Let's fix Six Sigma!

[Craig H.]

You know, its getting about time for another snake oil...err Quality Guru to come down the pike. Wonder what it will be this time?

To me, in what I admit is limited experience, one of the main pitfalls I have seen with six sigma has to do with the projects themselves. Sometimes the narrow costraints of the project result in apparent cost savings within the project's scope, only to result in the costs appearing, sometimes amplified, in another area of the organization.

There still is no such thing as magic pixie dust in the quality world.

 

[howste]

The belted ones at Six Sigma...

...major changes are needed at Six Sigma...

No one at Six Sigma...

You speak of Six Sigma as if it's an organization or a location. Who exactly are you talking about?

 

[Stijloor]

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.

Jim is right.

Ox and cart is awaiting the passengers.

Stijloor.

 

[Steve Prevette]

My basic question is WHY?

I'd be very happy to see six sigma die the death it deserves, I'm getting along fine without it.

I'm not sure it is "fixable", the fundamental concepts are flawed:

1. Reliance on numerical targets to determine if you are "six sigma capable".
2. The whole "belt" thing
3. The 1.5 sigma shift
4. The focus on short term, suboptimal gains.

 

[Peter West]

So i take it the general consensus of this forum is that Six Sigma is not worth pursuing?

I am new to QMS and eager to learn all i can whilst with my new company. I have no previous quality knowledge, and coincidentally just yesterday started to research into what Six Sigma actually was. If not Six Sigma, what sort of qualification should i be looking at?

ps: my extremely limited research on Six Sigma yesterday was so limited i have forgot all i read apart from the fact they have different coloured belts how quaint.

 

[Allattar]

Steve, to adress your points

1) I find the idea of relating the usefulness of a project to a benefit as something that is of great importance. It is all part of the sell or justification of running said project. Why fix something that isnt costing/ or causing problems. If you have a problem with somethng at least work out how big a problem it is before trying to fix it.

At the end of the day whether you try and quantify the problem in terms of Money, or time, or some other measure, all they are is a measure of how big the problem is.

2) The belt thing is just bizarre, isnt the long story about it being a way to bring together the ideas of Eastern quality and martial arts and selling it back to the US. It doesnt really matter, and I do find it quite amusing that it started off simple Black, and Green, then of course different people get hold of it and start making there own modifications and it runs away with them and now there yellow, brown, white. Its all just labels at the end of the day and isnt necessary. These labels could be anything.

3) That 1.5 sigma shift. That 1.5 sigma shift should just be canned and thrown away. Too many times I see someone playing with it and trying to justfiy why there process is better than it actually is performing becuase of some reasoning. You saw it do that, so thats what its currently doing. Adding 1.5 sigma or removing 1.5 sigma is just confusing and I will agree gets in the way of actually understanding the true process.

4) The focus on short term gains is something that every western industry tends to do, regardless of six sigma or not. I dont think its a six sigma issue, and a properly planned project should take into account a longer term view. Of course its just human nature, or maybe Western goals that the short term is easier to get returns on.
The Sub prime loans being a fantastic example of this. Of course I'll blame it all on Six sigma if you can prove it was a black belt project behind them .

Im agreeing on points 2-4, but I dont think they are explicitly six sigma issues, nor are they the entirety of it.
Yes they repackage old tools, but maybe a better view of it is that it has evolved on the ideas that went before. There will be other quality programmes after 6S im sure, but again they will be an evolution of all the ones before it.

 

[Craig H.]

So i take it the general consensus of this forum is that Six Sigma is not worth pursuing?

I am new to QMS and eager to learn all i can whilst with my new company. I have no previous quality knowledge, and coincidentally just yesterday started to research into what Six Sigma actually was. If not Six Sigma, what sort of qualification should i be looking at?

ps: my extremely limited research on Six Sigma yesterday was so limited i have forgot all i read apart from the fact they have different coloured belts how quaint.

Peter,

I think most of us would agree that the six sigma body of knowledge includes some excellent tools that have proven useful over the long haul. It would be a good idea to learn how to use them. The controversy surrounding six sigma, to me, has a lot to do with the "hype" surrounding it, as well as the "belts" you mentioned. Throw in the diverse group of training and certifying schemes that exist and dissension is almost guaranteed.

 

[Steve Prevette]

Steve, to adress your points

1) I find the idea of relating the usefulness of a project to a benefit as something that is of great importance. It is all part of the sell or justification of running said project. Why fix something that isnt costing/ or causing problems. If you have a problem with somethng at least work out how big a problem it is before trying to fix it.

At the end of the day whether you try and quantify the problem in terms of Money, or time, or some other measure, all they are is a measure of how big the problem is.

Just as a point of clarification as to where I am coming from . . .

I certainly am not against measurement. I make more than 3,000 charts and data files a month, including the chart of how many charts and data files I make. We certainly need to know the costs and the benefits of any proposed or completed action.

My point is six sigma forces you to create numerical targets for these measures. Yes, if the customer has supplied numerical specifications you certainly ought to be aware of them and take them into account. But Six Sigma only exists relative to some numeric threshold. So, all Six Sigma programs get numerical targets applied so they may determine their "sigma level".

From the perspective of someone who follows Dr. Deming's methods, I do not agree with this push to assign numerical targets.

One other point - try asking a black belt how to calculate an average. I observed a master black belt at a presentation absolutely mangle this. Instead of simply saying - take all the data, add them together, divide by the number of data points and you have the average - they got into some convoluted discussion of the center of the specifications, and you should set the average line there. It was very painful to listen to as a degreed Operations Researcher, and someone who passed Jr. High School math for that matter.

Thanks,

 

[QCAce]

So i take it the general consensus of this forum is that Six Sigma is not worth pursuing?

I am new to QMS and eager to learn all i can whilst with my new company. I have no previous quality knowledge, and coincidentally just yesterday started to research into what Six Sigma actually was. If not Six Sigma, what sort of qualification should i be looking at?

ps: my extremely limited research on Six Sigma yesterday was so limited i have forgot all i read apart from the fact they have different coloured belts how quaint.

Peter,
I would recommend the ASQ Certified Quality Engineer.

 

[Wes Bucey]

My thoughts on Six Sigma

Just as a point of clarification as to where I am coming from . . .

I certainly am not against measurement. I make more than 3,000 charts and data files a month, including the chart of how many charts and data files I make. We certainly need to know the costs and the benefits of any proposed or completed action.

My point is six sigma forces you to create numerical targets for these measures. Yes, if the customer has supplied numerical specifications you certainly ought to be aware of them and take them into account. But Six Sigma only exists relative to some numeric threshold. So, all Six Sigma programs get numerical targets applied so they may determine their "sigma level".

From the perspective of someone who follows Dr. Deming's methods, I do not agree with this push to assign numerical targets.

One other point - try asking a black belt how to calculate an average. I observed a master black belt at a presentation absolutely mangle this. Instead of simply saying - take all the data, add them together, divide by the number of data points and you have the average - they got into some convoluted discussion of the center of the specifications, and you should set the average line there. It was very painful to listen to as a degreed Operations Researcher, and someone who passed Jr. High School math for that matter.

Thanks,

As an individual who is on record in lots of places decrying Mikel Harry (http://www.isixsigma.com/forum/ask_dr_harry_biography.asp) and, especially, Neutron Jack Welch at GE, for their misleading statements about the value of their particular "brands" of Six Sigma, I want ALSO to be on record as saying
"I watched the current Six Sigma movement from the time it began in my own backyard at a customer, Motorola, and actually attended some of the classes at Motorola University at the invitation of Motorola.

"As the tools were described and taught there in the early days, they were essentially very similar to the then current Body of Knowledge of the ASQ Quality Engineer certification.

"In the early days, the Motorola brand of SS was focused on reducing the cost of nonconformance. The SS plan was primarily to document the current status and to record the effect (good or bad) of the various initiatives suggested by employees, managers, customers, and suppliers.

"Somewhere along the line, the Six Sigma stuff became "corrupted" (MY OPINION), and various practitioners started taking aspects of it out of context and using it for a type of propaganda. Mikel Harry, as you know from his biography, was "one of" the early leaders in introducing the Six Sigma concepts at Motorola. He, however, was very much more "political" than other experts and managed his career growth there much more successfully than his contemporaries. There is not a lot of similarity between Mikel's current brand of Six Sigma and what was taught BEFORE he was named to head [SIZE=-1]Motorola's Six Sigma Research Institute. Note he was NOT "Dr." Harry then.[/SIZE]

"The worst, and most public corrupter (also MY opinion) was Neutron Jack Welch, who claimed billions of dollars in savings due to Six Sigma, but, in reality, he was playing a complicated Ponzi scheme, claiming profits in one department or division, but actually putting a financial burden on another division or, most likely, extorting money from suppliers, many of whom never really recovered from the financial beating they took at GE's hands.

"Welch was a vicious tyrant in his personnel policies as well, claiming them as a direct result of his understanding of Six Sigma, where he set an arbitrary performance goal (think of it as EVERYTHING contrary to Deming's 14 points), ruthlessly firing employees who fell in the bottom ten per cent (think also of Deming's Red Beads and its impossible to achieve management goals.)"

Bottom line:
Since the tools of Six Sigma contain nothing new or even "improved" from the preceding Quality Engineer tools, there is really nothing wrong with the tools. Steve Prevette has his finger on the aorta when he refers to the arbitrary performance goals which characterize the approach many SS practitioners and their organizations have been taking.

Note GE no longer touts Six Sigma as the "end all and be all" since Neutron Jack's departure. It may only take the retirement of Mikel Harry from the scene to bring sanity back into the Six Sigma camp again.