Let's fix Six Sigma!

[JayJay]

Hi everyone, I'm new to this site, and stumbled across this thread. I don't have time to go through all 8 pages or so of conversations, but I got the basics down.

One thing I would ask is: What definition of Six Sigma are we talking about? ASQ? on the original post when it was said "Lets fix Six Sigma", what general definitions of the overall "program" are we talking about?

Another point to mention is that to truly benefit from SS in an organization, you must have total involvement in every part of the company from executive management, right down to the maintenance people - and that the responsibilities of using the associated tools can't just be pushed off to those below executive management, or even left entirely upt the the quality manager.

There are a lot of companies claiming to be the "official six sigma guide" or "official six sigma training source" etc. The reality is that nobody officially certified a "six sigma program", it just sort of evolved into a quasi-formal quality program from companies like motorola and GE. Because of its wide acceptance, organizations like the ASQ now offer "official training" and "official certification".

I ask - What makes an organization like ASQ's knowledge and training on the subject "official?" I don't believe the answer is anything more than nothing - simply because:

1 - if you dont have common sense, you simply won't get Six Sigma
2 - Trying to read directions on how to use six sig in your organization will be nearly impossible if you don't have the item mentioned in #1
3 - To realize the advantages of the six sigma, as a program, you must deeply understand the methodoligies, and NOT just the tools.

For what it's worth - Six Sigma really can be a PITA to utilize, but when it works, it really works - and you will see the advantages of it immediately.

This is provided, of course, that your company isn't wrought from top to bottom on the org structure with band-aids to problems that should have received true root-cause problem solutions.

Comments please? I like this forum!

JJ

 

[JayJay]

Let me clarify one more thing - I think people try to "formalize" six sigma WAAAYYYY to much. It's not a complete system: It's a methodology that suggests tools to use to accomplish the methodology. It's up to you to decide exactly how to use it.

 

[Brian Hunt]

I first became involved with quality systems as an electronics engineer in the mid 70s. Then, working on military electronics, we had the spec MoD/0521 to comply with. (This then became BS 5750 which eventually evolved into ISO900:2000). As a factory floor engineer, we started seeing various quality experts getting involved with what we were doing, not really understanding it but then making changes that complicated things and slowed us down.

By the time that Six Sigma hit the world in earnest in the later 80s/early 90s, I was already moving out of engineering in to organisational systems improvement/quality. When I became self employed a few years ago, I found that the demand for Six Sigma Black Belts was strong enough to justify paying to take the training. But much of what I learned in getting the SSBB was stuff I'd already came across over twenty years ago as part of TQM. The difference now was that the Black Belts tended to be a more expensively trained elite in their organisations.

For me, that creates barriers - better to have a large number of people trained in simple process improvement techniques that they can then use to make improvements in their work areas.

I've just read in The Toyota Way (Jeffrey K Liker ISBN 0-07-139231-9)
page that "at Toyota they keep things simple and use very few complex statistical tools. The quality specialists and team members have just four key tools:

Go and see (Gemba)
Analyse the situation
Use one piece flow and andon to surface problems
Ask why 5 times"

Is Six Sigma just another way for consultancies and training groups to make money? Frankly, I question the value that it adds in most organisations where the problems tend to be more to do with people than technology. SS is great and appropriate for something at the cutting edge of technology such as in the semiconductor industry - but for most organisations it seems to be overkill.

 

[Desara01]

Don't want to get hung up on whether there's anything to "fix" or not - but as a SSBB and Lean Practitioner I will say this -

I coach/train my GBs on a project-by-project basis, and based upon the project we learn and apply the tools that are appropriate to the project. Some projects require more focus on the traditional statistical tools - some are better served by the use of Lean tools - but usually it's a combination of both. As they add tools to their tool kit, they're becoming more and more self-proficient. I feel we are making tremendous strides and we have the financial data to back it up (which is one of the benefits of SS in the first place - those of us in Quality have always done ourselves a disservice when we don't quantify the financial impact of the problems we are facing).

Well, it's Saturday night, that means a nice steak and baked potato and a glass of good red wine. Cheers folks - Pen

 

[Vishwas Jadhav]

Understand the methodology first, choose the correct methodology for your process.
Understand the tools and its usage, work along with your teams on the tools.
Follow the steps of the methodology, you will hit.
There is nothing like taste of sucess

 

[artichoke]

It is a waste of time trying to "fix" six sigma, because its fundamentals are faulty.

Six sigma is a specification based philosophy. "Another way to improve yield is to increase the design specification width." Bill Smith, IEEE Spectrum 1993.

The specification is not a measure of process quality.

The nonsense of 3.4 dpmo and the farcical attempts by Harry and Stewart to prop up their money making machine followed, together with the rest of the nonsense. Six Sigma - Lessons from Deming

When a building has faulty foundations, the best approach is to bulldoze it. A bulldozer is the best "fix" for six sigma.

 

[Steve Prevette]

I was recently visiting a location, and had to talk with the head six sigma black belt. I warned him up front I was not in agreement with six sigma principles. He asked "such as what". I replied "1.5 sigma shift" He replied "We don't do that". I replied "displacement of management responsibility" He replied "We don't do that". By the time I finished this conversation I was ready to ask - "So what do you do?"

 

[artichoke]

"So what do you do?"

Good one Steve ... gave me a chuckle

Mikel Harry said that Six Sigma is "80% TQM". It sounds as though your friends may have removed the 20% of the added nonsense.

 

[Bev D]

I was recently visiting a location, and had to talk with the head six sigma black belt. I warned him up front I was not in agreement with six sigma principles. He asked "such as what". I replied "1.5 sigma shift" He replied "We don't do that". I replied "displacement of management responsibility" He replied "We don't do that". By the time I finished this conversation I was ready to ask - "So what do you do?"

Steve perhaps the rest of the guy's answers will add clarity to your story. If teh 1.5 sigma shift and displacement of management responsibility are two things you are in diagreement about with "Six Sigma Principles" then why were answers not pleasing to you. He isn't doing the things you don't want him to do...I'm confused. I would have answered you in the same way. And if you had asked me "what do I do" I woudl have been more than happy to explain and I can't - for the life of me - think of anything that you would fundamentally disagree with.

 

[artichoke]

If teh 1.5 sigma shift and displacement of management responsibility are two things you are in diagreement about with "Six Sigma Principles"

I'm curious ... does anybody still believe in the nonsense of the 1.5sigma "drift" / "shift" / "correction" / "dynamic offset", or the 3.4 dpmo, or in calculating dpmo ? Anyone brave enough to put their hand up ?