Six Sigma Is No Longer Enough - How does this 6 Sigma article affect us?

[Steve Prevette]

In Reply to Parent Post by KMAAA

Steve,
I consider this a good dialogue. It may sound as if I think 6S is the greatest thing since sliced bread(not my words), but I fully realize the non-orginality of the specific content. If 6S is fatally flawed then why? I keep hearing references to the "fatally flawed" concept, but no one seems to want to offer someting concrete as to why that is the case. Data talks...what is this view based on(beyond vague opinion)? Give me something I can hold in my hand.

OK, here goes again. But you won't like it because I don't quote dollars.

1. Six Sigma only deals with the directly observable dollars - and short term dollars at that. What impacts this quarter's bottom line. Forget that it sets up the company for long term failure. And forget that a lot of the dollar "savings" become someone else's expenses.

2. Six Sigma invokes numerical targets for everything. Dr. Deming's 14 points include elimination of numerical targets.

3. The whole 1.5 sigma shift mythology. Not based upon anything statistically defensible.

4. The reliance on high priced "fair haired boy (and girl)" belts rather than utilizing and trusting the folks who know - the workers.

But this is futile. No company is ever going to make a press release that says "we lost millions on six sigma". Thankfully, (I didn't find a praying hands cartoon) my company does not do six sigma. So I have no cost data to give you, so you will continue to say I have not proved my case.

We are definitely repeating ourselves. Much the same is found in the "Six Sigma - Wanna Fight? An interesting debate of the validity of Six Sigma " thread, probably this same list in fact. You are just testing to see if I write the same list . . .

[KMAAA]

Steve,

I'm a chemist by training & thus expect claims to be supported by some evidence beyond mere, and biased, opinion. In my world if someone makes a claim & it's unsupported it quickly melds into the flotsam & jetsam noise of all possible opinion...in essence the response becomes, "stop back when you have something to discuss".

While dollars are not necessary, I am looking for a nuts & bolts core 6S practice that swims upstream from any disciple you've chosen to bow to. I continue to see in the various posts in this thread & others that "6S is just re-baked traditonal practice". Then when 6S is discussed in & of itself the antis chime in with "6S is obsolete & never was a sound appraoch to begin with". A practice can't be a revered re-baked traditional approach & obsolete & unsound all at the same time.

The points you make amount to either unsupported, unobjective opinion (which for most folks is worth about as much as we pay for it) or small details that are twisted into broad generalizations (i.e. the 1.5 sigma shift gets far more press here than its worth).

As for the fair haired...this is nonsense. Your suggesting major improvements commonly happen through some altruistic cum-by-ya of intent? Effort without leadership is entropic & thus a waste of money & resources. By your measure a CQE would be just as fair haired.

If this discussion represents the typical mindset & approach I can see why there seems to be so many frustrated quality professionals.

[Al Dyer]

KMAAA,

Thanks for returning!!

You mention that you require "supported evidence", please post the type of supported evidence you need and we will, as a group, have a better grasp of what you are seeking.

As they say, there is the truth, then there are statistics???

Al...

[Steve Prevette]

In Reply to Parent Post by KMAAA

Steve,
If this discussion represents the typical mindset & approach I can see why there seems to be so many frustrated quality professionals.

What happened to agreeing to disagree?

KMAAA, you know there is no way I can satisfy you. Companies with negative experiences don't publish negative experiences. The only numbers that are going to be visible are those glowing numbers from companies who publish their results.

I have anecdotes that support my theories about Six Sigma, but I acknowledge they are only anecdotes. Very few people are willing to put them in writing and name names. I, thankfully, have no personal experience with Six Sigma.

So I have my beliefs, which are supported in theory and anecdotes. You are welcome to layout your beliefs, theory, anecdotes, facts, but let's keep this on a professional level, please.

[Sam]

In Reply to Parent Post by KMAAA

Steve,

I'm a chemist by training & thus expect claims to be supported by some evidence beyond mere, and biased, opinion. In my world if someone makes a claim & it's unsupported it quickly melds into the flotsam & jetsam noise of all possible opinion...in essence the response becomes, "stop back when you have something to discuss".

While dollars are not necessary, I am looking for a nuts & bolts core 6S practice that swims upstream from any disciple you've chosen to bow to. I continue to see in the various posts in this thread & others that "6S is just re-baked traditonal practice". Then when 6S is discussed in & of itself the antis chime in with "6S is obsolete & never was a sound appraoch to begin with". A practice can't be a revered re-baked traditional approach & obsolete & unsound all at the same time.

The points you make amount to either unsupported, unobjective opinion (which for most folks is worth about as much as we pay for it) or small details that are twisted into broad generalizations (i.e. the 1.5 sigma shift gets far more press here than its worth).

As for the fair haired...this is nonsense. Your suggesting major improvements commonly happen through some altruistic cum-by-ya of intent? Effort without leadership is entropic & thus a waste of money & resources. By your measure a CQE would be just as fair haired.

If this discussion represents the typical mindset & approach I can see why there seems to be so many frustrated quality professionals.

KMAA,
Much of what you say is true, however, the same applies to those that support 6S.
I have asked several times for someone to please provide examples of cost savings based on the methods of 6S; to no avail. Nor can anyone provide examples of a return on their investment.
6S was, is and will continue to be a much "bally-hooed" topic. Primarily because it does not fit with traditionally accepted statistical practices.

[KMAAA]

If anything I've said appears to divert into a non-professional discussion please accept my apology as this isn't the intent. I'm typically a very direct person that would rather deal in 'content' than vague references.

Folks here are focusing waay too much on the press. This isn't what I'm looking for (remember, I'm trying to learn something...this is difficult in the popular press or even many journals). The exaggerated press & the (over)marketing of 6S is the one area I do agree with you. What I'm looking for is the nuts & bolts PRACTICES of 6S that are claimed here to have fundamental flaws. If this is the claim, what are the flaws? The pracitices are something we can define as they are a documented discipline, the press is out of our control as anyone can & does say anything they choose to support their position(sort of like some of the discussion here).

"Short-term"...unlike most/all here I've actually had the training. There is nothing in the training I've received (from a GE, MBB) that even hints at short term, actually the opposite is stressed. I'm guessing that the biased view here grabs the well known (public company) corporate strategy of short term profits, ties it to 6S in some loose fashion, and makes the claim that this loose association has some 6S cause-effect relationship. Does anyone know of a non-6S company, or perhaps a truckload of them, that seek short term profits? What part of 6S practice (DMAIC or DFSS) supports the short term goal? Surely, in 6S fashion, if "short term" is sought, there should be some efforts directed at defining & achieving this goal. What are they?

What are the elements & practices involved in DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control & Monitor) or DIDOV/DFSS (Define, Identify, Design, Optimize, Verify & Monitor (= Design For Six Sigma))? How do these elements/practices fail as compared to, let's say, Shewhart's/Deming's PDCA or PDSA? What will PDSA achieve that 6S can not? Be sure to answer from what you KNOW about the actual elements & practices of 6S as opposed to what you suspect, heard, read in the marketing-laiden press, or concluded based on what someone else has heard, read, stated.....

Most of the posts I see relative to 6S here start with, "I really don't know much about 6S or DMAIC........but I know/suspect it's not any good...." All I'm asking is "why?". No wax-on/wax-off, just the nuts & bolts support for such a view. If we had this, we could learn something. Without it we're just shootin the breeze here & kickin a few tires.

[Al Dyer]

KMAAA,

You do love to change the subject!!!!!! And you have training to boot? What's the big deal, it is what it is?

Go for it!!

Al...

[Steve Prevette]

KMAAA, you keep asking the same questions, I keep giving the same answers, and you continue to shoot down my answers. At this point, there is nothing further to be gained from my participation in this discussion.