In my February 2001 column, I wrote that Six Sigma differs from total quality management in many ways. Many readers wrote to
disagree with particular points I made in that column. I grant that there's a lot of overlap, and I agree that well-implemented TQM programs can look a lot like well-implemented Six Sigma
initiatives. Remember, the company that pioneered Six Sigma (Motorola) also won the granddaddy of TQM prizes, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Nevertheless, I still insist
that Six Sigma is more than just another variation of TQM. One primary difference is in the internal organizational infrastructure. Six Sigma's internal organization is nothing short of
revolutionary. Forget the cutesy "belt" nomenclature for a moment and consider that there's never been anything like the new positions created by Six Sigma: full-time, but temporary,
change agents making up about 1 percent of the organization's workforce. (Taken as a percentage of the professional staff, it's even larger.) These people represent organizational slack dedicated
not to producing routine work, but to producing change. Their performance is judged by their innovation, which takes the form of tangible improvements that benefit customers, shareholders or
employees. I've been surprised by many quality professionals' negative responses to these new upstarts. But after thinking about it, I realize that I shouldn't have been surprised at all.
While quality professionals have preached the gospel of change for decades, they've always been the drivers of the change. With Six Sigma, the quality department is often on the receiving end of
change; Six Sigma deployments are often spearheaded by people outside of the quality department and usually involve people who are not members of the quality priesthood. Let's look at an
example: ASQ Certified Quality Engineers vs. Six Sigma Black Belts. A focus on concrete, tangible results is one of the key differences between BBs and CQEs, but what's the root cause of these
differences? The answer, I believe, is the fundamental difference between Six Sigma and other quality initiatives. Six Sigma is not a "quality initiative" at all. Understanding the
difference between Six Sigma and "quality" is key to understanding that Six Sigma marks the end of quality as we know it. If Six Sigma is the next stage in quality's evolution,
people in the quality profession might want to stop bashing it and take a more long-term view. CQEs who are turned down as BB candidates might want to ask themselves what new knowledge, skills,
abilities and personal attributes they need to become successful BBs. Many CQEs continue to act as though barriers existed long after they've disappeared. Some don't appreciate the need to
quantify their results in bottom-line terms. Understand that improving quality isn't an end in itself, but a means to an end.
About the author Thomas Pyzdek is a consultant in Six Sigma. He has written more than 50 books,
software and training products, including The Six Sigma Handbook (McGraw-Hill). Learn more about Six Sigma at www.pyzdek.com . E-mail Pyzdek at Tom Pyzdek . |
