I've been with Quality Digest
for 16 years now—long enough to see many "new" and "revolutionary" quality processes come and go. Each is launched with dramatic fanfare, and each is usually championed by someone who makes a great deal of money from the idea. Examples abound: Tom Peters (excellence), James Champy (reengineering) and Philip Crosby (zero defects), for a start. Often, these new ideas are dismissed as fads, and many are even considered to be harmful by the old guard.
The latest and greatest quality revelation is Six Sigma. Although Motorola developed the system in the early 1990s, it's being promoted heavily (and quite successfully) by
Mikel Harry, president of the Six Sigma Academy, and numerous other consultants. Harry was one of the architects of Six Sigma within Motorola and is co-author of the best-selling book Six
Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy Revolutionizing the World's Top Corporations
(Doubleday, 1999). He's successfully following the tried-and-true model pioneered by Tom Peters and Steven Covey: package a concept, write a book about it, and market the hell out of it and yourself. Harry's had a great deal of help from the American Society for Quality, which has partnered with the Six Sigma Academy to provide Six Sigma training and consulting.
A great deal of controversy surrounds Harry and the entire Six Sigma concept. Quality Digest
has jumped into the fray this month with our dueling point/counterpoint cover stories: "Who Needs Six Sigma, Anyway?" and "Six Sigma: Fad or Fundamental?" We've attempted to present two opposing views of Six Sigma. Unfortunately, Harry declined our invitation to write an article for this month's issue.
There's even controversy surrounding the ownership of the term "Six Sigma" and related terms like "Black Belt," "Green Belt" and "Master Black Belt." Harry
claims to own most of the Six Sigma-related terms. (See this month's News Digest story "Just Who Owns Six Sigma, Anyway?" on page 8.) Controversy aside, what's the future of
Six Sigma? Is it here to stay? Is it just another flavor of the month? Is it harming the quality industry by draining scarce resources? Is it finally penetrating the executive culture that has
seemed to be so isolated from quality? The answer to all of these questions is a resounding no. Six Sigma won't last forever, just as quality circles, reengineering, and so
many other programs didn't last forever. But just like those initiatives, Six Sigma will have a lasting impact on quality management because it has focused much-needed management attention on
quality. It has also caught the attention of the popular press and some senior executives. So, whatever your opinion of Six Sigma (or Mikel Harry), it's tough not to concede the impact that Six
Sigma is having on U.S. business. I'd like to know your thoughts on Six Sigma and your reaction to our cover stories. Send your letters to spaton@qualitydigest.com . We'll try to include as many of your comments as possible in an upcoming issue. —Scott M. Paton
|
