Frankly, I was very surprised to see Quality Progress publish an article with such a blunt title. The link is probably for ASQ members only; not sure:
http://asq.org/quality-progress/2011/10/six-sigma/is-six-sigma-dead.html
From the beginning of the article:
Ok. Fair enough. Is this the case for the entire population, or just selected instances? Can we make such assertions about the entire Six Sigma discipline? Is Six Sigma failed from the start?
Not sure about the cause/effect here. Just because the companies are lagging the S&P 500, I would not entirely attribute that to Six Sigma (or lack thereof). However, it could be stated that an organization who is supposedly saving money with Six Sigma, could at least keep up with industry performance.
This interested me:
While I agree that is a concern, it does sound a bit like a cop out. The quality industry suffers from this same issue. Here at the Cove, a day doesn't go by without a thread about determining the value of quality, measuring performance, etc.
If Six Sigma is eliminating waste and increasing efficiency, would that not be fairly easily estimated? If ABC Costing is being implemented, a successful SS project should be able to estimate the Activity Costs/ Activity, or both to show a cost reduction. Or... are Six Sigma projects really creating cost savings, from the perspective of the entire organization?
I guess I'm just asking if the author's take on SS is accurate, if the couple of mentioned issues are legitimate issues, and is SS worth saving?
http://asq.org/quality-progress/2011/10/six-sigma/is-six-sigma-dead.html
From the beginning of the article:
There are reports from the field about the death of Six Sigma. The word is that it has been overused, has not brought its expected benefits and that newer methods, such as the theory of constraints and systems thinking, are replacing it.
Ok. Fair enough. Is this the case for the entire population, or just selected instances? Can we make such assertions about the entire Six Sigma discipline? Is Six Sigma failed from the start?
A 2007 study from the consulting firm QualPro showed that 53 of 58 large companies that use Six Sigma have trailed the S&P 500 since they implemented it.
Not sure about the cause/effect here. Just because the companies are lagging the S&P 500, I would not entirely attribute that to Six Sigma (or lack thereof). However, it could be stated that an organization who is supposedly saving money with Six Sigma, could at least keep up with industry performance.
This interested me:
Incorrect accounting methods. Most companies also suffer from using the wrong measures to determine Six Sigma results. Activity-based costing (ABC) and resource-consumption accounting (RCA) practices do not lend themselves to determining the value of a particular activity or resource to the revenue stream or customer satisfaction
While I agree that is a concern, it does sound a bit like a cop out. The quality industry suffers from this same issue. Here at the Cove, a day doesn't go by without a thread about determining the value of quality, measuring performance, etc.
If Six Sigma is eliminating waste and increasing efficiency, would that not be fairly easily estimated? If ABC Costing is being implemented, a successful SS project should be able to estimate the Activity Costs/ Activity, or both to show a cost reduction. Or... are Six Sigma projects really creating cost savings, from the perspective of the entire organization?
I guess I'm just asking if the author's take on SS is accurate, if the couple of mentioned issues are legitimate issues, and is SS worth saving?