Folks, we do have the most interesting Six Sigma thread (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=3823), but are YOU using six sigma? If so, what is it doing for you?

I want to expand a bit on http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=7324

Any case studies or data?

We don't have a Six Sigma program, per se (meaning we have no "belts" here). We do, however, use the tools that have only been repackaged.

Bill

My present employer is a smaller company (200+), therefore we use the "generic" brand, instead of the designer SixSigma® brand. In other words, we use the storehouse of proven quality and statistical methods wherever practical. ;)

We use six sigma. Company sizee = 300

2 black belts

30+ green belts (most are active)

Geoff,

May I ask, what do your 30 green belts and 2 black belts do during a typical day that is related to six sigma?

I think we need another choice on the poll. We are using six sigma in name only, results are inconsistently effective.

I think if we committed ourselves (ALL management) and worked the program as it was meant to be used, we would see much greater benefit than we do. In some areas, we started to see some great results, but then we stopped using the tools to follow through and kill the issue dead.

I think if we committed ourselves (ALL management) and worked the program as it was meant to be used, we would see much greater benefit than we do. In some areas, we started to see some great results, but then we stopped using the tools to follow through and kill the issue dead.

VERY COMMON! I think the exact same thing could be said about most any "program" whether it be something in the workplace (Six Sigma, TQM, SPC, DOE, award/recognition, etc.) or in our personal lives (diets, exercise, etc.).

Rob,


Firstly I think we need to recognise that the 6 Sigma tools are nothing new and some have been around since Pascal was a lad.

In our plant we have slowly introduced the tools of “Quality Engineering” to all functions within the organisation. If I were asked for a time scale I would estimate 15 years. During this time team work has become our culture, prior to 6 Sigma teams struggled with handling data and understanding what the data was telling them because in the main they used the Quality Engineering tools in isolation, there was no firm structure on when to use which tool, and the reporting mechanism was weak, worst still we made the improvements but didn’t allocate any savings to it.

Using TQ programs, kaizen, TOPS, etc there have been lots of success stories but now and then some disappointments.

We introduced 6 Sigma back in 1998, we saw it as an opportunity to move our team and continuous improvement culture one step further, use the QE tools in a more structured way, create a better reporting structure and capture the cost benefits.

Most of the greenbelts are from the engineering staff; we have some in Purchasing, IT, Finance, Marketing and Logistics.

Two blackbelts, one from Quality Engineering and one from what used to be called “work study”.

The blackbelts identify projects, look at the potential cost benefits (along with Finance), provide training to employees and suppliers, and support ALL the teams both internal and within the supply chain. Blackbelts report general progress of the program to the management team etc.

The greenbelts, around 4 per team (and the two blackbelts), work on projects, the level of activity varies depending upon the subject, the teams have are formal report back meeting every two weeks (about one hour). At the meeting data is presented and reviewed, actions are determined for the next step etc.

Teamwork and Continuos Improvement and working within a culture of change are not issues here any more, therefor the implementation of 6 Sigma was not painful, to us it was/is one of those subtle nudges forward we need now and then.

We introduced 6 Sigma back in 1998, we saw it as an opportunity to move our team and continuous improvement culture one step further, use the QE tools in a more structured way, create a better reporting structure and capture the cost benefits.

Most of the greenbelts are from the engineering staff; we have some in Purchasing, IT, Finance, Marketing and Logistics.

Two blackbelts, one from Quality Engineering and one from what used to be called “work study”.

The blackbelts identify projects, look at the potential cost benefits (along with Finance), provide training to employees and suppliers, and support ALL the teams both internal and within the supply chain. Blackbelts report general progress of the program to the management team etc.

The greenbelts, around 4 per team (and the two blackbelts), work on projects, the level of activity varies depending upon the subject, the teams have are formal report back meeting every two weeks (about one hour). At the meeting data is presented and reviewed, actions are determined for the next step etc.

Teamwork and Continuos Improvement and working within a culture of change are not issues here any more, therefor the implementation of 6 Sigma was not painful, to us it was/is one of those subtle nudges forward we need now and then. We use six sigma. Company sizee = 300
2 black belts
30+ green belts (most are active)I think I'm confused.
Do the BB act as sort of full-time "ambassadors at large" to go around the plant and try to identify projects, then plan programs to "improve" those projects, by involving their cadre of GB, with the BB acting as "reports to" leaders who check and guide the work of the GB?

I have worked in several operations with employee counts running between 100 and 500. I am astounded there is any operation of that size that has sufficient "inefficiencies" in its operations to support two full-time "trouble-shooters" for any length of time. I understand the role of the GB - they do their regular jobs and pitch in on a team for a specific identified project.

In addition to the 6S-associated personnel, is there also a Quality department? Or have they been merged into the 6S program?

What did the Quality people do before you instituted the 6S program?

Understand that I am not disparaging the 6S concept. I am just confused by the numbers of team members in what would be considered a "small business" anywhere in USA.

The BB’s do act as ambassadors, not only guiding the GB's but also the Senior Management Team.

The BB’s are not going at 6 Sigma on a full time basis, but it is embroiled throughout the day to day activity. The BB’s also support our sister companies in Europe and work with our suppliers in their 6 Sigma efforts.

We do have a Quality Assurance function; there are 5 GB’s and 1 BB in the department. (I should point out here that they are not “inspectors”. They don’t exist any more.)

Regarding the “sufficient inefficiencies”; Identifying potential projects tends to be an annual event where the BB's sit down with Finance and review the metrics each year we look for a 5% reduction in our SCOP; its becoming more and more difficult though as the obvious "waste" was ripped out some years ago.

We do have a large number of GB’s, we trained so many as we had opportunity to do so at the time and decided not to create an elite group of staff.

The BB’s do act as ambassadors, not only guiding the GB's but also the Senior Management Team.

The BB’s are not going at 6 Sigma on a full time basis, but it is embroiled throughout the day to day activity. The BB’s also support our sister companies in Europe and work with our suppliers in their 6 Sigma efforts.

We do have a Quality Assurance function; there are 5 GB’s and 1 BB in the department. (I should point out here that they are not “inspectors”. They don’t exist any more.)

Regarding the “sufficient inefficiencies”; Identifying potential projects tends to be an annual event where the BB's sit down with Finance and review the metrics each year we look for a 5% reduction in our SCOP; its becoming more and more difficult though as the obvious "waste" was ripped out some years ago.

We do have a large number of GB’s, we trained so many as we had opportunity to do so at the time and decided not to create an elite group of staff."I see!" exclaimed the blind man.
So how many facilities and how many employees world-wide? That might put the BB/employee ratio in a different perspective.
What else besides BB activity do the BB's do? (One is stated to be in Quality dept. - I presume he has input on Contract Review?)
I applaud eliminating "inspector" as a separate and distinct category. A demingite (especially one as ingrained as I) applauds the concept of "prevention attention" instead of "detection attention."
I wonder if enough "future planning" trickles down in your organization to know if the future portends either [employee, plant, and facility] expansion or elimination of one or both BB roles.

World wide we have around 30 plants with just over 7000 employees.

263 GB’s, 11 BB’s, 1 MBB, in the group.

Over 50 GB’s within our supply chain.

The BB role was quit intensive at first but has settled down over the past couple of years.

Quality are part of the New Product Realisation Team (cross functional team). By the time new products get to the team Contract Review has been dealt with by the Marketing types.

World wide we have around 30 plants with just over 7000 employees.

263 GB’s, 11 BB’s, 1 MBB, in the group.

Over 50 GB’s within our supply chain.

The BB role was quit intensive at first but has settled down over the past couple of years.

Quality are part of the New Product Realisation Team (cross functional team). By the time new products get to the team Contract Review has been dealt with by the Marketing types.Ah, yes!
Everything takes perspective to understand.
With these workforce populations you cite, the 6S cadre seems much more appropriate.
Thanks for indulging my curiosity.
My understanding is most supply chains could use "tweaking" - last night, a supplier wanted to charge me $20 for 7 day ground shipping for a $6.75 item that weighed 1/2 pound (8 ounces or 225 grams) and could fit in an overnight envelope that U.S. postal service supplies free and will deliver overnight anywhere in continental U.S. (Express Mail - delivers 365 days/year) for $10.70, insured up to $100. (Plus, the mailman will pick it up free during his regular delivery.)

Quality are part of the New Product Realisation Team (cross functional team). By the time new products get to the team Contract Review has been dealt with by the Marketing types.This item I have an issue with.
In terms of a contract, are the marketing people completely aware of all the subordinate issues which go to support a contract?

capability (equipment and personnel)
capacity (equipment and personnel)
availability and cost of raw materials/components
inspection equipment and techniques required to assure customer requirements
assurance Customer Q folk and Supplier Q folk are talking same language
availability of new equipment [to purchase] which would give marketing folk competitive edge [or not]
packaging and shipping requirements/constraints
costs of all of the above
I believe ALL contract review should be cross functional.

I think we need another choice on the poll. We are using six sigma in name only, results are inconsistently effective.

I think if we committed ourselves (ALL management) and worked the program as it was meant to be used, we would see much greater benefit than we do. In some areas, we started to see some great results, but then we stopped using the tools to follow through and kill the issue dead.

We do not have Six Sigma and it is not that big in Australia although the Peak registrar Body is now teaching it and promoting it. Our company started Kepner -Tregoe 'Problem Solving' a few years ago at GREAT expense and did not train any experts. It died a natural death but it was another FAD we had to have. I am not putting down 6S as I know very little about it. I am talking about how my company seems to work. We go thru all of this Guru training from time to time 'The six Hats', Juran, KT, Mind Expansion etc. The biggest problem is that it is then treated like Quality ....It is someone elses responibility or it is too much hard work so they forget it and it sits in a box and rots.

Greg B

Formally no.

However we use many of the analysis tools, more so now, and with a new software ERP system on line and a machine monitoring (real time) system soon to go live (probably limp into life !!) we will have more finite and readily available info to play with.

We are only 45 people spread over 3 shifts / 24 hours.

I feel 6S is very beneficial in larger businesses and corporations where the communication can/is lost across the different departments.

In our cosy little building we all know, within reason, what is to be done and when.

Anyone who hasn't voted in this poll yet, or that has current comments?

Just voted.
Not interested.
Waste of time, money and resources.

Carl-

Since I joined the Cove after this thread was started and ended, I do not remember reading it before. It does not appear that Geoff Cotton participates very frequently in the forum, but I found his comments on the implementation of Six Sigma very interesting.

Geoff works for a large international corporation and they have chosen the name of Six Sigma as their quality banner and their process improvement experts are called black belts. The culture, tools, teamwork, data analysis etc. are all flown under the six sigma banner. Although he does not specifically mention it but is obvious to me is that they have a constancy of purpose for using a defined improvement process that is built into the way they manage their business. If calling it Six Sigma keeps the banner flying than great.

The problem is that no matter what you call it, improvement only works if you have a committed management who will stay the course and invest in the time and resources to constantly and continually improve their organization. All of us would be willing to work for a company like that no matter what they called it.

By the way, I voted we have Six Sigma and effective. It is not as good as what I described above but there was there was no other choice. If Geoff still visits, I would like to hear more from him and if I have interpreted his comments appropriately.

Bill Pflanz

The problem is that no matter what you call it, improvement only works if you have a committed management who will stay the course and invest in the time and resources to constantly and continually improve their organization. All of us would be willing to work for a company like that no matter what they called it.

By the way, I voted we have Six Sigma and effective. It is not as good as what I described above but there was there was no other choice. If Geoff still visits, I would like to hear more from him and if I have interpreted his comments appropriately.

This thread was resurrected over the weekend as sometimes happens in the Cove. Since I had the last posting I read what I had written in November 2004.

Some things have changed since then including that I no longer work at that company. In the months before I left it was becoming apparent that resources and management time would not be invested in Six Sigma. I believe one of its failures was an over-emphasis on internal certification of green and black belts rather than focusing on improving what was strategically important to the company. As a matter of fact, it was hard to determine if they had even thought about tying any improvement plans to their strategic objectives.

Whether it is Six Sigma or some other quality effort, it will eventually die without management support.

Bill Pflanz

Though we are using statistical tools to maintain & improve our system but I am not satisfied. I need to implement six sigma in my org but don't know how.:nope:

Though we are using statistical tools to maintain & improve our system but I am not satisfied. I need to implement six sigma in my org but don't know how.:nope:

Hello amanbhai,

Would six sigma be the only way to improve your organization? You are already applying statistical tools. What is not working? "Tools" used in an environment/culture that is not responsive, or a management team that is not committed, wil not work very well. In many cases it is a cultural and behavioral change that is required to make improvements happen. Tools alone won't do it, a true desire to improve on everyone's part will.

Stijloor.

Covers,

I find it interesting that approximately 50% (so far) of the votes on this question are “Not interested. Statistical techniques in general work for us.”

I may be wrong, but “Not interested” appears to me to mean, I haven’t tried it but we are doing just fine and we do not need to try it.

Are you really doing a good as you could be using only statistical techniques in general? If you haven’t tried it, how do you know Six Sigma will not add value to you processes? Are you putting the concerted effort into continuous improvement that you would if you had a dedicated group concentrating on those efforts?

Is it any wonder that companies do not try, or only half heartedly try, to implement Six Sigma when nearly half the quality professionals think Six Sigma is not needed?

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but consider this, if Quality and Six Sigma were to form the kind of partnership that gave the Quality Department and the Six Sigma group the mechanism to have all issues of concern fully investigated, imagine what we could accomplish!

Best regards,

Jim Shelor

Covers,
Are you really doing a good as you could be using only statistical techniques in general? If you haven’t tried it, how do you know Six Sigma will not add value to you processes?
Sometimes we learn from the experience of others, without directly experiencing something ourselves. I have never been run over by a train, but I'm pretty sure that the experience wouldn't be "value-added."

Are you putting the concerted effort into continuous improvement that you would if you had a dedicated group concentrating on those efforts?Isn't this what quality departments should be doing as a matter of course?

<snip>

Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but consider this, if Quality and Six Sigma were to form the kind of partnership that gave the Quality Department and the Six Sigma group the mechanism to have all issues of concern fully investigated, imagine what we could accomplish!

If management types would allow quality people to concentrate on improvement rather than inspection, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If upper management jumps on the SS bandwagon and people are actually allowed to concentrate on improvement, it might be a good thing, but the main problem hasn't been solved. Why does upper management need a bandwagon to jump on in order to be persuaded that continualous improvement is a good thing? In companies where the top management really gets it, and gives people permission to make decisions and improve things, SS isn't necessary. At best it's a wedge.

If management types would allow quality people to concentrate on improvement rather than inspection, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If upper management jumps on the SS bandwagon and people are actually allowed to concentrate on improvement, it might be a good thing, but the main problem hasn't been solved. Why does upper management need a bandwagon to jump on in order to be persuaded that continualous improvement is a good thing? In companies where the top management really gets it, and gives people permission to make decisions and improve things, SS isn't necessary. At best it's a wedge.

Jim,

At the risk of sounding argumentative, the last time I looked, what, when, where, and how much got inspected was determined by the Quality Department and those decisions got made with input from the QEs.

With the exception of asking “Why do we have to inspect so much?” I have seldom seen a senior manager get involved in these decisions.

So who is it you are asking to provide more time to concentrate on improvements rather than inspections? Senior Managers or Quality Managers?

Further, aren’t the results of inspections, by and large, the source of the data to make improvement recommendations and decisions? Accordingly, are your inspection efforts a hindrance or a help to your continuous improvement efforts?

Respects,

Jim Shelor

Another voting option should be that your company doesn't use six sigma and you have no control over training anyone to use six sigma. :nopity:

My company of over 60,000 employees will send people for training in a variety of Quality procedures, but not for six sigma. We utilize many of the six sigma tools, but do not certify anyone in this process. Some individuals may be certified because they were either certified by a previous employer or they paid for the certification theirselves.