Is Six Sigma Dead? October 2011 Quality Progress Article Headline

[Marc]

Six Sigma is pretty much a set of tools. Most sets of tools don't die....they just rust away from lack of use.

I agree with Bev. Good post.

I will add this - Six Sigma, as it is known today, is a set of tools. We have a thread here I think I linked to earlier in this thread: Six Sigma - Statistical Tools - Valid or Hype? Value? Can a CQE do the same?. I started that thread because I saw six sigma as a marketing gimmick way back then (2000). You might say I didn't start the thread per se. The thread was started with a topic recently discussed here, which is, and for over 10 years has been, a topic of discussion with regard to the ASQ and Six Sigma. The first post is an email from the ASQ which I was a member of at the time:

Received: from ralph.asq.org (hq.asq.org [156.46.175.63])
Thu, 27 Apr 2000 07:28:03 -0600 (MDT)

To: "ASQ Members"
From: "Dick Sandretti"
Reply-to: "Dick Sandretti"
Subject: "Six Sigma Debate at the 54th Annual Quality Congress"

ASQ's involvement with the Six Sigma Academy has caused concern and behind-the-scenes controversy among members. This is your chance to participate in a dialogue with Mikel Harry, CEO of the Six Sigma Academy. You'll hear his story and find out what led to ASQ's involvement with Six Sigma and the Six Sigma Academy. In addition, you can provide your input on ASQ's future course. <snip>

I copied a few posts from the long abandoned UseNet misc.industry.quality newsgroup in the thread as well.

But back to the main topic...

I think it all comes down to the individual person. A *qood* quality engineer (or quality manager) knows what the available tools are. The important part is whether a person can identify the right tool or tools for the job, and both understands each and knows how and when to use the appropriate tool(s). It is one reason I think a person has to be very good with statistics/statistical analysis. Math is important. Most of "quality" measurements, no matter what they are, involve statistics. Understanding statistical analysis and statistical tools is, in my opinion, very important.

Jennifer just completed her ASQ Six Sigma Black Belt which was discussed in another thread here. In that thread I noted that I did not wish Jennifer "luck" because from her postings here I believed she has the knowledge necessary (nor do I believe in "luck"). Jennifer knows what tools are available and, from what I can tell, is able to judge the appropriate tool or tools for the "job" or investigation being undertaken. In addition, I believe she understands them and can use them appropriately.

To be able to look at the specific challenge and choose the appropriate tools is the key to success at least as far as providing solutions goes. Whether or not management will follow the recommendations or not is another issue all together.

A bigger aspect of this is hiring practices by companies as well as the understanding of what is necessary for improvement by upper management. Sometimes I think it's stupidity, and sometimes I think it's laziness, but the bottom line is most of the time upper management responds to buzzwords without understanding what's necessary for improvement.

Six Sigma and "Lean" are two examples. Upper management (and often middle management) do not understand and do not particularly *want* to understand. They want the "Silver Bullet" to increased net profit and they choose a buzz word rather than the appropriate staff.

 

[Al Dyer]

Without reading any responses and only relying on the title of the article I will say, "I hope the terminology is dead". I may be too old school but I think of 6S as "just old continuous improvement"!

Al...

 

[bobdoering]

A *qood* quality engineer (or quality manager) knows what the available tools are. The important part is whether a person can identify the right tool or tools for the job, and both understands each and knows how and when to use the appropriate tool(s).

Whether it is quality, or working on your car - the difference between a mechanic and a back yard hack is not the tools, but knowing how to use them.

Anybody can get the tools, and you can even use the "Chilton's" of quality - Six Sigma. But, if you ever tried to do a car repair using Chilton's, you probably know that they tend to leave out things that may be obvious (or oblivious) to them, but not to you or the broken off bolt heads sitting on the garage floor during your repair attempt.

And, sorry BevD - hate to waste the fruit of the vine.

 

[kgott]

You are exactly right.

The only thing I want to add to this thread is to make those who may not be aware of this, and that is that SS is everything Deming advocated.

Perhaps for the sake of the purists I should be less categorical and say ‘almost everything” Deming advocated.

cheers

 

[Stijloor]

You are exactly right.

The only thing I want to add to this thread is to make those who may not be aware of this, and that is that SS is everything Deming advocated.

Perhaps for the sake of the purists I should be less categorical and say ‘almost everything” Deming advocated.

cheers

The Master would not have approved.

Stijloor.

 

[Jim Wynne]

You are exactly right.

The only thing I want to add to this thread is to make those who may not be aware of this, and that is that SS is everything Deming advocated.

Perhaps for the sake of the purists I should be less categorical and say ‘almost everything” Deming advocated.

cheers

As I expected, the thread is awash with earnest appeals to SS being "just a set of tools" that some people misuse. Here kgott extends the idea to suggest that the "set of tools" gets the posthumous approval of Deming.

What SS is--and this is one of the reasons for its current foundering--is a ludicrously overcomplicated set of tools. Not only have the tools themselves been needlessly redesigned, but they're misused to the point where people are wondering how to do MSA on things that in many cases don't even need to be measured, and without having even a basal understanding of the "tool" to begin with.

What's happened to the basic set of tools--all of which pertain in one way or another to understanding and controlling variation--is that they've been turned into Rube Goldberg machines in the misbegotten belief that extra complexity is indicative of some kind of advanced technical acumen or "profound knowledge."

I think that what many people misunderstand about Deming's teachings is that knowledge, in and of itself, isn't profound--what's profound is what you can do with the knowledge. As it stands, I know of no SS program anywhere that can demonstrate significant improvements that couldn't have been accomplished with significantly less complication by people who (a) have the knowledge needed and (b) the permission to use it.

 

[Geoff Withnell]

As I expected, the thread is awash with earnest appeals to SS being "just a set of tools" that some people misuse. Here kgott extends the idea to suggest that the "set of tools" gets the posthumous approval of Deming.

What SS is--and this is one of the reasons for its current foundering--is a ludicrously overcomplicated set of tools. Not only have the tools themselves been needlessly redesigned, but they're misused to the point where people are wondering how to do MSA on things that in many cases don't even need to be measured, and without having even a basal understanding of the "tool" to begin with.

What's happened to the basic set of tools--all of which pertain in one way or another to understanding and controlling variation--is that they've been turned into Rube Goldberg machines in the misbegotten belief that extra complexity is indicative of some kind of advanced technical acumen or "profound knowledge."

I think that what many people misunderstand about Deming's teachings is that knowledge, in and of itself, isn't profound--what's profound is what you can do with the knowledge. As it stands, I know of no SS program anywhere that can demonstrate significant improvements that couldn't have been accomplished with significantly less complication by people who (a) have the knowledge needed and (b) the permission to use it.

Wonderful. Just because you have a superduper automatic pneumatic magazine fed nailer in your toolbox, you don't use it to drive a tack to hang up a calender on the office wall. Of course, there are jobs that NEED the nailer. Nothing wrong with having lots of tools. But you do need to know which one to use when. Good Post

Geoff Withnell

 

[TShepherd]

Morning,

For those of us that have apllied our time and effort into Six Sigma or any other methodology that has been turned into a movement that our managers have endorsed and then it fades - don't beat your self up.

I feel that the previous posters are exactly right - good engineers will select the method that is appropriate for the issue and produce countermeasures that are effective.

Like SPC, I was personally offended when all of a sudden we were told that it was no longer needed because it was ineffective. The application was poor and is not effective for everything - Pick out what works for you and move on.

Keep your eyes open for the next Silver Bullet and over time you will notice the similarities of the repaqckaged stuff and the stuff that is perhaps a new angle on an old method, and every once in a while perhaps something new will arrive.

Tom

 

[bobdoering]

Like SPC, I was personally offended when all of a sudden we were told that it was no longer needed because it was ineffective. The application was poor and is not effective for everything - Pick out what works for you and move on.

What is sad is that you have people judging whether something is "ineffective" that generally have no criteria (or incorrect criteria) to do so. For SPC, for example, was it ineffective because you saw no cost savings? Maybe the point was to prevent loss, not achieve gain. Was it ineffective because we used it forever and nothing "happened"? Yes...pretty much the same reason you buy insurance, you do it and hope nothing "happens." When opposed to bad things happening, nothing happening is a good thing!

Pity, their expectations for fireworks and marching bands taints the realistic expectations. And, when it is said and done they go back to the one process that - for whatever reason - seems to be the most natural in human nature - firefighting. Bizarre....but true.

 

[gclark80]

I disagree. I'm a Lean and Six Sigma Green Belt, and its still as effective as it was 5 years ago. I'm planning to do Six Sigma Black Belt now!