iSixSigma

How has Six Sigma Changed or Evolved? A postive post

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General How has Six Sigma Changed or Evolved? A postive post

Viewing 26 posts - 1 through 26 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #49780

    Vallee
    Participant

    As opposed to posts that complain about six sigma’s failures or posts that complain about being chastised by others for not doing there own homework, what has changed or evolved due to internal continuous improvement of six sigma?After all most of us should be teaching that processes should be part of a continuous movement tied to what’s right for the company, employee’s and the customer. So with all that said, what are you doing or not doing that was part of the core methods of six sigma? As far as what I do differently ties in with using a more robust root cause process; pushing others who just have basic six sigma training that the core business needs need to direct the projects not the individual green or black belt. I tie in human factors research such as signal detection theory and management reward and discipline. Most importantly is to integrate other proven processes with six sigma. Finally remind people to GOAL (go out and look. Just cause you learned fantasy tools and software does not mean you understand your process. HF Chris Vallee

    0
    #170675

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    HF Chris Vallee,
    I have been watching this post to see what type of response you were going to get. I am not sure if you just put it up at a bad time (weekend) or if nobody cares.
    Part of the reason I enjoy deployments is exactly what you have said in your third paragraph. The deployment, assuming you want to deliver substance, has to be woven into the things that already exist in the company. If you blow in as the hot shot person with the “one size fits all and we have it right her in this book that tells you everything you need to do” The minute you take out everything that was done in the past or portray yourself as the light and the way and you can forget the other stuff you ailienate everyone who has a stake in all the other programs. That doesn’t even begin to take into account the leverage you get from working with the people who know the business and processes best.
    I haven’t used this reference in a while but Watts Wacker uses a model in his book “The Deviants Advantage” that talks about the journey something takes from the edge to social convention. One of the penalties you pay for the acceptance is a loss of original content. The whole Six Sigma journey fits pretty well.
    Just my opinion.

    0
    #170676

    Vallee
    Participant

    Mike,Thanks for your reply. I thought after the previous frustrating discussions that a change was in order…reference “another six sigma failure”. What you stated fits in with being flexible during six sigma implementation. To be able to do that means that one understands what is critical and a show stopper for both six sigma and the receiving company. HF Chris Vallee

    0
    #170720

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    HF Chris Vallee,
    We don’t flex on the material we teach and it is pretty close to the same stuff we used Allied and GE. Everything around the deployment is always in play. You never know why a company works the way it does and it doesn’t matter much. The one thing is if you try a revolution rather than some form of evolution it typically doesn’t go well.
    When we start we get the executives to create a list of non-negotiables and that pretty much tells us how big of a box we need to live in. It moves as you gain credibility with the organization.
    Regards

    0
    #170721

    Vallee
    Participant

    Mike,
    Funny thing though, we teach people that processes need to be measured because of a constant dynamic and people must continually improve…. but many are unwilling to see that our six sigma process should also not strategically evolve. Heck… even how many planets there are has changed after many debates. Is six sigma so robust that it cannot grow too?
    Β 
    HF Chris Vallee
    Β 

    0
    #170722

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    HF Chris Vallee,
    I don’t see any reason to change the way we teach it. If you make it about learning individual tools then that is what they learn. If you use the tools to teach a thought process then they learn the process. Once they understand that give them the freedom to pick and choose as long as they stick with the process.
    I will get into trouble with Stan on this one but I like Shannin’s component search method. We don’t teach it as part of the course. In the right situations I will still use it and it is effective. The tools have to make sense to the people using them and there a plenty of tools to pick from that we don’t cover.
    As far as deployments. I don’t think we have ever done two the same. When someone shows up with the recipe book it is to make the consultants job easier. No customer focus.
    Just my opinion.
    Regards

    0
    #170733

    Vallee
    Participant

    Mike,
    Looks like this is just a two person conversation however I do agree with you on teaching the basics; I also just recentlyΒ met Shannin’s son the other day in Detroit at an ASQ conference in which I presented the topic of cognitive tunnel vision.Β  I have not used their process but remain openminded to new tools. With that said, there is a big disconnect between learning the basics and learning how to apply them.Β  Just look at the number of “trained” green and black belts on this site that don’t know how to procede.Β  Why? Because of the lack of many instutions to evolve to the next step of learning.Β  The bag of six sigma tools become that, just a bag of tools that get used inappropriately in many instances. They become tools with a lost or unknown process and application. That is where six sigma needs an assist.
    HF Chris Vallee
    Β 
    Β 

    0
    #170734

    Brandon
    Participant

    The rest of us are listening (or reading)…you guys are just doing such a great job on the topic, we don’t need to comment.

    0
    #170741

    Mikel
    Member

    Hey I teach component search when I think it will be used. I think
    every person charged with troubleshooting should understand the
    concept.I teach queueing theory the same way, When I believe it is appropriate
    and will be used.But I agree conceptually, that the method is the method. When I see
    the case where it is not getting to 95%+ of the problems, I’ll augment
    the training. I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime.

    0
    #170756

    Vallee
    Participant

    Stan,
    I know this may open up PandoraΒ’s box but when you see the numbers of “experts” who have trouble getting out of the starting gate is it: 1. The poor expert selection? 2. The exponential growth of unstandardized training? 3. The lack of true applied experience with no applied training ground?
    Granted in some cases all of the above questions apply; if you truly want to make a change in the ability of new experts to perform valid and robust six sigma process improvements, what would you do?
    HF Chris Vallee
    Β 

    0
    #170802

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    HF Chris Vallee,
    You start by having them fix something.
    Regards

    0
    #170803

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Stan,
    You mean you don’t believe that the real methodology that we should be teaching is the 7 Basic Tools and then decide if we may need any other tools even though we make our living selling LeanΒ Six Sigma deployments? It was interesting that Lean was never even mentioned.
    Regards

    0
    #170806

    Vallee
    Participant

    Mike,
    I agree with your premise, so finish these commonly asked questions: “I just completed green belt and black belt training…what should my first project be?” __________. Or,Β  “I just completed green belt and black belt training and need to convince my boss on a project to work…. any suggestions?” _________. Point is they are now set up for failure.
    HF Chris Vallee

    0
    #170808

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    HF Chris Vallee,
    I agree they are set up for failure. The answer is they just completed GB or BB training. That means that is the only thing that is being delivered. Training. There is no support system in place that is identifying projects independent of the belts. Their leadership isn’t actively involved. This makes the difficult job of change management more difficult. There is no upside to being involved in this type of a mess.
    Just my opinion.
    Regards

    0
    #170809

    Vallee
    Participant

    Mike,
    So the next training option is to train on implementation or train on who to go to for implementation and strategic alignment. This option to me is the next stage of evolution or attempt to validate the power of the basic skill trainingΒ…call it the apprentice stage with additional core skills and tasks to follow. You were right earlier that there is no perfect recipe however this is general knowledge that can be trained or learned the hard way. Most negative comments about six sigma and failure are produced in this latter stage. Of course there is no money in having to validate core skill training too by external training groups.
    Β 
    HF Chris Vallee
    Β 

    0
    #170811

    BTDT
    Participant

    HF Chris Vallee:I am using the simultaneous training/execution model at the moment. We are driving for short, well defined projects to be completed quickly to show the overall project flow without having to use every tool and train every employee. Then we celebrate the successes with the entire team and promote the results with the rest of the organization.The biggest bonuses come from showing the value of unbiased, objective, reliable data for making business decisions and focusing on the customer.We use lots of change management in the Define phase necessary for improvement implementation at the Improve phase. GE folks would recognize the CAP components and the TOC folks would recognize resistance identification and management.I have also received a great deal of interest in the incorporation of quantitative risk assessment and management in Six Sigma programmes and projects.Cheers, Alastair

    0
    #170812

    BTDT
    Participant

    HF Chris Vallee and Mike C.:I was offsite for the day. I came back to the office to find this very interesting thread. I wish the three of us could talk for a few hours sometime.Cheers, Alastair

    0
    #170813

    Vallee
    Participant

    BTDT and Mike,
    Not sure of the time zone but I have never turned down an opportunity to learn and grow.Β  Let me now the best way to contact you offline.
    HF Chris ValleeΒ 

    0
    #170824

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    BTDT & HF Chris,
    I would enjoy a conversation about this. I would appreciate doing it next week, if that is not a problem. I am out of the country (some think that comment is irrelevant but it costs $3 per minute and I get back next week).
    Regards

    0
    #170825

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Best for me right now is [email protected]
    Regards

    0
    #170832

    Mikel
    Member

    I know your question is a rhetorical one, but if the 7 basic tools or even the 7 basic tools plus Shainin were adequate, we would not be here.
    And the incorporation of Lean? Thanks to Ed Heard and some very smart people at Motorola and one very smart VP of Ops at AlliedSignal, you and I never made that distinction. I always thought the tools went together and we always staffed (and still do) people who know both tool sets.
    BTW, an old customer of mine and their customer just won the Shingo award. Another won silver in 2004.
    I know HF Chris is asking sincere questions, but he wants to “augment” training by going back to how the model was supposed to work in the first place.
    A wise man once told me support is more important than training.Β  I agree.

    0
    #170836

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    That was that ridiclous post from last week or the week before. The intersting part is that it was suposed to be from Mike George like that made a difference. If you were the government and had spent millions on a LEAN SIX SIGMA deployment and saw the guy you hired post something that said “do the 7 basic tools and you may need the higher level tools.” I would have printed the reply, nailed it to the wall and had every auditor pulling every contract he had written.
    Ever hear from Gary Flack?
    Marty?

    0
    #170839

    Vallee
    Participant

    Stan,I agree that support is more important than training; however, many of the new black belts have been sent by their own company or just as an extension of more schooling and do not have a support network. In fact many are like kids that just got a driver’s license and get told to go find the right road to drive on… by the way it is always sunny and bright with no ice on the road. I agree that you can not train everyone perfectly so that they will no longer need to think and learn on their own however, if six sigma or lean truly want to continue to be successful, this has to be considered. The top “100” whoever that may be will be lost through attrition with lessons learned 6 feet under. I have not even broached the topic of refresher training and getting back to the core and skills and tasks… instead of just using “my” favorite tool. Just opinions of course and lessons learned with great respect to those if have a couple more scars and knots on their head than me.HF Chris Vallee

    0
    #171059

    Mr IAM
    Participant

    Very interesting thread – thought I would throw in my 2 cents… It’s been too long!
    I don’t believe it is wise of anyone to expect Green Belts and Black Belts to be successful in using the lean six sigma tools right out of training without the business supporting them with proper support including project selection, mentoring, change management, and regular management involvement in the improvement initiative.Β 
    In addition, in an organization where the plan is to move Black Belts off to other positions in two years do we really expect them to become quality improvement experts within those two years?Β  Going to training and doing maybe 6 – 8 projects over that time frame?Β  Please… no one will be an expert in quality/process improvement after six sigma training and a 2 year timeframe to practice.Β  There needs to be a larger support stucture of more seasoned process improvement professionals to support the effort long term, mentor GB’s and BB’s and work on larger more complex improvement projects.Β  I think if an organization is counting only on Black Belts they are in big big trouble from a process improvement perspective.Β  Especially if most GB and BB projects are DMAIC and process design projects are not being done.
    Ok, enough of my muttering….Β  Anyway, missed chatting with you guys – Stan, M.C., etc..Β  Is Darth still alive? LOLΒ 
    Cheers – M

    0
    #171062

    Vallee
    Participant

    Mr. IAM,I would think you lived in the world I recently left. Couldn’t argue with any of your points especially with support requirement. However, we are still sending out “trained” but not battle ready people who in turn give six sigma black eyes This in turn makes it more difficult when a qualified person walks in the door who sees the bigger picture. With that said something needs to change before we make ourself extinct. Which is where we need to build on our strengths and introduce other processes or means for our weaknesses. HF Chris Vallee

    0
    #171069

    George4
    Participant

    Great contribution.
    The same question:where is Darth?

    0
Viewing 26 posts - 1 through 26 (of 26 total)

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