iSixSigma

After Six Sigma, What’s Next?

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General After Six Sigma, What’s Next?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #46839

    Ram
    Participant

    Dear Friends,
    After Six Sigma , which tool will play a vital role in quality and other issues.
    Any idea?

    0
    #155391

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    ram,
    Six Sigma isn’t a tool it is a methodology. The success of Six Sigma and its climb to popularity came from its use in deployments. You also have to realize that software such as Minitab is what made the Black Belts and the deployments successful. The other thing that is important to understand is that DMAIC is rework – projects for the most part are fixing things that were implemented in a less than optimal state. The logical next step would be DFSS, DMADV, etc so you launch clean. This whole thing is pretty fragmented still because we have people who want to fight over the alphabet soup rather than really understand the design to delivery process.
    Unfortunately the focus seems to be shifting to innovation (check out the website http://www.realinnovation.com) which means with the gap in the design phase we will probably have a longer run of DMAIC. At this point there isn’t even a clear definition of innovation but it is the hot buzz word for people who don’t know what else to talk about.
    Just my opinion

    0
    #155396

    Pendulum
    Participant

    In the management literature you have a pendulum that shifts back and forth between process and people oriented approaches. The problem with Six Sigma is that it assumed for some time that it could substitute for business strategy. Six Sigma came into being after business became frustrated with the implementation of great strategies in the 1970s and 1980s. They then settled for smaller strategies based on quality improvements. We are now seeing the limitations of Six Sigma in that the implementations of these programs do not lead to the type of “quantum leaps” that CEOs and shareholders expect from these programs. Also, the business environment is changing quite dramatically so that often the kind of orderly change that Six Sigma prescribes is difficult to implement (Mike should know all about it).
    So the pendulum is shifting back to strategy formulation, innovation and people. The difference between the new wave of strategy and the old wave is that the old wave was built on concepts developed in the fields of economic history, industrial organization and formal business planning (Chandler, Porter etc.). The new wave on the other hand builds on concepts developed in the areas of psychology, anthropology, neural networks, systems theory etc.
    Where is Six Sigma heading? Six Sigma will be here to stay if it assumes the role that it should assume: a deployment of tools, methods and people that support the strategy of the organization. It will disappear if it does what it is not intended to do: create the innovative drive for corporations to shape their markets. Execution without innovation is blind and innovation without execution is a blank piece of paper.
    There are two issues with Six Sigma at this point:
    1. It attempts to absorb innovation through a structured application of tools such as DFSS, QFD etc. Innovation does not work this way. It’s a type of process that is not amenable to the kind of structure that Six Sigma is known for and strong in. Many six sigma consultants will have problems with the fuzzy logic of “tacit knowledge”. They like it “explicit”. Implied in this is also, that the kinds of operational definitions that six sigma works with are not very useful in the understanding of innovation and enterpreneurship. In addition, our understanding of scientific inquiry is changing. Six Sigma is built on a scientific model of quantification that had its heydays up to the 1970s. Business research is moving towards qualitative research because the concept of innovation is so difficult to quantify. So, don’t expect to be on the cutting edge of the upcoming research on innovation by applying the regression tools or the outdated idea of operational definitions.
    2. Many organizations use Six Sigma as a “breakthrough” strategy in regards to quality without seeing the need to continuously build on the first breakthrough. It is simply impossible to get to the level of a Toyota corporation that not only has been improving its products continuously over the past 50 years, but also built innovation and strategy into the fabric of its organization.

    0
    #155397

    Cone
    Participant

    Hear hearWell said.The truth is that it is not a choice between strategy, innovation, or
    a structured problem solving approach. All are needed and as you
    said structured problem solving isn’t just breakthroughs, it is a
    system that continuously engages the people who do the work.As Mike said, the work when there is a blank sheet of paper (DFSS,
    DMADV or whatever else you want to call it) needs to take place. It
    is not a substitute for innovation, it is an orderly way to bring
    innovation nto the existing structure.

    0
    #155411

    Steven Bonacorsi
    Member

    First, let me agree with Mike and Gary with one build. Six Sigma is not broken, there is no need to move away from the methodology because it works. While Six Sigma works well in reducing variation and defects, there have been other methods such as Lean that did a great job in reducing waste and icreasing speed. As stated by my esteemed collegues, design for lean six sigma and innovation methods help address our new product/process development, while the integration of these best practice methodologies continue to evolve and merge. As the best practices within specific niche industries and practices matures there is one uniting principle: Lead using customer focused, data driven, team acceptance building approach and the bottom line will take care of itself!

    0
    #155455

    Yatin
    Member

    Mike is right.
    Buzz could be TRIZ ! Innovation !

    0
    #155488

    Lebowski
    Participant

    Pendulum,
    If we just look at your broad strokes we agree in the overall. I do have some exceptions with some of your details.
    The assumption that Six Sigma is here to stay is bold. We should never have had nor needed Black Belts if the Certified Quality Engineers from ASQ would have been qualified or motivated to do the jobs that the test they passed supposedly qualified them to do. Industry never valued a CQE to the level that they have valued a Black Belt or Master Black Belt so regardless of opinion the customer has spoken.
    With ASQ stamping certifications on people in a similar manner as they did with CQE’s the likelihood that Industry will continue to value the MBB and BB to the level they have in the past. Actually with all the certification mills such as Villanova and even a presitigious college such as Notre Dame the level of impact that a BB will deliver will diminish. That will easily bring about the end or the opportunity for the next big thing.
    You discuss Six Sigma in terms of a breakthrough strategy. It lost that status years ago. Some still teach it as that type of strategy but most have shifted it to variation reduction. As a breakthrough strategy in terms of what Juran described it was a mean shift to an optimal place to operate i.e. much like a Taguchi approach. It has been sold by people like Mike Harry as variation reduction which has nothing to do with breakthrough but is control which as Juran defines it is a lack of change or maintaining status quo. From a marketing perspective the variation reduction makes Six Sigma more palatable since the TQM set has been philosiphizing about variation reduction for decades while they run their training classes and doing very little else to justify their existence. Actually very much the same as a CQE.
    The discussion of Six Sigma is much to lengthy for a simple post on a forum.
    Lebowski

    0
    #155499

    Pendulum
    Participant

    Lebowski,
    Agreed. This was supposed to just be a broad outline.
    In my opinion, the challenge with the CQE certification was not so much one of the certification itself (It is definitely more thorough than the current wave of BB certifications by the likes of Villanova etc.), but of deployment. Six Sigma gets its strength from the deployment, and this is so far more an art more than a science.
    Also, when I talked about breakthrough strategy, I did not mean it in the way that Juran described it in his book (Who ever reads that book any more … everything has become “breakthrough” these days). In Six Sigma breakthrough means at best getting from a sigma level of 3 to 4.5 or so. Juran had a very different conception of “breakthrough” which is more in line with what is now being re-introduced throught he concepts of innovation. However, Juran also had the kind of business sense that the post-modern “innovation industry” with its emphasis on “creative destruction”, “left vs. right brain thinking”, “autopoetic systems” etc. is somewhat missing.
    I just hope that business continues to flush out the BB certification education industry through its hiring practices and “value” these certificates at their appropriate rate: a nice sheet of paper with a nice logo but little to no value in the process of exchanging skills for a job.
    We’ll see, but I am still optimistic. Let’s not forget that this site is a “reality site” and that the real world still looks a little different than what this site projects Six Sigma to be.
    Allthingsidiot just got a well-deserved, bloody  nose … don’t send your kids into a tiger cage :-).

    0
    #155502

    Lebowski
    Participant

    Pendulum,
    I could not agree more on the value of Black Belt that is the product of a deployment. The issue with ASQ is that they had a model that failed to be valued by the customer base. When they decided to get into the certification business they only slightly modified that process. People are now turning to this organization to produce Black Belts who created a market for themselves regardless of the position that ASQ had taken for years against Six Sigma. They are producing defective product just the same as any other bandaided process would produce. They completely lack customer focus and an ability to evaluate themselves objectively. That sounds much more as if they lack the ability to apply what they are certifying others in. A bit of a paradox I think.
    Places such as Villanova seem more excusable. They are profit making businesses and are trying to capitalize on a market. Considering these institutions in the US have never particularly focused on the quality of the student that they deliver then it is business as usual without the auspices of delivering to a higher standard.
    My introduction to Six Sigma began with Juran’s book. It was mandatory reading from a person I trust. The distinction is valid regardless of what the Six Sigma industry has twisted it to mean. Variation reduction was simply an easy sell since the market had already been beaten into submission that variation reduction was a good thing. Variation reduction around a point that is not the optimal operating point. There may be a business benefit but it still does not get you to the point that you need to be to operate at maximum efficency. Until we understand as a culture that knowing and understanding that point is where the real advantage lies then we will continue to run with metrics such as Cpk and Ppk as a relevant performance metric.
    As far as this site is concerned it is an interesting mix of me too monkeys, academic pontification, some real world experience and some s__t stirers that generally makes for entertaining reading.
    Lebowski.

    0
    #155504

    Allthingsidiot O
    Participant

    I  enjoy reading  your  post  although  you  keep  on  attacking  me?

    0
    #155506

    Friends of the CompleteIdiot
    Participant

    I don’t enjoy reading your posts?

    0
    #155508

    Allthingsidiot O
    Participant

    I  believe  that  you do  (with  the  other  silly  persons),otherwise  you  don’t  jump immediatly to react to all  my  posts?  

    0
    #167010

    Fake ATI Alert
    Participant

    What  is  wrong with the Villanova Certification Program ?
    Please  elaborate more
    thanks  and  regards
     

    0
    #167011

    Fake ATI Alert
    Participant

    Why ?

    0
    #167027

    Craig
    Participant

    If you find out the answer, let me know so I can write the first book on the subject.
    HACL

    0
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.