Let's fix Six Sigma!

[Miner]

As a six sigma practitioner (Master Black Belt: DMAIC/DFSS), I can see both sides of the argument. Yes, these are all old, familiar statistical tools developed by people like Shewhart, Box, Hunter, Tukey, et al. The improvement is a methodology or framework in which to use these familiar tools. This methodology is sound and it works.

What leaves a sour taste in everyones mouth is that it is touted as a cure-all for whatever ails ya. Just like when Ford touted SPC as such in the 80's, or 8D or TQM, etc. Six Sigma has its place as do all depending on the need. If the problem is simple, a just do it approach works great. A little more complex, use 5 Why, more complex use 8D, still more complex, use Shainin's approach, very complex use six sigma. Don't use an elephant gun to shoot a rat.

The other issue is the opportunism of many consultants in selling the process to make a fast buck.

These are all legitimate complaints against six sigma, but do not change the fact that when properly used for the right reasons on the right projects, that it does work and works well. But, it is not a cure-all for what ails ya when what ails ya is poor management.

 

[Tom Slack]

Re: 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).

Wes, I took your advice and looked at this. I disappointed b/c I couldn't find anything said something like: "This stuff is expensive, so we should provide value to the client or organization by doing SS really fast." There was nothing there that would communicate a sense of urgency. Nice laundry list of tools though. Thank you for making us aware of the Body of Knowledge.

Tom

 

[Bev D]

WARNING: LONG POST AHEAD

Where to start fixing Six Sigma? Wherever you are! I have ‘fixed’ “Six Sigma” within my organization. And frankly none of us can do much more than change things locally – within our own sphere influence. This can eventually ripple outwards or at least follow you wherever you go. We do get an opportunity to help influence others – and more importantly ourselves – by participating in this forum. (as always thanks to Marc)

What did I personally do?

1.5 sigma shift: I just said no from the very beginning. Then I ignored it; it went away. It’s meaningless drivel and when compared to true problem solving, prevention and control it doesn’t stand a chance. None of my students or my organization is even aware of it. How did I do it? I just solved problems, either eliminating them completely or reducing their occurrence rate to nuisance level. Then putting robust controls in place. The only real defense against quackery is demonstrated truth.

Numerical Goals, sigma levels and 3.4 ppm: First I do believe in goals: however I also believe in realistic goals, providing the means to achieve those goals, and a management structure that is educated to the fact that sometimes goals aren’t met for very good reasons. We are establishing this in my current organization with very good success. We don’t strive for 3.4 ppm nor do we calculate so called sigma levels; we rely on actual results. We strive for continual improvement in each of these metrics.
When establishing a goal for a particular metric (and we have only a few key high level metrics: cycle time, Non Value Add Time as a % of cycle time, inventory, rolled throughput yield, Availability, Field Failure rates and Customer complaint rates.) the management team selects the goals for improvement in these areas by the affect on critical business needs and using a pareto breakdown of immediate causes we assign projects. We look for 50 – 90% improvement; in other words, we ask for breakthrough levels not incremental levels and we achieve them. Sometimes a really complex problem takes longer than we had anticipated but using regular project reviews we know that the project leads are working on the issue, the progress they’ve made and the discoveries they have made. Progress is tracked not by date milestones but by time spent (actual activity, not elapsed calendar time) vs project discovery. The management team also ensures that the appropriate tools and methodologies are used and used correctly. This coaching helps the organization continually adopt better methods.

Belts: we do ‘certify’ belts. But only Master Black Belts, Black Belts and Lean Belts. The Black and Lean belts don’t leave their organization or position. They must use the tools and methodologies within the construct of their current positions. Formal training takes 4 to 2 weeks. And certification comes after the belt has demonstrated successful adaptation of the tools and methodologies. This takes anywhere from 6 months to 3 years and is part of the employee’s development plan for skill acquisition. Our belts can calculate an average and more importantly they know how to use the tools appropriately in every day life – not just how to make a powerpoint presentation. My team tracks the metrics to ensure that projects remain successful for the business long after the final report out is given. Report outs are now – for the most part – a regular part of our management review process. ‘Certification’ is seen and treated as a development milestone and is rewarded simply. It is part of the compensation and career track system...just like any other skill acquisition such as project management certification or management training.
Master Black Belts join my direct team for a ‘tour of duty’ as trainers, mentors, consultants and leaders of complex crossfunctional improvement teams. These complex projects are typically in areas that have not matured in adopting the tools/methods. So it is a learning experience for everyone.
All personnel are trained at various levels depending on their area of responsibility and personal desire. Some training is mandatory to ensure that the approaches are deployed throughout the organization and that ineffective approaches are not perpetuated. This extends to the corporate staff.

Project Focus and Short term v.s. Long term thinking: We prefer to assign project work as a “suite” of projects that will improve an entire value stream from supplier to Customer. We incorporate both Lean and Six Sigma to improve all of our key metrics in a planned and prioritized manner. Some projects have huge returns and others have smaller returns but the key to our approach is the overall effect on the entire value stream: quality, delivery and cost. There are a very few stand alone projects that have a huge affect on the business. We have launched projects for these, but they are not in the majority. We recognize that many seemingly small projects have a huge affect when taken as a whole. Additionally, our priority for ‘benefits’ and project selection is: Customer (Field quality then internal yields) first, then Productivity, then Cost savings (which are hard savings that can be seen in the bottom line and/or budget). We are in it for the long run.

Tools and Methods: first and foremost is the focus on what’s right for the customer. Secondly, we have a set of tools that are very strong. (we are fortunate to not be involved with the automotive industry or aerospace)
We do NOT use process capability indexes. We simply track RTY and use control charts. Even our suppliers are now required to do this…
We do not use the traditional Gage R&R. We use Youden plots and discrimination plots as well as Kappa type tests along with the appropriate incorporation of prevalence for categorical data. There is no pass/fail* for these tests: we recognize that even poor discrimination systems can be used as long as one knows how to account for it. We use the tools to understand our measurement systems. *The exception to this is for personnel or equipment used to accept product. A true test with real world prevalence levels is used to qualify both equipment and personnel for acceptance testing.
We do not use fishbone diagrams, multi-voting or FMEA for determining root cause. We use a systematic approach to rule out causal categories starting with the observational study and iterating thru a series of invasive and non invasive designed experiments to arrive at the cause. Designed experiments (from 2 factor – 2 level to fractional factorials to response surface methods) are ubiquitous in our organization, yet we deemphasize the statistical calculations for statistical thinking and the ability to see your results graphically. (don’t get me wrong, the students know the correct statistical tool and how it works, but usually a well structured experiment will yield obvious results and “statistical mumbo jumbo” scares people off.)
We stay away from the Mil-Std or ANSI for sampling plans and stick with distributional calculations of sample size based on probability of detection of maximum acceptable defect levels.
We strive to incorporate all appropriate tools: mistake proofing, SPC, Lean, etc.


Oh yeah - and we try not to call it Six Sigma. The term seems to annoy new employees who've had bad experiences with "quack deployments". We branded it with an internal name...

 

[Wes Bucey]

Marvelous, Bev!
I have only one quibble - I am a strong proponent of FMEA (Failure Mode & Effects Analysis) - Will you agree it makes sense to use some sort of "What if . . .?" groundwork before committing real time, money, and materials to ANY initiative? If you agree to that, why not take the extra time to "guesstimate" the probability (using a variation of the automotive FMEA) of an event happening which could screw up your plan? That certainly seems less stressful than going through a root cause EVERY time a glitch occurs (since a good FMEA may have prevented many of those glitches from ever occurring.)

As any reader who has caught my act here in the Cove or over in the ASQ Forums already knows, I really have a bad taste in my mouth every time I hear or read some johnnie-come-lately spout the Japanese language mantra of 5S or poka yoke or kaizen as if it were the ONLY word or phrase which could be applied to an activity having to do with Quality and, worse, using such terms to EXCLUDE folks within the organization, rather than using INCLUSIVE, readily understandable words or phrases - "mistake proofing" anyone?

 

[Bev D]

Marvelous, Bev!
I have only one quibble - I am a strong proponent of FMEA (Failure Mode & Effects Analysis) - Will you agree it makes sense to use some sort of "What if . . .?" groundwork before committing real time, money, and materials to ANY initiative? If you agree to that, why not take the extra time to "guesstimate" the probability (using a variation of the automotive FMEA) of an event happening which could screw up your plan? That certainly seems less stressful than going through a root cause EVERY time a glitch occurs (since a good FMEA may have prevented many of those glitches from ever occurring.)

As any reader who has caught my act here in the Cove or over in the ASQ Forums already knows, I really have a bad taste in my mouth every time I hear or read some johnnie-come-lately spout the Japanese language mantra of 5S or poka yoke or kaizen as if it were the ONLY word or phrase which could be applied to an activity having to do with Quality and, worse, using such terms to EXCLUDE folks within the organization, rather than using INCLUSIVE, readily understandable words or phrases - "mistake proofing" anyone?

Thanks Wes. We do use FMEA but not as a root cause problem solving tool. (it's the latest fad that consultants are pushing instead of teh fishbone diagram) We DO use it in new product and process development and for implementing corrective actions to complex problems. It is useful for what it was intended. However, we are also working on a new approach to 'mapping' the functions of a system and looking at how it can fail to improve the design. There is less emphasis on the probability of occurence or detection and more emphasis on the severity of the effect: if it can happen and it's bad - fix it! We're looking very hard at the technique known as FAST pioneered by George Bytheway.

I also share your distaste of the use of foreign words to describe activities that have well understood english names. We have found that most people find these words elitist. For example we don't use "takt" time; we use the phrase "Customer Demand Rate". It's less offenseive and more importantly explicitly descriptive. When the word takt is used most people forget that it doesn't mean cycle time. but whe we use customer demand rate, very few people get confused...We've also abolished most Japanes terms like gemba, poke yoke, Kaizen etc. The only one we still use is "kanban" - I think because most people have internalized the meaning of this word.

 

[justncredible]

I think Bev has done what is intended, learn the tools and apply them to each unique setting. Adjust where needed, add and rearrange to make the most out of the tools. The most important thing is the progress, the marked improvment of the process and the understanding of the process. The tools are nothing more than a tool of discovery, they show the places that will allow improvment.

 

[prototyper]

As any reader who has caught my act here in the Cove or over in the ASQ Forums already knows, I really have a bad taste in my mouth every time I hear or read some johnnie-come-lately spout the Japanese language mantra of 5S or poka yoke or kaizen as if it were the ONLY word or phrase which could be applied to an activity having to do with Quality and, worse, using such terms to EXCLUDE folks within the organization, rather than using INCLUSIVE, readily understandable words or phrases - "mistake proofing" anyone?

Is this really any worse than consultants jumping on new buzz words (such as 6 sigma). They shroud them in an air of mysticism to lure people to pay up lots of cash to learn techniques, which are essentially from the good old quality toolbox.
Instead of 6 sigma, let's just call it statistical analysis.

 

[Tom Slack]

Is this really any worse than consultants jumping on new buzz words (such as 6 sigma). They shroud them in an air of mysticism to lure people to pay up lots of cash .....

Couple of things:
Motivation: The above situation is driven by greed. Wes, Bev and other posters are motivated by need. Greed vs need poetic ;>> and a clue to fixing Six Sigma.

Strategy: Wes and Bev are using a similar strategy. They have cleaned out their toolbox and packed only the tools they need. More tools are not better, but I bet it would be for folks motivated by greed. Their problems are different, so their tools are different. I couldn't get my quotes to work for multiple posts, so I hope the reader will go back and see what I am talking about.
Best wishes,

Tom

 

[prototyper]

Couple of things:
Motivation: The above situation is driven by greed. Wes, Bev and other posters are motivated by need. Greed vs need poetic ;>> and a clue to fixing Six Sigma.

Strategy: Wes and Bev are using a similar strategy. They have cleaned out their toolbox and packed only the tools they need. More tools are not better, but I bet it would be for folks motivated by greed. Their problems are different, so their tools are different. I couldn't get my quotes to work for multiple posts, so I hope the reader will go back and see what I am talking about.
Best wishes,

Tom

I don't disagree with Wes and Bev's strategy, in fact I am all for getting back to the basic quality tools.
I think that jumping on the bandwagon of the latest fad is a shortcoming of senior management as it is usually just the same tools and strategies rebranded and hyped.
I have been in quality for 25 years and am yet to see something radically different.

Perhaps we as the quality community are guilty of complacency in allowing senior management to be drawn toward these buzzwords and "new" techniques without standing up and shouting "This is nothing new!!!" Until that day, the marketing guys will continue to have a field day.

 

[Bev D]

I have been in quality for 25 years and am yet to see something radically different.

Perhaps we as the quality community are guilty of complacency in allowing senior management to be drawn toward these buzzwords and "new" techniques without standing up and shouting "This is nothing new!!!" Until that day, the marketing guys will continue to have a field day.

maybe our approach should be to leverage the 'fad' to increase the use solid approaches instead of simply saying the 'fad' is wrong or not new? After alll if senior management can't see that when they jump on the bandwagon - they won't see that you've changed the bandwagon...

warning:

As for "not new" comment, I think you are both correct and in a way incorrect. I use a lot of 'old' tools that most people have never heard of or have dismissed because they aren't in the 'approved' list of more common tools sanctioned by various 'standards' such as AIAG.
some examples:

• "gage R&R" - I use the intraclass correlation coefficient and Youden plot
• Analysis of Variance: I use Multi-Vari first, first described publicly by Len Seder in 1950
• Sampling: I use the good old fashioned Binomial dsitribution instead of the less old Mil Std 105 / ANSI Z14
• Designed Experiments: I go back to Fisher, Yates, Ott and Tukey. Even Len Seder again. Read "The Technique of Experimenting in the Factory" published in 1948!?

These techniques aren't ancient perhaps but certainly not new. Yet few people have heard of them; fewer undertand them, let alone use them. Some of the current established techniques (Gage R&R measured as a % of tolerance with n = 10; 3 reps, capability indices) were established by quackery and yet we as a quality profession are hesitant to take critical looks at them.

Lean/Toyota Production System is a victim of quack consultants too. At it's heart, I have found it to be a very strong effective approach, but too many consultants have watered it down bringing half hearted deployments that were doomed to failure and now I find too many professionals dismissing it by virtue of it's failed deployments.

There are many here that do take a critical look and try to promote effective approaches; but many people in our profession are only looking to "get by". It's sad.


Again we tend not to do our due diligence in researching, learning, experimenting. We have as a profession gottten worse than complacent; we are complicent in our own impotence...Six Sigma is attractive to senior management not just because of the touted cost savings, but an underlying recognition of the failure of our Quality organizations to affect true quality improvements. The pervasiveness of QMS systems that devolve to audit police is a symptom of this. The fact that most Six Sigma deployments are not run by the Quality Group is a sure sign of how management feels about "Quality"

No one will save us; no one will listen to our logic and change things for us; we need to change to create change; we need to be leaders, not whiners. well that oughta make today interesting!