|
|
 |
|

9th February 2001, 05:36 PM
|
 |
Inactive Registered Visitor
Registration Date: Feb 2001
Location: Brisbane, Qld Australia
|
|
Posts: 71
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 37 Karma: 10 
|
|
Six Sigma vs. SPC - How is the 'old' six sigma different from the 'new' six sigma?
Hi everyone,
I have been reading and learning about six sigma all over the place. Many years ago, I learnt about SPC and the concepts and tools behind it and have used it extensively in my previous employment. Back then, we targeted a cpk of 1.33.
I know that a cpk of 2 is equal to 6 sigma, so therefore, using the "old" SPC approach, if I set goals in my company to achieve 6 sigma through this approach, how is that different from the "new" 6 Sigma methodologies?
This topic has been very frustrating to learn about, as everyone wants to talk about the two, but to me they seem one in the same. It is like "Six Sigma" is the new buzz word for some very old, tried and true methodologies. I would really appreciate someone explaining the difference to me, or providing their own opinions. Thanks for your time.
|

9th February 2001, 08:50 PM
|
|
|
MHO,
I've been through the training, read the books and consider six sigma a new method for people (consultants/trainers etc...) to make (take) money. What will they think of next when they run out of six sigma customers?
If there is a well defined project management process (based on continuous improvement and preventive action) in place, with total management buy-in, there is no need allocate all those resources and change the direction of a company.
Let's stick to (and improve) the plan and keep it simple!
In my cynical opinion.
ASD...
Posted before
|

12th February 2001, 11:17 AM
|
 |
Inactive Registered Visitor
Registration Date: Aug 2000
Location: Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
|
|
Posts: 229
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Karma Power: 42 Karma: 20 
|
|
|
Al,
As usual you have a gift for understatement. Maybe the next 'thing' is the same customers at nine sigma. I wish it had been my luck to think up this money making scheme.
|

12th February 2001, 02:36 PM
|
 |
One of THE Original Covers!
Registration Date: Nov 1998
Location: Wallingford, CT USA
Age: 43
|
|
Posts: 1,158
Thanks Given to Others: 22
Thanked 63 Times in 43 Posts
Karma Power: 94
|
|
|
Al,
Well said. Honestly, the principles that we follow aren't difficult to understand, just difficult to apply. It takes commitment!
Regards,
Kevin
|

12th February 2001, 04:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Kevin,
I agree, application is the hard part and goes along with determination. It does not only apply to work but to everyday life as well. (so much for my pontification)
ASD...
|

23rd April 2001, 03:42 AM
|
 |
Inactive Registered Visitor
Registration Date: Feb 2001
Location: Brisbane, Qld Australia
|
|
Posts: 71
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 37 Karma: 10 
|
|
|
What about others? What do you think?
|

24th April 2001, 10:47 AM
|
|
|
|
I agree with most everything mentioned so far. The tools/methods are relatively simple. The execution and acceptance is hard.
Many tend to think of SPC as being primarily for control of industrial processes, but of course it can be applied to just about any process. Also some limit SPC to assessment and control of those processes - not the continous improvement of the processes.
The Six Sigma idea is one of continuous improvement, driven by top management, in ALL areas of your business, not just the product or process that make the product. The idea is to identify areas of the business that need improvement, and use the broad array of "Six Sigma" tools/methods to facilitate/ quantify/maintain those improvments.
If you're using the broadest definition of SPC, then by all means I agree that there is not much new in the land of Six Sigma.
Probably the biggest difference is the idea that SPC is typically a bottom up activity, whereas, Six Sigma tends to be a top down activity. Six Sigma tends to have the direct attention of top level management - SPC typically doesn't.
|

24th April 2001, 06:45 PM
|
|
Involved in Discussions
Registration Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canton, Ohio
Age: 38
|
|
Posts: 47
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 36 Karma: 10 
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Al Dyer:
If there is a well defined project management process (based on continuous improvement and preventive action) in place, with total management buy-in, there is no need allocate all those resources and change the direction of a company.
Let's stick to (and improve) the plan and keep it simple!
|
Amen.
In my opinion, I view six sigma philosophy a “reactive” quality measure. If it was done right the first time (ie well defined project management process), there would be no need for a six sigma improvement “task force”.
I could only wish that companies would spend half the effort on implementing programs correctly to begin with as they do with spending time putting out fires (with six sigma) on poorly implemented programs.
I don’t deny that six sigma works and is effective. In the same token, six sigma isn’t new. It is the same old quality practices neatly presented in a new wrapper that says “NEW AND IMPROVED”. But in my observations, most companies that are choosing to jump on the in six sigma bandwagon need to put out fires, improve quality and raise the bottom line. In my opinion, six sigma is only part of the solution, the quality systems that allowed the company get into that position to begin with needs to go under the spotlight.
|
Lower Navigation Bar
|
|
|
|
Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors and 1 Unregistered Guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Rate Thread Content |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Settings
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|