Promoting the Baldrige I agree with Scott M. Paton's assessment of the Baldrige Award ("Will the Baldrige
Endure?" May 2001) and its lack of visibility within the business press. There is just no glamour in an award for performance excellence in the business world. The success
of Six Sigma at Motorola and GE has been trumpeted from the mountaintops, first by the public relations departments at these companies and then by the business press itself. The thinking is that
if these two organizations can achieve this degree of success, then Six Sigma must be something that we all should consider. Add to this the colorful character of Mikel Harry, posing in his
cowboy outfit, giving the impression that quality can be achieved in an unstructured environment--i.e., "cowboy quality"--rather than through the careful and continued application of
time-tested quality principles. Perhaps the Baldrige Award needs some colorful individual fronting it and some large company hyping it a la Six Sigma, GE and Motorola. Until
then, the Baldrige will live in continued obscurity. --Jim Cooper
Quality Systems Engineering
Northrop Grumman I'm involved with the
Arizona Quality Alliance (www.arizona-excellence.com), the organization that administers our state quality award, which is patterned after the Baldrige Award. The Alliance has experienced issues
similar to those highlighted in Paton's column. We've found it virtually impossible to obtain any press coverage or notoriety for the award recipients, although the list of recipients is
impressive and contains some of the best organizations in Arizona. However, the award was not deemed "newsworthy." I suspect other states' award programs experience similar obstacles. Because the states can serve as a springboard for promoting the Baldrige, if support at the local level is nonexistent, the national program will suffer too. The Baldrige
program seems to be in a decline. Interest appears to be fading and the program is going to die unless it can become better-known to the business community. How? Maybe the state programs can work
with NIST to come up with a solution. Everyone stands to benefit. --Lisa Mattke
Six Sigma sympathizers Regarding William A. Levinson's May 2001 Last Word editorial about Six Sigma looking good but not being worth the price, I think he
has underestimated one of the requisites of certification: the workplace projects. As I've been through a number of quality initiatives over the years, Six Sigma really didn't offer any new tools
for me, but the program provided hands-on training that is lacking in night courses. Too many programs don't require demonstrated knowledge and skill with the tools. Six Sigma, on the other hand,
requires a project that is expected to have a beneficial outcome. Projects have to be well-founded and cost-justified. Six Sigma requires participation of the process owners. Its
success lies in the fact that it attempts to address the reality of the workplace. Is it the only way? Not by a long shot. But especially for larger organizations, it is
particularly successful at forcing all levels of management to recognize the benefits and costs. Six Sigma projects focus on real cost savings and quality improvements. Metrics for the project
are based on those and should be easily understood by everyone. However, as with any other approach to quality, companies that rush in without understanding the concepts will
misuse it and make it seem like worthless hype. Some companies will do anything to become Six Sigma-certified, but the proof lies in what they have achieved, not just a banner hanging on a
building or paper on the wall. Personally, I hope that more companies don't rush into the Six Sigma foray. Otherwise, it will one day be regarded as yet another failed quality initiative,
probably to be replaced by another initiative bearing a new label for the same old tools. --Kent McKesson
Quality Engineer I was recently
certified as a Six Sigma Black Belt after four weeks of classes, three projects over six months and a hell of a lot of work, not to mention my company's metering out a sum nearly equivalent to my
salary. I'm 55 years old, a degreed engineer and a 35-year quality professional with lots of titles, lots of certifications, lots of statistical classes and tons of practical experience
conducting factorial designs. Never in my experience had all of this ever been brought together with such exhaustive organization as in Black Belt training. Belts are taught a
relentless process of steps that will lead to the most effective solutions possible. I truly believe I have arrived at the most effective phase of my long career at this point.
What sets Six Sigma apart from other similar programs is that it's so well-defined (in contrast to, say, TQM, which was whatever your consultant thought it was). Six Sigma also uses a
consistent metric. But most important of all, this is the first program with certified practitioners. All of this together spells great power for the serious practitioner of Six Sigma. Now to Levinson's point. If it was not for my considerable experience, the four weeks would have been over my head because the tools would have been new to me. However, I did
develop a greater appreciation for these tools and certainly learned to use them more effectively. The Black Belt is provided with many checklists to help select the best
statistical tool for the job (for example, for a continuous y with a discrete x, use ANOVA, but if both are discrete, use chi-square). This kind of cookbook direction is not intended to create
statisticians, but statistically minded practitioners. I think that for a seasoned quality veteran, the Black Belt program is most useful, but to think that four weeks training
will advance an amateur to breakthrough abilities is a bit of a stretch. --Robert D. Skillman
Six Sigma slayers I just read "The Emperor's New Woes" in the May 2001 issue. I have found that almost everyone agrees "off the record" that the
savings due to Six Sigma are overcounted, but management has made people afraid to speak their true opinions. Those who do so risk damage to their careers and are labeled "not team
players." I used to attend "Six Sigma Champion" meetings. Occasionally, a few of us in those meetings would point out something that was not 100 percent in
support of the Six Sigma drive. We were quickly berated and labeled as being "too negative." As Levinson points out in his column, the tools obviously have good
applications; however, senior management routinely pushes the use of the tools in applications to which they are not well-suited. I think this is done to help justify the high cost, one of Six
Sigma's most important features: "If it costs this much, it must be good." I know this "fad" can only go on for so long until enough people speak out that
the emperor is naked, but it's taking much longer than I expected. --Ken Rasche, P.E.
Whirlpool Corp.
I strenuously object to all of this contrived quality nonsense. The drivel that is in several of the certifications that Levinson possesses is the same sort of derivative
nonsense and marketing hype that is driving Six Sigma. Many of us who have been in the shop for 30 years and more have taken all of these courses to supplement experience. The beginners are
taking these courses in lieu of experience and are getting some cockeyed results. Quality is not ideological dogma and obtuse terminology. It is a deep understanding of one's
purpose and craftsmanship at connecting all the dots within the system. Quantification does not equal quality. It is very easy, using a computer, to make the Cpks dance to
whatever tune is playing. Older quality guys like me know how to pick the product up and look at it, poke it and turn it upside down, work with it--hands-on. That skill is
fading fast as people let the statistics do the thinking for them. Henry Ford did not suffer fools gladly. He would have punched out Six Sigma and sent it packing along with
half a dozen other programs that are nothing more than transparent frauds, fads and self-serving nonsense. --Gordy Nelson |
