What is really six sigma? Is a culture? A way to solve problems?

[Bill Pflanz]

I agree wholeheartedly, except that the slide has it right--it's the cost of poor quality, not "cost of quality." There's a significant difference, especially with regard to Crosby, who famously said, "Quality is Free."

Just to clarify your comments. It is my understanding that Crosby used the phrase Quality is Free to indicate that making products or services right the first time was zero cost compared to making it wrong. Making it wrong caused you to incur the additional costs of rework, waste, customer dissatisfaction, liability, lost capacity etc. He was not referring to any costs of quality like inspection, testing, auditing etc.

Six Sigma is already being re-invented as Lean Six Sigma. I am seeing that term used more frequently including in job postings. The term refers to using Kaizen techniques and the Toyota lean production methodology along with the Six Sigma tools.

I don't know how skinny Stat Steve is but if he gets a black belt it better be a small size.

Bill Pflanz

 

[Kevin Mader]

What is Six Sigma?

To my knowledge, Six Sigma could be a culture from the standpoint one could build a mental manner around the collection of Quality Tools. What you may find interesting are the responses you might collect at iSixSigma if you pose the question there. Posing it here, as you did, brings in the supportive and contrary position/ideas/comments that might be better at formulating your own opinion.

If iSixSigma has archives, there is a post there from 4-5 years back where it drew in some excellent discussion on whether SS was equivalent to TQM. For me, the two are different, but that's a matter for each of us to decide. Do some research and don't forget to do a SEARCH here on the two. I'm certain we've hashed this one out at great length.

Regards,

Kevin

 

[Statistical Steven]

I don't know how skinny Stat Steve is but if he gets a black belt it better be a small size.

Bill Pflanz

I am a 34" waist....If you did not have to do a project, I would take the SSBB certification.

 

[Bill Pflanz]

If you did not have to do a project, I would take the SSBB certification.

Since you are employed and must be doing improvement projects for your clients, all you would need to do is document one of the projects and send it to ASQ. The project affidavit is simple enough that you could have it done in an hour. ASQ is not making the project requirement such a high hurdle that it is keeping someone from getting the certification.

ASQ started the certification as a benefit to the membership since it involves significantly less cost than the Six Sigma black belts being marketed by consultants, corporations and universities. The project requirement was made part of the criteria since that is what all black belt courses were doing. ASQ could have been different and not required the project and just required experience and testing on the body of knowledge like their other certifications.

I have visited the iSix Sigma site that Kevin commented on. The subject is just as controversial on its board (and with plenty of sarcasm from some posters). In its early years of formation, some of the well know Six Sigma proponents participated in the discussion. Six Sigma is a lot like ISO in that those who are against it will argue forever about its value. In the early years of ISO and even now, there are quality professionals who will argue that ISO is a total waste. My personal opinion is that if it will help you get the work done and gives management support for quality initiatives than use it. Whether its ISO, Six Sigma or any new buzzword, you can always incorporate your own methods into them. Management is looking at you as the expert and probably does not have enough knowledge about any of them to know how you implement them. The true test of their success is whether it improves the business through better customer service and higher profit.

Bill Pflanz

 

[D.Scott]

If you did not have to do a project, I would take the SSBB certification.

I think Steve hit the nail on the head.

The tools have been around a long time and a lot of us understand them very well. Knowledge of the tools is only a small part of the SS program. Training in the coordinated use of those tools in a disciplined SS project is what sets the program apart from the standard quality practices we see every day. The various levels of responsibility and proficiency in each project is what elevates a SS practitioner through the different color "belts". Taking an exam based on pure knowledge of the material leaves the practical portion of the discipline untested under fire. On a small scale it would be like putting the medical student to work in a hospital with an internship.

Like it or not, the six sigma "culture" has been established using our old tools inside a newly packaged program complete with levels of recognition of proficiency. The new product has been artfully packaged and sold to business and has, in a number of cases, proved its worth. Those who join the parade and earn the belts can demand more money for doing the same job they have always done.

We, as quality professionals, can make all the arguments we like about it being nothing new, or it is just old tools repackaged. We can look at classifieds and wonder why they are looking for a black belt when we have 20 years of experience. We can argue all we want about years and years of past successes and why we are the "Quality Gurus" of our time. Although we may protest, we have to accept there is a new kid on the block looking to take the lead as "Quality Expert". Business management has seen dollar results and likes what they see. Six Sigma is here till something better comes along. We, the "old guard quality folks", need to step up and show management the bottom line they are looking for or we can expect to see the parade march right on by.

Dave

 

[Qaware]

Sorry

Sorry if I made it sound like people who are experienced in the fine art of statistics can't make excellent leaders. That's not at all what I believe. Hope I didn't offend anyone...

 

[Jim Wynne]

Sorry if I made it sound like people who are experienced in the fine art of statistics can't make excellent leaders. That's not at all what I believe. Hope I didn't offend anyone...

I can't speak for the statisticians, but I don't think anyone was actually offended.

 

[Steve Prevette]

I can't speak for the statisticians, but I don't think anyone was actually offended.

I have purposely stayed out of this thread, since I have posted elsewhere why I believe the Six Sigma methodolgy to be flawed.

But, there is a good point raised. The traditional quality types have not been seen as at the "forefront" or seen as "money makers". I don't like Mikel Harry's style, but he did take a statistical tool and marketed the heck out of it.

From a traditional perspective, the basic of six sigma is simply the principle that when in doubt you should improve a process measure until it's control limits are halfway out to the specification limits (basically a cpk of 2). It may be a good rule of thumb, but it may not be applicable in some cases. A Boeing executive gave a briefing at the ASQ WQCI in Seattle, and stated in certain applications, the six sigma standard is not good enough! They are continuing to improve the measures involved, well beyond a cpk of 2. That is because they understand the loss function involved.

Speaking of loss function, it was great to see Dr. Taguchi at the WQCI.

In my opinion, six sigma is not a culture, it is not a system, it is a tool in search of a problem. And mere problem solving will not improve a system.

 

[Jen Kirley]

Well said, Steve.

I have also watched this discussion from a distance.

I can certainly appreciate the value of a method's ability to win over executive management's hearts. Triumph of prevention is often a very hard sell, and 6-S has done it better than any other method of late.

I just wish for a better capability to at once see the metaphoric forest and the trees. It is good to improve a process, but when the overall system remains dysfunctional the process improvement may not be enough to ensure success.

I remain concerned about the sense of elitism maintained through the belt training and certification scheme. I will feel better when more organizations learn to transparently capture the mosaic contributions of their many parts, as every member has a capabiltity to contribute knowledge in some way, large or small.

 

[qualitygoddess - 2010]

Speaking of loss function, it was great to see Dr. Taguchi at the WQCI.

In my opinion, six sigma is not a culture, it is not a system, it is a tool in search of a problem. And mere problem solving will not improve a system.

Steve:

Glad to see you posted here. I always apprecaite your opinions!

I personally like the Taguchi loss function, and show this type of thinking to my students throughout the semester as we talk about those costs of poor quality, and what it means to have a target. -- and what it costs when you don't hit it. How much is your company willing to lose? Always interesting when talking about service quality, as the target is particularly tough to identify.

Back on topic: I would like to hear more about why you think SS is not a system, but rather a tool. I guess I term it a technique, based on my definitions of tools and techniques. TQM is a system....although I have called it a technique. Since you have most likely posted regarding SS some time ago, can you suggest a good way to search for your posts regarding SS as "a tool in search of a problem"?

Thanks.

--QG