Six Sigma - Statistical Tools - Valid or Hype? Value? Can a CQE do the same?

[Marc]

Quality Digest Survey

They're doing a survey. If any of you folks take it and also remember to look in the Feb issue, let's see how we compare...

In the meantime, if you haven't voted in this thread (only about 60 have to date) take a minute to register your opinion.

Also see: Six Sigma - A debate of the validity of Six Sigma

and

Six Sigma - The Beginnings and History

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Take Quality Digest's Second Annual Six Sigma Survey!

Six Sigma: Whether you love it or hate it, there’s no denying that it has had a dramatic impact on quality. Millions of dollars have been spent on implementing it, and billions of dollars have been saved by the organizations that use it.

But how far has Six Sigma really penetrated corporate America? Is it just for corporate giants like GE, Motorola and Ford, or can mom and pop shops reach the Six Sigma promised land?

We hope to find answers to these and other questions with our second Six Sigma survey.

The survey is divided into four sections: using Six Sigma at your company, the impact of Six Sigma at your company, perceptions of Six Sigma and information on companies that do not have a Six Sigma program in place.

The survey consists of 31 questions and should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We would like to you participate in the survey even if your organization doesn't currently have a Six Sigma process in place.

We’ll publish the results of the survey in our February 2003 issue.

To take the survey, simply access our surveys Web page: *** DEAD LINK REMOVED*** If you have already taken this survey in the past three weeks, please do not take it again. _

Thank you

Dirk Dusharme
Technology Editor
Quality Digest

 

[Michael T]

Sick-Sigma Survey - Hey look - I'm alliterate

Marc said:

They're doing a survey. If any of you folks take it and also remember to look in the Feb issue, let's see how we compare...

Took the survey last week... Very disappointing and very biased. They only have a few questions for those of us who DON'T do Sick Sigma and don't give us any way to say why we don't. I guess they don't want to know what we think of it (6S) and why we have made the conscious decision not to be led down that path. I guess they believe in the adage that if you don't want to know the answer - don't ask the question...

Cheers!!!

 

[Marc]

Anyone have anything new to say about six sigma or did we say it all in this thread?

 

[Sam]

Marc,
Two responses I don't recall seeing posted;
- Return on investment?, short term & long term results?
- Continuing projects - after completing the required project,has their been other projects started and completed successfully?

 

[AnthonyMC]

I tend to agree with the sentiment that it is a "rose" by another name. Philosophically, I've learned more than TQM-CQI initiatives at my facility. However, the approach and ultimate goal of Six-Sigma is no different that the plant-wide TQM-CQI training we implemented back in 1995.

Contrary to one of the comments above, implementation of Six-Sigma plant-wide need not be done via the "mandated monetary return" for the ideas, so much as it demonstrate how the associated reduction in waste (in terms of dollars) goes right to your company's bottom-line... something that was missing (as I recall) in all of the TQM-CQI training.

 

[KMAAA]

hmm

another thought on 6S... I'm not a CQE, but I basically practice in that capacity and am reasonably to very fluent in the tools and stats involved in their use. I'm also...I (seem to) dare say here a six sigma black belt.

I read the first few pages of comments on this thread and, as they seemed quite similar, I then skipped to this comment. It seems from a number of posts that there's a general feeling approaching 'sour grapes' with respect to "6S is just what CQE's have known all along..." Not having the CQE cert I can only guess that the statement may be correct...probably is. It seems to me that what folks are missing here is, in the end, who cares if 6S is a re-packed CQE body of knowledge? I too believe, and have the training to know, that 6S is a (re-)bundle of best knowledge & practice from a number of different areas. The key though is it is a bundle of best practices wrapped in packaging that gets the attention of senior management. With that attention, in some cases, comes adopting some or all of the 6S package and from this comes higher reliability, process capability, & a better quality product. Isn't this the goal of any quality professional? While it may be that a good CQE could achieve what a 6S program might...one has to wonder why some of the companies that have formally adopted 6S, and likely have CQE's on staff, didn't adopt the "CQE equivalent to 6S" before 6S came along. If it takes the 6S sexy name & slick packaging to get the message through...so be it...whatever works.

As for the poll...6S must be a valid body of knowledge...if it were not, & a CQE is basically the same knowledge, then wouldn't a CQE knowledge base be invalid too?

 

[D.Scott]

As for the poll...6S must be a valid body of knowledge...if it were not, & a CQE is basically the same knowledge, then wouldn't a CQE knowledge base be invalid too?

Great post KMAAA, but as every good black belt knows we need to do some more tests before we can make that judgement .

All joking aside, you make a very good point and I don't think too many here are knocking the black belts themselves. As you say, you are doing you job the same as everybody else and with probably a lot more directed effort. Most of us 6S "bashers" are referring to the marketing part of 6S. The industry that professes to have "invented" a new and wonderful system. A system which unless taught by them is unacheivable. That use of these new quality techniques by anyone other than a master black belt is condemned to failure.

Please accept my apologies for any of my comments you felt were offensive. I assure you they are aimed at the industry, certainly not at a fellow quality professional who happens to be a black belt. :truce:

Dave

 

[Craig H.]

Hi, everyone.

I agree with Dave's, and other's, sentiments that the marketing of six sigma is a little unsavory, IMO.

But, if there is one thing that six sigma stresses that quality professionals (myself especially included) seem to miss is tying what we do to the bottom line. I'm willing to "put up" with the marketing bit of six sigma if it gets us (and helps to get me) talking to the folks in the board room rather than at them.

Just the opinion of a non-black belt.

Craig

 

[Rob Nix]

I agree with everyone above also (KMAAA, Dave S., & Craig H.), but have always cringed when people say the difference is "tying it to the bottom line". One of the main sections of the CQE BoK is "Quality Cost Analysis", and Cost of Quality reporting has been around a long time. Deming, Crosby, Juran, et alia often emphasized how improved quality raises profitability (e.g. Juran's Quality Handbook sections 7 and 8).

I'm sure you didn't mean, Craig, that previous QA activity did not consider the bottom line - just that CEOs more likely associate 6S with the bottom line ( due to the 6S marketing). It's just a sore spot, that's all. :truce:

 

[Craig H.]

I agree with everyone above also (KMAAA, Dave S., & Craig H.), but have always cringed when people say the difference is "tying it to the bottom line". One of the main sections of the CQE BoK is "Quality Cost Analysis", and Cost of Quality reporting has been around a long time. Deming, Crosby, Juran, et alia often emphasized how improved quality raises profitability (e.g. Juran's Quality Handbook sections 7 and 8).

I'm sure you didn't mean, Craig, that previous QA activity did not consider the bottom line - just that CEOs more likely associate 6S with the bottom line ( due to the 6S marketing). It's just a sore spot, that's all. :truce:

Rob, you are quite right, of course, about the CQE, Deming, Crosby, Juran, and others. What I was referring to is, in practice (and this is a generalization - some it fits, some not) Q Practicioners can miss the forest for the ISO 9000, documentation, calibration, corrective action (etc., ect. ad nasuem) trees. I am as guilty of it as the next. If the promotion of six sigma can get CXOs to see quality as an asset ($), and help quality people sell the idea that it is, then whatever negatives go with it will be outweighed, IMO.

Agree?

Craig