Six Sigma - The Beginnings and History

[Jim Winings]

Sorry, I've been away getting the final version released, but I'm back!!!

Seems to me this Six Sigma topic is a little skewed and should be in Six Sigma Want To Fight topic or something, but, let me see if I can get it re-centered?? (Theres a quality joke in there somewhere, but ya have to DIG for it) (GRIN)

AJPaton said ...

Jim, you're arguing for Kevin, not against him. The money that the company makes must be put back into the R&D department.

In order to do R&D a company must make money to pay for benefits to hire the talent to do the R&D. Perhaps we are all on the same page, it just depends, as we all know, on how one measure's it??


jwmgmt said ...

I am currently reading Harry's book on 6 Sigma as part of research ...

Harry taught my 6 Sigma class at Motorola right after that book was 1st published

The concept of Defects Per Million Opportunities (DPMO) can be manipulated by an unscrupulous individual to "pad" the numbers and improve the Sigma rating without actually improving any processes...

So can any method. Lets face it, as with all statistics, it what and how you measure it. depending on this, you can make a bad part look good or a good part look bad. It's all in the measurement!

Look at the New Coke fiasco. ...

Personally I think that the 'Coke' deal was all a genius marketing deal, and it worked. I think that in the long term, Coke got just what they thought they would get.

I also have a problem with the 1.5 Sigma "shift". ...

According to my Juran Quality and Planning and Analysis book, the 'normal' shift to allow is 1 Sigma, I don't see how an extra .5 sigma, could be viewed as other than common sense. Of course I have had the Six Sigma courses and see the proverbial picture as Motorola wanted me to see it. Maybe that's it?


Don Winton said ...

The primary purpose of an organization should be to STAY in business, not to make money. A company that stays in business provides much more than a company that merely makes money. However, if making money in the primary means of staying in business, so be it! And if some so-called quality initiative is the means to make money, thus staying in business, so be it. But, make no mistake, if a company's primary goal is to make money, rest assured they will not be a company long.

Agreed, but a company can not stay in business without making money. From the business knowledge I have, a company needs to typically charge 75% more for a widgit to make money. Does that mean that at, lets say 25% profit margin to break even, they should sell their widgit for 25% of cost?

In my Six Sigma classes, they stresses getting a Return on net assets and a return on the net investment. This was a very BIG part of the Six Sigma Methodology.

johno said ...

On the quality vs cost debate it's perhaps more useful to consider quality as the 'great enabler', the foundation, as without it low cost is a moot point for most, and without it a good design is usually not realized.

Yes, unfortunately, 'Quality' is still viewed in a lot of proverbial circles as the 'Necessary Evil'


jwmgmt said ...

I say again, you can build the best designed product in the world but if nobody wants it, what good is it?

You are right. This is why Six Sigma requires Customer Suveys. To insure that this does not happen. And I have seen it happen when I was at Motorola. Nothing like spending, well millions at the time, to develop a product that nobody wants and ergo will not purchase.


Marc Smith said ...

I don't think many here are in any way saying any 1 system is 'the' system. I guess I read these and other posts as discussions of different systems one or more of which may be utilized by any company. Typically no company embraces 6 sigma alone, for example. Companies mix things up.

Correct, but I am starting to think that a lot of people think of Six Sigma as only the measurement part of the methodology. And the scope is much much larger than that.

I bet Ford will have less consideration of the price it pays for tires with respect to the 'quality' of the product. ...

I live about 30 miles from the Firestone plant in Decatur IL. I've only been in the area for about 4 years now, but, let me tell you some things about it.

• It's not what you know here, it's who you know
• Hiring best in class is NOT the norm. I always hear when I score high on a State Test or even with the University System, 'Scoring high only guarantees an interview, not a job. This is because they need to keep labor cheep and in order to do that must hire, in a lot of cases, less than qualified people and train them on the job at a lesser salary.
• Lower and Middle Management in this area will NOT hire someone that they feel are more qualified than them. And in a lot of cases, these managers have been promoted to these positions due to politics. They are afraid, I guess, that they will lose their jobs then and that will mean that they will have to start all over again to get back to where they were, if they can at all.
• If labor in this area, for example at Firestone, made a stink about the quality, as it seems some ex-employees did, they would lose their jobs and be 'black balled' due to the politics. I actually have evidence of these kinds of activities going on. It is a really sad state of affairs. But just look at what has happen this year here. The Governor Stopped executions due to too many innocent people on Death Row, the ADM deal, and now Firestone. The State of IL also made a mess out of trying to send support checks to Mothers. They hired a bunch of incompetent Sub-Contracting Programmers that couldn't get the job done. And almost every other state, you can look and apply for jobs on the net. Not in IL. You must go to the State Building and look up jobs on their CMS system at a dumb terminal, then fill out application in triplicate, and submit them. That's 21st Century isn't it?
  [/list=a]
  
  Well that should stir some excrement!

 

[Mike1245]

Wow - just got through perusing this whole forum. Just a few comments -

1. Don Winton. Like your paper (on 6 sigma that I downloaded from the Cove (Marc - you put up some excellent information - so do you Don at your website). Did you write this specifically for the AF?

2. Jim Winnings. Try living in Indiana! And, the way I see it, you can measure something all day long, but there is a sh**load of truth in Taguchi's Loss Function, and that's why the Japanese beat the p*ss out of us everytime - they don't concentrate on the spread (6 sigma) - they shoot for the target (or nominal value).

3. Marc Smith. Bingo! There is NO ONE SYSTEM. If picking one's nose ensured quality, customer satisfaction, and profit, guess what everyone would be doing?

The bottom line is - have an open mind. I didn't buy into 6 sigma at first, and now I would be the first to tell a company to go for it.

 

[Carlos_Elizondo]

Hi everyone!!!

I have a doubt...

Could Six Sigma Methodology apply to micro and small business??? (Less than 50 employees).

Thank you very much???
If I want to develop a guide for that kind of businees, in what aspects should I focus???

Thank you very much,

Carlos Elizondo

 

[Marc]

Folks: FYI - I'm not sure if Don is back with us.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 07 June 2001).]

 

[Marc]

Also see these threads:
Six Sigma - Wanna Fight? An interesting debate of the validity of Six Sigma
Six Sigma - Statistical Tools - Valid or Hype? Value? Can a CQE do the same?

 

[Marc]

Honeywell's Six Sigma *Plus*

Honeywell sez: " Six Sigma Plus methodology (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) is applied to a wide variety of projects -- not only to the elimination of variation in processes. That means Honeywell's Six Sigma Plus umbrella is larger than that of many companies; its skill sets include Lean Enterprise, Activity Based Management, Honeywell Quality Value assessment, Total Productive Maintenance and Growth projects, among others."

Is this the next level in the evolution? Comments?

***DEAD LINK REMOVED***

 

[Sam]

It appears that the intimadators of the quality revolution have lost sight of the original intent of Six Sigma. It now becomes a catch-all for any type of quality inititive. Total Quality MAnagement - - Six Sigma ; No difference.

 

[M Greenaway]

I dont think six sigma was ever purely manufacturing process based !!

 

[Sam]

M,
You are correct. The original intent of six sigma was for new design and complete re-design of products.
Six sigma cannot be used in manufacturing unless first usd in the design of the product.

 

[Tom Slack]

It appears that the intimadators of the quality revolution have lost sight of the original intent of Six Sigma. It now becomes a catch-all for any type of quality inititive. Total Quality MAnagement - - Six Sigma ; No difference.

Six sigma revolutionized quality management. It used to be there was a quality Assurance group that dealt with specs and a manufacturing group that supported the process. They really didn't have a good way of predicting how the process would meet specs. Then D. Shanin came up with the six sigma-capability concept while working on a contract for Motorola. Quality now had a tool to communicate quanitatively with manufacturing and Quality Control had new importance.

Now six sigma or Six Sigma sometimes means Statistical Techniques and somtimes Total Quality Management. When a term means everything, does it still have meaning? Statistical Techniques got a bad rap because people were unsure what it would do for them and it appeared difficult. Total Quality got a bad rap because there was a lot of employee involvement and some managers made sure those teams weren't going to work on anything important. The term Six Sigma implies there is an important objective, so it might be a viable label. Then there is Lean Six Sigma....

Best Wishes,

Tom