Our company is still very much into the mode of building enthusiasm for six sigma, and sometimes it leads to a lot of confusion on just what it is.

for example,
A coworker (he's quite involved with six sigma) and I were reviewing some process instructions, and we were thinking about some changes that may save time/and money in them. When we were done I joked that if we would have submitted them to six sigma we could have spent alot more time and resources finding a few obvious changes that reduced the process change. He then said with genuine seriousness that we had applied six sigma. and proved how it cost efficient it really is.

But that confusing, we had done no DOE, no statistical study, or FMEA. we didn't have a charter, or a champion. How could this be six sigma?
Six sigma, he said was about using the best tools to economically optimize a process.

To my curiousity he is always promoting the idea, that I don't need six sigma training. We always have been doing six sigma and that its more of an administrative way to calculate cost impovements and that the belts are more about the managerial responseability to coordinate significant cost savings.

Indeed, quoted in our own newletter is a story of a lady who used six sigma to plan her wedding. What she means as you understand when you read further is that she planned for things that might go wrong or cost a lot of wasted money. So now six sigma becomes the buzzword describing all brainstorming, analysis and statistics??

Even the very title seems a little arbitrary. Hopefully in a few days I will have the joy of explaning what a CQE is to my boss. But my 6 sigma friend predicts it will mean very little. 'You are not a 6 sigma belt and you merely showed you have learned a few more statistical tools then others.'
So I do six sigma everytime I analyze something for cost savings but fail to truly show mastery of the topic, even as I become a CQE.

If all projects that use six sigma techniques aren't 'Six sigma projects', Are all projects done by a black belt then 'Six sigma projects' even if they don't use the tools successfully (I saw this as well).

The overall impression becomes that six sigma is a stamp that management gives you when it feels you can manage projects. And its a buzz-word that they want everybody to use for improving things (even if they didn't do very much).

ok. I figured there has been some lively discussion about the value of six sigma.

But what is new to me, is my friends assertion that a simple brainstorming/ problem-solving session is six sigma. those of you that think six sigma all is rubbish, probably would agree with him.

But to the six sigma loyals, Do you agree? Does six sigma all of the deserve the recognition of all process improvement? Is there a valid reason to promote this idea that six sigma is any problemsolving that leads to cost savings? What does six sigma uniquely offer (Advanced DOE for hard problem, management support, a management system for cost saving problems...)?

What makes a project A Six Sigma project? A charter, A black belt performing it, A team, A few documents concluding what could very well be obvious. Does (should) black belts neccesarily need to use tools or teams to truly complete a six sigma project? Or if my friend (instead of I) had done the same review of process changes that had lead to some savings, should the $$$ saved and recognition been credited to 'six sigma'?

Do you think people don't sometimes use the unique tools that is 'six sigma' because they are complex or difficult to explain? Understandably this could yet be a subjective question, but I am interested to know if its intentional to make six sigma seem simple, all inconclusive, and maybe a little non-value added. I wonder too what the six sigma champions are hoping for -employers praising six sigma's contributions to birthdays and retirements? Everybody doing 'six sigma' (read problem-solving/cost savings) in their job and a few belts managing them with martial skill? Just the attention and support of top management so that finally all the problems that wouldn't go away when TQM or ISO 9000 was the quality craze.

It all makes me wonder, whether SSBB would be truly added value as next training after the CQE (as some has implied on another thread).

J.Oliphant,
If you get a chance, read a book called " The power of Six sigma" by Subir Chowdhury. This is will answer most of your question in very basic terms. No lengthy formula, No huge table, No complex diagrams or anything. A story type narration of power of Six sigma. Slightly over 100 pages. You could just finish in a short air travel.
Answers to all your questions are already in various postings of this forum. But I would also strongly recommend reading this inexpensive book to get answer all your questions.
Regards,
Govind.

J Oli,

You do have quite a few questions, many of them very good. Rather than look to the board here to enlighten you perhaps you need to do some homework & self study on the topic. Quick sound-bite discussions pale in comparison to the physical act of study & reflection. One thing you can conclude from previous discussions is that you'll get primarily a one-sided response...and that's healthy as long as there is additional discussion to balance them out. There actually is another side, but they prefer to respond privately rather than voice their thoughts in threads.

Some of the nuts & bolts can be reviewed at http://www.isixsigma.com/me/

J.Oliphant,
If you get a chance, read a book called " The power of Six sigma" by Subir Chowdhury. This is will answer most of your question in very basic terms. No lengthy formula, No huge table, No complex diagrams or anything. A story type narration of power of Six sigma. Slightly over 100 pages. You could just finish in a short air travel.
Answers to all your questions are already in various postings of this forum. But I would also strongly recommend reading this inexpensive book to get answer all your questions.
Regards,
Govind.

Govind,

I happen to be reading Chowdhury's sequel book called Design for Six Sigma. It is entertaining but not necessarily useful if you are trying to learn implementation. This book uses the same major characters from his first book but has the central character in a new business where coffee is $4, all the help has their dream job, and all the customers are thrilled to spend the money because of Six Sigma.

Terms like brainstorming, FMEA, problem solving etc. are thrown in occasionally with no explanation of what they are or how to use them. I don't mean to be critical, I just wanted to note that Chowdhury's books are not meant to be used as a how-to manual. Mr. Oliphant seems to be looking for more detail rather than being sold on the concept.

I also spent a little time on the iSixSigma Forum. My random sample of the threads makes me realize how civilized the participants are in the Cove. In that forum you better have a thick skin.

Bill Pflanz

I don't want to invoke the displeasure of KMAAA, so I will stick to a literal response to "what is six sigma".

In the beginning . . . Motorola was making electronic components and was having failures. The question was - how much work was needed on improvement? When are you "good enough". The theory was, if you keep improving the process until the centerline of the data is six standard deviations away from the specifications for the part, then this is the optimal place to be. Basically a Cpk of 2. That's it.

Govind,

I happen to be reading Chowdhury's sequel book called Design for Six Sigma. It is entertaining but not necessarily useful if you are trying to learn implementation. This book uses the same major characters from his first book but has the central character in a new business where coffee is $4, all the help has their dream job, and all the customers are thrilled to spend the money because of Six Sigma.

Terms like brainstorming, FMEA, problem solving etc. are thrown in occasionally with no explanation of what they are or how to use them. I don't mean to be critical, I just wanted to note that Chowdhury's books are not meant to be used as a how-to manual. Mr. Oliphant seems to be looking for more detail rather than being sold on the concept.

I also spent a little time on the iSixSigma Forum. My random sample of the threads makes me realize how civilized the participants are in the Cove. In that forum you better have a thick skin.

Bill PflanzJust 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): From Inside Quality:“The traditional Six Sigma Black Belt implementation approach can require millions of dollars in investment, dedication of a firm's best full-time resources and lengthy training. This top-down approach is a major obstacle for small and mid-sized companies, but it doesn't need to be. There is an alternative Six Sigma deployment model called the "Six Steps to Lean Six Sigma." Originally pioneered by Motorola, it allows small and mid-sized organizations to implement the methodology without the significant resource commitment and overhead structure of the Black Belt approach."

I am considering writing a fictional account about a quality engineer who applies Six Sigma to the Placebo Effect Theory of Quality. Since any tool will work to show that the change may or may not have an effect, it should be easy to understand for any layman.

My working title is Sick Sigma Tools for Quality Hypochondriacs. Could be a best seller and I can finally retire. :biglaugh:

Bill Pflanz

20 years ago, we would have called what we call "Six Sigma" today, Taguchi methods based on heavy use of "objective" voice-of-customer collection and QFD flow down. I would also argue that at least some use of structured problem solving and statistical problem solving techniques is, if not mandatory, an huge factor in what I consider to be successful Sigma projects done right.

Where I work, I have also seen the opposite extreme, that of people using less rigorous methodologies and wrapping the Sigma mantle around them in order to be able to claim their ROSS dollars and get recognition. Well, at least that was true until a recent crack down on Sigma rigor!

Beyond the rigor of the problem solving methods, I would also argue that the program structure of, at a minimum, distinct, peer reviewed, phases in accordance with DMAIC or DMADV, is mandatory. (Have you or any others here ever been invited to a "MAIC" phase exit review?!). The reason for this last point is that in order for these methods to add value, they need to be iterative in the proper sequence and not proceed to the next phase without adequate readiness.

The implications are that Sigma should be reserved for major improvements which would justify the adminstrative and program management overhead involved.

For lesser issues, certainly, the quality tool box will help provide solutions (for example I am a believer in the value of FMEA and DOE for solving many issues from single parts and process steps to end-to-end business processes). But throwing every problem into the Sigma bin is probably not necessary and may even be damaging.

Mark

Govind,

I happen to be reading Chowdhury's sequel book called Design for Six Sigma. It is entertaining but not necessarily useful if you are trying to learn implementation. This book uses the same major characters from his first book but has the central character in a new business where coffee is $4, all the help has their dream job, and all the customers are thrilled to spend the money because of Six Sigma.

Terms like brainstorming, FMEA, problem solving etc. are thrown in occasionally with no explanation of what they are or how to use them. I don't mean to be critical, I just wanted to note that Chowdhury's books are not meant to be used as a how-to manual. Mr. Oliphant seems to be looking for more detail rather than being sold on the concept.

I also spent a little time on the iSixSigma Forum. My random sample of the threads makes me realize how civilized the participants are in the Cove. In that forum you better have a thick skin.

Bill Pflanz
Bill,
Thanks for letting me know about the sequel. I have not read that book. I was recommending that Power of six sigma because the thread initiator was asking about "what" rather than "How".
I think Chowdhury's Power of Six sigma does the job of answering "what".
When I prepared for my SSBB Certification, I was reading Sixsigma Handbook-Thomas Pyzdek and Forrest W. Breyfogle, III. I bought the Chowdhury's book after passing the exam. I was able to appreciate the simplicity.

:topic: I have not tried isixsigma forum. But I did review some replies occasionally. It is ok to disagree with views. That is what forum discussion is all about. However, when the argument turns personal and ugly, that is where the moderator has to step in and do his/her job. I have lots of respects for professionals in this forum.I hope this forum will not turn that way.
Govind.

Here's a Visual map that I compiled a while back. It covers the basics of the Sick sigma stuff. Hope it's usefull to the discussion.
Wallace.

.... Where I work, I have also seen the opposite extreme, that of people using less rigorous methodologies and wrapping the Sigma mantle around them in order to be able to claim their ROSS dollars and get recognition. Well, at least that was true until a recent crack down on Sigma rigor!

Beyond the rigor of the problem solving methods, I would also argue that the program structure of, at a minimum, distinct, peer reviewed, phases in accordance with DMAIC or DMADV, is mandatory. (Have you or any others here ever been invited to a "MAIC" phase exit review?!). The reason for this last point is that in order for these methods to add value, they need to be iterative in the proper sequence and not proceed to the next phase without adequate readiness.

The implications are that Sigma should be reserved for major improvements which would justify the adminstrative and program management overhead involved.

Mark

You know I think I'm seeing that rush to claim $$$. That makes the technique even more confusing, because instead of a process to eliminate variation- Its about claiming $$$.

I'm getting the book from my local library soon. thanks for all the replies, I realize you've been through these sort of threads before.

I think many of the more confusing aspects of six sigma, are a consequence of certain corporate decisions upon its implementation.

I recently passed CQE (found out today!) and I've been pondering whether SSBB is 'value added.' The way to find out is to genuinely learn more about it rather than just to look to how the corporation chooses to implement it.

Needless to say, since its a corporation-- its a given that some things will just not make a lot of sense. :D

:topic: have to agree about the comment with isixsigma. Makes me appreciate how generally polite and courteous cove members are.

You know I think I'm seeing that rush to claim $$$. That makes the technique even more confusing, because instead of a process to eliminate variation- Its about claiming $$$.

I think many of the more confusing aspects of six sigma, are a consequence of certain corporate decisions upon its implementation.

J.
Now you are beginning to realize why SS is such a controversial topic with quality professionals. Executives are always looking for a quick fix that will be the answer to all their problems and SS is the latest. Its predecessors were TQM, Quality Circles, Reengineering etc. Besides his comments on management, many executives did not accept Deming because he did not believe in quick fixes. (There is no instant pudding).

I recently passed CQE (found out today!) and I've been pondering whether SSBB is 'value added.' The way to find out is to genuinely learn more about it rather than just to look to how the corporation chooses to implement it.Needless to say, since its a corporation-- its a given that some things will just not make a lot of sense.

Congratulations on your CQE. From your previous postings, it appears that you are considering a career change to the field of quality. Rather than spending more time on getting certifications, I would recommend doing some more individual studying in order to understand the history and philosophies of the various quality and management experts. If you are as passionate as you indicate, you will find lots of interesting readings that will educate you more than taking another ASQ test. This forum always has recommendations for what books to read and a visit to your local library will provide a free resource. Don't look for just quality books but also include leadership, team dynamics, communication, and other management books.

At the same time, you will need to make a decision on what you want to do with your life, including staying in the Butler area. There may be opportunities within your company, within your industry and the possibility of a total career change into a different industry, in a different part of the country

You sound like a smart person who is willing to learn on their own. It will take you some time but the journey will be worth it. Down the road, you could be the one answering questions in this forum as the expert. Just so we all keep are egos in check - I always describe an expert as someone who knows more than anyone else on a subject. Of course, if you know one thing and the rest of us know nothing than you are the expert.

Good luck.
Bill Pflanz

I don't want to invoke the displeasure of KMAAA, so I will stick to a literal response to "what is six sigma".

In the beginning . . . Motorola was making electronic components and was having failures. The question was - how much work was needed on improvement? When are you "good enough". The theory was, if you keep improving the process until the centerline of the data is six standard deviations away from the specifications for the part, then this is the optimal place to be. Basically a Cpk of 2. That's it.

Hi Steve,

In a course I took at Univ of Wis, "Robust Tolerance Analysis," I was taught that you were allowed a 1.5 sigma shift from the centerline of your process for setup, and therefore you could be as close as 4.5 sigma to the nearest specification. This would mean a Cpk anywhere from 1.5 – 2.0.
I’m not sure if this was the original Motorola design or if it was some new six sigma thinking?

Andy 6/26/04

Andy,

Respectfully, your teacher said it was allowed?????? By whom??? The customer doesn't expect a perfect product, but only one that fits in with all the other products that make up an assembly.

I guess just a difference between hypotheticals and real life.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the process of 6S (continuous improvement), just not the marketing of it as another "saviour for industry".

Al...

Al,

It was a course I had taken several years ago that taught the concept of process tolerancing. It was one of the best courses I had ever taken, but it was also taught as an approach to six sigma.

Not commenting on the pros and cons of 6S, I was just looking for comments from Steve or others to see if they had heard of the 1.5 sigma process average shift, and if this would then equate to a Cpk of 1.5.
What is six sigma? Is it +/- 6S or +/- 4.5S ?
:confused:

Andy 6/27

I've typically viewed the 1.5 Sigma shift as a reflection of tool wear and oddities such as qualification of not-quite-identical replacement sources for parts/materials/items which went end-of-life. Essentially, it is a fudge factor to encompass all the stuff that even the best sampling plan and experimental design could not explicitly capture as control factors / known variables.

Sounds good Quasi,
I think our friend Steve might say from an SPC standpoint, you've identified known causes for process average shifts. We could make a note on our SPC chart, recalculate the control limits and move on, life is good :yes: .
But the question for me remains, when would you tell your boss that the process has achieved six sigma? +/-4.5S (Cpk = 1.5), +/-6S (Cpk = 2.0), +/-7.5S (Cpk = ?) ???

Andy 6/28

Hi Steve,

In a course I took at Univ of Wis, "Robust Tolerance Analysis," I was taught that you were allowed a 1.5 sigma shift from the centerline of your process for setup, and therefore you could be as close as 4.5 sigma to the nearest specification. This would mean a Cpk anywhere from 1.5 – 2.0.
I’m not sure if this was the original Motorola design or if it was some new six sigma thinking?

Andy 6/26/04
I have no direct knowledge of where the 1.5 sigma shift came from. I suspect it was because the normal distribution value at 6 sigma is SO small that managers did not find it palatable. I also believe it comes from misunderstanding SPC. With a full suite of SPC rules (not just a single point outside of the UCL/LCL) you will easily detect a 1.5 sigma shift in the average.

I still believe the original design was simply a Cpk of 2.

I agree with Steve that if someone has an understanding of control charting, the shift is part of the normal process. If there is "tool wear and oddities" in the process, than the control chart is used to identify them. Whether you recalculate the limits to include these data points is dependent on how the original control limits were calculated and what you want to accomplish. If you want to use the control chart to detect the oddities, then I guess you would not use them in your control chart calculations and they would show up as outside the control limits. On the other hand, if tool wear and other oddities are part of the process, they would be included and the other control chart rules (besides being outside the control limits) would detect any shifts that would need to be investigated.

While studying for the ASQ SSBB exam, I did some research on the origins of the 1.5 Sigma shift. The following is an excerpt from Six Sigma - Understanding the Concept, Implications and Challenges, by Mario Perez-Wilson, who played a role in the promotion and implementation of Six Sigma at Motorola and is an explanation of the origins and reason for the use of the 1.5 Sigma Shift:

"Six Sigma is not 3.4 ppm. The whole misunderstanding about 3.4 ppm resulted from Motorola’s document “Our Six Sigma Challenge”. In it Motorola asserted if a process was made to be Six Sigma by having the design specifications be twice the process-width, the process would be extremely robust. Such a process would be robust, even if it was surprised by a significant or detrimental shift in average, as high as +1.5 sigma, the customers would not perceive a degradation in quality. At worst case, a shift of 1.5 sigma, would make a zero-defects product be 3.45 ppm and the customer would only perceive an increase from zero to 3 products defective, assuming a production run of 1,000,000. This was supposed to be the warranty Six Sigma processes brought to the customer, not actual ppm levels for Six Sigma.”

Bill Pflanz

We are not really breaking new ground on the discussion about Six Sigma. If you go to a Cove thread called Six Sigma - The Beginnings and History, you will see much of the same comments written in 2000. One of the Cove participants back then was Jim Winings, a Motorola employee who learned directly from Mikel Harry. He was promoting his consulting business (SixSigma SPC) and joined in the threads for a brief time. Here is an excerpt from his site that explains his views on Six Sigma and CpK.

Jim Winings:
"I was on board at Motorola when they conceived the 6 sigma concept(s) (1985) and actually wrote the very first six sigma software. I believe the most useful part is the concept of Six Sigma is design margins. I worked directly with the late Bill Smith and others to develop software to meet Motorola's Six Sigma Concepts.

Six Sigma Statistics

A variation of the process is measured in Std. Dev, (Sigma) from the Mean. The normal variation, defined as process width, is +/-3 Sigma about the mean.

Approximately 2700 parts per million parts/steps will fall outside the normal variation of +/- 3 Sigma. This, by itself, does not appear disconcerting. However, when we build a product containing 1200 parts/steps, we can expect 3.24 defects per unit (1200 x .0027), on average. This would result in a rolled yield of less than 4%, which means fewer than 4 units out of every 100 would go through the entire manufacturing process without a defect.

For a product to be built virtually defect-free, it must be designed to accept characteristics which are significantly more than +/- 3 sigma away from the mean.
It can be shown that a design which can accept TWICE THE NORMAL VARIATION of the process, or +/- 6 sigma, can be expected to have no more than 3.4 parts per million defective for each characteristic, even if the process mean were to shift by as much as +/- 1.5 sigma.

In the same case of a product containing 1200 parts/steps, we would now expect only 0.0041 defects per unit (1200 x 0.0000034). This would mean that 996 units out of 1000 would go through the entire manufacturing process without a defect. To quantify this, Capability Index (Cp) is used.

A design specification width of +/- 6 Sigma and a process width of +/- 3 Sigma yields a Cp of 12/6 = 2. However, as shown in (see chart #4), the process mean can shift. When the process mean is shifted with respect design mean, the Capability Index is adjusted with a factor k, and becomes Cpk. Cpk = Cp(1-k).

The k factor for +/-6 Sigma design with a 1.5 Sigma process shift:

1.5/(12/2) or 1.5/6 = 0.25 and the Cpk = 2(1- 0.25)=1.5

This is indeed just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and when I worked at Motorola, we had many, many classes that dealt with a larger concept. Some of these classes I took were:

Achieving Six Sigma
Manufacturing Cycle Management
SPC
Understanding +/- 6 Sigma
Design For Manufacturability
Developing Quality Software


Getting from +/- 3 sigma to +/- 6 sigma is a whole other ball game. It can't be done over night. Furthermore, one needs to use all the Six Sigma concepts together to make it work."

So it appears six sigma could also be stated as reaching a Cp >= 2 and a Cpk >= 1.5.


It was a course I had taken several years ago that taught the concept of process tolerancing. It was one of the best courses I had ever taken, but it was also taught as an approach to six sigma.

By the way, I also found my reference information to the course I had taken. Here is a link, (the reference to six sigma can be found at the bottom of the article):
Process Tolerancing: A Solution To The Dilemma Of Worst-Case Versus Statistical Tolerancing (http://www.variation.com/techlib/ta-2full.html)

I highly recommend the Robust Tolerance Analysis seminar mentioned at variation.com, it is the best I have ever attended.

Andy 6/28

Does anyone know who offers Master Black Belt Training?? Please let me know. Thank you.

Four ways Six Sigma is defined by other leading Six Sigma companies

1. Philosophy of Operational Excellence
2. Problem Solving Methodology using Statistics
3. Statistical Measure of Process Capability
4. Business Strategy
:applause: :applause:

Courier,

My company currently has all 4 of the criteria you outlined.

We have documented:

1. A Philosophy of Operational Excellence
2. A Problem Solving Methodology using Statistics
3. A Statistical Measure of Process Capability
4. A Business Strategy

Can we market as a Six Sigma compliant company?



Maybe it would be easier for us to answer the original question by stating what criteria must a company meet to be considered a "Six Sigma Company"?

-Do you need a BB on staff?
-If yes, Does it matter where they got it? (To my knowledge there is no accreditation process) The requirements for certification vary greatly.
-Must the company be running at any specific Cpk or Sigma rate?
-How do you audit a company to see if they are actually 6 sigma compliant?

IMO, there is no way to define what SS is, it is like saying "we make high quality products"

Carl-

A six Sigma Company would have Black Belts and some green belts too. They would be trainned and certified from Master Black Belts who were certified by other Black Belts who trace back to Motorola Company, and working on projects to reduce scrap and waisted time and using old tools proving their findings. and They would be trying to or already be Designing for Six Sigma. :lmao:

Courier,

You are not seriously implying that to be considered a Six Sigma company, you need to show a lineage back to Motorola, are you?

Seriously, as well intended as your criteria may be, it falls a bit short.

Is a specific Philosophy of Operational Excellence required? Everyone has their own "philosophy"

Can you use any Problem Solving Methodology using Statistics? Is a Pareto chart enough?

Is a simple Cpk enough of a Statistical Measure of Process Capability?

Which Business Strategy?

There is no clear definition of "Old tools"

Which old tools are required?

As you can see above, nothing is defined, it is pretty much up to the individual, and hence, open to interpretation. A system with a complete lack of controls is ripe for entropy.

You have to remember, even the Motorola SS folks didn't have a standard to go by. It is a "Pandoras box" and nobody has the lid.



Carl-

If i was to hire a Master Black Belt or even a Black Belt, I know that I would sure feel more like i was getting my moneys worth knowing he was taught by the people who started it. Rather than somebody who thought they knew it. I think alittle DMAIC never hurt anybody no mater where it comes from. :tg:

In my opinion all a company needs to be considered a “6 sigma” company is an ongoing process improvement program that is being driven from the top down, with documented/demonstrated results. The tools used by 6 Sigma practitioners are not new or unique to 6 Sigma. What I see as different is the training of individuals at all levels of the organization with the expectation that the training be used to generate hard or soft savings for the organization. The primary role of both MBB and BB is that of mentor/change agent for the organization and the individuals working on process improvement projects. Requiring that a individual MBB or BB’s training be traceable back to Motorola is again in my opinion ridiculous. As with any credentials I’d make sure that some “fly-by-night” organization did not issue the certification, however I’d be more concerned that the individual had several successful projects under his/her belt before hiring them.

Bob

There is no universally accepted definition of Six Sigma.

Carl-

I would refine that as - lots of people can define it, but there is a lot of variability in said definitions. :biglaugh:

ok-I've been doing some study. my main conclusion is; theoritically (as the training notes present it), it is
Statistical
related to capability of processes
A quality function

In Many, many places including my own- it is
not very statistical
completely separate from quality functions
focused on monetary achievements.

the only common ground that theory and practice seem to share is that six sigma is focused on the processes business uses to get things done.

in fact, it is business preferred way of focusing on processes, because business likes focus on $$$. $$$ real or internally calculated dominate all upper management thinking- so when you start talking process improvements prioritized by $$$, you get attention. If you can show any math to prove estimated or imagined cost savings-- IT IS REAL. :lol:

That said six sigma could be any unnumerable kinds of projects and improvements so long as they involve altering processes and saving $$$- it is six sigma.

PS. I get a Kick out of the statistical aspect of six sigma. It really includes some higher power tools (I've borrowed/studying green belt notes)- Does any one use them or understand them-- It doesn't seem like it.

for my ever more cynical view of 6 sigma-- it would be nice to be picked. now days SO many people are doing 6 sigma, CQE doesn't seem to really mean 'qualified to analyze/improve processes' like it once did.

you guys tell it strait, because bad things might happen to this initiative, like the many others when it couldn't prove it was the magic pill (kind of like a smoking man complaining about how poorly his asthma medicine is working).
jay

Jay,

I like your philosophy:

"If you can show any math to prove estimated or imagined cost savings-- IT IS REAL."

As a Six Sigma initiative, I am going to cut up my wife's credit card!

I can "estimate" and "imagine" that will save me quite a bit of $$.

Does this make me a Master Black Belt?

Carl-

Carl since there is no standardization for six sigma, I deem you
"Master Black Belt".

not only have you demonstrated cost savings you have instructed others about how the process of cost savings works.

besides, I'm a sucker for compliments -- :D

even if I'm a little unsure of whether you were speaking about my growing collection of comments Or whether it was sarcasm of the paradox that is the six sigma world.

For myself, a little cynacism keeps me from falling droll-faced into shallow managerial efforts- But I try to keep my sincerity up, feeling like QA has principles worth fighting for.

Oli,

1) "It really includes some higher power tools (I've borrowed/studying green belt notes)- Does any one use them or understand them-- It doesn't seem like it."

2) "for my ever more cynical view of 6 sigma"

3) "...bad things might happen to this initiative, like the many others when it couldn't prove it was the magic pill, kind of like a smoking man complaining about how poorly his asthma medicine is working"

_____________I'll "tell it straight"

1) :-) Yes, though it maybe a real surprise, the tools are very understandable & useful as long as they are used properly...basically, one should try to avoid using a screwdriver as a pry bar. Actually, the tools themselves aren't all that difficult to grasp if you have any grasp of statistics in general.

2) Your forming some fairly strong opinions based on a seemingly very limited knowledge base. Your references to 6S as seen through the eyes of your senior management & comments here is like trying to understand Islam & the West by interviewing a fundamentalist Islam cleric. The point is...it's far better to seek first hand understanding and knowledge than trying to obtain it through second or third hand sources...(second & third hand sources) + (human nature) = (applying spin to any topic of interest). Study 6S first hand and make the effort to understand the stats used, throw caution to the wind and perhaps even do a project or two(yikes!), then form opinions.

3) This kind of hip-shooting attitude will kill any initiative regardless of whether it's 6S, feeding the poor, or curing cancer. 6S, or any other initiative, cannot physically prove anything to anyone. It's a set of approaches that are used by people. If you take the people out of the equation nothing happens. If you have a crew of people with a "show me" (mixed with a neagative) attitude then, again, nothing will happen. All this indicates is that the initiative is available, but the crew just wasn't up to the task. Like most things, it's all what you make of it.

Jay,

It was definitely meant as a compliment.

KMAAA,

1. It might help if there was a defined set of tools. Instead, the tools to be used are left up to the individual and depend on where/by whom they were trained. To use your screwdriver vs. prybar analogy, If the instructions say "remove widget" and don't specify, either may work.

2. I think a lot of us are forming strong opinions, however I would say you are wrong, we have a VERY GOOD knowledge base at this point. Many of us have been studying the subject for several YEARS now. We just don't happen to agree with many aspects of it.
What is the criteria to be considered a "Six Sigma project"?
Many of us have been doing projects that are six sigma-esque (I think I just invented a new term) for years.

3. This whole subject has gone way beyond "hip shooting"

Speaking for myself, I was very interested in Six Sigma about 4 or 5 years ago and started to ask questions from the "experts". Black belts, consultants, the ASQ etc. after years of receiving no answers, I had to come to the realistic conclusion that it was all hype.

I used to think nothing could be worse than the "interpretation" of the ISO standard, but I was wrong, an initiative with NO standard is definitely worse.

Carl-

Speaking for myself, I was very interested in Six Sigma about 4 or 5 years ago and started to ask questions from the "experts". Black belts, consultants, the ASQ etc. after years of receiving no answers, I had to come to the realistic conclusion that it was all hype.

I used to think nothing could be worse than the "interpretation" of the ISO standard, but I was wrong, an initiative with NO standard is definitely worse.

Carl-

Great Post, Carl. I couldn't have said it better myself. :thanx: :applause: :thanx:

Carl,
Sorry to get you all bent out of shape, but my comments were addressed to Jay. I hope even the anti's would agree there is value in gaining first-person knowledge, experience, and making up one's own mind.

Granted

note the second part of that list was how six sigma seemed to be implemented in "many,many places including my own.."..

Well, I'll just say I have been asking around. a fair bit of the people I have talked to (including some black's) don't understand the statistics. and they don't seem to use them. BUT, its true I have experienced only the smallest sample of the population of six sigma projects and professionals.

I have only a novice's CQE knowledge of stats, so I'm not out to bash no one.

I stand by my appraisal of those that I have talked to, BUT I do admit to having a pretty limited sample. How could I truly insult the intelligence of all who have made this intiative their career? I am pretty sure GOVIND, here is a belt- and I respect and admire the many thoughtful, and insightful posts he has made here and elsewhere.

I have been philosophical and maybe overtalkative today. If I cannot think outloud, I will not learn. My philosophical conclusion, is that in the words of another post, that management by objective is the biggest disease of modern business and causes a lot of stress. Enlightened management ought to learn that processes vary, and process improvement isn't just firing someone when a metric fluctuates downwards. Six Sigma can find itself conspiring with the enemy in this regard- It needs to understand and use statistical tools so that it makes statistical improvement. not just harmful tampering.

Lest you think I have ditched the whole idea unfairly, I am on the verge of proposing my own project. I really want to bend my career towards analyzing and improving processes.

I think $$$ calculations and lack of standardization of something those directing this initiative should reflect on.

The $$$ calculations have made this initiative very popular, but carl's somewhat sarcastic post is quite true. Not all calculated cost savings are real or significant. Making $$$ satisfies the shareholders but says nothing about the long term preparations that will mean future opportunities for customers, employees, and the company itself.

Since the anology was probably the most contentious, I will express what I meant. IMHO, excessive heavy-handed action on metric (which I will loosely call Management by objective)- is the biggest disease in modern america. It is like smoking, a negative thing that management does to it's company. Six sigma as well as other valid initiatives are medicine. medicine for not measuring, medicine for having inefficient processes.

But without quitting smoking, what hope really is there that an asthmatic patient is going get much better?

Once we accept and allow for our processes to normally fluctuate, without doing hurtful things to employees, maybe then can we optimize our processes. And maybe people such as yourself KMAAA, who really know the material can make long-lasting differences in business.

but then maybe you already are.

Well, I'll just say I have been asking around. a fair bit of the people I have talked to (including some black's) don't understand the statistics. and they don't seem to use them. BUT, its true I have experienced only the smallest sample of the population of six sigma projects and professionals. :topic: just as an aside, in the event your post is viewed out of context, could you refer to the Six S practitioners as BB or MBB instead of by the color alone? We understand in advance you meant BB and MBB, but we see it in context.

I have been philosophical and maybe overtalkative today. If I cannot think outloud, I will not learn. My philosophical conclusion, is that in the words of another post, that management by objective is the biggest disease of modern business and causes a lot of stress. Enlightened management ought to learn that processes vary, and process improvement isn't just firing someone when a metric fluctuates downwards. It's Friday. Typical TGIF syndrome - no problem


On topic (for everyone): If I (Wes Bucey) were to add the designation of MBB to my name, would it make me more credible or less credible in your eyes? No fair asking whether I already have the designation.

to confirm Wes;

I absolutely was talking about BB (six sigma black belt's) not blacks. the possibility of it being taken in a racial way never crossed my mind- but with in a public forum, I will strive to catch something like this.

my :2cents:
about wes's question ("would being a MBB bring more credibility").

Absolutely not. Wes has unequivably proved his knowledge. (did I spell it right??).

Truthfully, my initial guesses of your knowledge of 6 sigma, might increase if you were MBB. However, initial guesses are usually a poor measure of people.
But we are beyond initial guesses about Wes's ability to critically analyze processes.

so what good is it, really? If we were demanding credentials here, I'd probably barely be allowed in. fortunately, we can speak for ourselves at the cove without hiding behind (or being hindered) by expensive letters.

Thats good. I learn through listening, thinking, and talking.

KMAAA,

I'm not bent out of shape, just wanted to make sure it was clear that some of us (me specifically) have studied Six Sigma extensively enough to know we don't want to persue a belt.

Some of the tools I hear mentioned are useful. Maybe eventually there will be some cohesiveness to the discipline, but so far it is a jumble of tools, half baked training and "Enron-ized" numbers with no standard or policing.

Carl-

Wow. . . this thread is still going on. . . amazing. . . I wonder how many neural pathways have been burned out on it. . . :lmao:

Well, I would like to give my answer to the original question - What is SS?

I have spent some months asking this very question in my spare time, just so that I could evaluate if I would benefit from this. I am not going to rehash much of the technical description as to what SS is but I find the history interesting. So in summary and sequentially:

1. Motorola observed the 'Japanese' approach to manufacturing in one of their plants was exceeding the quality that Motorola expected, so they put their engineers on the case.

2. In 'copying' the 'Japanese' Motorola engineers took SPC and came up with the Six Sigma level of defect as the solution. In my opinion here is the basic and fundamental mistake that could have taken Motorola on a true path. They copied the Japanese in technique, not realising that the key is in the method and approach.

3. SS continued on as a statistical technique, and was then seen to be a success by GE. It was actually tried in ABB and never got anywhere prior to this. By GE publically proclaiming SS then it became a fad. In fact there is interesting information to show that GE did not really know and attributed their business success to SS, when it should have been to market conditions.

4. The SS shift and the details of SS are now not actively pursued because SS has changed to basically encompass what we used to call TQM.

SS now consists of creating projects for improvement. Thats it. The reason I reject it is that it fails in the most important area for improvement. SS has become a tool for managers who feel that they need to do something to 'get their workers to work harder and in the right direction'. The belts system are the management police, and the projects are the controls that managers place on the system to show areas of concern. Real data and people are not primary in this as the choice of project is down to managers, and data is like the old COPQ - easy to create for your own benefit. Oh and there are targets all over the place - driving bahaviour to satisfy the target rather than the customer and the process.

I see SS as extending the management control due to frustration. Which will fail, as it is another tool for pushing concepts from those who have little knowledge of the system. Another tool in the arsenal of command & control.

What will work is one where those who do the work, lead the improvement based on impartial data. Both the workers and managers can then act to change the system as needs be. No targets are used, but true SPC data. Which is what the original Motorola idea came from. The trouble is that in this scenario the impetus to change is on the managers to change their command & control ideas. Somehow I do not see many of our businesses agreeing to this.

In the UK it seems SS is a bit of a flash in the pan, but gaining some ground in the service industry.

Ilias

Following with the subject of the thread, I’d like to share some ideas based on interviews on companies implementing SS (or proclaiming its implementation) in Argentina.

The issue of auditability usually arises when there is an interested party that wants to verify whether a company fulfilled certain requirement.

Let me propose the following scenario:

A company requested a loan to improve its performance (to a Bank, the Government, a wealthy friend). The eventual creditor wants to establish objective criteria to audit whether a company had followed the SS methodology.

Some time after the loan is given, we want to audit them (maybe because the interest on the loan will be attached to the fact that the money was actually used for the purpose expected).

Let me brainstorm the questions that could be asked:

1- Did you first and foremost clearly establish the vision and mission of the company? Show me evidence of the strategies decided, the clear understanding of whom your customers are, their requirements and the value chain involved, from a top management perspective.
2- How did you drilled down those strategies into tactics and selected one or more improvement projects through specific tools (like QFD)? Who was chiefly responsible for that? (A role we can call “champion”)
3- How did you establish the Return Of Investment expectation for each project?
4- Show me the process by which you chose the person responsible for the project selected (We call him BB). Which was the selection process for the members of the Team that participated in the project?
5- Show me concrete evidence that the BB followed a JITT (just in time training) process of learning and applying tools, using the DMAIC methodology. What tools were used, what objective evidence collected?
6- Show me the procedure you followed to track the successive steps of the project. How did you review the project milestones?
7- How did you evaluate the end results of the project?

My questions :
a- Would you agree on the auditability of these 7 questions?
b- Could a clear method of evaluation allow an observer reach a “pass/fail” decision?
c- Do the 7 question encompass enough to be called a “Six Sigma audit”?

Don't take any offense, but I reject the premise of your question, or even of the loan.

I was in the corporate financing world for a large part of my adult life. The part I played was to go into a "target" company and prepare it for an initial public offering. This frequently meant we (our investment bank) would supply "bridge financing" during this "get ready" period.

The very things which made a target look good to us were things which would turn off many investors:

poor purchasing practices
poor production scheduling
high employee turnover
ineffective marketing
inexperienced managers
low cash reserves
large accounts receivable in the 60 to 120 day category
We looked for certain fundamentals:

solid product design
location in good labor market
room for expansion (more equipment or more shifts)
forseeable market for product or product family into the future
If the management was truly bad, we had 3 options

retrain
force out
buy out
Our decision to put up bridge financing was determined by our evaluation of whether we could recover our cash within one year by selling equity in the target or refinancing with traditional lenders (mortgages, inventory, accounts receivable financing.) We knew we could only do this if we could show SUSTAINABLE income and profit from the operation (no smoke and mirrors.)

When we would perform our "due diligence" before investing, we recognized certain typical inefficiencies (which can exist regardless of the industry):

inexperienced purchasing departments who did not understand buying "value" instead of "price."
lack of "partnerships" with suppliers
dirty, messy work areas
poor lighting
grumbling, complaining workers who visited local bars and diners where our investigators were ready with sympathetic ears
poor handling of "prospect" phone calls from our investigators
outmoded or outdated sales literature and advertising (if any)
Just like a real estate rehabber can see the possibilities behind a dingy property with a weedy front lawn, we were able to see that a rapid and forceful cleanup (usually the mess was simply due to deferred maintenance because owners or managers shortsightedly refused to allocate funds) would give the company "curb appeal" to employees, suppliers, and customers.

Our goal (no specific numbers) was to increase gross sales and, more importantly, increase NET profit margins.

That meant no false economy of saving $1 on raw material only to spend $2 on expediting from problematic suppliers.
Products shipped had to stay shipped, no returns because of product quality.
Employee productivity had to rise because we eliminated bottlenecks and any causes which left employees idle.
Quality meant preventing defects, not detecting them.
We wanted customers to feel comfortable that we knew what we were doing, so we had open door policies so customers could come and watch their product being made.
Employees met and knew their customers and took pride in being empowered to explain how their effort added value to the product.
We were so effective in instilling pride in employees that about one-third of our "cash-outs" were to Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP), even though ESOPs were not our investment bank's area of expertise. We would turn over the deal to investment banks who watched us closely for such opportunities.

Bottom line:

We lent money based on potential for increased sales and profits.
We got return on our money based on increased sales and profits for the entire organization, NOT on isolated events.
Frequently, we hear of 6S strategies that "saved" $X million, but at the end of the year, there is no change in the net profit of the organization.
There is usually some "explanation" for the lack of increase in the profit, but to me it simply means the isolated savings were offset by a corresponding expense elsewhere.
There was a movie which had a wonderful catch phrase: "Show me the money!" In business, as in movies, that's a pretty good phrase.

2) ... The point is...it's far better to seek first hand understanding and knowledge than trying to obtain it through second or third hand sources...(second & third hand sources) + (human nature) = (applying spin to any topic of interest). Study 6S first hand and make the effort to understand the stats used, throw caution to the wind and perhaps even do a project or two(yikes!), then form opinions.I hope even the anti's would agree there is value in gaining first-person knowledge, experience, and making up one's own mind.I have to ask - Where does one get "first hand understanding and knowledge"? From a course? From 'hands on' in a project?

I don't knnow anyone out there, short of Jim Winnings who used to stop by, that can go back to the 'original' six sigma concept and can even say he was part of it. If you go to a course, is that not 'second hand' knowledge at best? If you buy a book, will it not have the author's 'spin'?

I was looking through this thread and read some of the others here and I do not think anyone has said that the 'six sigma tools' are not valid tools. It seems to me what is being said is that six sigma started out as process control and improvement using statistics - thus the name - not as a set of tools. Somewhere along the way someone broke out and redefined six sigma as a 'set of tools' and started making some bucks selling a concept. It has to be noted that none of the tools are new. Rather, the current six sigma is any tool one wants to use. Early in this thread it was said that there is no 'six sigma' standard and there isn't. Six sigma has become whatever a particular training provider or person believes it to be.

I had to laugh about the early post where a person is said to have 'used six sigma' on his/her wedding. I about fell off my chair. Give me a break. If so, then I guess I can 'apply six sigma' to filling my bird feeders in the morning and takinng a walk. Many things can go wrong if one wants to think about it for a minute, and there can always be some perceived 'better' way to do something - Even if it's frying eggs or making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

When I did some work for Motorola back in the 1990's I talked to a few people there. They gave me some books which I still have. All are marked Internal Use Only. All are about process control - whether manufacturing or measurement systems analysis. Back then I was trying to figure out what the fuss was all about and was told that it is the act of applying statistical techiniques to any process (such as measurement systems analysis or manufacturing processes) to achieve improvement. Nothing more, nothing less. I see it as that way today.

I have to agree with Carl Keller's post (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=83006&postcount=37)

I had to laugh about the early post where a person is said to have 'used six sigma' on his/her wedding. I about fell off my chair. Give me a break. If so, then I guess I can 'apply six sigma' to filling my bird feeders in the morning and takinng a walk. Many things can go wrong if one wants to think about it for a minute, and there can always be some perceived 'better' way to do something - Even if it's frying eggs or making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

My daughter is getting married in November and I did not choose to use Six Sigma. My process was to find out the date of the wedding, free my calendar, and tell my wife and daughter to send me the bills. Any other involvement was agreement that their choices and decisions were great. I did review contracts, okay prices and other practical issues. My job is to make sure that my daughter and her fiancee have a great send off but stay out of the way otherwise. Luckily, they agreed also.

When I did some work for Motorola back in the 1990's I talked to a few people there. They gave me some books which I still have. All are marked Internal Use Only. All are about process control - whether manufacturing or measurement systems analysis. Back then I was trying to figure out what the fuss was all about and was told that it is the act of applying statistical techiniques to any process (such as measurement systems analysis or manufacturing processes) to achieve improvement. Nothing more, nothing less. I see it as that way today.
I also have some Six Sigma information from Motorola and GE from the early 1990's. I agree that the original concept was about applying statistical techniques. There did seem to be a heavy emphasis on zero defects and process capability and there were only some references to defects per million opportunities just to show the consequences of poor quality.

Bill Pflanz

Don't take any offense, but I reject the premise of your question, or even of the loan.
....

Wes,

I understand your answer as an argument against the use of the criteria exposed as the basis for financial help. In my opinion, seriously and wisely taken, the steps described constitute more than an “isolated event” and can indeed lead to tangible benefits. Many authors, like M. George (1) , F. Breyfogle (2), M. Harry (3), T. Pyzdec (4), etc. wrote about the importance of the initial steps to develop an improvement infrastructure. If done well, it could aid the organization in attaining the sustainability from its operations that you described.

But let me assert the main focus of my post: I was trying to give one step on the quest for defining what Six Sigma is (the question brought by the thread). The financial scenario was just used to steer the need of auditability. The inherent logic being that if certain audit questions can be objectively defined and evaluated, they may establish a ground from which the boundaries of the concept “Six Sigma” could be derived.

Daniel

(1) in Lean Six Sigma (p.93), he speaks about how the first stages of implementation is a prime determinant of the ultimate success of a Lean Six Sigma launch, and how that facilitates its subsequent institutionalization (chapter 12).
(2) in Implementing Six Sigma (1st Ed. p.15), he outlines the criticality of the initial deployment (phase zero of the S4 strategy), specially referring to the external consultants that bring know how about how to the deploy the initiative.
(3) In Six Sigma (p. 249), he states the special importance of the first SS project.
(4) Six Sigma Handbook (p.13): “The need for a well-designed approach to making the transition from a traditional organization to a SS organization is clear... If it isn´t done properly, then the DMAIC approach and all of the tools and techniques presented later in the book will be of little use”.

What is the difference between Six Sigma level and 6 std deviation in the Six Sigma concept.

A 1.5 sigma "process" shift.

I have read most of the post at the cove regarding 6S and I am a bit confused. It seams that eventually any discussion of 6S will eventually GO LEAN! Why is that? When I visited the link provided in another post for the upcoming LEAN conference in Canada. They defined lean as a thought process that uses any number of Tools including SIX-SIGMA. So what is 6S? It is a tool used by Lean Manufacturing along with value stream mapping, kanban , 5S..., YES?

OMG! Someone finally figured out Lean is Six Sigma in drag!

It seams that eventually any discussion of 6S will eventually GO LEAN! Why is that?

I am staying quiet on this topic, but I will give you my opinion of why - Six Sigma is becoming an outdated buzz-word, and now the buzz is Lean.

For more detail, see Wes Bucey's various postings on his Placebo System to Quality.

It seams that eventually any discussion of 6S will eventually GO LEAN!

because the math is a drag, and few upper managers understand it anyway. management does appreciate the idea of making the company make the most product with the least resources, however.

Call it lean
and That is the point! in their eyes, at least.

This is where this whole thing and I diverge; I think it is risky to base quality improvements of any kind on ROI dollar amounts. a company that is good to its customers and improves its processes will prosper. companies should consider many things (NOT JUST $$$) to prioritize process improvement.

If others want to use buzz words, and flavors of the month. maybe they are missing the point.

Jay

If I understand you correctly, Jay, your thesis is:
the terminology and money-saving focus of Lean is a natural progression from Six Sigma to make the basic "tools" of Quality more palatable to the "suits" and other C-level executives.

If so, I heartily agree. Perhaps it is necessary for Quality folks to constantly reinvent and repackage themselves to draw attention amid the competing "noise" from numerous other "programs" looking for money and attention from the top executives.

So, perhaps we shoot ourselves in the foot if we decry "flavor of the month" rather than look for ways to focus on different aspects of Quality to "continually" keep attention on the general value of Quality to the overall success of the organization.

Ah - so much for the soapbox.:rolleyes:

Six Sigma Organizational Architecture

Six Sigma is a quality methodology that can produce significant benefit to businesses and organizations. Not much text, however, has been written about the structure needed to successfully implement Six Sigma quality within your business or organization. This article will focus on roles and responsibilities, as well as required rewards and recognition for a successful Six Sigma quality program.

Roles and Responsibilities
Quality Leader/Manager (QL/QM) - The quality leader's responsibility is to represent the needs of the customer and to improve the operational effectiveness of the organization. The Quality function is typically separated from the manufacturing or transactional processing functions in order to maintain impartiality. The quality manager sits on the CEO/President's staff, and has equal authority to all other direct reports.

Master Black Belt (MBB) - Master Black Belts are typically assigned to a specific area or function of a business or organization. It may be a functional area such as human resources or legal, or process specific area such as billing or tube rolling. MBBs work with the owners of the process to ensure that quality objectives and targets are set, plans are determined, progress is tracked, and education is provided. In the best Six Sigma organizations, process owners and MBBs work very closely and share information daily.
Process Owner (PO) - Process owners are exactly as the name sounds – they are the responsible individuals for a specific process. For instance, in the legal department there is usually one person in charge -- maybe the VP of Legal -- that's the process owner. There may be a chief marketing officer for your business -- that's the process owner for marketing. Depending on the size of your business and core activities, you may have process owners at lower levels of your organizational structure. If you are a credit card company with processes around billing, accounts receivable, audit, billing fraud, etc., you wouldn't just have the process owner be the chief financial officer, you would want to go much deeper into the organization where the work is being accomplished and you can make a big difference.
Black Belt (BB) - Black Belts are the heart and soul of the Six Sigma quality initiative. Their main purpose is to lead quality projects and work full time until they are complete. Black Belts can typically complete four to six projects per year with savings of approximately $230,000 per project (see earlier reference). Black Belts also coach Green Belts on their projects, and while coaching may seem innocuous, it can require a significant amount of time and energy.

Green Belt (GB) - Green Belts are employees trained in Six Sigma who spend a portion of their time completing projects, but maintain their regular work role and responsibilities. Depending on their workload, they can spend anywhere from 10% to 50% of their time on their project(s). As your Six Sigma quality program evolves, employees will begin to include the Six Sigma methodology in their daily activities and it will no longer become a percentage of their time -- it will be the way their work is accomplished 100% of the time.

Now we know how some companies have organizationally structured their Six Sigma quality program. But how do you ensure that everyone's doing their job? How do you keep your employees motivated when fires are burning all over the corporate landscape?



This author receives many questions regarding the Six Sigma methodology and, more specifically, what each business change agent (Champion, Master Black Belt, Black Belt, Green Belt) should know in order to be effective. To help meet this need, I have created a reference document detailing what should be contained in a Six Sigma curriculum. Below is a recommendation for a body of knowledge for Six Sigma. You may find it useful when selecting a Six Sigma provider or completing training to ensure you are learning all appropriate topics.


It is the belief of this author that Master Black Belts and Black Belts should possess the same detailed knowledge of process improvement and statistical analysis, although the two roles vary significantly in other ways (see Organizational Architecture). For this reason, all of the key understanding areas listed under the DMAIC sections for the Master Black Belt and the Black Belt are identical



What is Six Sigma Certification?

Six Sigma certification is a confirmation of an individual's capabilities with respect to specific competencies. Just like any other quality certification, it does not indicate that an individual is capable of unlimited process improvement, just that s/he has completed the necessary requirements from the company granting the certification.

For instance, millions of people have applied for, tested and been granted a driver's license in the United States. It certifies that a person has passed the minimum guidelines and requirements for driving. The individual must pass both a written and hands-on driving test in order to 'certify'. Not all individuals in the United States, however, have the same proficiency in driving - even though they may have passed the tests and been granted a driver's license. The same is true for Six Sigma certification. Certification alone does not summarize the worth of a true quality professional.


What Is Involved In Six Sigma Certification?

As with attaining a driver's license in the United States, Six Sigma certification entails learning the appropriate subject matter, passing a written proficiency test, and displaying competency in a hands-on environment. The materials can be purchased from almost any Six Sigma training and consulting company, but almost always comes bundled with classroom training. Usually you or your company will purchase a training session, which has different bodies of knowledge and durations for each Six Sigma level (green belt, black belt, master black belt, sponsor, etc.).

The written proficiency test may be given by the training company or the business hiring the training company. Typically, companies new to Six Sigma will defer to the training company's proficiency test. Companies that have been performing in-house training for years (such as Motorola or GE) have created and administer their own written proficiency tests.

After a quality professional has completed training, s/he must complete one or two quality projects and display competency in applying the concepts learned in the classroom training. This is where certification companies diverge, as this part of the certification is the most fuzzy and undefined. Some organizations require a certification candidate to complete one project if a green belt or sponsor, and two projects if a black belt or master black belt; others require less or more. In addition, there is no standard for what passes and what fails to display an individual's competency.

So, what's the takeaway from certification? Any worthwhile certification involves training, a written proficiency exam, and a hands-on competency display of the methodology to real world problems. The specifics around each of these three requirements vary from company to company. Will it ever become standardized? Probably, but not in the next six to twelve months in the opinion of this author.


Should I Get Six Sigma Certified?

The reasons for certification are the same for any other certification
Ultimately, certification is a professional decision that can only be made by you. In some cases, it will be required for you to advance within an organization. For instance, at some companies it is a requirement of every salaried employee to be green belt trained and certified if they want to be promoted within the organization. In other cases, Six Sigma certification will display your energy and intent to be a leader within the quality profession.

How Can I Get Six Sigma Certified?

There is no single body designated to provide Six Sigma certification to the quality profession. Almost every one of the tens of companies providing Six Sigma training and consulting also provide certification. Why is this? Because individuals and companies are spending a great deal of money, sometimes in excess of $30,000 per individual, to become trained, and they feel like they should have something to show for it. Hence, certification became a popular add-on service for consulting companies because it allowed them to differentiate between skills levels, as well as charge additional fees.

Can I Transfer Six Sigma Certification Between Organizations?

The answer is both yes and no. As with attaining a driver's license in a particular state in the United States, the main driving body of knowledge is the same and transferrable. However, certain laws vary from state to state, requiring an individual to learn the specific state laws and test within the state of residence. Six Sigma certification is similar in that certain requirements or variations will exists between businesses implementing the Six Sigma methodology. Some companies may also require you to re-certify to display competency.

Most likely a company will value an individual's certification if attained from a leading Six Sigma business, such as Motorola, GE and Allied Signal. The businesses that have only over the past few years embraced Six Sigma will also have value, but not to such an extent. Attaining certification from a second-tier consulting company will have even less value in the future, and finally being trained without certification will have the least amount of value.

I guess I need my "smart pills" today.
Can you explain what your goal was in giving this information?

Many of the things you list are not covered in the same manner in the ASQ SIX S certification. Perhaps you could create and post a grid showing convergence and divergence with ASQ with an explanation of why you think your interpretation is the correct one.

No soapbox here. Just an honest question.

No offense intended, but when you use refrences like "typically", "approximately" and "opinion", you are no longer on solid ground in regards to evidence and data.

Looks like an OK article for a sales primer, but far from convincing that Six Sigma has any redeeming value whatsoever.

Carl-

OMG! Someone finally figured out Lean is Six Sigma in drag!
IMHO - 6-Sigma is glorified PDCA. :rolleyes:

Whether beginer or practioner of six sigma tools, following books on six sigma are a single source of most information on technical aspects of six sigma tools.

"Implementing six sigma" Smarter solutions using statistical methods
By
Forrest W Breyfogle III

For DOE advanced applications, I recommend
"Design and analysis of experiments"
By
Douglas Montgomery.

Arvind

At the end of the day, Six sigma hasn't been allowed to be a successful tool regarding organizational infusion into a business culture.
Many in this thread imply that Upper management have kept a tight reign on the controls and infusion of Six sigma within their particular business environment.
Six sigma has failed to show itself as the excellent tool that it is, by well meaning yet, self serving management who perceive Six sigma as a threat to their ingrained abuses of their particular business systems.:mad:
It's the customer who is the geting all the wrong information regarding abuses of the excellent tool of Six sigma. The complexity that has been willfully built into the Six sigma culture is phenomenal to say the least. A walk through a typical machining shop will give any prospective Six sigma user, a real world view of SPC at work. There's been more success using the basic tool box that contains SPC.
Wallace.

Thought I would share this update with you. Some of you may already know this. GE's black belts used to be a hot commodity inside GE (and elsewhere). According to my brother-inlaw (who has worked at GE as key manager for the last decade), having a Black Belt or a Master Black Belt in your resume doesn't hold as much status inside GE. During Six Sigma's zenith with Jack Welch at the helm you could pretty much go anywhere in GE. That's not the case anymore.

Thought I would share this update with you. Some of you may already know this. GE's black belts used to be a hot commodity inside GE (and elsewhere). According to my brother-inlaw (who has worked at GE as key manager for the last decade), having a Black Belt or a Master Black Belt in your resume doesn't hold as much status inside GE. During Six Sigma's zenith with Jack Welch at the helm you could pretty much go anywhere in GE. That's not the case anymore.
But it is the case to get out of GE. I spoke to a hiring manager from a 6S consulting firm. She said they only interview SSBB from GE and Motorola. Does not care if you are a PhD in Statistics or have 30 years experience in quality improvement. So the weight is there.

Always good to hear there is job security outside of GE and Motorola for SSBB's.

Any company that used the criteria of only hiring a SSBB from Motorola or GE I would not want to work for.

It shows they are completely out of touch with real world data and care only about market perception. (which is completely contradictory to a BB mission)

Your days are numbered with a company like that.

Carl-

:agree1::agree1::agree1::agree1:

:agree1::agree1::agree1::agree1:
Where you get your SSBB training is like where you get your degree from....some programs are just better than others.

I agree to an extent, however there are a lot of Ivy League lawyers that I would not hire to represent me and quite a few MIT grads that I would not want designing the safety systems of my car.

There are a LOT of other factors to consider when choosing a SSBB.

Besides, with the exception of the ASQ exam, it isn't like you can fail the course. if you pay the money and show up each day, you are gonna pass.

Carl-

What a sad state of affairs the quality profession has come to. We are no longer truly concerned about continuous improvement, reduction in varation, elimination of defects, etc.. We are more concerned about what color belt we have or whether this latest bell and whistle is an improvement on the last one. The aaddest thing is that management does not follow these things they chase after every bell and whistle there is, looking for that magic potion.

I wonder how many quality professionals have read either Shewhart's, "Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product" or Demings, "Out of the Crisis"? I have so called quality professionals tell me that they, (Shewhart and Deming) are irrelevant in TODAYS quality realm.

The tools haven't changed but the way the package them and sell them (for profit) sure has.:(

What a sad state of affairs the quality profession has come to. We are no longer truly concerned about continuous improvement, reduction in varation, elimination of defects, etc.. We are more concerned about what color belt we have or whether this latest bell and whistle is an improvement on the last one. The aaddest thing is that management does not follow these things they chase after every bell and whistle there is, looking for that magic potion.

I wonder how many quality professionals have read either Shewhart's, "Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product" or Demings, "Out of the Crisis"? I have so called quality professionals tell me that they, (Shewhart and Deming) are irrelevant in TODAYS quality realm.

The tools haven't changed but the way the package them and sell them (for profit) sure has.:(

You hit the nail on the head! It reminds me of a story we used to tell when we did continuous improvement training. If you do not change, then you will be outdated. If you make the best buggy whip, it will not matter because there is no market for buggy whips. You can be the best Deming discipline (Steve Prevette) or a great statistical process control expert, but if companies are not buying that, you do not have the goods they want to buy.

Six Sigma has made many quality professionals who refused to change (ME!) outdated in today's quality environment. I do consulting because many companies do not need a full time statistician, they just need someone to come in and review the processes to make sure that the SSBB are on course. It is sad but true!

Slightly Off Topic:

I was sitting in a doctor's office waiting room yesterday and ran across the following article in Business Week, and I see it is available on the web:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_04/b3968001.htm

It isn't a far leap from what is happening in this article to application of Deming's philosophies and probably would improve the situations in the article.

What a sad state of affairs the quality profession has come to. We are no longer truly concerned about continuous improvement, reduction in varation, elimination of defects, etc.. We are more concerned about what color belt we have or whether this latest bell and whistle is an improvement on the last one. The saddest thing is that management does not follow these things they chase after every bell and whistle there is, looking for that magic potion.

I wonder how many quality professionals have read either Shewhart's, "Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product" or Demings, "Out of the Crisis"? I have so called quality professionals tell me that they, (Shewhart and Deming) are irrelevant in TODAYS quality realm.

The tools haven't changed but the way the package them and sell them (for profit) sure has.:(
Very well said.
TODAYS quality realm with six sigma has been a return to the dark ages. Shewhart and Deming can take us forward.

Very well said.
TODAYS quality realm with six sigma has been a return to the dark ages. Shewhart and Deming can take us forward.

Shewhart and Deming are taking us forward at the US Department of Energy. The ASSE Professional Safety article from May 2006 got the interest of US DOE Washington DC personnel. Right now I'm in a cooperative effort with 3 DOE contractors (Fluor, Bechtel, and Washington Group) to develop a two day training seminar for Shewhart's control charts, Deming's SOPK, and Dr. Russ Ackoff's teachings on Systems Thinking. We have an inhouse session filling up (I got 12 reservations within 3 hours of announcing the session) and hopefully will offer some general public sessions in 2007.

Shewhart and Deming are taking us forward at the US Department of Energy. The ASSE Professional Safety article from May 2006 got the interest of US DOE Washington DC personnel. Right now I'm in a cooperative effort with 3 DOE contractors (Fluor, Bechtel, and Washington Group) to develop a two day training seminar for Shewhart's control charts, Deming's SOPK, and Dr. Russ Ackoff's teachings on Systems Thinking. We have an inhouse session filling up (I got 12 reservations within 3 hours of announcing the session) and hopefully will offer some general public sessions in 2007.
Kudos! I feel the good Dr. Deming's theories are in good hands.

I'm curious on how System of Profound Knowledge will go over with giant organizations which often have even high ranking officers ignorant of what goes on in their own Division, let alone other Divisons within the organization.

I'm curious on how System of Profound Knowledge will go over with giant organizations which often have even high ranking officers ignorant of what goes on in their own Division, let alone other Divisons within the organization.

I can only try. I was watching an Ackoff DVD, and also trying to get through the 4 day DVD set from Deming and feel like I must teach some theory. Even though this was requested as a two day statistical/performance measure class, I felt if I didn't at least include an intro to the three other facets of SOPK (aside from Theory of Variation) then I'd be doing a disservice (and perhaps just doing the same as Six Sigma does).

The challenging thing is that this will not be for "top management" but more for the analysts and lower level managers. Yes, Deming may have been able to say "only send your top person", but I don't have that luxury. Besides, I think you can drive change from within. Or at least better understand what is going on around you.

Of course Shewhart and Deming have not lost relevancy. But neither are they wholly sufficient. There is more to true Quality improvement than control charts and the philosphies put forth by Deming. Or as my Japanese mentor used to say cosntantly: "how to do, how to DO"

we need Fisher and Yates and Tukey and Ott and Shilling and Box and Weibull and Slater and Hoerl & Snee and Steiner and Mackay and Spier, Spirer & Jaffe and Wise & Fair and Sleeper and Bothe and Wheeler and Agresti and Wichern and Juran and Shainin and Kepner & Tregoe and Montgomery and Pyzdek and Breyfogle and Ohno and Goldratt and Womack et al. (that's just a quick breeze thru my bookshelves in my office...and is nto intended to be inclusive)
We need a full toolbox.

and I for one am glad of the concept of 4 weeks or 2 weeks of focused training with project mentoring to practice the tools in real life and really drive the learning from the class room to the work place. How amny of us learned what we do in a short period of time? It's taken me years but with this Six Sigma thing I can bring many engineers and managers up to 75% of what I knwo in a relatively short period of time and turn them on to more learning as tiem goes on. It is now far less of a struggle for me. I am no longer the lone wolf in the wilderness: I get to bring entire organizations along for the ride!

It's taken me years but with this Six Sigma thing I can bring many engineers and managers up to 75% of what I knwo in a relatively short period of time and turn them on to more learning as tiem goes on.
Wonderful Steve.

Bev, in relation to my comments about Six Sigma taking quality back to the dark ages, you may be interested in these quotes from Bill Smith, the man who started all the nonsense (IEEE Spectrum 1993)

1. "Another way to improve yield is to increase the design specification width. This influences the quality of the product as much as the control of process variation does." (page 46)

2. In a discussion of uncontrolled processes Smith states "batch-to-batch variation can be as much as +/-1.5 sigma off target" (page 44)

The first quote was the basis for Motorola increasing their then Cp=1 to Cp=2. The latter quote pulls 1.5 out of the air without references or justification. Of course there is nothing to limit how big special causes or drifts in the process average may be, for uncontrolled processes.

These two silly statements have formed the basis for six sigma.

Artichoke: I am well aware of what Bill Smith said and what Dr. Harry said. I read this stuff 10-20 years ago. My point, which you seem to be missing is that the 1.5 sigma shift was NEVER the true basis for Six Sigma - it was a marketing gimmick. The fact some are still throwing it about doesn’t mean it’s more than a marketing gimmick – an apparently successful one for those who used it in their advertising not those who bought it. Even GE abandoned any discussion of it in most of it's businesses fairly quickly as anyone who taught or took the class or practiced the improvements methods with serious intent (yes the powerpoint engineers never got it but they never get anything and no matter how much you howl at the moon they never will) realized that the 1.5 sigma shift adds nothing and is just window dressing. They moved on. The successful practitioners – who read more than silly little window dressing articles that were really just ads for the author’s consulting business (like Dr. Harry) – realized that long ago.
The true foundation and core of Six Sigma is solid quality improvements on those things that matter to the Customer without the constraint of the mythical point of diminishing returns in traditional cost of quality calculations.
I’m truly sorry that some mainstream publications or academics that are nothing more than uninformed charlatans are still bantering this age old crap around – but railing against them does no good. It only elevates your blood pressure. They are wrong. They won’t change. Just because they say that Six Sigma is ‘all about the shift’ doesn’t mean it is. OJ is still saying he didn’t do it and the tabloids still talk about Big Foot. My grandmother believed that the whole man walking on the moon thing was a Hollywood stunt. What are you going to do? If you really believe in Quality then focus on that.
Motorola’s early great success with quality came with the Motorola flip phone before “Six Sigma” got it’s name; but the “What” -the core - of Six Sigma is how they got there, before they stuck a cute name on it. Motorola failed after that mainly because they missed the market shifts! Not from a significant lack of product function quality. For example in cell phones they completely missed the shift from analog to digital. Quality isn’t always the controlling factor in market success.
Some Six Sigma deployments have failed. Is that the fault of Six Sigma or how they were implemented? Or the fickleness of management? Deming didn’t reach a huge number of people either – he was at Ford too and Ford never got Deming just like they don’t get Six Sigma or Shainin or TQM. Because they want a magic wand. Not because TQM or Deming or Six Sigma are bad.
Those who are successful implementing true quality improvements under the 'banner' of Six Sigma like myself, have not had anything to do with the shift in 10+ years. I like many of the things that come under the six sigma banner and have used them to great success for myself and the organizations I have worked.
I am devoted passionate promoter of Quality. Instead of railing against the 1.5 sigma shift, I studied what Six Sigma was really about. I learned from those who taught Motorola. I picked up the Six Sigma banner, took the good stuff, worked with the tools and methods myself to improve those I felt were weak or sought out more Masters to improve my tool box. I have helped organizations and my own career in this manner. If I were to stick with railing at the shift and others slick marketing crap I would still a QC engineer stuck in a back room railing out how stupid management was! Instead I am now working with CEOs and CFOs and VP of engineering and R&D to move forward with true quality improvements and we do it with the real Six Sigma: flawless execution.
My suggestion would be to stop reading 10-20 year old material. Read some of the new stuff that is good. Sleeper’s “Design for Six Sigma Statistics” is great. Bhote’s work is good – as long as you stay away form some of his rantings about other guru’s besides Shainin. Wheeler’s stuff is good. Hoerl and Snee “Statistical Thinking”. Steiner and MacKay “Statistical Engineering” and of course the oldies are great too. I couldn’t live with Ott’s Process Quality Control (especially my copy of the second edition that has the cover bound upside down to the printed material!) Slater’s “Integrated Process Management” the list goes on.
My other suggestion is to stay away from the personalities of guru status: my guru is better than your guru. They aren’t gods – they’re men. Take what works and leave the rest. No one guy got it all.

I am well aware of what Bill Smith said and what Dr. Harry said. I read this stuff 10-20 years ago. My point, which you seem to be missing is that the 1.5 sigma shift was NEVER the true basis for Six Sigma - it was a marketing gimmick. The fact some are still throwing it about doesn’t mean it’s more than a marketing gimmick – an apparently successful one for those who used it in their advertising not those who bought it. Even GE abandoned any discussion of it in most of it's businesses fairly quickly as anyone who taught or took the class or practiced the improvements methods with serious intent (yes the powerpoint engineers never got it but they never get anything and no matter how much you howl at the moon they never will) realized that the 1.5 sigma shift adds nothing and is just window dressing. They moved on. The successful practitioners – who read more than silly little window dressing articles that were really just ads for the author’s consulting business (like Dr. Harry) – realized that long ago.
This sounds a lot like the No True Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) argument. While you might be correct in stipulating that the 1.5 shift is fallacious and doesn't form a part of "true" Six Sigma, you leave wiggle room to define "truth" in terms of a definition of SS that's not universally understood and accepted. Until you (or someone) can codify "true" SS in a way that's generally accepted and empirically verifiable in its entirety, you have no basis for just rejecting the parts that you don't like, or that make your argument less substantive.
The true foundation and core of Six Sigma is solid quality improvements on those things that matter to the Customer without the constraint of the mythical point of diminishing returns in traditional cost of quality calculations.
Sorry Bev, but this is more special pleading. It's a putatively profound statement that's completely malleable. I have no idea what "mythical point of diminishing returns in traditional cost of quality calculations" means. It sounds like you might be trying to cover a "myth" with unsubstantiated "truth." "Traditional cost of quality calculations" were never, as far as I know, intended to be considered wholly axiomatic; the general classifications are valid, but there is always at least some expectation that people will think for themselves in sorting these things out. SS has nothing that I know of that helps in this regard. In fact, it seems to add an additional and wholly unnecessary layer of complexity. You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
I’m truly sorry that some mainstream publications or academics that are nothing more than uninformed charlatans are still bantering this age old crap around – but railing against them does no good. It only elevates your blood pressure. They are wrong. They won’t change.
I disagree. If enough people stand up and shout the charlatans down, they'll look for something different to sell. It's true that there is a seemingly endless stream of wonderful new but essentially content-free "strategies," but we deal with them one at a time. My own opinion is that the 1.5 shift hasn't been completely discredited because it's attached to a misbegotten larger "strategy" (SS itself) that has been allowed to gain ground despite the almost total lack of empirical evidence of its efficacy.
Motorola’s early great success with quality came with the Motorola flip phone before “Six Sigma” got it’s name; but the “What” -the core - of Six Sigma is how they got there, before they stuck a cute name on it. Motorola failed after that mainly because they missed the market shifts! Not from a significant lack of product function quality. For example in cell phones they completely missed the shift from analog to digital. Quality isn’t always the controlling factor in market success.
SS dates to roughly 1986 at Motorola, and Motorola's first "flip phone" came out in 1989, and the first clamshell design as we know it now, the Startac, was introduced in 1996. Furthermore, it's common knowledge that much of the early "success" of SS at Motorola came about as a result of fundamentally redefining what a "defect" is. In other words, a large part of the cost savings didn't emanate from product or process improvement. While basking in the glow of its Malcolm Baldridge award and the glowing press reviews of its earthshaking SS movement, Motorola had its lunch eaten. Failure to pay attention to what mattered, while spending a lot of time juggling numbers and writing press releases was what led to trouble for Motorola.

Some Six Sigma deployments have failed. Is that the fault of Six Sigma or how they were implemented? Or the fickleness of management? Deming didn’t reach a huge number of people either – he was at Ford too and Ford never got Deming just like they don’t get Six Sigma or Shainin or TQM. Because they want a magic wand. Not because TQM or Deming or Six Sigma are bad.
Well, Deming did reach a lot of people who listened, and they've been eating the lunch of American manufacturing for years now, despite all of the wonderful "new" stratagies we've developed.

Those who are successful implementing true quality improvements under the 'banner' of Six Sigma like myself, have not had anything to do with the shift in 10+ years. I like many of the things that come under the six sigma banner and have used them to great success for myself and the organizations I have worked.
I don't doubt for a minute that you've taken a pragmatic view of SS and have used it successfully. What's in doubt is whether or not there's a simpler way. Personally, I've seen nothing in SS that is helpful that wasn't in existence in some less complicated form before. Your mileage may vary.

Good discussion as usual.

My view is consistently that while tools tend to morph over time, the degree of their successful use has always been in variation at any given point in the tools' progress. Does that make sense? A sling shot can be an effective hunting tool or not, depending on my skill, discipline, determination and perhaps some other factors. Same goes with the most advanced hunting tools. The user is charged with doing a good job with it or fouling it up.

My understanding of 6S is that it sought to take out some of that variation by improving the structure, the discipline of using the same sort of tools that already existed. It sought to bring better repeatability, which I can agree seems appropriate to seek. While winning its converts it somehow turned into a sort of religion (no disrespect intended) to hold in magnificent ideal.

All in all the success still relies on the user, his/her environment, resources etc. I've seen few organizations that can pull off a 6S effort satisfactorily, and no one who could take the tool box any old where and make it work, because organizations vary so--even departments within them can vary enormously.

This is why I've maintained a suspicious distance between myself and the discipline, and trained a critical eye on the idea that any person with a Master BB certificate can, in fact, go into ABC Corp and get "it" done.

This is also why my signature line is Stealth Quality. In my view, we have the math down and the little charts nailed; Human Performance Management is the last frontier.

Jim: OK a few clarifying questions:

what do you mean when you say that six sigma is a "misbegotten strategy" and it is "complicated"? What about six sigma - besides the shift - do you take issue with?

What is the source of your comment concerning Motorola "changing the meaning of what a defect is"? I've not heard that one before...I don't need cited references, just curious.

I fully admit that I do not do the Six Sigma as advertised by Mikel Harry. Which seems to be the primary source of what most of the vocal people 'know' about Six Sigma. (Even if not written by Harry, most of the articles I have researched stem pretty directly from him.) But Mikel Harry's Six Sigma isn't everybody's Six Sigma. Despite his attempts he doesn't own exclusive rights to it.

what do you mean when you say that six sigma is a "misbegotten strategy"

I mean that its pedigree is uncertain, and its claims are unproven and often shrouded in mystery cost savings that somehow never find their way to the bottom line. Without the shift, even the name "Six Sigma" makes no sense. Sounds better than "4.5 Sigma" though, I guess.

and it is "complicated"? What about six sigma - besides the shift - do you take issue with?

Yes, "complicated" in the sense that it adds unnecessary complexity, all of those silly belt things, and installs its own unnecessary caste system. For example: DMAIC is PDCA, with extra letters that serve no purpose.

What is the source of your comment concerning Motorola "changing the meaning of what a defect is"? I've not heard that one before...I don't need cited references, just curious.
I'm sure I can come up with a reference, because it wasn't a big secret. In their efforts to spread the tails, Motorola found a lot of unnecessarily narrow tolerance bands, and stuff would get rejected internally that didn't need to be rejected. This isn't a bad thing. My point was that a good portion of Motorola's alleged gains vis a vis SS came about by not doing anything except making tolerances more realistic. Not something you need a Grand Master Poobah for.

I fully admit that I do not do the Six Sigma as advertised by Mikel Harry. Which seems to be the primary source of what most of the vocal people 'know' about Six Sigma. (Even if not written by Harry, most of the articles I have researched stem pretty directly from him.) But Mikel Harry's Six Sigma isn't everybody's Six Sigma. Despite his attempts he doesn't own exclusive rights to it.

Like it or not, Harry might not be the father of SS, but he was in the room when it was born. Simply disowning him doesn't help your case. The fact that you seem to be saying that everyone can have their own Six Sigma just reinforces my point--you can't logically say that your SS is "truth" if there's no binding exemplar, and the goalposts are always moving.

Jim,

A very good post ... or should I say 2 posts.

I might also add that I feel the reason for six sigma's "complexity" has primarily been a means of justifying consultants' extra training costs, in more tools. Time would be far better spent understanding the basics. For example, for what I have seen, six sigma "experts" understanding of control charts is abysmal. If anyone thoroughly understood control charts as described in Wheeler's "Advanced Topics in SPC" there would be no need for the up to 40 tools of six sigma. As Ishikawa said, "the seven tools if used correctly, will solve 90% of problems in the workplace". Any six sigma trainee who claims he has done this and is seeking "higher fruit" is kidding him/herself.

Bev,

It's great that you appreciate the fallacy of the 1.5. It's also great that you see that the 1.5 has been used by Mikel Harry and others as the basis for their marketing of six sigma. It's great to see you are not lured by the carrot of 3.4 as so many others have been.

I would also hope that you do not use any of six sigma's fallacies relating to the 1.5 such as:

six sigma tables
sigma levels
a focus on specifications and defect counts
dpmo calculations
z calculations
probability focus instead of Shewhart Charts
normal distribution assumptions
plots of normal distributions over histograms

All this is as much nonsense as the 1.5. (I'm sure there's more but this is just some of the stuff that immediately comes to mind). If you remove all this nonsence, what's left - Deming/TQM + six sigma's elitist belts ?

I mean that its pedigree is uncertain, and its claims are unproven and often shrouded in mystery cost savings that somehow never find their way to the bottom line. Without the shift, even the name "Six Sigma" makes no sense. Sounds better than "4.5 Sigma" though, I guess.
true it is a silly name. but we Americans seem enamored of silly names don't we?

and yes the whole cost savings drives myself and others crazy - it wasn't Galvin's original intent to worry about the cost savings and many modern managers now see that we shouldn't always try to dollar-ize improvements that can't be seen directly in the balance sheet. but Juran's and unenlightened finance people’s influence is still strong out there.

Yes, "complicated" in the sense that it adds unnecessary complexity, all of those silly belt things, and installs its own unnecessary caste system. For example: DMAIC is PDCA, with extra letters that serve no purpose.

yes the belt name thing is silly - but aside from that it really is no more than saying you are certified quality engineer...it merely says you achieved some level of skill. and yes there are those who have the paper who can and those who can't from college degrees to ASQ certs to RAB Lead Auditor, to black belt. but abuse is nothing new and can't be used to convict or even indict a whole school of thought - or else we would never get anywhere since none of us is perfect and no methodology is without hacks and snake oil salesmen.

The caste system was mainly implemented or perpetrated by GE and Allied Signal -something many regret now as it seriously backfired on them.

DMAIC is merely PDCA? hmmm. I suppose we could also say that PDSA is also an unnecessary alphabetization of the scientific process? the DMAIC acronym has utility: it's specifically named for the steps in Problem solving (8D is too - no magic just a moniker to remember the steps...) it's a great little common language term: we can instantly communicate where we are on a project by referring to it's phase. if the Eskimos can have 20 something words for snow - different kinds of snow - why can't we have different acronyms and monikers for different types of study that are more specific to the situation at hand than PDCA?

I'm sure I can come up with a reference, because it wasn't a big secret. In their efforts to spread the tails, Motorola found a lot of unnecessarily narrow tolerance bands, and stuff would get rejected internally that didn't need to be rejected. This isn't a bad thing. My point was that a good portion of Motorola's alleged gains vis a vis SS came about by not doing anything except making tolerances more realistic. Not something you need a Grand Master Poobah for.

true but Six Sigma is more than that as you say.

Like it or not, Harry might not be the father of SS, but he was in the room when it was born.

well he was there when they named it...but not when it began. or shall I use the phrase conceived? many many others were there for the start and Harry wasn't a player then.

Simply disowning him doesn't help your case. The fact that you seem to be saying that everyone can have their own Six Sigma just reinforces my point--you can't logically say that your SS is "truth" if there's no binding exemplar, and the goalposts are always moving.

but aren't you saying then that things can't evolve? that everyone must do Lean exactly the same as everyone else and there is only one way to do ISO or you aren't really doing ISO? where is that thread on copy exactly when I need it? Last I checked no one, not even Harry, owned the immutable rights to an unchanging Six Sigma. The Six Sigma police won't come get me if I make improvements.

and my point is that too many people can't or won't see past the silly stuff that Harry pasted on to the program that really have nothing to do with the program or very little (the whole belt thing). How were we supposed to achieve six sigma - even if it was just 3.4 ppm - if not for using solid improvement methods? not all 'defects' can be eliminated by changing the tolerances. and that's why I say that this is the core of Six Sigma - the other stuff is window dressing. I DO like the use of intense training sessions and requiring that the students successfully complete vetted projects - after thorough peer review to ensure that the student has understood and used the tools appropriately. This project defense is where the term black belt came from by the way - it's akin to black belt rules (no holding of punches) and taking your black belt test...I DO like the fact that it involves teaching many people in the techniques - not just quality or even engineering. It improves the knowledge and skill level of all in an organization.

Bev,

It's great that you appreciate the fallacy of the 1.5. It's also great that you see that the 1.5 has been used by Mikel Harry and others as the basis for their marketing of six sigma. It's great to see you are not lured by the carrot of 3.4 as so many others have been.

I would also hope that you do not use any of six sigma's fallacies relating to the 1.5 such as:

six sigma tables
sigma levels
a focus on specifications and defect counts
dpmo calculations
z calculations
probability focus instead of Shewhart Charts
normal distribution assumptions
plots of normal distributions over histograms

All this is as much nonsense as the 1.5. (I'm sure there's more but this is just some of the stuff that immediately comes to mind). If you remove all this nonsence, what's left - Deming/TQM + six sigma's elitist belts ?

no I don't use those things either. However I do disagree somewhat with Ishikawa - maybe - maybe - 90% of the Problems can be solved by the simple tools but many of these problems have low defect rates; there are just a lot of them. my experience is that complex variation based Problems have large defect rates. and simple tools aren't enough. DOEs are necessary to get to root cause...control charts can tell you when a process goes out of control but it can't usually tell what the root cause is - even of assignable causes and certainly not common causes (using Shewhart's operational definitions)
and I've never seen a fishbone diagram truly benefit anyone except maybe the makers of large printer paper...

now please note that I am NOT saying that simple methods dont' work - they do and I use them. they are necessary but not sufficient.

Six Sigma is tactical targeting...

The Madfox

However I do disagree somewhat with Ishikawa - maybe - maybe - 90% of the Problems can be solved by the simple tools.
There are some companies in manufacturing that are operating at the cutting edge of efficiency. For these, the basics may not be enough.

In the USA, manufacturing has about 15% of the nation's employment and produces about 19% of the nation's income. The majority of employees, producing the majority of the nation's income, work in areas such as finance, insurance, health, tourism and government.

For the majority of people, the basic 7 tools are more than enough. Most people, even quality managers, have great difficulty even fully understanding control charts. Much of what is currently being taught to the majority, is quite inappropriate. For example, the Motorola Uni site suggests that 3 of the "top six" tools that "every black belt loves" are FMEA, T-Test, and DOE. These are quite inappropriate for most industries outside of manufacturing, in fact even within manufacturing they can be like trying to crack a walnut with a sledgehammer. Many will also suggest that latter two are inappropriate in any analytical study.

The tools used in six sigma projects giving greatest benefits are:
Brainstorming 41.5%
Pareto charts 38.5%
Cause and effect 34.1%
(Quality Digest survey of the top 3 ... sum is not 100%):

In summary, I think Ishikawa is spot on !!

Six sigma is a displined and data driven approach for problem solving in any process using DMAIC.

Tools such as cause and effect diagram, operational definitions, process capability (measure), source of variation studies ( analyze), DOE (full/screening factorial-improve), quality control plan and process flow system (control) are great. Pareto analysis (measure/analyze).

And these are used used with statistical software.

It is confusing at times because users complicated a simple problem with it's tools to fulfil six sigma project quota.

DOE are used when process is stable but need to identify the main influencing impacts and D/PFMEA are used to assign a severity number so that the "biggest" impact issues are being addressed first. These are great in identifying critical to process/quality parameters.

And these are used used with statistical software.
My view is that there is a deal of statistical software that can mislead users. Rather than guiding users, a vast array of options are presented that make it easy for neophytes to be led astray. Help files may give some guidance but users rarely consult these. Users find it easy just to click all the check boxes for the many control chart detection tests, click the check box for transforms, or for superimposing normal distributions on histograms, or curve fitting. All these activities detract from good practice.

It is confusing at times because users complicated a simple problem with it's tools to fulfil six sigma project quota. For the majority of users in the majority of companies, greatest benefits can be had by keeping it simple. I can just imagine the confusion in service industries trying to use for example, DOE. Most users will find control charts challenging and very few will understand the application of attribute charts. For the 85% of employees who are in non-manufacturing and even for most in manufacturing, the basic tools give most benefits.

Quotas can be very destructive. I had an acquaintance in GE who was told she would never be promoted if she didn't participate in a six sigma project. She objected to the principles of six sigma and the abilities of those leading projects, and she refused.

Surely the reality is that Six Sigma is nothing more than another tool kit for use in problem solving.
My personal take is that Six Sigma is most effective when applied to reduction in variation, although clearly not every problem demands the intense rigors of the Six Sigma methodology ... as in if you already know the true root cause, spend your time fixing it instead of creating/following a charter.

Perhaps the most valuable things I took away from my black belt training (in no particular order):
Give a voice & listen to the stakeholders.
NEVER assume.
Make sure you KNOW the impact of any changes on ALL areas of the process stream.
Follow up to make sure the fix stays in place after you relinquish control.

And later after after reading World Class Quality - Keki R. Bhote & Adi K. Bhote

LISTEN TO THE PARTS!!!

Surely the reality is that Six Sigma is nothing more than another tool kit for use in problem solving.
If that's all it was and if it used the tools correctly there would be far fewer objections to it.


And later after after reading World Class Quality - Keki R. Bhote & Adi K. Bhote


http://www.bisrg.uwaterloo.ca/archive/RR-06-03.pdf :

"Bhote and Bhote (2000) and Bhote (1991, 1988) give the most complete (although not
comprehensive) treatment of SS. We agree with reviewers (Nelson 1991, Moore 1993, Hockman 1994 and Ziegel 2001) that these books make many unsubstantiated, exaggerated claims. What is worse, we believe that these books are a disservice to SS, since the hyperbole hides many of the genuinely useful ideas. "

Do you have any links to papers by Bhote ? They seem to be difficult to find.

However I do disagree somewhat with Ishikawa - maybe - maybe - 90% of the Problems can be solved by the simple tools but many of these problems have low defect rates; there are just a lot of them. my experience is that complex variation based Problems have large defect rates. and simple tools aren't enough. DOEs are necessary to get to root cause...control charts can tell you when a process goes out of control but it can't usually tell what the root cause is - even of assignable causes and certainly not common causes (using Shewhart's operational definitions)
and I've never seen a fishbone diagram truly benefit anyone except maybe the makers of large printer paper...

now please note that I am NOT saying that simple methods dont' work - they do and I use them. they are necessary but not sufficient.I remember the saying goes 80% could be solved with simple problems. Maybe that is the case in the range of organizations and not all in the more complex affairs. Complex organizations and processes can indeed require complex solutions to their problems.

I've seen your approach and I find it sound.

What I object to in the Wild West treatment of 6S is the sense of elitism sometimes given to the method and its practitioners. I object to unreasonable expectations, inflated promises and a myopic focus to realize them. Politics has rendered the method as a means to jockey for corporate position.

In the years since its introduction, it seems to have taken on a life not of its intended design.

What I object to in the Wild West treatment of 6S is the sense of elitism sometimes given to the method and its practitioners. I object to unreasonable expectations, inflated promises and a myopic focus to realize them. Politics has rendered the method as a means to jockey for corporate position.

In the years since its introduction, it seems to have taken on a life not of its intended design.

yes too true. But it happens with almost anything good. we overhype everything. I mean really, do you need a semi naked girl lying on top of a car to sell it? now that's setting unreasonable expectations!

but as always we seem to align the abusers of "the thing" with "the thing" as Randy says and don't look at those who use the thing appropriately and are successful. Mikel Harry and his type (including what ASQ did to align with Harry) have tainted six sigma...its' sad. another opportunity to truly teach organizations about quality and we jsut got mad at Harry, took our ball and went home.

I do just want to document the following about my opinion of Six Sigma. Not trying to convince anyone to change their mind but here is where I am coming from:

1. The 1.5 sigma shift is a problem. We have pretty well agreed here that this is a red herring and have agreed it is something that would better be left out of six sigma.

2. The Mikel Harry salesmanship. Agreed.

3. The elitism of the belts. And I must point out that this would especially be a problem where I work as we have gone with the OSHA Voluntary Protection Program, with heavy emphasis on employee involvement and management leadership. Again, we have some agreement here on this

4. The focus on elimination of defects. Elimination of defects does not necessarily leave you with a "good thing".

5. Along with this, the focus on ppm defect rates, especially based upon the Normal distribution tables.

6. The reliance on numerical targets. You need the target for ppm and your "six sigma capability". The Deming folks work to eliminate numerical targets.

7. The DMAIC is a linear process. At the end, you "control" it. The PDSA model is a cyclic process, potentially never ending.

8. The focus on direct costs, without considering non-quantifiable costs, and with considering indirect costs - optimizing the pieces at the expense of the whole.

So, for me, I stick to what is working for me, a Deming approach. If asked, I will recommend against someone pursuing Six Sigma, but it is their right to do so if they want.

As an aside, I had to give a short speech about ASQ to a joint meeting of ASQ and the National Management Association and the Project Management Insititute. I actually listed Six Sigma as a quality tool supported by ASQ without grimacing or :rolleyes: or :mad: or :soap:

Six Sigma is a quality tools with stronger power, but not quality system.

It can not control even cut the cost.

Six Sigma is a quality tools with stronger power, but not quality system.

Precisely which "tools" or tool has "stronger power" ?

Precisely which "tools" or tool has "stronger power" ?


The ones that have been proven to be the most effective and efficient for each individual or organization.

What's good for the goose may or may not be good for the gander.

The basic response is that:

6S = Continuous + Continual Improvement

Al...

I do just want to document the following about my opinion of Six Sigma. Not trying to convince anyone to change their mind but here is where I am coming from:

1. The 1.5 sigma shift is a problem. We have pretty well agreed here that this is a red herring and have agreed it is something that would better be left out of six sigma.

2. The Mikel Harry salesmanship. Agreed.

3. The elitism of the belts. And I must point out that this would especially be a problem where I work as we have gone with the OSHA Voluntary Protection Program, with heavy emphasis on employee involvement and management leadership. Again, we have some agreement here on this

4. The focus on elimination of defects. Elimination of defects does not necessarily leave you with a "good thing".

5. Along with this, the focus on ppm defect rates, especially based upon the Normal distribution tables.

6. The reliance on numerical targets. You need the target for ppm and your "six sigma capability". The Deming folks work to eliminate numerical targets.

7. The DMAIC is a linear process. At the end, you "control" it. The PDSA model is a cyclic process, potentially never ending.

8. The focus on direct costs, without considering non-quantifiable costs, and with considering indirect costs - optimizing the pieces at the expense of the whole.

So, for me, I stick to what is working for me, a Deming approach. If asked, I will recommend against someone pursuing Six Sigma, but it is their right to do so if they want.

As an aside, I had to give a short speech about ASQ to a joint meeting of ASQ and the National Management Association and the Project Management Insititute. I actually listed Six Sigma as a quality tool supported by ASQ without grimacing or :rolleyes: or :mad: or :soap:


Steve,
You showed remarkable restaint speaking at the meeting. I salute you! :D

I agree with your points. I am myself an old timer. I first passed the CQE exam in 1979. I took and passed the second SSBB exam ASQ ever gave with two references, Juran's Quality Handbook and a Six Sigma glossary, so I could translate the SS jargon into standard Quality jargon. I wanted to show that SS is a SUBSET of Quality Engineering. To my mind, Six Sigma is a project oriented sheaf of process improvement tools. It works best when it is embedded in a well run QMS, that deals with such matters as management direction, goal setting, etc. You are absolutely correct that it is not a continuous process. If you doubt that Six Sigma is (or should be) project oriented, look at the Project Management Institute's Project Management Professional BOK. The Project Management process maps almost exactly to DMAIC, in slightly different words.

Geoff Withnell
Master Black Belt, BearingPoint, Inc.
CQE, CMQ/OE, CSSBB, CQA, CQSE

The ones that have been proven to be the most effective and efficient for each individual or organization.


If you claim that "six sigma" has provided "stronger tools" to organizations, just what are the specific "stronger" tools has six sigma provided to which specific organizations ?

Meaningless generalizations of this kind do not help quality.

While the term "six sigma" has come to mean almost anything a consultant wants it to mean, it's implications of a mystical six standard deviation spec limit with the even more nonsensical 3.4dpmo has been such a retrograde step for quality I will be very glad to see the demise of the terminology "six sigma".

Meaningless generalizations of this kind do not help quality.


I'm sorry, I misread the intent of your post.I didn't realize that we had entered a phase of the "I'll bet I know more than you do game".

The Poster, peacewong, may have been trying to say that the 6S tools used by practioners are themselves not a systems type of approach and as such have a greater potential for hard realization due to their focus as opposed to the improvements that can be achieved by using a QMS/PDCA type system alone. I may be wrong. There is a pretty good possibility that his lack of fluency in our native tongue has created some twist in his message.

On the other hand, in my post I was just making a general statement that because of "no one shoe fits all" the tools that I have seen used by practioners have provided various levels of success across different organizations. So to me strength is a relevant issue.

... the 6S tools used by practioners are themselves not a systems type of approach and as such have a greater potential for hard realization due to their focus ...

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to exactly what SS tools "have a greater potential for hard realization" and how they do this ?

Some data to support your assertion would also be a useful.

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to exactly what SS tools "have a greater potential for hard realization" and how they do this ? I haven't made any claim about tools. Personally I don't know and couldn't care less, I'm not a 6S user. All I have said is that it has been explained to me by various clients some of the different methods they have used that provided individual success for them. Whether the tool be a type of survey, balanced scorecard, any of those things with a "D" in it I can't say exactly and pinpoint it. I didn't put this to memory because it is not relevant to any of my needs. My general statement was based on general knowledge.


Some data to support your assertion would also be a useful. I haven't made any assertion to anything. I am claiming no personal expertise, I'm just stating what has been relayed to me. Why don't you enlighten us seeing as you must know it all?

I'm having a hard time trying to get a grasp on this need to be aggressive in a forum related to free discussion of opinion and experience. It may be a better service if you could enlighten the group on what you think are some of the best or strongest tools insted of playing the silly game that looks like we're starting to play. You're clearly the expert or at least you have asserted that in your profile. I would like to know if there are specific methods that are better than others and what makes them better. This is the type of information I could pass on and actually reference the provider of if anyone were to ask me who could help them fill their need.

I'm having a hard time trying to get a grasp on this need to be aggressive in a forum related to free discussion of opinion and experience.

Was the irony here intentional?

Was the irony here intentional?


Naaaaaaaaa, I'm really trying to be nice and get some info myself here Jim.

I'm having a hard time trying to get a grasp on this need to be aggressive in a forum related to free discussion of opinion and experience. .... I would like to know if there are specific methods that are better than others ...

My apologies if I sounded agressive but I have become quite frustrated on what seems like a game of Chinese whispers with issues like six sigma ( and global warming as another example ). It is so easy for people to make generalised, unsupported statements, then to have them repeated ad nauseum as fact. This is far from the approach to quality teaches us. Whether you call this approach The Scientific Method, PDCA, DMAIC or whatever flavour of the week, the approach should be to make a hypothesis, then to support it with evidence. The global warming debate is a classic example ... a hypothesis (man's contribution of 0.3% greenhouse gases is causing the earth to heat up catastophically ) is not supported by the data ... yet many people continue to repeat the mantra unquestioningly. A scientist and hopefully a quality specialist, will always ask questions to discover the truth ... despite some people becoming upset by having their beliefs questioned.

You asked for my views ... I have recently drafted a paper on the topic :

http://users.bigpond.net.au/SixSigmaFallacies/SSDeming.htm

also:
http://qualitydigest.com/IQedit/QDarticle_text.lasso?articleid=8819

I'd be interested in your comments.

Thank you so much and forgive any rudeness on my part.

:topic:With Global Warming and your interest in it you might want to visit the EMS/ISO 14001 Forum and give us your point of view. Please start a new thread on Global Warming if you want and we'll try to keep the crack-pots at bay.

I am at the catch-as-catch-can stage with my understanding of 6S, so to keep from twisting stuff around too bad I'll watch from afar.

Thank you so much and forgive any rudeness on my part.

:topic:With Global Warming and your interest in it you might want to visit the EMS/ISO 14001 Forum and give us your point of view. Please start a new thread on Global Warming if you want and we'll try to keep the crack-pots at bay.

I am at the catch-as-catch-can stage with my understanding of 6S, so to keep from twisting stuff around too bad I'll watch from afar.

We tried it once before (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=180485#poststop) and Marc (probably wisely) called a halt to it after a while. If the discussion were to be reopened (and I'm not recommending it, mind you) that thread should probably be the place.

We tried it once before (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=180485#poststop) and Marc (probably wisely) called a halt to it after a while. If the discussion were to be reopened (and I'm not recommending it, mind you) that thread should probably be the place.

I agree with Jim. Let's not go there again. Serves no purpose and it is a too much emotionally and politically loaded subject.

Stijloor.

Hello Everybody there....A very Good Day to all of you. I am extreamly happy and proud of having such a forum and intelligent people.

I am very new to six sigma. I am working in a IT company which is supply chain distributor and no.1 IT distributor in middle eat and Africa region. We have many service centers too. I am into finance, at present in service business and going forward will look distribution aswell as sales.Can anybody help me how to start and where to start Six sigma....

I am very much confused with the graph showing usl and lsl...i really have doubt why this upper limit and lower limit is fixed and actuallt what does it mean. Can anyone help me to clear my doubt.

Many thanks,

Best Regards,

Subash

Hello Everbody there..Good Day..Very happy to see intelligent people in this forum. I am working into an IT company which is involved into sales, distribution and service. At present i am into service and working as an asst manager-Finance.

I am very much interested in Six sigma...but have a big doubt about the USL and LSL. Can somebody explain me why these limits are fixed and why they are relevant to Six sigma.

Thanks,

Best Regards,

Subash

Subash,

The Upper and Lower Spec Limits can be anywhere you like ... 4 sigma, 6 sigma, 12 sigma. They are set by the manufacturer and/or customer, not by the process. The number of defects can hence be any level you want, depending on where the spec limits have been set. Defects are a very poor measure of quality.

Six Sigma's metric of 3.4 defects is based on utter nonsense, as described in my published papers:

http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/six-sigma-article/six-sigma-lessons-deming-part-1
http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/six-sigma-article/six-sigma-lessons-deming-part-2

I also suggest reading Deming's book "Out of the Crisis" ... particularly relevant today given the current economic crisis.

I fully agree with 3.4 dmo as being silly, but USL and LSL CANNOT legitimately be set anywhere you like. Specifications should be set by "voice of the design". What are the design requirements.

Geoff Withnell

Subash,

The Upper and Lower Spec Limits can be anywhere you like ... 4 sigma, 6 sigma, 12 sigma. They are set by the manufacturer and/or customer, not by the process. The number of defects can hence be any level you want, depending on where the spec limits have been set. Defects are a very poor measure of quality.

Six Sigma's metric of 3.4 defects is based on utter nonsense, as described in my published papers:

http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/six-sigma-article/six-sigma-lessons-deming-part-1
http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/six-sigma-article/six-sigma-lessons-deming-part-2

I also suggest reading Deming's book "Out of the Crisis" ... particularly relevant today given the current economic crisis.

I fully agree with 3.4 dmo as being silly, but USL and LSL CANNOT legitimately be set anywhere you like. Specifications should be set by "voice of the design". What are the design requirements.
Geoff Withnell

"Another way to improve the yield is to increase the design specification width" Mr Bill Smith, IEEE Spectrum 1993.

Your design can be whatever you want ... hence so can your specs. Your customer may have different specs for your product and may choose to change them. In other words, spec limits are not set in concrete.

Conversely, you have no control over natural process limits other than by improving the process. What the process is doing is the true indicator of quality.

The Shewhart control chart is the best indicator of quality. It is relevant for the majority of processes, regardless of data distribution. Six Sigma's metrics are next to useless as a measure of quality.

Artichoke - you and I have been thru this before - you are misrepresenting what Bill Smith actually proposed. This is a real shame as he actually proposed what Geoff is saying, but most people would never know that as his two published papers are hard to obtain. defaming a dead man is a bit impolite wouldn't you agree?

in my opinion and experience I don't believe that control charts are the best indicator of quality. that's not to say that they aren't useful - they are: in the main, they are the best way of determining if a process is in statistical control and stable, provided of course the correct chart is chosen for the process at hand. However, they don't by themselves indicate quality levels. That has to do with the process behavior in relationship to the true requirements - as defined explicitly or implicitly by the Customer. Although the control chart can indicate decreasing or increasing process variation it isn't the only tool that can do that. Additionally not all features provide more value thru endless reduction of variation.

"Another way to improve the yield is to increase the design specification width" Mr Bill Smith, IEEE Spectrum 1993.

Your design can be whatever you want ... hence so can your specs. Your customer may have different specs for your product and may choose to change them. In other words, spec limits are not set in concrete.

Conversely, you have no control over natural process limits other than by improving the process. What the process is doing is the true indicator of quality.

The Shewhart control chart is the best indicator of quality. It is relevant for the majority of processes, regardless of data distribution. Six Sigma's metrics are next to useless as a measure of quality.


Oh come now! No reasonable person, and certainly not Bill Smith believes (or believed) that you can design whatever you want. There is is concept called the real world and natural laws, which limit what will work in the design and therefor what the spec limits are.

The best indicator of quality is the customer results! Everything else is an estimated prediction of the customer results.


Geoff Withnell

"Another way to improve the yield is to increase the design specification width" Mr Bill Smith, IEEE Spectrum 1993.


FWIW... this quotation was not made by Bill Smith. It was in the article by Bill Smith, but author listed as Linda Geppert.

Artichoke - you and I have been thru this before - you are misrepresenting what Bill Smith actually proposed. This is a real shame as he actually proposed what Geoff is saying, but most people would never know that as his two published papers are hard to obtain. defaming a dead man is a bit impolite wouldn't you agree?


Read my post. I quoted a dead man. A quotation is not defamation.

I am not surprised that you feel this quotation from Bill Smith's paper is "defamatory". I have encountered many people who disbelieve the quotation because they find it an embarrassment. The truth hurts at times. His paper is not "hard to obtain". Buy it from IEEE.

I am however, often tempted to comment on those stupid enough to follow the Six Sigma nonsense.

I am however, often tempted to comment on those stupid enough to follow the Six Sigma nonsense. You have said that plenty of times. We know your beliefs. Now - Let it go.

artichoke - Please be more restrained in your comments here.

artichoke - Please be more restrained in your comments here.

My apologies Marc

My 'Caution' applies to everyone, BTW.