As I read through the six sigma threads I keep seeing "Six sigma is a set of tools".

I'm interested in what each of you considers a six sigma tool. List them if you can.

This is a good thread.
To me, Six Sigma is not just a set of tools. It is a philosophy, mindset, culture and a disciplined approach to improvement.

Six sigma tools should not be confused to only statistical tools. Six sigma involves;
Project management tools,
Risk Management tools,
Financial decision making tools,
Management tools,
Quality tools,
Lean manufacturing tools, etc.

Success or failure of a project also depends on careful selection and application of right tools for the right applications. I would suspect the tools list would go on and on.

If I may, I would like to encourage the contributors to this thread to also mention the intended application of the tool while mentioning name of the tool.
Regards,
Govind.

In agreement with Govind. In a class I teach where we spend a few lecture sessions on Six Sigma, we focus on these traditional tools and concepts. I cannot list all of them here, since I am working from memory, and not from my lecture notes.......please note that I progressively move the students through the learning and use of tools, and really present the Six Sigma stuff near the end of the 14-week class. The students complete a case study, using the tools to create a six sigma project. We have lots of projects involving service companies.

Concepts to compare and contrast: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve Control (DMAIC) and the Shewhart cycle Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA). We spend time learnig to do DMAIC using real world examples. We spend time talking about project management tools, too. If anyone has any good DMAIC success stories, please share either here, or PM me.

Tools: simple data analysis tools (like mean, std dev, analysis of a sample population, probability, regression, histograms, etc.); more complex data and problem analysis tools (like distribution curves, pareto, affinity diagrams, cause & effect diagrams, scatter diagrams, flowcharts, ); even more complex data analysis tools (like control charts, process cap studies, DOE, FMEA, taguchi loss function ).

--Jodi

If I may, I would like to encourage the contributors to this thread to also mention the intended application of the tool while mentioning name of the tool.I'd love to hear from some folks about tools they have used and for what as well - Not to mention comments about effectiveness (any meassureables?).

Still, nothing works as well as these proven tools:

DAIOYAF
ORAYAO and OMAYAO
DIRTFT, TINSO and OCIAYG
MEOR
NQENP

Remember?

Alex.

I just couldn't resist doing that! Why with all the acronyms, Japaneses words and all of that stuff.

I most respectufully submit what actually works:

DAIOYAF = Do As Instructed Or You Are Fired

ORAYAO = One Reject And You Are Out
OMAYAO = One Mistake And You Are Out

DIRTFT = Do It Right The First Time
TINSO = There is No Second Opportunity
OCIAYG = One Chance Is All You Get

MEOR = Meet Expectations Or Else

NQENP = No Quality Equals No Pay

Alex

Years ago when I was a ssupervisor of electronic inspection my dept mgr would page me with this decrie! Jim! (stutter, stutter) Clean Room! "OMIGA" (Oh, Make It Go Away). I could usually accomplish OMIGA but sometimes it was "INGA" (It Never Goes Away) :lmao:
With that out of the way Lean is the only tool I am familiar with, but I am just beginning the learning process.

Marc and forum readers,
Six Sigma tools are expansive covering everything from service industries to high tech bio med, pharma, and various other industries. Like ISO it can be benefitial if properly utilized. I have found that without managment support "nothing works" If you have the full support and resources to implement six sigma, you will go far is finding processes to imporve and many ways to save money.
As for the tools, nothing us quality folk have not seen or used a million times in our careers, just put together in such a manner that the flow of steps is clear and thorough. I do not see SS as just another fad, I see real value from it so long as it is utilized effectively. DMAIC is very similar to many quality process evaluating programs but I relate it most closely with Plan -Do -Check- Act of ISO 9000...I just add another check at the end...
By havign a team of dedicated individuals with technical experts for each project there is complete coverage of present issues and direction for improvement opportunities.
It is what I refer to as a plan of action for improvement.

Here is a small section from an Hons paper I did on six sigma relating to Demming. If anyone wants the full references, feel free to ask. My personal opinion about quality programmes and tools is "who cares". These names of various tool packaging is not for the benefit of the users as every company is different, has different skill sets and requires different solutions which match. A "real" organisation needs a tool kit that matches the culture and pocesses and skill set in that organisation.


Six-sigma originates from Motorola, and was launched in 1987 by CEO Bob Galvin (Klefsjo, 2001). Motorola realised that improving quality would in fact reduce costs, and reasoned that the highest quality producer, should be the lowest cost producer (Eckes, 2001). Six-sigma recognises that variation is the enemy of best practices, and consequently targets excessive variation and waste within a system to achieve its intended goals of reducing defects, improving profits, and delighting customers (Lazarus, 2002). Six-sigma is a quality improvement technique that provides both a framework and methods to get better faster. Accordingly, six-sigma consists of a combination of tools, many of which are statistical, which enable managers to clearly define problems, measure and analyse them, and reach sustainable improvements in practice. Hammer (2001) states that the key six-sigma process is to:

• Define the project goals and customer (internal and external) deliverables.
• Measure the process to determine current performance.
• Analyse and determine the root cause(s) of the defects.
• Improve the process by eliminating defects.
• Control future process performance.

It is the hope in doing this, that defects and errors never arise in the first place (Eckes, 2001). Note that even the DMAIC process, which is the corner stone of the six-sigma methodology, is an adaptation of Shewhart’s PDCA cycle, based in TQM (Mitchell, 2002).

Incidentally, the Greek letter sigma (σ) that appears as the title of six-sigma is a mathematical term that simply represents a measure of variation, the distribution around the mean of any process. At a level of six-sigma, in a six-sigma quality programme, this represents 3.4 defects per million opportunities (McCoy, 1999).

According to Harry (2000), six-sigma is the most powerful breakthrough tool ever devised. Others however, suggest that six-sigma is simply a collection of tools that have been around for many years, and just renamed (Reed, 2000; Clifford, 2001). Moreover, that once the media hype passes, so will the six-sigma fad. Others suggest that six-sigma is the latest in a long line of must-have efficiency crazes that perpetually spread through corporate America, and that this is due largely to General Electric CEO, Jack Welch, who frequently talks it up to the media (Reed, 2000; Ellis, 2001). Companies today are constantly pumping out press releases hyping their own six-sigma initiatives. Ellis (2001) states that the loudest complaint is that there is nothing new or innovative about six-sigma. In addition to this, like many management trends, certain aspects of six-sigma can get downright silly (Clifford, 2001).

Lucas (2002) states that six-sigma is a methodology for disciplined quality improvement, and that many companies find adding a six-sigma programme to their current business system gives them almost all the elements of TQM. To this, others argue that six-sigma quality has been around for about 16 years, and has a much better record than TQM. If six-sigma is a fad, it certainly is a long-lasting one (Godfrey, 2002; Bailey et. al., 2001).

Six-sigma’s originality appears to be a widely debated point, while some even refer to it as a component of TQM (Lucas, 2002). Its popularity however, is not so widely debated. Within the last several years, six-sigma has exploded onto the scene as a prominent method of reducing variation, and consequently improving the effectiveness and efficiency of businesses, if implemented correctly. Six-sigma is prevalent in some of the most successful companies in the world, including Sony, Honda, Canon, General Electric and others (Eckes, 2001). Howell (2000) suggests that six-sigma has not yet reached the maturity stage in terms of life cycle analysis, hinting there may be more to come.

Six-sigma utilises trained individuals that are typically the backbone of a six-sigma initiative (Hoerl, 2001). Depending on their ability, skill set, and role, they are attributed appropriate titles such as green belt, black belt, master black belt, and champion (Harry, 2000; Klefsjo, 2002). It is their responsibly to spearhead specific six-sigma projects (Blakeslee, 2002). Six-sigma also consists of certain tools. These include, but are not limited to the following presented in table 2 (Pyzdek, 2001; Martens, 2001). The associated contributors are also presented where possible.

Table 2
Six-sigma’s tools and contributors

Contributor Tool
- Histogram
- Check sheet
Vilfredo Pareto Pareto diagram
- Graph
- Scatter diagram
Kaoru Ishikawa Cause-and-effect diagram
Walter Shewhart Control chart
- Affinity diagram
Genichi Taguchi Taguchi loss function

Six-sigma does not appear to consist of any explicit philosophies. Rather it seems to have implied philosophies based on the intent of the incorporated tools, and practitioners thinking. Six-sigma, at a philosophical level, may be described simply as to, identify and improve the key processes that help meet the organisation's business objectives (Eckes, 2002). This is in contrast to the TQM method that consists of explicit philosophical contributions.
This relationship between six-sigma tools and philosophies is presented in figure 2. Note that the six-sigma tools presented in figure 2 are the same as those established earlier in TQM, refer figure 1 and associated text. The philosophies component in figure 2 is clear, as there are no explicit philosophical contributions in six-sigma as seen in TQM. However, implicit underlying theoretical components do exist. These theories stem from practice and associated tools. These include simultaneous continuous and discontinuous change. Other theories include employee empowerment, developing a quality workplace environment, focusing on supplier communication, focusing on processes for quality improvement, and managing in a strong numeric sense.

Six-sigma is a re-branded quality programme. This programme has been developed in Motorola from a TQM initiative. Six-sigma has adopted the specific tools that exist in TQM. Six-sigma however, as expressed earlier, has not adopted the known explicit management philosophies that exist in TQM.

This changing dynamic poses certain questions at a philosophical level. It appears appropriate to pose these questions given the importance of philosophies in TQM as suggested by Sohal (2000) and Motwani (2001). Importantly, the answer to these questions will likely have practical implications for managers.

Andrew Cooper

As I read through the six sigma threads I keep seeing "Six sigma is a set of tools".

I'm interested in what each of you considers a six sigma tool. List them if you can.
See this attachment for the defined tools. This was in the the free webinar - July 27th.

They forgot to include the kitchen sink on the list.

Bill Pflanz

To me, the skeptic who is self taught in "Six Sigma", the six sigma toolbox is everything I ever learned in any of my Industrial Engineering, math, and statistics courses in college, all of the ASQ Certification exams, plus the highlights of the philosophies espoused by every quality guru ever.
Plus Bill Pflanz's kitchen sink.

Yes this is exactly what these tools are. Six Sigma takes all these SPC tools and wraps them into a nice methodology package. I surmize these APC techniques were innudating to many and some may have felt to difficult to approach individual (yes you mathematicians can easily) but Six Sigma made them seem simpler due to the methodology Six Sigma utilizes. step one step two and such makes things easy for most people to follow.
Yes these are basic quality tools which makes it easy for Quality Professionals to excel in the training and obtain certification. As I am also ASQ CQA certified and know several CQE's who all say the same thing...it is made simpler and streamlined for those who have taken the training.
I find becoming certified in Six Sigma valuable due to the number of profitable companies who have implemented Six Sigma into their organization. The cost is minimal compared to the benefit Six Sigma certification brings.
My two cents..
Thank You

GE uses about 40 tools. The number of tools people learn in training courses seems to depend primarily on how much they want to pay the training consultant.

As Ishikawa said : "The seven QC Tools, if used skilfully, will enable 95% of workplace problems to be solved"

Nothing has changed today.

To me, SS is primarily a methodology for problem solving. Throughout this problem solving process, users can use any proven tools. There is no restriction on the tools used as long as the tools are proven. For example, Bootstrap Control Charts was not invented when SS was introduced by Motorola in the 1980s. Now, I use it whenever I need a control chart and the data are non-normal distributed.

To me, SS is primarily a methodology for problem solving. Throughout this problem solving process, users can use any proven tools. There is no restriction on the tools used as long as the tools are proven. For example, Bootstrap Control Charts was not invented when SS was introduced by Motorola in the 1980s. Now, I use it whenever I need a control chart and the data are non-normal distributed.
There are certainly no restrictions on what you can use. However, there seems to be a great lack of understanding of the basics.

Shewhart charts do not need normally distributed data. This was pointed out by Shewhart and has been verified in enormous theoretical detail by Wheeler. Please read "Normality and the Process Behaviour Chart". For a detailed analysis read "Advanced Topics in SPC".

I have never used Bootstrap Control Charts but a quick search revealed two studies, one of which claims "Bootstrap chart is usually the worst option" and the other "The Bootstrap has a limited practical use".

The message is clear. Stick to Shewhart charts. For practical purposes, you can forget about normal distributions.

There are research papers concluding Bootstrap Control Charts are better than Shewhart Control Charts (especially in terms of ARL). Which tool to use really depends on the situation.

There are research papers concluding Bootstrap Control Charts are better than Shewhart Control Charts (especially in terms of ARL). Which tool to use really depends on the situation.
Do you have a link please ? I'd be interested to read it.
The two I found, both having a negative leaning on Bootstraps are:
http://www.stat.unipg.it/~bart/valencia260704.pdf
http://secretary.eng.ku.ac.th/journal/file/07_Bootstrap%20Control8.pdf

Artichoke,

Thanks for the sharing the links. It is unfortunate that Francisco Aparisi's paper did not mention which version of bootstrap control chart was used. Ninlawan Choomrit's paper did give the conditions under which the bootstrap control charts are better than Stewart's.

I don't have a link. But here is one paper:
Vermaat MB et al. A Comparison of Shewhart Individuals Control Charts Based on Normal, Non-parametric, and Extreme-value Theory. Quality and Reliability Engineering International. 2003; 19:337-353.

Artichoke,

Thanks for the sharing the links. It is unfortunate that Francisco Aparisi's paper did not mention which version of bootstrap control chart was used. Ninlawan Choomrit's paper did give the conditions under which the bootstrap control charts are better than Stewart's.

I don't have a link. But here is one paper:
Vermaat MB et al. A Comparison of Shewhart Individuals Control Charts Based on Normal, Non-parametric, and Extreme-value Theory. Quality and Reliability Engineering International. 2003; 19:337-353.
Thank you but accessing such papers is difficult for me.

You might also wish to look at CUSUM. It is more sensitive than control charts to shifts in process average. For most people in most situations, Shewhart Charts are most useful.

Crusador & All Falks
Does any one have "SEMA Webinar-SixSigma_Part1"

Kedarg6500:agree:

Six Sigma was orignally the use of a specific project methodology (DMAIC), by trained professionals (Black Belts) to solve problems and drive defects to a very low level. Once one expands the meaning of Six Sigma beyond this, I have not seen a good definition which would allow someone to distinguish between Six Sigma and the practice of the Quality Profession in general. I believe Six Sigma is a methodoloy and a goal, and many, many different tools can be used within Six Sigma. However, using the tools does not make it Six Sigma. I would like, for those that believe Six Sigma is something beyond DMAIC and 3.4 DPM, what their operational definition of Six Sigma is. Any takers?

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

. I would like, for those that believe Six Sigma is something beyond DMAIC and 3.4 DPM, what their operational definition of Six Sigma is. Any takers?


Those interested in a full definition of six sigma and its history of dubious statistics, may wish to read my papers "Six Sigma - Lessons from Deming".

Part 1:
http://qualitydigest.com/IQedit/QDarticle_text.lasso?articleid=12541

Part2:
http://qualitydigest.com/IQedit/QDarticle_text.lasso?articleid=12564&-session=ACCESS:3AAC42EC0ca6030D70Sugl3A3FDA

"In summary, Six Sigma programs have a great deal to learn from Deming. While Six Sigma may be “80 percent TQM,” the remaining 20 percent needs a great deal of improvement in terms of statistics and management. As long as companies are managed on the basis of a poor understanding of the analysis of data and a poor approach to working with people, Six Sigma companies will continue to fail. "

Those interested in a full definition of six sigma and its history of dubious statistics, may wish to read my papers "Six Sigma - Lessons from Deming".

Part 1:
http://qualitydigest.com/IQedit/QDarticle_text.lasso?articleid=12541

Part2:
http://qualitydigest.com/IQedit/QDarticle_text.lasso?articleid=12564&-session=ACCESS:3AAC42EC0ca6030D70Sugl3A3FDA

"In summary, Six Sigma programs have a great deal to learn from Deming. While Six Sigma may be “80 percent TQM,” the remaining 20 percent needs a great deal of improvement in terms of statistics and management. As long as companies are managed on the basis of a poor understanding of the analysis of data and a poor approach to working with people, Six Sigma companies will continue to fail. "


While I appreciate the response, Artichoke, I was rather hoping for a response from a Six Sigma proponent!

:D

Geoff Withnell

While I appreciate the response, Artichoke, I was rather hoping for a response from a Six Sigma proponent!

:D

Geoff Withnell

Hopefully most people have woken up to the hype and nonsense of Six Sigma and there's not too many "proponents" left ! You might also enjoy Mike Micklewright's excellent impersonations of what Deming's response would have been to Six Sigma ... "this is not quality" :
http://www.leanblog.org/2008/05/leanblog-podcast-43-mike-micklewright.html