What's next for Six Sigma?
My sister in-law is a master BB with GE and, she indicated to me that, Six sigma at GE is moving more towards lean tools and techniques. She also mentioned that SS is more or less, an established culture at GE for the most part and, a natural progression or assimilation to and with other business tools and techniques is being infused into the mainstream.
What does the group have to say?
Wallace.

What's next for Six Sigma?
My sister in-law is a master BB with GE and, she indicated to me that, Six sigma at GE is moving more towards lean tools and techniques. She also mentioned that SS is more or less, an established culture at GE for the most part and, a natural progression or assimilation to and with other business tools and techniques is being infused into the mainstream.
What does the group have to say?
Wallace.Interesting.
Certainly, paid staff and elected officials at ASQ seem to be much more Six Sigma-centric than in the past. In addition, I belong to an ASQ interest group (on its way to becoming a Division or Forum): ASQ's Advanced Manufacturing Interest Group (AMIG) which has lean manufacturing as its central focus.

Therefore, I can report that ASQ seems to be echoing what your sister-in-law observes at GE.

Maybe the fact is that, we in the west have at last decided to cut through the BS of quality initiatives. Maybe, just maybe, we have come to the realization point that, Lean tools and techniques have all along been the potential panacea for the ills of standardized western quality management.
Hmm, I wonder.
Wallace

What's next for Six Sigma?
My sister in-law ... also mentioned that SS is more or less, an established culture at GE for the most part and, a natural progression or assimilation to and with other business tools and techniques is being infused into the mainstream.
What does the group have to say?
Wallace.

It didn't take very long after Jack's departure for GE to decide that maybe there was something else besides Six Sigma. Since SS is now part of the established culture they are probably replacing their SS training with lean manufacturing. I just saw a book on Lean Six Sigma which combines the two methodologies.

Since we are getting leaner, maybe they could have black and green suspenders to hold everything up and differentiate between the various grades. ;)

Maybe I shouldn't have made the last comment and trademarked it first. :D

Bill

The other parallel is that, TOYOTA has lean as their established culture and they use statistical tools that are merely part of the SPC tool box.
There's lots of lessons to be learned there for sure.
Wallace.

Here also, in the company that I work with, It began to work with Kaisen and now trained some in SS and Lean Manufacturing.

It's a tendence.
:bonk:

Maybe, just maybe, we have come to the realization point that, Lean tools and techniques have all along been the potential panacea for the ills of standardized western quality management.

Wallace
Lean a panacea? Not likely IMO unless some lean tools and techniques involve reprogramming grey matter in the brains of Management. As I have said in another thread, IMO much of today's Management does not lack the right tools, they lack the will to use them.

Lean a panacea? Not likely IMO unless some lean tools and techniques involve reprogramming grey matter in the brains of Management. As I have said in another thread, IMO much of today's Management does not lack the right tools, they lack the will to use them.

The word Panacea may have been misapropriately used in my post, It was the best I could come up with though. I firmly believe that, we in the west do indeed need a tool box of management tools that would act as a panacea for the ills of management practices.
Mike, why do you believe management lacks the will to use the right tools?
Wallace.

The word Panacea may have been misapropriately used in my post, It was the best I could come up with though. I firmly believe that, we in the west do indeed need a tool box of management tools that would act as a panacea for the ills of management practices.
Mike, why do you believe management lacks the will to use the right tools?
Wallace.

Way too much personal experience, plus research and observation, leads me to believe that much too often management lacks the will to use the right tools, Wallace. IMO there are tons of tools that would do the job, and many Q practitioners who are aware of them and able to put them into use, but there are many fewer companies who will put them into use. Even basic common sense if often missing. Figuratively , management walks by garages full of fine tools and mechanics, ignoring them, and instead employs hopes, wishes, and witch doctors to solve their problems, lamenting the lack of success all the while. They are often prime examples of the definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. And it frustrates the heck out of me. :bonk:

I realize there are some very fine and well-run companies out there. There may even be a few who have reached the end of the capabilities of the tool set they have employed and may need new and better tools to move forward. God bless them! But they are few and far between, IMO.

Should you doubt that the lack of tools is less a problem than the will to use them, I'd be happy to post a poll of the Cove members asking their opinions. I'm pretty sure I know what the result will look like, but I've been wrong before.

I couldn't agree more with Mike. :agree1:

If you polled me, I'd say the same; plenty of outstanding tools, plenty of outstanding quality people that know how to use them, but a scarcity of management buy in.

A good test is to list those who are sent to the seminars on all these tools. If it is not TOP management, but rather the middlings of the organization, it ain't gonna have lasting success.

A good test is to list those who are sent to the seminars on all these tools. If it is not TOP management, but rather the middlings of the organization, it ain't gonna have lasting success.


Rob,

I hear many quality professionals and also consultants say that the problem is that top management should attend the seminars and then TQM, Six Sigma, Continual Improvement, or (fill in the blank) will succeed.

As quality professionals we spend years learning the tools and methodologies so it is unlikely that top management will ever learn or even want to learn what is needed for the program to be successful. That is okay since that is what they have us for.

What is really needed is for top management to agree that there is a need for quality professionals in the same way there is a need for accountants, HR, sales, engineering etc. When that happens they will not only let us do the job but support us in a visible way. Some of us have worked for executives who believed in the concept and yet they did not sit in hours of seminars trying to learn what we do. The problem with most executive seminars is that they are aimed at explaining why the executive should do (fill in the blank) program and why they should buy the books, tapes, and consulting services to implement the program.

Wouldn't it be great to have an executive seminar that taught if you have a quality professional with this body of knowledge than you should support them and if you don't have one then find one? What you need is a quality champion. Note my chosen title below my name. Here is what I believe a quality champion is.

"The [quality] champion is not a blue-sky dreamer, nor an intellectual giant.
The champion might even be an idea thief. But, above all, he’s the pragmatic one who grabs onto someone else’s theoretical construct if necessary and bullheadedly pushes it to fruition . . .
Champions are pioneers, and pioneers get shot at. The companies that get the most from champions, therefore, are those that have rich support networks so that their pioneers will flourish. This point is so important it’s hard to overstress.

No support system, no champions. No champions, no innovation."

Thomas Peters and Robert Waterman, Jr. In Search Of Excellence

Bill,

In my effort to be brief, I did leave much unsaid - which you explained succinctly.

I did mention "management buy in", which implies that they are not the implementers and end users, but the supporters. So, they MUST be the champions - the ones with the passion and drive to make any new initiative (such as lean enterprise) successful. To have that passion requires adequate insight and knowledge of an initiative so as to BELIEVE in it! So management MUST have, at the very least, been part of some executive awareness session, or other significant explanation of the benefits (e.g. case studies) and the methodology to be employed.

What I have seen too often however (and perhaps Mike S. has too), is a customer telling a CEO, "to do business with us you must be actively implementing 'Lean Sigma Du Jour'. He tells the Quality Manager to go to the seminars and get this LSDJ thing going, WITHOUT communicating to all the other department heads and other key people that it is HIS (CEOs) project - and he/she expects it to be successful. As Mike says, "lack of tools is less a problem than the will to use them".

That said, a good Quality Professional will do everything in his/her power to enlighten the top dogs about the advantages (to the business and to them personally) of the quality initiative. They should be the consummate salesperson.

Bill,

In my effort to be brief, I did leave much unsaid - which you explained succinctly.

I did mention "management buy in", which implies that they are not the implementers and end users, but the supporters. So, they MUST be the champions - the ones with the passion and drive to make any new initiative (such as lean enterprise) successful. To have that passion requires adequate insight and knowledge of an initiative so as to BELIEVE in it! So management MUST have, at the very least, been part of some executive awareness session, or other significant explanation of the benefits (e.g. case studies) and the methodology to be employed.

What I have seen too often however (and perhaps Mike S. has too), is a customer telling a CEO, "to do business with us you must be actively implementing 'Lean Sigma Du Jour'. He tells the Quality Manager to go to the seminars and get this LSDJ thing going, WITHOUT communicating to all the other department heads and other key people that it is HIS (CEOs) project - and he/she expects it to be successful. As Mike says, "lack of tools is less a problem than the will to use them".

That said, a good Quality Professional will do everything in his/her power to enlighten the top dogs about the advantages (to the business and to them personally) of the quality initiative. They should be the consummate salesperson.I think Rob has much of the solution in his own response:
communicating to all the other department heads and other key people that it is HIS (CEOs) project
The simplest solution, then, is for the Quality guy to say to the CEO,
"Absolutely, Boss. Would you mind sending a memo to all the department heads that this project is important to you so I can get full cooperation?"

I think Rob has much of the solution in his own response:

The simplest solution, then, is for the Quality guy to say to the CEO,
"Absolutely, Boss. Would you mind sending a memo to all the department heads that this project is important to you so I can get full cooperation?"

Too simple, unfortunately. I have seen this Boss' memo or speech or whatever be the kickoff of the quality program -- often with great fanfare. But it doesn't mean much. I would bet that at over 50% of the places with failed or greatly sub-optimal QM systems the Boss gave such a memo or speech but failed to adequately support the initiative down the road and thus prove that he/she never did truly believe in it.

I often use this analogy.

Let's say we all want to get into shape. Some of us are closer to being "in shape" than others. This means two things. First of all, those farthest away will show the largest gain. At the same time we, I mean they :o will also have to expend the most resources to get there. The closer we get to ideal, the less incremental increase we will have for the resources spent. Once we are all in shape, then we still have to spend resources to maintain the current state, but less than we did to get in shape.

We can apply the same thing to our QMS, or 6S, or Lean, or anything else. The key is to internalize it, and make it a standard part of our business. At some point, we should quit looking for the next "fix" because there is little or nothing left to fix. Now we use different resources (tools) for maintenance, than we did for improvement.

Make sense?

Mike and Rob have it right.
Top management can't do it by lip service, they must be involved and walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Too many try to drive quality but only so far. If not willing to lead the quality improvements and use the tools why keep frustrating the quality professionals. We can "champion" ourself right out the door. It's all about money, and how to show a profit, but what techniques are used depend upon the skill, and attitude of the top management. Now I believe showing a profit is a good thing. Obviously we have to pay the bills, and make something. That being said...there is still way too much focus on short term results, and six sigma or other fads du jour are not going to change anything until the person at the top is willing to take hold and lead the effort.
JMO as always

Dave B has the right idea about using your quality professionals for on-going maintenance not just for fixes. A maintenance department could be used only when the equipment is broken. If that is all you wanted, companies would contract the work and let them go when the fix is completed. That is what has happened to quality professionals many times.

A core maintenance department is kept to do preventative maintenance and to do planned, controlled shutdowns for fixes rather than having a chinese fire drill every time something breaks. All companies need a core quality group that does the same thing for continual improvement. The management support should be the same for quality as maintenance. I don't think too many companies would be willing to do away with their maintenance department to save some short term money.

Rob indicated that management should "champion" quality. I don't want a cheerleader, I want a support system. Most if not all quality professionals do a good job of championing quality but will be ignored without the support of management. For a pioneer willing to clear a new path to improvement, the support should include being given the necessary resources to accomplish the job.

Management wants improvement but don't always support those who are willing to go to some place new. The risk of any pioneer is being shot. I am willing and have been shot but I survived. An old pioneer who survived is better than a young pioneer who got shot and left to die along the road because they were sent out without the things needed to thrive.

Bill

Rob indicated that management should "champion" quality. I don't want a cheerleader, I want a support system. Most if not all quality professionals do a good job of championing quality but will be ignored without the support of management. For a pioneer willing to clear a new path to improvement, the support should include being given the necessary resources to accomplish the job. BillIn my mind (not necessarily a pretty place to be), "Champion" is not a cheerleader, but the guy who makes things happen. If we use a professional team sports analogy, the Champion is the owner who hires the right team members and coaches and gives them a good stadium, good competition, good publicity, and hopes this will all result in paid audience attendance.

I want that champion to have a stake in the outcome - good or bad - of the program, process, or project. If the champion doesn't have something to win or lose, how can we count on him in the clutch? Cheerleaders might be happy or sad at the game outcome, but, quite frankly, they don't have much stake in the game.

I want that champion to have a stake in the outcome - good or bad - of the program, process, or project. If the champion doesn't have something to win or lose, how can we count on him in the clutch? Cheerleaders might be happy or sad at the game outcome, but, quite frankly, they don't have much stake in the game.

So what you are saying, Wes, is that George Steinbrenner is the real hero in New York since he did everything that you said. The Chicago Cubs, on the other hand, don't want to win, were not given the resources, have never been profitable, don't have satisfied customers and the players and coaches just want out. It sounds to me that they need to hire George if they ever want to be successful.

Bill

Too simple, unfortunately. I have seen this Boss' memo or speech or whatever be the kickoff of the quality program -- often with great fanfare. But it doesn't mean much. I would bet that at over 50% of the places with failed or greatly sub-optimal QM systems the Boss gave such a memo or speech but failed to adequately support the initiative down the road and thus prove that he/she never did truly believe in it.


The four most important tools in a salespersons basket of tricks are; 1) Repeat and Remind, FOLLOWUP, FOLLOWUP and FOLLOWUP.

So what you are saying, Wes, is that George Steinbrenner is the real hero in New York since he did everything that you said. The Chicago Cubs, on the other hand, don't want to win, were not given the resources, have never been profitable, don't have satisfied customers and the players and coaches just want out. It sounds to me that they need to hire George if they ever want to be successful. BillI think what it really means is that unless the employee acting as champion has a lot to LOSE or GAIN on the outcome, he's a cheerleader, not a coach or manager. The coach or manager will lose his job if the season is a loser. He gets a bigger contract if the team is a winner.

Re: the Cubbies
For years and years, old man Wrigley kept the team in rags and fed them beans because it was a "hobby" with him. He never tried to parlay the team into an advertising vehicle for his gum the way the Busch family did for their beer. He didn't see it as a profit vehicle like Steinbrenner. In fact, he was so ignorant of money matters, he died intestate (no will) and the State and feds gobbled up a large chunk of the estate - one of the reasons the Tribune was able to buy the team at bargain basement price.

The only good thing about Mr. Wrigley was that he answered his own phone. If you were the President of the United States or a gum chewer, when you asked for Mr. Wrigley, the switchboard put you right through - no gatekeepers. (That, and maybe the Doublemint twins.)

Today, the Tribune company owns the team. They make much more money selling ads in their papers and TV and radio than the team could ever hope to bring in. Tribune doesn't have much to lose if the team continues as an also-ran nor much more to gain if the team is a winner.

Interesting sidelight: the restaurant group that bought and destroyed "the ball" for $100,000 has had a $600,000 increase in sales over the previous year.

The four most important tools in a salespersons basket of tricks are; 1) Repeat and Remind, FOLLOWUP, FOLLOWUP and FOLLOWUP.In regard to adopting or adapting 6S, or Lean, or any other "Program du Jour," there is an interesting article in the April, 2004 issue of Quality Progress (the ASQ magazine):
Change Management: Overcoming Resistance to Change by Brien Palmer.

It is an excerpt of Palmer's book, published earlier this year by Quality Press:
Making Change Work: Practical Tools for Overcoming Human Resistance to Change

Palmer's main point is
"Changes that fail usually do so because of human, not technical, reasons."

In essence, Palmer uses a FMEA-type grid to pre-assess an organization's readiness for Change.

Regardless of whether I agree with Palmer's conclusions, I admit the grid is a potentially handy tool when working on a small (team or department) change or an organization-wide change.

ASQ members can access the article in electronic format (pdf) at:
http://www.asq.org/members/news/qualityprogress/2004/0404/qp0404palmer.pdf
Sadly, ASQ has chosen this as one of the articles limited for distribution to members only. Perhaps you have a friend who can download it and "lend" it to you for reading. (Obviously, we would be in violation of copyright laws to post the pdf file here.)

Regarding the original question of Six Sigma, I thought you may be interested to read a critique of Six Sigma by John Seddon. The reason for my interest is not simply to post something that is against Six Sigma, but that gives some interesting reasons why. Also, in line with some earlier posts, John Seddon is a Lean thinker.

As the original text from John is a bit long I will attempt to place it as an attachment to this message...

Ilias

The four most important tools in a salespersons basket of tricks are; 1) Repeat and Remind, FOLLOWUP, FOLLOWUP and FOLLOWUP.

Ahhh, yes, but then that salesperson really wants to get that sale, and make it as successful (big) as possible, not just make it look like he is interested in sales and satisfied with a few small gains.

I've told the story before of a guy interviewing with me and other senior staff for the position of V.P. in the company I was with years back. This guy said ISO was just a small part of what he wanted us to achieve -- he said he was a firm believer in being among the very best (world class) and he would have us at the Malcom-Baldrige winner level in 3-5 years. This impressed the rest of the staff greatly, but for several reasons I was not buying it. However, he was hired against my vote, in no small part because of this MB speech. Long story short -- he was one of the least quality-oriented V.P's or Senior Managers I ever worked with. He was all smoke and no fire, but he got paid over 50% more than me and after helping to run the company into the red to the point it was gonna be sold, he walked away with a great (over a year's salary) severance package -- something I did not get. Just one example of why I have little patience for those who talk quality but don't live it. :mad:

Ahhh, yes, but then that salesperson really wants to get that sale, and make it as successful (big) as possible, not just make it look like he is interested in sales and satisfied with a few small gains.

Just one example of why I have little patience for those who talk quality but don't live it. :mad:

Looks like I've found another lost brother on the Cove. . . as the years have gone on, I've seen the talkers come and go. . . and the talk not walked. . . I have no patience left.

This is one reason I work for myself now. . . I have a saying, "I make my living out of other people's chaos."

Maybe you should find out where that guy went. . .and start following him around and putting the pieces back together. You could probably do quite well. Always costs more to fix something than to break it. :lmao:

I think Rob has much of the solution in his own response:
The simplest solution, then, is for the Quality guy to say to the CEO,
"Absolutely, Boss. Would you mind sending a memo to all the department heads that this project is important to you so I can get full cooperation?"
Too simple, unfortunately. I have seen this Boss' memo or speech or whatever be the kickoff of the quality program -- often with great fanfare. But it doesn't mean much. I would bet that at over 50% of the places with failed or greatly sub-optimal QM systems the Boss gave such a memo or speech but failed to adequately support the initiative down the road and thus prove that he/she never did truly believe in it.
The only times I have seen it be effective is where the top management

Communicates that it is important to him or her and
Actively and visibly demonstrates commitment by words and actions and
Makes measurement and review of the QMS a visible and important part of managment oversight and performance assessment.
Like most (all?) of us I have seen or been part of too many "flavor of the month" programs with leadership from the top consisting of nothing more than what I call TQLS: Total Quality Lip Service.

The most effective example of top managment support that I have seen was the commanding officer of a Naval Shipyard. Part of his demonstration that it was important to him was teaching large portions of the courses that middle management had to take, and the first and last sessions of the course taken by workers. When the Big Boss is teaching the class, you truly believe it is important! (Especially as one of the messages he communicated to middle management was that their job was to "lead, follow or get out of the way.")

I agree with the importance of the right statistical tools, and the importance of the management statisticaly directed (to take in account statistics not numbers), IMO a misinterpretation of the SixSigma that came because of the selfish point of view of many practitioners, they see themselves at the top of the mountain (QuasiGods) and all they say is true because of the statistics applicated to it (no matter that they used the wrong tools or considerations), and the managers beleibe their speech like Mike said (Sales all right). :bonk:

I am seeing here a tendence to use tools like Kaisen and SixSigma as a mean to fix mantenence problems, "the Kaisen and SixSigma Group has the money bag, so leave the mantenence problems until they fix it", so not an improvement tool.
:mad:

The only times I have seen it be effective is where the top management

Communicates that it is important to him or her and
Actively and visibly demonstrates commitment by words and actions and
Makes measurement and review of the QMS a visible and important part of managment oversight and performance assessment.
Like most (all?) of us I have seen or been part of too many "flavor of the month" programs with leadership from the top consisting of nothing more than what I call TQLS: Total Quality Lip Service.

The most effective example of top managment support that I have seen was the commanding officer of a Naval Shipyard. Part of his demonstration that it was important to him was teaching large portions of the courses that middle management had to take, and the first and last sessions of the course taken by workers. When the Big Boss is teaching the class, you truly believe it is important! (Especially as one of the messages he communicated to middle management was that their job was to "lead, follow or get out of the way.")

Now there's someone who "gets it" -- Graeme and the CO of the shipyard. :agree1:

well, maybe not exactly. I'm not sure that ball game analogies are appropriate. In sports, their are forced winners and losers adn eventually after the playoffs there is only one "winner" by definition. In business, there can be many "winners". So Wes's point about having the champions be accountable for the results is a valid one.

well, maybe not exactly. I'm not sure that ball game analogies are appropriate. In sports, their are forced winners and losers adn eventually after the playoffs there is only one "winner" by definition. In business, there can be many "winners". So Wes's point about having the champions be accountable for the results is a valid one.

Bev,

Please look back further in the thread. The baseball topic started about making a change and not looking at the impact of the change, or not modifying other supporting processes.

Really didn't intend to look at it as winning or losing.

I know we don’t want to get into a baseball analogy but it is a business like anything else. My point was that the person who has the most impact is the owner (CEO, VP, Top Dog) on the outcome.

Both Steinbrenner and Wrigley were probably cheerleaders at the games but Steinbrenner provided the resources to become a winner (which also equates to being profitable.) Wrigley was a nice guy and answered the phone himself but never provided the resources to win or be profitable. Wrigley fired the manager when they failed but never gave the resources for him to be successful.

The baseball business is the same as any other business. As quality professionals, we can champion quality but we won’t succeed without a support system. Making us accountable for the results won’t make us successful. Deming’s bead box experiment was meant to show the same thing. The workers had to meet their quota so they were trained, posters were put up, management walked around and led the cheers for quality and the workers were rewarded and punished for the results. The results were predictable and would not change without true management involvement and support.

Bill

Interesting discussion....particularly the thoughts about GE looking for what's next. With 6-S being part of the culture, it's normal & appropriate they are looking for additional improvements. The world is constantly changing & thus how we define "improvement" is always in flux. Today's dog approach could be tomorrow's mantra, functionally as well as theoretically.

I also found Mike's comments very realistic. As I read through his & other's comments I kept thinking, "is there an echo in here...all this sounds soooo familiar & similar to my own experience". This includes the champion vs cheerleader comparison....cheerleaders are cheap & easy to come by(no pun intended) as long as the prevailing winds makes the cheerleading profitable(relative to their own interests). The bullet dodging pioneers are so much more interesting people to know (or be). A stead-fast belief & knowledge that you're right makes the bullets less threatening. Truth is truth regardless of whether people choose to acknowlege it. It occurs to me that this entire thread would be very valuable feedback to a company CEO...and it may just get the chance.

I'm somewhat new to being a "Quality Professional" having transferred into Quality from a lengthy career in Research & Development. I'm now a 6-S BB and currently going through TOC training(the training opportunities came up...I grabbed them). What I see as I continue to learn more about the greater Quality world is that people/corporations are doing just as Wallace first suggested with GE. In fact I just completed a presentation for next week that has a slide it in with an cartoon of sorts stating, "Here at ACME Mfg we're taking a Kaizen-Lean-TQM approach to TOC within our Six Sigma Program". I see combined approaches more as a rule than an exception...for those companies that are open to programs like this.

The ACME Mfg slide is part of a Quality-based presentation & proposal that I've been trying to get the Executive Committee(CEO & all VP's) to listen to for 3.5 years. Finally they're starting to "get it" and they booked me for a 2 hour discussion. This is a little unusual as the CEO believes most meetings should last no more than 20 minutes. The part that they'll hopefully buy into(pretty good chance I think) builds on top of the large scale Quality & systems/software improvements that we've put in place over the last 2 years. The improvements have been done mostly by a couple people in a "skunk works" fashion...whatever works(some people do while others wonder & watch).

I guess the message here is to all the posters that have (accurately) identified top management understanding & support as THE key barrier & not the lack of available tools. I think they are completely correct. I've been lobbying for next week's presentation & program for years. I used our own data & screw-ups as ammo("educational examples"). If(when) my boss didn't listen I went up the next level. If that didn't work, I went up yet another level. "Organizational change happens through gentle pressure applied relentlessly". I adopted the Tom Peters approach of "If you don't get fired you're not trying hard enough". I haven't been fired, but I probably haven't made alot of supporting friends either...although many of the lower managers are coming around (cheerleaders, as the wind direction has changed). It's unfortunate that it takes tactics like this to get the company to do the right thing. I'm not sure if "pioneer" fits or whether "guerrilla" is a better term.

It's always possible the Executive Committee will give me a thumbs down...but hope springs eternal.

Good luck. . .

Some of us DID get fired for doing the right thing. . . and being right. . .

Try not to confuse the CEO with facts. . . :lmao:

Well, I like Tom Peters, and I came close a few times, but have not been fired for doing the right thing for about 20 years. In my current situation I could easily get fired if I really spoke my mind about how things are going, and started doing things the way they should be done, but I am 100% sure by now that it would not change the status quo. So I do the best I am allowed to do and refuse to let them decide when I make my next move. I will risk my neck if there is a possible reward, but not for nothing. I hope to again someday work for a place that really wants to improve -- it is much more fun.

At the risk of not getting responses, I am going to resurrect this thread and ask a question of the assembled Covers. In particular, I am interested in the thoughts and ideas of the people working at six sigma practicing companies.

There is a book in publication called "Quality Beyond Six Sigma" by Basu and Wright (B&W) (New Zealanders). The book is written for the general population of quality practioners and their managers -- in other words, it is not a textbook. In the book, B&W give a brief history of SS, Lean and Lean Sigma. They then spend time talking about the next phase -- what will it take to keep SS going? They have a theory or two, and call their approach FIT Sigma. It would take way too much time to explain it here, so feel free to buy the book. In a nutshell, B&W say that FIT Sigma is an integration of SS (and I suppose Lean and Lean Sigma) into the business itself. FIT Sigma is a solution for sustainable excellence in all operations. It is a quality process beyond Six Sigma. The fundamentals of FIT Sigma are:
Fitness for purpose
Sigma for integration
Fitness for Sustainability

It comes down to the last slide in the attached powerpoint slides -- Fitness for sustainability. They claim that if companies can create a method of self-certification, a culture of knowledge management and full integration of SS using performance management, SS will become more entrenched, and will not "go the way of TQM and other short-live quality programs".

I have my opinion, but am interested in yours. Does SS (and Lean Sigma) already have a sustainability aspect to it? Do we need FIT Sigma, or something like it? Thanks for your review and response!

--Jodi