Let's fix Six Sigma!

[Tom Slack]

The belted ones at Six Sigma consult in the area of data driven change. The data in this forum, however demonstrates that major changes are needed at Six Sigma.

WARNING !!! WARNING !!!! WARNING!!!

No one at Six Sigma has asked for our advice. In order for our recommendations to effective, we will probably want to use tactful language.

I have a few suggestions of my own, but I have to catch a plane. I will try post via Wi-Fi when available.

Best wishes,

Tom

[Howard Lee]

I've been in quality for a long time and I'm new to quality at the same time. You people know my story.

I entered quality when TQM was the big thing. I went through much TQM training and I had TOPS 8-D training with Ford Motor Company. I learned all about quality tools and then I learned more, as much as I could. Then I left quality for a while.

When I returned to quality I was desperate to learn what this new thing "Six Sigma" was all about. I mean, I knew in a statistical sense the significance of six sigma, but I did not know what "Six Sigma" meant. I did internet searches, I read trade journals, and I read about it in books. I still has not been proven to me that all of the old tools that have been around for decades have not been bundled together in a neat little package, tied up with a shiny new bow, and sold to a bunch of new managers as the answer to all of their problems.

In the end I quote: "That which has been, shall be. That which has been done, shall be done. And there is no new thing under the sun."

Someone, please prove to me otherwise.

[Wes Bucey]

In Reply to Parent Post by Howard Lee

I've been in quality for a long time and I'm new to quality at the same time. You people know my story.

I entered quality when TQM was the big thing. I went through much TQM training and I had TOPS 8-D training with Ford Motor Company. I learned all about quality tools and then I learned more, as much as I could. Then I left quality for a while.

When I returned to quality I was desperate to learn what this new thing "Six Sigma" was all about. I mean, I knew in a statistical sense the significance of six sigma, but I did not know what "Six Sigma" meant. I did internet searches, I read trade journals, and I read about it in books. I still has not been proven to me that all of the old tools that have been around for decades have not been bundled together in a neat little package, tied up with a shiny new bow, and sold to a bunch of new managers as the answer to all of their problems.

In the end I quote: "That which has been, shall be. That which has been done, shall be done. And there is no new thing under the sun."

Someone, please prove to me otherwise.

Actually, the PRIMARY virtue of SS is precisely that it has spurred some managers to look at the Quality function of an organization in an economic light - as something that HELPS an organization versus creating a drag on profits.

In terms of the "tools of SS," I doubt there is any Quality professional worthy of the name who does not recognize the tools are really repackaged from previous generations, enhanced by the ease of computers to do the heavy lifting on the statistical calculations which were a real choke point back in Shewhart's days at Western Electric.

[ScottK]

fix as in "neuter" or fix as in "repair"

the OP can go either way.

[D.Scott]

In Reply to Parent Post by Howard Lee

When I returned to quality I was desperate to learn what this new thing "Six Sigma" was all about. I mean, I knew in a statistical sense the significance of six sigma, but I did not know what "Six Sigma" meant. I did internet searches, I read trade journals, and I read about it in books. I still has not been proven to me that all of the old tools that have been around for decades have not been bundled together in a neat little package, tied up with a shiny new bow, and sold to a bunch of new managers as the answer to all of their problems.

Adding to Wes' comments - I would agree there is no re-invention of the wheel. The same old tools are used in SS.

The wheel is still the same but how it is put on the car has changed. One of the beauties of SS is the discipline of a defined and planned project. It is one thing to have all the tools but another to know how and when to use them. SS is not so much about the tools as about what you do with them. The planning, coordination of team members, documentation and analysis of data and systematic drive to the next level of the project is, for me, the advantage of SS.

When I think of "fixing six sigma" I think not of the program itself but of the misuse of the program. I would venture to say, as with any discipline, Six Sigma has been beaten up so badly in some cases it wouldn't be recognizable.

As Wes pointed out management is spurred by the bottom line of economics however when SS is misused they see only the cost and a drag on their profits.

Yes, Six Sigma needs fixing. My observation is it isn't the system that is broken.

Dave

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by Tom Slack

The belted ones at Six Sigma consult in the area of data driven change. The data in this forum, however demonstrates that major changes are needed at Six Sigma.

WARNING !!! WARNING !!!! WARNING!!!

No one at Six Sigma has asked for our advice. In order for our recommendations to effective, we will probably want to use tactful language.

I have a few suggestions of my own, but I have to catch a plane. I will try post via Wi-Fi when available.

Best wishes,

Tom

At this point SS is a runaway train. Given enough time, it'll run out of fuel and slow to a stop on its own, and its passengers will sheepishly disembark and go find another ill-fated mode of transportation.

[John Nabors - 2009]

In Reply to Parent Post by Jim Wynne

At this point SS is a runaway train. Given enough time, it'll run out of fuel and slow to a stop on its own, and its passengers will sheepishly disembark and go find another ill-fated mode of transportation.

At the current price of diesel it might be sooner than we think...

[justncredible]

I do not think so, the tools are very well proven, and as a packadge they without doubt work. For some places that have problems SS will be awesome, some places that have had a decent QE for years will not see much of a gain.

I think like TQM, it is very good, I also think SS is the natural progression of quality. With that I think the next level will be even more intensive, includeing more expanded toolsets to tackle more devirse problems.

The detractors, and that 4% who will never support or be happy with changes.