A Reuters news agency article today struck my eye. Many Covers have expressed ambivalent feelings about Six Sigma. I am curious whether any of you have comments related to this topic.

http://money.excite.com/ht/nw/bus/20040515/hle_bus-n12156332.html

Six Sigma Is No Longer Enough
Saturday May 15, 9:08 AM EDT
By Michael Flaherty

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Impatient investors and demanding industry analysts are pushing Corporate America's best-known efficiency program deeper into history.

The program, known as Six Sigma, still retains a loyal, if not cult-like following among executives and some of their staff, who earn black belts and green belts as they study its methods.

But in an era when a new product is old news in two fiscal quarters, critics of Six Sigma say companies need to move beyond the 20-year-old method in order to compete.

"Six Sigma does not create innovation," said Corporate strategist Jay Desai, who helped implement Six Sigma at conglomerate General Electric Co. (GE).

That's not to say Six Sigma will ever go away.

Its methods are a virtual religion at GE, where Six Sigma is said to have saved the company billions of dollars over the years.

Dow Chemical Co. (DOW), the largest U.S. maker of chemicals, swears by the program. And Heavy equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) said it reaped $500 million through Six Sigma in 2002.

But the days of investors favoring slow and steady growth are waning. Investors want top-line growth fueled by new products.

"If Lucent applies Six Sigma, they die," Desai said, pointing to Lucent Technologies Inc. (LU), one of the world's largest makers of telecommunications equipment that has recovered after ringing up $30 billion in cumulative losses during the technology downturn.

"Six Sigma is not a solution for new products or a break-through strategy," said Desai, who now runs the Institute of Global Competitiveness, a management think-tank.

Lucent agrees.

"We've looked at Six Sigma," Lynn Mercer, Lucent's vice president of quality, told Reuters. "It would be an excellent tool set, but it's too narrow a focus and rigid to allow some of the innovation, where some of the creativity occurs."

Still, Six Sigma is in place at several of the world's top companies and has led to many profit turnarounds.

"We will continue to rely on our Six Sigma culture to ensure we are growing profitably," said Caterpillar Chairman and CEO Jim Owens in a statement. Owens added that "virtually all" company employees are involved with the program and that Caterpillar boasts 2,700 trained Six Sigma black belts.

CORPORATE CLEAN UP

The term Six Sigma originated from engineers at telecommunications maker Motorola Inc. (MOT), who in 1984 found that the average U.S. company recorded 66,800 errors per million opportunities in any process. "Three sigma" is an old statistical term referring to the point where a process needs correction.

Thus, Six Sigma was coined to mark an unprecedented efficiency standard: 3.4 errors per million opportunities.

The term ultimately took on a larger meaning. It became a data-driven methodology aimed at reducing waste, improving efficiency, and saving money. It's subscribers say the program translates into quality products, and customer satisfaction.

Joan Abraham, a manager for Six Sigma Academy said despite its critics, the program is more popular than ever.

Six Sigma Academy, a Scottsdale, Arizona training organization, has taught 10,000 people in 20 countries and 6 continents in the methods of Six Sigma, according to its Web site.

"What we've seen is an expansion to mid-size companies, small companies and even private companies," said Abraham.

Six Sigma won't go away and indeed its followers have seen positive results, said Larry Keeley, president of Doblin Inc., an innovation strategy firm.

But just implementing the program isn't enough anymore.

For example, International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) used Six Sigma to improve efficiency while its competitors gained ground with new products.

It's this focus on the bottom line that hinders Six Sigma disciples, said Michael Hammer, founder of Hammer and Co., a management education firm.

"Six Sigma will get you to parity, but not ahead of your competition," Hammer said. "It's for fixing problems, not for innovation.

Wes,

The article doesn't surprise me, there are tools out there that we can all use. I am one of those that think of 6S as just glorified a continuous improvement process that just incorporated the tools that were already available. 6S has made many people rich by being the "wave of the future" when it is just good practice re-gurgitated.

This is not a total rejection of the process, just a view on its marketing!

Al...

I read that a few minutes ago at http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=KYMFJZ0ORYDWSCRBAEKSFEY?type=businessNews&storyID=5153899 and was going to paste it here as you did...

Not news to me.

I also read the article first thing this morning. As a quality manager for a company in which "Corporate" is cramming 6S down our throats, it was reassuring to see that my opinion is shared. A major part of our business is reliant on repair development, and I just haven't seen 6S as useful mechanism in this area. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the tools 6S provides can be very useful for certain aspects of the business, but these techniques are nothing new-just restated and marketed.

P.S. Got your message Wes. I'll send you an update this weekend!

"Six Sigma will get you to parity, but not ahead of your competition," Hammer said. "It's for fixing problems, not for innovation".

With due respect to fellow professionals, Iam sceptical about this statement. There are Six sigma projects that use TRIZ (pronounced "TREEZ", the Russian acronym for the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving).

During my recent discussion with a SS Black belt from a leading Appliance manufacturer, he mentioned that their organization use TRIZ extensively as one of the Six sigma Tool.

Dr. Elena Averboukh says,"Advanced I-TRIZ methods and tools can be used for enhancing Six Sigma methodology, both DMAIC and IMADV or DFSS, especially when Six Sigma methods and tools are by different reasons inefficient and/or insufficient".

Reference: http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c030908a.asp

Regards,
Govind.

The foregoing is just further evidence that "Six Sigma" has no clear definition, and means different things to different organizations (depending on who informed them of what it is). It is like a blanket that takes the shape of whatever "tools" are shoved under it. TRIZ is an additional example of a tool that has been "adopted" by 6S.

There is one bright spot to the Reuters article, Wes, and that it may be the harbinger of 6S's ultimate demise. I wonder what will replace it?

The article takes a rather odd bent on 6S. 6S doesn't, and never has (at least in my training), made any claims with respect to enabling or fostering innovation. 6S is a solid, data-driven pathway to get you from a clearly defined objective to a completed project or product. Innovation needs to happen outside the process of commercial project execution & product/service launch(6S).

Desai & Hammer may well be writing/contributing to something controversial to create a "buzz" that ends up benefiting their "Institute of Global Competitiveness" or "Hammer and Co". The approach is certainly an age-old & well worn political tactic: (1) Identify something as evil, unfit, corrupt, misguided, a problem...etc.. (2) Get people to rally against whatever this evil is and (3) Present yourself as the solution to the problem. This gets people elected decade after decade.

It's interesting that Desai & Hammer suggest 6S isn't "it", but they offer nothing to replace it. Perhaps one has to bring them in as a consultant to be enlighten as to the next pearls of wisdom?

(Desai & Hammer aside) It surprises me how many people are willing to jump on the bandwagon to rally against 6S without the benefit of ever having been trained in the discipline as a whole. This is counter-intuitive given the nature of the many of the issues discussed on this series of boards. Whether 6S may or may not be re-hashed traditional practices is pretty much irrelavant. It promotes organized, solid, data & stats driven work toward achieving a goal and does this in places where (apparently) traditional approaches have not been adopted previously. This is a bad thing? If it is, then, by definition, so must be the re-hashed traditional practices.

If organized & clear project definition combined with a solid, data & stats driven work toward achieving a goal is now becoming passe, are we going to revert to the "Edisonian blunder-bust, fire-away & I hope we hit something we can sell" approach? At the cost of resources I can't believe this would be an attractive option. I've been in RDE for near 2 decades. The easy stuff has been invented and is either a commodity by now or obsolete. Sophisticated markets require sophisticated development...(even the mind numbing pop-culture is pumped by number crunching marketing wizards).

Problems are everywhere...what are the alternate solutions?

The foregoing is just further evidence that "Six Sigma" has no clear definition, and means different things to different organizations (depending on who informed them of what it is). It is like a blanket that takes the shape of whatever "tools" are shoved under it. TRIZ is an additional example of a tool that has been "adopted" by 6S.

There is one bright spot to the Reuters article, Wes, and that it may be the harbinger of 6S's ultimate demise. I wonder what will replace it?As I recall, Rob (how soon they forget), you were present at the birth of my new Quality program:
From Wesley Bucey
Date Oct-15-02 08:10 AM
Subject "The Placebo Effect" - Wes's New Quality Theory

------------------------------------------------

From Wes Bucey, Quality Manager:
My new theory of Quality (vis a vis "Six Sigma") is based on the following:
Any Quality System, when first imposed, will exhibit a "Placebo Effect" of improvement in the business of the organization. Unless the new system is rigorously compared against a Control system, no real value can be attributed to the new system. (The primary task will be to prevent rigorous comparison against a Control.)

Here's an excerpt from a definition of "Placebo Effect" from the Skeptic's Dictionary (http://skepdic.com/placebo.html):
However, it may be that much of the placebo effect is not a matter of mind over molecules, but of mind over behavior. A part of the behavior of a "sick" person is learned. So is part of the behavior of a person in pain. In short, there is a certain amount of role-playing by ill or hurt people. Role-playing is not the same as faking or malingering. The behavior of sick or injured persons is socially and culturally based to some extent. The placebo effect may be a measurement of changed behavior affected by a belief in the treatment. The changed behavior includes a change in attitude, in what one says about how one feels, and how one acts. It may also affect one's body chemistry.

The psychological explanation seems to be the one most commonly believed. Perhaps this is why many people are dismayed when they are told that the effective drug they are taking is a placebo. This makes them think that their problem is "all in their mind" and that there is really nothing wrong with them. Yet, there are too many studies which have found objective improvements in health from placebos to support the notion that the placebo effect is entirely psychological.

It is my "new found" belief that many organizations do benefit from the Shaman's visit (hiring a Six Sigma Master Black Belt Quality Consultant, for example), especially when the rest of the tribe also use the same Shaman.

I've been told from an early age that a Stone Age Shaman could actually have an apparently good "cure ratio" for poisonous snake bites just by dancing, praying, and applying poultices. The reason is that often the biting snake was misidentified as poisonous, OR didn't deliver enough venom to KILL, OR by some coincidence, the poultice absorbed enough of the venom to reduce the dose from fatal to something survivable.

Of course, when it didn't work, the Shaman always had someone or something else to blame for the fatality. In some cases, they blamed the victim's evil personality OR maybe the fact that a bird's shadow touched the victim during the healing ceremony.

Modern day Shamans use similar blame-deflecting excuses for their failures. The most frequent phrase we hear these days is: "The operation was a success, but the patient died."

I will be enlisting disciples for my New Quality Theory shortly. A primary criterion for acceptance will be the number of excuses for failure the disciple can bring with him or her.

I remain, with tongue firmly in cheek, -Wes Bucey

Wes, isn't this similar to the famous "Hawthorne" effect regarding the employees placed in a room with better lighting, and supervisors evaluating the effect only to find it was the supervisor attention that improved the productivity, and not the new lights.

Wes, isn't this similar to the famous "Hawthorne" effect regarding the employees placed in a room with better lighting, and supervisors evaluating the effect only to find it was the supervisor attention that improved the productivity, and not the new lights.As Rex Harrison sings in My Fair Lady (paraphrased for gender accuracy):
"By Jove, I think he's got it!"

Are you ready to be one of my new adherents, Ralph?

As Rex Harrison sings in My Fair Lady (paraphrased for gender accuracy):
"By Jove, I think he's got it!"

Are you ready to be one of my new adherents, Ralph?

Yes Wes, or is that coherent? :rolleyes:

Yes Wes, or is that coherent? :rolleyes:As soon as your check for $1,500.00 USD clears, I will be sending you a gilt-edged Certificate of Achievement to all the theories and principles of The Placebo Effect school of Quality.

(Note this is an introductory offer. Get in on the ground floor before prices go up!)

I have posted my anti-six-sigma diatrabes elsewhere in the Cove, but I thought this would make a humorous story. I received a phone call from a vendor of project management software. He picked up my name in conjunction with some Baldrige site, and stated his company made software used by many six sigma corporations, and he listed a few. I stated, that is no selling point for me, I am anti six sigma. He went on, and again referenced six sigma. I again said, you are not impressing me. So he actually asked me what I had against six sigma, of which I gave him my usual list. I also said if someone showed up trying to sell six sigma software to my employer I would be the first person at the front door with a shotgun. He finally realized he wasn't getting anywhere with his sales pitch. :nopity:

Wes, I have been thinking about writing some How to books and developing some training classes on getting certified to your new Placebo Effect theory of quality. Could you please email the body of knowledge for the theory? Also, in the spirit of entrepreneurship, could you write a foreward for my book to give it some credibility? :D :thanx:

Bill Pflanz

Wes, I have been thinking about writing some How to books and developing some training classes on getting certified to your new Placebo Effect theory of quality. Could you please email the body of knowledge for the theory? Also, in the spirit of entrepreneurship, could you write a foreward for my book to give it some credibility? :D :thanx:

Bill PflanzAbsolutely!
Close your eyes.
What do you see?
That's the body of knowledge.
The primary requirement for registration/certification to TPE™ (the official abbreviation for The Placebo Effect™) is to make me and my current followers happy. This can be easily accomplished by sending lots of money, which we will spend on marketing to gain more adherents. Our primary marketing strategy is to play Cardinal Puff with a prospect until we "melt" all resistance.

From a 6S bent I was actually looking for some content in practical, workable alternatives. For the sake of defining 'workable' we can omit some of the traditional approaches that, for whatever reason, are not seeing the light of day from the adoption standpoint.

If the posts just above is what's available, then here's a club that will go well with future diatribes:

http://www.cheesemonthclub.com/


Surely you guys are better than this.

From a 6S bent I was actually looking for some content in practical, workable alternatives. For the sake of defining 'workable' we can omit some of the traditional approaches that, for whatever reason, are not seeing the light of day from the adoption standpoint....
Actually, KMAA, if you had followed this thread from the beginning, you would have understood the posters were decrying the 6S concept in favor of staying with the tried and true concepts of making sure the product or service an organization provides is the best it can be, and NOT eschewing everything for the sake of the short-term bottom line.

The point of the original article is that some branches of Quality, in this case, specifically 6S, probably will die out because they do not provide long-term vigor to the organization.

The rest of us were driving home the point that almost anything looks good in the short term, but it is the long term result which is the proof of the viability of ANY initiative.

My satire is very pointed in that regard and signals the major premise up front:
Unless the new system is rigorously compared against a Control system, no real value can be attributed to the new system. (The primary task will be to prevent rigorous comparison against a Control.)
The Control, of course, being a similar system, untainted by the new initiative. These Controls are nearly impossible to find in real life. Hence, the viewpoint that we can make any claim we want about a new initiative, since proving the negative is impossible without a Control.

May I respectfully suggest you start a new thread with your query for a series of viable "practical, workable alternatives" to any or all current Quality genres, including 6S, TQM, etc.?

From a 6S bent I was actually looking for some content in practical, workable alternatives. For the sake of defining 'workable' we can omit some of the traditional approaches that, for whatever reason, are not seeing the light of day from the adoption standpoint.

Surely you guys are better than this.

Surely we can. But if I state a workable alternative is Dr. Deming's methodologies, will you reject that as "not seeing the light of day"? Just because it isn't seeing the light of day (at least compared to 6S hype) doesn't make it not workable.

Perhaps a failing of Dr. Deming's personality was he did not sugar coat things to managers, and plainly plopped the problems managers see in their own laps. It is so much more convenient for managers to throw money at making a bunch of belts than it is to deal with their own issues. But I will acknowledge, from a systems perspective the management is part of the system. So if you fail to present yourself well to management, well then you have not considered the whole system.

Personally, I find a mixture of Russ Ackoff, Deming and Tom Peters, with a firm grounding in Dr. Shewhart's original work, and a final spicing of Ayn Rand to be quite effective. I did document some of these ideas in an article on Systems Thinking in ASQ's Quality Progress last summer. I also have told my story to Boeing, with the presentation documented at http://www.in2in.org. I have also documented some workable ideas in "Tyranny of Targets" in this month's articles.

- Steve :bigwave:

KMAAA,



I have nothing against 6S concepts but it has been hyped as the only true way to accomplish real improvement in an organization. Considering much of the body of knowledge contained within 6S is heavily borrowed from prior work in the field of quality, it would be difficult to claim its implementation would not work.

The article takes a rather odd bent on 6S. 6S doesn't, and never has (at least in my training), made any claims with respect to enabling or fostering innovation. 6S is a solid, data-driven pathway to get you from a clearly defined objective to a completed project or product. Innovation needs to happen outside the process of commercial project execution & product/service launch(6S).

I have not gone through one of the 4 week Six Sigma courses offered by Motorola, GE, or any number of other companies and consultants. My training in quality does include attending the seminars and referencing the works of Juran, Deming, Crosby, Leavenworth (SPC) to name just a few of the hundreds of hours of training I have. Over the years, I have probably read more than 40 books on quality management concepts and tools. I was introduced to the original (pre-black belt) concepts through Motorola and GE during the mid-1990's.

Rather than paying $6-10K for a Six Sigma course, I did extensive studying of the Six Sigma concepts including reading Mikel Harry's book and The Six Sigma Way by Pande, Neuman & Cavanagh and as many articles on Six Sigma that I could find on the Internet, networked with Six Sigma trained quality professionals and became certified through ASQ as a Six Sigma Black Belt.

My efforts convinced me that Six Sigma is no more of a magic bullet than TQM, re-engineering, ISO 9000, quality teams, etc. What I learned before 6S was just as good of "a solid, data-driven pathway to get you from a clearly defined objective to a completed project or product" as what 6S sells. I still think the best source of information on quality is to look at the works of Deming (management theory), Juran (quality planning, tools and applications), Crosby (defect theory and quality teams), and any number of pre-6S quality gurus.

Desai & Hammer may well be writing/contributing to something controversial to create a "buzz" that ends up benefiting their "Institute of Global Competitiveness" or "Hammer and Co". The approach is certainly an age-old & well worn political tactic: (1) Identify something as evil, unfit, corrupt, misguided, a problem...etc.. (2) Get people to rally against whatever this evil is and (3) Present yourself as the solution to the problem. This gets people elected decade after decade.

It's interesting that Desai & Hammer suggest 6S isn't "it", but they offer nothing to replace it. Perhaps one has to bring them in as a consultant to be enlighten as to the next pearls of wisdom?

Many quality professionals are against 6S since it claims to be a new concept (which I believe it is not) and it has a tendency to exclude those individuals who do not attend the expensive classes. Not everyone is proposing to replace 6S but some of the hype around it could be toned down and it could quit claiming the failure of all of the other approaches.

(Desai & Hammer aside) It surprises me how many people are willing to jump on the bandwagon to rally against 6S without the benefit of ever having been trained in the discipline as a whole. This is counter-intuitive given the nature of the many of the issues discussed on this series of boards. Whether 6S may or may not be re-hashed traditional practices is pretty much irrelavant. It promotes organized, solid, data & stats driven work toward achieving a goal and does this in places where (apparently) traditional approaches have not been adopted previously. This is a bad thing? If it is, then, by definition, so must be the re-hashed traditional practices.

The proponents of 6S sometimes come across as being the only ones who have ever thought about combining management involvement, quality tools, and financial results to achieve quality and applying it to non-manufacturing areas. I would recommend going back and looking at the excellent works of Joseph Juran on these same topics. I must have learned the wrong things when I took my original quality training since I was able to apply quality concepts and tools to non-manufacturing areas using data driven work that achieved a measurable goal and provided financial contributions.

If organized & clear project definition combined with a solid, data & stats driven work toward achieving a goal is now becoming passe, are we going to revert to the "Edisonian blunder-bust, fire-away & I hope we hit something we can sell" approach? At the cost of resources I can't believe this would be an attractive option. I've been in RDE for near 2 decades. The easy stuff has been invented and is either a commodity by now or obsolete. Sophisticated markets require sophisticated development...(even the mind numbing pop-culture is pumped by number crunching marketing wizards).

Problems are everywhere...what are the alternate solutions?

I would not describe the works of the early pioneers as "easy stuff". Their work was innovative but I would not describe 6S the same way. If anything, 6S is the re-hash of old concepts. As I get older, I gain more insight and respect for the earlier works in quality. It would be great to have a new innovation but the actual application of the original concepts still works. Rather than trying to find the next alternate solution, I have found it valuable to use the same tools I learned originally. If someone wants to call it 6S that is fine with me. It still won't mean that I will not use an "organized & clear project definition combined with a solid, data & stats driven work toward achieving a goal". I just don't want someone telling me that I cannot be successful in true quality improvement unless I do 6S.

Bill Pflanz

Wes,

Thanks for the explanation, but I pretty much understood all that as I did read the thread from the beginning.

I feel like I'm in some sort of time warp here. I've been through the black belt training (via a GE master black belt, who was there from the beginning) and feel I have a reasonably good handle on 6S philosophy and practice. I have all that in one hand and I have yours (and others) arms-length comments about short term (??), trendy, fading practices of 6S. There is nothing in 6S practice that is short term, rather it's just the opposite. In fact, the expense of some extensive 6S pathways are partially justified by the intent to set a system/product up for very l-o-n-g term & superior performance...up to and including a monitoring program to ensure performance doesn't slip. My only conclusion is that the folks knocking 6S here REALLY have no idea of what 6S is about. I don't mean that in any negative way. But I do find this rather stunning given the nature of the Cove. Is all the documentation, rigor, quantitation, statistics, Deming...based on what we suspect(or choose) to be the truth or is it based on what we know, as in, here's the data & this is what is says? This is why I'm asking for alternatives...what are they & why are they better? The comments here seem based on the hype that surrounds 6S rather than the content of 6S itself.

Steve,

"But if I state a workable alternative is Dr. Deming's methodologies, will you reject that as "not seeing the light of day"? Just because it isn't seeing the light of day (at least compared to 6S hype) doesn't make it not workable.
"

This is my point. If you have the greatest truths in the world all contained in a nice little shoebox, but you can't get anyone to understand and apply the contents of the shoebox, then, at the end of the day & from an entire systems point of view, have you helped out the company or the world to any measurable extent? The answer would be "no" & thus I don't see the shoebox as a workable option (as supported by data). Now contrast this example with another shoebox having many of the same tools/truths & a few project management system-wide reality checks tossed in. Package this shoebox in a wrapper where it can be sold to & understood(enough) by top management...so much so that they buy the philosophy & practices and implement them company-wide. Now ask the question again: Have you helped out the company or the world to any measurable extent? If the implementation (highly people-dependant) is successful, then the answer is "yes". I think the end result is more important than the shoebox it took to get you there.


"Perhaps a failing of Dr. Deming's personality was he did not sugar coat things to managers, and plainly plopped the problems managers see in their own laps."

If your tactics involve changing the world starting with the minor managers....there's your mistake. Nervous minor managers, by far, have their own interests at heart MUCH more than your interests or that of the company. When 6S is sold into a company they start with the CEO. If he/she can't be convinced, and they do not continue their support, then the implementation will fail (or not be started). When Jack Welch left GE and Jeff Immelt moved in he jumped into 6S the best way he could have. Just after the CEO transition, my 6S trainer was beginning a black belt training session. He was a bit taken aback when he realized Jeff Immelt was sitting in his class. He asked Jeff why he was there...surely he had more important things to do. Jeff saw getting a better understanding of black belts and supporting 6S as the best use of his time..and he completed the training. You think there was any discussion around the water cooler?

"Personally, I find a mixture of Russ Ackoff, Deming and Tom Peters, with a firm grounding in Dr. Shewhart's original work, and a final spicing of Ayn Rand to be quite effective......"

A rather eclectic mix, but very interesting. I'll look into the link. This is more what I was looking for, an alternative. Whether it's better or just another approach will be determined with time. I applaude your efforts. I only hope that if it is better, & you package it to a point where it is adopted in today's environment, you don't have "anti's" tossing stones at it without bothering to understand what it is they tossing stones at.

Bill,

I don't really disagree with anything you've stated. Yes there is alot of hype, but that should be traced back to those doing the hyping rather than dismissing 6S content. The key point I'd make is that in spite of all the history that you quote, if that body of knowledge doesn't get accepted & practiced as it exists today then, as good as it is, it's still not helping out "the cause". If some repackaging gets it sold into management & into practice then I'd call that a victory. If you need something new, then look to something old. Seen any retro-looking cars on the road lately? Remember hip-huggers & bell-bottoms...from the 60's & 70's? You've probably seen them in the last day.

The "easy stuff" I was referring to was consumer & commercial products in general, not anything to do with historical figures in the Quality discipline. As for the "can't be successful any other way"..this is the hype again, remember practitioners practice, marketeers sell. I never heard this exclusivity in my training. If "any other way" is sitting on a shelf & it takes the 6S package to get the same practices into motion, then, by definition, 6S would be the way.

If your tactics involve changing the world starting with the minor managers....there's your mistake. Nervous minor managers, by far, have their own interests at heart MUCH more than your interests or that of the company. When 6S is sold into a company they start with the CEO.

Oh yes, and Dr. Deming would only deal with the CEO, the top man. But those of us mere mortals who are a little lower on the food chain don't have the option. So we have to be able to push change from within. It is slow, it can be painful, but I have at least found it personally rewarding, financially and professionally.

KMAAA,

Many of us have been through the process and I will ask you this question;

What tools in 6S were derived soley from 6S and not available before 6S?

Not trying to put you on the defensive, looking for information.:)

Al...

Sorry Al,

That's off topic on this thread & I'm not going there. I've never made any claims that 6S is unique-anything(I know it isn't). I've only said that it's a sellable package that apparently gets in the door where other programs/techniques/practices/theories haven't.

Admittedly I don't follow all the Quality journals as closely as I'd like to, but I can't remember ever seeing (at least in recent memory) a news release about Company XYZ adopting the "Quality by JDCL Design" program.

(JDCL = Juran, Deming, Crosby, Leavenworth)

If you start at the top (CEO) I really don't think they or companies in general have the time, patience, in-house talent, or in some cases trust to assemble a Quality package of their own(although, oddly enough, this is what I'm doing in the company I work for). If it's a packaged body of knowledge that is recognizable across the various boundaries it'll have a much better chance of seeing daylight as a company-wide initiative. "Recognizable" helps alot...like GRR, ISO..or 6S as it communicates lots of info without having to sit down & explain specifics of QBJDCLD, as XYZ Inc. defines it.

For me, and it's understandable & appropriate that others mileage may vary, getting "there" is path independent. I see no reason to reject something that works simply due to it's blood not being blue enough.

Yes, it has been, and is, a very saleable (and profitable) package. I have no problem with profit and earning a living, if people can re-package ideas and benefit I am all for it. I just choose not to pay for a resource that is already available.

I didn't say you have made claims or anything near it, you say you're well versed in 6S (you are a black belt) and I was asking for personal enlightenment purposes only.

Wes is completely correct in his post, the thread is about the usefullness of 6S.

Al...

Al,

The 6S training is fairly extensive, but history isn't part of it. While I do know the ultimate roots of a number of the tools/techniques(actually I find the 'ancient' history more interesting...Pascal, Fermat, Gauss, de Moivre, Bernoulli), I'm not well versed enough in the last century's tools/technique's roots-history to draw a reliable line between 6S and everything else...if, indeed, a line exists. I can't say as I remember any specific thing from the training that I hadn't at least heard of before(?). In a couple areas I was more fluent than the MBB. However, the entire cut-to-the-chase combination of sound tools/techniques/philosophy working in one composite discipline was new to me. This is the value & package that's sold as 6S.

History of Six Sigma

First, :topic: an off topic side note. Obviously I will not be able to convince KMAA that Six Sigma is a fatally flawed package, and obviously KMAA will not be able to convince me it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But, as always, it is a good dialogue. :thanx:

I actually attended a presentation in a conference back in about the 1993 where a Motorola person presented about the "new" six sigma concept. It largely goes back to process capability (Cpk). If I have a process that is in control, and I know it's three standard deviation control limits, and I know the customer specification, how long should I keep improving the process. That is, how long should I keep reducing variation and reducing the number of resulting defects. Motorola discovered the optimal place to be was where the specifications were six standard deviations (twice the control limits) away from the average (center) line. To my knowledge, that is the only original thought. Now you all may send me a check for $35,000 to the following address . . . :rolleyes:

- Steve

History of Six Sigma

First, :topic: an off topic side note. Obviously I will not be able to convince KMAA that Six Sigma is a fatally flawed package, and obviously KMAA will not be able to convince me it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But, as always, it is a good dialogue. :thanx:

I actually attended a presentation in a conference back in about the 1993 where a Motorola person presented about the "new" six sigma concept. It largely goes back to process capability (Cpk). If I have a process that is in control, and I know it's three standard deviation control limits, and I know the customer specification, how long should I keep improving the process. That is, how long should I keep reducing variation and reducing the number of resulting defects. Motorola discovered the optimal place to be was where the specifications were six standard deviations (twice the control limits) away from the average (center) line. To my knowledge, that is the only original thought. Now you all may send me a check for $35,000 to the following address . . . :rolleyes:

- SteveSimilarly to Steve's early intro to 6S, I was Quality Manager of a company that was a supplier to Motorola back in the early 90's and I, too, got my dose of 6S back then. Funny thing was, we were already beyond them in terms of statistical control of our processes. In a five year period as a Motorola supplier, we had 100% acceptance of every delivery. Sorry to say, we did NOT have 100% on-time delivery of payment and we "fired" Motorola. I guess that 6S efficiency couldn't make its way to the accounts payable department. (Worse thought - maybe it DID make its way to the accounts payable department!)

Don't you think it noteworthy that the new boss of GE was not familiar enough with 6S that he had to go through a class? For everyone's sake at GE, I hope his purpose was primarily to assure himself the course work was being taught to his satisfaction, not that he was learning it for the first time.

Steve,
I consider this a good dialogue. It may sound as if I think 6S is the greatest thing since sliced bread(not my words), but I fully realize the non-orginality of the specific content. If 6S is fatally flawed then why? I keep hearing references to the "fatally flawed" concept, but no one seems to want to offer someting concrete as to why that is the case. Data talks...what is this view based on(beyond vague opinion)? Give me something I can hold in my hand.


Wes,

"For everyone's sake at GE, I hope his purpose was primarily to assure himself the course work was being taught to his satisfaction, not that he was learning it for the first time."

As I understood it at the time, I don't think th emost senior of senior execs at GE were required to be black belts. Though they had "executive summary training", this tack is quite common.

___

I'm sure I won't be convincing anyone to change their minds & that's OK. I continue to pursue the discussion as I'm truly interested in something concrete (beyond vague opinion and dislike of marketing hype) that indicates 6S is a fundamentally flawed approach.

Wes,

"For everyone's sake at GE, I hope his purpose was primarily to assure himself the course work was being taught to his satisfaction, not that he was learning it for the first time."

As I understood it at the time, I don't think th emost senior of senior execs at GE were required to be black belts. Though they had "executive summary training", this tack is quite common.

___

I'm sure I won't be convincing anyone to change their minds & that's OK. I continue to pursue the discussion as I'm truly interested in something concrete (beyond vague opinion and dislike of marketing hype) that indicates 6S is a fundamentally flawed approach.Neophyte that I am in 6S (only 11 years of dealing with 6S techniques), I know that there is a difference between being "educated" in 6S techniques and principles, and BEING a Black Belt or a Master Black Belt. The difference being the certification requires completion of a 6S initiative, including hands-on use of the tools of 6S. It also includes having someone sign off on the certificate after reviewing the 6S initiative and its results. If the 6S initiative doesn't include the signoff and review, the certificate doesn't have much value, does it?

"Executive summary" is probably the reason so many of us "anti-6S" folk ridicule organizations which purport to embody 6S and yet flip flop around like fish out of water.

I offer my kingdom for something concrete besides "wax-on & wax-off".

I'm truly interested in something concrete (beyond vague opinion and dislike of marketing hype) that indicates 6S is a fundamentally flawed approach.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I would think if there was any meat behind the anti-argument then this thread would runnith over with examples. I'm pretty much in constant learning mode. It would be helpful to me and others to know where the pitfalls lie & thus avoid them.

If people do not like 6S "just because" then that's OK, but we should understand the basis of the view is "just because" and not due to an identifiable series of flaws in the practice.

RE: "Executive summary" is probably the reason so many of us "anti-6S" folk ridicule organizations which purport to embody 6S and yet flip flop around like fish out of water."

I think there's a little more than "flip-flop" going on here. Sounds more like applied Juran.

Six Sigma - A Pursuit of Excellence and Dramatic Results
By Dr Richard CH Chua

ON 6 MAY 2001, Dr Joseph M Juran presented the American Society for Quality's Juran Medal to its first recipient, Robert W Galvin. The medal was presented to Galvin "in recognition of his continuing commitment to providing quality leadership for Motorola in the senior officership position from 1959 until early 1990, then as chairman of the Executive Committee, and currently as a full time officer".

The relationship between these two men goes back further. Over 20 years ago, Juran personally trained then-CEO Galvin and his management team. Motorola was the first client of Juran Institute, the training and consulting company Juran founded in 1979. In the 1980s Motorola coined their quality journey "Six Sigma". That was the birth of Six Sigma and the rest, as they say, is history.

Motorola saved over US$15 billion through Six Sigma this past decade. In its "Decade of Improvement", the company reduced cycle times by 90 per cent in some instances. Motorola management has committed to doubling the number of Black Belts to 1 per cent of its workforce, and has set a goal of having each Black Belt achieve US$300,000 in savings for each Six Sigma project undertaken.

Six Sigma lay relatively dormant from the public eye until a 1996 Business Week article featured General Electric's Jack Welch and his adoption of Six Sigma as a company-wide strategic initiative. That led to the exponential rise in the popularity of Six Sigma seen today.

The most prominent of these success stories include those of Galvin's Motorola, Larry Bossidy's Allied Signal (which has since merged with Honeywell, now part of General Electric), and Welch's General Electric (GE). GE continues to be the world's most honoured company - awarded for the fourth straight year Fortune's "Most Admired Company in America," and for the third time, "The World's Most Respected Company," by the Financial Times.

In General Electric's 2000 Annual Report, chairman and CEO Welch writes: ". . . Six Sigma has turned the company's focus from inside to outside, changed the way we think and train our future leaders and moved us toward becoming a truly customer-focused organisation. GE completed more than 2,000 Six Sigma projects, 'at the customer, for the customer,' last year." With regards to training, Welch noted that Six Sigma has now become the language of leadership within GE.

He adds: "It is a reasonable guess that the next CEO of this company, decades down the road, is probably a Six Sigma Black Belt or Master Black Belt somewhere in GE right now, or on the verge of being offered - as all our early-career (three to five years) top 20 per cent performers will be - a two-to-three-year Black Belt assignment. The generic nature of a Black Belt assignment, in addition to its rigorous process discipline and relentless customer focus, makes Six Sigma the perfect training for growing 21st century GE leadership."

What is Six Sigma?
Six Sigma is a financially-driven and data-driven method for achieving near-perfect performance to meet or exceed customer expectations. The standard that it aims for is no more than 3.4 defects per million opportunities. Performance measures in cost, quality and/or time dimensions are improved via projects through the application of a disciplined application of quality engineering, process management and statistical tools, armed with the power of today's computing capabilities.

In his classic book, Managerial Breakthrough, first published in 1964, Juran called such improvement "breakthrough improvement" to contrast it with incremental improvement in the 5 to 10 per cent range. And referring to breakthrough improvement, he noted that "All improvement takes place project by project . . . and in no other way". This project approach to improvement has proven itself over the past 30 years to be the most effective way.

Why? Because projects are organised efforts focused on achieving specific, measurable objectives. Assigned by management (never ask for volunteers), project resources - people, time, materials, budgets, training, re-assignment of existing duties to free up key resources - become legitimate and accountable. It is this legitimacy and accountability by all parties concerned which makes improvement happen effectively and efficiently.

"Non-delegable" Tasks of Management
Success depends on whether the CEO accepts responsibility for his or her non-delegable tasks as noted by Juran. These tasks are:

Set up and serve on the Six Sigma management council

Establish goals

Lead the deployment process

Allocate needed resources

Assign responsibilities for review and measurement

Lead the employee recognition ceremonies, and

Revise the company's reward system.

Robert Galvin at Motorola, Larry Bossidy at AlliedSignal, and Jack Welch at GE are role models for making Six Sigma and opportunities for Black Belt employees a vital part of the culture at their companies. CEO sponsorship confirms the non-delegable tasks noted above.

I offer my kingdom for something concrete besides "wax-on & wax-off".

I'm truly interested in something concrete (beyond vague opinion and dislike of marketing hype) that indicates 6S is a fundamentally flawed approach.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I would think if there was any meat behind the anti-argument then this thread would runnith over with examples. I'm pretty much in constant learning mode. It would be helpful to me and others to know where the pitfalls lie & thus avoid them.

If people do not like 6S "just because" then that's OK, but we should understand the basis of the view is "just because" and not due to an identifiable series of flaws in the practice.

RE: "Executive summary" is probably the reason so many of us "anti-6S" folk ridicule organizations which purport to embody 6S and yet flip flop around like fish out of water."

I think there's a little more than "flip-flop" going on here. Sounds more like applied Juran.

Six Sigma - A Pursuit of Excellence and Dramatic Results
By Dr Richard CH Chua

ON 6 MAY 2001, Dr Joseph M Juran presented the American Society for Quality's Juran Medal to its first recipient, Robert W Galvin. The medal was presented to Galvin "in recognition of his continuing commitment to providing quality leadership for Motorola in the senior officership position from 1959 until early 1990, then as chairman of the Executive Committee, and currently as a full time officer".

The relationship between these two men goes back further. Over 20 years ago, Juran personally trained then-CEO Galvin and his management team. Motorola was the first client of Juran Institute, the training and consulting company Juran founded in 1979. In the 1980s Motorola coined their quality journey "Six Sigma". That was the birth of Six Sigma and the rest, as they say, is history.

Motorola saved over US$15 billion through Six Sigma this past decade. In its "Decade of Improvement", the company reduced cycle times by 90 per cent in some instances. Motorola management has committed to doubling the number of Black Belts to 1 per cent of its workforce, and has set a goal of having each Black Belt achieve US$300,000 in savings for each Six Sigma project undertaken.

Six Sigma lay relatively dormant from the public eye until a 1996 Business Week article featured General Electric's Jack Welch and his adoption of Six Sigma as a company-wide strategic initiative. That led to the exponential rise in the popularity of Six Sigma seen today.

The most prominent of these success stories include those of Galvin's Motorola, Larry Bossidy's Allied Signal (which has since merged with Honeywell, now part of General Electric), and Welch's General Electric (GE). GE continues to be the world's most honoured company - awarded for the fourth straight year Fortune's "Most Admired Company in America," and for the third time, "The World's Most Respected Company," by the Financial Times.

In General Electric's 2000 Annual Report, chairman and CEO Welch writes: ". . . Six Sigma has turned the company's focus from inside to outside, changed the way we think and train our future leaders and moved us toward becoming a truly customer-focused organisation. GE completed more than 2,000 Six Sigma projects, 'at the customer, for the customer,' last year." With regards to training, Welch noted that Six Sigma has now become the language of leadership within GE.

He adds: "It is a reasonable guess that the next CEO of this company, decades down the road, is probably a Six Sigma Black Belt or Master Black Belt somewhere in GE right now, or on the verge of being offered - as all our early-career (three to five years) top 20 per cent performers will be - a two-to-three-year Black Belt assignment. The generic nature of a Black Belt assignment, in addition to its rigorous process discipline and relentless customer focus, makes Six Sigma the perfect training for growing 21st century GE leadership."

What is Six Sigma?
Six Sigma is a financially-driven and data-driven method for achieving near-perfect performance to meet or exceed customer expectations. The standard that it aims for is no more than 3.4 defects per million opportunities. Performance measures in cost, quality and/or time dimensions are improved via projects through the application of a disciplined application of quality engineering, process management and statistical tools, armed with the power of today's computing capabilities.

In his classic book, Managerial Breakthrough, first published in 1964, Juran called such improvement "breakthrough improvement" to contrast it with incremental improvement in the 5 to 10 per cent range. And referring to breakthrough improvement, he noted that "All improvement takes place project by project . . . and in no other way". This project approach to improvement has proven itself over the past 30 years to be the most effective way.

Why? Because projects are organised efforts focused on achieving specific, measurable objectives. Assigned by management (never ask for volunteers), project resources - people, time, materials, budgets, training, re-assignment of existing duties to free up key resources - become legitimate and accountable. It is this legitimacy and accountability by all parties concerned which makes improvement happen effectively and efficiently.

"Non-delegable" Tasks of Management
Success depends on whether the CEO accepts responsibility for his or her non-delegable tasks as noted by Juran. These tasks are:

Set up and serve on the Six Sigma management council

Establish goals

Lead the deployment process

Allocate needed resources

Assign responsibilities for review and measurement

Lead the employee recognition ceremonies, and

Revise the company's reward system.

Robert Galvin at Motorola, Larry Bossidy at AlliedSignal, and Jack Welch at GE are role models for making Six Sigma and opportunities for Black Belt employees a vital part of the culture at their companies. CEO sponsorship confirms the non-delegable tasks noted above.I am growing tired of this, but here's one last effort:
Specifically, Galvin at Motorola, because I am familiar with them.

Galvin's recent ouster at Motorola is significant in reference to the article which began this thread because Motorola was paying attention to saving pennies (including horsewhipping suppliers) and got beat in the marketplace by more innovative companies.

Motorola opened a honking new plant in Harvard, Illinois, (a flawed effort at an efficiency move of 6S folk?) and shuttered it before it ever got up to the projected employment strength, taking a lot of Illinois tax dollars (concessions and rebates) along with it. Stockholders took a hefty suck on that lemon.

Motorola's supply chain problems disabled them when they did have a chance to become effective again. 6S should have been on top of that - where were they?

Motorola invested heavily with a notorious European family's telephone conglomerate and lost a billion or more dollars due to fraud which went undetected in 6S initiatives intended to capitalize on the joint venture.

Tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, were booked as profits in the European fraud and served as the basis for some of the claims which won Galvin his Juran medal.

I don't relish the task of debunker or "Paul Harvey with the rest of the story" but I am sure of what I say. I do not blindly lash out at anyone or anything without careful consideration. The tremendous emphasis on short-term recognition of profit or saving by 6S neglects or omits the "big picture" and long-term view for the health of any organization. The remuneration for 6S-certified BB and MBB are more often than not predicated on short-term gain to the exclusion of long-term effect. That seems a powerful incentive for a 6S practicioner to turn a blind eye to long-term effect.

In my opinion, this is grist enough to call it in your phrase: "indicates 6S is a fundamentally flawed approach."

So, KMAA, let's agree to disagree on 6S and move on to some other, more fruitful topic.:truce:

Wes/any others,

I agree...let's agree to disagree.

Your Motorola example is interesting though I'm not so sure that 6S would be THE guiding force & therefore the root cause of all the ills you describe. Most of us, including you, have no clue as to what goes on in the board room. As we see with the Enron, Tyco, WorldCom debacles something so fundamental as GAAP can get corrupted(ignored) into webs that are beyond even the best fiction writers. The conclusion then must be that GAAP is fundamentally flawed & should be abolished in favor of OCBOA or a mid 20th century ledger.

We close with no substance to the anti-argument...rather odd in the context of a overall Quality discipline based on data, analysis, & documentation. 6S is evil simply on the basis of lack of understanding of what comprises 6S...tough this doesn't prevent widespread negative & seemingly informed critique, vague references, dislike of marketing hype, opinions, or in general "just because".

I agree that all the Shewhart, Juran, Deming theories & texts are the bedrock, the ultimate well to be drawn from, but if you can't sell the Shewhart, Juran, Deming texts to corporate America, in their original form or through the various ASQ certified practitioners, then by definition, "it ain't workin". If it takes some consolidation & repackaging to get it to work then so be it. At least the ideas are being put into practice...which is pretty much the point.

Steve,
I consider this a good dialogue. It may sound as if I think 6S is the greatest thing since sliced bread(not my words), but I fully realize the non-orginality of the specific content. If 6S is fatally flawed then why? I keep hearing references to the "fatally flawed" concept, but no one seems to want to offer someting concrete as to why that is the case. Data talks...what is this view based on(beyond vague opinion)? Give me something I can hold in my hand.


OK, here goes again. But you won't like it because I don't quote dollars.

1. Six Sigma only deals with the directly observable dollars - and short term dollars at that. What impacts this quarter's bottom line. Forget that it sets up the company for long term failure. And forget that a lot of the dollar "savings" become someone else's expenses.

2. Six Sigma invokes numerical targets for everything. Dr. Deming's 14 points include elimination of numerical targets.

3. The whole 1.5 sigma shift mythology. Not based upon anything statistically defensible.

4. The reliance on high priced "fair haired boy (and girl)" belts rather than utilizing and trusting the folks who know - the workers.

But this is futile. No company is ever going to make a press release that says "we lost millions on six sigma". Thankfully, (I didn't find a praying hands cartoon) my company does not do six sigma. So I have no cost data to give you, so you will continue to say I have not proved my case.

We are definitely repeating ourselves. Much the same is found in the "Six Sigma - Wanna Fight? An interesting debate of the validity of Six Sigma " thread, probably this same list in fact. You are just testing to see if I write the same list . . .

Steve,

I'm a chemist by training & thus expect claims to be supported by some evidence beyond mere, and biased, opinion. In my world if someone makes a claim & it's unsupported it quickly melds into the flotsam & jetsam noise of all possible opinion...in essence the response becomes, "stop back when you have something to discuss".

While dollars are not necessary, I am looking for a nuts & bolts core 6S practice that swims upstream from any disciple you've chosen to bow to. I continue to see in the various posts in this thread & others that "6S is just re-baked traditonal practice". Then when 6S is discussed in & of itself the antis chime in with "6S is obsolete & never was a sound appraoch to begin with". A practice can't be a revered re-baked traditional approach & obsolete & unsound all at the same time.

The points you make amount to either unsupported, unobjective opinion (which for most folks is worth about as much as we pay for it) or small details that are twisted into broad generalizations (i.e. the 1.5 sigma shift gets far more press here than its worth).

As for the fair haired...this is nonsense. Your suggesting major improvements commonly happen through some altruistic cum-by-ya of intent? Effort without leadership is entropic & thus a waste of money & resources. By your measure a CQE would be just as fair haired.

If this discussion represents the typical mindset & approach I can see why there seems to be so many frustrated quality professionals.

KMAAA,

Thanks for returning!!:applause:

You mention that you require "supported evidence", please post the type of supported evidence you need and we will, as a group, have a better grasp of what you are seeking.

As they say, there is the truth, then there are statistics???

Al...

Steve,
If this discussion represents the typical mindset & approach I can see why there seems to be so many frustrated quality professionals.

What happened to agreeing to disagree? :truce:

KMAAA, you know there is no way I can satisfy you. Companies with negative experiences don't publish negative experiences. The only numbers that are going to be visible are those glowing numbers from companies who publish their results.

I have anecdotes that support my theories about Six Sigma, but I acknowledge they are only anecdotes. Very few people are willing to put them in writing and name names. I, thankfully, have no personal experience with Six Sigma.

So I have my beliefs, which are supported in theory and anecdotes. You are welcome to layout your beliefs, theory, anecdotes, facts, but let's keep this on a professional level, please.

Steve,

I'm a chemist by training & thus expect claims to be supported by some evidence beyond mere, and biased, opinion. In my world if someone makes a claim & it's unsupported it quickly melds into the flotsam & jetsam noise of all possible opinion...in essence the response becomes, "stop back when you have something to discuss".

While dollars are not necessary, I am looking for a nuts & bolts core 6S practice that swims upstream from any disciple you've chosen to bow to. I continue to see in the various posts in this thread & others that "6S is just re-baked traditonal practice". Then when 6S is discussed in & of itself the antis chime in with "6S is obsolete & never was a sound appraoch to begin with". A practice can't be a revered re-baked traditional approach & obsolete & unsound all at the same time.

The points you make amount to either unsupported, unobjective opinion (which for most folks is worth about as much as we pay for it) or small details that are twisted into broad generalizations (i.e. the 1.5 sigma shift gets far more press here than its worth).

As for the fair haired...this is nonsense. Your suggesting major improvements commonly happen through some altruistic cum-by-ya of intent? Effort without leadership is entropic & thus a waste of money & resources. By your measure a CQE would be just as fair haired.

If this discussion represents the typical mindset & approach I can see why there seems to be so many frustrated quality professionals.

KMAA,
Much of what you say is true, however, the same applies to those that support 6S.
I have asked several times for someone to please provide examples of cost savings based on the methods of 6S; to no avail. Nor can anyone provide examples of a return on their investment.
6S was, is and will continue to be a much "bally-hooed" topic. Primarily because it does not fit with traditionally accepted statistical practices.

If anything I've said appears to divert into a non-professional discussion please accept my apology as this isn't the intent. I'm typically a very direct person that would rather deal in 'content' than vague references.

Folks here are focusing waay too much on the press. This isn't what I'm looking for (remember, I'm trying to learn something...this is difficult in the popular press or even many journals). The exaggerated press & the (over)marketing of 6S is the one area I do agree with you. What I'm looking for is the nuts & bolts PRACTICES of 6S that are claimed here to have fundamental flaws. If this is the claim, what are the flaws? The pracitices are something we can define as they are a documented discipline, the press is out of our control as anyone can & does say anything they choose to support their position(sort of like some of the discussion here).

"Short-term"...unlike most/all here I've actually had the training. There is nothing in the training I've received (from a GE, MBB) that even hints at short term, actually the opposite is stressed. I'm guessing that the biased view here grabs the well known (public company) corporate strategy of short term profits, ties it to 6S in some loose fashion, and makes the claim that this loose association has some 6S cause-effect relationship. Does anyone know of a non-6S company, or perhaps a truckload of them, that seek short term profits? What part of 6S practice (DMAIC or DFSS) supports the short term goal? Surely, in 6S fashion, if "short term" is sought, there should be some efforts directed at defining & achieving this goal. What are they?

What are the elements & practices involved in DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control & Monitor) or DIDOV/DFSS (Define, Identify, Design, Optimize, Verify & Monitor (= Design For Six Sigma))? How do these elements/practices fail as compared to, let's say, Shewhart's/Deming's PDCA or PDSA? What will PDSA achieve that 6S can not? Be sure to answer from what you KNOW about the actual elements & practices of 6S as opposed to what you suspect, heard, read in the marketing-laiden press, or concluded based on what someone else has heard, read, stated.....

Most of the posts I see relative to 6S here start with, "I really don't know much about 6S or DMAIC........but I know/suspect it's not any good...." All I'm asking is "why?". No wax-on/wax-off, just the nuts & bolts support for such a view. If we had this, we could learn something. Without it we're just shootin the breeze here & kickin a few tires.

KMAAA,

You do love to change the subject!!!!!! And you have training to boot? What's the big deal, it is what it is?

Go for it!!:applause:

Al...

KMAAA, you keep asking the same questions, I keep giving the same answers, and you continue to shoot down my answers. At this point, there is nothing further to be gained from my participation in this discussion.

This is tending to become wearisome.

KMAAA,

While I appreciate your directness and respect your training, you must be careful not to insult the intelligence of the many here at the Cove with decades of learning and experience in Quality Assurance, re. "unlike most/all here I've had the training.

The body of knowledge (BOK) for 6S is strikingly similar to the BOK for CQEs. Many of those HERE have indeed been trained in most of the topics and tools adopted in the 6S world. Examples include management models ("foundations of six sigma") from Deming, Juran, et al, voice of the customer techniques such as QFD, team dynamics, probability & statistics (including SPC), problem solving techniques (Pareto, scatter, histograms, etc.), process capability, hypothesis testing, design of experiment, lean thinking, FMEA,... SHALL I GO ON?

Most here have used these tools for years AND SEE THEIR LONG TERM EFFECTIVENESS! Your agreement with the HYPE surrounding 6S is exactly where the concern we have with "short term" focus lies. Everthing PUBLISHED about 6S speaks of "savings in one year", or "this one project saved us $XXX,XXX". What about the long-term effects of the entire program? I have yet to see a report lauding 6S that subtracts the cost of training black belts, retaining consultants, or the cost of failed projects.

As far as the alphabet soup of acronyms go, DMAIC, DIDOV, DFSS, PDCA, PDSA, whatever methodology works for whatever company uses them is fine. They ALL are very logical under a variety of differing circumstances.

I AM NOT saying that 6S is "not any good", in fact, all of the tools used in 6S are great. I have used them with success. The question is, was 6S successful? or were the tools (which predate 6S) successful?

Please do not respond to perceived vagueness with more vagueness.

KMAAA,
What else is to be "learned" by continuing to badger Steve.
Give it a rest

Al,
Not changing the subject...as Steve mentions, I'm just asking the same questions in hopes of getting an answer with some meat in it.

Steve,
As before, we'll agree to disagree & that's OK. No harm intended on my part. It's a big world & would be pretty boring if everyone felt the same way.

Rob,
No disrespect intended. I realize there is plenty of talent here. Actually, this is why I'm seeking the level of response that I am. I have a real chance to learn something, though it seems it isn't forthcoming (on this topic). The 'training' I referred to was specifically 6S training, which seems to be hard to come by here...I understand it is not new, only perhaps the combined BOK may be new(er).

From what I've seen, I'd agree that "The body of knowledge (BOK) for 6S is strikingly similar to the BOK for CQEs". This is part of the disconnect for me. How can CQE basically be 6S and yet CQE works, but 6S doesn't?

"Everything PUBLISHED about 6S speaks of "savings in one year"" This is where my statement "I've had the training" comes in. Marketeering press does not equal actual 6S philosophy & practice...rather the press is like any marketeering dribble...say whatever is necessary to make a sale. It would probably be better to restate the view that 6S is "fatally flawed" as "the marketeering claims surrounding 6S are fatally flawed". This would be an accurate statement.

"As far as the alphabet soup of acronyms go, DMAIC, DIDOV, DFSS, PDCA, PDSA, whatever methodology works for whatever company uses them is fine. They ALL are very logical under a variety of differing circumstances." I agree completely & have stated so earlier. Whatever works, works for me. The key is that some program is in place. If 6S gets adopted where other approaches haven't been I don't see this as a terrible thing. More at bats, more hits (TP).


"The question is, was 6S successful? or were the tools (which predate 6S) successful?" Excellent question. Not to be vague, but the question wholly depends on how one defines 6S. Folks seem to key in on 6S being defined by marketeers (i.e. corporations seeking short term profits), I can only define 6S through my direct experience with the training.

If we're going with the marketeer's definition then I'd say the jury is still out (The article that started this discussion is marketeer-speak. The key "experts" saying 6S is passe Desai, Keeley, & Hammer all have alternative approaches to sell. With this, any objectivity regarding 6S flys out the window.) The article mentions "innovation" as a key flaw in 6S. 6S isn't about innovation, it's about execution.

If we're defining 6S by it's philosophy & practice content...then I'd say it is successful...after all, it's just rebaked traditional practice & the success of this is beyond question(apparently).

ralph,
I'm guessing not a lot.

Good discussion, but we're still kicking tires. To be honest I have learned a few things though & that's always a plus.

Al,
Not changing the subject...as Steve mentions, I'm just asking the same questions in hopes of getting an answer with some meat in it.

"Everything PUBLISHED about 6S speaks of "savings in one year"" This is where my statement "I've had the training" comes in. Marketeering press does not equal actual 6S philosophy & practice...rather the press is like any marketeering dribble...say whatever is necessary to make a sale.

"The question is, was 6S successful? or were the tools (which predate 6S) successful?" Excellent question. Not to be vague, but the question wholly depends on how one defines 6S. Folks seem to key in on 6S being defined by marketeers (i.e. corporations seeking short term profits), I can only define 6S through my direct experience with the training.

If we're defining 6S by it's philosophy & practice content...then I'd say it is successful...after all, it's just rebaked traditional practice & the success of this is beyond question(apparently).

Good discussion, but we're still kicking tires. To be honest I have learned a few things though & that's always a plus.Some folks may have guessed I started this thread with the intention of stirring a few laughs and pointing out to many of our Covers that "real people in the outside world" are also beginning to paint 6S with terms like "passe" and "old hat."

Each time KMAAA jumped in at first, I went back to humor, but KMAAA keeps snapping at ankles, so let's take advantage of the facts he states:
This is where my statement "I've had the training" comes in.
I can only define 6S through my direct experience with the training.
Tell us, KMAAA, if you will, any or all of the following:

Do you currently hold any of the 6S designations of BB, MBB, or even GB?
Is the certificate from ASQ? If not, from whom?
If you have one of the BB or MBB certificates, did you do a project that saved money using the tools in the 6S holster?
If yes, was the savings over and above the cost of 6S training for personnel involved?
If yes, are the savings continuing in subsequent years, or were they one-time?
Do you still work for the outfit where you used the 6S tools?
What 6S tools do you use in your current job?
Understand that I am not being a smart axx here. I am stone serious. Over in the ASQ Forums, we had a standing offer (over a year and still no reply) for anyone to show us the real net savings from a 6S initiative (after the costs of the 6S training and other implementations.)

If you have these kind of details for us, then redact them to conceal company identity, post them and let us see them as a case study so we can learn and perhaps be induced to incorporate 6S in our own careers.

Now, let me make it plain, so I won't be accused of sandbagging later:
I have studied 6S techniques for over 11 years. I have plenty of Quality initiatives (not 6S certified) which have resulted in substantial, continuing savings year after year. I am an ardent advocate of FMEA and mistake proofing. I am a long-time proponent of lean manufacturing (I also belong to the Advanced Manufacturing Interest Group at ASQ.)

One of the few things I willingly accepted about ISO Standards was the insistance on documentation versus anecdotal evidence. I and others will judge responses by that criteria: Documentation, not anecdotes.

The latest issue of Quality Digest includes an announcement that Six Sigma Management Institute (founded by Mikel Harry) and the Fulton School of Engineering at Arizona State have created an online registry for Six Sigma practitioners.

The registry "will help provide standards for registry, assessment, training, qualification and certification, as well as access to consulting services for enterprises of any size". The web site www.sixsigmaregistry provides additional information.

Harry is quoted as saying that the registry will establish a global standard for measuring and certifying knowledge and experience levels of practitioners based on Arizona State's curriculum.

Apparently I wasted time and money in getting my SSBB certification through a non-reputable organization like ASQ. :bonk:

Bill Pflanz

Sorry Wes,

This post isn't & never was about me & I'm not going to play into your turning it in that direction(good attempt though, if folks can't answer the question I guess re-direction is what's left). If you'd like to, or you feel it's worth it, start a separate thread.

Claims were made here early on that 6S was fatally flawed. In the interest of making effective use of our 'quality' time, I think it's in everyone's best interest to understand the basis for such a claim. I don't think you, me, or anyone else would choose to pursue an errant path if they could avoid it.

I tend to agree with several folks here, this thread has exceeded it's usefulness.

I would argue that "Quality" (whatever flavor is being employed) is not effective at short-term profits, and isn't effective at long term profits. It is effective at "mid-term" profits, so arguing about either short-term or long term effects of quality is at best challenging and at worst misleading.

Short term profits (quartly) can be driven by sudden changes in markets (like the current spike in oil prices). They can be driven by changes in tax codes (like local tax incentives). They can be driven by fads (like consultants in "flavor of the month" quality training). They can be imitated by accounting tricks (Enron!). But most quality programs won't make a big change in in this kind of time frame.

Long term profits (5+ years) are generally due to a innovation, effective leadership, and, yes, a culture of quality. Well-established industries (like oil, steel, agriculture) have few possibilities for innovation or quailty improvement and hence little control over long-term profitability. Tech industries are all about innovation, and profits come and go quickly (the guy who has finally developed an inexpensive, reliable, in control, capable process to make 3.5" floppy drives is not headed for great reward).

Quality typically helps in the mid-term. Quality takes an existing product and makes it a bit better and, hopefully, a bit more profitable. Quality keeps an eye out for potential problems and nips them in the bud.

So I don't know that Steve or KMAAA (or any of the rest of us) are ever going to get a definitive answer. Short term results of quality inititives 1) are self-reported, 2) often exagerated for PR purposes, 3) may overlook training and overhead costs. A "scientific" study of the effectiveness of SS could probably never be done. Perhaps the best measure would be something like the "Baldrige 100". Track the stocks of companies that have implemented SS and see if they perform any differently than their competitors over the course of several years. But that is more work than I want to do right now!



Tim Folkerts


Quality is the "BASF" of engineering -- "We don't make the products you use, we make them better. " :cool:

Harry is quoted as saying that the registry will establish a global standard for measuring and certifying knowledge and experience levels of practitioners based on Arizona State's curriculum.



But why?

One thing that I think I am seeing here is that it is the application of the tools that makes a difference. If we accept that, then can we also agree that different tools fit different circumstances? If yes, then why would a company with an "in house" six sigma (or quality practicioner, or voodoo doctor, whatever) program suddenly agree that the program developed outside of their culture is the one and only way to go. Does this new program sound like "profit protection" to anyone else?

Why should we accept this so-called "global standard"?

Of course, I will agree that the training is very likely better than no training at all.

[QUOTE=Craig H.]Why should we accept this so-called "global standard"?[QUOTE]

Craig,

I don't know the answer to your question. As Officer Friday always wanted on Dragnet, I just gave the facts. I agree it would be interesting to know who annointed Harry as the ultimate decision maker for the certification.

Wes will understand that this is the time to bring in Deus ex Machina.

Bill Pflanz

I would argue that "Quality" (whatever flavor is being employed) is not effective at short-term profits, and isn't effective at long term profits. It is effective at "mid-term" profits, so arguing about either short-term or long term effects of quality is at best challenging and at worst misleading.

Tim, excellent observation about mid-term profit being a better measure. :agree1:

A "scientific" study of the effectiveness of SS could probably never be done. Perhaps the best measure would be something like the "Baldrige 100". Track the stocks of companies that have implemented SS and see if they perform any differently than their competitors over the course of several years. But that is more work than I want to do right now!

In the same issue of Quality Digest that I just quoted in a previous posting, they reported that the S&P outperformed the Baldrige Index (which includes all past winners of the Baldrige Award) for the second year in a row. The index only dates back back 10 years. The Baldrige Index now has about a negative 30% return since 1993 compared to about +60% for the S&P 500. (Note the returns are not annualized but refer to the gain since 1993.)

Actually the concept of the index is flawed for a couple of reasons including the fluctuation of profits over time that have nothing to do with quality improvements as you noted in your posting. In addition, the Baldrige index is unlikely to match the return of the S&P 500 due to the small number of companies in it. If an investor wanted to at least obtain the same return as the S&P 500 than they would want to buy a large number of diverse stocks. The best way to do that is with a S&P 500 mutual fund or a diverse number of mutual funds that in total are diverse enough to match the index.

You would think that an organization based on quality would have considered sample size and correllation studies if they were taking a scientific approach to prove quality's success. They may have had as much or more success with a dartboard approach. Given another 30 years of Baldrige winners and no external influences, the quality index may work.

With all the financial comments that I have posted recently, I may be asked to turn in my quality credentials and join an accounting forum. :cool:

Bill Pflanz

I have lost some faith in the Baldrige Index since the accounting scandals have shown an unsavory light on business profits. I always knew there were numerous ways to manipulate profits. The introduction of doubt I had was, "Are the Baldrige winners doing that too, and if so, for how many years?"

I've perceived value in 6S in its better organized approach after the chaotic TQM phase. But when I read the article on 6S not being enough, my thought was, "Congratulations. Your collective MBAs are hard at work again--on wisdom like this?" I have grown hoarse from stating such obvious points as the article made.

I've heard fabulous ancedotes of 6S successes, and failures too. My impression that maintaining a balance, a systems-wide view on creating and maintaining value, can keep the 6S in perspective.

When broken down into defined principles, 6S seems like just a well-structured method of using trained teams to get improvements done.

It's a system/tool set with specific application, like other systems/tool sets. Using it alone or principally is a flawed approach: failing to note the ill effects of one group's gains on another group is a failure of the overall quality system.

When I read the article I had one thought: Baldrige (TQM). Basic stuff, really. I don't have direct experience with tools such as FMEA, ANOVA and Cpk. I've never worked with processes that were controlled enough to do high end quality, because controlling processes generally requires discipline in the people too. Sigh.

Doing 6S well requires discipline. A maverick approach, a mercenary-style pursuit of gains (for stock share or personal prestige) invites the same sloppy disappointment as is possible with every Quality tool. Combining 6S with a long-range planning view to place maintain 6S projects' perspective seems sound to me.

Most you are referring to 6 sigma is Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control part of DMAIC process. In most companies simple meaning of six sigma project is basically a damage control exercise for existing products.

DFSS i.e. Design for six sigma is the proactive way to go for product creation which addresses design robustness as one of the elements.

Arvind

Arvind,

Can you give us some data for Six Sigma?

Some real-world numbers would be nice, like:

% of defects before and after the initiative
$'s saved as a result of the SS project
First year ROI with Six SIgma training and man hours factored in

Thanks,

Carl-

Most you are referring to 6 sigma is Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control part of DMAIC process. In most companies simple meaning of six sigma project is basically a damage control exercise for existing products.

DFSS i.e. Design for six sigma is the proactive way to go for product creation which addresses design robustness as one of the elements.

Arvind

Arvind,

You titled your post "DMAIC versus DFSS- A reactive versus proactive approach". I thought DFSS is used in developing a new product or service that is defect free. If that is the case than using DMAIC is not a reactive approach but merely the methodology for improving existing products and services.

If you were trying to do a total re-engineering of an existing product or service than I agree that DFSS is more appropriate and maybe more proactive since you are not only improving but trying to identify a replacement product or at least one with totally new performance characteristics.

Whether you use DMAIC or DFSS depends on what you are trying to accomplish. One is not better or worse than the other, only different. I have not searched all of the many posts in the Cove on the subject of Six Sigma but I don't believe anyone has argued the case to only use Six Sigma for improvment of existing products and services.

Bill Pflanz

You want 6S to hit home with real results and visuals, look at using simulation as a vehicle for proof in the pudding (sort of speak).

Here is a great tool to look at and the visuals are not only a fantastic presentation tool but also a great training tool for internal and external staff.

Here is the web site www.flexsim.com


Regards

Dave Brajkovich
dave@flexsim.ca

Dave, that is all well and good; but what does it have to do with six sigma?

Dave, that is all well and good; but what does it have to do with six sigma?

Rob,

You must not have noticed that he is selling software that can be used for Six Sigma as he defines it. I would rather use some software to collect data, see if the process is in control or not and then help implement change. Maybe I could use Dave's software and maybe not, it all depends on the problem. I doubt if it is the saviour for any organization. Before I get jumped on for being anti-Six Sigma I am black belt certified through ASQ and my company.

Bill Pflanz

Interestingly [interest is all in the eyes of the beholder, I suppose], folks have labeled ME a 6S "basher" from time to time. Given the fact 6S has adopted and adapted many of the Quality tools I have been using for years, it would be nearly impossible for me to bash 6S in and of itself. My rancor has always been reserved for individuals who make wild, unsubstantiated claims of dollar savings from implementing 6S initiatives. Strangely, I have yet to see any of these claims for "savings" translate into bottom line net profit. Does EVERY company which realizes a net savings from a 6S initiative pass it on to their customers and their customers pass it on to the end user? I have never seen anything from Motorola or GE go DOWN in price in the 20+ years they have been implementing 6S throughout their plants. I expect there are countless 'anecdotal' tales of savings, but they must be stashing all those profits in numbered accounts in tax haven countries.

Suffice to say, from my standpoint, the 6S concept is just a clever way of rebundling the Quality tools into a pleasing public relations package. The concept, itself, is not subject to bashing so much as individuals who use the term as a smoke screen should be bashed when someone puts their feet to the fire and says, in the words of Cuba Gooding's character in the Tom Cruise movie, Jerry Maguire, "Show me the money!"

I personally prefer long-term, permanent improvement versus short-term improvement which doesn't consider ramifications down the line which may negate the value of the improvements when it comes time to calculate overall net. I've been lucky because I only got evaluated on net improvement, not on the name of the technique I used to achieve the improvement.

I have a strong hunch many of you who read this have similar sensibilities to my bosses and shareholders over the years: "I don't care what you call it; does it get results?!"

Dave, that is all well and good; but what does it have to do with six sigma?

Rob,

6S like many fundamental tools sets can always be debated as to it's positive or negative effects on an organization. In principal 6S along with other continious improvement tool sets are always questioned and hardly ever properly implemented. My believe is the underlying issue is not the tool itself but the organizations ability to accept the hard work it takes to get the job done! My experience and certifications lies in root cause analysis and process improvements using tools such as the logical thinking tree methodology (TOC), it is a very sound and logical practice, but unfortunately does not always get the job done. However using graphical simulation tends to make people within the organization very aware of the impact of implementing or not implementing improvement concepts. With all this talk of lean and continous improvements the organization must be able to clearly identify and register results to make it worth while. Using graphical simulation brings all levels of the organization to the table and opens the forum for team delivery rather than a shove it down your throat process which, in my experience is a rough road for all.

I am a believer of "simulation" not only because I represent it,but from a industry awareness perspective I believe that the tools 6S and the likes can send more powerful messages by using visual real time tools such as simulation to validate or disprove certian ideas.

I am not pushing this on anyone, just thought that since the TS cerification requirement will have a simulation requirement in the future then it might be a good idea for the experts to get on board.

Thanks and have a great day

Dave Brajkovich
dbrajkovich@essi-erp.com

We strayed from the original, Motorola charter and taken advantage of the structure and capacity for team problem solving to do other good things. I disagree with the limitations placed on Six Sigma that it cannot shift to other charters - using the most appropriate techniques to solve important problems.

I was thrown into some strange teams in the early days. On the one hand - they were inappropriate for traditional six-sigma, but they were important and well suited for a team.

My point - pick projects that are important and use whatever tools are appropriate. Leverage the six sigma structure and use lean, use shainin, or Fisher... use anything that works.

If your goal is to accomplish six-sigma on a critical variable - great
If your goal is to eliminate a defect quickly - use Red X
If you cant measure the ROI of you training intervention - make a rational decision and move on!

Perhaps this is a question of weather Six Sigma should, could or has already grown from the Big 6S to a common sense 6S -

Per post by Wes...

Just to show I'm not a complete churl - here's an interesting article about a trend toward divorcing BIG 6S (the kind Steve Prevette and I decry) from "common sense" 6S (which we both might willingly embrace) - The quote is just an excerpt; the complete article can be found at Inside Quality (http://www.insidequality.com/index.v3page?v2_group=0&p=4498&ct=cdisplay&nt=true&cd_eid=25152):

If the original charter by Motorola was to solve product defects (the Big 6S), can or should six sigma be allowed to shift from its original charter to the common sense 6S?

I do agree with the point that KMAA made concerning criticism fo Six Sigma by individuals who haven't been trained in 'real' six sigma. The PR crap is PR crap we all know it - it's not six sigma, therfore criticism of the PR crap is only criticism of the PR crap.

That said, I would also take issue with the basic premise of the article: if Six Sigma doesn't address innovation - and it doesn't - then six sigma is bad. I'm sorry, in my shed I have a circular saw, a laser level, a drill and a hammer. a hammer can't do what the circular saw does, but I'm not going to throw away my hammer.

bashing may be 'fun' but it isn't constructive.

That said, I would also take issue with the basic premise of the article: if Six Sigma doesn't address innovation - and it doesn't - then six sigma is bad. I'm sorry, in my shed I have a circular saw, a laser level, a drill and a hammer. a hammer can't do what the circular saw does, but I'm not going to throw away my hammer.

I have a different analogy. As many people will admit to, Six Sigma is largely a collection of existing tools, with a lot of PR overlaid. So, to me, the analogy would be buying a $35,000 tool box made of titanium to hold your tools, versus a $100 tool box made of sheet metal.

I have a different analogy. As many people will admit to, Six Sigma is largely a collection of existing tools, with a lot of PR overlaid. So, to me, the analogy would be buying a $35,000 tool box made of titanium to hold your tools, versus a $100 tool box made of sheet metal.
I like Steve's analogy. I have another one related to what I have seen in terms of application... The house has a bad foundation, but the tools are being used to fix the swingset in the backyard.