Why Six Sigma Isn’t Sticky

We need to make it less scary

I went into my local Barnes & Noble looking for a book and decided to check if they carried my book, Lean Six Sigma Demystified. There were four rows of business books on management, leadership, sales, and so on. The “quality” section, consisting of about 15 titles, was on the bottom shelf of the last row of books.

You would think that if there was a methodology that would help most companies cut costs by a third, double profits, and boost productivity that it would get more play in bookstores. It doesn’t.

Six Sigma just isn’t sticky

Whenever I mention Six Sigma to anyone there are two reactions:
• If they’ve never heard of it, they say: “That sounds complex. Are you an engineer?”
• If they have heard of it, they grimace and say: “Isn’t that just for manufacturing?”

Why Six Sigma isn’t sticky

Six Sigma enjoyed a certain celebrity glow when Jack Welch still ran General Electric and embraced the methodology. Since then, Six Sigma’s star has been on the wane.

…

Want to continue?

By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.

Create a FREE account

Forgot My Password

Comments

Thoughts On Six Sigma

I like your term "obsession with statistical perfection" - this turns people off in a big way. Besides, it could be termed "obsession with statistical sophistry", i.e., Six Sigma's OCD love affair with the normal distribution. The DMAIC process itself is rigid and also turns people off. Six Sigma Gage R&R studies are another example of "statistical sophistry"....and the list goes on. We need to solve problems, not get bogged down in a rigid set of steps. I would also submit that many Six Sigma "Black Belts" don't know what they are talking about! They had the training and use the language, but don't truly understand. I once asked a Black Belt what the p-Value meant in an ANOVA. She said she didn't know exactly, but it needs to be less than 0.05! Another Black Belt asked me to show him how to do a Capability Study! Are you kidding me?!?! Other Black Belts get so anal retentive about the tools that projects take months longer than necessary. The list of such stories goes on. I believe Dr. Deming referred to such pretenders as "hacks". Ultimately, it is about solving problems quickly and with the simplest analytical tools that get results. The Six Sigma process itself creates a mysticism around itself, so management gets the idea that it takes mathematical geniuses to use the tools and that miracles will happen when the tools are used.

Six Sigma Statistical Nonsense

How much more of the Six Sigma rubbish do we have to tolerate ? When will people wake up to the fact that Six Sigma is a scam ?

"The phrase Six Sigma sounds complex, mathematical, or statistical, which turns most people off." The phrase "Six Sigma" should have been enough to turn anyone with an ounce of intelligence off. How on earth could any rational person consider broadening the spec limits, as suggested by Six Sigma's hero Mr Bill Smith, be a way to improve quality ?

Why haven't people questioned Six Sigma's utter nonsense of the 1.5 sigma drifting, floating mean that leads to the ridiculous 3.4 dpmo ? If this really did happen, no process could ever be in control ! Investigate the source of this scam. Here it, is laid out simply for you: http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/six-sigma-article/six-sigma-lessons…

http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/six-sigma-article/six-sigma-lessons…

Now read what quality is meant to be about, in the works of Wheeler, Shewhart and Deming.

Read my lips ... Six Sigma is a SCAM !

Thanks!

Thanks for providing the two links. I had read them when they were published, but had fotgotten them. Great references!

Making everything "simple"

I agree with the previous comments. My take is, if everything is simplified and watered down so "everyone" can do it--- we don't really learn how to deal with the many complex problems that exist. Just about every Six Sigma program I've seen is mostly about learning a few basics and covering 200 topics with zero depth. Most black belts I have met are clueless about fundamental aspects of SPC, DOE, Reliability, est. but...they know how to produce mountains of binders and apply qualitative tools.

Applying statistical methods correctly requires significant education with enough depth --- not to be statistically perfect, but to know which tools to apply when, and what assumptions ARE important. Bottom line is getting to solutions quickly...

Just like engineers study many years to learn important aspects of enginering, serious quality and reliability professionals ought to learn quality and statistical methods in enough depth so that they can deal with complex issues efficiently and represent our profession with passion, knowledge, and integrity.

enjoyed your article

Hi JayI read and enjoyed your article today

We get a lot of people who stop by our booth each year that don't understand why collecting data could be advantageous. Clearly the job shop that makes one piece of any one part does not need to analyze but the rest sure do... but so many just don't know it. We also want to reach those people with your message of “process innovation” and we are still thinking the best ways to do it... and maybe we add something like "for improvements that count".

Thanks,

Mike

Six Sigma Stickiness

Your article was very well written and touched on issues that most of us in this industry face. What I would like to add to your analysis is that while the 'belt' concept makes Six Sigma harder to make main stream, it is also that very same concept that makes it attractive to those that actually like Statistical methods for process improvement. I am sure this very same 'belt' concept must have seemed attractive to you when you took up Six Sigma yourself. Afterall, if you are going to put in a lot of effort to learn a great deal of Statistics and process improvement methods, one might as well have something to show for it too....

Great article!

Cheers,

Chris