iSixSigma

DMAIC – Does Define Overlap with Measure?

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums General Forums Methodology DMAIC – Does Define Overlap with Measure?

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #55050

    I have a simple question but I can finds the exact answer. In DMAIC would you expect Define to overlap with Measure and why? I would greatly appreciate anyones help thanks

    0
    #198419

    Amit Kumar Ojha
    Participant

    Hi John,

    My simple response to your query would be – No it does not overlap. Mentioned below is the explanation for the same.

    The purpose of Define phase is to know the problem and build consensus on taking the project ahead by getting buy-in from sponsor. Basic tools used in define phase are Business Case, Project Charter, SIPOC, VOC, Affinity Diagram, KANO model, CAP tools etc. While talking about the Measure phase; it involves establishing the baseline process capability though a validated measurement system. The tools used in Measure phase are – VOC – CTQ translation, data collection plan, CTQ components identification, MSA etc.

    Hence to summarize, there is a clear distinction between Define and Measure phase in terms of their purpose, tools used and phase of the project when these are used,

    All the best!!!

    0
    #198424

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    John Of course they overlap. Not only do they overlap but a project can split into multiple parts, it can go back on itself, etc. You follow the data.

    Let me help you with a couple pieces of information. DMAIC began as MAIC. The D was added when we were hired to do the GE deployment. Allied Signal (1995 preceded GE) was taught as MAIC. I published my book in 2001 and it was written with MAIC.

    DMAIC is a thought process not a series of tools. If a person cannot explain it without speaking in terms of tools then they don’t really understand it. It is a logic flow so by definition they must over lap. (search this website for an article called “Toolbox! We don’t need no stinking toolbox!”)

    This piece is pure opinion. If you are in the define phase and you have to get “buy-in” from your sponsor then you need to get out of the program. The last person you should have to get buy-in from is the sponsor. They should have bought in before it became a project. The program is designed completely wrong if someone thinks this is your job.

    Just my opinion.

    0
    #198428

    Amit Kumar Ojha
    Participant

    Dear Mike,

    Thanks for enlightening me!!! I was not aware that it started as just MAIC. I would definitely want to read you book so that I can learn from your vast experience.

    0
    #198430

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @amitojha I did not write the response to sell books. What I do want is people to understand what has happened (only to the degree it is useful) and how this whole process works. It is about thinking. People substitute pattern recognition for thinking constantly. This whole process was designed to help a person determine which patterns were helpful and which were not and how to develop options.

    This whole thing has evolved into mindless execution of steps. Exactly what it was designed to break.

    If you want to understand where this thought process began you read Juran’s Managerial Breakthrough from 1964 and understand the foundation of this whole process.

    Just my opinion.

    0
    #198432

    Amit Kumar Ojha
    Participant

    Thanks Mike.
    Sincere apologies if my post had offended you. I just wanted to ask you the name of the book as I was interested. I would first go through the book mentioned in your post. Also Mike you rightly mentioned about the current trend. I have a very small 3 years of experience in Six Sigma where I have seen people using the tools just for name sake rather than thinking of six sigma as a thought process which aims at continuous improvement. I will definitely keep in mind what you said and will do my best to contribute to Six Sigma community wherever I get chance to apply it.

    0
    #198433

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @AmitOjha My book is pretty old but it is “Leaning Into Six Sigma.”

    I think you will gain more from the Juran book. you need to understand this whole SS process began as a “breakthrough” process. If you understand hoe Juran differentiates between Breakthrough and control you begin to understand the difference in the thought process. (please note that I am speaking specifically of this specific book written by Juran – that is not a blanket endorsement of things that contain his name)

    If you tie the Thought process in Juran’s book with the process Watts Wacker presents in “The Deviants Advantage” then you begin to understand how people have maintained the control mentality to apply a breakthrough process. It doesn’t make any sense. Tie that into the Taguchi loss function and it makes even less sense.

    The simplest way to understand Six Sigma is to read about things that don’t have anything to do with the words Six Sigma.

    Just my opinion.

    0
    #198435

    Prabhu V
    Participant

    @AmitOjha,

    Greetings!!

    From my perspective D & M should overlap for huge success and benefits since both phases being successfully completed means the activity was half-way through.

    Even in your example itself you are referring similar concepts in both phases (i.e. VOC being referred in both Define and Measure phases as “tools”).

    From my opinion there was no mistake once defined something can be measured simultaneously.

    However time frame should be taken into consideration means “project milestones” to be strictly met even though we do lot experiments on overlapping both Define & Measure phases.

    Just my opinion.

    Regards

    0
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.