iSixSigma

DPMO reduction targets

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General DPMO reduction targets

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #34721

    PD
    Participant

    I am interested in learning if companies are setting specific targets for DPMO reduction. I want to gain a better understanding of what targets are out there?  Is there a standard?  Are they different for GBs and BBs?
    Any information would be greatly appreciated

    0
    #96369

    Arijit
    Participant

    Hi
    Ideally the only diference between a  GB & a BB project would be based on the scope of the project. Incidentally both aim at more than 10 times defect reduction. A GB project would be at a  process level while a BB project could involve more than one processes which are linked together. It is also based on the amount of time that an individual can spend on the project. More often than not GB projects are done by indiiduals who are aligned to some business doing a particular role and at the same time working on a project.They cannot therefore provide 100% of their time and energy in the project. That is where the scope of project comes into play.

    0
    #96381

    Six Sigma Saviour
    Member

    To be honest, I cannot tell you what the industry standard for is for a defect reduction project – but I can tell you about my experience as a GB at the company I work for.
    Although I am but a humble greenbelt, my current project involves 8 related but different processes at the final assembly stage.  One of the project objectives is to reduce defects to 15% of their baseline PPM levels. Arijit mentions aiming to reduce defects by 10x (or 10% of the baseline) and although my project is close to this level, it is going to be a HUGE stretch.  This is due to the manual, job shop style production that my project covers.  I would suggest that any number given here could be taken as a guideline, but as always, will depend largely upon the specific case.
    I will be interested to see what other projects are aiming for when reducing defects.
    Regards,
    SSS

    0
    #96400

    Cone
    Participant

    The 10x has absolutely no basis in reality.
    Minimum project by project improvement has always been at least 50%. Sometimes if it is obvious there are simple gains the goal will be more. Usually a simple 5s / Kaizan type event to kick off the project would be more appropriate.

    0
    #96407

    Ruddy
    Participant

    50% DPMO reduction or 1 Z improvement.  I do not believe there is any “standard”.  These are more goals.
    Michael

    0
    #96412

    Cone
    Participant

    You do not believe there is a standard? What did your training say? It’s been a minimum of 50% since day 1.
    50% reduction or 1 std dev are vastly different. For example to go from 2 sigma to 3 sigma is > 80% improvment. To go from 3 to 4 is > 90% improvment. To go from 4 to 5 is >96%. This makes no sense and it is not achievable or sustainable.
    In my world, project improvement targets are absolutes. If a BB is in training and the goal is 50% and they only make 30%, they do not get certified. 
    Thank you for sharing your beliefs.

    0
    #96415

    JENNIFER
    Participant

    Is the 50% in a manufacturing enviroment or transactional or does it matter?

    0
    #96420

    Cone
    Participant

    Does not matter. You want the objective to be big enough so that it cannot be achieved by just paying attention.

    0
    #96460

    Ashman
    Member

    Having targets & objectives is important but should not be the determining factor on whether or not you get certified as a GB or BB.  The main goal of Six Sigma in the “real world” should be the correct application & understanding of the Six Sigma tool set, & as one continues to apply the Six Sigma methodology they will get better & better – continuous improvement. 
    There is a big difference between paying attention & actual application.

    0
    #96471

    Mikel
    Member

    Anytime anyone pulls out the “real world” arguement, I know they really don’t know what they are talking about.
    The main goal of Six Sigma is results and if I can get 90% improvement using Lean or Shanin tools, I am infinitely more valuable than the Six Sigma Black Belt that has a correct application and understanding of the Six Sigma tool set and achieves less. If the Black Belt has a 30 % improvement against a 50% goal and has correct application and understanding, I don’t care. This is not an academic exercise and they don’t get certified until they get to 50.
    This basic fact is what gave Black Belts credibility in the Allied / GE days.

    0
    #96481

    Gabriel
    Participant

    “If the Black Belt has a 30 % improvement against a 50% goal and has correct application and understanding, I don’t care. This is not an academic exercise and they don’t get certified until they get to 50.”
    And what if, after the project, you realize that the 50% goal was unrealistically too optimistic? You know that sometimes goals are expectations based more on “what I’d like and it’s sound” than on “what is feasible” which  is typically unknown at the moment of setting the goals. I guess that during the DMA phases you can find that some of the opportunities for improvement fall beyond what had been defined as the scope of the project. Example: Improve the defects rate of a given process from 30% to 5%, but then you find that 10% of the defects have its cause in the supplier, which have a dominant position in the market and because you are a tiny customer you fall down from their list of priorities. Things like “work ith the supplier”, “develop a new supplier” or “make it in-house” can be long term and very hard if possible at all in some cases, but will surelly fall beyond the scope of the project. In such a case, even if you eliminated 100% of the other defect you will still fall short of the goal.

    0
    #96483

    Statman
    Member

    Gabriel,
     
    As usual, you make some very good points. 
     
    To build on what you are saying, I would rather see the BB close the project when they have reached the point of dimensioning return on the project rather than continue to try to work toward an unrealistic goal.  Too often, we start the project by swagging an unrealistic goal.  It is not until the BB has reached the analyze phase that a realistic goal can be assessed with data.  Yet, we keep the BB on the project even though the return on the investment (BB and team time) is very low.
     
    For a program (Six Sigma) that prides itself on making “data based” decisions, the goal setting in the define phase is anathema.  These goals are usually nothing more than a swag or educated guess.  Holding hard to these goals without some common sense analysis when data is available is foolhardy and will lead to some potentially negative results such as keeping a BB and team engaged in a project that is getting little return on investment when they could be deployed elsewhere – another project with higher return. Organizational interest in the project will wane after about 4 months and it is not a efficient use of resources.
     
    Cheers
     
    Statman

    0
    #96519

    Jonathon L. Andell
    Participant

    The closest thing is to figure out what fraction of your total defects come from your top family of causes. At that point you can target a reduction between 50% and 90% reduction of that particular defect type. I have seen cases where the Pareto principle applied, and that amounted to almost a 75% reduction in total defects. However, I also have seen where that only nets you a 10% reduction.
    Beware the one-size-fits-all goal!!!

    0
    #96573

    Ashman
    Member

    “Anytime anyone pulls out the “real world” arguement, I know they really don’t know what they are talking about.” …. “I am infinitely more valuable … .”
    Stan, this is truly unfortunate, that you clearly do not get a chance to go to gemba & acquire a better understanding of what is actually going on. 
    Remember there is no “i” in team, if you want to consistently deliver results & truly become a successful change agent it is not about hitting this magic 50 number, it is about change management, it is about transferring knowledge & understanding, it is about removing the issues & excuses, it is about implementing controls & sustaining improvements – the 50% is a lagging indicator of these  . 
    Your response is a typical short-sited view & understanding of continuous improvement.  The true goal (as I was trained & certified) of Six Sigma is process variation reduction, process excellence, defect reduction & customer delight.

    0
    #96574

    Mikel
    Member

    “Go to Gemba” – what cult do you belong to.
    The objective is sustainable results. I don’t have to speak code words or follow some religous devotion to Six Sigma to do that. I do need to make sure I pick the most important projects and get substaintial results when I tie up the resources of the company. I do need to use appropriate tools, so I do need to know when variation reduction is the issue vs. poor flow or lack of training.
    Your message about this being done with teams – no duh.

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

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