Let's fix Six Sigma!

[Jim Wynne]

Re: My thoughts on Six Sigma

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.

This is from a GE website, today:

GE's Commitment to Quality

GE's success with Six Sigma has far more exceeded our earlier expectations. Throughout the Company, GE associates subscribe to Six Sigma's principles - we are customer-oriented and ensure quality in everything we do. By sharing best business practices across all of our businesses, we will continue to successfully deliver better and faster customer solutions.

Added in edit:

This too, from the same GE source:

Six Sigma is a highly disciplined process that helps us focus on developing and delivering near-perfect products and services. The word "Sigma" is a statistical term that measures how far a particular process deviates from perfection. The main idea behind Six Sigma is that if we can measure how many "defects" we have in a process, we can systematically find ways to eliminate them and get as close to "zero defects" as possible. Six Sigma is now the way we at GE work - in everything we do and in every product we design.

Emphasis added

 

[justncredible]

I worked at Motorola, Albq. NM. In the early 90's when the big SS push hit, I saw it, I know people who was in the SS programs I even know a trainer. It worked then and it works now. The tools are more than proven, I see no case examples of the SS packadge not working.

I will say some might twist the numbers, some might use it incorrectly, and the results may not be huge and great in every imagineable application. It is not the SS programs failure, it is the end users failure to understand the tools.

Also the former Motorola trainer is getting his SS black belt this year. He is excited.

Wes I am sure you and Steve have a basis for your opinions, but it is not shared by the majority of the quality world.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Re: My thoughts on Six Sigma

This is from a GE website, today:



Added in edit:

This too, from the same GE source:

Emphasis added

I guess my train of thought was they are now touting it in its original form - decreasing nonconformance in a systematic manner, NOT "saving billions and billions of dollars" as Neutron Jack erroneously trumpeted on many occasions.

 

[Wes Bucey]

I worked at Motorola, Albq. NM. In the early 90's when the big SS push hit, I saw it, I know people who was in the SS programs I even know a trainer. It worked then and it works now. The tools are more than proven, I see no case examples of the SS packadge not working.

I will say some might twist the numbers, some might use it incorrectly, and the results may not be huge and great in every imagineable application. It is not the SS programs failure, it is the end users failure to understand the tools.

Also the former Motorola trainer is getting his SS black belt this year. He is excited.

Wes I am sure you and Steve have a basis for your opinions, but it is not shared by the majority of the quality world.

But my opinion is VERY similar to yours:
the tools work, but some individuals and organizations are misusing the tools and some of them are misusing them in a way that reflects badly on the SS concept. In fact, I wrote, explicitly

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.

 

[Tom Slack]

oth

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.

Dave

Wait a minute. Management is responsible for making sure SS is working on high pay back projects and is not misused. I think we are closing in. Excellent comment!

Thanks Dave and Wes!

Tom

 

[Tom Slack]

I worked at Motorola, Albq. NM. In the early 90's when the big SS push hit, I saw it, I know people who was in the SS programs I even know a trainer.

I know this is slightly off topic, but what was Motorola making? How did did Motorola's product stack up against the competion? Just curious.

Thanks,

Tom

 

[BradM]

Hello, Peter!

To your question in a minute. To the OP, you state "let's fix Six Sigma". OK, for an example.

Say we get 10 americans and say "Let's fix education. Agree?" A vast majority would say "yes". Then what... to focus on exactly what the problem is, and how to approach it. That is where the problems begin.

The practices of Six Sigma are sound. The same reason Algebra, Pi, Avagadro's number, the Element Chart, etc. (just throwing some out) are remained constants, so are sound principles to situations.

Many feel that the two words Six Sigma symbolize a cheapened philosophy and approach. To fix that would be to dry up the demand. Most problems don't occur overnight, and aren't fixed overnight. You can't go out and buy a quick fix. Warnerfelt (sp?) and the Resource Based View of the Firm (RBV) hits on this. Most competitive advantages have to be developed over long periods of time, with long-term investments. Any "potential" short-term advantage can be purchased by anybody, thus, given the cost of it for demand, the Net Present Value is zero.

Saying, management gets paid a lot of money to be smart. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

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

It depends on what you are pursuing. If you are pursuing learning a tool set that will take practice and effort to execute, but will return in the long-run for the entire Supply chain, then for me its worth every bit.

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?

Peter, congratulations on your quest. Don't let some old stuffy guy like me squelch your passion and desire for quality. It's a great profession, and there are a lot of tools to acquire to make you more valuable and productive. Don't stop learning.

My advice... you really have started in the right place. This is my opinion, and my opinion alone.

1. I would focus on learning the tools. Follow the control chart thread, gauge R&R, and calibration threads. Get a feel for the tools and such.

2. Follow the external auditing threads. Read what good auditors are supposed to be doing, what they are looking for, and the overall purpose of a good QMS.

3. Try to get as much experience and exposure in internal auditing. I am a metrologist by primary trade. However, I feel that a good internal audit program is so critical to the success of a QMS, and one of the keys for upper management to develop value with their QMS. The RBV of the firm... anyone can "Do the ISO thing". But the management who commits to the program and supports an effective internal audit program will reap rewards well above their competitors.

Good luck, and let us know how your search is going.

 

[Tom Slack]

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

This morning I Googled "Six Sigma". They do exist and they have a phone number:1.87SIXSIGMA. They exist everywhere. The certifications must some sort of reproduction process. The short answer to your excellent question is: "I have no idea."

I think Six Sigma Standardization and Definition (aka discipline) should be on the list of fixes. ISO9000 doesn't have this problem.

Thank you for adding another entry into the list of fixes.

Best wishes,

Tom

 

[Wes Bucey]

Which Six Sigma?

For better or for worse, ASQ (American Society for Quality) has attempted to standardize the concept of Six Sigma by publishing a Body of Knowledge for the Six Sigma folk (http://www.asq.org/certification/six-sigma/bok.html).

Frankly, despite many folks who have a bad "taste" about SS, very few have taken issue with the precepts listed in the BOK by ASQ. Why not take a look at them and offer your own take here in this thread?

Disclaimer:
I am a long-time member (Senior) of ASQ. I am often accused of "bashing" ASQ, but the fact is I maintain my membership and do what I can to improve from within, rather than just complaining and quitting. I am "semi-active" in my ASQ Sections, attending meetings and giving presentations, but do not currently hold any local or national office.

 

[BradM]

Re: Which Six Sigma?

Disclaimer:
I am a long-time member (Senior) of ASQ. I am often accused of "bashing" ASQ, but the fact is I maintain my membership and do what I can to improve from within, rather than just complaining and quitting. I am "semi-active" in my ASQ Sections, attending meetings and giving presentations, but do not currently hold any local or national office.

Wes.. thank you for mentioning this; I think it's important. Many, many of the people here who would like to see improvement within Six Sigma and ASQ are very involved, very active, and.... well.... are folks that care. Otherwise, we probably would not be concerned.

The difference is that most people here do point out the problem and are willing to be part of the solution. So... we have problems identified, solutions offered, but... parties disinterested to improve. That is what is sad.