the color of the belt.
1. Actually I was respoding to the lead statements about no complex tools or analytical methods and no multi million dollar training programs and yet the sandwhich people achieved better than six sigma levels...my original post didn't say that six sigma was necessary to deliver the complex tools and it's not. it is one of only many packages or delivery systems if you will.

2. yes and my grandmother went to her grave convinced that we never landed on the moon because space flight is impossible...

3. Of course, but the decisions as to which complex approach to use are dictated by common sense, given the requisite knowledge and experience.
hmm. but the aquisition of requisite knowledge and expereince is not a common event among humans...

4. I didnt' say it had anything to do with six sigma (see my first response above) and any any BB or CQE who is certified and doesn't know the basics is an indictment of the instructor and/or certifying agent not the wrapper of SS or ASQ CQE or PHD or whatever...we've all known people who could take tests and not have teh foggies tclue what they were tested on and yet they get an A...memory doesn't equal knowledge or learning.

From D.H. Stamatis

Walt Kelly's "Pogo" got it right a long time ago: We have met the enemy, and he is us. It's unfortunate that the quality community hasn't recognized that evaluative methods and tools don't improve quality. Organizations improve quality by using methods and tools consistently to emphasize planning and refine their designs, not by appraising quality. Quality is only improved when the organizational culture is committed to change and is willing to make quality a priority characteristic or a metric throughout the entire organization. There are no shortcuts or silver bullets. If quality matters, it should be a way of life.

It's a travesty to see so many resources being wasted in the name of quality when it's still viewed as an appraisal system. Twenty years ago, quality-methodology innovation and implementation were second to none, yet quality was (as it still is) a problem. This remained true even when the quality "gurus" (Joseph M. Juran, W. Edwards Deming, Armand V. Feigenbaum, Philip Crosby and others) introduced innovative ideas to address quality in the planning stages--that is, building quality into design, not simply monitoring it at the manufacturing level.

Six Sigma is a marketing ploy that has mesmerized many quality professionals for at least two reasons. First, it offers easy money, because both the training and qualification are controlled as though the concepts are unique and innovative and can only be understood, taught and implemented in one way. In reality, many consultants who promote the Six Sigma methodology lack consistency in their training materials and course content, and they themselves lack a knowledge base to build on. Second, Six Sigma sounds impressive because some major corporations claim exceptional returns on their Six Sigma investments. Although it's true that some companies--and they constitute a small percentage of the whole--have had exceptional returns on investment, they only experienced such a tremendous turnaround because they attacked the simplest, easiest-to-solve problems first, and their quality levels were so low that anything they tried would have been a success.

[QUOTE=The Fast One]From D.H. Stamatis

[QUOTE]

Thank you , thank you, thank you. :thanx:

I see no harm in the latest fad named Six Sigma. And I see no harm in black belts and so forth. As long as they actually achieve what is required. In any case, the content of so-called Six Sigma courses is hardly new. The various tools etc have been in place for many years. But we do enjoy relabelling old bottles of wine.

I regard current sick enigma rainbow warriors as the slightly better trained decendents of the quality circle facilitators etc. fadishly popular in late 70s early 80s. And of course, our quality tools do go round in circles. Every so often they come round again, though repackaged.

So, if I may quote the late Deng Xiaoping: "Black cat, white cat. Who cares as long as it catches mice."

So, if I may quote the late Deng Xiaoping: "Black cat, white cat. Who cares as long as it catches mice."


He also said don't debate...

Getting back to the original post, I am sure these chaps have a wonderful system worked out and it is probably very, very effective.

HOWEVER

If you expect me to believe that they made less than 3.4 mistakes when delivering the last 1,000,000 lunches, I am going to say I am pretty skeptical. Somewhere along the lines, a few of them had to get a PB and J and should have received Balogna (or in this case, Baloney)

As my Grandmother said "just sayin something don't make it so"

Just because Forbes labeled them "Six Sigma" does not mean that they ACTUALLY were operating at Six Sigma.

Six Sigma is smoke, mirrors and a whole lot of marketing ploy.

This should in no way minimize the accomplishment of the workers or the system for delivering lunches, but if it were me, I would have declined Forbes "award".

Carl-

At the end of the day, it is all pretty pointless one way or the other. There are businesses out there who are looking for people experienced in Six Sigma, its the law of supply of and demand. In my opinion, the reason Six Sigma took off, is because the projects and results were originally geared towards improving customer satisfaction and the bottom line and they got the results they were desired. Low-hanging fruit or not, every company has it, it is just a question of what's going to be done to correct the problem.

Six Sigma was never meant to be a complete Quality Methodology, it was a toolbox that could be applied to various processes. Quality consultants grabbed onto it because it used tools/methods they were already familiar with and it offered an opportunity to improve their income. ASQ has pretty much done the same thing, and chances are they won't do anything to change that impression until the well starts to dry up. One area where it should be commended is that it has crossed various industries and actually provided a basis for a common language which before may of went unheeded.

Even government is adopting SS tools: Fort Wayne, Indiana (http://www.cityoffortwayne.org/6sigma.htm)
At the end of the day, how is this a bad thing? As long as positive results are being gained, does it matter what name is used?

Perhaps it is ironic that Six Sigma chose to use the belts issued in Karate to denote one's level of experience. The reality is that a belt issued only denotes one's skill level in that particular organization or from the training entity (school/teacher). Just as there are inadequate Six Sigma practicioners, so there are martial arts schools out there who will practically sell you rank for almost no work whatsoever.

As always, there will be other variations on similiar themes, Lean Six Sigma (George Group), Six Sigma Plus (Honeywell I think, which combines Lean), etc. It will change as companies and individuals mold it to fit their needs and that's fine. If they are getting the results they desire and it works for their company/culture, why argue about it. At the end of the day there are both good and bad quality engineers and same goes for six sigma black belts, it all depends on the individual, their drive, and their ability to apply the concepts/methods.

Lean Manufacturing is another example of a "bastard child" it's been adopted very well by some, mis-used and then blamed for not being up to the task by others. At the end of the day though, no one is really able to do it like it Toyota and it isn't because of the method or tools used, but more because of the level of understanding and commitment by management.

If anyone is interested in a PDF from the Toyota Way, here it is: Toyota Way - Executive Summary (http://www.si.umich.edu/ICOS/Liker04.pdf)

Anyone can learn theory and in application, but know knowing something and really understanding it are two different things. There is a little zen in there somewhere I think. :D

Again, as I have stated in other post, IMHO, one of the reasons management shrinks from the QMS (Iso, etc.) is do to a total lack of common sense within those specifications and reaches for the Lean and six-sigma for the same reasons. Yes, dare I say, that in my very limited exposure to Lean and six-sigma they seem to make sense to me as well as to others. To implement Lean do you need a QMS with all of its silly irrational dictates? :mad:

I keep hearing the accolades about "Six Sigma Results" But I posted over a year ago, defying anyone to show hard numbers that support those results and haven't seen ANYONE post them yet. And I don't expect to get any now.

The only reason top management is abandoning ISO and other QMS systems is so they can use SS as a marketing tool, and most are not even doing that, they keep both.

WMARHEL, I have to ask you about your statement "Six Sigma was never meant to be a complete Quality Methodology" Because the Juran Instuitute defines it as :

"Six Sigma is a disciplined, data-driven approach and methodology for eliminating defects (driving towards six standard deviations between the mean and the nearest specification limit) in any process -- from manufacturing to transactional and from product to service."

It's a crock.

Some good tools, some not so good, depending on your industry.
A substitute for common sense? YES, in some ways.
An over inflated bag of marketing hype and consultant fodder? Absolutely.

More money will be made hawking and consulting Six Sigma than it will EVER save.

Carl-

More money will be made hawking and consulting Six Sigma than it will EVER save.

Carl-

Was it not the case that those who made the most money from the gold rush were those who sold the gold pans?

Was it not the case that those who made the most money from the gold rush were those who sold the gold pans? Nope! It was the folks who ran the saloons and bawdy houses. Pandering to baser natures of folks usually is a foolproof way to wealth (except in Donald Trump's case - who could imagine a legal casino could go bankrupt?)

Yeah, and they consider him "successful"

People fail to realize that when you go bankrupt, many of the people you owe do not get paid.

If Trump actually paid all of his debts, he would be penniless and still owe money.

He is an utter failure.

Carl-

Yeah, and they consider him "successful"

People fail to realize that when you go bankrupt, many of the people you owe do not get paid.

If Trump actually paid all of his debts, he would be penniless and still owe money.

He is an utter failure.

Carl-:agree: Agree. Not a very admirable trait to instill in an Apprentice, is it?

I may not have a lot, but I do have my integrity.

From D.H. Stamatis

Walt Kelly's "Pogo" got it right a long time ago: We have met the enemy, and he is us. It's unfortunate that the quality community hasn't recognized that evaluative methods and tools don't improve quality. Organizations improve quality by using methods and tools consistently to emphasize planning and refine their designs, not by appraising quality. Quality is only improved when the organizational culture is committed to change and is willing to make quality a priority characteristic or a metric throughout the entire organization. There are no shortcuts or silver bullets. If quality matters, it should be a way of life.

It's a travesty to see so many resources being wasted in the name of quality when it's still viewed as an appraisal system. Twenty years ago, quality-methodology innovation and implementation were second to none, yet quality was (as it still is) a problem. This remained true even when the quality "gurus" (Joseph M. Juran, W. Edwards Deming, Armand V. Feigenbaum, Philip Crosby and others) introduced innovative ideas to address quality in the planning stages--that is, building quality into design, not simply monitoring it at the manufacturing level.

Six Sigma is a marketing ploy that has mesmerized many quality professionals for at least two reasons. First, it offers easy money, because both the training and qualification are controlled as though the concepts are unique and innovative and can only be understood, taught and implemented in one way. In reality, many consultants who promote the Six Sigma methodology lack consistency in their training materials and course content, and they themselves lack a knowledge base to build on. Second, Six Sigma sounds impressive because some major corporations claim exceptional returns on their Six Sigma investments. Although it's true that some companies--and they constitute a small percentage of the whole--have had exceptional returns on investment, they only experienced such a tremendous turnaround because they attacked the simplest, easiest-to-solve problems first, and their quality levels were so low that anything they tried would have been a success.


If you got that quote from D H Stamatis, it is very interesting.
I have read the FMEA book but not his release on
Six Sigma Fundamentals: A Complete Guide to the System, Methods and Tools
by D. H. Stamatis. Planning to buy and read the preface.
DH Stamatis (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=D.%20H.%20Stamatis/104-9657614-9720731)

Regards,
Govind.

I may not have a lot, but I do have my integrity.
I have often remarked to people in mutually challenging places that "He who gets out of this with his integrity and self esteem intact, wins."

If you got that quote from D H Stamatis, it is very interesting.
I have read the FMEA book but not his release on
Six Sigma Fundamentals: A Complete Guide to the System, Methods and Tools
by D. H. Stamatis. Planning to buy and read the preface.
DH Stamatis (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=D.%20H.%20Stamatis/104-9657614-9720731)

Regards,
Govind.


From John S. Ramberg

"Ultimately, Six Sigma is a superb strategy that addresses leadership, tools and infrastructure issues, some of which were neglected by previous programs. CEOs of leading U.S. firms praise the accomplishments of their Six Sigma initiatives. Outstanding quality professionals and industrial statisticians concur and describe potential roles for their colleagues. Engineering programs have begun to incorporate elements of Six Sigma into their curricula. When have quality professionals ever had such a splendid opportunity to contribute? Constructive criticism of Six Sigma or any other quality program can be useful--but it should be informed and fair."

When people stop "moaning", they stop caring.....

What right has one person to say what's good, bad or idifferent. Should we be-little, put-down, discriminate, force our own opinion, or should we listen, consider and keep asking why until we do understand. Then again, what right have I to say such things......

I would agree that when people stop "moaning" they stop caring.

Unfortunately, that does not mean that what they are "moaning" about is worth a darn to begin with. They may be moaning because it is nothing more than an obstacle in their path.

Ask John S. Ramberg about his quote:

"Constructive criticism of Six Sigma or any other quality program can be useful--but it should be informed and fair."

Does that work both ways there John?, because I am not seeing much in the area of being "informed and fair" coming out of the Six Sigma camp. All I have heard is contadictory views on the definition of what six sigma is, avoidance to answer questions on return of investment, and deflection of any reference to a company that has actually acheived 3.4 ppm in their end product. None of which is addressed in his article.

Ramberg's whole article is weak in my opinion.

We all have the right to say what is good, bad and indifferent, however we should also listen and understand so we can make an informed opinion when we do so.


Carl-

I tire of the whole Six Sigma debate.

It is similar to the Classical DOE vs Taguchi Methods vs Shainin debate.

Here's my favorite story about tools.

A famous NASCAR team owner wanted to instill more professionalism in his mechanics. He called them all together and gave them a stern lecture about using the proper names for tools.

After the meeting a mechanic under the race car yelled out for a wrench.

The owner asked "what kind of a wrench?"

And the mecahnic said..."it doesn't *&*&^%$ matter, I'm going to use the *&^%$ thing as a hammer anyway!"

Get people fired up and motivated and then get out of their way, they'll use
any tool they can find to get the job done!

Another fave of mine is "it's a poor workman who blames his tools"

Tom Peters calls it "a bias to action"

Toyota says "go to the gemba"

Forget about the beauty of the tools - beat on the problem with a hammer - or a wrench, just start beating on it.

Nuff said

I tire of the whole Six Sigma debate.

It is similar to the Classical DOE vs Taguchi Methods vs Shainin debate.

Here's my favorite story about tools.

A famous NASCAR team owner wanted to instill more professionalism in his mechanics. He called them all together and gave them a stern lecture about using the proper names for tools.

After the meeting a mechanic under the race car yelled out for a wrench.

The owner asked "what kind of a wrench?"

And the mecahnic said..."it doesn't *&*&^%$ matter, I'm going to use the *&^%$ thing as a hammer anyway!"

Get people fired up and motivated and then get out of their way, they'll use
any tool they can find to get the job done!

Another fave of mine is "it's a poor workman who blames his tools"

Tom Peters calls it "a bias to action"

Toyota says "go to the gemba"

Forget about the beauty of the tools - beat on the problem with a hammer - or a wrench, just start beating on it.

Nuff said

That is a horribly simplified analogy. You need the correct tool for the job. Getting people, “fired up” is pure nonsense. The real problem is you cannot polish a turd and Six Sigma is turd polish. Six Sigma is a business tool and not a QC tool. Six Sima does not address poor designs and processes that are not capable. (Ultimately it may but it is the wrong approach). DFM/A or possibly DFSS but not Six Sigma. It is the wrong tool for what ails US mfg. Moreover, most companies especially the big ones; use SS for increasing productivity w/o compensation. In the end, that is the most perverse application of SS.

Use a crescent wrench instead of a torque wrench and you will immediately respect using the proper tool for the job.

I certainly hope the aviation mechanics have a better grasp.

Let me ask you, if you had a mechanic working under the race car using a wrench for a hammer, how confident would you be going into turn three at 195 mph?

Use the right tools and make sure they can perform according to the manufacturers claims.

Six Sigma doesn't.

Carl-

Use a crescent wrench instead of a torque wrench and you will immediately respect using the proper tool for the job.


Maybe all that's needed is a crescent wrench, and the torque wrench is overkill.

I certainly hope the aviation mechanics have a better grasp.

Afraid not. There are plenty of things on an aircraft that get the "bigger hammer". Having been on the flightline on more than one instance while in the Air Force (I was assigned to a maintenance squadron) I can attest to that fact.


Let me ask you, if you had a mechanic working under the race car using a wrench for a hammer, how confident would you be going into turn three at 195 mph?

That's a pretty generic question, and it really depends on the actual application. Does the mechanic just want something nudged over, or is he looking to break something free? I have a project "tuner" car and I couldn't tell you the number of times I've used a tool for other than the original purpose. If I had a second set of hands, it would probably be a different story.

Use the right tools and make sure they can perform according to the manufacturers claims.

Six Sigma doesn't.

Six Sigma itself doesn't make those claims, that is the consultants and/or trainers peddling their wares. What organization doesn't "market" their product. Their are people out there who also have a disdain for lean manufacturing, when it isn't the methodology that's flawed, it is the person or group doing the implementing.

I fail to see how any method, irregardless of the name, which targets honest improvements would be bad. I'm not talking about false pretenses, or cooking the books in order to save one's job or improve the balance sheet. Given the tools (control charts, flow-charts, ishikawa diagrams, statistical tests, etc.) aren't any different than what a QE might use, what's the big deal? If there is one thing that is unique, if you want to call it that, is the DMAIC roadmap, which really just defines different steps in an improvement project. But that, in and of itself, is a pretty minor change.

Is ISO or even QS really all that different from your viewpoint. There are plenty of companies out there following those guildeline, and plenty of consultants/registrars making money off those programs, but does that necessarily make for a quality product? I'm sure there is more than a few of us who have worked for a company that was ISO registered more for the ability to market themselves than any desire to put out the best product/service possible.

All in all, I kind of think the whole argument is pretty humorous but I also happen to have a few minutes to kill.

Wayne

I fail to see how any method, irregardless of the name, which targets honest improvements would be bad. I'm not talking about false pretenses, or cooking the books in order to save one's job or improve the balance sheet. Given the tools (control charts, flow-charts, ishikawa diagrams, statistical tests, etc.) aren't any different than what a QE might use, what's the big deal? If there is one thing that is unique, if you want to call it that, is the DMAIC roadmap, which really just defines different steps in an improvement project. But that, in and of itself, is a pretty minor change.

I've generally stayed out of this "debate" as my opinions on six sigma are registered elsewhere, both on the Cove and at ASQ.

However, it is my belief that six sigma has been "bad" for the quality profession. It has allowed management to believe that all they have to do is throw money at the problem, make a bunch of elitist "belts" and do DMAIC on existing processes and their job is done. "Instant Pudding" as Dr. Deming said. It has diverted management from learning about their systems and managing their systems. It has also cheapened the Quality Engineer professionals and caused the loss of jobs to many QE's solely due to they don't have a "belt".

In my opinion, six sigma has had an overall negative impact on the US economy. Now, I know that I will immediately get lynched here by the six sigma proponents, but all I have done is expressed a theory and an opinion.

Wayne,

A skilled mechanic would use a hammer to "nudge" and he or she would use the right size one, brass if in an explosive environment and filled with lead shot if they did not want to cause a marred surface. They would be especially particular if someones life was on the line. Your "tuner" isn't even on the radar. Shade tree mechanics use whatever tool is available, that's why they are not considered professionals.

There are plenty of "hack" mechanics and engineers in the aviation industry I am sure. There are planes that crash on occasion because of them too. If your wife and kids were on a flight to the Bahamas, which mechanic would you rather have work on the Jet, the one that used the tool that they felt might do the job, or the one that used the tool the job called for?

You said "Six Sigma itself doesn't make those claims" Just what claims does six sigma make? Please point me to "THE" Six Sigma Website that we are supposed to use as the standard to gauge this initiative, because right now they are a mish-mash of conflicting information, wild claims and snake oil.

You are right any initiative which targets honest improvements would not be bad, unfortunately I don't think Six Sigma can honestly make that claim. It certainly has not justified the ROI and therefore should be considered suspect, if not damaging to the overall system.

If a Black belt gets you the job, I say go for it and if DMAIC works for you, I say use it, but all this Six Sigma hype shows how naive people really are.

Carl-

Wayne,

A skilled mechanic would use a hammer to "nudge" and he or she would use the right size one, brass if in an explosive environment and filled with lead shot if they did not want to cause a marred surface. They would be especially particular if someones life was on the line. Your "tuner" isn't even on the radar. Shade tree mechanics use whatever tool is available, that's why they are not considered professionals.

There are plenty of "hack" mechanics and engineers in the aviation industry I am sure. There are planes that crash on occasion because of them too. If your wife and kids were on a flight to the Bahamas, which mechanic would you rather have work on the Jet, the one that used the tool that they felt might do the job, or the one that used the tool the job called for?

You said "Six Sigma itself doesn't make those claims" Just what claims does six sigma make? Please point me to "THE" Six Sigma Website that we are supposed to use as the standard to gauge this initiative, because right now they are a mish-mash of conflicting information, wild claims and snake oil.

You are right any initiative which targets honest improvements would not be bad, unfortunately I don't think Six Sigma can honestly make that claim. It certainly has not justified the ROI and therefore should be considered suspect, if not damaging to the overall system.

If a Black belt gets you the job, I say go for it and if DMAIC works for you, I say use it, but all this Six Sigma hype shows how naive people really are.

Carl-
Since few could label ME a 6S apologist, it may be up to me to bring some guidelines back into the debate, lest the debate devolve into a mish mash of emotional rhetoric.

ASQ has posted a Body of Knowledge for Six Sigma Black Belt Certification at http://www.asq.org/cert/pdf/sixsigma_bok.pdf (an 11 page pdf file which outlines the knowledge points a 6S certificate holder should have.) You might even pull the Quality Manager BOK to compare http://www.asq.org/cert/pdf/manager_bok.pdf or the Quality Engineer http://www.asq.org/cert/pdf/cqe_bok.pdf

which has an additional note:
Please Note: The Body of Knowledge for certification is affected by new technologies, policies, and the changing dynamics of manufacturing and service industries. Changed versions of the examination based on the current Body of Knowledge are used at each offering.

Let's use that 6S BOK as the starting point. Quite frankly, there is nothing in that BOK which appears inimical to a good Quality Manager, certified or not. I will agree many who call themselves 6SBB are "poseurs" who would be hard put to pass the ASQ test if they took it cold today. This includes many of the 6S folk who picked up their tickets in OTJ training at GE or Motorola, as well as those who paid thousands of dollars for "quickie seminars" where they were anointed "6SBB."

What does that mean? In my book, it means absolutely NOTHING! In my career, I have met many a person holding an ASQ designation to one certification or another who totally disappointed me in their application of the BOK for that designation to the job at hand. I also met many more who were excellent.

The bottom line is the designation is just a test. Some folks are good at taking and passing tests (especially open book tests), but are just "inadequate" at dealing with real world situations. I refuse to paint all certificate holders with a tarred brush just because I can point to some idiot who holds the same designation.

(Think of this the same way you ought to think about folks with college degrees or any professional designation. My standard line to cover this is the Q&A about medical doctors:
Question: What do you call the person who graduates at the bottom of his class in medical school?
Answer: Doctor
See what I mean?)

Wes,

As long as everyone is in agreement that the ASQ is going to be the defacto ruler of all things six sigma, it makes perfect sense.

I have a feeling that Motorola, GE and the Juran institute may see things differently though.

Doesn't matter to me, I don't have a horse in the race.

As an ASQ CQMgr, the amount of Six Sigma information was sadly lacking on my exam, however I must admit, I was certified about 5 years ago and things may have changed quite a bit.

Carl-

Wes,

As long as everyone is in agreement that the ASQ is going to be the defacto ruler of all things six sigma, it makes perfect sense.

I have a feeling that Motorola, GE and the Juran institute may see things differently though.

Carl-
I wrote:
Let's use that 6S BOK as the starting point.

Given my recent battles with ASQ over many items, it is not valid for anyone to think that I believe the BOK for 6S at ASQ is the ONLY correct data set. It merely represents a set of criteria we can all have in hand as we debate. Formal debates always posit a set of beliefs for the debaters to argue various facets. No one expects the two sides to come to a conclusion - only to air points of view.

If a product is designed utilizing the voice of the customer.
If that design is manufacturable and can be assembled with zero errors.
If it can be shipped on time and meet the customers expectation with acceptable reliability; why would I need Six Sigma Strategies?

Have you ever notice the Japanese have not trained thousands of SSBB? At the end of the day, SS has hurt the cause of quality because it is a band-aid fix to a structural problem. I was an airframe mechanic. To install a rivet correctly you need to drill three holes. You cannot just punch a hole in a structure and hope it will work. Tradition QC tool require a multi discipline approach not some mystic throwing fairy dust and utilizing a one-size-fits-all tool. I have a Master Degree in Quality, what I have found is I have been exposed to a wide variety of tools. SSBB only understand the narrow confines of DMAIC and generally do not understand anything else. SS will die and the Black Belts will go the way of the Y2K Consultant when management realizes the ROI is not that great. For US mfg and the automotive field especially the mantra should be, “It is the design stupid”.

If a product is designed utilizing the voice of the customer.
If that design is manufacturable and can be assembled with zero errors.
If it can be shipped on time and meet the customers expectation with acceptable reliability; why would I need Six Sigma Strategies?

Have you ever notice the Japanese have not trained thousands of SSBB? At the end of the day, SS has hurt the cause of quality because it is a band-aid fix to a structural problem. I was an airframe mechanic. To install a rivet correctly you need to drill three holes. You cannot just punch a hole in a structure and hope it will work. Tradition QC tool require a multi discipline approach not some mystic throwing fairy dust and utilizing a one-size-fits-all tool. I have a Master Degree in Quality, what I have found is I have been exposed to a wide variety of tools. SSBB only understand the narrow confines of DMAIC and generally do not understand anything else. SS will die and the Black Belts will go the way of the Y2K Consultant when management realizes the ROI is not that great. For US mfg and the automotive field especially the mantra should be, “It is the design stupid”.

I would tend to agree with this, in my studies I have found, other than becoming 'expert at passing exams' it has also taught me to be more open to different ways of doing things but to also keep saying 'I don't understand' until I do, tempered with experience.. I suppose the lesson for me was not to take things on presentational value but to constantly evaluate what we are doing, relative to the requirments of the time.

There seems to be a misguided notion that, Japanese anything has a correlation to quality. When we speak of Japanese quality, we are indeed merely speaking of the homogenized Toyota Production System (TPS).
I read recently, there are many industries within the Japanese economy that, don't use standardized practices throughout their organizations, meaning they just fly by the seat of their pants (Just like many western organizations).

Six sigma is IMO a decent tool box for measuring and quality control yet, the big issue for SS is, the tools within the box have been misused, misapplied and mismanaged.
Within a system that is designed to be continually improved, SS is of very little use IMO.
I would however use only tools that are appropriate for a particular system. Engineers are generally well trained in all of the appropriate tools to tackle design, system and CI initiatives out with the tool box of SS.
Wallace.

Wes,

As with most things ASQ, the BOK is pretty subjective.

They cover all bases pretty well, for instance, name one quality tool that ISN"T listed somewhere in the BOK!

It does nothing to define Six Sigma as unique, nor does it state any expected result.

It only perpetuates the thought that it is just a repackaged set of old and new tools thrown in a box, shaken (not stirred) and regurgitated in some jumble that doesnt even have a decent flow to it.

Besides, the ASQ is a mess, I would put little faith in any document they are creating at this point.

IMHO, Poor planning on the creators part failed to set criteria of what tools to use at what point, what (specific) results are expected.

BTW, is a project required for the ASQ SSBB? and if so, what return is expected?

Carl-

Wes,

As with most things ASQ, the BOK is pretty subjective.

They cover all bases pretty well, for instance, name one quality tool that ISN"T listed somewhere in the BOK!

It does nothing to define Six Sigma as unique, nor does it state any expected result.

It only perpetuates the thought that it is just a repackaged set of old and new tools thrown in a box, shaken (not stirred) and regurgitated in some jumble that doesnt even have a decent flow to it.

Besides, the ASQ is a mess, I would put little faith in any document they are creating at this point.

IMHO, Poor planning on the creators part failed to set criteria of what tools to use at what point, what (specific) results are expected.

I agree the ASQ, as an organization, is in disarray, but the individuals who make up the committees which devise the BOK and the exams for certifications are our peers. Some of them are regular visitors and contributors here in the Cove. Despite the shortcomings of the organization's paid administration, the value of the input and their subsequent output of these volunteers on the BOK committees is excellent.

BTW, is a project required for the ASQ SSBB? and if so, what return is expected?Carl-

The application and rules are silent about dollar value requirement, BUT at least one project plus 3 years of experience at "professional" level is required to sit for the exam. Without experience, TWO projects are required.

A lot of the questions are answered in the formal brochure for the 6SBB certification, including some valuable info about the folks who created the BOK and exam. It is available for download here http://www.asq.org/cert/pdf/ssbb_brochure_04_2.pdf
The affidavit form for the project(s) is here
http://www.asq.org/cert/pdf/ssbb_affidavit.pdf
FAQ about the affidavit are here
http://www.asq.org/cert/faq/index/r16.html

Please understand my role (for the present) in this debate: I want to be certain the debaters are dealing with facts, not myths (a lot of myths on BOTH sides) about 6S, especially as promulgated by ASQ.

If I step outside my role as "fact-bringer" - I think ASQ paid staff has gone way overboard in promoting 6S to the detriment of ALL the other certifications.

There seems to be a misguided notion that, Japanese anything has a correlation to quality. When we speak of Japanese quality, we are indeed merely speaking of the homogenized Toyota Production System (TPS).
I read recently, there are many industries within the Japanese economy that, don't use standardized practices throughout their organizations, meaning they just fly by the seat of their pants (Just like many western organizations).

Six sigma is IMO a decent tool box for measuring and quality control yet, the big issue for SS is, the tools within the box have been misused, misapplied and mismanaged.
Within a system that is designed to be continually improved, SS is of very little use IMO.
I would however use only tools that are appropriate for a particular system. Engineers are generally well trained in all of the appropriate tools to tackle design, system and CI initiatives out with the tool box of SS.
Wallace.

Seat of pants may mean common sense, but then what's the relationship between this and Japan's post WW2 domination of various markets throughout the world, considering Japans starting position in 1945?

Does their slow, continued success come from unaware Senior Management jumping from one 'Quality' initiative to another, or perhaps has it been built on understanding Customers and ensuring sound practise within Manufacture and Supply?

I suppose the misuse of the 'tools' may be down to unaware Company Principles being mis-sold six sigma by us 'Quality' types, on the basis of a fast turnaround (consultants come and go, at the end of the day you pay them and are left with what they leave).

The 'misused, misapplied and mismanaged' comes from wanting 'a quick buck' and not the common sense approach of fully understanding what needs to be done and then doing it in full understanding of all the different factors affecting the Organisation.

The Fast One,
As a Demingite and Systems thinker, I agree with your reply.
I do however view the Japanese tools and methods that are, generally practiced within their culture to be part and parcel of their homogenized society and, may not be applicable in the west (Only under certain conditions).
I have dealt with enough Japanese organizations to get the big picture regarding their use (And respect for) quality systems, statistical and systems thinking. They're not as squeaky clean as we perceive them to be.
For the sake of respect, I wouldn't care to elaborate.
Wallace.

There is a "Living Strategy" discussion location on the ASQ web page which is available for the public to access. You don't have to be an ASQ member.

Paul Borawski, the head of the ASQ staff, has been participating in the discussion. He just posted a comment on my long running arguments against Six Sigma. If you're interested (and you folks here on this thread appear to be), you may want to post a comment there, be it for or against or somewhere in the middle.

http://www.asq.org/cgi-bin/guestbook/guestbook.cgi

There is a screening process for messages to get on the board, but I have seen little negative repurcussions of the screening. It just takes about a day for something to get posted. I have a comment currently in the queue.

I wrote:
Let's use that 6S BOK as the starting point.

Given my recent battles with ASQ over many items, it is not valid for anyone to think that I believe the BOK for 6S at ASQ is the ONLY correct data set. It merely represents a set of criteria we can all have in hand as we debate. Formal debates always posit a set of beliefs for the debaters to argue various facets. No one expects the two sides to come to a conclusion - only to air points of view.

Thanks Wes! As i readover the BOK I was struck by the broadband approach that was given. My previous views of 6s were that some folks got together, made a few charts, and saved a bunch of money. Pretty naive of me I admit but i really had no interest in the topic. Now however, my interest has peaked as the corporate plan is Lean-Six Sigma. As I strive to learn about 6s your post becomes very helpful. Lets just say that my horizons have been expanded! :applause:

....
...Six sigma is IMO a decent tool box for measuring and quality control yet, the big issue for SS is, the tools within the box have been misused, misapplied and mismanaged...

Wallace.

SS has some high minded concepts and if it were properly applied it could do some good, but speaking as an old “Cold Warrior” it is a lot like Communism; sounds great when debated at the highest levels but in reality does not work due to peoples desire to push their agenda instead of seeking the truth. In my analysis, Quality is about seeking the truth. SS is not.

SS has some high minded concepts and if it were properly applied it could do some good, but speaking as an old “Cold Warrior” it is a lot like Communism; sounds great when debated at the highest levels but in reality does not work due to peoples desire to push their agenda instead of seeking the truth. In my analysis, Quality is about seeking the truth. SS is not.

Well, but, you just said it youself: it's not Six Sigma, it's the people who say theyr'e doign six sigma but are only wrapping themselves in that flag to promote theri own agendas...that's not six sigma, that's peopel propmoting their own agendas.

One last stab at this for me: In my experience, Six Sigma - like ISO900, TQM and yes, even "The Deming approach" and "we're going to do SPC" - can be very successful at improving an organizations quality (quality, reliability customer satisfaction, etc.) IF it's applied correctly with passion and committment. Unfortunately we've all seen ISO9000 become just a waste of time with the only goal to keep the registration certificate attached to the wall of lobby. I've seen plenty of Six Sigma implementations that become PR jokes driven by powerpoint engineers and senior managers who only care about theri next stock option award. I was at a major auto manufacturer (japanese) that claimed to want to start "doing Deming". I was recruited to be on the lead implemenation team and I quickly realized that the effort was going to be an exercise in "I say I'm doing it, therefore I am" - but what the heck, I got to go to one of Deming's last public seminars...

However, I have been - and currently am - in a position to lead truly successful Six Sigma "implementations". It DOES work. But it's important to understand what it really is - not what the money grabbing hacks and snake oil salesmen say it is or isn't (who drive the bulk of the published material by the way). It is really just good solid comprehensive appropriate use of all of the known 'quality and statistical engineering' tools.

I suppose for me the key difference is that I get to teach a lot of people these tools and methodologies in a relatively short time frame (4-5 weeks of training), mentor them during actual project work (so the training isn't just a boondoggle) so they really learn and understand the techniques & the tools and the tools are presented in a logical wholistic systemic manner instead the of random, disjointed, un-linked, ad hoc approaches that were previously available to most of us. You know: go take a 1 week SPC course, then some day you get a 1 week DOE course, then you get a 1 week FMEA course (all saying they are infinitely better than the other tools of course).

Many of us do Six Sigma even if we hate the term, have never been to the training etc. because at it's true heart, it's good quality engineering.

But it's important to understand what it really is - not what the money grabbing hacks and snake oil salesmen say it is or isn't (who drive the bulk of the published material by the way). It is really just good solid comprehensive appropriate use of all of the known 'quality and statistical engineering' tools.

You have the right idea, Bev. :agree1: You are like me, if everyone wants to call it six sigma but I get to use all the tools, I am happy.

Bill Pflanz

Well, but, you just said it youself: it's not Six Sigma, it's the people who say theyr'e doign six sigma but are only wrapping themselves in that flag to promote theri own agendas...that's not six sigma, that's peopel propmoting their own agendas.

One last stab at this for me: In my experience, Six Sigma - like ISO900, TQM and yes, even "The Deming approach" and "we're going to do SPC" - can be very successful at improving an organizations quality (quality, reliability customer satisfaction, etc.) IF it's applied correctly with passion and committment. Unfortunately we've all seen ISO9000 become just a waste of time with the only goal to keep the registration certificate attached to the wall of lobby. I've seen plenty of Six Sigma implementations that become PR jokes driven by powerpoint engineers and senior managers who only care about theri next stock option award. I was at a major auto manufacturer (japanese) that claimed to want to start "doing Deming". I was recruited to be on the lead implemenation team and I quickly realized that the effort was going to be an exercise in "I say I'm doing it, therefore I am" - but what the heck, I got to go to one of Deming's last public seminars...

However, I have been - and currently am - in a position to lead truly successful Six Sigma "implementations". It DOES work. But it's important to understand what it really is - not what the money grabbing hacks and snake oil salesmen say it is or isn't (who drive the bulk of the published material by the way). It is really just good solid comprehensive appropriate use of all of the known 'quality and statistical engineering' tools.

I suppose for me the key difference is that I get to teach a lot of people these tools and methodologies in a relatively short time frame (4-5 weeks of training), mentor them during actual project work (so the training isn't just a boondoggle) so they really learn and understand the techniques & the tools and the tools are presented in a logical wholistic systemic manner instead the of random, disjointed, un-linked, ad hoc approaches that were previously available to most of us. You know: go take a 1 week SPC course, then some day you get a 1 week DOE course, then you get a 1 week FMEA course (all saying they are infinitely better than the other tools of course).

Many of us do Six Sigma even if we hate the term, have never been to the training etc. because at it's true heart, it's good quality engineering.

Yes, I would agree to a point, but true SS implementation is only a pipe dream! Six Sigma was trademarked by people who were smart enough to market a perceived quick fix for companies with weak Quality systems. If everyone loved one another, there would never be any wars. Unfortunately, you cannot get past personal agendas and SS corrupts the pure science of quality engineering. "Black Belt" and "Master Black Belt” has the stink of a marketing ploy and not quality. SS is not good QE. QE is good QE. If Quality is a religion than SS is a cult. If you want to call it QE then call it QE. Most of us never do, “Six Sigma”, we use proven quality tools, and some have been corrupted into “Six Sigma” strategies.