I have lost some faith in the Baldrige Index since the accounting scandals have shown an unsavory light on business profits. I always knew there were numerous ways to manipulate profits. The introduction of doubt I had was, "Are the Baldrige winners doing that too, and if so, for how many years?"
I've perceived value in 6S in its better organized approach after the chaotic TQM phase. But when I read the article on 6S not being enough, my thought was, "Congratulations. Your collective MBAs are hard at work again--on wisdom like this?" I have grown hoarse from stating such obvious points as the article made.
I've heard fabulous ancedotes of 6S successes, and failures too. My impression that maintaining a balance, a systems-wide view on creating and maintaining value, can keep the 6S in perspective.
When broken down into defined principles, 6S seems like just a well-structured method of using trained teams to get improvements done.
It's a system/tool set with specific application, like other systems/tool sets. Using it alone or principally is a flawed approach: failing to note the ill effects of one group's gains on another group is a failure of the overall quality system.
When I read the article I had one thought: Baldrige (TQM). Basic stuff, really. I don't have direct experience with tools such as FMEA, ANOVA and Cpk. I've never worked with processes that were controlled enough to do high end quality, because controlling processes generally requires discipline in the people too. Sigh.
Doing 6S well requires discipline. A maverick approach, a mercenary-style pursuit of gains (for stock share or personal prestige) invites the same sloppy disappointment as is possible with every Quality tool. Combining 6S with a long-range planning view to place maintain 6S projects' perspective seems sound to me.
I've perceived value in 6S in its better organized approach after the chaotic TQM phase. But when I read the article on 6S not being enough, my thought was, "Congratulations. Your collective MBAs are hard at work again--on wisdom like this?" I have grown hoarse from stating such obvious points as the article made.
I've heard fabulous ancedotes of 6S successes, and failures too. My impression that maintaining a balance, a systems-wide view on creating and maintaining value, can keep the 6S in perspective.
When broken down into defined principles, 6S seems like just a well-structured method of using trained teams to get improvements done.
It's a system/tool set with specific application, like other systems/tool sets. Using it alone or principally is a flawed approach: failing to note the ill effects of one group's gains on another group is a failure of the overall quality system.
When I read the article I had one thought: Baldrige (TQM). Basic stuff, really. I don't have direct experience with tools such as FMEA, ANOVA and Cpk. I've never worked with processes that were controlled enough to do high end quality, because controlling processes generally requires discipline in the people too. Sigh.
Doing 6S well requires discipline. A maverick approach, a mercenary-style pursuit of gains (for stock share or personal prestige) invites the same sloppy disappointment as is possible with every Quality tool. Combining 6S with a long-range planning view to place maintain 6S projects' perspective seems sound to me.