The premise of Jay's article is that he learned an approach called NLP that was vastly superior to the methods used by Dr. Deming, and pretty much everyone else. The reader might want take a look at this article before rushing to adopt the NLP method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming. Here's a quick summary from the Wikipedia article:

Reviews of empirical research find that NLP's core tenets are poorly supported. The balance of scientific evidence reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience. Scientific reviews show it contains numerous factual errors, and fails to produce the results asserted by proponents. According to Devilly (2005), NLP has had a consequent decline in prevalence since the 1970s. Criticisms go beyond lack of empirical evidence for effectiveness, saying NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts and terminology as well. NLP is cited as an example of pseudoscience when teaching scientific literacy at the professional and university level. NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions. In research designed to identify the "quack factor" in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al. (2006) list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioral problems. Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited".

So I guess you're now pretty much an expert on the subject! The Wikipedia article also includes numerous reference links and a lot of additional information, but it's probably a waste of time to learn that additional material. Kind of like when Jay found that Deming wasted 3 days of Jay's time in his 4 day seminar.

There is much research about how to accelerate learning, most of which is not evident in most Six Sigma trainings.

If you're not trying to figure out how to improve the speed and quality of learning, you are missing the boat.

As much as I love Dr. Deming's content, his teaching method could have used improvement.

P.S. If you haven't experienced accelerated personal change using NLP, you've missed an opportunity.

Worse than "discredit pseudoscience," some call NLP a "cult":

http://www.is-nlp-a-cult.com/2013/05/is-nlp-cult.html

That said, Jay makes a great point here and in his book that a lot of Six Sigma training is wasted -- knowledge that is never used. I have seen organiations where the number of green belt projects ever done was basically the same as the number of green belts certified (one per person... never any beyond the certification).

There's a magic in the simplicity of the "7 basic QI tools" from TQM. If you ask Toyota factories if they use Six Sigma, they'll say "no, we use the 7 QI tools." They don't train "belts." They don't "do Lean" either. They focus on improving processes and developing people (and actually, I got that order backward, if you'd ask them).

Big batches of green belt or black belt training might be useful for some, but I wonder how much money and time has been wasted training people in statistical tools that they never get to use?

I attended one of Deming's seminars in Cincinatti in 1991 even though I had already studied everything I could get my hands on regarding his teachings. While I did not really learn "anything new" during the four days, I did gain a deep appreciation for the man and his work. The seminar had a profound impact on my life and career. Not one minute of the four days was a waste of time. As for Six Sogma, there are many aspects that could be criticized, but I leave that to the vast number of articles already written on that subject. I think a key point is that everyone in an organization does NOT have to be a statistical expert to utilize the tools. After all, I am not an auto mechanic and I know little about internal combustion engines, but I am very good at using an automobile to get myself from point A to point B. However, every organization does need about 1-2% resident experts in statistical methods to help people use the tools effectively. I have seen too many abuses of the tools over the years without proper mentoring and guidance.

All of the comments below are well taken.

• I certainly agree with Jay that one needs to spend time on how to improve the speed and quality of learning. While I probably won't be delving into NLP, I am always looking for ways to improve the way I teach. When I decided to convert from classroom teaching to online teaching I consulted with and hired experts in education and e-learning to help me do it. I learned a great deal from these experts.
• Regarding the 7 quality tools, I love them! These are simple and effective tools that I was teaching long before Six Sigma made its appearance. Unlike "Belt" training, which should only be taught to a relatively small contingent of change agents, the 7 quality tools should be learned by a much larger group as a way to help them improve their own quality and productivity.
• As far as learning things we "never use," I must disagree that this is a problem of education. Lean (the name Americans use to describe the Toyota Production System) and Six Sigma should never be taught or used just for the sake of the methods themselves. This is putting the cart before the horse. Instead, leaders must look at these proven approaches as ways to help them (the leaders) achieve their broader business goals. If approached in this way the phenomina of "one project per belt" will not occur.
• As far as Belts learning tools they "don't need" or "don't use," this is true of every official certification or recognition, including certifications, diplomas, and degrees. These credentials are bestowed on people who master a well-defined body of knowledge. Employers tend to favor certain credentials and preferentially hire, pay, and promote those individuals who possess them. The employer generally has a job for these people that won't use all of that person's knowledge, skills, and abilities. But the fact that the person has these KSAs makes it more likely (the employer believes) that the person they are hiring will be qualified for advancement into other jobs that may use these KSAs. Lean Six Sigma belts are trained to be effective change agents. On any given project or subset of projects they won't be required to use everything they know. But employers know that they can address a wide variety of opportunities for change and that this will help the organization to improve its ability to create and deliver value for stakeholders.

Tom Pyzdek

SixSigmaTraining.Com