posted 09 February 2001 07:50 PM               

I've been through the training, read the books and consider six sigma a new method for people (consultants/trainers etc...) to make (take) money. What will they think of next when they run out of six sigma customers?

If there is a well defined project management process (based on continuous improvement and preventive action) in place, with total management buy-in, there is no need allocate all those resources and change the direction of a company.

Let's stick to (and improve) the plan and keep it simple!

In my cynical opinion.

ASD...

posted 12 February 2001 01:36 PM               

Well said. Honestly, the principles that we follow aren't difficult to understand, just difficult to apply. It takes commitment!

Regards,

posted 12 February 2001 03:33 PM               

I agree, application is the hard part and goes along with determination. It does not only apply to work but to everyday life as well. (so much for my pontification)

posted 24 April 2001 08:47 AM              

Many tend to think of SPC as being primarily for control of industrial processes, but of course it can be applied to just about any process. Also some limit SPC to assessment and control of those processes - not the continous improvement of the processes.

The Six Sigma idea is one of continuous improvement, driven by top management, in ALL areas of your business, not just the product or process that make the product. The idea is to identify areas of the business that need improvement, and use the broad array of "Six Sigma" tools/methods to facilitate/ quantify/maintain those improvments.

If you're using the broadest definition of SPC, then by all means I agree that there is not much new in the land of Six Sigma.

Probably the biggest difference is the idea that SPC is typically a bottom up activity, whereas, Six Sigma tends to be a top down activity. Six Sigma tends to have the direct attention of top level management - SPC typically doesn't.

posted 24 April 2001 04:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al Dyer:
If there is a well defined project management process (based on continuous improvement and preventive action) in place, with total management buy-in, there is no need allocate all those resources and change the direction of a company.

Let's stick to (and improve) the plan and keep it simple!

---

Amen.

In my opinion, I view six sigma philosophy a ãreactiveä quality measure. If it was done right the first time (ie well defined project management process), there would be no need for a six sigma improvement ãtask forceä.

I could only wish that companies would spend half the effort on implementing programs correctly to begin with as they do with spending time putting out fires (with six sigma) on poorly implemented programs.

posted 25 April 2001 11:01 AM               

I agree with all that you all have stated in this thread. Six Sigma is yet another name on the same box of cereal.
Our company was "forced" into the Six Sigma arena because one of our primary customers demanded certain cost reductions from all of their suppliers. The statistical tools they provided in the training they supplied has enabled us to isolate production inefficiencies in our processes which when improved has led to cost reductions. They got their percentage cut, and we ended up making more profit. We didnt approach this from a reaction to quality angle, although our PPM's dropped as a result too. Our quality was acceptable by our customers and our standards, but the process efficiency improvements were something I have never read or heard about in any conversation related to Six Sigma or any other "package name".

posted 02 May 2001 05:17 PM              

The two main differences in a the *application* of Six Sigma versus the *application* of SPC are, as I see them:

1). $$$$$ - Six Sigma programs usually teach you to put some cost of poor quality behind your problem. I've seen this make an enormous difference when getting resources, involvement, commitment, and/or attention form management. This may sound shallow, but attaching dollars to a problem and its solution will enable you to get things done with statistical methods than not using this metric. Previously, I felt like getting people to use data to solve problems was a crusade. Now they tend to listen better.

2). Yes, it's absolutely true that every tool in Six Sigma has originated somewhere else. However, the difference is a having a roadmap to solving problems. The Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control sequence will succeed for many cases where jumping in and ãfixing thingsä will not. For example, we always understood Gage R&R studies, but now we really understand the need for them before gathering data and making decisions. Also, mapping the process was always overlooked here. Now, it weeds out the easy problems. It sounds stupid, but sometimes people need guidance on the big picture.

#2 is why I emphasized application previously. I see Six Sigma as more than a collection of methods weâve already heard about.

posted 02 May 2001 06:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by GaryC:
Keep kidding yourselves guys.

Why don't you tell us about the lack of waste in your places of work when you tell us your philosophies. A good Black Belt will take care of issues you are blind to.

---

GaryC,

Sorry I left that info out of my post.

In our case:

We have been in business for 1 Year, we supply one of the big three, we have a good management structure that buys in to project management and prevention activities, are profitable, and have given back costs of 4.5% to our customer.

External PPM = 0
Internal Scrap = 0.068%, mostly set-up scrap. (Benchmarked Standard is 5-6%)
External Corrective Action Requests = 0

All without 6 sigma.

ASD...